1. Which is the only country on the planet that's used a nuclear weapon on civilians?
2. Have more Americans been killed at the hands of Iraqis, or have more Iraqis been killed at the hands of Americans?
3. Who's killed more innocent civilians? Al Quaeda in the United States, or the United States military in Afghanistan?
4. Which powerful nation recently criticized Israel for attacks that led to civilian deaths? For extra marks, has this powerful nation itself conducted military activity that's led to more civilian deaths in the same timespan since Sept 11th than Israel?
5. Who recently said that getting Bin Laden, the architect of the Sept 11th attacks, was no longer a primary military objective in Afghanistan?
6. Within 24 hours close to the end of 2001, one prominent US official said the following two statements: (1) that this wasn't a war against Afghanistan, (2) that the US military wasn't running out targets, but "Afghanistan" was. Name that official.
7. List the number of Americans being held in captivity by enemy forces even though they've had nothing to do with American foreign policy. Now, list the number of people of Arabic descent being held by American forces even though they've had nothing to do with the Sept 11th terrorist attacks.
8. Any feasible pipeline built from the oil fields just off the Caspian Sea is going to need to go through Afghanistan. True or False?
9. Define the word "Terrorism" in absolute terms. Now, in 50 words or less, state whether or not the School of the Americas trains terrorists and why.
10. Afghanistan's Taliban regime was notorious in its poor treatment of women. Now, list all the countries that have a similar record of such treatment, but are still allies of the United States.
Now, before you mod me down to troll or offtopic, first ask yourself if it's because you're afraid of the answers. Then feel free.
I work for a small company that refuses to spend the money on visual studio.
Gosh. Better dust up the old resume. Any company that won't fork over the cash to get you a development environment that you want might soon decide not to fork over the cash to pay your salary. As one other person recommended, you might want to plunk down the cash to get your own license -- it might not be worth the trouble trying to learn a whole new way of doing things if it's going to make you less productive. Plus, you can take it with you elsewhere, and it might even be tax deductible.
That said, RHIDE & DJGPP is available. Textpad has all sorts of nice IDE editor thingies and a way to compile java programs (not freeware, though). I've heard lukewarm reviews of LCC -- questionable quality of compiled code, at least at the time of my research.
Of course, this is the same place that ran an "article" talking about how Microsoft couldn't have been a Monopoly, one day before the Findings of Fact. Hilarious x2.
Obvious to those of us who play GTA3 regularly but still manage to overcome the urge to plough over pedestrains on the way to work in the morning...
Hey, I don't know about you, but whenever I eat my magic mushrooms, the angry hopping turtles all come out and the only way to fight them off is with my fireballs (thank god for them!).
That might be fine and dandy for you, but believe me, you don't want 1000s of CDs of MY neighbour's garage band out there. Trust me. You might as well just jab icepicks in your ears and save yourself the trouble.
Re:Problem with CSI
on
The Rise of CSI
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
Disclaimer: I've only seen a couple of episodes. Maybe they've improved in the meanwhile.
Well, one thing that makes this difference from Watson/Holmes is that the scientific explanations are often in the middle of the show. If, on the other hand, the necessary explanations were left until the end, you'd also have a buildup of suspense.
I agree with the OP, though. The show may be alright but the dialogue is sometimes ridiculous in the way it's handled. Scientists explaining things to each other as if they're all idiots strikes a false chord. And there are so many scientific leaps made that sometimes the audience is put into "Awe gee" mode, becoming passive and having to accept it all (and sometimes becoming a little overly impressed). If they cut down on them, focused in on a select few that really turn the plot, (and maybe spend a little more time on character or whatnot) they could probably get more mileage out of the science.
They probably ought to take a look at how Law & Order handles it. Even though they go into the intricacies of law and police work, they were usually very good at keeping the audience in the loop without making certain things obvious.
One easy way to do this is to have a forensic scientist have more than one working theory that they're in the process of figuring out. That way they can explain everything they're doing to someone else because it's more natural. "I think this because of this this this, but it might be that because of that that that, you'd better check in with me later on in the day. Oh, and by the way, if you find any X at the crime scene, let me know, will you? It might be sprinkled on the walls."
