Sad as it is, consoles seem to be the only option left for buying triple A games without activation. They have their own hardware DRM, but at least you don't need to ask permission when you want to play or install the game that you purchased.
Sure there's Good Old Games, and that's great for older games and indies, but you're not going to find the big-budget stuff there, aside from CD Project Red's own products.
... Right. Yes that's true, but a threat to the totality of all humans does not necessarily mean threatening extinction, it just means that everyone is vulnerable.
You're just using the word "humanity" differently. The grandparent was talking about humans, you're talking about the human species. Yes of course autonomous killing machines are a threat to humans, no of course they're not going to lead to our extinction.
I'm not sure that's true, support for Brexit backslid after the vote. I don't know if it's still a majority or not, but this whole thing was mainly a Conservative party initiative. If Labour campaigns under an "Elect us and Brexit won't happen as long as we're in charge." platform, then it's certainly possible that they could get a lot of support.
If they then won that election, it would give cover for a future Conservative government to scrap Brexit completely.
Dragging things out makes perfect sense from a British perspective. The longer they wait, the less likely it will actually happen (best case scenario for everyone). If it does happen, then the EU is in a better negotiating position to wait until then to negotiate trade deals. Britain is in a better negotiating position to do it now. So they sit and stare at each other, potentially forever.
This was a proposed solution for the spying on Android - instead of trying to block permissions, just give a fake location and fake credentials, fake contacts, etc. Most MOD makers rejected this though, for fear that it would make Google angry. Maybe it's time to return to this option.
They have been doing this for awhile with no complaints.
No complaints? There has been non-stop complaining about this from the rest of the EU. Some kind of reprisal has been coming for quite a while, the fact that they've moved slowly on it does not mean that Ireland's tax policy was an accepted practice.
It's basically just another reason to protest the walled garden model: the problem is not that support for these things has great value, the problem is that Apple is deciding what you can and can not do with your stuff.
Apple should either allow them all, because it's none of their business how you waste your money, or ban them all, because you are helpless and need to be protected from your own stupidity. This half-assed approach, where Apple gives you the opportunity to screw yourself but only in an Apple-approved way, is the worst option of all.
Are you... talking about Trump? The context makes it seem like you're talking about Clinton, but the email thing is not a social policy. It's Trump's social policies which have gotten him in trouble, and people have been saying exactly what you said when they've come out in support of him.
That's not due to a lack of a contract. I'd assume a price like that to be due to either poorly considered tariffs (like in Brazil) or corruption. Importation of high-status products like that is sometimes restricted to a small number of vendors (often just one, and not Apple) who jack up the price and give significant kickbacks to the people who are ensuring that vendor's monopoly.
I remember an AMA on reddit a while back with someone in that position:
"I'm a millionaire, ask me anything."
"How'd you get so rich?"
"I'm the sole importer of Apple products to my home country."
"Huh. How'd you work that out?"
"I know people."
"Okay. So how is your home country?"
"I don't know, I live in Seattle. I have so many houses, and more money than I could ever really spend. Planning to retire when I hit 35."
Etc., you get the idea. I mostly remember that one for how much the redditors fawned over that guy for being so "successful." But that's reddit for you.
I'll second this. I've got a Shield (identical to the K1 except it comes with a stylus) and it's very nice. I'm not really on the tablet bandwagon, they still feel like kinda useless ancillary devices, but the Shield Tablet is better than I would otherwise have hoped for at that price point. I really like the stylus too, wish more manufacturers would take advantage of that.
There was a time when I paid attention to new graphic cards and all of their extra confusing numbering schemes. Looking back, I don't know why I wasted so much time on that. The only time it matters is when I'm shopping for a new one, which doesn't happen that often, and I buy a new graphic card way more often than I buy a new car.
... There is one thing though. Nvidia used to get a little sleazy when it comes to model numbers, rebadging previous generation GPUs as lower-end chips of the current generation. I don't know if they're still doing that, but it's something that's obviously intended to exploit the ignorant. Which is me, now. Probably not so much of an issue for cars.
