- pretend they're not there unless you have no choice - don't show fear, they can smell that. Also, they can smell the truth about your personal hygiene. - whenever they approach your cube, shoot them in the head with some light-caliber office projectile weapon, nerf gun or rubber band, for example. They *love* that. - stare at their breasts while you talk to them - don't strike up a friendship; make sure every conversation is tinged with clumsy double-entendres that illustrate your desperation. - try to leave books lying on your desk like "101 ways to get her to orgasm", she will immediately perceive you as a stud. - action figures. lots of action figures, preferably anime, *preferably* the really expensive scantily-clad pedophilic Japanime ones.
Try any or all of them, I'm not saying they are GOOD strategies, but they are strategies for coping with women in IT. Pretty certain that most of them will shorten significant the amount of time you spend dealing with women in your IT department, possibly permanently.
What's ironic is that Occam's Razor is leaving us with no other explanation. Of course, we're billions of years of exploration away from that final, (to the non-mystical among us) absurd result.
What happens if at the end of the day, that's what we find? Not that "God" created us, but that circumstances here happened to be entirely unique? Personally, even as a Christian I wouldn't find that religiously uplifting, I would think that result a terribly sad and lonely one.
I HOPE that there are other intelligences out there, although I *do* hope they're not the bloodthirsty, Space Viking types. Frankly the odds against us being within a "fightable" range of technology - say, 40-50 years - are huge. It's far, far more likely that any encountered race will be either 100,000+ years ahead or behind us, and if they show up here that means "ahead" and that also means that we have simply no chance. In fact, that's the most credible answer to the Fermi paradox that I've heard yet, despite the tinfoil-hatness of it: they ARE here already.
I mean, look at the tech difference: it's entirely plausible to me that we could surveil and observe a society 100,000-1 million years behind us without being observed. From their point of view it's probably equally trivial to observe or even move among us at will.
In closing, then, it must be said: I welcome our extraterrestrial overlords already sitting all around us. I'm sure they're monitoring slashdot.
I understand that "standing up for the little guy" is worth +1 on/., and worthless hand-wringing is worth probably +2 (as long as it's against 'the man'), and opposing the evil mafiAA is worth like +10, but get off your high horses and think a second.
1) It's a law that you can't tape in theaters. Every one I've been to makes that VERY, ABUNDANTLY clear. 2) she did it willingly, knowingly, and admitted to it. 3) Regal Cinema *probably* didn't have a choice - as an agent for the MPAA distribution network, they can probably be sued if they DON'T prosecute every infringement. 4) ultimately, the MPAA will pay for it in reduced business, just not *instantly* like you all seem to hope.
I hate the domineering MPAA as much as anyone, but fer chrissakes, she broke the LAW, admitted to it, and you're all screaming that punishing her is unjust and stupid? How about recognizing that what she did was clearly idiotic and she will be firmly slapped on the wrist for it? Judges are (contrary to TV) usually pretty good at that, in fact. Get a grip.
You're probably the same people that believe there are certain things that aren't 'really' crimes, like speeding, rolling through stop signs, etc. Man up, understand that when you break the rules you get punished and live with the consequences. Quit whinging about how UNFAIR this all is, or work to change it instead of rhetorically circle-jerking in here./disgusted.
"I'm afraid I can't. The incredibly arrogant tone of your comment is beyond being redeemed by a smiley face. This person is 25 and therefore her opinion on formal writing is invalid? What utter bullshit."
You're appropriately named, at least.
1) If you read my comment carefully, I *might* have been using the same arrogant, patronizing tone she used to criticize the ignorant 'tweeners who are, after all, only a teeny bit younger than her. Some people might find that circularity amusing. I'm... unsurprised... you didn't.
2) This person is 25 and yes, her opinion on "what is appropriate in the business world" IS NOT worth much, as she probably hasn't been in the business world for long. I'm not even saying she's wrong - I'm pointing at the irony that such zealous standard-setting comes from someone who (probably) just joined the fray herself. Sophomoric is the adjective, I believe.
3) FWIW either accidentally or disingenuously inflated the argument. That article ISN'T (and her comments aren't) particularly about emoticons in "formal" usage. Nobody's talking about putting them in deeds, wills, or the NYT. The context of the article (you DID RTFA, of course) was about their propriety (or impropriety) in general business communication. FWIW I *would* agree with you, except that I would say that a doctor who used emoticons in such a communications would only be trivially less sensitive than one who used an email to convey such a hideously personal and catastrophic message ANYWAY. Personally, I think she's in an extraordinarily tight twist over pretty much nothing....kind of like someone else.
