Even if you can rule that out, power corrupts and nobody is incorruptible. Absolute power, corrupts absolutely.
If power corrupts, why are powerless "small-fries" corrupted?
In the public education system, there are plenty of individuals that have no power - however, they are corrupted enough to violently assault other individuals on a daily basis.
Also, God isn't that corrupted either. When he was about to blast a city into oblivion, he listened to a worshipper and initially agreed not to destroy the city if he could find 50 good individuals. He was then haggled downward to 10 individuals. In fact, he became less corrupt as the bible progressed - eventually wanting to cast off the shackles of the old religion for a new one.
Remind yourself that if YOU got enough power, you would start out the ultimate force for good in society -but one day, you WILL wake and discover you are a mad dictator.
On a smaller scale, let's say you become a Wikipedia administrator. You have lots of power, and become the ultimate force for good (well, pen-ultimate in this case.) When you abuse your position, you lose administrative privileges, which is why you'll never be corrupted. While the group of administrators as a whole may be corrupted, they won't since Wikipedia could easily stop being the bastion that it should be, thus causing the administrators to lose their power. (This is the case, since people in power allegedly don't want to lose their power.)
Thus, you may want to change the cliche to "Immunity corrupts; absolute immunity corrupts absolutely."
If a process dies on Windows (or worse, becomes an out of control process), it CAN bring the entire system down with it.
Only on Windows 9x. Windows NT has long fixed that issue by isolating process space.
Also, if a critical driver fails (such as a keyboard driver - and for this, it doesn't need to crash), the stability of the core operating system is moot for most people, since they need to reboot the system to get the driver working again. (I experienced this with an OEM "Multimedia keyboard" driver, and know how to correct it.) The same applies to the display driver - if you don't see anything on the screen, you can't do much with your system.
This is why you can continually remove processes and daemons that you do not want on Linux as they are not all tied into each other like on Windows.
Want to see which processes/services are "core" in Windows? Run it in safe mode. When you reboot normally, you can disable anything that wasn't enabled in safe mode - but you'll risk losing important functionality such as networking. If you take it to enough of an extreme, some applications won't have dependencies that they expect to be installed. The same applies to Linux - most applications expect things to be running.
Most definitely there is a market for that, and someone else innovated exceedingly well (innovation is about executing on an idea, not necessarily inventing a new one).
How is Scrabulous more innovative than Yahoo's version of Literati? I haven't played wither game, but as far as I know, Literati was first.
Hasbro instead came late to the game with a mediocre competitor that simply won't win. So instead of becoming the better product and competing for mindshare (the free market way!), they went to court (whose way is that??).
It is the way of a publically traded company. Shareholders want to see the bottom line maxed out whenever possible, which means the following: - Hasbro must defend their trademarks to prevent dilution. If they don't, consumers will get confused on what is a "canon" game of Scrabble from Hasbro, causing Hasbro to lose profit. In fact, they are actively expected to defend their trademarks when other people of making a profit from it. - Since they aren't a software company, they can't justify hiring a programming team. However, they can contract or license the Scrabble trademark to EA or other interested parties. They may have a barrier to entry to prevent an infinite number of requests pouring in, which does prevent rapid deployment but also ensures the value of the trademark. - Releasing an online version does require a bit of discussion. As you know, releasing a game for free on Facebook provides no direct profit and relies on ad revenue instead, which is something shareholders aren't necessarily comfortable with.
I forget what game it was, but to beat the end boss you had to move the controller to the second port on the system (ps1 if I remember correctly.) That's just out of context with the game and obnoxiously stupid.
Metal Gear Solid, and Psycho Mantis wasn't a final boss.
There were clues that Psycho Mantis was breaking the forth wall, such as the ability to detect which games you've played (commenting on Castlevania, etc.) This alone changes the context of how to solve the puzzle.
In the game, if you had trouble with a section, you generally use the Codec to contact other characters - they can give you information on how to proceed, such as a possible route you can take, or in the Psycho Mantis boss fight, that you use the second controller.
I assume you are talking about the underground tram in the Selenetic Age (or whatever it was called). Stupid question, as I haven't played the game in years. Is there an actual "solve the puzzle" solution to that part?
The sound played whenever you were on the right track, and indicated the direction at which you should be heading. It can either be a pure sound for one of the cardinal directions, or a combined sound if it's NE/SE/NW/SW. This is the same sound that you hear when in the spinning fortress (where that sound indicates the orientation.)