I suggest you email Blizzard and Vivendi letting them know how displeased you are that they didn't even contact us first or try to work anything out, but rather just hammered us with legal threats and the DMCA.
I tried this. I sent an email to the sales dept telling them how they lost me as a customer because of what they were doing with the DMCA to a project that was basically started in good faith.
I received this:
---------------- Hello.
Certain programs have been developed that allow users to bypass Battle.net's CD-key-authentication process. Although these programs might have been made with good intentions, they directly promote software piracy by allowing users who have illegitimately obtained our games to play them as if they'd been legitimately purchased. Furthermore, because these programs allow access without a CD key, they render malicious users unaccountable, thereby eliminating Blizzard's ability to protect legitimate consumers. Therefore, Blizzard has taken an aggressive stance opposing the use of these programs.
Please take a moment to read through our FAQ regarding these issues at http://www.battle.net/support/emulationfaq.sht ml if you have any questions or concerns about Blizzard's stance on software piracy.
{WR655}
Thank you for your email, Kenny Z. Technical Support Blizzard Entertainment PS. If you plan to reply to this message, please include all previous messages between us.
--------------
I assume this is word-for-word what other people would have received if they've sent in a similar complaint. Something tells me that giving me Kenny Z. is Blizzard's way of saying "screw off". I sent a response that basically reiterated my position and made a suggestion about how the two projects could work in harmony, and even mentioned how much of Half-Life's popularity had to do with Valve embracing the developer community instead of slapping the CS boys with "cease and desist"s. Blizzard didn't bother replying.
I'm not sure what else to do at this point. I'm not going to buy their games because of this, but I'm way outnumbered by those who will. Hopefully the EFF can make a major stink about this and either win the case, or better yet, learn to work the mainstream media so that Blizzard gets a bunch of bad press because of it.
If I want to start developing games, I'm going to be looking around to see what I need to learn. DirectX reference material creeps up more often than not. Games that use DirectX are more numerous. Teams need to be built around a common skillset.
It's a chicken-and-egg problem, but it's there nonetheless.
Usually in media the editorial process is such that the writer doesn't determine the headlines or titles for his articles -- that'll happen at the production stage, at which point the article is out of the writer's hands. I agree that it should have been made clear, though, and if I were the writer I'd be getting on the editorial staff to get on the web staff to change it, because it reflects poorly on him, when it shouldn't.
It's just like going after Napster because people use it for illegal activity. Now, even though only an idiot would argue that people weren't using Napster to circumvent copyright, it creates a problem because now it's no longer the act of piracy itself that is at issue, but the facilitation of piracy.
Of course, one could say we should sue all the record labels because the move to digital format itself is what's making piracy so easy.:)
The thing is, by making it about facilitation, it becomes subjective. And that's a big problem, when the only people with the power to quantify an inherently subjective process are sitting in the pockets of massive corporations (or are (IMO) underpaid members of the EFF...). We see it as reductio ad absurdum, but we live and breathe this stuff. The lawyers and judges and politicians don't see that going after Napster because it allows copyright infringement is using the same logic as eliminating all oxygen because it's keeping the music pirates alive which in turn facilitates the piracy.
What it comes down to is this -- there's no way that they can get the pirates, so they've stopped trying. Instead, they're going for centralized areas that allow tools that could potentially aid piracy, or bringing up ludicrous acts like the DMCA so that you can't do whatever you want with something you just bought. It's like what you see with that story earlier today about trying to restrict what your computer can or cannot do. It's a constantly evolving process that, unchecked, will eventually end up with useless bits of metal and plastic in front of us that are programmed to do nothing but gradually empty our bank accounts while showing us pretty pictures.
Another fun one is when people try to control the definition of words. You'll see a lot of that in the media as well.
For instance, you'll see a certain amount of hypocrisy in the way people throw around the word "terrorism". If it's violent acts with disregard for loss of innocent civilian life, how does one not then apply the word to some of our allies (or even our own military), who don't have such a great track record when it comes to collateral damage? Never mind the School of the Americas...
