I thought we still had some notion of "Innocent til proven guilty" in this country
Only in criminal cases, not civil cases.
I am also a bit weary about jumping to the defense of the non-profit on this one. While they did give credit properly, they didn't include excerpts, they copied the entire article wholesale. My understanding of copyright and fair use seems to tell me that this is not actually "fair use" and actually is infringing, as it does prevent any need to go to the original author to read the whole thing, and *does* deprive the content creator the ability to profit from their work. That is the idea of copyright, granting an exclusive right to profit for a limit amount of time, in exchange for the content eventually becoming public domain. That the non-profit didn't make a profit off the work isn't meaningful, and the content creator was denied the opportunity to.
That said, it is the kind of infringing that warrants a "you need to remove the article as a whole, and only use excerpts, instead pointing to the original article" type of letter, not legal action. At some point, the courts need to throw these cases out simply because the court shouldn't be the first course of action, and should instead be the LAST RESORT, after other reasonable methods have been exhausted.
And given that rules are pretty much modeled after what terrorists already tried, they can simply alter their attempts slightly, or come up with some other clever trick, and all the billions that we're spending on the TSA will be completely wasted.
Exactly. The TSA is to flying what antivirus software is to computing. Yes, you need some checks and luggage scanning, but any system you put into place can only check for known threats and are never very effective for preventing new vectors of "infection".
You are correct, plus add the fact that the navy will then put TWO of these on a ship that only needs one, for redundancy. That doubles your cost right away.
As for the engine being expensive, what would be it be, steam, generated by the heat of fission? Those big cargo ships are designed to run at very, very low RPMs, which steam excels at. Ironic to get back to steam, but the design is well known, extremely high torque/low RPM, and quite reliable. Just add heat. As long as you recapture the steam (closed loop system with condenser coils) and can desalinate enough to recover losses, it is pretty much self contained. After all, a nuclear power plant is just that, a giant steam engine.
Another possibility is a Sterling engine, as new theoretical designs put them even more efficient than steam engines. Technically, you could employ both, a primary steam engine, with a Sterling engine at the exhaust to run generators without putting additional load on the primary, or just as a secondary engine source. You would simply be using heat that otherwise would be lost anyway.
Which is why you opt for a.308 rifle, so you can chamber either round, something you can't do with safely with a 7.62x51mm rifle (Ok, some Chinese military 7.62 models are sloppy enough that you might get away with it, being overchambered by several hundreths). And the pressure difference is 12,000 PSI, as most military spec 7.62x51mm rifles meet the spec of 50,000 PSI vs a Winchester.308 being rated for max of 62,000 PSI. Actual PSI (obviously) depends on the actual ammo used. Choosing the.308 barrel is kinda like choosing a.357, where you can run.357s or.38s;)
Oh yea, I had my FFL for many years:) Not an expert, but familiar. And I'm not worried about saving a little money. A dead Somalian pirate is worth a few pennies more. I will donate $1 for each ear they bring back, gladly.
That can be dealt with better than it is (including my favorite of simply having a couple snipers and shoot anyone in a small ship that comes within 1km without radio contact). Of course, others would be joining in the game to try to capture a ship, just to get the radioactive goo to make a dirty bomb. Same answer: Death by.308 inflicted lead poisoning.
Nuke ships, it would seem, are the obvious answer and the technology is perfect for this type of shipping, long runs at fairly continuous speeds/loads. It would also reduce the risk of fires somewhat, which is one of the deadliest risks at sea, ironically. Faster turn arounds, healthier working environment, and likely they could increase the load as the nuclear fuel likely weighs considerably less than fuel oil, and the engine wouldn't weight any more, and possibly less. Oh, then there is the US government, which would likely do everything to stand in the way of this.
My point was that it wasn't "compatible", in that you can't take binaries from Unixware and just run them on Linux as is, generally. (like running Windows apps in Wine). I chose to not get into POSIX to avoid confusion, and there are some technical people who believe that Windows is *technically* more POSIX compatible than Linux, which honestly is "POSIX enough" is all. Even Linus has said that being purely POSIX wasn't as important as being good.
