You could almost argue that any block, even if you 'can' opt out of it, is an unfair restriction on free trade. As for no-one wanting their daughter involved with porn, maybe it's time people realised what equality really means, and ask the woman in question what she feels about it, as opposed to letting their own moral bias infringe upon others' rights.
This is done now. Take page 23 from the final copy with signatures and a modified page 21 from an earlier copy when you submit it to the judge.
Nice to see that your people have worked out how to fully utilise the marvels of headers and footers and version numbering in your important documentation...
Can't wait for Americans to be extradited to Iran or somewhere else for violating their laws... because it would be hypocritical to deny the request now.
Compare this case with that of the American soldier, a sergeant I believe, who while serving in Afghanistan decided to go on a shooting spree in a village close to his camp. He broke into several civilian dwellings, and killed 16 people, including many children. The Afghanis are understandably furious, and are demanding that this soldier be handed over to them, to be tried and sentenced in an Afghan court. So far the Americans have refused, and it is likely that they will continue to do so. Now, irrespective of what excuses they might come up with (and I'm struggling to think of any that might be termed reasonable), what does this say about America's attitude to other nations, and their rule of law? Again, compare the extradition to America of a citizen of another country, for doing something which was not illegal in the country in which he did it, to the murder of 16 people in a country by a citizen of the US, and not allowing that country to even try the man.
I can really see the US/UK agreeing to any demands to remove all articles about Tiananmen Square, or removal of all criticisms of any or all religions. (/sarcasm)
What is more likely to happen is that the west will veto most if not all proposals originating in the east and the middle east, and Russia and the east will veto most if not all proposals originating in the west (excuse the culturally biased geographic descriptions), and the system will be happily paralysed, resulting in no change to the current status quo. To my mind this is infinitely preferable to a system which can be destroyed, or at least greatly harmed, by unilateral action on the part of any bully-boy nation.
I'm not sure the UN taking over the internet is the right answer, but I am absolutely sure that leaving things the way they are is the wrong one. The article gives one good reason why...
How often do over reaching laws get repealed? How often does government say "hey we don't need to regulate this realm anymore because circumstances have changed"?
How often have you seen governments de-centralize things in order to make them more responsive to the needs of the citizens they serve?
Rarely, but it does happen. It does remain to be seen if anything will come of this. However it also remains to be seen if anything will come of the proposals in the article under discussion. A proposal is not a law.
If you do live in the UK, and you do care about the governance of the country in which you live, there are ways of making your voice heard. If we chose not to make use of those avenues, or we chose to limit our actions to posting here then we have only ourselves to blame.
If you're not with Ron Paul and the Freedom movement, you're part of the problem.
If you do not live in the UK, and you're posting in response to an article regarding proposed changes to the law in the UK, why the f*ck does Ron Paul have anything to do with it?
One would suspect that the very idea of this fills any investigative journalist with a sense of dread (or impending doom...).
Maintaining the annonymity of their sources, a journalistic right (privilege?), suddenly becomes that much more difficult, a difficulty verging on impossible. Gone will be the days of whistle-blowing on shady goings on in the corridors or power, or in our own 3 letter agencies. The balance of power shifts once more, and not in the right direction.
I sometimes wonder if the people who propose these schemes are students of history, and if they are whether this is one huge social experiment, designed to measure demographic breaking points.
Could be time for another chat with my local MP, just to see if the 'liberal' part actually still means anything...
How can you be correct when you don't even know how fraccing works? How is the method inherently a scorched earth tactic?
I've linked this article elsewhere, but it does seem to directly answer your second question. Personally I'd call causing earthquakes somewhat of a scorched earth tactic...
Fracking can never be done safe, at least not with today's technology. You are drilling russian roulette mode, sometimes it's safe but mostly it's not.
A case in point. It's nice to know that companies can, literally, sweep the earth from under our feet, and there's nothing we can do about it...
