Those little $20 (hopefully non-screwy exchange rate pricing available) USB-PS/2 dongles work really really well with Macs. I use one on my powerbook, I've used them with KVM's...I'll probably pick one up for my "emergency kit of random cables and adapters" I carry around.
You're right. I think the AP style guide (long time since high school journalism class, so I very well could be wrong) specified that numbers less than 20 got spelled out. I also seem to remember from my college tech writing class that it was OK either way. Who knows, just pick a way and go with it:).
A lot of the IM-style shortcuts are intended for people who can't type quickly, and who think they're in too much of a hurry. Being a professional is partially about never letting your coworkers or customers think that you're in too much of a hurry to provide them with a wealth of respect. It's about having the time to do it right.
Examples like 'u r' instead of 'you are' don't necessarily mean the person doesn't think about grammar or spelling, it means they think it's faster to do it the short way. It's a lack of skill in typing that's the root cause, and it conveys a disrespect to the recipient of the email. "What, you couldn't even take the time to type out 4 additional characters for me?"
Of course, the same managers that can't be bothered to spell out "you are" are the ones who say "utilize" instead of "use".
I'd rather, however, get a nearly unintelligible email than a 5-minute long voice mail strung together with "uh" while managing to leave out every pertinent detail and end with "hey just call me back" without leaving me a phone number. That might just be me, though. I hate voice mail.
game, specifically the only one your girlfriend/mother/mother in law probably cares about. more games games
Of course, this is kind of silly, because if you're worried about saving money you're not playing games on a PC or a Mac. "Let's see, I can buy a whole Playstation 2 with a couple of nice games for $200, or I can buy a new video card for for $200 so I can play Doom 3". PC's are excellent gaming platforms, but they are nowhere near as cost effective as any of the console systems. The games, especially when new, cost about the same (if the PC version isn't a little more expensive). It's almost cheaper to have one each of the "big three" consoles than try to keep PC hardware up to spec for playing the newest video games over any given 5 year span. PC's are also nice, open systems, so for online gaming you get access to the wide world of cheaters, where console games at least have some semblance of sofware control. PC games will look nicer, and probably be a little more of a rich experience, but as far as cost-effective, a PC is really far down.
The Windows PC can't do this, at least without buying expensive software. GarageBand comes with a new Mac, and this is also bundled into a new Mac. The ability to painlessly sync my phone and my computer's contact list is pretty valuable. And I can run most other software too, because I've got X11.
Now, admittedly there are lots of things you can't get to work on a Mac. this isn't available, neither is this, or this, or this. As a side effect, neither this nor this is available on the Mac. So, ya know, you're right, there's a lot of stuff that is much harder to do on my Mac than on my Windows PC, like being a Spambot and reporting my personal information to advertisers.
Have you looked for an end-user license agreement in a store? Nope. You haven't. Or at least not well. Copied from the Best Buy website:
Do you offer End User License Agreements on software?
Do you have information on software End User License Agreements ("EULA")?
The use of software is often subject to the manufacturer's EULA. If you would like more information about a particular software EULA and its terms, please contact the manufacturer or see its website for details or contact us at:
Attn: Software End User License Agreement Request Customer Care, BestBuy.com P.O. Box 949 Minneapolis, MN 55440 1-888-BEST BUY (237-8289)
If you go to bestbuy.com and click on "Software End User License Agreements" at the bottom of the page you'll get that document. So they are available in stores by calling an 800 number or by mail. Or, as mentioned, on the website of the vendor.
The market has decided: 99% think that EULA's are nonsense that are not legally valid and don't agree to anything.
The market will decide whether EULA enforcment is good or bad based on how it spends money. Since there has been no rapid decline in the purchase of software with this kind of registration (Windows XP and Office 2003 are flying of the shelves, and so is Half-life 2), I'd suggest that your point is bogus. The market has responded, and it doesn't care, because the market, (you know, the people that actually spend money for products instead of acquiring them illegally) doesn't have a problem with confirmation. The only people who seem to be having problems with EULA enforcement are the folks who don't pay for the software, and they really aren't part of the market. Fortunately, for people in the software business, customers don't decide if the EULA is "nonsense" or not, that's a matter for judges to decide.
Well, i don't think they have a right to get paid over and over and over and over and over and over again for at job done ONCE
So, let's see. If someone has a toll bridge, they shouldn't charge the same amount to everyone. They only did the work of building the bridge one time, so they shouldn't be able to leverage that investment to make money over time. They should actually charge less to each person who crosses the bridge. Of course, in order to pay for the bridge the first person to cross would need to pay about a million dollars, so nobody would ever use the bridge, but hey, at least it's not "imoral".
The next-to-last bit is a stupid ad-hominem attack that doesn't bear responding to. Plus it doesn't make a lot of sense.
Half-life 2 doesn't freeze when it needs to spin the CD, because it only spins the CD at game startup.
In addition, if all you want to do is avoid cd swapping, then buy the game through Steam and you won't have a problem. If you buy the game online, it doesn't require CD Key validation.
You said "People are discovering that when you buy any product that is subject to "activation", you haven't really bought anything." OK, let's play this game "You bought a product license, you haven't really bought anything". That's not a true statement: You buy the right to use the product, which is the good you paid for. It may not be the good you THOUGHT you paid for, but then again, you do read the end-user licenses, right? All product activation does is enforce the license. Oops...you don't want license enforcement. That's fine. Find another game then. The market will decide if this technology is a good idea or not.