In short, adding more tech talk was likely to confuse the guy even more. That is also why I didn't explain how it is a clone of Unix, as that obviously sounds like it is a copy of Unix to the uninformed, and yes, would confuse someone that, well, ignorant of Linux. In otherwords, _I_ get it, and was just trying to keep it simple using terms he understood, as defined by what he was used to, not what you and I might use.;)
You are obviously an intelligent person. Your first comment didn't prove that, but still.:) If you knew a fair amount about Linux, and the history of GNU (which stands for "GNU is NOT Unix"), you would understand the jawdropping. Those of us in the Linux world just spent several years watching the SCO lawsuits falsely claiming that Linux had Unix code in it, which cause tons of turmoil, problems, expense and arguments. In the end, it was clear that Linux is free of Unix code. How you missed all this, I have no idea, but to give you an idea of scale, this was as if someone had proved that Obama's birth certificate was a forgery. Yes, that big for those of us in Information Technology land.
Linux has no Unix in it, isn't based on Unix code, and actually isn't even "Unix Compatible", in that binaries that run on a "unix machine" will run on it unmodified. Linux is "unix like" meaning it uses certain rules and methods very similar to Unix (such as permissions) and was designed so that if you have the source code for a unix program, you could recompile it on a Linux system with little effort, if any. It is supposed to be a "clone", but in reality it isn't, and simply uses the same design "philosophy". It is worth reading about, but you won't cover the topic in a few days. Personally, I run Windows on desktops and Linux on servers, which is very likely the most common setup in the IT world.
And like I said before, if you were serious (and you were), then jumping into Linux conversations might not be your cup of tea. It is as political as it is powerful, and it is easy to get your toes stomped on.
Why can't the Linux community just develop a new operating system? i.e. Stop using unix.
I hope you were trying to be funny. Otherwise, that statement would be considered incredibly stupid. If it was serious, perhaps Linux related threads aren't your cup of tea.
And you don't think your state legislators are smart enough to not start that race to the bottom ending when states basically could not tax business at all.
Sorry, it doesn't work that way. There will be no race to the bottom, because at some point you get diminished returns, so only a race to be competitive and offer value, to which many states will simply ignore. And by the way, some states already have no sales tax, including Alaska and Montana, and others. I don't see a rush of businesses rushing there, as the cost to ship would exceed the tax savings to the customer. And sales tax is not charged to the business, it is charged to the consumer, and simply collected by the business and passed to the state monthly. Also, the majority of taxes collected on businesses are collected via corporate income tax, personal income tax, property taxes and license fees.
I work for a dot com, and always felt that sales tax should be charged in the state that the company is founded in, not in the the individual states that the buyer lives in. It simplifies taxation (we would only collect for one state), it would increase collections (we don't collect tax in most states now unless we have a presence there), and it would force states to actually *compete* for businesses to move there by having reasonable tax rates. Yes, in the short run it would mean higher taxes paid in, but states could adopt "internet sales tax" rates that are lower if they so choose. That would still be easy to calculate, for example: if (address == $yourstate) (tax=6%), else {tax=3%}.
After all, most of the infrastructure costs are for the company selling the item. The only infrastructure costs at the customer's end is roads to allow UPS/FedEx to deliver, which they already pay taxes for. It would also reduce the ability for small companies to completely bypass paying any sales tax (level playing field), and because internet sales is so huge, force state representatives to be very careful about raising sales taxes or risk losing businesses.
There used to be a time when you'd be able to read a story like this, shake your head, smirk and say/think to yourself: "Only in America".
Stupid laws are one of our biggest exports here in the States. When it comes to generating laws that protect corporations at the expense of consumers, the US is the world leader.
if you want to communicate with your relatives and certain friends, you end up with a Facebook and/or Twitter account, regardless of how "savvy" you are.
I think that is the point that people are missing. I was dragged kicking and screaming onto facebook a little over a year ago. But the fact is, it is the easiest, simplest and fastest way to keep up with friends and family, whom are scattered all over the USA. I also keep up with nieces and nephews that are somewhat close by (60m) and can just say 'hi' every week or two. I hate most everything about facebook, from their privacy policies (which are a fast moving target) to the stupid games that used to be plastered all over my page until I blocked everything. But what I like is the fast, easy way to just say hi to all these people I don't get to see very often.
Just having a casual conversation once or twice a week through commenting on each others comments is a nice thing. Email doesn't cut it, as everyone can't pitch in. Coming from a very large family, the concept that everyone and their uncle (literally) can just pipe in a comment makes it seem more relaxed and "real". So I put up with Facebook and their crapola system, as I still get more good than bad from it.
What is the alternative? Tell my whole family I'm too kewl for Facebook and they are lusers for not being more tech-savvy? Yea, I don't think so either.
"You could argue about the number of years it would take. You could argue about who might be the winners and losers in terms of companies in the industry, but I don't think rational people could argue that every computer wouldn't work this way someday."
