No, but you can remove something from Thingiverse. If your objective is dissociate yourself from the ideology, rather than eliminate the information altogether, than this is effective.
What I was saying is that the government wouldn't need to engage in some sort of anti press conspiracy because there are plenty of people who will do it for them. Example:
I'd guess that they stopped accepting bitcoins because they started receiving them instead of real money. It's all well and good to accept them as long as it doesn't impact regular donations, but if people start giving you something that volatile when they would otherwise be giving you something that you could definitely use it will hurt your organization.
Let's not allow this to descend into conspiracy theories quite so quickly. There's no reason to assume it was the government complaining about this, there are an awful lot of rubes in the US who have defended censoring Wikileaks.
Obviously, the immediate worry is that the Freedom of the Press Foundation will just get itself on the banned list and they don't seem to mention this in the article. Since this is a US organization it would also be subject to National Security Letters, they also don't address this...
My enthusiasm is tempered a bit, but I think this is really encouraging.
I just recently ordered a 650 Ti, because that's the newest thing, but if you're not planning on playing any games then yes - Intel is the way to go for cheapness and reliability and power efficiency.
I was keen on this until I had a look at the privacy policy. They don't even pay lipservice to privacy, explicitly saying that they will combine whatever information they get from you with information from third parties and also share your information with third parties. I wouldn't use this without a VPN.
Without an opening in the cavity you can't get the powder out. You're starting with a bed of powder and you're fusing parts of it together - if you try to make an unbroken shell you're just going to wind up with something full of your material powder.
Yes, but they'd have to be hollow and you can't print hollow objects without holes in them. So, in other words, people would be able to look inside your dice and see that they weren't symmetrical.
Typical loaded dice are made with two types of material, one denser than the other, and Shapeways only prints with a single material. So printing dice that are asymmetrical is the only option.
It's the same issue that people have with Windows 8, or Internet Explorer for that matter - a de facto monopoly. It isn't quite to Apple's level, where they forcibly shut out competition, but you can see that's where it's headed.
You can do that now with Steam... just put it in "offline" mode. Games will no longer automatically update themselves is about the only disadvantage. All of your Steam games will run just fine, and will continue to run just fine even in "online" mode if you don't have a current Internet connection. As far as DRM goes, Steam is easily the least intrusive.
Nonsense. Can I sell my game? Can I lend it to a friend? Suppose I want to come back to my game years later when Steam's activation servers are gone, can I pull it out of my closet and install it on my new computer? Offline mode is not a substitute for media ownership.
I'm having trouble following the summary here, are they just saying that he posted a link to some site in the #ProjectPM channel? What is this transfer business?
Don't assume. I like hardware DRM: sure it's strict, but console games don't require activation (this is changing... but still mostly true). That's the sticking point for me - retaining ownership of my media. I've never used Steam, I've avoided it since its debut for this reason, but I would get one of these if it meant that I could play games without going online to ask permission first.
Well I appreciate you fleshing out my little historical summary, but most of what you say doesn't really contradict my conclusion. Yes, the Democratic party was led by Andrew Jackson. Yes, that was probably the biggest reason why they were so racist at the time. Yes that's because of a specific personality, but it's still the policy that they backed. You several times identify the civil war as the reason why the south was so adamantly democratic, I said the reason was slavery, I don't see that we're contradicting one another.
Yes Teddy Roosevelt (Republican) was progressive, but so was Woodrow Wilson (Democrat). As near as I can tell, and I don't claim expertise, the progressive era can't be characterized by either political party and when the progressive era ended it was the Democrats who continued with those ideals - as you point out with FDR.
I appreciate that you've given some more information on why the republicans became the anti-integration party, just a matter of political expedience, but again I don't see how that's different from what I said earlier.
So the only point where we disagree is in our conclusions. Your statement that neither party has been for any particular racial policy is unequivocally false - you say yourself that the Republican party was formed in response to a pro-slavery push by the Democrats, and also that the Republicans were in part the anti-slavery remnants of the Whigs. That's clear racial policy right there.