Umm...more likely, people are discovering when they steal a product with product activation, they haven't stolen anything useful. And later, when they try to cheat playing Counter-Strike, they'll find they can't play anymore. All in all, I don't see the problem here. I quit playing CS a long time ago because of the repeated wallhacks and other cheats, even though I found the game very entertaining. Part of the license compliance that's enforced by Steam is also enforcing anti-cheat measures. I'm 100% in favor of features that keep the playing field honest. And if it gives the guys at Valve more money, well, as far as I'm concerned they've earned it.
Unlike the vast majority of the people here who don't like Steam, I actually do believe in giving people money for what they produce. I think people deserve to be compensated for their work. I don't think you have the right to deprive people who want compensation for their work of that compensation. And I think the "but I don't like swapping CD's" argument is thin, at best, and more likely it's an outright lie. It's a stupid argument all the way around. If you want to listen to a CD while you play the game, CD-ROM drives are what, $20? Here's a nickel, kid, buy a real computer.
Every now and then, unfortunately not very often, my cynical nature is let down when something long awaited leads not to major disappointment, but to actual satisfaction. Is the game perfect? Nope. But it's a damn fine piece of work.
The environments are pretty and crisp, and, in contrast to Doom3, generally well lit. That's actually an interesting point. The game manages to convey a sense of suspense and terror without resorting to the total darkness that consumed much of Doom3. This is done effectively enough that it makes the darkness of Doom3 seem to like a cheap ploy, like the Doom3 level designers couldn't do suspense without total darkness.
The Airboat scene is a great example of what's done very very well in the game: excellent gameplay fun, and excellent eye candy. It's intense, it gradually gets more and more challenging.
One thing that I didn't like was how the non-character NPC's are handled, specifically the members of your "squad" in the final levels. In several places I had a great shot at the bad guys, but was denied an actual shot because of an NPC in the way. On the other hand, unlike similar situations in Halo (for example), the NPC's don't cause damage if they shoot you in the back. It's balanced, I just don't like it, and I don't have any suggestions to make it better.
The ending was something of a downer for it's lack of resolution. But that's fine, it makes me look forward to (1) playing through again, (2) looking forward to the inevitable expansion packs, and (3) Half-Life 3. Saying the game is terrible because it lacked resolution at the end is done by those who would have complained between installments of the Lord of the Rings trilogy. It's not a complete series, it's part of a longer story.
There are a few interesting side-stories that could be done as expansion packs later. Bear in mind that the two original Half-Life expansions, Opposing Force and Blue Shift, occurred concurrently with Gordon's original escapades through Black Mesa. There are a lot of other events going on while Gordon's doing his thing, so it'll be fascinating to see how the expansions go.
If they've got enough money to campaign enough to get close enough to demand a recount in an election, they'll find the money to pay for the recount.
I'd go so far as to say the party requesting the recount should simply put the money in escrow, and if the recount comes out the same they lose the money, otherwise they get the money back from escrow.
Yup. Until I want to play CounterStrike and the file-auth stuff in Steam starts banning cheaters. Then I'll be happy it's here.
I installed from DVD in about 35 minutes last night. Including a failed Steam auth, after which it said "oops, sorry, can't register now, I'll try back later" and let me play anyway. This really isn't a big deal.
Yeah. And then there's a water leak down the street and the water company comes by and closes the valve under the manhole out front. Oops. Cut the fiber.
Great plan there.
I've got an idea, how about if the utilities that bury this stuff actually, you know, have accurate maps on where they bury it, instead of the way it's been happening: The "Making Shit Up" School of Cartography.
Yeah, the cable company called them when they buried cable for my neighbor. Digsafe came out and made the lawn between our houses look like a circus came through with all the color-coded paint sprayed on it. And the cable company promptly came out, cut my telephone and my cable installing his cable anyway.
The "rest of us" call dig safe. Too bad they SUCK.
My cousin is a democratic party fundraiser for a local congressional wannabe (he lost against a strong incumbent). I asked her why the Democrats couldn't put together a candidate that people wanted to vote for, and she said that since the party is so diverse, it couldn't come to a consensus of what a good candidate is, and the only thing they could agree on "Anybody but Bush".
The democratic party needs to kick Michael Moore to the curb. That loud, obnoxious, lying, smelly, steaming pile of crap needs to go. Start your own political party, and get less than 1 percent of the vote so we can all safely ignore your sorry ass. Or, constructively, Michael Moore needs to write a solid, positive book/movie about what he'd do differently and how he'd like to see things made better. Something well-researched and well presented, he's a pretty creative and clever guy with good wit (when he wants to use it).
The Democrats need to build a party that's pro-Labor, around a platform of antiglobalization (getting rid of NAFTA, GATT) and pro-socialized-medicine and pro-eduction. Quit attempting to appease the environmental and peace activists. The Democrats don't need to appease the environmental and peace activists because they are sure as fuck not going to vote for a Republican.