Steve Jobs, talking about the PARC Alto (http://www.vectronicsappleworld.com/macintosh/creation.html)
...it is obvious that the PARC didn't play a role in inspiring the Lisa or Mac or future Apple products. Even though Steve got them to invest 1 million dollars into Apple (which paid handsomely for Xerox and was mutually beneficial), surely you are right, and the PARC played no role in inspiring Apple to create the GUI paradigm that is still used on Apple and MS products today. I'm starting to think that the PARC was just a CLI anyway, and all the thousands of articles and photos on the PARC is just another part of an elaborate and unnecessarily complex and convoluted conspiracy against Jobs. That would be the obvious conclusion, wouldn't it? </sarcasm>
So did Apple duplicate PARC's efforts? Considering it was on a different platform and they had no access to the source code of Xerox, I'm guessing yes, they actually did duplicate the concept and ideas of the PARC. Just as MS did to Mac, and Gnome is trying to do to Windows.
William Shakespeare said it best: "Good authors borrow, great authors steal."
Have they tried unplugging it, waiting 30 seconds, and plugging it back in?
Everyone knows you can't go back to the matrix. Worse yet, you end up on a decrepit ship eating food that looks like runny eggs and taking orders from some asshole named Morpheus.
Someone else pointed it out, but the earth's core doesn't have a "nuclear furnace" per se. Yea, some decay keeps the planet's innerds nice and toasty, but it certainly isn't dense enough to crank out prodigious amounts of carbon and other elements. That is what stars are for. The source of all the carbon and oxygen on the planet was from outside the planet. We ordered out. Comets, asteroids and other left over dead star guts delivered. The entire planet is nothing but dead star guts, for that matter.
How exactly does atmospheric carbon penetrate the kilometers of sediment and rock needed to reach most oceanic gabbros?
The "new bacteria generated oil" isn't magic, you have to get the carbon feed stock from somewhere. That somewhere will likely be plant material, which extracts carbon from the air, then feeds bacteria here on the surface in "oil farms". Not a perfect circle, but at least more circular than what we do today.
Welfare reform was under Clinton, not Reagan. And Clinton signed the bill. Even liberals now see it as a success.
If you are going to correct someone, it helps if you actually know wtf you are talking about.
It proved that people on welfare were often afraid to work, as they would lose benefits that were guaranteed, in the risk of a job that isn't. This same situation has already been reported many times over the last year, with many people on unemployment afraid to take an entry level position, as they could be laid off and their benefits would then be lower. It is a matter of human nature, not politics: People generally will settle for less if it is sure, rather than accept risk for a moderately higher reward. But go ahead and beat your chest and push whatever political view you want, it has no bearing on the reality of the situation.
Libertarians want the benefits, but they don't want to pay for it.
I would argue that Libertarians want the benefits, but don't want to subsidize others getting the same benefits without the same contribution. If welfare reform has taught us anything, it is that if people who can work, *must* work, they will, and they will be more successful than relying on free handouts. Oversimplifying (and bludgeoning) the Libertarian perspective doesn't make you right, or sound right.
Some games don't punish you for cheating. Fallout: New Vegas is an example. And yes, I rapidly got to the point of using a cheat to unlock even the easy terminal hacks because I absolutely HATE their 'hacking' subgame. If I had to actually do their word play hacking without the cheat, I wouldn't have finished the game from frustration.
You make a good point. I prematurely "finished" New Vegas the other day, and went back to do it differently. My most recent loves have been Bioshock 1 & 2, Fallout 3 & NV because there isn't a singular "finished". You can play as a good guy, a bad guy, an indifferent guy, or a combination. I get more mileage out of these games because I finish them multiple times, even if I don't start completely over.
Fallout NV isn't quite as good as 3 when it comes to roaming around the wasteland, but it is fun to do, and after ending the game enough times, I just ~tgm and player.additem $x to try all the weapons in different scenarios. It is kinda nice to have a silenced, scoped sniper rifle at level 2, just to go postal on some bad guys. Obviously, this is what the creators intended as they made it very easy to do.
However, there are lots of emergency cases when cell phone use while driving could save lives (reporting drunk drivers..)
Statistically, a person who is trying to dial and communicate with a cell phone is about as likely (4x) to cause a crash as someone who is just over the legal limit for alcohol (ie: drunk). So you are arguing that that you should be allowed to do an actual that makes you 4x more likely to cause an accident, in order to report someone who is 4x more likely to cause an accident? And you don't see the irony here?