This is faulty logic. When your accountant makes a mistake with your taxes it does not make your accountant liable for paying the difference. This is always true: when someone else who is acting on your behalf makes a mistake it never absolves you of legal responsibility. It's Apple's responsibility to check with all applicable laws and make sure things are on the up-and-up, regardless of what Ireland may have offered them.
Intellectual Property is a thing in order to allow companies to own ideas without explicitly owning ideas (forbidden by copyright law).
I don't see how your conclusion follows from your argument. Yes, doing something illegal can count as infringement even if nothing has been stolen or removed. What does that have to do with property? Not all crimes are property-related.
The success rate is 85% after ten years and then decreasing slowly by about 3% per year.
So for a 50 year old who got vasectomy at age of 20 it is still around 50%.
Can you cite this? Looking around for statistics it seems that my doctor may have been exaggerating a little, but I can find no figures higher than 30-40% after ten years. Regardless of those figures, the point that my doctor was making, namely that a vasectomy is a permanent decision, remains valid: even if the chance is "only" 15% that you'll never be able to have children, a vasectomy can't be looked at as a temporary means of birth control.
And getting back to the point of the discussion, even with a vasectomy the chances of pregnancy are not zero. The claim that you made was something along the lines of men being able to influence pregnancy to the same degree that women can, and the idea that you would need surgery to achieve anywhere near the reliability that a woman can get with a birth control pill, and still not the kind of certainty that a woman can get with an abortion, makes that idea pretty absurd. Even if it were true that there was some vasectomy procedure which was 100% reversible.
Regarding your experience with condoms: everyone's different, so I'm obliged to believe you when you say that you experience no change when using condoms. The change is so large for me, however, that it's difficult for me to believe you as I am obligated to do. I'm tempted to think that you might just be misremembering the experience.
Reversing a vasectomy is not a minor procedure and is not covered by most health care plans in the US. As such, it costs $10,000 or so according to my doctor. I discussed this with him at length at one point. And no, reversing a vasectomy only has a 85% success rate if you do it within the first year after you got it. The likelihood of success decreases over time until, after about ten years, it's basically zero.
I'm not sure what you mean by "new vasectomy ways" but I suspect that you mean vas clamps. I asked about those as well, there's a rumor that those are reversible since you can just take them off, but no: apparently having the clamps on damages the vas deferens over time, so the probability of reversing that is not much higher than with a regular vasectomy.
And this: "condomes don't change the feeling" is just wildly untrue. I don't know, experiences may vary, but my own experience is that there's a very dramatic difference and I've tried plenty of different types and styles and sizes of condom. Huge difference.
Uh huh. Maybe you also made the mistake of judging without reading the article, but this is the second time in a row that the FBI has done this - the domain lapsed last year as well. Yes it's always possible that there's some incredibly convoluted conspiracy afoot, but it's far more likely that whoever's in charge of handling their evidence just isn't equipped for this kind of stuff and doesn't know what they're doing.
Oh, bleh. I did that thing where I only read the summary and started running my mouth based on that. My bad. This was apparently simple negligence on the part of the FBI.
So the FBI seized some... let's call it "property" and then just allowed it to decay? Even if their were a real trial and a conviction and the site were seized legitimately, wouldn't they then auction it off like any other police auction?
That's part of what the parent poster stated. Before the parent got to that accurate part though, there was this hyperbolic line about control and an implied conflict with a whole age group. That kinda spoils the argument.
Aw, you're just trolling. Yes men can use condoms but we all know that those suck, both for reliability and for the act itself. Meanwhile, a vasectomy is permanent and "the new drugs" (I assume you're talking about RISUG) don't exist yet. Saying... actually, I had read that as "Men have as much say as women." and was trying to call you out on that as being baloney. But you actually said, "Men have as much to say as women." which is certainly true, I guess. Men do like to talk.... Neither one of those statements make sense in context.
Okay, I usually don't respond to the posts that are flagrantly insulting, but I'm going to make an effort here to respond in kind. Bear with me.
You idiot, they didn't "release information about a gay Saudi", they published more than half a million Saudi diplomatic cables which contained, among many many other things, the fact that this one guy had been arrested for homosexuality. Wikileaks is not a revenge site, where people like you go to post the private information of a girlfriend who dumped you when she found you had skidmarks larger than your dick. Wikileaks is a place where whistle blowers go to publish some of the secrets that very large organizations, mainly governments, hide from those people whom these secrets effect.