Democrats should concentrate on the things that made the party work: Big Labor and progressive socialism. Run FOR a set of goals, instead of against a set of goals. Have a plan for progress instead of a litany of complaints, because all the Democrats had this election was a list of what's broke, and either none or poorly publicized ways on how those things would be better if a Democrat was in the White House.
I'm not saying that this is a party I'd vote for, because it really is a party I'd vote against. But it's a party that a lot of people would vote for. And that's a lot better than simply having a party that's there to vote against the other guy, which is what has been run the last two elections. When the only positive thing the party has to say in an election is that "I'm not the other guy", it's just not enough to win.
I really hate the whole "subscription" content thing sometimes.
I read this from The Economist when it was new, now it's subscription only. Basically, they said the "gridlock is good" mantra is crap, that bad legislation tends to get passed either way, and that more bad legislation may pass during a "gridlock" session because the compromise tends to be "do both" instead of "do neither". They pointed to specific examples of bad and good legislation passed under "gridlock" and "non-gridlock" presidencies, specifically going back to the Carter and early Clinton years before the Republican Revolution in Congress (aka the "Contract with America").
I also read something from Charles Schwab that tends to agree with your point, but without any numbers or examples to back it up.
I'm not sure which way is the right way. Our Constitution is specifically built to make passing laws hard, because every law passed represents something taken away from people.
Look at both Clinton and Bush not being able to get judicial appointments confirmed, it didn't really matter who controlled the Senate, it was close enough that in effect neither party controls enough to get certain business done. The resulting gridlock has caused many trial/appellate dates to be pushed back, which I don't think helps the "fair and speedy trial" situation.
Reagan got a lot of interesting laws and appointments passed in a Democratic Congress, mostly by appealing directly to the people. Kerry doesn't have the charisma to pull that off though, so it's probably a bad example.
History hasn't really shown that either a gridlocked or non-gridlocked arrangement is better. Clinton had a straight-through majority on both side the first two years of his presidency and couldn't get anything passed on his agenda. Bush 2, on the other hand, has gotten some legislation passed on a post-9/11 bounce, but he hasn't gotten many judicial appointments through, he's had to make a lot of compromises in the legislation that did go through. Remember that Ashcroft wanted a lot more than what he got in the Patriot act, and the resulting bill was a lot milder than what could-have-been, which represents a great amount of compromise in a time of non-gridlock.
So, gridlock doesn't mandate compromise, and non-gridlock doesn't rule out compromise. So this really isn't a good voting issue.
Quite simply, your vote is based on your evaluation of the situation. Are you willing to accept 4 years of the most liberal democrat in the Senate as President in order to make a statement for your third party candidate? If so, then you should vote for your third party candidate.
If not, then consider placing your third party vote another time. This may not be the best time to make a statement.
I've been in favor lately of redirecting any punitive damages in a tort case away from the plaintiff and towards either the government (as a 100% tax) or some crazy non-profit. I really don't care which, as long as it doesn't go to the plaintiff, and it goes away from the defendant.
This serves two purposes: It doesn't let corporations off the hook for doing bad things, and it keeps the system from working like a big lottery payout.
In addition, real (non-punitive) damages should be very strictly limited to the real damages involved. I don't buy the "emotional damage" stuff. I do buy the "couldn't work for 3 weeks because of treatment for diagnosed-by-board-certified-psychologist clinical depression". Heck, that could get to be more expensive than the "emotional damages" suit.
Ah, ok. Didn't realize you lived in fantasyland, or I wouldn't have bothered to answer.
Here in the real world, we live by actual, written laws. You may want to look into them sometime, especially if you believe there is a vast gulf between acutal rights and the fictitious, unwritten "human rights" you believe in. Otherwise, you'll never be able to work to bridge that gulf.
That is how the fourth amendment to our Constitution works. Here it is, read it:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Notice what it doesn't say. It doesn't say the person who is having property seized needs to be the accused, needs to be told why it's being sezied, or anything like that. It doesn't say the warrants or anything else need to be in the public record. It doesn't say anything about notifying anyone of anything. It doesn't even specify the stuff seized has to be returned, or that you have to be paid for it, or that you're entitled to damages if they take your stuff and you can't use it for a period of time.
So it's not theft, because it's a constitutionally provided for and completely legal seizure of property (assuming the paperwork was done right). You can say that someone had property seized, but you can't say it was stolen. You can't say it was arrest without cause, because nobody was arrested (and an arrest would require an issuance of charges because of habeus corpus). Arrest is a very specific term and can only apply to people, and they get a separate set of rules from property. It was a fourth-amendment seizure, cut and dried. So neither of those two things happened, and your third and final statement is wrong.
This isn't an opinion, this is simply facts from someone who's done some studying on the topic. I'd encourage you to go read up some on your own, I'd start with the Constitution and proceed to the Bill of Rights and other Amendments. Then go find some good constitutional law books somewhere. You'll be amazed at the fact that, really and truly, the government can take away from you anything they want (Money, property, real property (which may fall under imminent domain), and even your life (if the draft comes back, the government can force you to go into the armed forces for years, and possibly get you killed)) and as long as the right paperwork is done, it's all perfectly legal. If you thought the election was simply important because of what you read in the papers, you overlook all of the other reasons it's important: the person who you vote for can, literally, take all of your stuff and send you off to get killed.