Then the politicians start trying to tell us what the words mean, and start throwing around judgements like "evil" or "terrorist haven". An interesting sidebar, for insance -- we consider Iraq a huge threat, both evil and a haven for terrorist activity. I don't necessarily dispute that point, but one thing I'm wondering: in the past decade, have Iraqis killed more Americans than Americans have killed Iraqis?
Interesting how that works out, but don't worry, it's all about the "defensive war" now, we have to hit the enemies before they hit back. Unfortunately, in case you weren't listening, Osama Bin Laden's been using the same logic to justify his attacks on the WTC&P, except in that case, he has some historical context to work with. And not that we need to justify ourselves to him, but we do need to see this from the point of viw of Mr. and Mrs. John Q Muhammad whom we're imploring to love us while we bomb their neighbours, using logic that rings about as hollow to them as Bin Laden's does to us.
I mean, why don't we just admit that we only want certain nations to have all the power and be done with it? Why hide behind silly definitions that our comrades will already believe because they want to believe, and our enemies won't believe because (a) they see them for the silly definitions they are, and (b) even if they weren't silly they wouldn't want to believe them anyway...
Slashdot Mirror
Ah whatever. Que sera sera and all that. ;)
1. Which is the only country on the planet that's used a nuclear weapon on civilians?
2. Have more Americans been killed at the hands of Iraqis, or have more Iraqis been killed at the hands of Americans?
3. Who's killed more innocent civilians? Al Quaeda in the United States, or the United States military in Afghanistan?
4. Which powerful nation recently criticized Israel for attacks that led to civilian deaths? For extra marks, has this powerful nation itself conducted military activity that's led to more civilian deaths in the same timespan since Sept 11th than Israel?
5. Who recently said that getting Bin Laden, the architect of the Sept 11th attacks, was no longer a primary military objective in Afghanistan?
6. Within 24 hours close to the end of 2001, one prominent US official said the following two statements: (1) that this wasn't a war against Afghanistan, (2) that the US military wasn't running out targets, but "Afghanistan" was. Name that official.
7. List the number of Americans being held in captivity by enemy forces even though they've had nothing to do with American foreign policy. Now, list the number of people of Arabic descent being held by American forces even though they've had nothing to do with the Sept 11th terrorist attacks.
8. Any feasible pipeline built from the oil fields just off the Caspian Sea is going to need to go through Afghanistan. True or False?
9. Define the word "Terrorism" in absolute terms. Now, in 50 words or less, state whether or not the School of the Americas trains terrorists and why.
10. Afghanistan's Taliban regime was notorious in its poor treatment of women. Now, list all the countries that have a similar record of such treatment, but are still allies of the United States.
Now, before you mod me down to troll or offtopic, first ask yourself if it's because you're afraid of the answers. Then feel free.
I work for a small company that refuses to spend the money on visual studio.
Gosh. Better dust up the old resume. Any company that won't fork over the cash to get you a development environment that you want might soon decide not to fork over the cash to pay your salary. As one other person recommended, you might want to plunk down the cash to get your own license -- it might not be worth the trouble trying to learn a whole new way of doing things if it's going to make you less productive. Plus, you can take it with you elsewhere, and it might even be tax deductible.
That said, RHIDE & DJGPP is available. Textpad has all sorts of nice IDE editor thingies and a way to compile java programs (not freeware, though). I've heard lukewarm reviews of LCC -- questionable quality of compiled code, at least at the time of my research.
Arkanae.
Couldn't get it to work on my machine, though. Still, the screenshots look pretty. You have to figure that's the big hurdle...
Screws you once: Take whatever they want from your code base and your license says it's okay.
Screws you twice: Push hardware standards that cripples platforms for competing OS installs.
Smart. Evil, but smart.
LOL, maybe I oughta.
Never trust Slashdot blurbs, I guess.
MSNBC just put up an article saying that Execs believe the browser cannot be stripped from the OS. Hilarious.