You're probably right that much of the direction of the parties has been dominated by specific personalities, I don't see how that changes anything. And yes, geo-demographics was the point that I was trying to make: when the parties' racial policies changed, when they flipped the anti-civil rights democrats, their voting base changed as well. Implying that racial policies are the largest driving factor behind the party loyalty of voters.
Thank you. I'm disappointed that I had to read down this far to find a comment like this, I get suspicious anytime I see anyone talking about "the Obama administration" doing anything. It's like "anthropogenic climate change" - a phrase which is technically accurate, but generally only used by partisans.
I find the evolution of the Democratic and Republican parties very interesting, both the aspects that they've retained and traded. The Democratic party was originally, as now, the populist party, advocating for increased rights and just general egalitarianism. Their base was among poor southern farmers who saw organizing this way as a way out of poverty. Poor *white* southern farmers - the Democratic party was originally pro-slavery and, somehow, managed to double-think their way around being in favor of both enslavement and equality.
The Republican party, as now, represented the wealthy and the religious fundamentalists. They had their base in the more urban north, where business interests had more sway. Being anti-slavery was the original unifying characteristic of the Republicans, this is why they broke from the Whigs, and probably why Lincoln identified with the Republican party - the Republicans were not the progressives back then, but they were anti-slavery and being anti-slavery was the platform which made Lincoln famous (the Lincoln–Douglas debates).
This was more or less how things worked, with the Democratic base in the south and the Republican base in the north, up until the Civil Rights movement when the Republicans decided to back segregation and the Democrats (mostly) supported integration. There remained some very prominent pro-segregation southern Democrats at this time - Strom Thurmond was originally a Democrat and switched to Republican in 1964. I haven't found a good reference for the reason behind this switch between the two parties, only something brief about the Republicans trying to gain support in the south by appealing to conservative voters. I'd appreciate it if anyone could point me towards something readable.
At any rate, the takeaway is this: the Democrats have always been for progressive and egalitarian issues while the Republicans have always been pro-business and for religious fundamentalism. What's changed in their policies centers around racial issues, and their base of support has also changed correspondingly. Implying that what American politics really centers on is racism, and all the other stuff that we actually talk about and hear about is secondary.
Hershey's Special Dark has won quite a few taste tests. It's by no means the best there is, but declaring a product to be worthless just because of its branding is no better than declaring a product to be great just because of its branding (or lack of branding).
This isn't for fresh bread, this is for packaged bread. Sliced bread. There's no nutrition degradation and the plastic will keep it from going stale and losing any volatile flavors. I don't think your tomato comparison is really apt, I don't see how it relates to packaged bread.
Maybe I should have put it in quotes or something to be more clear: "Battle Toads and Double Dragon." It's a single game, a crossover between Battle Toads and another franchise:
I used to love Nintendo Power too. It wasn't so much that I cared about reviews, I just wanted to read about video games. Like some people read about cars - I was fantasizing.
That was up until I got Battle Toads and Double Dragon, based on their enthusiastic endorsement. That was when I learned that not only should I not love Nintendo Power, I should never have loved them. Was a hard lesson for me.
No, the idea is that the government makes effectively the same amount of money (seigniorage) from selling bills as it does coins. The actual cost of minting the coins is greater than printing the bills, but the bills have to be replaced sooner so the net cost is very similar between them. The greater income from coins comes from this hoarding behavior necessitating a larger number of coins than bills. So they're making more money by selling more coins.
Slashdot Mirror
Sintering looks great, but a home model is unlikely to ever be affordable. At least one of any significant size.
"... THEN this is effective."
Man, I am embarass.
No, but you can remove something from Thingiverse. If your objective is dissociate yourself from the ideology, rather than eliminate the information altogether, than this is effective.
