Why is it possible to determine the sizes of the images over HTTPS? Are they seriously opening a new connection for each and every image on the satellite map? What's wrong with opening one tunnel and shoveling everything through there?
As one of several metrics, I judge the quality of a game by its level of interactivity.
That might work for a personal metric, but I wouldn't take game recommendations for you. Some people like punctuated interactivity.
In that case, movies and books are much more effective mediums for telling a story.
But movies are dreadfully boring. I like stories, but 90 minutes of nothing to do is too much. I can't remember the last time I watched a movie and didn't find myself checking the time halfway through.
Games, on the other hand, are participatory. That keeps me interested. I like the story, but I want to participate, not just hear it rote. As a result, I finish every 80 hour RPG I start.
I sympathize with Jaffe but I don't think we should just have gameplay mechanics. In the end, there's probably a healthy balance and as a former Tetris addict turned RPG enthusiast, I see the benefits of both sides. When a game blends these two things together, that's when you get magic.
I don't think there is a healthy balance. I think there are many healthy balances. For every combination of action vs plot, there's someone who's interested.
Medal of Honor was created by Steven Spielburg, who directed Saving Private Ryan. Accordingly, the assault on Omaha Beach in MoH:Allied Assault is the closest thing I've seen to Saving Private Ryan in game form. And you know what? It works extremely well. That is still one of the most compelling game sequences I've ever played, some 10 years after the fact.
That's a great example. Bush put a lot of money into AIDS prevention and research, which is a great thing. But the groups he funded were prohibited from advocating for contraceptive use, ignoring all the research that tells us family planning is crucial to women's health. Look at all the good Bush did with that money, and think of how much better that would be if it was spent the way science tells us is effective?
Like I said, they only care for science when it fits their social agenda.
Fringe, perhaps. But also correct. Any moderate civil libertarian from the US would be on the fringe if he went to Saudi Arabia. Therefore, it's possible to be on the fringe and also completely correct, if your society is sufficiently fucked up. On the issue of homosexuality, our society is sufficiently fucked up.
I think Barack Obama is an epic piece of shit, and that's just one reason why. But it's still not the same. To Santorum gay sex is the same as dog sex. That's the claim Santorum made that got this epithet applied to him. Bestiality is illegal, and Santorum thinks gay sex is the same thing. That's a threat, not just to deny you equal standing, but to persecute you outright.
That is what Santorum said. And I think most of the West these days considers anything consenting adults do in the privacy of their own home to not be the end of the world and not the governments bloody business.
In most of the West, it's still illegal for consenting adults to grow and consume certain plants in the privacy of their own home.
because homophobia is the most acceptable form of bigotry in the far right
Don't forget atheism. 20 years ago we had a sitting president say that atheists should not be regarded as citizens, and it's only gotten worse since then.
suppose that somebody launched an internet campaign to associate some vulgar, racist profanity with President Obama, and through a widespread google bombing campaign, brought it to the top of Google's search results. At that point, the person has used the force multiplier of the internet to exercise power over a politician, at least in a certain respect
Which is their right, isn't it. Don't we expect the people of this country to be able to exercise power over their politicians? This is one way to do so. Your argument is fundamentally anti-democratic.
Remember, without popular support there is no "force multiplier" effect to the internet. This is the voice of the people. And remember, it's not the last word on the story. If there were a credible argument that Santorum was not truly frothy, then his supporters could make that argument on the internet, and "google bomb" the spreading-santorum folks. As always, the correct response to unwanted speech is more speech.
it would be ironic if he got the nomination and then won the election because most Americans are fair-minded enough to actually be swayed the other way by Savage's malicious hatefulness and disgusting behavior.
There's no chance of that. If the people are fair minded, they'll be convinced by Santorum's own words that he's the malicious, hateful, and disgusting one.
Two things, first, what's a Koshevik? Yes, I googled it.
Second, Godwin's law is about the frequency of Nazi references, not their appropriateness. In this case, the comparison is entirely appropriate. Santorum and the Taliban both spread religious bigotry under the cover of righteousness. The only real difference is their methods. The Taliban would behead a gay, Santorum would only imprison him.
But doesn't the problem also include the Israeli's religious attachment to the same lands?
Absolutely. Israelis and Palestinians have both acted inexcusably, for inexcusable reasons. Whatever happens over there, we shouldn't be involved in it at all.
I.e, God only knows what the gitmo and abu ghraib perpetrators would have done domestically if the wars hadn't been started.
Well, they probably wouldn't have killed over a hundred thousand civilians you sick fuck.