Even with the walkthrough in the masterpiece edition, I still didn't understand the significance of the sound until later in the game. Based on that maze, I felt that it was critical to use the walkthrough in order to proceed because it would take an excessive amount of time to go through the maze for the first time.
You haven't played any of the REALLY old adventure/puzzle games. These were games where you COULDN'T backtrack. A lot of the old ones (the King's quest series has a number of examples of this) had points where if you didn't pick up something at a certain point, you were SCREWED and had to start the game over again.
That's called Dead-ending, and is covered under Obscure puzzles (or non-sensical, depending on the severity).
I have played Multi-dimensional Thief if that's what you're asking, and I even had a bugged version that couldn't be completed (one of the timers wouldn't stop as required). There are plenty of dead-ends in that game because you explicitly did something wrong (as opposed to simply forgetting an item in various obscure puzzles.)
This kind of thing is a big part of what killed adventure/puzzle games.
Not exactly - backtracking is acceptable and is known to be present in other games as well. For example, Quake 4 usually had ammo laying about the map - since you usually had maxed out ammo, you could leave it behind and come back later to collect it when you were running low.
The real killers are:
Nonsensical puzzles, such as having to put a tape on a hole to get hair from a cat, and use syrup to attach it as a moustache in order to advance through a gate.
Obscure puzzles, which can range from a hard-to-find solution, but can also utilize guessing the verb or some variant thereof. (Pixel hunting qualifies if it's a graphical adventure.) Sometimes the solution makes sense, but most often it feels as if you have to scrutinize details beyond what is obvious or given to the viewer.
Tedious puzzles, such as the tram-ride in Myst. Once might be okay, but twice is a bit excessive.
The fact that alternatives exist does not mean that entertainment is not being withheld.
The only thing Hasbro is withholding is the authorization to use their trademark - which isn't necessary for Scrabulous to function. Picking a different name would easily avoid this issue, and if the game really was optimized, wouldn't affect the popularity.
Hasbro won't care that they lost your business, since you were already giving it to a competitor. As far as they are concerned, you were supporting that competitor because you knew they were infringing on the trademark and trying to capitalize on their hard work.
Oh, and by the way, you can rest assured that I've never paid for a copy of Microsoft Windows.
And yet, you were playing M:TGO, a game for Microsoft Windows. Whether you are using a copy of Windows or are playing it through Wine, you are encouraging the development of applications for that platform, thus encouraging OEMs and businesses to keep purchasing licenses for that platform.
If you want to boycott Microsoft, do it properly and boycott the platform. In fact, treat Microsoft Windows in the same way you treat The game.
Fuck companies that cling to the antiquated business model that withholding entertainment through legal action is still a valid way to do things.
No entertainment is being withheld. As you know, there's already a competitor known as Literati that doesn't violate the trademark or copyright of Scrabble. You can find a version on Yahoo! games. (Oh, and they do have an electronic version of Scrabble as well. It's hotseat rather than networked, but it's available.)
Of course, if you want to boycott companies that sue competitors that violate their trademark, go right ahead. Feel free to uninstall Microsoft Windows, since Microsoft sued Linspire when they were called LindowsOS.
Patents are only good for 15 years or so. so the workings of Scrabble are public domain (ie the addition and multiplication of points, placements etc... Only the name and logo are protect-able at this point.
Scrabble isn't protected by patent - it's protected by copyright.
Anyone can create a 15x15 grid with various points to multiply a score. However, copyright law protects the decoration of the board in certain patterns.
If I were Scrabulous, I would counter sue for infringement on the new EA Scrabble version, on the grounds that the similarities between EA Scrabble and Scrabulous are greater than the similarities between Scrabble-the-Board-Game, and Scrabulous. In short, the addition of internet connectivity and facebook integration is a novel game which serves a customer base which is completely unavailble to a Boardgame due to distance - while the duplicate EA version serves exactly the same customer in exactly the same way.
The only similarity between EA's Scrabble and Scrabulous that is not covered under the board game is the addition of Internet connectivity - which was already handled by EA's wide variety of games released many years before Scrabulous. Any other similarities between EA Scrabble and Scrabulous are already sanctioned by Hasbro's licensing agreement with EA, and attempting to use these similarities on the basis for the suit is a form of plagiarism.
Taking his PC i think was a bit overboard unless they had hard evidence that some crime was committed with the PC. The judge should never have permitted that warrant to go thru.