Of course, this is the same place that ran an "article" talking about how Microsoft couldn't have been a Monopoly, one day before the Findings of Fact. Hilarious x2.
Still think Chomsky's a kook, do ya?
Obvious to those of us who play GTA3 regularly but still manage to overcome the urge to plough over pedestrains on the way to work in the morning...
Hey, I don't know about you, but whenever I eat my magic mushrooms, the angry hopping turtles all come out and the only way to fight them off is with my fireballs (thank god for them!).
That might be fine and dandy for you, but believe me, you don't want 1000s of CDs of MY neighbour's garage band out there. Trust me. You might as well just jab icepicks in your ears and save yourself the trouble.
...Be no longer Is?
Disclaimer: I've only seen a couple of episodes. Maybe they've improved in the meanwhile.
Well, one thing that makes this difference from Watson/Holmes is that the scientific explanations are often in the middle of the show. If, on the other hand, the necessary explanations were left until the end, you'd also have a buildup of suspense.
I agree with the OP, though. The show may be alright but the dialogue is sometimes ridiculous in the way it's handled. Scientists explaining things to each other as if they're all idiots strikes a false chord. And there are so many scientific leaps made that sometimes the audience is put into "Awe gee" mode, becoming passive and having to accept it all (and sometimes becoming a little overly impressed). If they cut down on them, focused in on a select few that really turn the plot, (and maybe spend a little more time on character or whatnot) they could probably get more mileage out of the science.
They probably ought to take a look at how Law & Order handles it. Even though they go into the intricacies of law and police work, they were usually very good at keeping the audience in the loop without making certain things obvious.
One easy way to do this is to have a forensic scientist have more than one working theory that they're in the process of figuring out. That way they can explain everything they're doing to someone else because it's more natural. "I think this because of this this this, but it might be that because of that that that, you'd better check in with me later on in the day. Oh, and by the way, if you find any X at the crime scene, let me know, will you? It might be sprinkled on the walls."
4) Lastly, what's to stop microsoft from paying top dollar for searches including the words "Linux," "open source," and "monopoly"?
Heh, Ximian already did this with KDE searches. Story here.
They go on to state "This would destroy Windows desktop operating systems as a stable and consistent development platform"
For the first time in my life, I want to give money to lawyers. Can I start paying California taxes if I'm a Canadian?
I suggest you email Blizzard and Vivendi
t ml if you have any questions
letting them know how displeased you are that they didn't even contact us first
or try to work anything out, but rather just hammered us with legal threats and
the DMCA.
I tried this. I sent an email to the sales dept telling them how they lost me as a customer because of what they were doing with the DMCA to a project that was basically started in good faith.
I received this:
----------------
Hello.
Certain programs have been developed that allow users to bypass Battle.net's
CD-key-authentication process. Although these programs might have been made
with good intentions, they directly promote software piracy by allowing
users who have illegitimately obtained our games to play them as if they'd
been legitimately purchased. Furthermore, because these programs allow
access without a CD key, they render malicious users unaccountable, thereby
eliminating Blizzard's ability to protect legitimate consumers. Therefore,
Blizzard has taken an aggressive stance opposing the use of these programs.
Please take a moment to read through our FAQ regarding these issues at
http://www.battle.net/support/emulationfaq.sh
or concerns about Blizzard's stance on software piracy.
{WR655}
Thank you for your email,
Kenny Z.
Technical Support
Blizzard Entertainment
PS. If you plan to reply to this message, please include all previous
messages between us.
--------------
I assume this is word-for-word what other people would have received if they've sent in a similar complaint. Something tells me that giving me Kenny Z. is Blizzard's way of saying "screw off". I sent a response that basically reiterated my position and made a suggestion about how the two projects could work in harmony, and even mentioned how much of Half-Life's popularity had to do with Valve embracing the developer community instead of slapping the CS boys with "cease and desist"s. Blizzard didn't bother replying.
I'm not sure what else to do at this point. I'm not going to buy their games because of this, but I'm way outnumbered by those who will. Hopefully the EFF can make a major stink about this and either win the case, or better yet, learn to work the mainstream media so that Blizzard gets a bunch of bad press because of it.