"Emoticons, she added, should be reserved for use by "naïve tweens on AOL Instant Messenger finding out after-school soccer practice is canceled."".....says Alexis Feldman, 25.
Alexis, perhaps you could understand that the mores of communication are constantly evolving. In the same sense that it used to be de-rigeur to have to wear a suit and tie to work, the pendulum overswung during the dot-com era to where NOTHING was ever formal, to now where business casual is the norm. It's the same with language, and yes, even styles of email. We can of course forgive you - you're hidebound by all that time you've spent in the high-power business world.... since what, you graduated from college in... 2005?
Pardon me for not taking the opinion of a 25 year old so terribly seriously.:)
Personally, I'd love it if some of those darn terrorists decided to spend their time and effort on building ICBMs according to line-drawing plans from POSTERS of the Saturn V.
1) it would take them forever 2) when it inevitably exploded on launch, good odds that it would take all of their certainly-rare warheads, it would also likely take out all of their semi-capable scientific minds as well (if the explosion didn't get them, the post-explosion witch hunt for the scapegoat would)
Building a Saturn V *is* rocket science, you're not getting anything from a poster that's terribly critical anyway.
From TFA: "...So when the "experts" tell you it doesn't matter where you sit, have a chuckle and head for the back of the plane. And once your seatbelt is firmly fastened, relax: There's been just one fatal jet crash in the U.S. in the last five-plus years"
1 jet crash in the last "five-plus" years? Doesn't five-plus = five or more? I'm pretty sure that there has been more than one fatal crash in the last "five or more" years, no?
...to see that simple, pure, unadulterated nationalism still thrives in the EU.
Certainly, it may have been transferred from old fashioned regionalisms, but from Galileo, to Qaero, to Theseus, these are all just continuing examples of the European Union seeing something that exists in the free market, is successful and, because they are American, they ipso facto need to be reproduced "by us".
Generally I'm with you on the Slashdot sensationalism thing, but in this case, it's somewhat justified.
So, if I understand their system, the merest COMPLAINT will get you a suspension that will turn perma-ban if you don't appeal?
Simple, people (including students, since the source of the ban doesn't have to be particularly valid) can FLOOD the U with complaints and allegations. They don't have to be PROVEN, merely asserted. Don't like the people in that dorm? A couple of hours with a computer and printer and voila! you've just ginned up 350 complaint letters.
Then the burden is on THEM to appeal. THEN the university has to investigate/adjudicate every one.
See how dumb that is?
No, this is as stupid as holding phone companies responsible for the conversations over their lines. That was determined a long time ago to be ridiculous, yet today apparently the powers-that-be are too ball-less to actually SET a precedent that might make the RIAA/MPAA angry.
Perhaps you missed the part where I said "Reading - and the pleasure therefrom - is an intensely personal experience"?
So you find her world cliche (I do too). While I'd agree that her writing level is extremely low (even granted she's writing mainly for children) I'd hardly call her technically illiterate. Clearly she can read, and has a modicum of writing ability - how many books have you written that have sold over a million copies?
Read my post again, and perhaps a 3rd time. There IS nothing wrong with saying a book is good or bad. The fallacy is the prescriptive conclusion: "you should/shouldn't like this ipso facto because I did/didn't".
It's really my fault: maybe I should have phrased my post to a lower reading level, and placed it in a cliche setting - then maybe it would have been clearer.
1) people who enjoy tales of all sorts, and just have a good time escaping into an engaging story.
2) people who read books so that they can either be seen reading them, or can wave the experience about as some sort of intellectualist validation.
Reading - and the pleasure therefrom - is an intensely personal experience. While I can even agree with the critic's comments regarding Ms. Rowling's predictable, repetitive plotting, farcically two-dimensional characters, and generally unchallenging language, I take great exception to his second-level conclusion: that any respectably intelligent person must not enjoy the book. I agree, JK Rowlings' writing IS rubbish; that doesn't mean it cannot be enjoyable. Not every meal needs to be nutritionally constructive either.
And, it must also be said, for him to dismiss categorically the value of getting children INTO reading - getting them to understand that the words on the pages can convey a story as rousing, fascinating, or frightening as any movie or video game - is simply ignorant. I rather suspect that Mr. Lezard has no children nor really any interaction with same, except perhaps as frightening little beasts underfoot that must be tolerated when the family comes over for holidays.