An excellent video (and I do not use the term lightly) showing animations and video footage of the assembly of the Mobee...
echo^^
Harvard has filed numerous patent applications associated with the process, and is working with business to "identify disruptive applications in a range of industries."
While I'm sure there will be anti-patent people saying that since the process is "Inspired by origami and children's pop-up books" there's nothing novel or original in it, and prior art should invalidate their patents, for once I'm not sure I agree. I watched the video, and was inspired. Disruptive applications doesn't say the half of it!
Jaffe is not suggesting that you shouldn't include a story, it is just that you shouldn't sacrifice gameplay in order to tell the story.
Hmm, in his words:
"...why in the fuck would you choose the medium that has historically, continually been the worst medium to express philosophy, story and narrative?" he said.
Personally I disagree with this 'philosophy', and his opinion that story telling games is done badly, or only through use of cutscenes. I remember playing games like System Shock (the original version, kind of remade as bioshock, I believe) or Deus Ex, to mention two story driven fpses and, for example, Baldur's Gate II: Shadows over Amn in which the short and very infrequent 'cutscenes' definitely added colour to a long and convoluted plot.
It is true poor gameplay will ruin a game, whereas lack of story might not (c.f. the Civ franchise), but that's no reason not to put a story in if the game allows for one. In this though I do agree with him, 2 mins play, 2 mins cutscene, repeat is not the way to do it!
I have to say, this strikes me as a damn fine idea. Even if people do not participate in the kickstarter itself the game will still be on sale on Steam once completed, and with a large marketing headstart. win-win.
I have yet to see anybody make a verifiable prediction with regard to climate change on anything less than what will happen decades from now.
1. There will be less glaciated area, worldwide, next year than there was last year. There will be less glaciated area, worldwide, in 5 years time than there is now. 2. The arctic ice sheets will contain less ice next year than they did last year, measured across the year. The arctic ice sheets will contain less ice in 5 years time than they do this year, measured across the year.
...and the time scale of all predictions concerns what will happen at mid or end of century, it's entirely possible that scientists are making claims that can't be falsified in their lifetimes.
Simply put, some people can see further than the end of their nose! (I apologise, implying you are shortsighted is not likely to help.)
Imagine a large pot, full of water, let's say a gallon. Now, put that pot on a stove. Does all the water in that pot, in your mind, immediately become hot, or boil? No? Why not? Is it going to get hotter? How long does it take? Is the end result in doubt? How much bigger than that pot is the Earth? Is the end result in doubt?
I'm 99% sure your answer to the last question will differ to your answer to the identical question that preceded it. To be fair so does mine, but only as a matter of degree. Or to rephrase that, the only doubt in my mind is the exact number of degrees, and that is inherently unpredictable, due to the action or inaction of others.
I choose to believe that the scientists don't haven't it all figured out.
You may chose to believe what you want, and I'll defend your right to do so. It is your actions, and the actions of everyone else (and that includes business as usual inaction) that I take issue with. The problem with beliefs is that they seem remarkably resistant to logic. And it is logic that is the basis for science, not what we wish were true, not what we believe!
I tend to agree, but there's a small problem with this scenario, one which the courts are probably very aware of, the outcome of which results in the same situation of indefinite incarceration as before:
You (claim) to have forgotten the password to your encrypted drive. Unfortunately for you the drive still exists, and remains in the 'legal custody' of the law enforcement brigade. 1. The judge doesn't believe you: You get jailed, indefintely, for contempt, for refusing the divulge the password. Aforementioned law enforcement folks do their best to decrypt your drive. 2. The judge does believe you: You get jailed (and maybe bailed, depending on the nature of the beast) awaiting continuation of the trial, while aforementioned law enforcement folks do their best to decrypt your drive. This could take some time...
If anything, 2. is an argument for using relatively weak passwords, especially if you have a bad memory. After all, it is a truism in IT security that if someone has physical access to your machine you have no security. The only question is time, and in this case how much of it you want to do for your non-compliance (vs. the amount you will do for whatever crime you've been accused of, if found guilty).
