"They" is only Valve in this case. Valve provides a tiny portion of the games on Steam, unless they can come up with some incentive for developers to do Linux ports (Valve could take a reduced cut, for example) that's not going to mean very much.
I haven't heard anything bad about Monoprice, but the question with buying monitors is always: what is their policy on bad pixels? Answer: up to five dead pixels are allowed, no mention of stuck pixels.
Some of the Korean shippers will let you pay a little extra for a monitor with no bad pixels.
Ugh. You're taking a phrase that used to be mean "disciplined" put into the constitution to specifically say "not a bunch of yokels with guns" and yet the NRA (and you) have decided to interpret it as "yes, a bunch of yokels with guns." Then you go on to say that what the second amendment was explicitly about, the security of a free state, is not actually what the second amendment was about. Brilliant.
The purpose of fracking is to collect natural gas, not to release it. The problem isn't necessarily fracking itself, just the sloppy unregulated fracking that we have now.
Arr... but the hardware's the only appealing part of this. Google has been great for hardware with their Nexus line, providing some really excellent devices at really good prices. This laptop would probably cost around half of what Apple charges (based on the price differentiation that they've managed with iDevices) for hardware that's at least as good. Put SUSE on it (or the flavor of your choice) and you have something really great.
Great, you want to throw away all our helium on the basis of some shitty article from Forbes? Forbes, which routinely publishes climate-denier rhetoric and any other bullshit PR that someone can use to make a little more money?
Most people are smarter than the market, the market is dumb as shit. What the market does well is maximizing short-term gains, and there are a lot of gains to be had in the short-term if we blind ourselves to long term environmental costs, including blowing through our natural resources like helium.
There are far more qualified people making a far more compelling case about the need to conserve helium.
No really, I'd appreciate an answer to my previous comment. The pro-war yokels are saying that I'm supporting them now and I don't understand that any more than I do the original controversy, would you care to explain what's going on here?
The TL;DR for my original post was that the military is doing what the military have always done - killing people based on some opaque internal criteria - and that certain folks who normally cheer about this and now yelling for no other reason than because they're haters, and haters hate.
Well I'm anti war and my guy is in power... and the perpetual wars in Iraq and Afghanistan seem to be winding up. So that's nice. Being anti war, I'm in favor of less war.
Regarding these drone strikes (and indefinite detention, for that matter) I've been silent because I don't understand the controversy. What gets me confused is why the Fox News heads are railing against the practice so hard - those guys _love_ killing people and torturing them without oversight. They keep adding in the word "citizen" as though that should make a difference. (I'm not really confused, those guys throw a fit when Obama takes a walk or sits in a chair or greets his wife. Remember the "terrorist fist bump?")
Tip: being born in another place does not make a person more killable, or less deserving of due process. Alas, this is not always possible. I'm sure that the military has a process in place for determining who gets attacked and where, whether by drone or by soldiers on the ground. It might be beneficial if they were more transparent about it. I'd like that, but if Obama supported it then those same talking heads on Fox would declare that he was interfering with the military and risking lives by adding burdensome bureaucracy. They'd doubtless call it "big government" or "anti-freedom regulation" or something.
People burning coal is ALSO a reason, I did neglect that, but coal for heating can't explain the air quality in Hong Kong, for example, which is subtropical.
China has plenty of small villages, that's where most of the population lives. That isn't the reason for the smog, it's the power plants. What you're implying is that cities are necessarily dirty and that's just not the case. Plenty of people in New York and the air is perfectly breathable. Shanghai recently spent a lot on setting up filtration for its coal-fire power plants and the air quality improved a fair amount. Still has a long way to go, but that's clearly where the problem is.
That doesn't make any sense. What dirty tricks? The only dirty tricks that have been happening have been by private companies who hate competition. Those few municipal networks that have actually got up and running as utilities have had nothing but good press.
Well I haven't used to BB10, but aside from that if you're in the US then the Nexus 4 is the easy winner. Great and cheap, no contract nonsense. The only downside is that it's rather large, this could potentially be an issue if you're sensitive to that.
You're missing the point, if gambling were illegal in the US then the Antiguan casinos wouldn't have been able to petition the WTO for remedy. A country is allowed to dictate whether an activity is legal within its borders, but it is not allowed to make it legal for its own businesses while excluding a foreign competitor.