Maybe the drunk should pull over, and then call the police and tell them that you are driving while under the influence of Verizon.
Slashdot Mirror
I thought we still had some notion of "Innocent til proven guilty" in this country
Only in criminal cases, not civil cases.
I am also a bit weary about jumping to the defense of the non-profit on this one. While they did give credit properly, they didn't include excerpts, they copied the entire article wholesale. My understanding of copyright and fair use seems to tell me that this is not actually "fair use" and actually is infringing, as it does prevent any need to go to the original author to read the whole thing, and *does* deprive the content creator the ability to profit from their work. That is the idea of copyright, granting an exclusive right to profit for a limit amount of time, in exchange for the content eventually becoming public domain. That the non-profit didn't make a profit off the work isn't meaningful, and the content creator was denied the opportunity to.
That said, it is the kind of infringing that warrants a "you need to remove the article as a whole, and only use excerpts, instead pointing to the original article" type of letter, not legal action. At some point, the courts need to throw these cases out simply because the court shouldn't be the first course of action, and should instead be the LAST RESORT, after other reasonable methods have been exhausted.
(I'm very much a moderate)
Everyone says that, usually right before they call everyone else an extremist.
And given that rules are pretty much modeled after what terrorists already tried, they can simply alter their attempts slightly, or come up with some other clever trick, and all the billions that we're spending on the TSA will be completely wasted.
Exactly. The TSA is to flying what antivirus software is to computing. Yes, you need some checks and luggage scanning, but any system you put into place can only check for known threats and are never very effective for preventing new vectors of "infection".
You are correct, plus add the fact that the navy will then put TWO of these on a ship that only needs one, for redundancy. That doubles your cost right away.
As for the engine being expensive, what would be it be, steam, generated by the heat of fission? Those big cargo ships are designed to run at very, very low RPMs, which steam excels at. Ironic to get back to steam, but the design is well known, extremely high torque/low RPM, and quite reliable. Just add heat. As long as you recapture the steam (closed loop system with condenser coils) and can desalinate enough to recover losses, it is pretty much self contained. After all, a nuclear power plant is just that, a giant steam engine.
Another possibility is a Sterling engine, as new theoretical designs put them even more efficient than steam engines. Technically, you could employ both, a primary steam engine, with a Sterling engine at the exhaust to run generators without putting additional load on the primary, or just as a secondary engine source. You would simply be using heat that otherwise would be lost anyway.
Ah, I stand corrected. Don't know where I got the 50kPSI from. Apparently, my arse :)
Which is why you opt for a .308 rifle, so you can chamber either round, something you can't do with safely with a 7.62x51mm rifle (Ok, some Chinese military 7.62 models are sloppy enough that you might get away with it, being overchambered by several hundreths). And the pressure difference is 12,000 PSI, as most military spec 7.62x51mm rifles meet the spec of 50,000 PSI vs a Winchester .308 being rated for max of 62,000 PSI. Actual PSI (obviously) depends on the actual ammo used. Choosing the .308 barrel is kinda like choosing a .357, where you can run .357s or .38s ;)
Oh yea, I had my FFL for many years :) Not an expert, but familiar. And I'm not worried about saving a little money. A dead Somalian pirate is worth a few pennies more. I will donate $1 for each ear they bring back, gladly.
Two words: Somalian pirates.
That can be dealt with better than it is (including my favorite of simply having a couple snipers and shoot anyone in a small ship that comes within 1km without radio contact). Of course, others would be joining in the game to try to capture a ship, just to get the radioactive goo to make a dirty bomb. Same answer: Death by .308 inflicted lead poisoning.
Nuke ships, it would seem, are the obvious answer and the technology is perfect for this type of shipping, long runs at fairly continuous speeds/loads. It would also reduce the risk of fires somewhat, which is one of the deadliest risks at sea, ironically. Faster turn arounds, healthier working environment, and likely they could increase the load as the nuclear fuel likely weighs considerably less than fuel oil, and the engine wouldn't weight any more, and possibly less. Oh, then there is the US government, which would likely do everything to stand in the way of this.
My point was that it wasn't "compatible", in that you can't take binaries from Unixware and just run them on Linux as is, generally. (like running Windows apps in Wine). I chose to not get into POSIX to avoid confusion, and there are some technical people who believe that Windows is *technically* more POSIX compatible than Linux, which honestly is "POSIX enough" is all. Even Linus has said that being purely POSIX wasn't as important as being good.