Mindshare.
If I want to start developing games, I'm going to be looking around to see what I need to learn. DirectX reference material creeps up more often than not. Games that use DirectX are more numerous. Teams need to be built around a common skillset.
It's a chicken-and-egg problem, but it's there nonetheless.
Usually in media the editorial process is such that the writer doesn't determine the headlines or titles for his articles -- that'll happen at the production stage, at which point the article is out of the writer's hands. I agree that it should have been made clear, though, and if I were the writer I'd be getting on the editorial staff to get on the web staff to change it, because it reflects poorly on him, when it shouldn't.
It's just like going after Napster because people use it for illegal activity. Now, even though only an idiot would argue that people weren't using Napster to circumvent copyright, it creates a problem because now it's no longer the act of piracy itself that is at issue, but the facilitation of piracy.
:)
Of course, one could say we should sue all the record labels because the move to digital format itself is what's making piracy so easy.
The thing is, by making it about facilitation, it becomes subjective. And that's a big problem, when the only people with the power to quantify an inherently subjective process are sitting in the pockets of massive corporations (or are (IMO) underpaid members of the EFF...). We see it as reductio ad absurdum, but we live and breathe this stuff. The lawyers and judges and politicians don't see that going after Napster because it allows copyright infringement is using the same logic as eliminating all oxygen because it's keeping the music pirates alive which in turn facilitates the piracy.
What it comes down to is this -- there's no way that they can get the pirates, so they've stopped trying. Instead, they're going for centralized areas that allow tools that could potentially aid piracy, or bringing up ludicrous acts like the DMCA so that you can't do whatever you want with something you just bought. It's like what you see with that story earlier today about trying to restrict what your computer can or cannot do. It's a constantly evolving process that, unchecked, will eventually end up with useless bits of metal and plastic in front of us that are programmed to do nothing but gradually empty our bank accounts while showing us pretty pictures.
Is this the first legal test of the GPL right now? Will it be setting precedent?
That's a really interesting view. I'd mod you up, but I have no points.
Another fun one is when people try to control the definition of words. You'll see a lot of that in the media as well.
For instance, you'll see a certain amount of hypocrisy in the way people throw around the word "terrorism". If it's violent acts with disregard for loss of innocent civilian life, how does one not then apply the word to some of our allies (or even our own military), who don't have such a great track record when it comes to collateral damage? Never mind the School of the Americas...
Then the politicians start trying to tell us what the words mean, and start throwing around judgements like "evil" or "terrorist haven". An interesting sidebar, for insance -- we consider Iraq a huge threat, both evil and a haven for terrorist activity. I don't necessarily dispute that point, but one thing I'm wondering: in the past decade, have Iraqis killed more Americans than Americans have killed Iraqis?
Interesting how that works out, but don't worry, it's all about the "defensive war" now, we have to hit the enemies before they hit back. Unfortunately, in case you weren't listening, Osama Bin Laden's been using the same logic to justify his attacks on the WTC&P, except in that case, he has some historical context to work with. And not that we need to justify ourselves to him, but we do need to see this from the point of viw of Mr. and Mrs. John Q Muhammad whom we're imploring to love us while we bomb their neighbours, using logic that rings about as hollow to them as Bin Laden's does to us.
I mean, why don't we just admit that we only want certain nations to have all the power and be done with it? Why hide behind silly definitions that our comrades will already believe because they want to believe, and our enemies won't believe because (a) they see them for the silly definitions they are, and (b) even if they weren't silly they wouldn't want to believe them anyway...
It's damn hard to get someone into space without a rocket...
Of course!
But it'd be fun to try, wouldn't it?
...only without the rocket.
They have agreed to a list of 10 items that were the basis of the lawsuit.
Too bad none of those ten has to do with the fact that country music makes your ears bleed.
For reasons I couldn't determine, Red Flag was installing slower than Tux on a Sunday evening after gorging himself with fish.
We need better jokes.
LoL! And then, give away the necessary VBA installation macro for free!