Not allowing offline saved games seems like a logical next step in the anti-piracy war they've got going on though. I'm not sure how they plan to detect which consoles are hacked, but if they can, they can just invalidate any saved games ever modified by one of those consoles.
No one contests that a "too drunk to stand" driver is a problem. The issue is that "Impaired" is a pretty damn vague term. Sure a BAC of 0.08% slows your reaction time. But so does less sleep, or looking at the hot girl jogging on the side walk, or age, or any of 400+ other things.
One person's reaction speed is not the same as another. This means that what is "impaired" for one driver might be a better-than-average day for another driver. This means that the law has had to pick an arbitrary amount of alcohol that is supposed to represent "impaired" abilities, but in reality there is a whole spectrum of fitness to drive.
I'm just saying if there was a concrete standard for "impaired" or "not impaired", the situation would actually be black and white; in reality, its a gray gray world.
According to the info my GF got in Al-Anon meetings, the vast majority of drunk driving casualties are by repeat offenders (or at least chronic drunks) with BACs of 0.20+, not the had-three-drinks type.
Lets use a car analogy. Is your local used car salesman engaging in censorship (or the automotive equivalent thereof) when he refuses to sell vehicles with more than 150,000 miles on them? What about if he refuses to sell Kias? He has the right to sell any car he chooses to, as well as to NOT sell cars that he thinks are inferior or morally unacceptable.
The key thing everyone seems to be missing is that what Amazon is doing is PASSIVE. They are NOT selling a book.
They're not actively engaging in censorship, which would mean they'd be reaching out to publishers or other book stores to try and get others to not carry the book either. At worse, they're guilty of not supporting things which may potentially appear to support pedophilia/incest.
requir[e] that providers offer their services in an equal way to all who want them
is the power to tell the telco's what to do. If they can tell them to do things we like, they could also tell them to do thing we don't like, like censor, exclude, or politically filter traffic.
The problem with giving the FCC power to do this is that the FCC has the potential to become more tyrannical than Comcast does. Comcast can only impose its will on Comcast subscribers; the FCC can impose its will on all Americans.
I second this opinion. I've got a master list I started keeping in a truecrypt file that's got all my various website login credentials. It's got more than 100 (that's right, a freaking hundred!) websites, at least 20 of which I use on a regular basis. If you follow the rules of "secure" credentials (ie: each website has a unique password of 12+ random characters and maybe a unique login too), no one can possibly remember all of this. There's got to be a better system than this bulls**t.
Yes, they simply don't care. In most of their markets, they are the only serious provider. For example, here in Houston, you can get DSL (from about 6 different companies) or you can get cable (only Comcast provides cable). Thats like 6 million people in this market alone!. What does customer satisfaction have to do with anything if the customers can't leave you (w/o going from 80mbit to 4mbit)?
Personally, I opted for the 4mbit DSL over having to put up with Comcast's shit. I was first getting my connection set up after moving to Houston, I wanted Comcast, so I called their customer service number. That was the day that the FCC censured Comcast for the whole throttling incident. The CS rep was like "We have never filtered anyone's traffic." I couldn't resist reading her some of the juicier bits of the FCC's statements. She was still like "We have never filtered anyone's traffic".
I'm a civil engineer that does a lot of construction drawings in AutoCAD. The industry standard is to have all construction notes typed in all caps. Caps lock is essential for this. I will be using ChromeOS as soon as it's available (Wuck Findows!), and probably remoting into my office computer like I occasionally do now. If I can't have capslock, I won't be using Chrome.
In order to "provide healtcare to those that can't afford it", you have to have money. That money is taken from the wealthy. Taking money from the rich and giving it to the poor (in this case in the form of health insurance) = wealth redistribution.
Wealth redistribution is "always considered a bad thing" because our constitution guarantees security of property. Remember the 4th amendment?
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated
Wealth redistribution requires the seizure of property (in the form of money) from people in a disproportionate way.