Yeah, probably "mostly". But these do have a significant automatic operation capability for signal breaks and jamming, including some rudimentary threat-assessment and evasion routines.
I do NOT know if they have mission-capable AI, that would complete at least the next mission task in event of a signal interruption. Let's say it's locked on to a target to fire a hellfire missile, and the signal breaks - does it fire the missile? Or does it abort and go into a holding pattern?
"And I thought the whole point in Galileo was to be independent of USA's mercy. The US can turn off GPS at any time they want. The EU don't want to be dependent on the USA and so they build their own system." "They are way too old, the GPS satellites (at least, most of them)."
Well, which is better: older working models or wonderful new technology that doesn't really exist yet?
EU Galileo Satellites in orbit: 1 of 30 (see also: Vaporware)
US GPS System: 30 known broadcasting satellites. (Some sources suggest that there are other 'dark' GPS satellites that are already orbiting 'in reserve' to backup the system as a failsafe in case of disaster or hostile action.)
I think the Galileo system sounds wonderful, but then again, so do flying cars. I'm not holding my breath waiting for either one.
I'd look at the other side of this as interesting as well. Does this mean that they could come up with a chemical that enhances the fear effect?
Sounds like an absolutely wonderful way to deal violent protests and even crime, in a way that doesn't actually hurt anyone. Instead of spraying mace in an assailant's face which can frequently enrage an attacker and ultimately cause more harm than good, pop a 'fearbomb' and enhance his natural anxieties over what's going on?
Sounds like a science fiction story, but it might be useful.
Perfect example of intarweb pointless Monday-morning quarterbacking. This *may* be simply an effort to provide a postlog to the event, but it smells much more like whinging to me.
Thank you for re-establishing my faith, shaken by a number of cogent, topical, and insightful posts this morning.
Contrary to Jerry Bruckheimer movies and the legions of strawmen erected by critics since time immemorial, wars are neither precise, predictable, or particularly neat things.
They involve a great deal of guesswork, optimism, and sheer luck - all of which generally cost lives in the resolution. (Which is, incidentally, why they should only be used as a last resort, and not reached for casually as an instrument of policy. At best, they are a crapshoot where the best you can do is to load the dice in your favor and bet the odds, but even the most carefully planned and thought-out action can go disastrously awry through sheer malicious chance.)
I understand your point, but I wonder...if you want isometric view, if you want the original music, if you want the same general storyline, if you want sprites instead of 3d....wouldn't it just make more sense to reload and play Fallout TWO again? (Or one?)
It seems like the very vocal "Fallout" fanbase just wants the exact same game as last time. It was a great game, don't get me wrong, but its greatness is as much a result of its time & place & the players' age/expectations as a result of the particular display technology.
It's very much like all the people that went & saw Star Wars in whatever the most recent re-release was. It wasn't nearly as jaw dropping a spectacle because: - effects have gotten better - paradigms that were established in the original have now become cliche - you're not the starry-eyed 12 year old you were back then, and never will be again.
My question is, isn't the whole 'government intrusiveness' issue a logical result of the nanny state?
I mean, to put it in more pedestrian terms: if I can't make my house payment (or food, or car lease, or whatever) and so I have to beg you for money to keep me going, don't you logically have a vested interest in my activities? If you're lending me $ so my kids can eat, but then you see me drinking a beer and smoking a cigarette (or having a satellite dish installed), aren't you justifiably going to be a little pissed off?
Every time we hand power over the daily conduct of our lives to the government, we EMPOWER them to surveil, intrude, and legislate our activities. If we ask the government to ban smoking, we SIMULTANEOUSLY are asking the government to keep an eye in every public space to make sure there's no smoking.
To extrapolate further (and onto thinner ice, I'm well aware), if we hand over the complete responsibility for our personal safety to the government (say, by banning personal firearms), aren't we simultaneously giving them a perfect justification for watching us at every moment, so as to keep us safe?
Since the New Deal, we've had a populace which has WELCOMED government involvement in everything: who you can hire, who you can fire, where you can smoke, what you can smoke... many of the rules made for the best of reasons. But the Founding Fathers (whom I respect for their foresight more every year) anticipated this, and laid out a government whose powers were STRICTLY circumscribed to a fairly small number of responsibilities. Sadly, Roosevelt's "Good Intentions" paved right over those limits while building the road to the current situation.