If I recall correctly, this was something to do with horse racing in Kentucky (or was that another case?) where the Kentucky state government was attempting to protect gambling revenue by barring online casinos. There was a bit about suspending their domain names as well, a lot of judicial overreach on that one.
Six months was a plea bargain offer, it was not what he was facing. You may brush that aside, but that's the whole nature of the complaint against the prosecution: they were trying to force him to take the six months without a trial by threatening him with so much more.
Because if there was a fight at the bar we all go to, we could be quite certain the Israelis and Brits would get beat up with us (and maybe even the Canadians and the Aussies). After that it gets pretty thin.
I don't think a friend who doesn't want to get into a fight that you drunkenly started is any less of a friend, they're just tired of putting up with your crap.
There are many more countries who would help us if our fight was remotely justified, France, Germany, etc. Compare the countries in Afghanistan to the countries in Iraq. Interestingly, Israel isn't on either list. I don't know why that is.
Erm... I didn't make an argument for mandating anything, but I certainly do support early screening for birth defects and subsequent abortions. And yeah, I guess I support it for the same reasons. Interesting that the argument for "not playing god" is a pro-abortion argument in this case.
If the genes are extremely bad then they'll create a lot of people with birth defects. Some of these may be so severe that the people need to be taken care of on a permanent basis and will likely not reproduce, the others may merely have a genetic disorder along the lines of Huntington's Disease or some such. Your assumption that natural selection will weed them out is not how that works. Their rate of reproduction might not be quite as high as another person's, but a lower rate of reproduction is not the same thing as competitive pressure. All that means is that they won't become the norm, but they'll always be there - a group of people burdened with this defect for a fully avoidable reason.
Have a friend of the girly gender who totally swore off gaming, making fun of it as an anti-social pastime, but has really gotten into D&D in the last couple years. She's a very social person and had moved to another city where she had no friends. When gaming arose as an opportunity for her to socialize and meet new people, she really took to it.
This is what Santa is for, no need for religion. If you have children who are poorly behaved you tell them that big bad Santa is going to grind coal into their eyes and they stop. The advantage being that when they grow older they learn that Santa doesn't exist.
What I've read, unreliable speculation, is that the King publicly denounces the law and privately supports it in order to maintain his popularity. He also, reportedly, wields a great deal more influence than he's actually supposed to.
Well I've read, I think, a good portion of the comments on this story and you're the only one citing cost as a reason for extended magazines, so credit to you there.
A large portion of the arguments in favor of extended magazines seem to be falling into one of three categories: one is the aforementioned fantasy of killing evil gang members or whatever. I'm going to dismiss this one, it's been argued to death and I think it's ridiculous so I'm not going to go any further with that. The other two arguments seem to be that extended magazines are good because they're more effective/more useful, and that extended magazines are good because they're more likely to jam (ala the Aurora shooting) so that's what we want shooters to be using. I hoping that no one will be surprised that I don't find these two arguments compelling when taken together.
The most effective argument that I've read in response to this story is that we are not pursuing the right legislation here - yes, assault rifles (or semi-automatic rifles) are dramatic and make the news, but handguns are the biggest killers in the US by far and away. Since getting two gun laws through would be virtually impossible, legislating magazine size basically means not legislating handguns and, the argument goes, this is a mistake. I'm a math guy, and I try not to argue with numbers (they're my bosses), so this is the argument that convinced me, though I can see why some people might not be so happy with this one.
Think about it this way: you don't need something portable and concealable to defend your home or to fight a revolution or to kill dozens of drug-addled gang members. If you keep your assault rifle and get rid of handguns you can still do all of those things.
Most of that was directed at anyone who might be reading, but to address your last point specifically - restrictions on firearms and firearm accessories are not unconstitutional. It says right there in the second amendment: well regulated.
This is not a counter example. What you've provided is an example showing that smaller magazines aren't always beneficial, for a counter example you would be required to show that sometimes smaller magazines are harmful.
Slashdot Mirror
"They" is only Valve in this case. Valve provides a tiny portion of the games on Steam, unless they can come up with some incentive for developers to do Linux ports (Valve could take a reduced cut, for example) that's not going to mean very much.
