I know the police can often be inept, but this kid was celarly innocent, and there should have been somebody to take his side when he was being charged. The system should handle incompetent police.
Actually, the key phrase is "particularly if the owner/operator still has sufficient business in the US". You are right in that the US would be hard pressed to arrange extradition of a foreign citizen whom they feel is violating their copyright laws. However, if said citizen has significant business in the US, then they might find their assets seized, management arrested, etc.
Speaking as a Canadian, no we're not, and I'm sick of all the god damned fear mongering around here. One bill gets proposed in the friggin' House of Commons, and it's like the sky is falling. Jebus...
I think we both know that's a highly disingenuous comparison. All men in Switzerland (much like in Israel) are obligated to military service, and are thus specially trained to make use of those firearms and to use them in situations of duress. This is *clearly* not the case with citizens of the United States (or Iraq).
Illusion of safety? You mean, like the illusion that owning a handgun will somehow protect you from violence? Or the illusion that, in a truly violent situation, you will have the wherewithal to use your gun safely and effectively?
Because there is no way to prevent crazy nuts like this guy from VT from getting guns. And some people want to be able to defend themselves when these nuts show up and start shooting.
Oh, I agree. I mean, it's not like the US has seen far far more of these sorts of killings than any other nation. And you know why? Because of the high level of gun ownership, of course. It is these very weapons that have prevented these sorts of things from happening time and again.
And you think this guy "randomly" went to the university and started shooting? I'm sure he had a plan in his mind when he started out. That doesn't make the violence any more senseless, or the GP's point any more salient.
The fact is, in both cases, innocent civilians are being killed, but here in the west, if something like this happens, the event is met with horror and outrage. Why? Because it's close. Because it's not supposed to happen here. But it's different in Baghdad because, as we all know, Iraq is a third-world hell hole populated by murderous, religious fanatics that we don't care to understand.
Oh please. It's not like this bill will inevitably become law if people don't speak up. Hell, given the current minority government in place, I think it exceedingly *un*likely that we'll see this bill get anywhere in parliament.
I cannot, and here is the reason: Any attempt at representation in graphics is going to be far less detailed, and far more tame, than my imagination makes it.
It's not just that, though. Nethack has an *immense* number of interactions between items, players, enemies, and so forth. The number of weapons, armor, and items is staggering, and that doesn't begin to cover the interactions between them, which balloons when you consider all the verbs nethack makes available.
The result is gameplay of amazing depth. The point of the GP is that you'd be very hardpressed to replicate all these interactions in a 3D world, partly due to control limitations, and partly because of all the artwork, sound effects, and so forth, that would be necessary.
So, yes, Nethack is appealing due to one's imagination. But I think it's appealing, moreso, because of the richness of gameplay that it offers.
Meh, just have your browser ask about all cookies. Is it annoying at first? Sure. But a) once you've confirmed/denied the cookies for your common sites, you don't have to worry about them again, and b) it gives you some insight into how many frickin' cookies websites try to plant in your browser.
I'm not here to prove anything. I'm simply saying that, just because a law is on the books which requires the government to execute procedures a certain way, doesn't mean it actually will. One might cite, say, recent wiretapping events as a good example of the government's willingness to work around it's own rules when it sees fit.
Nah, I much prefer turning capslock into a third modifier key, which I then use with WindowMaker as a hotkey for manipulating the window manager. So, to resize a window, I hold down capslock, then right-click-drag. To move a window, it's capslock+left-click-drag. Makes it extremely easy to manipulate many windows on the desktop without interfering with application key bindings.
I suppose you could swap capslock and control, then turn control into a third modifier, though...
Which is standard practice at the start of any presidential term, and was done by Bush junior *and Senior, and Regan, if I recall. What *isn't* typically is firing them *mid*-term for such blatant political reasons, and that's why this is such a scandal.
Oh, I never said they actually did what they claim, or achieved those supposed goals. Simply that their dogma has tainted any legitimate attempt to discuss the idea of promoting the growth and development of democratic governments.