Do you still go to those terrorist meetings where you discuss blowing stuff up and assassinating heads of state with the other members of your terrorist cell?
1. Yes 2. No
Failure to answer will be seen as a sign of guilt.
There's more to being a successful musician / band than simply writing a few catchy lyrics and putting them to a banging bass beat. (Feel free to change the preceeding words to suit your preferred genre of music, the principle remains the same...)
A good producer will make suggestions and edits, offer encouragement and support, provides logistical services and marketing...all of which contribute to the appeal of a band, and their financial success. Sure, there will be musicians that can do these things from themselves, but that's not where their skill set lies. After all, presumably what they're good at is making music.
I'm not disagreeing with what appears to be the majority that record companies on the whole are partially failing in their role, especially in regards modern day logistics and distribution, but, I'm sorry, the issue is not as clear cut, black and white simple as most people seem to make out. If it were then most, if not all,musicians and bands simply wouldn't use major record companies, they'd do it all themselves. Some do. But not the ones who have become household names. Surely that must tell us something?
Can you concisely explain why the English word "psyche" is pronounced the way it is to a non-native speaker of the language?
ps: Pronounced s. Whenever you see the letters 'p' and 's' together at the start of a word, do not pronounce the 'p', for example in pseudonym, psilocybin, or psst! y: Pronounced eye or, more simply i. Why? Exactly! Um... che. Pronounced key. Because without it everything would remain locked up in your brain.
And if that doesn't work there's always the fall back: Because it is!
Ah, thank you for the clarification. (Would have been easier to see if you'd replied to my post rather than its parent, but it's the thought that counts)
And, in that case, apologies to LostCluster, for my lack of faith;-)
I do still agree that the interesting thing about this ruling is the equivalence of game data & goods.
Unless the summary has been changed, and I see no edit addendum you appear to have failed your speed reading / skimming test:
...from a 13-year-old boy, who was threatened with a (real) knife...
And, despite most of the comments I've read so far, this is something new (tm). Money stolen from you (or your bank) at knife point has a real world equivalent and use. Car keys stolen from you at knife point have a physicality, and real world use. A book stolen from you at knife point has a real world, physical, existence.
This ruling puts (some) virtual items on the same footing. Now, I don't think this is an earth shattering precedent, but it is interesting for a couple of reasons: It goes some way towards legitimising virtual currencies (with attendant tax implications); it raises questions regarding the sale of virtual (game) goods, between players in mmo's, in violation of the tos of the game (according to first sale doctrine, and hence with additional legal implications); and it drives home the point, as if it really needed it, that 'on a computer' is not a valid distinction for avoiding laws, or something that requires new laws.
In reality I do suspect that none of the above (except maybe the taxable side of online 'earnings' will ever arise from this, but it is, to my mind anyway, still interesting, and not nothing. A rare display of common sense from a judge, if nothing else.
In most cases, they are metric machines with a wierdo conversion so that one turn of the hand wheel gives you 0.0625 inches. Umm... yeah. Carry that around in your head all day long.
Or carry around 1/16th in your head. Four turns is a quarter of an inch, eight turns, half an inch, and so on. Sometimes keeping the number as a decimal fraction is not as intuitive as convertng back to a 'pure' fraction.
However, as suprised as I am regarding your binary blindspot (/jk), another informative post, thanks!
Slashdot Mirror
You could almost argue that any block, even if you 'can' opt out of it, is an unfair restriction on free trade. As for no-one wanting their daughter involved with porn, maybe it's time people realised what equality really means, and ask the woman in question what she feels about it, as opposed to letting their own moral bias infringe upon others' rights.
Sometimes I do despair...
This is done now. Take page 23 from the final copy with signatures and a modified page 21 from an earlier copy when you submit it to the judge.
Nice to see that your people have worked out how to fully utilise the marvels of headers and footers and version numbering in your important documentation...