Slashdotters love to quote the old saying "People who give up an essential liberty for a little security deserve neither" when talking about the Bush Administration's efforts against global terrorism. What they don't seem to realize is that SAME aphorism applies to their government-backed college loan, or the laws that prevent employers firing them because they're gay. Personally, I don't think many of the people 'demanding' liberty could really handle the consequences of liberty for everyone - read Second Life's "The War of the Jessie Wall" (http://secondlife.com/notes/2003_07_07_archive.ph p) (Parts 1-5) & http://secondlife.com/notes/2003_07_14_archive.php) (Parts 6-10). It's an eye-opening illustration of what happens when utopian ideals of freedom are applied generally, unfortunately Linden Labs chose to play God instead of seeing how this would eventually resolve itself.
Simply put: We can't have our cake and eat it, too. If you want to get rid of the overreaching Federal government sticking its nose into everything, then you have to also get rid of the Federal government that requires handicapped access, enforces affirmative action, supplies welfare, medicaid, and (allegedly administers) social security, sets educational & medical standards, and whole host of other things that people consider beneficial because they are in fact two sides of the same coin.
This is drifting off topic, but I looked up that intriguingly-named creature.
The wiki says it was discovered by "German teuthologist Carl Chun"
"teuthologist Carl Chun"?
It took the anagram server about 0.1 seconds to come up with 'Cthulhu great colonist' from that one. So you might want to take those nightmares a little more seriously, mate.
(That or Cthulhu Scrotal Toeing which hints at truly blasphemous levels of hentai...)
Slashdot Mirror
....you commenters are missing the point:
"Coping Strategies for Women in IT"
- pretend they're not there unless you have no choice
- don't show fear, they can smell that. Also, they can smell the truth about your personal hygiene.
- whenever they approach your cube, shoot them in the head with some light-caliber office projectile weapon, nerf gun or rubber band, for example. They *love* that.
- stare at their breasts while you talk to them
- don't strike up a friendship; make sure every conversation is tinged with clumsy double-entendres that illustrate your desperation.
- try to leave books lying on your desk like "101 ways to get her to orgasm", she will immediately perceive you as a stud.
- action figures. lots of action figures, preferably anime, *preferably* the really expensive scantily-clad pedophilic Japanime ones.
Try any or all of them, I'm not saying they are GOOD strategies, but they are strategies for coping with women in IT. Pretty certain that most of them will shorten significant the amount of time you spend dealing with women in your IT department, possibly permanently.
What's ironic is that Occam's Razor is leaving us with no other explanation. Of course, we're billions of years of exploration away from that final, (to the non-mystical among us) absurd result.
What happens if at the end of the day, that's what we find? Not that "God" created us, but that circumstances here happened to be entirely unique? Personally, even as a Christian I wouldn't find that religiously uplifting, I would think that result a terribly sad and lonely one.
I HOPE that there are other intelligences out there, although I *do* hope they're not the bloodthirsty, Space Viking types. Frankly the odds against us being within a "fightable" range of technology - say, 40-50 years - are huge. It's far, far more likely that any encountered race will be either 100,000+ years ahead or behind us, and if they show up here that means "ahead" and that also means that we have simply no chance. In fact, that's the most credible answer to the Fermi paradox that I've heard yet, despite the tinfoil-hatness of it: they ARE here already.
I mean, look at the tech difference: it's entirely plausible to me that we could surveil and observe a society 100,000-1 million years behind us without being observed. From their point of view it's probably equally trivial to observe or even move among us at will.
In closing, then, it must be said: I welcome our extraterrestrial overlords already sitting all around us. I'm sure they're monitoring slashdot.
"virtually inexhaustible"
I seem to recall them saying that about oil...then natural gas...and even now about coal.
It seems their optimism is "virtually inexhaustible".
I understand that "standing up for the little guy" is worth +1 on /., and worthless hand-wringing is worth probably +2 (as long as it's against 'the man'), and opposing the evil mafiAA is worth like +10, but get off your high horses and think a second.
/disgusted.
1) It's a law that you can't tape in theaters. Every one I've been to makes that VERY, ABUNDANTLY clear.
2) she did it willingly, knowingly, and admitted to it.
3) Regal Cinema *probably* didn't have a choice - as an agent for the MPAA distribution network, they can probably be sued if they DON'T prosecute every infringement.