It is true that smarter people than you have criticized this approach to journalism, and those people may have a point: huge amounts of documents like this can not be censored for potentially harmful or embarrassing personal information prior to their release. Even if they could be, Wikileaks might not be willing to do so - they have built their reputation on total transparency, with the understanding that only when you receive a whole document, without redaction, can you be certain of its contents. Much as Hillary Clinton has received a lot of criticism for self-censoring emails from her server, so does Wikileaks avoid that criticism by censoring nothing.
(Now would be a good time to pause for a moment and make sure that your drool is not getting on your keyboard while you read this. Consider a bib.)
But, as I said, there are people who are not idiots who have pointed out problems with this approach. Most of those criticisms have taken the form of the TFA: when the US diplomatic cables were released there was much hand-wringing about all the lives that they would cost when sources were revealed. That didn't happen, but it was the same argument then as now: such a huge number of documents are bound to include a few embarrassing or possibly even dangerous tidbits about individuals. Some of those people went on to make the same implied argument as in TFA, "If we don't keep secrets, someone might get hurt." though previously they were less stupid about it than trying to suggest that if someone found out that a man had been arrested for homosexuality he might be... arrested for homosexuality. I don't know about Saudi Arabia specifically, but in most places arrest records are public information. (Was this written by someone you know? They seem to be writing at your level.)
Regarding my opinion about all of this: I'm uncertain about what's best for the public good, but if Wikileaks maintains an unflinching absolutism it's bound to get them in trouble eventually. I don't think that the TFA's method of cherry-picking a tiny tidbit out of a huge stack of information and shouting, "Look how much damage Wikileaks is doing!" is acting in the public's favor though. In fact, I think that sort of misinformation is very much against the best interests of the public.
I might further make a distinction between private information, personal records, and secrets, but any kind of subtlety like that would be lost on you, I'm sure. So I'm going to stop there.
Slashdot Mirror
Sad as it is, consoles seem to be the only option left for buying triple A games without activation. They have their own hardware DRM, but at least you don't need to ask permission when you want to play or install the game that you purchased.
Sure there's Good Old Games, and that's great for older games and indies, but you're not going to find the big-budget stuff there, aside from CD Project Red's own products.
... Right. Yes that's true, but a threat to the totality of all humans does not necessarily mean threatening extinction, it just means that everyone is vulnerable.
You're just using the word "humanity" differently. The grandparent was talking about humans, you're talking about the human species. Yes of course autonomous killing machines are a threat to humans, no of course they're not going to lead to our extinction.
I'm not sure that's true, support for Brexit backslid after the vote. I don't know if it's still a majority or not, but this whole thing was mainly a Conservative party initiative. If Labour campaigns under an "Elect us and Brexit won't happen as long as we're in charge." platform, then it's certainly possible that they could get a lot of support.
If they then won that election, it would give cover for a future Conservative government to scrap Brexit completely.
Dragging things out makes perfect sense from a British perspective. The longer they wait, the less likely it will actually happen (best case scenario for everyone). If it does happen, then the EU is in a better negotiating position to wait until then to negotiate trade deals. Britain is in a better negotiating position to do it now. So they sit and stare at each other, potentially forever.
You don't like that word? I don't see any problem with it, seems like it was used correctly.
This was a proposed solution for the spying on Android - instead of trying to block permissions, just give a fake location and fake credentials, fake contacts, etc. Most MOD makers rejected this though, for fear that it would make Google angry. Maybe it's time to return to this option.
They have been doing this for awhile with no complaints.
No complaints? There has been non-stop complaining about this from the rest of the EU. Some kind of reprisal has been coming for quite a while, the fact that they've moved slowly on it does not mean that Ireland's tax policy was an accepted practice.
It's basically just another reason to protest the walled garden model: the problem is not that support for these things has great value, the problem is that Apple is deciding what you can and can not do with your stuff.
Apple should either allow them all, because it's none of their business how you waste your money, or ban them all, because you are helpless and need to be protected from your own stupidity. This half-assed approach, where Apple gives you the opportunity to screw yourself but only in an Apple-approved way, is the worst option of all.