Can't wait for Americans to be extradited to Iran or somewhere else for violating their laws ... because it would be hypocritical to deny the request now.
Compare this case with that of the American soldier, a sergeant I believe, who while serving in Afghanistan decided to go on a shooting spree in a village close to his camp. He broke into several civilian dwellings, and killed 16 people, including many children. The Afghanis are understandably furious, and are demanding that this soldier be handed over to them, to be tried and sentenced in an Afghan court. So far the Americans have refused, and it is likely that they will continue to do so. Now, irrespective of what excuses they might come up with (and I'm struggling to think of any that might be termed reasonable), what does this say about America's attitude to other nations, and their rule of law? Again, compare the extradition to America of a citizen of another country, for doing something which was not illegal in the country in which he did it, to the murder of 16 people in a country by a citizen of the US, and not allowing that country to even try the man.
Hypocritical doesn't even begin to say it!
I can really see the US/UK agreeing to any demands to remove all articles about Tiananmen Square, or removal of all criticisms of any or all religions. (/sarcasm)
What is more likely to happen is that the west will veto most if not all proposals originating in the east and the middle east, and Russia and the east will veto most if not all proposals originating in the west (excuse the culturally biased geographic descriptions), and the system will be happily paralysed, resulting in no change to the current status quo. To my mind this is infinitely preferable to a system which can be destroyed, or at least greatly harmed, by unilateral action on the part of any bully-boy nation.
I'm not sure the UN taking over the internet is the right answer, but I am absolutely sure that leaving things the way they are is the wrong one. The article gives one good reason why...
How often do over reaching laws get repealed? How often does government say "hey we don't need to regulate this realm anymore because circumstances have changed"?
How often have you seen governments de-centralize things in order to make them more responsive to the needs of the citizens they serve?
Rarely, but it does happen. It does remain to be seen if anything will come of this. However it also remains to be seen if anything will come of the proposals in the article under discussion. A proposal is not a law.
If you do live in the UK, and you do care about the governance of the country in which you live, there are ways of making your voice heard. If we chose not to make use of those avenues, or we chose to limit our actions to posting here then we have only ourselves to blame.
If you're not with Ron Paul and the Freedom movement, you're part of the problem.
If you do not live in the UK, and you're posting in response to an article regarding proposed changes to the law in the UK, why the f*ck does Ron Paul have anything to do with it?
All canons on a ship are guns, matey.
What are you, a pirate?
Well, at least you'll have no where to dock and resupply, now your bay is being blocked...
One would suspect that the very idea of this fills any investigative journalist with a sense of dread (or impending doom...).
Maintaining the annonymity of their sources, a journalistic right (privilege?), suddenly becomes that much more difficult, a difficulty verging on impossible. Gone will be the days of whistle-blowing on shady goings on in the corridors or power, or in our own 3 letter agencies. The balance of power shifts once more, and not in the right direction.
I sometimes wonder if the people who propose these schemes are students of history, and if they are whether this is one huge social experiment, designed to measure demographic breaking points.
Could be time for another chat with my local MP, just to see if the 'liberal' part actually still means anything...
How can you be correct when you don't even know how fraccing works? How is the method inherently a scorched earth tactic?
I've linked this article elsewhere, but it does seem to directly answer your second question. Personally I'd call causing earthquakes somewhat of a scorched earth tactic...
Fracking can never be done safe, at least not with today's technology. You are drilling russian roulette mode, sometimes it's safe but mostly it's not.
A case in point. It's nice to know that companies can, literally, sweep the earth from under our feet, and there's nothing we can do about it...
* It's actually illegal to so much as rip your purchased CD onto a portable player for convenience in the UK
Not for long, hopefully! Proposed Changes
As one of the talking heads is quoted as saying in the above linked article:
"The review pointed out that if you have a situation where 90% of your population is doing something, then it's not really a very good law,"
A 'rare' and sensible insight! Now let's hope the government can get a move on actually passing it, as a bill, through Parliment.