4) ultimately, the MPAA will pay for it in reduced business, just not *instantly* like you all seem to hope.
I hate the domineering MPAA as much as anyone, but fer chrissakes, she broke the LAW, admitted to it, and you're all screaming that punishing her is unjust and stupid? How about recognizing that what she did was clearly idiotic and she will be firmly slapped on the wrist for it? Judges are (contrary to TV) usually pretty good at that, in fact. Get a grip.
You're probably the same people that believe there are certain things that aren't 'really' crimes, like speeding, rolling through stop signs, etc. Man up, understand that when you break the rules you get punished and live with the consequences. Quit whinging about how UNFAIR this all is, or work to change it instead of rhetorically circle-jerking in here.
"I'm afraid I can't. The incredibly arrogant tone of your comment is beyond being redeemed by a smiley face. This person is 25 and therefore her opinion on formal writing is invalid? What utter bullshit."
... unsurprised ... you didn't.
...kind of like someone else.
You're appropriately named, at least.
1) If you read my comment carefully, I *might* have been using the same arrogant, patronizing tone she used to criticize the ignorant 'tweeners who are, after all, only a teeny bit younger than her. Some people might find that circularity amusing. I'm
2) This person is 25 and yes, her opinion on "what is appropriate in the business world" IS NOT worth much, as she probably hasn't been in the business world for long. I'm not even saying she's wrong - I'm pointing at the irony that such zealous standard-setting comes from someone who (probably) just joined the fray herself. Sophomoric is the adjective, I believe.
3) FWIW either accidentally or disingenuously inflated the argument. That article ISN'T (and her comments aren't) particularly about emoticons in "formal" usage. Nobody's talking about putting them in deeds, wills, or the NYT. The context of the article (you DID RTFA, of course) was about their propriety (or impropriety) in general business communication. FWIW I *would* agree with you, except that I would say that a doctor who used emoticons in such a communications would only be trivially less sensitive than one who used an email to convey such a hideously personal and catastrophic message ANYWAY. Personally, I think she's in an extraordinarily tight twist over pretty much nothing.
"Emoticons, she added, should be reserved for use by "naïve tweens on AOL Instant Messenger finding out after-school soccer practice is canceled."".....says Alexis Feldman, 25.
.... since what, you graduated from college in ... 2005?
:)
Alexis, perhaps you could understand that the mores of communication are constantly evolving. In the same sense that it used to be de-rigeur to have to wear a suit and tie to work, the pendulum overswung during the dot-com era to where NOTHING was ever formal, to now where business casual is the norm. It's the same with language, and yes, even styles of email. We can of course forgive you - you're hidebound by all that time you've spent in the high-power business world
Pardon me for not taking the opinion of a 25 year old so terribly seriously.
Personally, I'd love it if some of those darn terrorists decided to spend their time and effort on building ICBMs according to line-drawing plans from POSTERS of the Saturn V.
1) it would take them forever
2) when it inevitably exploded on launch, good odds that it would take all of their certainly-rare warheads, it would also likely take out all of their semi-capable scientific minds as well (if the explosion didn't get them, the post-explosion witch hunt for the scapegoat would)
Building a Saturn V *is* rocket science, you're not getting anything from a poster that's terribly critical anyway.
Mind you those Møøse bites can be pretty nasti.
Those responsible for sending the squirrels have been sacked.
From TFA: "...So when the "experts" tell you it doesn't matter where you sit, have a chuckle and head for the back of the plane. And once your seatbelt is firmly fastened, relax: There's been just one fatal jet crash in the U.S. in the last five-plus years"
1 jet crash in the last "five-plus" years? Doesn't five-plus = five or more?
I'm pretty sure that there has been more than one fatal crash in the last "five or more" years, no?
Perhaps he meant "slightly more than five"?
...to see that simple, pure, unadulterated nationalism still thrives in the EU.
Certainly, it may have been transferred from old fashioned regionalisms, but from Galileo, to Qaero, to Theseus, these are all just continuing examples of the European Union seeing something that exists in the free market, is successful and, because they are American, they ipso facto need to be reproduced "by us".
Hilarious, and pathetic.
Generally I'm with you on the Slashdot sensationalism thing, but in this case, it's somewhat justified.
So, if I understand their system, the merest COMPLAINT will get you a suspension that will turn perma-ban if you don't appeal?