What do you think the Muslims would do if Israel cut off access to the "Dome of the Rock"? Would you blame them? When they attack Israel, would you call it "among the most evil human undertakings ever"?
Yes, I'd blame them. That's a perfect example of the harmful influence of religion. If it weren't for ridiculous superstitions that scrap of desert would be as worthless as any other scrap of desert. If you're willing to kill people because of ancient mythology, then absolutely I'm willing to call it evil. Most evil ever? Depends on the scale of the atrocity.
While politicians may be involved in it, there is no valid discussion, no valid arguments, and no valid sides supporting SOPA. That is why it is not political. It is entirely one-sided. No other argument in government can claim such distinction.
You're telling me that I should ignore what's best for the country and follow my heart, and tough luck if that causes widespread suffering.
The fact that you cannot vote for the candidate you believe is best for the country, because that would lead to widespread suffering is an indication that the electoral system is fundamentally broken. By participating in that system you legitimize it and further increase the widespread suffering you fear. If you're not fighting for people who would fix the voting system, you're not doing anyone a bit of good.
I'm going to have to ask if you used Windows 7? And if you have I suggest you learn how to use it.
I've used it as a game launcher, and nothing else.
Each of your questions you can now do straight from the Windows Explorer and it is very simple.
How? I don't see how you can do conditional batch operations with a GUI, but I'd love to see it done.
As a side note you've been able to do batch renaming defaulty since Windows XP.
Sure, if all you want to do is number your files. Suppose you want to change "Artist/Album - Track.mp3" to "Artist - Album - Track.mp3"? What if you want to programatically rename files based on their contents? The batch rename function in XP is so limited as to be useless. I've NEVER wanted to rename my files in such a way that the XP renamer could handle it.
Slashdot Mirror
Anyone for Pong?
Why is it possible to determine the sizes of the images over HTTPS? Are they seriously opening a new connection for each and every image on the satellite map? What's wrong with opening one tunnel and shoveling everything through there?
Symantec says that Blackhole affects "various Windows platforms". Does Cryptome run on Windows?
As one of several metrics, I judge the quality of a game by its level of interactivity.
That might work for a personal metric, but I wouldn't take game recommendations for you. Some people like punctuated interactivity.
In that case, movies and books are much more effective mediums for telling a story.
But movies are dreadfully boring. I like stories, but 90 minutes of nothing to do is too much. I can't remember the last time I watched a movie and didn't find myself checking the time halfway through.
Games, on the other hand, are participatory. That keeps me interested. I like the story, but I want to participate, not just hear it rote. As a result, I finish every 80 hour RPG I start.
I sympathize with Jaffe but I don't think we should just have gameplay mechanics. In the end, there's probably a healthy balance and as a former Tetris addict turned RPG enthusiast, I see the benefits of both sides. When a game blends these two things together, that's when you get magic.
I don't think there is a healthy balance. I think there are many healthy balances. For every combination of action vs plot, there's someone who's interested.
Medal of Honor was created by Steven Spielburg, who directed Saving Private Ryan. Accordingly, the assault on Omaha Beach in MoH:Allied Assault is the closest thing I've seen to Saving Private Ryan in game form. And you know what? It works extremely well. That is still one of the most compelling game sequences I've ever played, some 10 years after the fact.
That's a great example. Bush put a lot of money into AIDS prevention and research, which is a great thing. But the groups he funded were prohibited from advocating for contraceptive use, ignoring all the research that tells us family planning is crucial to women's health. Look at all the good Bush did with that money, and think of how much better that would be if it was spent the way science tells us is effective?
Like I said, they only care for science when it fits their social agenda.
Republicans love science as long as it's something they can monetize and doesn't conflict with their social agenda.
It can technically be done, but results will look like crap, because scaling of bitmaps does not look well if you don't use an integer factor
Why do you assume they are using bitmaps? In this day and age everything from icons to fonts should be vector.
Fringe, perhaps. But also correct. Any moderate civil libertarian from the US would be on the fringe if he went to Saudi Arabia. Therefore, it's possible to be on the fringe and also completely correct, if your society is sufficiently fucked up. On the issue of homosexuality, our society is sufficiently fucked up.
I think Barack Obama is an epic piece of shit, and that's just one reason why. But it's still not the same. To Santorum gay sex is the same as dog sex. That's the claim Santorum made that got this epithet applied to him. Bestiality is illegal, and Santorum thinks gay sex is the same thing. That's a threat, not just to deny you equal standing, but to persecute you outright.