An excellent video (and I do not use the term lightly) showing animations and video footage of the assembly of the Mobee...
echo^^
Harvard has filed numerous patent applications associated with the process, and is working with business to "identify disruptive applications in a range of industries."
While I'm sure there will be anti-patent people saying that since the process is "Inspired by origami and children's pop-up books" there's nothing novel or original in it, and prior art should invalidate their patents, for once I'm not sure I agree. I watched the video, and was inspired. Disruptive applications doesn't say the half of it!
And do you take the elevator to the company gym? :P
I laugh the equivalent of 100 stomach crunches everytime I see people drive a mile to the gym to use the running machines...
She was obviously referring to flying pyramids.
Bet you, and the headmaster, felt stupid years later when Stargate came out and she was proved right...
Jaffe is not suggesting that you shouldn't include a story, it is just that you shouldn't sacrifice gameplay in order to tell the story.
Hmm, in his words:
"...why in the fuck would you choose the medium that has historically, continually been the worst medium to express philosophy, story and narrative?" he said.
Personally I disagree with this 'philosophy', and his opinion that story telling games is done badly, or only through use of cutscenes. I remember playing games like System Shock (the original version, kind of remade as bioshock, I believe) or Deus Ex, to mention two story driven fpses and, for example, Baldur's Gate II: Shadows over Amn in which the short and very infrequent 'cutscenes' definitely added colour to a long and convoluted plot.
It is true poor gameplay will ruin a game, whereas lack of story might not (c.f. the Civ franchise), but that's no reason not to put a story in if the game allows for one. In this though I do agree with him, 2 mins play, 2 mins cutscene, repeat is not the way to do it!
For those who cannot be bothered to actually rtfa:
The actual kickstarter page
I have to say, this strikes me as a damn fine idea. Even if people do not participate in the kickstarter itself the game will still be on sale on Steam once completed, and with a large marketing headstart. win-win.
I have yet to see anybody make a verifiable prediction with regard to climate change on anything less than what will happen decades from now.
1. There will be less glaciated area, worldwide, next year than there was last year. There will be less glaciated area, worldwide, in 5 years time than there is now.
2. The arctic ice sheets will contain less ice next year than they did last year, measured across the year. The arctic ice sheets will contain less ice in 5 years time than they do this year, measured across the year.
...and the time scale of all predictions concerns what will happen at mid or end of century, it's entirely possible that scientists are making claims that can't be falsified in their lifetimes.
Simply put, some people can see further than the end of their nose! (I apologise, implying you are shortsighted is not likely to help.)
Imagine a large pot, full of water, let's say a gallon. Now, put that pot on a stove. Does all the water in that pot, in your mind, immediately become hot, or boil? No? Why not? Is it going to get hotter? How long does it take? Is the end result in doubt? How much bigger than that pot is the Earth? Is the end result in doubt?
I'm 99% sure your answer to the last question will differ to your answer to the identical question that preceded it. To be fair so does mine, but only as a matter of degree. Or to rephrase that, the only doubt in my mind is the exact number of degrees, and that is inherently unpredictable, due to the action or inaction of others.
I choose to believe that the scientists don't haven't it all figured out.
You may chose to believe what you want, and I'll defend your right to do so. It is your actions, and the actions of everyone else (and that includes business as usual inaction) that I take issue with. The problem with beliefs is that they seem remarkably resistant to logic. And it is logic that is the basis for science, not what we wish were true, not what we believe!
I tend to agree, but there's a small problem with this scenario, one which the courts are probably very aware of, the outcome of which results in the same situation of indefinite incarceration as before:
You (claim) to have forgotten the password to your encrypted drive. Unfortunately for you the drive still exists, and remains in the 'legal custody' of the law enforcement brigade.
1. The judge doesn't believe you: You get jailed, indefintely, for contempt, for refusing the divulge the password. Aforementioned law enforcement folks do their best to decrypt your drive.