Simple, people (including students, since the source of the ban doesn't have to be particularly valid) can FLOOD the U with complaints and allegations. They don't have to be PROVEN, merely asserted. Don't like the people in that dorm? A couple of hours with a computer and printer and voila! you've just ginned up 350 complaint letters.
Then the burden is on THEM to appeal. THEN the university has to investigate/adjudicate every one.
See how dumb that is?
No, this is as stupid as holding phone companies responsible for the conversations over their lines. That was determined a long time ago to be ridiculous, yet today apparently the powers-that-be are too ball-less to actually SET a precedent that might make the RIAA/MPAA angry.
...I predict that by 2010, the breed of people who feel they need to compulsively predict the end of everything, will be extinct.
Mind you, Moose bites can be pretti nasti.
Perhaps you missed the part where I said "Reading - and the pleasure therefrom - is an intensely personal experience"?
So you find her world cliche (I do too). While I'd agree that her writing level is extremely low (even granted she's writing mainly for children) I'd hardly call her technically illiterate. Clearly she can read, and has a modicum of writing ability - how many books have you written that have sold over a million copies?
Read my post again, and perhaps a 3rd time. There IS nothing wrong with saying a book is good or bad. The fallacy is the prescriptive conclusion: "you should/shouldn't like this ipso facto because I did/didn't".
It's really my fault: maybe I should have phrased my post to a lower reading level, and placed it in a cliche setting - then maybe it would have been clearer.
There are two kinds of fiction readers.
1) people who enjoy tales of all sorts, and just have a good time escaping into an engaging story.
2) people who read books so that they can either be seen reading them, or can wave the experience about as some sort of intellectualist validation.
Reading - and the pleasure therefrom - is an intensely personal experience. While I can even agree with the critic's comments regarding Ms. Rowling's predictable, repetitive plotting, farcically two-dimensional characters, and generally unchallenging language, I take great exception to his second-level conclusion: that any respectably intelligent person must not enjoy the book. I agree, JK Rowlings' writing IS rubbish; that doesn't mean it cannot be enjoyable. Not every meal needs to be nutritionally constructive either.
And, it must also be said, for him to dismiss categorically the value of getting children INTO reading - getting them to understand that the words on the pages can convey a story as rousing, fascinating, or frightening as any movie or video game - is simply ignorant. I rather suspect that Mr. Lezard has no children nor really any interaction with same, except perhaps as frightening little beasts underfoot that must be tolerated when the family comes over for holidays.
Yeah, probably "mostly".
But these do have a significant automatic operation capability for signal breaks and jamming, including some rudimentary threat-assessment and evasion routines.
I do NOT know if they have mission-capable AI, that would complete at least the next mission task in event of a signal interruption. Let's say it's locked on to a target to fire a hellfire missile, and the signal breaks - does it fire the missile? Or does it abort and go into a holding pattern?
"And I thought the whole point in Galileo was to be independent of USA's mercy. The US can turn off GPS at any time they want. The EU don't want to be dependent on the USA and so they build their own system."
"They are way too old, the GPS satellites (at least, most of them)."
Well, which is better: older working models or wonderful new technology that doesn't really exist yet?
EU Galileo Satellites in orbit: 1 of 30 (see also: Vaporware)
US GPS System: 30 known broadcasting satellites. (Some sources suggest that there are other 'dark' GPS satellites that are already orbiting 'in reserve' to backup the system as a failsafe in case of disaster or hostile action.)
I think the Galileo system sounds wonderful, but then again, so do flying cars. I'm not holding my breath waiting for either one.
http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2007/biosuit2-enlarg ed.jpg
Yes, you can see the shape of her butt. I predict this will get near-unanimous approval.
I'd look at the other side of this as interesting as well. Does this mean that they could come up with a chemical that enhances the fear effect?
Sounds like an absolutely wonderful way to deal violent protests and even crime, in a way that doesn't actually hurt anyone. Instead of spraying mace in an assailant's face which can frequently enrage an attacker and ultimately cause more harm than good, pop a 'fearbomb' and enhance his natural anxieties over what's going on?
Sounds like a science fiction story, but it might be useful.
Perfect example of intarweb pointless Monday-morning quarterbacking. This *may* be simply an effort to provide a postlog to the event, but it smells much more like whinging to me.
Thank you for re-establishing my faith, shaken by a number of cogent, topical, and insightful posts this morning.