Cities in the US are less dense because of the lack of efficient public transportation. This was not an accident:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Motors_streetcar_conspiracy
I'm not sure that I follow. A promo trick by who?
What I was saying is that the government wouldn't need to engage in some sort of anti press conspiracy because there are plenty of people who will do it for them. Example:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/oct/26/wikileaks-fox-iraq-war-logs
I'd guess that they stopped accepting bitcoins because they started receiving them instead of real money. It's all well and good to accept them as long as it doesn't impact regular donations, but if people start giving you something that volatile when they would otherwise be giving you something that you could definitely use it will hurt your organization.
Let's not allow this to descend into conspiracy theories quite so quickly. There's no reason to assume it was the government complaining about this, there are an awful lot of rubes in the US who have defended censoring Wikileaks.
Obviously, the immediate worry is that the Freedom of the Press Foundation will just get itself on the banned list and they don't seem to mention this in the article. Since this is a US organization it would also be subject to National Security Letters, they also don't address this...
My enthusiasm is tempered a bit, but I think this is really encouraging.
I just recently ordered a 650 Ti, because that's the newest thing, but if you're not planning on playing any games then yes - Intel is the way to go for cheapness and reliability and power efficiency.
I was keen on this until I had a look at the privacy policy. They don't even pay lipservice to privacy, explicitly saying that they will combine whatever information they get from you with information from third parties and also share your information with third parties. I wouldn't use this without a VPN.
Without an opening in the cavity you can't get the powder out. You're starting with a bed of powder and you're fusing parts of it together - if you try to make an unbroken shell you're just going to wind up with something full of your material powder.
Microsoft only takes 30% for the first $25,000 of a given app. After that it's 20%.
Yes, but they'd have to be hollow and you can't print hollow objects without holes in them. So, in other words, people would be able to look inside your dice and see that they weren't symmetrical.
Typical loaded dice are made with two types of material, one denser than the other, and Shapeways only prints with a single material. So printing dice that are asymmetrical is the only option.
It's the same issue that people have with Windows 8, or Internet Explorer for that matter - a de facto monopoly. It isn't quite to Apple's level, where they forcibly shut out competition, but you can see that's where it's headed.
You can do that now with Steam... just put it in "offline" mode. Games will no longer automatically update themselves is about the only disadvantage. All of your Steam games will run just fine, and will continue to run just fine even in "online" mode if you don't have a current Internet connection. As far as DRM goes, Steam is easily the least intrusive.
Nonsense. Can I sell my game? Can I lend it to a friend? Suppose I want to come back to my game years later when Steam's activation servers are gone, can I pull it out of my closet and install it on my new computer? Offline mode is not a substitute for media ownership.
I'm having trouble following the summary here, are they just saying that he posted a link to some site in the #ProjectPM channel? What is this transfer business?
Don't assume. I like hardware DRM: sure it's strict, but console games don't require activation (this is changing... but still mostly true). That's the sticking point for me - retaining ownership of my media. I've never used Steam, I've avoided it since its debut for this reason, but I would get one of these if it meant that I could play games without going online to ask permission first.
Well I appreciate you fleshing out my little historical summary, but most of what you say doesn't really contradict my conclusion. Yes, the Democratic party was led by Andrew Jackson. Yes, that was probably the biggest reason why they were so racist at the time. Yes that's because of a specific personality, but it's still the policy that they backed. You several times identify the civil war as the reason why the south was so adamantly democratic, I said the reason was slavery, I don't see that we're contradicting one another.
Yes Teddy Roosevelt (Republican) was progressive, but so was Woodrow Wilson (Democrat). As near as I can tell, and I don't claim expertise, the progressive era can't be characterized by either political party and when the progressive era ended it was the Democrats who continued with those ideals - as you point out with FDR.
I appreciate that you've given some more information on why the republicans became the anti-integration party, just a matter of political expedience, but again I don't see how that's different from what I said earlier.