2. The judge does believe you: You get jailed (and maybe bailed, depending on the nature of the beast) awaiting continuation of the trial, while aforementioned law enforcement folks do their best to decrypt your drive. This could take some time...
If anything, 2. is an argument for using relatively weak passwords, especially if you have a bad memory. After all, it is a truism in IT security that if someone has physical access to your machine you have no security. The only question is time, and in this case how much of it you want to do for your non-compliance (vs. the amount you will do for whatever crime you've been accused of, if found guilty).
Do you still go to those terrorist meetings where you discuss blowing stuff up and assassinating heads of state with the other members of your terrorist cell?
1. Yes
2. No
Failure to answer will be seen as a sign of guilt.
What does a film producer produce?
There's more to being a successful musician / band than simply writing a few catchy lyrics and putting them to a banging bass beat. (Feel free to change the preceeding words to suit your preferred genre of music, the principle remains the same...)
A good producer will make suggestions and edits, offer encouragement and support, provides logistical services and marketing...all of which contribute to the appeal of a band, and their financial success. Sure, there will be musicians that can do these things from themselves, but that's not where their skill set lies. After all, presumably what they're good at is making music.
I'm not disagreeing with what appears to be the majority that record companies on the whole are partially failing in their role, especially in regards modern day logistics and distribution, but, I'm sorry, the issue is not as clear cut, black and white simple as most people seem to make out. If it were then most, if not all ,musicians and bands simply wouldn't use major record companies, they'd do it all themselves. Some do. But not the ones who have become household names. Surely that must tell us something?
Wally! ;-)
Can you concisely explain why the English word "psyche" is pronounced the way it is to a non-native speaker of the language?
ps: Pronounced s. Whenever you see the letters 'p' and 's' together at the start of a word, do not pronounce the 'p', for example in pseudonym, psilocybin, or psst!
y: Pronounced eye or, more simply i. Why? Exactly! Um...
che. Pronounced key. Because without it everything would remain locked up in your brain.
And if that doesn't work there's always the fall back: Because it is!
Ah, thank you for the clarification. (Would have been easier to see if you'd replied to my post rather than its parent, but it's the thought that counts)
And, in that case, apologies to LostCluster, for my lack of faith ;-)
I do still agree that the interesting thing about this ruling is the equivalence of game data & goods.
Unless the summary has been changed, and I see no edit addendum you appear to have failed your speed reading / skimming test:
...from a 13-year-old boy, who was threatened with a (real) knife...
And, despite most of the comments I've read so far, this is something new (tm). Money stolen from you (or your bank) at knife point has a real world equivalent and use. Car keys stolen from you at knife point have a physicality, and real world use. A book stolen from you at knife point has a real world, physical, existence.
This ruling puts (some) virtual items on the same footing. Now, I don't think this is an earth shattering precedent, but it is interesting for a couple of reasons: It goes some way towards legitimising virtual currencies (with attendant tax implications); it raises questions regarding the sale of virtual (game) goods, between players in mmo's, in violation of the tos of the game (according to first sale doctrine, and hence with additional legal implications); and it drives home the point, as if it really needed it, that 'on a computer' is not a valid distinction for avoiding laws, or something that requires new laws.
In reality I do suspect that none of the above (except maybe the taxable side of online 'earnings' will ever arise from this, but it is, to my mind anyway, still interesting, and not nothing. A rare display of common sense from a judge, if nothing else.
In most cases, they are metric machines with a wierdo conversion so that one turn of the hand wheel gives you 0.0625 inches. Umm... yeah. Carry that around in your head all day long.
Or carry around 1/16th in your head. Four turns is a quarter of an inch, eight turns, half an inch, and so on. Sometimes keeping the number as a decimal fraction is not as intuitive as convertng back to a 'pure' fraction.
However, as suprised as I am regarding your binary blindspot (/jk), another informative post, thanks!
No, it's Manuel
*sorry, there's an ad at the start :-/