As it happens, brass (as with many copper alloys) is bacteriostatic, which mades it a good choice for door handles. Much better than so-called stainless steel, in fact.
like those automatic soap dispenser advertising that then you don't get germs from touching it.
I'd think that normally you touch the soap before you wash you hands....
Either way, the next thing you touch is the tap, then again after you've washed your hands. I can't fathom what practical purpose those automatic soap dispensers serve, besides extracting more money from clean freaks.
And these are federal crimes, so they'll probably spend it in a federal prison.
Doubtful, unless the US tries to extradite them from the UK. Despite one of the targets being the USAF they would still face some opposition in the face of the McKinnon debacle.
Would you also include independent candidates in this? If so, where do you draw the line?
If you ban campaign contributions entirely (which I would probably support) you would also have to limit the amount of money a candidate is allowed to spend on campaigning, so that the richest candidate doesn't win just because they can afford the best PR. That limit would have to be either very low, so that pretty much anyone could be a candidate, or the state would have to pay. Neither of these seems feasible.
Bribery, to me, is more about paying someone to do something they shouldn't do, or that person demanding payment to do what they ought to. This might include letting a parking ticket slide, voting against the wishes of those one is supposed to represent or blowing some rich old geezer (I imagine).
I don't see a problem in supporting the campaign of a candidate whom I believe will do a good job of representing me, though I deplore the need to do so. However, when a business does the same, that's quite different; governments should serve people, not legal fictions. I'd be very much in favour of banning all but private donations, and open to the idea of limiting those severely.
I will pay the TV tax today if you let me access iPlayer. Here that BBC? Here that Populace of the UK? You could let us foreigners pay your TV tax and have that much more funding or lower the tax on yourselves.
If you lot start paying "tax"* you'll get odd ideas about having a say in how the money is spent. That didn't end well for us last time, and that was before the Kardashians.
Also, what happens if the country in question falls apart and someone decides they want to give it back to you later in the form of a dirty bomb?
I don't think there are many vitrification plants in Kreplakistan. It's far more likely the waste would be sent somewhere like France or Canada. Are you really that worried about the Canucks?
My Magic Envelope says that you could fit into the smallest crease in that turtle's starfish with room enough to swing a furious one-eyed cat. Kicking may not be the best way to make an impression.
Corner shops in the UK are often converted houses, with the owners living upstairs. In that case, the only difference between a shop and a home is a front door that opens more often. I imagine they may even throw away less because of the very tight margins they run.
It's being sold as a "game development simulator."
Pretty shitty 'simulator' if it doesn't reflect reality with even half-assed accuracy, wouldn't you think?
"Sold" being the operative word there. The objective is not to accurately simulate the effects of piracy, it's to annoy people who pirate the game and to do it in such a way as to piss off pirates by making the game unplayable, but only after they've already invested/wasted time and effort in/on it.
I can't help but admire their cunning; it's a lot more imaginative than just deleting the save file halfway through the game.
Fair point. I would still suggest that someone hitting the scorpion late in the game would be less inclined to buy it, if for no other reason than they'd already played more of it for free. A little like movie trailers that show all the best bits of the film.
Ah, the invincible pink scorpion. It appeared fairly early in the game, which was probably a good idea. If they'd put it in too late then pirates might have been put off (more so) from buying the game, but since it was so early it gave pirates a chance to get a feel for the game but not have to replay too much if they decided to buy it.
Slashdot Mirror
I feed mine garlic from birth. Saves time. Producing a self-sautéeing snail is proving to be more difficult.
Great, another family of lawyers. Any chance we could pit them against WBC and kill >0 bird with 1 stone?
As it happens, brass (as with many copper alloys) is bacteriostatic, which mades it a good choice for door handles. Much better than so-called stainless steel, in fact.
like those automatic soap dispenser advertising that then you don't get germs from touching it. I'd think that normally you touch the soap before you wash you hands ....
Either way, the next thing you touch is the tap, then again after you've washed your hands. I can't fathom what practical purpose those automatic soap dispensers serve, besides extracting more money from clean freaks.
I think you've overestimated how easy it is to get useful work when your delta-T is only about 60 degrees.