My guess on all this, by the way, is that someone on the IndyMedia site did something bad, probably related to making threats against the President, or inciting riot, or conspiring for vote fraud, or something else that the Indymedia folks know is over the line but didn't stop in time. In which case, the servers were probably taken to help to ascertain the identity of the individual and further the investigation. In which case IM is a more-or-less innocent bystander, and the seizure of their servers would be roughly analogous to requiring said innocent bystander to show up in court and testify as a witness. The innocent bystanders have to show up, losing time from their lives to testify against someone, and yes you can be required to testify even if you don't want to. This is all simply supposition on my part, but it seems likely.
Actually, they aren't "the accused". You can say they're a target of an investigation, or a party to an investigation, or perhaps even a false target of an investigation, or lately the term en vogue with law enforcement is "person of interest". You can't, however, say they are "the accused" until they are actually accused. And for that, you need to have an actual crime committed. And for that, you need a grand jury. Grand juries determine whether or not a crime was committed and whether or not there is sufficient evidence for trial.
Evidentally, you didn't read the rest of my post. Do you really want to let the alleged sheep fucker know that they're being investigated, giving them the chance to destroy evidence and possible leave the country? Keep in mind, you can't arrest them and hold them without filing charges for more than 72 hours (that whole "habeus corpus" thing), so you might be tipping your hand. Nope, the accepted, reasonable, and usual practice is to secretly investigate and publically accuse only if there is sufficient evidence.
So, I do think it's right to tell the accused that they're being accused, but NO ONE HAS MADE ANY ACCUSATIONS YET. Nobody has said that Indymedia or any of their posters is under investigation.
I think the only reason the servers were snagged is because it was a lot faster than an iterative screen-scrape of every page of the site. Which could be done, and probably could be done with neither a warrant nor a subpoena (it's public information with no expectation of privacy). So, yeah, fine use an orbital server farm, take the 1-2 second transmission lag penalty for the round-trip, and then pay the bandwidth bill.
Re:No wolves here, but a hell of a lot of sheeple
on
The Empires Strike Back
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
The government can always "abscond with people's property". That's what they're for. Otherwise, that FICA guy has got a lot to answer for after stealing bits out of my paycheck.:)
In a criminal investigation, there are two ways evidence can be collected, first through application of the fourth amendment and a search warrant, and the second through subpoena for criminal investigation, specifically by a grand jury. Grand jury investigations are nearly always kept under wraps until charges are filed, because they may be investigating something that turns out to be nothing. In that case, it's better that the grand jury's investigations remain secret to protect the privacy of all involved. It is believed, and this is all rumor and innuendo at this point, that the action against Indymedia was a subpoena, not a search warrant.
It isn't stonewalling. It's part of a normal criminal investigation. Let's say, for instance, someone is being investigated for...oh, I dunno, screwing sheep. A grand jury issues a subpoena for all of that person's clothing from the dry cleaners (the clothes that hadn't been washed yet) to look for fibers. Do you really think it's the right thing to do to tell everyone "Hey, we're investigating a sheep fucker over here!!!". Nope. That'd be more against the "acceptable norms in every western liberal democracy" than keeping it under covers. On the other hand, telling the guy he's being investigated for illicit sheep interfacing might lead him to destroy evidence, duck and cover, flee to (country where it's not illegal to screw sheep) or whatever. That's also an undesirable outcome. Telling people they're being investigated before you arrest them is not only not required, but very stupid in some cases.
For the purposes of a grand jury, from the 5th amendment: "No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury"
So, it's kinda obvious something's being investigated. Could be Indymedia, one of their posters, or someone totally unrelated (in my example above, the drycleaner was given a subpoena, but wasn't involved in the wrongdoing).
You do have the right to hear what you're being accused of, but nobody's being accused of anything yet. Grand juries happen to see if there's adequate evidence for the accusations to happen. At that point, the crap you're spouting about being told what you're being accused of kicks in, not before.
As another use of my sheep-playfulness example earlier, if the charges were not true, but the investigation was open, people would always remember and link in their minds some connection between the accused and sheep in a nasty way. Grand juries are secretive to protect people from bad accusations as well as to enable law enforcement to collect evidence without scaring away the perps. It's a balancing act that you don't hear about very much because it works, you very rarely hear about grand jury investigations until they are over.
I think the parent posters point is that we've only had 10 or 20 years of oil left for about 50 years now.
They're studying it. There are already ways of doing it, but they're not cost effective. As oil prices go up, the measure of what cost effective means will change and the rate of research investment will increase, and oil will come out of the tar sands of Alberta. There are many places on this planet that have oil reserves, but they're just too expensive to extract for now. The knowledge of how-to is there, but the investment in the processes to achieve a good economy of scale isn't there because there's no reason for it to exist yet.
The good news is that as oil prices go up, the measure of what cost-effective means will also change with respect to wind and solar power. I would expect that the next Gates-style bajillionaire will be the guy who makes solar collectors efficient enough that the energy produced is cheaper than oil over the lifetime of the collector. The problem right now with solar collectors is that they are expensive, not particularly environmentally friendly to produce (lots of toxic stuff produced, lots of water polluted), and not very efficient).
I'm trying to decide what "helpful legislation" is.
I guess if it's legislation to repeal legislation, that's helpful. I can't think of too many other pieces of legislation I'd like to see outside of repeals of existing laws though.