Most public universities in the US use McAfee, as well as provide it for free to there students. This means well over a million use it in the US alone.
What to do, oh what to do...
on
Intel Buys McAfee
·
· Score: 4, Funny
A list of better things you could do with $7b:
1. Fill a swimming pool with $100 bills and go nuts.
2. Buy several sky scrappers and blow em up, just for shits and giggles.
To go higher than that you need to distill the product or fortify it... As such it is, most definitely, *not* beer anymore.
The exception to you reasoning is, of course, Eisbocks. These are "high gravity" beers, with original specific gravity above 1.10. After fermentation completes, the alcohol content is usually between 9 and 12%. However, in order to further up the alcohol content, the beer is partially frozen and some of the water is removed.
Remember that water freezes at exactly 0C, while alcohol and sugar saturated solutions don't freeze until well below that. By partially freezing the substance and then agitating it so that the crystallized water floats to the surface where it can be removed, you can remove only 100% pure water, leaving the favoroids and alcohol behind. For an eisbock, this results in a substance that is usually 1 to 3% ABV higher than the fermented-only substance.
This is the technique that Brew Dog is using.
The question remains though, is this "beer"? German brewers have been making Eisbocks for a long while; they are DEFINATELY "Beer". But this is a whole new calibre. I understand why they call this "beer", but it just seems akin to calling the sun a "space heater".
The obvious point is that one you will survive (albeit after potential prison time or financial hardship), and the other you will instantly be killed by a riotous mass. The Vatican would not hang you, stone you, or shoot you. Mecca would.
Slashdot Mirror
Not allowing offline saved games seems like a logical next step in the anti-piracy war they've got going on though. I'm not sure how they plan to detect which consoles are hacked, but if they can, they can just invalidate any saved games ever modified by one of those consoles.
No one contests that a "too drunk to stand" driver is a problem. The issue is that "Impaired" is a pretty damn vague term. Sure a BAC of 0.08% slows your reaction time. But so does less sleep, or looking at the hot girl jogging on the side walk, or age, or any of 400+ other things.
One person's reaction speed is not the same as another. This means that what is "impaired" for one driver might be a better-than-average day for another driver. This means that the law has had to pick an arbitrary amount of alcohol that is supposed to represent "impaired" abilities, but in reality there is a whole spectrum of fitness to drive.
I'm just saying if there was a concrete standard for "impaired" or "not impaired", the situation would actually be black and white; in reality, its a gray gray world.
According to the info my GF got in Al-Anon meetings, the vast majority of drunk driving casualties are by repeat offenders (or at least chronic drunks) with BACs of 0.20+, not the had-three-drinks type.
You must have the worst Karma EVER. Have you ever posted without directly insulting the parent?
Lets use a car analogy. Is your local used car salesman engaging in censorship (or the automotive equivalent thereof) when he refuses to sell vehicles with more than 150,000 miles on them? What about if he refuses to sell Kias? He has the right to sell any car he chooses to, as well as to NOT sell cars that he thinks are inferior or morally unacceptable.
The key thing everyone seems to be missing is that what Amazon is doing is PASSIVE. They are NOT selling a book.
They're not actively engaging in censorship, which would mean they'd be reaching out to publishers or other book stores to try and get others to not carry the book either. At worse, they're guilty of not supporting things which may potentially appear to support pedophilia/incest.
The power to
requir[e] that providers offer their services in an equal way to all who want them
is the power to tell the telco's what to do. If they can tell them to do things we like, they could also tell them to do thing we don't like, like censor, exclude, or politically filter traffic.
The problem with giving the FCC power to do this is that the FCC has the potential to become more tyrannical than Comcast does. Comcast can only impose its will on Comcast subscribers; the FCC can impose its will on all Americans.
Now get back to running the clock down on your last day before a three day scotch melee
Thats the best description of today's work I've ever heard.
The acceleration is 207.5 ft /s^2. That's 6.4G.