What conversation are you having here? What does any of that have to do with emails?
Are you... talking about Trump? The context makes it seem like you're talking about Clinton, but the email thing is not a social policy. It's Trump's social policies which have gotten him in trouble, and people have been saying exactly what you said when they've come out in support of him.
That's not due to a lack of a contract. I'd assume a price like that to be due to either poorly considered tariffs (like in Brazil) or corruption. Importation of high-status products like that is sometimes restricted to a small number of vendors (often just one, and not Apple) who jack up the price and give significant kickbacks to the people who are ensuring that vendor's monopoly.
I remember an AMA on reddit a while back with someone in that position:
"I'm a millionaire, ask me anything."
"How'd you get so rich?"
"I'm the sole importer of Apple products to my home country."
"Huh. How'd you work that out?"
"I know people."
"Okay. So how is your home country?"
"I don't know, I live in Seattle. I have so many houses, and more money than I could ever really spend. Planning to retire when I hit 35."
Etc., you get the idea. I mostly remember that one for how much the redditors fawned over that guy for being so "successful." But that's reddit for you.
I'll second this. I've got a Shield (identical to the K1 except it comes with a stylus) and it's very nice. I'm not really on the tablet bandwagon, they still feel like kinda useless ancillary devices, but the Shield Tablet is better than I would otherwise have hoped for at that price point. I really like the stylus too, wish more manufacturers would take advantage of that.
There was a time when I paid attention to new graphic cards and all of their extra confusing numbering schemes. Looking back, I don't know why I wasted so much time on that. The only time it matters is when I'm shopping for a new one, which doesn't happen that often, and I buy a new graphic card way more often than I buy a new car.
... There is one thing though. Nvidia used to get a little sleazy when it comes to model numbers, rebadging previous generation GPUs as lower-end chips of the current generation. I don't know if they're still doing that, but it's something that's obviously intended to exploit the ignorant. Which is me, now. Probably not so much of an issue for cars.
Ireland is one of the parties who makes applicable tax laws. Another is the EU. Another is the US. That's the point.
This is faulty logic. When your accountant makes a mistake with your taxes it does not make your accountant liable for paying the difference. This is always true: when someone else who is acting on your behalf makes a mistake it never absolves you of legal responsibility. It's Apple's responsibility to check with all applicable laws and make sure things are on the up-and-up, regardless of what Ireland may have offered them.
Intellectual Property is a thing in order to allow companies to own ideas without explicitly owning ideas (forbidden by copyright law).
I don't see how your conclusion follows from your argument. Yes, doing something illegal can count as infringement even if nothing has been stolen or removed. What does that have to do with property? Not all crimes are property-related.
The success rate is 85% after ten years and then decreasing slowly by about 3% per year. So for a 50 year old who got vasectomy at age of 20 it is still around 50%.
Can you cite this? Looking around for statistics it seems that my doctor may have been exaggerating a little, but I can find no figures higher than 30-40% after ten years. Regardless of those figures, the point that my doctor was making, namely that a vasectomy is a permanent decision, remains valid: even if the chance is "only" 15% that you'll never be able to have children, a vasectomy can't be looked at as a temporary means of birth control.
And getting back to the point of the discussion, even with a vasectomy the chances of pregnancy are not zero. The claim that you made was something along the lines of men being able to influence pregnancy to the same degree that women can, and the idea that you would need surgery to achieve anywhere near the reliability that a woman can get with a birth control pill, and still not the kind of certainty that a woman can get with an abortion, makes that idea pretty absurd. Even if it were true that there was some vasectomy procedure which was 100% reversible.
Regarding your experience with condoms: everyone's different, so I'm obliged to believe you when you say that you experience no change when using condoms. The change is so large for me, however, that it's difficult for me to believe you as I am obligated to do. I'm tempted to think that you might just be misremembering the experience.
Reversing a vasectomy is not a minor procedure and is not covered by most health care plans in the US. As such, it costs $10,000 or so according to my doctor. I discussed this with him at length at one point. And no, reversing a vasectomy only has a 85% success rate if you do it within the first year after you got it. The likelihood of success decreases over time until, after about ten years, it's basically zero.
