'What I really want to do is be in the forefront of game development once again myself. Probably working on a smaller project with even younger developers. Or I might be interested in making something that I can make myself, by myself. Something really small.'"
Let's hope he at least has a sword and full heart containers, then.
If the alternative was being held naked in a jail cell with no access to books, internet, human conversation, or anything other than standing at attention and sleeping?
Yes, I think I'd rather they take me behind the tool shed already.
Hrm. I'm surprised in this paranoid climate that noone has shut this down out of a panic that the turrists could use it to relay hidden communiques in strategically placed band posters.
You CAN'T get that overturned - it's called "Strict Liability", and it means that even if there is NO WAY YOU COULD HAVE KNOWN that she was underage, you're STILL a filthy pedo who deserves to get butt-raped by Bubba.
Actually, the guy didn't lie about his age - the *GIRL* did. She was 13, but claimed on MySpace - and presumably, in person - that she was 18. Kinda puts his actions in a different light, doesn't it?
But the Linux user, even according to the most rabid Microsoft apologist, never agreed to a Microsoft EULA or a BSA audit.
Let me play devil's advocate for a moment. It could be argued that, in purchasing a computer (or computer components) from a company who has paid Microsoft for the right to exist and do business, you are inheriting that company's legal entanglements, including Microsoft's right to bend you over and make you sing soprano. It wouldn't be too difficult to include, as part of Microsoft's deal with hardware manufacturers, an agreement that the hardware manufacturer will not sell to any customer that does not agree to Microsoft's terms. Then it's simply a matter of applying the correct amount of leverage to the legal system to overlook the inherent illegality of such an agreement.
The above comment, troll or not, is spot on. Violence is a very, very powerful tool, and trying to solve situations without it puts you at a disadvantage against those without such compunctions. Intelligently applied violence and coercion will always breed out stupidity (no matter how violent) and pacifism (no matter how intelligent).
er, actually, Insect Spirits aren't the same as the Horrors - they're just another menace that tends to show up before the Horrors do. The Horrors have, thankfully, been kept mostly at bay by the efforts of -#@&*@!)
Trust me, you don't want to read any more. - The Laughing Man
Finally, my name as well as references to my work were removed from a few articles (for instance, from the entries about the Narcissistic Personality Disorder and Narcissism (Psychology)). At least one of the "editors" who were responsible for what appears to be a vindictive act ("Danny") claims to be somehow associated with the Wikimedia's grants commission.
Depends on your weighting. If you put "walk away" as '3', "limp away" as '2', "get hauled away in an ambulance" as '1', and "die" as '0', then it looks more like:
It's not just humans, friend; we live in a universe of limited accessible resources. Of course islands of dynamic complexity must compete and exploit each other for advantage, or there would be no life at all.
Note: The above isn't actual figures; it's just very, VERY rough "orders of magnitude" estimations to illustrate the nature of the problem. The essence, though, is that an SUV has a lot more energy to dissipate in a wreck than a subcompact, and the only reason you're "safer" is that all that energy tends to go into the subcompact - if you're both SUV's, you're both dealing with the extra energy.
If you're in a four-ton SUV, and you hit a 1.5-ton subcompact, you take about 1/3 of the force that you'd take if you were in a 1.5-ton subcompact yourself, and the subcompact driver takes about 9x the force that he would take if you were in the subcompact.
If you're BOTH in four-ton SUV's, you EACH take about 3x the force that you'd have taken if you were in subcompact.
It's a prisoner's dilemma - everyone is safer if everyone drives subcompact, but the moment someone drives an SUV, they become safer by a factor of 3 while everyone else becomes less safe by a factor of 9. The choice that anyone else has is to get an SUV themselves, at which point they become safer by a factor of 3 - which is still only a third as safe vs. another SUV as if noone had started the arms race.
If we all rely on ourselves for our well-being, as the "idiot libertarians" preach, then those who are less directly powerful lose to those who are more powerful. We're all very well aware of this, but a lot of us choose to ignore it.
If we all rely on each other for our well-being, then those who are less manipulative and charismatic lose to those who are more manipulative and charismatic. We're all very well aware of this, but a lot of us choose to ignore it.
All extreme competition and extreme cooperation do is change the fitness criteria for the population; either way, you'll get assholes exploiting the system. All you can really decide is what KINDS of assholes you want exploiting the system - and if you're smart, you pick a system that you're more likely to exploit than be exploited by. But then, if you're capable of making that choice, you're generally either powerful enough to be just fine with the way things are now, or you're in the middle of a violent coup d'etat.
Summary: In a libertarian ideal, man exploits man. In a socialist utopia, it's the other way around.
"Did you really think we want those laws observed?" said Dr. Ferris. "We want them to be broken. You'd better get it straight that it's not a bunch of boy scouts you're up against... We're after power and we mean it... There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What's there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced or objectively interpreted - and you create a nation of law-breakers - and then you cash in on guilt. Now that's the system, Mr. Reardon, that's the game, and once you understand it, you'll be much easier to deal with."
Slashdot Mirror
Do people seriously keep up with the Joneses that much this day in age in everything?
According to many HOAs, yes. Absolutely.
Well, NOTHING is more American than dollars.
Power does what it wants.
This is absolutely a sniper weapon. It's just not a sniper weapon to be used against prepared military assets.
It'd do a fine job of assassinating unprepared civilian targets, though.
Poe's law makes this distinction pragmatically impossible.
'What I really want to do is be in the forefront of game development once again myself. Probably working on a smaller project with even younger developers. Or I might be interested in making something that I can make myself, by myself. Something really small.'"
Let's hope he at least has a sword and full heart containers, then.