So the only point where we disagree is in our conclusions. Your statement that neither party has been for any particular racial policy is unequivocally false - you say yourself that the Republican party was formed in response to a pro-slavery push by the Democrats, and also that the Republicans were in part the anti-slavery remnants of the Whigs. That's clear racial policy right there.
You're probably right that much of the direction of the parties has been dominated by specific personalities, I don't see how that changes anything. And yes, geo-demographics was the point that I was trying to make: when the parties' racial policies changed, when they flipped the anti-civil rights democrats, their voting base changed as well. Implying that racial policies are the largest driving factor behind the party loyalty of voters.
Thank you. I'm disappointed that I had to read down this far to find a comment like this, I get suspicious anytime I see anyone talking about "the Obama administration" doing anything. It's like "anthropogenic climate change" - a phrase which is technically accurate, but generally only used by partisans.
I find the evolution of the Democratic and Republican parties very interesting, both the aspects that they've retained and traded. The Democratic party was originally, as now, the populist party, advocating for increased rights and just general egalitarianism. Their base was among poor southern farmers who saw organizing this way as a way out of poverty. Poor *white* southern farmers - the Democratic party was originally pro-slavery and, somehow, managed to double-think their way around being in favor of both enslavement and equality.
The Republican party, as now, represented the wealthy and the religious fundamentalists. They had their base in the more urban north, where business interests had more sway. Being anti-slavery was the original unifying characteristic of the Republicans, this is why they broke from the Whigs, and probably why Lincoln identified with the Republican party - the Republicans were not the progressives back then, but they were anti-slavery and being anti-slavery was the platform which made Lincoln famous (the Lincoln–Douglas debates).
This was more or less how things worked, with the Democratic base in the south and the Republican base in the north, up until the Civil Rights movement when the Republicans decided to back segregation and the Democrats (mostly) supported integration. There remained some very prominent pro-segregation southern Democrats at this time - Strom Thurmond was originally a Democrat and switched to Republican in 1964. I haven't found a good reference for the reason behind this switch between the two parties, only something brief about the Republicans trying to gain support in the south by appealing to conservative voters. I'd appreciate it if anyone could point me towards something readable.
At any rate, the takeaway is this: the Democrats have always been for progressive and egalitarian issues while the Republicans have always been pro-business and for religious fundamentalism. What's changed in their policies centers around racial issues, and their base of support has also changed correspondingly. Implying that what American politics really centers on is racism, and all the other stuff that we actually talk about and hear about is secondary.
Hershey's Special Dark has won quite a few taste tests. It's by no means the best there is, but declaring a product to be worthless just because of its branding is no better than declaring a product to be great just because of its branding (or lack of branding).
This isn't for fresh bread, this is for packaged bread. Sliced bread. There's no nutrition degradation and the plastic will keep it from going stale and losing any volatile flavors. I don't think your tomato comparison is really apt, I don't see how it relates to packaged bread.
Maybe I should have put it in quotes or something to be more clear: "Battle Toads and Double Dragon." It's a single game, a crossover between Battle Toads and another franchise:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battletoads_&_Double_Dragon
Bizarrely, the Wikipedia entry says that the game was good. That's odd. One of the worst video game purchases I've ever made.
I used to love Nintendo Power too. It wasn't so much that I cared about reviews, I just wanted to read about video games. Like some people read about cars - I was fantasizing.
That was up until I got Battle Toads and Double Dragon, based on their enthusiastic endorsement. That was when I learned that not only should I not love Nintendo Power, I should never have loved them. Was a hard lesson for me.
No, the idea is that the government makes effectively the same amount of money (seigniorage) from selling bills as it does coins. The actual cost of minting the coins is greater than printing the bills, but the bills have to be replaced sooner so the net cost is very similar between them. The greater income from coins comes from this hoarding behavior necessitating a larger number of coins than bills. So they're making more money by selling more coins.