There's no excuse for issuing patents that are not properly vetted. If you don't have the resources to properly vet patents, stop issuing patents.
That is what Santorum said. And I think most of the West these days considers anything consenting adults do in the privacy of their own home to not be the end of the world and not the governments bloody business.
In most of the West, it's still illegal for consenting adults to grow and consume certain plants in the privacy of their own home.
I'm not saying it's right for them to be able to do that but they do catch individuals engaged with corporate and even economic espionage that way.
The headline you won't see is that the US itself engages in corporate and economic espionage that way.
You're half right. Savage's campaign is rude and appropriate.
because homophobia is the most acceptable form of bigotry in the far right
Don't forget atheism. 20 years ago we had a sitting president say that atheists should not be regarded as citizens, and it's only gotten worse since then.
suppose that somebody launched an internet campaign to associate some vulgar, racist profanity with President Obama, and through a widespread google bombing campaign, brought it to the top of Google's search results. At that point, the person has used the force multiplier of the internet to exercise power over a politician, at least in a certain respect
Which is their right, isn't it. Don't we expect the people of this country to be able to exercise power over their politicians? This is one way to do so. Your argument is fundamentally anti-democratic.
Remember, without popular support there is no "force multiplier" effect to the internet. This is the voice of the people. And remember, it's not the last word on the story. If there were a credible argument that Santorum was not truly frothy, then his supporters could make that argument on the internet, and "google bomb" the spreading-santorum folks. As always, the correct response to unwanted speech is more speech.
it would be ironic if he got the nomination and then won the election because most Americans are fair-minded enough to actually be swayed the other way by Savage's malicious hatefulness and disgusting behavior.
There's no chance of that. If the people are fair minded, they'll be convinced by Santorum's own words that he's the malicious, hateful, and disgusting one.
Two things, first, what's a Koshevik? Yes, I googled it.
Second, Godwin's law is about the frequency of Nazi references, not their appropriateness. In this case, the comparison is entirely appropriate. Santorum and the Taliban both spread religious bigotry under the cover of righteousness. The only real difference is their methods. The Taliban would behead a gay, Santorum would only imprison him.
And he told an interviewer that people who redistribute child pornography are "not participating in the crime" and so shouldn't be censored.
How exactly is that incorrect?
Tolerance of bigotry is counterproductive. Dan Savage has been remarkably restrained considering the very real threat that Santorum poses.
But doesn't the problem also include the Israeli's religious attachment to the same lands?
Absolutely. Israelis and Palestinians have both acted inexcusably, for inexcusable reasons. Whatever happens over there, we shouldn't be involved in it at all.
I.e, God only knows what the gitmo and abu ghraib perpetrators would have done domestically if the wars hadn't been started.
Well, they probably wouldn't have killed over a hundred thousand civilians you sick fuck.
What do you think the Muslims would do if Israel cut off access to the "Dome of the Rock"? Would you blame them? When they attack Israel, would you call it "among the most evil human undertakings ever"?
Yes, I'd blame them. That's a perfect example of the harmful influence of religion. If it weren't for ridiculous superstitions that scrap of desert would be as worthless as any other scrap of desert. If you're willing to kill people because of ancient mythology, then absolutely I'm willing to call it evil. Most evil ever? Depends on the scale of the atrocity.
While politicians may be involved in it, there is no valid discussion, no valid arguments, and no valid sides supporting SOPA. That is why it is not political. It is entirely one-sided. No other argument in government can claim such distinction.
Cannabis prohibition.
You're telling me that I should ignore what's best for the country and follow my heart, and tough luck if that causes widespread suffering.
The fact that you cannot vote for the candidate you believe is best for the country, because that would lead to widespread suffering is an indication that the electoral system is fundamentally broken. By participating in that system you legitimize it and further increase the widespread suffering you fear. If you're not fighting for people who would fix the voting system, you're not doing anyone a bit of good.
I'm going to have to ask if you used Windows 7? And if you have I suggest you learn how to use it.
I've used it as a game launcher, and nothing else.
Each of your questions you can now do straight from the Windows Explorer and it is very simple.
How? I don't see how you can do conditional batch operations with a GUI, but I'd love to see it done.
As a side note you've been able to do batch renaming defaulty since Windows XP.
Sure, if all you want to do is number your files. Suppose you want to change "Artist/Album - Track.mp3" to "Artist - Album - Track.mp3"? What if you want to programatically rename files based on their contents? The batch rename function in XP is so limited as to be useless. I've NEVER wanted to rename my files in such a way that the XP renamer could handle it.