In short, adding more tech talk was likely to confuse the guy even more. That is also why I didn't explain how it is a clone of Unix, as that obviously sounds like it is a copy of Unix to the uninformed, and yes, would confuse someone that, well, ignorant of Linux. In otherwords, _I_ get it, and was just trying to keep it simple using terms he understood, as defined by what he was used to, not what you and I might use. ;)
You are obviously an intelligent person. Your first comment didn't prove that, but still. :) If you knew a fair amount about Linux, and the history of GNU (which stands for "GNU is NOT Unix"), you would understand the jawdropping. Those of us in the Linux world just spent several years watching the SCO lawsuits falsely claiming that Linux had Unix code in it, which cause tons of turmoil, problems, expense and arguments. In the end, it was clear that Linux is free of Unix code. How you missed all this, I have no idea, but to give you an idea of scale, this was as if someone had proved that Obama's birth certificate was a forgery. Yes, that big for those of us in Information Technology land.
Linux has no Unix in it, isn't based on Unix code, and actually isn't even "Unix Compatible", in that binaries that run on a "unix machine" will run on it unmodified. Linux is "unix like" meaning it uses certain rules and methods very similar to Unix (such as permissions) and was designed so that if you have the source code for a unix program, you could recompile it on a Linux system with little effort, if any. It is supposed to be a "clone", but in reality it isn't, and simply uses the same design "philosophy". It is worth reading about, but you won't cover the topic in a few days. Personally, I run Windows on desktops and Linux on servers, which is very likely the most common setup in the IT world.
And like I said before, if you were serious (and you were), then jumping into Linux conversations might not be your cup of tea. It is as political as it is powerful, and it is easy to get your toes stomped on.
Why can't the Linux community just develop a new operating system?
i.e. Stop using unix.
I hope you were trying to be funny. Otherwise, that statement would be considered incredibly stupid. If it was serious, perhaps Linux related threads aren't your cup of tea.
Well, at least Duke Nukem Forever is on the way. Thanks to Gearbox.
According to Wikipedia, "In England and Wales the offence was abolished in 1967."
And you don't think your state legislators are smart enough to not start that race to the bottom ending when states basically could not tax business at all.
Sorry, it doesn't work that way. There will be no race to the bottom, because at some point you get diminished returns, so only a race to be competitive and offer value, to which many states will simply ignore. And by the way, some states already have no sales tax, including Alaska and Montana, and others. I don't see a rush of businesses rushing there, as the cost to ship would exceed the tax savings to the customer. And sales tax is not charged to the business, it is charged to the consumer, and simply collected by the business and passed to the state monthly. Also, the majority of taxes collected on businesses are collected via corporate income tax, personal income tax, property taxes and license fees.
I work for a dot com, and always felt that sales tax should be charged in the state that the company is founded in, not in the the individual states that the buyer lives in. It simplifies taxation (we would only collect for one state), it would increase collections (we don't collect tax in most states now unless we have a presence there), and it would force states to actually *compete* for businesses to move there by having reasonable tax rates. Yes, in the short run it would mean higher taxes paid in, but states could adopt "internet sales tax" rates that are lower if they so choose. That would still be easy to calculate, for example: if (address == $yourstate) (tax=6%), else {tax=3%}.
After all, most of the infrastructure costs are for the company selling the item. The only infrastructure costs at the customer's end is roads to allow UPS/FedEx to deliver, which they already pay taxes for. It would also reduce the ability for small companies to completely bypass paying any sales tax (level playing field), and because internet sales is so huge, force state representatives to be very careful about raising sales taxes or risk losing businesses.
There used to be a time when you'd be able to read a story like this, shake your head, smirk and say/think to yourself: "Only in America".
Stupid laws are one of our biggest exports here in the States. When it comes to generating laws that protect corporations at the expense of consumers, the US is the world leader.
if you want to communicate with your relatives and certain friends, you end up with a Facebook and/or Twitter account, regardless of how "savvy" you are.
I think that is the point that people are missing. I was dragged kicking and screaming onto facebook a little over a year ago. But the fact is, it is the easiest, simplest and fastest way to keep up with friends and family, whom are scattered all over the USA. I also keep up with nieces and nephews that are somewhat close by (60m) and can just say 'hi' every week or two. I hate most everything about facebook, from their privacy policies (which are a fast moving target) to the stupid games that used to be plastered all over my page until I blocked everything. But what I like is the fast, easy way to just say hi to all these people I don't get to see very often.