If the alternative was being held naked in a jail cell with no access to books, internet, human conversation, or anything other than standing at attention and sleeping?
Yes, I think I'd rather they take me behind the tool shed already.
Which makes the fact that we want to replace them with prison labor particularly interesting.
Hrm. I'm surprised in this paranoid climate that noone has shut this down out of a panic that the turrists could use it to relay hidden communiques in strategically placed band posters.
You CAN'T get that overturned - it's called "Strict Liability", and it means that even if there is NO WAY YOU COULD HAVE KNOWN that she was underage, you're STILL a filthy pedo who deserves to get butt-raped by Bubba.
Actually, the guy didn't lie about his age - the *GIRL* did. She was 13, but claimed on MySpace - and presumably, in person - that she was 18. Kinda puts his actions in a different light, doesn't it?
But the Linux user, even according to the most rabid Microsoft apologist, never agreed to a Microsoft EULA or a BSA audit.
Let me play devil's advocate for a moment. It could be argued that, in purchasing a computer (or computer components) from a company who has paid Microsoft for the right to exist and do business, you are inheriting that company's legal entanglements, including Microsoft's right to bend you over and make you sing soprano. It wouldn't be too difficult to include, as part of Microsoft's deal with hardware manufacturers, an agreement that the hardware manufacturer will not sell to any customer that does not agree to Microsoft's terms. Then it's simply a matter of applying the correct amount of leverage to the legal system to overlook the inherent illegality of such an agreement.
I'm never... caling it... that.
When its neural structure begins to self-organize and exhibit patterned firings.
The above comment, troll or not, is spot on. Violence is a very, very powerful tool, and trying to solve situations without it puts you at a disadvantage against those without such compunctions. Intelligently applied violence and coercion will always breed out stupidity (no matter how violent) and pacifism (no matter how intelligent).
er, actually, Insect Spirits aren't the same as the Horrors - they're just another menace that tends to show up before the Horrors do. The Horrors have, thankfully, been kept mostly at bay by the efforts of -#@&*@!)
Trust me, you don't want to read any more. - The Laughing Man
We need a word that means "Poignantly appropriate".
Apropos?
I disagree on both counts.
Libertarian systems can evolve mechanisms for protection - it's called "compassion" and "charity".
And socialist systems can provide mechanisms to route around protection - it's called "totalitarianism".
ANY system can be abused by the powerful, with the powerless unable to protect themselves - that's what being 'powerless' means.
And any system which does not create a class of powerless people, cannot in practice be created in the real world. SOMEONE always gets screwed.
Finally, my name as well as references to my work were removed from a few articles (for instance, from the entries about the Narcissistic Personality Disorder and Narcissism (Psychology)). At least one of the "editors" who were responsible for what appears to be a vindictive act ("Danny") claims to be somehow associated with the Wikimedia's grants commission.
Oh, sweet, sweet irony.
Depends on your weighting. If you put "walk away" as '3', "limp away" as '2', "get hauled away in an ambulance" as '1', and "die" as '0', then it looks more like:
Compact SUV
Compact 2,2 0,3
SUV 3,0 1,1
Which is your good ol' PD matrix.
It's not just humans, friend; we live in a universe of limited accessible resources. Of course islands of dynamic complexity must compete and exploit each other for advantage, or there would be no life at all.
It's terrible and beautiful all at the same time.
Note: The above isn't actual figures; it's just very, VERY rough "orders of magnitude" estimations to illustrate the nature of the problem. The essence, though, is that an SUV has a lot more energy to dissipate in a wreck than a subcompact, and the only reason you're "safer" is that all that energy tends to go into the subcompact - if you're both SUV's, you're both dealing with the extra energy.
Actually, it's far worse than that.
If you're in a four-ton SUV, and you hit a 1.5-ton subcompact, you take about 1/3 of the force that you'd take if you were in a 1.5-ton subcompact yourself, and the subcompact driver takes about 9x the force that he would take if you were in the subcompact.
If you're BOTH in four-ton SUV's, you EACH take about 3x the force that you'd have taken if you were in subcompact.
It's a prisoner's dilemma - everyone is safer if everyone drives subcompact, but the moment someone drives an SUV, they become safer by a factor of 3 while everyone else becomes less safe by a factor of 9. The choice that anyone else has is to get an SUV themselves, at which point they become safer by a factor of 3 - which is still only a third as safe vs. another SUV as if noone had started the arms race.
Okay, here's the deal:
If we all rely on ourselves for our well-being, as the "idiot libertarians" preach, then those who are less directly powerful lose to those who are more powerful. We're all very well aware of this, but a lot of us choose to ignore it.
If we all rely on each other for our well-being, then those who are less manipulative and charismatic lose to those who are more manipulative and charismatic. We're all very well aware of this, but a lot of us choose to ignore it.
All extreme competition and extreme cooperation do is change the fitness criteria for the population; either way, you'll get assholes exploiting the system. All you can really decide is what KINDS of assholes you want exploiting the system - and if you're smart, you pick a system that you're more likely to exploit than be exploited by. But then, if you're capable of making that choice, you're generally either powerful enough to be just fine with the way things are now, or you're in the middle of a violent coup d'etat.
Summary: In a libertarian ideal, man exploits man. In a socialist utopia, it's the other way around.
It's Ayn Rand.
"Did you really think we want those laws observed?" said Dr. Ferris. "We want them to be broken. You'd better get it straight that it's not a bunch of boy scouts you're up against... We're after power and we mean it... There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What's there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced or objectively interpreted - and you create a nation of law-breakers - and then you cash in on guilt. Now that's the system, Mr. Reardon, that's the game, and once you understand it, you'll be
much easier to deal with."