Wow. Great strawman. Very well built, and you really knocked it over with verve.
But the problem, you see, is that no is claiming that "That'll make it all OK"... that's where your strawman becomes embarassingly obvious to anyone paying attention. The point isn't to somehow atone for all of "our" past sins by aiding the people of Darfur, the point is to *aid the people of Darfur*.
But, you go on feeling all self-righteous and smug about your spectacular knowledge of the dead and persecuted peoples of the world. Meanwhile, others will actually try and do something in the hopes that such things will be stopped or outright prevented in the future.
You know what's sad? Ignoring the validity of your claim, the actions of the US government and their misguided attempts to force democracy on countries unprepared for it, particularly Iraq, has resulted in my developing a kneejerk negative reaction to any claims about "spreading democracy" anywhere. It just sounds so blindly dogmatic, as if, right now, I can picture you wrapping yourself in the American flag and chanting the pledge of allegiance with your fingers in your ears. And *that*, I think, will be the sort of legacy Bush leaves behind.
You should never make the "size" of a variable part of it's identifying factor.
That's just silly. People do this all the time for a variety of reasons (often for space concerns). Hell, IP address are just 32-bit numbers, and if the lower 8-bits of an address roll over, the address is in a different subnet. Sounds like a violation of your rule to me. And I'm sure I could come up with myriad other examples.
What you shouldn't do is make such an assumption *unreasonable* (obviously 1000 codes is ridiculously small, particularly since you have 2^32 values to play with), and make sure to document it, regardless of your decision.
Uhh, you do realize that the keys we're talking about, here, even with the most powerful computers in the world working on the problem, would probably require so much time to brute force that the heat death of the universe would arrive first?
Sony intentionally limited PS3 Linux in order to prevent competition from homebrew games
I don't buy that for one second. There is no way homebrew will provide any amount of competition to professional publishing houses, with their multi-million-dollar budgets and professional artists, composers, and so forth. Hell, just look at the Linux/Windows open-source game market... oh, right, there isn't one (aside from the odd exception, like Tux Racer or Frozen Bubble).
The only reasons I can think of to lock down the PS3 are:
a) Piracy. A fully unlocked PS3 may make it possible to run pirated software on the machine. b) It serves as an alternative to their rather expensive professional development kits, cutting into a source of revenue.
From my wiki link: "However, the slippery slope claim requires independent justification to connect the inevitability of B to an occurrence of A."
I don't recall you doing that.
Well, going from very young heavily disabled children to somewhat older heavily disabled children wouldn't be *that* much of a stretch. Might as well hold the line where it's easy to hold.
Ummm, I never once said anything about "young" disabled children. I'm suggesting you kill anyone as dumb as a chimp.
Besides, that's not a logical explanation of why such a progression would occur.
Plus, you didn't really respond to my "ickiness" argument at all.
It's not an argument. I think it's "icky" to eat, say, pig blood, but not everyone agrees. Same goes with infanticide. Hell, by now we should all know the story of the Spartans, who felt it perfectly natural to kill "low-quality" children. And Sparta is an excellent counter-example to your argument... they didn't slip into a chaotic, murderous society.
My case against killing mentally disabled children is, again, based on preventing mission creep
Sounds like the Slippery slope fallacy to me. Unless you can demonstrate to me how culling mentally disabled children would result in "mission creep" (and your rhetoric about "partial birth" abortion doesn't count), you're gonna have to do better than that.
So, I'll repeat my question, as I did for the other poster: why is a mentally disabled person protected, while an equally-intelligent chimp is not?
Slashdot Mirror
I know the police can often be inept, but this kid was celarly innocent, and there should have been somebody to take his side when he was being charged. The system should handle incompetent police.
Yes. Yes it should.
Actually, the key phrase is "particularly if the owner/operator still has sufficient business in the US". You are right in that the US would be hard pressed to arrange extradition of a foreign citizen whom they feel is violating their copyright laws. However, if said citizen has significant business in the US, then they might find their assets seized, management arrested, etc.