If you consider for a moment that you are being lawful if you don't do anything unlawful, then the more laws that are passed the less you can actually do. Every single new law that is created takes away more of your rights.
Slashdot Mirror
I've used the belkin and others. Never had one NOT work. 100%. Every time.
Those little $20 (hopefully non-screwy exchange rate pricing available) USB-PS/2 dongles work really really well with Macs. I use one on my powerbook, I've used them with KVM's...I'll probably pick one up for my "emergency kit of random cables and adapters" I carry around.
You're right. I think the AP style guide (long time since high school journalism class, so I very well could be wrong) specified that numbers less than 20 got spelled out. I also seem to remember from my college tech writing class that it was OK either way. Who knows, just pick a way and go with it :).
I think you're right, it's just unprofessional.
A lot of the IM-style shortcuts are intended for people who can't type quickly, and who think they're in too much of a hurry. Being a professional is partially about never letting your coworkers or customers think that you're in too much of a hurry to provide them with a wealth of respect. It's about having the time to do it right.
Examples like 'u r' instead of 'you are' don't necessarily mean the person doesn't think about grammar or spelling, it means they think it's faster to do it the short way. It's a lack of skill in typing that's the root cause, and it conveys a disrespect to the recipient of the email. "What, you couldn't even take the time to type out 4 additional characters for me?"
Of course, the same managers that can't be bothered to spell out "you are" are the ones who say "utilize" instead of "use".
I'd rather, however, get a nearly unintelligible email than a 5-minute long voice mail strung together with "uh" while managing to leave out every pertinent detail and end with "hey just call me back" without leaving me a phone number. That might just be me, though. I hate voice mail.
file sharing
game, specifically the only one your girlfriend/mother/mother in law probably cares about.
more games
games
Of course, this is kind of silly, because if you're worried about saving money you're not playing games on a PC or a Mac. "Let's see, I can buy a whole Playstation 2 with a couple of nice games for $200, or I can buy a new video card for for $200 so I can play Doom 3". PC's are excellent gaming platforms, but they are nowhere near as cost effective as any of the console systems. The games, especially when new, cost about the same (if the PC version isn't a little more expensive). It's almost cheaper to have one each of the "big three" consoles than try to keep PC hardware up to spec for playing the newest video games over any given 5 year span. PC's are also nice, open systems, so for online gaming you get access to the wide world of cheaters, where console games at least have some semblance of sofware control. PC games will look nicer, and probably be a little more of a rich experience, but as far as cost-effective, a PC is really far down.
The Windows PC can't do this, at least without buying expensive software. GarageBand comes with a new Mac, and this is also bundled into a new Mac. The ability to painlessly sync my phone and my computer's contact list is pretty valuable. And I can run most other software too, because I've got X11.
Now, admittedly there are lots of things you can't get to work on a Mac. this isn't available, neither is this, or this, or this. As a side effect, neither this nor this is available on the Mac. So, ya know, you're right, there's a lot of stuff that is much harder to do on my Mac than on my Windows PC, like being a Spambot and reporting my personal information to advertisers.
Have you looked for an end-user license agreement in a store? Nope. You haven't. Or at least not well. Copied from the Best Buy website:
If you go to bestbuy.com and click on "Software End User License Agreements" at the bottom of the page you'll get that document. So they are available in stores by calling an 800 number or by mail. Or, as mentioned, on the website of the vendor.
The market will decide whether EULA enforcment is good or bad based on how it spends money. Since there has been no rapid decline in the purchase of software with this kind of registration (Windows XP and Office 2003 are flying of the shelves, and so is Half-life 2), I'd suggest that your point is bogus. The market has responded, and it doesn't care, because the market, (you know, the people that actually spend money for products instead of acquiring them illegally) doesn't have a problem with confirmation. The only people who seem to be having problems with EULA enforcement are the folks who don't pay for the software, and they really aren't part of the market. Fortunately, for people in the software business, customers don't decide if the EULA is "nonsense" or not, that's a matter for judges to decide.
So, let's see. If someone has a toll bridge, they shouldn't charge the same amount to everyone. They only did the work of building the bridge one time, so they shouldn't be able to leverage that investment to make money over time. They should actually charge less to each person who crosses the bridge. Of course, in order to pay for the bridge the first person to cross would need to pay about a million dollars, so nobody would ever use the bridge, but hey, at least it's not "imoral".
The next-to-last bit is a stupid ad-hominem attack that doesn't bear responding to. Plus it doesn't make a lot of sense.
Half-life 2 doesn't freeze when it needs to spin the CD, because it only spins the CD at game startup.
Re-download when you have cheap access and set Steam to offline mode.
In addition, if all you want to do is avoid cd swapping, then buy the game through Steam and you won't have a problem. If you buy the game online, it doesn't require CD Key validation.
You said "People are discovering that when you buy any product that is subject to "activation", you haven't really bought anything." OK, let's play this game "You bought a product license, you haven't really bought anything". That's not a true statement: You buy the right to use the product, which is the good you paid for. It may not be the good you THOUGHT you paid for, but then again, you do read the end-user licenses, right? All product activation does is enforce the license. Oops...you don't want license enforcement. That's fine. Find another game then. The market will decide if this technology is a good idea or not.