I'm not sure what you mean by "new vasectomy ways" but I suspect that you mean vas clamps. I asked about those as well, there's a rumor that those are reversible since you can just take them off, but no: apparently having the clamps on damages the vas deferens over time, so the probability of reversing that is not much higher than with a regular vasectomy.
And this: "condomes don't change the feeling" is just wildly untrue. I don't know, experiences may vary, but my own experience is that there's a very dramatic difference and I've tried plenty of different types and styles and sizes of condom. Huge difference.
Uh huh. Maybe you also made the mistake of judging without reading the article, but this is the second time in a row that the FBI has done this - the domain lapsed last year as well. Yes it's always possible that there's some incredibly convoluted conspiracy afoot, but it's far more likely that whoever's in charge of handling their evidence just isn't equipped for this kind of stuff and doesn't know what they're doing.
Oh, bleh. I did that thing where I only read the summary and started running my mouth based on that. My bad. This was apparently simple negligence on the part of the FBI.
So the FBI seized some... let's call it "property" and then just allowed it to decay? Even if their were a real trial and a conviction and the site were seized legitimately, wouldn't they then auction it off like any other police auction?
That's part of what the parent poster stated. Before the parent got to that accurate part though, there was this hyperbolic line about control and an implied conflict with a whole age group. That kinda spoils the argument.
Aw, you're just trolling. Yes men can use condoms but we all know that those suck, both for reliability and for the act itself. Meanwhile, a vasectomy is permanent and "the new drugs" (I assume you're talking about RISUG) don't exist yet. Saying... actually, I had read that as "Men have as much say as women." and was trying to call you out on that as being baloney. But you actually said, "Men have as much to say as women." which is certainly true, I guess. Men do like to talk. ... Neither one of those statements make sense in context.
Okay, I usually don't respond to the posts that are flagrantly insulting, but I'm going to make an effort here to respond in kind. Bear with me.
You idiot, they didn't "release information about a gay Saudi", they published more than half a million Saudi diplomatic cables which contained, among many many other things, the fact that this one guy had been arrested for homosexuality. Wikileaks is not a revenge site, where people like you go to post the private information of a girlfriend who dumped you when she found you had skidmarks larger than your dick. Wikileaks is a place where whistle blowers go to publish some of the secrets that very large organizations, mainly governments, hide from those people whom these secrets effect.
It is true that smarter people than you have criticized this approach to journalism, and those people may have a point: huge amounts of documents like this can not be censored for potentially harmful or embarrassing personal information prior to their release. Even if they could be, Wikileaks might not be willing to do so - they have built their reputation on total transparency, with the understanding that only when you receive a whole document, without redaction, can you be certain of its contents. Much as Hillary Clinton has received a lot of criticism for self-censoring emails from her server, so does Wikileaks avoid that criticism by censoring nothing.
(Now would be a good time to pause for a moment and make sure that your drool is not getting on your keyboard while you read this. Consider a bib.)
But, as I said, there are people who are not idiots who have pointed out problems with this approach. Most of those criticisms have taken the form of the TFA: when the US diplomatic cables were released there was much hand-wringing about all the lives that they would cost when sources were revealed. That didn't happen, but it was the same argument then as now: such a huge number of documents are bound to include a few embarrassing or possibly even dangerous tidbits about individuals. Some of those people went on to make the same implied argument as in TFA, "If we don't keep secrets, someone might get hurt." though previously they were less stupid about it than trying to suggest that if someone found out that a man had been arrested for homosexuality he might be... arrested for homosexuality. I don't know about Saudi Arabia specifically, but in most places arrest records are public information. (Was this written by someone you know? They seem to be writing at your level.)
Regarding my opinion about all of this: I'm uncertain about what's best for the public good, but if Wikileaks maintains an unflinching absolutism it's bound to get them in trouble eventually. I don't think that the TFA's method of cherry-picking a tiny tidbit out of a huge stack of information and shouting, "Look how much damage Wikileaks is doing!" is acting in the public's favor though. In fact, I think that sort of misinformation is very much against the best interests of the public.
I might further make a distinction between private information, personal records, and secrets, but any kind of subtlety like that would be lost on you, I'm sure. So I'm going to stop there.