The PC can contain evidence, such as unpublished photos. Saying you can't grab a PC for evidence is just like saying you can't search the personal diary for evidence (which obviously isn't the case.)
In criminal court, search warrants can be issued as long as they can convince a judge that there's a good chance evidence can be improved or obtained. It's a tactic popular with child porn cases, but can be extended to other cases as well.
Which sane person centralizes their information on a laptop? They have a reliability rate lower on desktops (counting temporary/permanent disappearance, damage, etc.) and are meant only for work away from the central location.
At the very least, they should get a copy of SyncToy (a Microsoft product) that's capable of ensuring the local and remote folders are up-to-date. That insures that if you've forgot your laptop somewhere, you won't be dead in the water.
It may be good to have auto-expiring laws, but not good to base the entire system around it. Laws are meant to be stable (i.e. not change fluidly based on the government's activities or lack thereof), and need a specific procedure to implement these laws.
Not all laws or bills passed are meant to make things illegal - they can also provide procedures and funding in some instances, or setup international trade plans. In one case, they can be used to issue a divorce (before the divorce system was possible through the court system), but putting an auto-expiry on a divorce would cause much more problems, whether it has to do with the bill expiring after a re-marriage with a third person, or when the divorce becomes public record every 10 years.
While you can avoid repassing the divorce bills by setting up a divorce framework in the court system, what's a fair way to distribute the funds obtained in the marriage? Will the government choose a 50/50 split over division based on the contribution to the marriage? If a government can't agree on the result (which can happen in some minority governments), you'll be back to passing divorce bills.
Missing out on the divorce framework may be minor, but wait until some more important law gets forgotten by the government.
Take this example: One city has an ordinance prohibiting the use of a firearm within the urban area (with some exceptions.) When the state comes out with a handgun/firearm ban, the local city can no longer state that there is a benefit for carrying the law anymore and must let it go. When the state's law later gets repealed or declared unconstitutional, the city is not as likely to remember that they had that initial law to begin with.
There's also the very rare case where parties want to push their own version of a given law, and as a result, it doesn't get renewed since the parties don't cooperate.
I don't understand why there is a problem here. Simply shut down FF when you aren't using it, then let the tabs repopulate when you start again.
When I use shut down firefox when it isn't in use, I don't have an idea what I'll use it for the next time I launch it. It may be for Slashdot, to look up information about a function, or for some other reason. Having background tabs load tends to slow down what I intend on doing at that given time.
Also, loading an instance of an application is perceived to be slower than pressing alt-tab.
Why expose your system to possible attacks from a freshly compromised web site, when you aren't actively browsing?
A better question is to ask is why web browsers automatically gives that level of trust to a foreign website, given the number and type of attacks that have occurred in the past 10 years. Web pages are just that: pages. They don't need to automatically refresh (unless the website operator is desperate for traffic enough to cycle ads), and the content doesn't change that frequently (unless it's a really high-traffic website, in which case you'll miss stuff anyway.)
In the more general case, why keep any software running for hours in an idle mode when you aren't using it?
I came up with an even more general case - why keep software installed if you aren't going to use them? This resulted in installing only the minimal components of Windows 95, causing some later applications to falter since I didn't install any networking components on a non-networked computer.
Basically, you have to have software installed, even if there's no perceived use. At that point, you can keep certain applications in memory with full knowledge that they can be swapped to disk if they aren't doing anything (they'll be reloaded if you click on the window.)
I've had a CPU hogging issue with Firefox 3.0, and no, it wasn't flash.
I use two computers - a desktop and a notebook. My desktop still runs Firefox 2.0 (and it's beginning to crash a bit too frequently for my tastes), and my notebook runs Firefox 3.0. I export the bookmarks from my desktop, and import them onto the laptop. If I ran Firefox 2.0, it would be done very quickly (10 seconds maximum). However, Firefox 3.0 takes 1 minute to do so, given the quantity of bookmarks I have. Even if it's a "minor" section in the Firefox code, don't be suprised if there's some other portion of Firefox that's taking longer than normal, in the same way that Netscape Communicator 4.7 CPU-hogged on some cascaded tables.
As for flash, I haven't seen it hog CPU very recently. The worst case where was Flash was able to take out Firefox on certain embedded objects (i.e. as with Sonny) by somehow locking portions of Firefox's interface (i.e. you couldn't select menu items).