Umm...more likely, people are discovering when they steal a product with product activation, they haven't stolen anything useful. And later, when they try to cheat playing Counter-Strike, they'll find they can't play anymore. All in all, I don't see the problem here. I quit playing CS a long time ago because of the repeated wallhacks and other cheats, even though I found the game very entertaining. Part of the license compliance that's enforced by Steam is also enforcing anti-cheat measures. I'm 100% in favor of features that keep the playing field honest. And if it gives the guys at Valve more money, well, as far as I'm concerned they've earned it.
Unlike the vast majority of the people here who don't like Steam, I actually do believe in giving people money for what they produce. I think people deserve to be compensated for their work. I don't think you have the right to deprive people who want compensation for their work of that compensation. And I think the "but I don't like swapping CD's" argument is thin, at best, and more likely it's an outright lie. It's a stupid argument all the way around. If you want to listen to a CD while you play the game, CD-ROM drives are what, $20? Here's a nickel, kid, buy a real computer.
Every now and then, unfortunately not very often, my cynical nature is let down when something long awaited leads not to major disappointment, but to actual satisfaction. Is the game perfect? Nope. But it's a damn fine piece of work.
The environments are pretty and crisp, and, in contrast to Doom3, generally well lit. That's actually an interesting point. The game manages to convey a sense of suspense and terror without resorting to the total darkness that consumed much of Doom3. This is done effectively enough that it makes the darkness of Doom3 seem to like a cheap ploy, like the Doom3 level designers couldn't do suspense without total darkness.
The Airboat scene is a great example of what's done very very well in the game: excellent gameplay fun, and excellent eye candy. It's intense, it gradually gets more and more challenging.
One thing that I didn't like was how the non-character NPC's are handled, specifically the members of your "squad" in the final levels. In several places I had a great shot at the bad guys, but was denied an actual shot because of an NPC in the way. On the other hand, unlike similar situations in Halo (for example), the NPC's don't cause damage if they shoot you in the back. It's balanced, I just don't like it, and I don't have any suggestions to make it better.
The ending was something of a downer for it's lack of resolution. But that's fine, it makes me look forward to (1) playing through again, (2) looking forward to the inevitable expansion packs, and (3) Half-Life 3. Saying the game is terrible because it lacked resolution at the end is done by those who would have complained between installments of the Lord of the Rings trilogy. It's not a complete series, it's part of a longer story.
There are a few interesting side-stories that could be done as expansion packs later. Bear in mind that the two original Half-Life expansions, Opposing Force and Blue Shift, occurred concurrently with Gordon's original escapades through Black Mesa. There are a lot of other events going on while Gordon's doing his thing, so it'll be fascinating to see how the expansions go.
If they've got enough money to campaign enough to get close enough to demand a recount in an election, they'll find the money to pay for the recount.
I'd go so far as to say the party requesting the recount should simply put the money in escrow, and if the recount comes out the same they lose the money, otherwise they get the money back from escrow.
Yup. Until I want to play CounterStrike and the file-auth stuff in Steam starts banning cheaters. Then I'll be happy it's here.
I installed from DVD in about 35 minutes last night. Including a failed Steam auth, after which it said "oops, sorry, can't register now, I'll try back later" and let me play anyway. This really isn't a big deal.
Yeah. And then there's a water leak down the street and the water company comes by and closes the valve under the manhole out front. Oops. Cut the fiber.
Great plan there.
I've got an idea, how about if the utilities that bury this stuff actually, you know, have accurate maps on where they bury it, instead of the way it's been happening: The "Making Shit Up" School of Cartography.
Yeah, the cable company called them when they buried cable for my neighbor. Digsafe came out and made the lawn between our houses look like a circus came through with all the color-coded paint sprayed on it. And the cable company promptly came out, cut my telephone and my cable installing his cable anyway.
The "rest of us" call dig safe. Too bad they SUCK.
I agree completely.
My cousin is a democratic party fundraiser for a local congressional wannabe (he lost against a strong incumbent). I asked her why the Democrats couldn't put together a candidate that people wanted to vote for, and she said that since the party is so diverse, it couldn't come to a consensus of what a good candidate is, and the only thing they could agree on "Anybody but Bush".
The democratic party needs to kick Michael Moore to the curb. That loud, obnoxious, lying, smelly, steaming pile of crap needs to go. Start your own political party, and get less than 1 percent of the vote so we can all safely ignore your sorry ass. Or, constructively, Michael Moore needs to write a solid, positive book/movie about what he'd do differently and how he'd like to see things made better. Something well-researched and well presented, he's a pretty creative and clever guy with good wit (when he wants to use it).
The Democrats need to build a party that's pro-Labor, around a platform of antiglobalization (getting rid of NAFTA, GATT) and pro-socialized-medicine and pro-eduction. Quit attempting to appease the environmental and peace activists. The Democrats don't need to appease the environmental and peace activists because they are sure as fuck not going to vote for a Republican.
Democrats should concentrate on the things that made the party work: Big Labor and progressive socialism. Run FOR a set of goals, instead of against a set of goals. Have a plan for progress instead of a litany of complaints, because all the Democrats had this election was a list of what's broke, and either none or poorly publicized ways on how those things would be better if a Democrat was in the White House.