Speaking as a Canadian, no we're not, and I'm sick of all the god damned fear mongering around here. One bill gets proposed in the friggin' House of Commons, and it's like the sky is falling. Jebus...
I think we both know that's a highly disingenuous comparison. All men in Switzerland (much like in Israel) are obligated to military service, and are thus specially trained to make use of those firearms and to use them in situations of duress. This is *clearly* not the case with citizens of the United States (or Iraq).
Illusion of safety? You mean, like the illusion that owning a handgun will somehow protect you from violence? Or the illusion that, in a truly violent situation, you will have the wherewithal to use your gun safely and effectively?
Because there is no way to prevent crazy nuts like this guy from VT from getting guns. And some people want to be able to defend themselves when these nuts show up and start shooting.
Oh, I agree. I mean, it's not like the US has seen far far more of these sorts of killings than any other nation. And you know why? Because of the high level of gun ownership, of course. It is these very weapons that have prevented these sorts of things from happening time and again.
Right?
And you think this guy "randomly" went to the university and started shooting? I'm sure he had a plan in his mind when he started out. That doesn't make the violence any more senseless, or the GP's point any more salient.
The fact is, in both cases, innocent civilians are being killed, but here in the west, if something like this happens, the event is met with horror and outrage. Why? Because it's close. Because it's not supposed to happen here. But it's different in Baghdad because, as we all know, Iraq is a third-world hell hole populated by murderous, religious fanatics that we don't care to understand.
Oh please. It's not like this bill will inevitably become law if people don't speak up. Hell, given the current minority government in place, I think it exceedingly *un*likely that we'll see this bill get anywhere in parliament.
I cannot, and here is the reason: Any attempt at representation in graphics is going to be far less detailed, and far more tame, than my imagination makes it.
It's not just that, though. Nethack has an *immense* number of interactions between items, players, enemies, and so forth. The number of weapons, armor, and items is staggering, and that doesn't begin to cover the interactions between them, which balloons when you consider all the verbs nethack makes available.
The result is gameplay of amazing depth. The point of the GP is that you'd be very hardpressed to replicate all these interactions in a 3D world, partly due to control limitations, and partly because of all the artwork, sound effects, and so forth, that would be necessary.
So, yes, Nethack is appealing due to one's imagination. But I think it's appealing, moreso, because of the richness of gameplay that it offers.
Meh, just have your browser ask about all cookies. Is it annoying at first? Sure. But a) once you've confirmed/denied the cookies for your common sites, you don't have to worry about them again, and b) it gives you some insight into how many frickin' cookies websites try to plant in your browser.
I'm not here to prove anything. I'm simply saying that, just because a law is on the books which requires the government to execute procedures a certain way, doesn't mean it actually will. One might cite, say, recent wiretapping events as a good example of the government's willingness to work around it's own rules when it sees fit.
Nah, I much prefer turning capslock into a third modifier key, which I then use with WindowMaker as a hotkey for manipulating the window manager. So, to resize a window, I hold down capslock, then right-click-drag. To move a window, it's capslock+left-click-drag. Makes it extremely easy to manipulate many windows on the desktop without interfering with application key bindings.
I suppose you could swap capslock and control, then turn control into a third modifier, though...
Sure, but "We don't like what you have to say" is not, by itself, sufficient grounds to deny one.
Yes, I'm sure that's technically the case... as I'm sure that's technically the case in Russia, too.
Which is standard practice at the start of any presidential term, and was done by Bush junior *and Senior, and Regan, if I recall. What *isn't* typically is firing them *mid*-term for such blatant political reasons, and that's why this is such a scandal.
Oh, I never said they actually did what they claim, or achieved those supposed goals. Simply that their dogma has tainted any legitimate attempt to discuss the idea of promoting the growth and development of democratic governments.
Wow. Great strawman. Very well built, and you really knocked it over with verve.
But the problem, you see, is that no is claiming that "That'll make it all OK"... that's where your strawman becomes embarassingly obvious to anyone paying attention. The point isn't to somehow atone for all of "our" past sins by aiding the people of Darfur, the point is to *aid the people of Darfur*.