Hmm, fembots. I suppose the Apple model will be prettier, but much more expensive?
And these are federal crimes, so they'll probably spend it in a federal prison.
Doubtful, unless the US tries to extradite them from the UK. Despite one of the targets being the USAF they would still face some opposition in the face of the McKinnon debacle.
Would you also include independent candidates in this? If so, where do you draw the line?
If you ban campaign contributions entirely (which I would probably support) you would also have to limit the amount of money a candidate is allowed to spend on campaigning, so that the richest candidate doesn't win just because they can afford the best PR. That limit would have to be either very low, so that pretty much anyone could be a candidate, or the state would have to pay. Neither of these seems feasible.
Bribery, to me, is more about paying someone to do something they shouldn't do, or that person demanding payment to do what they ought to. This might include letting a parking ticket slide, voting against the wishes of those one is supposed to represent or blowing some rich old geezer (I imagine).
I don't see a problem in supporting the campaign of a candidate whom I believe will do a good job of representing me, though I deplore the need to do so. However, when a business does the same, that's quite different; governments should serve people, not legal fictions. I'd be very much in favour of banning all but private donations, and open to the idea of limiting those severely.
I will pay the TV tax today if you let me access iPlayer. Here that BBC? Here that Populace of the UK? You could let us foreigners pay your TV tax and have that much more funding or lower the tax on yourselves.
If you lot start paying "tax"* you'll get odd ideas about having a say in how the money is spent. That didn't end well for us last time, and that was before the Kardashians.
Thanks, but no thanks.
*FYI it's not a tax, strictly speaking.
So it is OK to shoot down a plane just because it doesn't have a person in it?
That depends, are there a lot of people under it as well?
Also, what happens if the country in question falls apart and someone decides they want to give it back to you later in the form of a dirty bomb?
I don't think there are many vitrification plants in Kreplakistan. It's far more likely the waste would be sent somewhere like France or Canada. Are you really that worried about the Canucks?
(why am I bothering writing this?? no one else seems to have noticed the botched and borked link!)
I've come to the conclusion that timothy does read, but doesn't care. Take that, Hanlon!
A blast from the past indeed.
...there does not appear to be any error here. For once.
The night is young.
Marriage was a religious thing long before it became a government thing.
Marriage was a thing when the religious leaders were the government.
I can't smell anything, so I'm suspecting vapourware.
That's odd, because I smell the distinct aroma of bullshit.
...kick the damn turtle in the butt?
My Magic Envelope says that you could fit into the smallest crease in that turtle's starfish with room enough to swing a furious one-eyed cat. Kicking may not be the best way to make an impression.
Corner shops in the UK are often converted houses, with the owners living upstairs. In that case, the only difference between a shop and a home is a front door that opens more often. I imagine they may even throw away less because of the very tight margins they run.
Not necessarily, if you're in town for other reasons.
It's being sold as a "game development simulator."
Pretty shitty 'simulator' if it doesn't reflect reality with even half-assed accuracy, wouldn't you think?
"Sold" being the operative word there. The objective is not to accurately simulate the effects of piracy, it's to annoy people who pirate the game and to do it in such a way as to piss off pirates by making the game unplayable, but only after they've already invested/wasted time and effort in/on it.
I can't help but admire their cunning; it's a lot more imaginative than just deleting the save file halfway through the game.
Fair point. I would still suggest that someone hitting the scorpion late in the game would be less inclined to buy it, if for no other reason than they'd already played more of it for free. A little like movie trailers that show all the best bits of the film.
Please, can we all just stop using the title as the beginning of a post?
No, please carry on. It comes in handy for people who browse at +1. I don't, but then again I'm a -1 masochist.
Ah, the invincible pink scorpion. It appeared fairly early in the game, which was probably a good idea. If they'd put it in too late then pirates might have been put off (more so) from buying the game, but since it was so early it gave pirates a chance to get a feel for the game but not have to replay too much if they decided to buy it.
I prefer comfortable silences.
no funny mod on this?
I was being serious. In retrospect, I should just start ignoring any article whose title starts with "Why...".