I haven't heard anything bad about Monoprice, but the question with buying monitors is always: what is their policy on bad pixels? Answer: up to five dead pixels are allowed, no mention of stuck pixels.
Some of the Korean shippers will let you pay a little extra for a monitor with no bad pixels.
Ugh. You're taking a phrase that used to be mean "disciplined" put into the constitution to specifically say "not a bunch of yokels with guns" and yet the NRA (and you) have decided to interpret it as "yes, a bunch of yokels with guns." Then you go on to say that what the second amendment was explicitly about, the security of a free state, is not actually what the second amendment was about. Brilliant.
The purpose of fracking is to collect natural gas, not to release it. The problem isn't necessarily fracking itself, just the sloppy unregulated fracking that we have now.
Arr... but the hardware's the only appealing part of this. Google has been great for hardware with their Nexus line, providing some really excellent devices at really good prices. This laptop would probably cost around half of what Apple charges (based on the price differentiation that they've managed with iDevices) for hardware that's at least as good. Put SUSE on it (or the flavor of your choice) and you have something really great.
Great, you want to throw away all our helium on the basis of some shitty article from Forbes? Forbes, which routinely publishes climate-denier rhetoric and any other bullshit PR that someone can use to make a little more money?
Most people are smarter than the market, the market is dumb as shit. What the market does well is maximizing short-term gains, and there are a lot of gains to be had in the short-term if we blind ourselves to long term environmental costs, including blowing through our natural resources like helium.
There are far more qualified people making a far more compelling case about the need to conserve helium.
No really, I'd appreciate an answer to my previous comment. The pro-war yokels are saying that I'm supporting them now and I don't understand that any more than I do the original controversy, would you care to explain what's going on here?
The TL;DR for my original post was that the military is doing what the military have always done - killing people based on some opaque internal criteria - and that certain folks who normally cheer about this and now yelling for no other reason than because they're haters, and haters hate.
Did you read the whole comment? Or just part of one sentence?
Well I'm anti war and my guy is in power... and the perpetual wars in Iraq and Afghanistan seem to be winding up. So that's nice. Being anti war, I'm in favor of less war.
Regarding these drone strikes (and indefinite detention, for that matter) I've been silent because I don't understand the controversy. What gets me confused is why the Fox News heads are railing against the practice so hard - those guys _love_ killing people and torturing them without oversight. They keep adding in the word "citizen" as though that should make a difference. (I'm not really confused, those guys throw a fit when Obama takes a walk or sits in a chair or greets his wife. Remember the "terrorist fist bump?")
Tip: being born in another place does not make a person more killable, or less deserving of due process. Alas, this is not always possible. I'm sure that the military has a process in place for determining who gets attacked and where, whether by drone or by soldiers on the ground. It might be beneficial if they were more transparent about it. I'd like that, but if Obama supported it then those same talking heads on Fox would declare that he was interfering with the military and risking lives by adding burdensome bureaucracy. They'd doubtless call it "big government" or "anti-freedom regulation" or something.
People burning coal is ALSO a reason, I did neglect that, but coal for heating can't explain the air quality in Hong Kong, for example, which is subtropical.
China has plenty of small villages, that's where most of the population lives. That isn't the reason for the smog, it's the power plants. What you're implying is that cities are necessarily dirty and that's just not the case. Plenty of people in New York and the air is perfectly breathable. Shanghai recently spent a lot on setting up filtration for its coal-fire power plants and the air quality improved a fair amount. Still has a long way to go, but that's clearly where the problem is.
That doesn't make any sense. What dirty tricks? The only dirty tricks that have been happening have been by private companies who hate competition. Those few municipal networks that have actually got up and running as utilities have had nothing but good press.
Well I haven't used to BB10, but aside from that if you're in the US then the Nexus 4 is the easy winner. Great and cheap, no contract nonsense. The only downside is that it's rather large, this could potentially be an issue if you're sensitive to that.
You're missing the point, if gambling were illegal in the US then the Antiguan casinos wouldn't have been able to petition the WTO for remedy. A country is allowed to dictate whether an activity is legal within its borders, but it is not allowed to make it legal for its own businesses while excluding a foreign competitor.