Just having a casual conversation once or twice a week through commenting on each others comments is a nice thing. Email doesn't cut it, as everyone can't pitch in. Coming from a very large family, the concept that everyone and their uncle (literally) can just pipe in a comment makes it seem more relaxed and "real". So I put up with Facebook and their crapola system, as I still get more good than bad from it.
What is the alternative? Tell my whole family I'm too kewl for Facebook and they are lusers for not being more tech-savvy? Yea, I don't think so either.
Yes, because even though Steve Jobs said:
</sarcasm>
So did Apple duplicate PARC's efforts? Considering it was on a different platform and they had no access to the source code of Xerox, I'm guessing yes, they actually did duplicate the concept and ideas of the PARC. Just as MS did to Mac, and Gnome is trying to do to Windows.
William Shakespeare said it best: "Good authors borrow, great authors steal."
Have they tried unplugging it, waiting 30 seconds, and plugging it back in?
Everyone knows you can't go back to the matrix. Worse yet, you end up on a decrepit ship eating food that looks like runny eggs and taking orders from some asshole named Morpheus.
Someone else pointed it out, but the earth's core doesn't have a "nuclear furnace" per se. Yea, some decay keeps the planet's innerds nice and toasty, but it certainly isn't dense enough to crank out prodigious amounts of carbon and other elements. That is what stars are for. The source of all the carbon and oxygen on the planet was from outside the planet. We ordered out. Comets, asteroids and other left over dead star guts delivered. The entire planet is nothing but dead star guts, for that matter.
Thank you for the 'wtf?' moment.
How exactly does atmospheric carbon penetrate the kilometers of sediment and rock needed to reach most oceanic gabbros?
The "new bacteria generated oil" isn't magic, you have to get the carbon feed stock from somewhere. That somewhere will likely be plant material, which extracts carbon from the air, then feeds bacteria here on the surface in "oil farms". Not a perfect circle, but at least more circular than what we do today.
Welfare reform was under Clinton, not Reagan. And Clinton signed the bill. Even liberals now see it as a success.
If you are going to correct someone, it helps if you actually know wtf you are talking about.
It proved that people on welfare were often afraid to work, as they would lose benefits that were guaranteed, in the risk of a job that isn't. This same situation has already been reported many times over the last year, with many people on unemployment afraid to take an entry level position, as they could be laid off and their benefits would then be lower. It is a matter of human nature, not politics: People generally will settle for less if it is sure, rather than accept risk for a moderately higher reward. But go ahead and beat your chest and push whatever political view you want, it has no bearing on the reality of the situation.
Libertarians want the benefits, but they don't want to pay for it.
I would argue that Libertarians want the benefits, but don't want to subsidize others getting the same benefits without the same contribution. If welfare reform has taught us anything, it is that if people who can work, *must* work, they will, and they will be more successful than relying on free handouts. Oversimplifying (and bludgeoning) the Libertarian perspective doesn't make you right, or sound right.
cheating in a SP game is almost a crime:|
Some games don't punish you for cheating. Fallout: New Vegas is an example. And yes, I rapidly got to the point of using a cheat to unlock even the easy terminal hacks because I absolutely HATE their 'hacking' subgame. If I had to actually do their word play hacking without the cheat, I wouldn't have finished the game from frustration.
You make a good point. I prematurely "finished" New Vegas the other day, and went back to do it differently. My most recent loves have been Bioshock 1 & 2, Fallout 3 & NV because there isn't a singular "finished". You can play as a good guy, a bad guy, an indifferent guy, or a combination. I get more mileage out of these games because I finish them multiple times, even if I don't start completely over.
Fallout NV isn't quite as good as 3 when it comes to roaming around the wasteland, but it is fun to do, and after ending the game enough times, I just ~tgm and player.additem $x to try all the weapons in different scenarios. It is kinda nice to have a silenced, scoped sniper rifle at level 2, just to go postal on some bad guys. Obviously, this is what the creators intended as they made it very easy to do.
However, there are lots of emergency cases when cell phone use while driving could save lives (reporting drunk drivers..)
Statistically, a person who is trying to dial and communicate with a cell phone is about as likely (4x) to cause a crash as someone who is just over the legal limit for alcohol (ie: drunk). So you are arguing that that you should be allowed to do an actual that makes you 4x more likely to cause an accident, in order to report someone who is 4x more likely to cause an accident? And you don't see the irony here?
Maybe the drunk should pull over, and then call the police and tell them that you are driving while under the influence of Verizon.