I'm not saying that this is a party I'd vote for, because it really is a party I'd vote against. But it's a party that a lot of people would vote for. And that's a lot better than simply having a party that's there to vote against the other guy, which is what has been run the last two elections. When the only positive thing the party has to say in an election is that "I'm not the other guy", it's just not enough to win.
I really hate the whole "subscription" content thing sometimes.
I read this from The Economist when it was new, now it's subscription only. Basically, they said the "gridlock is good" mantra is crap, that bad legislation tends to get passed either way, and that more bad legislation may pass during a "gridlock" session because the compromise tends to be "do both" instead of "do neither". They pointed to specific examples of bad and good legislation passed under "gridlock" and "non-gridlock" presidencies, specifically going back to the Carter and early Clinton years before the Republican Revolution in Congress (aka the "Contract with America").
I also read something from Charles Schwab that tends to agree with your point, but without any numbers or examples to back it up.
I'm not sure which way is the right way. Our Constitution is specifically built to make passing laws hard, because every law passed represents something taken away from people.
Look at both Clinton and Bush not being able to get judicial appointments confirmed, it didn't really matter who controlled the Senate, it was close enough that in effect neither party controls enough to get certain business done. The resulting gridlock has caused many trial/appellate dates to be pushed back, which I don't think helps the "fair and speedy trial" situation.
Reagan got a lot of interesting laws and appointments passed in a Democratic Congress, mostly by appealing directly to the people. Kerry doesn't have the charisma to pull that off though, so it's probably a bad example.
History hasn't really shown that either a gridlocked or non-gridlocked arrangement is better. Clinton had a straight-through majority on both side the first two years of his presidency and couldn't get anything passed on his agenda. Bush 2, on the other hand, has gotten some legislation passed on a post-9/11 bounce, but he hasn't gotten many judicial appointments through, he's had to make a lot of compromises in the legislation that did go through. Remember that Ashcroft wanted a lot more than what he got in the Patriot act, and the resulting bill was a lot milder than what could-have-been, which represents a great amount of compromise in a time of non-gridlock.
So, gridlock doesn't mandate compromise, and non-gridlock doesn't rule out compromise. So this really isn't a good voting issue.
To rephrase this partisan comment:
Quite simply, your vote is based on your evaluation of the situation. Are you willing to accept 4 years of the most liberal democrat in the Senate as President in order to make a statement for your third party candidate? If so, then you should vote for your third party candidate.
If not, then consider placing your third party vote another time. This may not be the best time to make a statement.
I've been in favor lately of redirecting any punitive damages in a tort case away from the plaintiff and towards either the government (as a 100% tax) or some crazy non-profit. I really don't care which, as long as it doesn't go to the plaintiff, and it goes away from the defendant.
This serves two purposes: It doesn't let corporations off the hook for doing bad things, and it keeps the system from working like a big lottery payout.
In addition, real (non-punitive) damages should be very strictly limited to the real damages involved. I don't buy the "emotional damage" stuff. I do buy the "couldn't work for 3 weeks because of treatment for diagnosed-by-board-certified-psychologist clinical depression". Heck, that could get to be more expensive than the "emotional damages" suit.
Ah, ok. Didn't realize you lived in fantasyland, or I wouldn't have bothered to answer.
Here in the real world, we live by actual, written laws. You may want to look into them sometime, especially if you believe there is a vast gulf between acutal rights and the fictitious, unwritten "human rights" you believe in. Otherwise, you'll never be able to work to bridge that gulf.
That is how the fourth amendment to our Constitution works. Here it is, read it:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Notice what it doesn't say. It doesn't say the person who is having property seized needs to be the accused, needs to be told why it's being sezied, or anything like that. It doesn't say the warrants or anything else need to be in the public record. It doesn't say anything about notifying anyone of anything. It doesn't even specify the stuff seized has to be returned, or that you have to be paid for it, or that you're entitled to damages if they take your stuff and you can't use it for a period of time.
So it's not theft, because it's a constitutionally provided for and completely legal seizure of property (assuming the paperwork was done right). You can say that someone had property seized, but you can't say it was stolen. You can't say it was arrest without cause, because nobody was arrested (and an arrest would require an issuance of charges because of habeus corpus). Arrest is a very specific term and can only apply to people, and they get a separate set of rules from property. It was a fourth-amendment seizure, cut and dried. So neither of those two things happened, and your third and final statement is wrong.
This isn't an opinion, this is simply facts from someone who's done some studying on the topic. I'd encourage you to go read up some on your own, I'd start with the Constitution and proceed to the Bill of Rights and other Amendments. Then go find some good constitutional law books somewhere. You'll be amazed at the fact that, really and truly, the government can take away from you anything they want (Money, property, real property (which may fall under imminent domain), and even your life (if the draft comes back, the government can force you to go into the armed forces for years, and possibly get you killed)) and as long as the right paperwork is done, it's all perfectly legal. If you thought the election was simply important because of what you read in the papers, you overlook all of the other reasons it's important: the person who you vote for can, literally, take all of your stuff and send you off to get killed.