If I recall correctly, this was something to do with horse racing in Kentucky (or was that another case?) where the Kentucky state government was attempting to protect gambling revenue by barring online casinos. There was a bit about suspending their domain names as well, a lot of judicial overreach on that one.
According to your logic, any street protester should be ready for 2 years of daily waterboarding from the FBI.
CIA. I know I'm being a pedant, but I think blame should be placed on the right party.
Six months was a plea bargain offer, it was not what he was facing. You may brush that aside, but that's the whole nature of the complaint against the prosecution: they were trying to force him to take the six months without a trial by threatening him with so much more.
Because if there was a fight at the bar we all go to, we could be quite certain the Israelis and Brits would get beat up with us (and maybe even the Canadians and the Aussies). After that it gets pretty thin.
I don't think a friend who doesn't want to get into a fight that you drunkenly started is any less of a friend, they're just tired of putting up with your crap.
There are many more countries who would help us if our fight was remotely justified, France, Germany, etc. Compare the countries in Afghanistan to the countries in Iraq. Interestingly, Israel isn't on either list. I don't know why that is.
Erm... I didn't make an argument for mandating anything, but I certainly do support early screening for birth defects and subsequent abortions. And yeah, I guess I support it for the same reasons. Interesting that the argument for "not playing god" is a pro-abortion argument in this case.
If the genes are extremely bad then they'll create a lot of people with birth defects. Some of these may be so severe that the people need to be taken care of on a permanent basis and will likely not reproduce, the others may merely have a genetic disorder along the lines of Huntington's Disease or some such. Your assumption that natural selection will weed them out is not how that works. Their rate of reproduction might not be quite as high as another person's, but a lower rate of reproduction is not the same thing as competitive pressure. All that means is that they won't become the norm, but they'll always be there - a group of people burdened with this defect for a fully avoidable reason.
Have a friend of the girly gender who totally swore off gaming, making fun of it as an anti-social pastime, but has really gotten into D&D in the last couple years. She's a very social person and had moved to another city where she had no friends. When gaming arose as an opportunity for her to socialize and meet new people, she really took to it.
This is what Santa is for, no need for religion. If you have children who are poorly behaved you tell them that big bad Santa is going to grind coal into their eyes and they stop. The advantage being that when they grow older they learn that Santa doesn't exist.
What I've read, unreliable speculation, is that the King publicly denounces the law and privately supports it in order to maintain his popularity. He also, reportedly, wields a great deal more influence than he's actually supposed to.
Well I've read, I think, a good portion of the comments on this story and you're the only one citing cost as a reason for extended magazines, so credit to you there.
A large portion of the arguments in favor of extended magazines seem to be falling into one of three categories: one is the aforementioned fantasy of killing evil gang members or whatever. I'm going to dismiss this one, it's been argued to death and I think it's ridiculous so I'm not going to go any further with that. The other two arguments seem to be that extended magazines are good because they're more effective/more useful, and that extended magazines are good because they're more likely to jam (ala the Aurora shooting) so that's what we want shooters to be using. I hoping that no one will be surprised that I don't find these two arguments compelling when taken together.
The most effective argument that I've read in response to this story is that we are not pursuing the right legislation here - yes, assault rifles (or semi-automatic rifles) are dramatic and make the news, but handguns are the biggest killers in the US by far and away. Since getting two gun laws through would be virtually impossible, legislating magazine size basically means not legislating handguns and, the argument goes, this is a mistake. I'm a math guy, and I try not to argue with numbers (they're my bosses), so this is the argument that convinced me, though I can see why some people might not be so happy with this one.
Think about it this way: you don't need something portable and concealable to defend your home or to fight a revolution or to kill dozens of drug-addled gang members. If you keep your assault rifle and get rid of handguns you can still do all of those things.
Most of that was directed at anyone who might be reading, but to address your last point specifically - restrictions on firearms and firearm accessories are not unconstitutional. It says right there in the second amendment: well regulated.
Okay, fair enough. Showing that large magazines can be beneficial also makes a legit counter example.
This is not a counter example. What you've provided is an example showing that smaller magazines aren't always beneficial, for a counter example you would be required to show that sometimes smaller magazines are harmful.