But, you go on feeling all self-righteous and smug about your spectacular knowledge of the dead and persecuted peoples of the world. Meanwhile, others will actually try and do something in the hopes that such things will be stopped or outright prevented in the future.
You know what's sad? Ignoring the validity of your claim, the actions of the US government and their misguided attempts to force democracy on countries unprepared for it, particularly Iraq, has resulted in my developing a kneejerk negative reaction to any claims about "spreading democracy" anywhere. It just sounds so blindly dogmatic, as if, right now, I can picture you wrapping yourself in the American flag and chanting the pledge of allegiance with your fingers in your ears. And *that*, I think, will be the sort of legacy Bush leaves behind.
You should never make the "size" of a variable part of it's identifying factor.
That's just silly. People do this all the time for a variety of reasons (often for space concerns). Hell, IP address are just 32-bit numbers, and if the lower 8-bits of an address roll over, the address is in a different subnet. Sounds like a violation of your rule to me. And I'm sure I could come up with myriad other examples.
What you shouldn't do is make such an assumption *unreasonable* (obviously 1000 codes is ridiculously small, particularly since you have 2^32 values to play with), and make sure to document it, regardless of your decision.
OK, lets be honest, we all need our cell phones.
No, we don't. I know I don't (I survive quite nicely without one, thank you).
Some of us need our blackberries.
Nope.
We all want our music.
Sure, though a device with a custom built, special-purpose interface may be more appropriate (hence the popularity of the iPod).
So, I*M*HO, Palm has it right. But, like your post, it's purely a matter of opinion. The question is, how will the market play out?
Worth watching? Yes, once. You won't get anything extra from watching it a second or third time, like you would with Memento and the like.
:)
I disagree, actually. You might actually understand it after the second or third viewing.
Uhh, you do realize that the keys we're talking about, here, even with the most powerful computers in the world working on the problem, would probably require so much time to brute force that the heat death of the universe would arrive first?
Ummm... Matroska isn't an encoding, it's a container format, like AVI.
Sony intentionally limited PS3 Linux in order to prevent competition from homebrew games
I don't buy that for one second. There is no way homebrew will provide any amount of competition to professional publishing houses, with their multi-million-dollar budgets and professional artists, composers, and so forth. Hell, just look at the Linux/Windows open-source game market... oh, right, there isn't one (aside from the odd exception, like Tux Racer or Frozen Bubble).
The only reasons I can think of to lock down the PS3 are:
a) Piracy. A fully unlocked PS3 may make it possible to run pirated software on the machine.
b) It serves as an alternative to their rather expensive professional development kits, cutting into a source of revenue.
Personally, I suspect the former.
I believe it might very well be valid
From my wiki link: "However, the slippery slope claim requires independent justification to connect the inevitability of B to an occurrence of A."
I don't recall you doing that.
Well, going from very young heavily disabled children to somewhat older heavily disabled children wouldn't be *that* much of a stretch. Might as well hold the line where it's easy to hold.
Ummm, I never once said anything about "young" disabled children. I'm suggesting you kill anyone as dumb as a chimp.
Besides, that's not a logical explanation of why such a progression would occur.
Plus, you didn't really respond to my "ickiness" argument at all.
It's not an argument. I think it's "icky" to eat, say, pig blood, but not everyone agrees. Same goes with infanticide. Hell, by now we should all know the story of the Spartans, who felt it perfectly natural to kill "low-quality" children. And Sparta is an excellent counter-example to your argument... they didn't slip into a chaotic, murderous society.
So, feel free to try again.
My case against killing mentally disabled children is, again, based on preventing mission creep
Sounds like the Slippery slope fallacy to me. Unless you can demonstrate to me how culling mentally disabled children would result in "mission creep" (and your rhetoric about "partial birth" abortion doesn't count), you're gonna have to do better than that.
So, I'll repeat my question, as I did for the other poster: why is a mentally disabled person protected, while an equally-intelligent chimp is not?