My guess on all this, by the way, is that someone on the IndyMedia site did something bad, probably related to making threats against the President, or inciting riot, or conspiring for vote fraud, or something else that the Indymedia folks know is over the line but didn't stop in time. In which case, the servers were probably taken to help to ascertain the identity of the individual and further the investigation. In which case IM is a more-or-less innocent bystander, and the seizure of their servers would be roughly analogous to requiring said innocent bystander to show up in court and testify as a witness. The innocent bystanders have to show up, losing time from their lives to testify against someone, and yes you can be required to testify even if you don't want to. This is all simply supposition on my part, but it seems likely.
Actually, they aren't "the accused". You can say they're a target of an investigation, or a party to an investigation, or perhaps even a false target of an investigation, or lately the term en vogue with law enforcement is "person of interest". You can't, however, say they are "the accused" until they are actually accused. And for that, you need to have an actual crime committed. And for that, you need a grand jury. Grand juries determine whether or not a crime was committed and whether or not there is sufficient evidence for trial.
Evidentally, you didn't read the rest of my post. Do you really want to let the alleged sheep fucker know that they're being investigated, giving them the chance to destroy evidence and possible leave the country? Keep in mind, you can't arrest them and hold them without filing charges for more than 72 hours (that whole "habeus corpus" thing), so you might be tipping your hand. Nope, the accepted, reasonable, and usual practice is to secretly investigate and publically accuse only if there is sufficient evidence.
So, I do think it's right to tell the accused that they're being accused, but NO ONE HAS MADE ANY ACCUSATIONS YET. Nobody has said that Indymedia or any of their posters is under investigation.
I think the only reason the servers were snagged is because it was a lot faster than an iterative screen-scrape of every page of the site. Which could be done, and probably could be done with neither a warrant nor a subpoena (it's public information with no expectation of privacy). So, yeah, fine use an orbital server farm, take the 1-2 second transmission lag penalty for the round-trip, and then pay the bandwidth bill.
The government can always "abscond with people's property". That's what they're for. Otherwise, that FICA guy has got a lot to answer for after stealing bits out of my paycheck. :)
In a criminal investigation, there are two ways evidence can be collected, first through application of the fourth amendment and a search warrant, and the second through subpoena for criminal investigation, specifically by a grand jury. Grand jury investigations are nearly always kept under wraps until charges are filed, because they may be investigating something that turns out to be nothing. In that case, it's better that the grand jury's investigations remain secret to protect the privacy of all involved. It is believed, and this is all rumor and innuendo at this point, that the action against Indymedia was a subpoena, not a search warrant.
It isn't stonewalling. It's part of a normal criminal investigation. Let's say, for instance, someone is being investigated for...oh, I dunno, screwing sheep. A grand jury issues a subpoena for all of that person's clothing from the dry cleaners (the clothes that hadn't been washed yet) to look for fibers. Do you really think it's the right thing to do to tell everyone "Hey, we're investigating a sheep fucker over here!!!". Nope. That'd be more against the "acceptable norms in every western liberal democracy" than keeping it under covers. On the other hand, telling the guy he's being investigated for illicit sheep interfacing might lead him to destroy evidence, duck and cover, flee to (country where it's not illegal to screw sheep) or whatever. That's also an undesirable outcome. Telling people they're being investigated before you arrest them is not only not required, but very stupid in some cases.
For the purposes of a grand jury, from the 5th amendment: "No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury"
So, it's kinda obvious something's being investigated. Could be Indymedia, one of their posters, or someone totally unrelated (in my example above, the drycleaner was given a subpoena, but wasn't involved in the wrongdoing).
You do have the right to hear what you're being accused of, but nobody's being accused of anything yet. Grand juries happen to see if there's adequate evidence for the accusations to happen. At that point, the crap you're spouting about being told what you're being accused of kicks in, not before.
As another use of my sheep-playfulness example earlier, if the charges were not true, but the investigation was open, people would always remember and link in their minds some connection between the accused and sheep in a nasty way. Grand juries are secretive to protect people from bad accusations as well as to enable law enforcement to collect evidence without scaring away the perps. It's a balancing act that you don't hear about very much because it works, you very rarely hear about grand jury investigations until they are over.
I think the parent posters point is that we've only had 10 or 20 years of oil left for about 50 years now.
They're studying it. There are already ways of doing it, but they're not cost effective. As oil prices go up, the measure of what cost effective means will change and the rate of research investment will increase, and oil will come out of the tar sands of Alberta. There are many places on this planet that have oil reserves, but they're just too expensive to extract for now. The knowledge of how-to is there, but the investment in the processes to achieve a good economy of scale isn't there because there's no reason for it to exist yet.
The good news is that as oil prices go up, the measure of what cost-effective means will also change with respect to wind and solar power. I would expect that the next Gates-style bajillionaire will be the guy who makes solar collectors efficient enough that the energy produced is cheaper than oil over the lifetime of the collector. The problem right now with solar collectors is that they are expensive, not particularly environmentally friendly to produce (lots of toxic stuff produced, lots of water polluted), and not very efficient).
I'm trying to decide what "helpful legislation" is.
I guess if it's legislation to repeal legislation, that's helpful. I can't think of too many other pieces of legislation I'd like to see outside of repeals of existing laws though.
If you consider for a moment that you are being lawful if you don't do anything unlawful, then the more laws that are passed the less you can actually do. Every single new law that is created takes away more of your rights.