Contrary to Jerry Bruckheimer movies and the legions of strawmen erected by critics since time immemorial, wars are neither precise, predictable, or particularly neat things.
They involve a great deal of guesswork, optimism, and sheer luck - all of which generally cost lives in the resolution. (Which is, incidentally, why they should only be used as a last resort, and not reached for casually as an instrument of policy. At best, they are a crapshoot where the best you can do is to load the dice in your favor and bet the odds, but even the most carefully planned and thought-out action can go disastrously awry through sheer malicious chance.)
I understand your point, but I wonder...if you want isometric view, if you want the original music, if you want the same general storyline, if you want sprites instead of 3d....wouldn't it just make more sense to reload and play Fallout TWO again? (Or one?)
It seems like the very vocal "Fallout" fanbase just wants the exact same game as last time. It was a great game, don't get me wrong, but its greatness is as much a result of its time & place & the players' age/expectations as a result of the particular display technology.
It's very much like all the people that went & saw Star Wars in whatever the most recent re-release was. It wasn't nearly as jaw dropping a spectacle because:
- effects have gotten better
- paradigms that were established in the original have now become cliche
- you're not the starry-eyed 12 year old you were back then, and never will be again.
My question is, isn't the whole 'government intrusiveness' issue a logical result of the nanny state?
... many of the rules made for the best of reasons. But the Founding Fathers (whom I respect for their foresight more every year) anticipated this, and laid out a government whose powers were STRICTLY circumscribed to a fairly small number of responsibilities. Sadly, Roosevelt's "Good Intentions" paved right over those limits while building the road to the current situation.
h p) (Parts 1-5) & http://secondlife.com/notes/2003_07_14_archive.php ) (Parts 6-10). It's an eye-opening illustration of what happens when utopian ideals of freedom are applied generally, unfortunately Linden Labs chose to play God instead of seeing how this would eventually resolve itself.
I mean, to put it in more pedestrian terms: if I can't make my house payment (or food, or car lease, or whatever) and so I have to beg you for money to keep me going, don't you logically have a vested interest in my activities? If you're lending me $ so my kids can eat, but then you see me drinking a beer and smoking a cigarette (or having a satellite dish installed), aren't you justifiably going to be a little pissed off?
Every time we hand power over the daily conduct of our lives to the government, we EMPOWER them to surveil, intrude, and legislate our activities. If we ask the government to ban smoking, we SIMULTANEOUSLY are asking the government to keep an eye in every public space to make sure there's no smoking.
To extrapolate further (and onto thinner ice, I'm well aware), if we hand over the complete responsibility for our personal safety to the government (say, by banning personal firearms), aren't we simultaneously giving them a perfect justification for watching us at every moment, so as to keep us safe?
Since the New Deal, we've had a populace which has WELCOMED government involvement in everything: who you can hire, who you can fire, where you can smoke, what you can smoke
Slashdotters love to quote the old saying "People who give up an essential liberty for a little security deserve neither" when talking about the Bush Administration's efforts against global terrorism. What they don't seem to realize is that SAME aphorism applies to their government-backed college loan, or the laws that prevent employers firing them because they're gay. Personally, I don't think many of the people 'demanding' liberty could really handle the consequences of liberty for everyone - read Second Life's "The War of the Jessie Wall" (http://secondlife.com/notes/2003_07_07_archive.p
Simply put: We can't have our cake and eat it, too. If you want to get rid of the overreaching Federal government sticking its nose into everything, then you have to also get rid of the Federal government that requires handicapped access, enforces affirmative action, supplies welfare, medicaid, and (allegedly administers) social security, sets educational & medical standards, and whole host of other things that people consider beneficial because they are in fact two sides of the same coin.
Are all the people bitching about this in any way related to the people who bitch about how the US has the most primitive broadband infrastructure?
Just curious.
This is drifting off topic, but I looked up that intriguingly-named creature.
The wiki says it was discovered by "German teuthologist Carl Chun"
"teuthologist Carl Chun"?
It took the anagram server about 0.1 seconds to come up with 'Cthulhu great colonist' from that one. So you might want to take those nightmares a little more seriously, mate.
(That or Cthulhu Scrotal Toeing which hints at truly blasphemous levels of hentai...)
So wait, the BDSM community is in FAVOR of this?
" This will be a good fork in the road for those people who need a little extra push to take hold of our dreams and run Linux."
Fixed that for you.