I second this opinion. I've got a master list I started keeping in a truecrypt file that's got all my various website login credentials. It's got more than 100 (that's right, a freaking hundred!) websites, at least 20 of which I use on a regular basis. If you follow the rules of "secure" credentials (ie: each website has a unique password of 12+ random characters and maybe a unique login too), no one can possibly remember all of this. There's got to be a better system than this bulls**t.
Yes, they simply don't care. In most of their markets, they are the only serious provider. For example, here in Houston, you can get DSL (from about 6 different companies) or you can get cable (only Comcast provides cable). Thats like 6 million people in this market alone!. What does customer satisfaction have to do with anything if the customers can't leave you (w/o going from 80mbit to 4mbit)?
Personally, I opted for the 4mbit DSL over having to put up with Comcast's shit. I was first getting my connection set up after moving to Houston, I wanted Comcast, so I called their customer service number. That was the day that the FCC censured Comcast for the whole throttling incident. The CS rep was like "We have never filtered anyone's traffic." I couldn't resist reading her some of the juicier bits of the FCC's statements. She was still like "We have never filtered anyone's traffic".
I'm a civil engineer that does a lot of construction drawings in AutoCAD. The industry standard is to have all construction notes typed in all caps. Caps lock is essential for this. I will be using ChromeOS as soon as it's available (Wuck Findows!), and probably remoting into my office computer like I occasionally do now. If I can't have capslock, I won't be using Chrome.
In order to "provide healtcare to those that can't afford it", you have to have money. That money is taken from the wealthy. Taking money from the rich and giving it to the poor (in this case in the form of health insurance) = wealth redistribution.
Wealth redistribution is "always considered a bad thing" because our constitution guarantees security of property. Remember the 4th amendment?
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated
Wealth redistribution requires the seizure of property (in the form of money) from people in a disproportionate way.
Nope. It's 42. Consider yourself proven wrong.
I believe they'd pronounce it "Rooyah!"
But "When it comes to pollution, dilution's the solution!"
You mean our government is dominated by corporate entities? In other news, the oceans are still wet!
Seriously, why is this news?
Great. Now I'm on a list somewhere...
Thanks AC.
WHAT??? A theory/idea that doesn't have its basis in "All corporations are evil greedy bastards"??? You must be new here.
Most public universities in the US use McAfee, as well as provide it for free to there students. This means well over a million use it in the US alone.
A list of better things you could do with $7b:
1. Fill a swimming pool with $100 bills and go nuts.
2. Buy several sky scrappers and blow em up, just for shits and giggles.
3. Buy Kaspersky.
4. Nothing. Absoluetly nothing. Ever again.
Any other suggestions?
Life without an electronic leash / cell phone?
"Distillation" means to boil. This beer is made by freezing. Freezing /= boiling.
To go higher than that you need to distill the product or fortify it... As such it is, most definitely, *not* beer anymore.
The exception to you reasoning is, of course, Eisbocks. These are "high gravity" beers, with original specific gravity above 1.10. After fermentation completes, the alcohol content is usually between 9 and 12%. However, in order to further up the alcohol content, the beer is partially frozen and some of the water is removed.
Remember that water freezes at exactly 0C, while alcohol and sugar saturated solutions don't freeze until well below that. By partially freezing the substance and then agitating it so that the crystallized water floats to the surface where it can be removed, you can remove only 100% pure water, leaving the favoroids and alcohol behind. For an eisbock, this results in a substance that is usually 1 to 3% ABV higher than the fermented-only substance.
This is the technique that Brew Dog is using.
The question remains though, is this "beer"? German brewers have been making Eisbocks for a long while; they are DEFINATELY "Beer". But this is a whole new calibre. I understand why they call this "beer", but it just seems akin to calling the sun a "space heater".
I thought it isn't libel if it's hilarious.
Who is this "Bill" guy, and why does he want to take my stuff?
The obvious point is that one you will survive (albeit after potential prison time or financial hardship), and the other you will instantly be killed by a riotous mass. The Vatican would not hang you, stone you, or shoot you. Mecca would.