If they start looking at packet sizes to determine different kinds of encrypted traffic then the packets will just be padded, causing their network to be further overloaded...
Packets involved in a P2P transfer or any other form of data stream are designed to maximize throughput - they send a full packet whenever possible. Padding or adding extra data is in direct contravention to this because it sends useless data that will be discarded. You can identify them because the local to remote packet size is typically large and continuous, which is not normal for an SSH connection.
Suppose I bought some porn video and there was a code that my kids found that let them play a game where they beat people and ran them over for fun. Would I have case? No, since North America treats violence as equivalant to a recommended 17+ 'M' rating, while porn uses a strict 18+ 'AO' rating. Maybe something could happen in another country, but it's doubtful said rating system varies like that.
There would be a case (a minor one) if you include 18+ 'AO' content in the 17+ 'M' game. Aside from breaching the contract with the ESRB, it's also implying that the game itself was safe enough for parents to buy for the children they believed could properly handle the 17+ rating. (Remember: The ESRB states 'M' rated games are suitable for people aged 17+, and does not exclude 16-year-olds. The 'AO' rating is much more strict. )
Unfortunately, DF is single-threaded, I believe, which means it won't benefit very much from a cluster (or even multi-core systems). Hopefully Toady will fix that later on. I doubt that's possible - if a game was designed from the start as single threaded, it's not going to become multi-threaded without re-writing the whole engine.
For example, take Quake - it's gameplay is handled through a scripting engine known as Quake-C, which reacts to events (such as player movement or timers, etc.) It's only capable of running one script at a time, thus giving the entities with a lower index to preempt actions from newer entities - however, you are free to create as much complexity as you want since you don't have any constraints.
A multi-core game works much differently. When a mob/player needs to do something, it is given a snapshot of what's around and available. It then sends a request to the server saying that this is what I want to do. The server can process this request in parallel and dispatch events to individual mobs/players telling what happened to them, and the mobs then react accordingly. In this architecture, the mobs/players are not allowed to directly interact with each other aside from politely asking the other mob to take 1d6 damage. (You also notice some quirks as well which might not be present in the first design.)
I'm not sure about Dwarf Fortress, but I suspect it may be in the first category.
Heck, I use the background images from Bejeweled as wallpaper. Does that make me an IP infringer? Are you claiming you invented or created the wallpaper taken from Bejewelled?
This is simple Fair use IMHO, although they should give credit to the sources. Fair use isn't an absolute defence, especially when you do it for commercial gain and give the impression that you created the assets yourself.
I was placing orders on these sites in question. Should I continue doing so?
As far as I know, the server accepts orders as long as the client-side Javascript doesn't make an objection - I could easily use randomly generated contact information for filling these forms or otherwise turn off Javascript to create an order with blank billing information. Of course, they've blocked TOR with a spurious "Invalid Server Configuration" error message, thus I actually have to use a direct connection from multiple points.
How does learning basic arithmetic improve an individuals quality of life? The calculator improves quality of life. Ever went to a grocery store with a total around $19.02? When you give a $20 bill, the cash register reports change as $0.98. If you then say that you have two pennies, the cashier will do mental arithmetic and return the correct change of $0.96 instead of what the register says.
(Well, $1.00 really, but it's the thought that counts. )
Basic arithmetic, also known as mental math, is extremely important. Whether it's in the form of making on-the-fly corrections or detecting that there may be something wrong with a given result, it provides a foundation for basically everything in society.
I mean... Take OS X for exampole. Just pop in the install CD and you can enable the root account and reset the system password. There are plenty of 3rd party apps for windows that do the same thing (actually I'm sure MS even provides some tools on MSDN for admins). Certain features of the OS, such as encryption/stored passwords, sometimes get erased or reset if you do that (or otherwise have a separate independent password.)
If you have some embarrassing information on your system (e.g. a collection of images, comics, or stories), they will become inaccessible unless you've backed up your security certificate to another secure location.
Slashdot Mirror
Even if you can rule that out, power corrupts and nobody is incorruptible. Absolute power, corrupts absolutely.
If power corrupts, why are powerless "small-fries" corrupted?
In the public education system, there are plenty of individuals that have no power - however, they are corrupted enough to violently assault other individuals on a daily basis.
Also, God isn't that corrupted either. When he was about to blast a city into oblivion, he listened to a worshipper and initially agreed not to destroy the city if he could find 50 good individuals. He was then haggled downward to 10 individuals. In fact, he became less corrupt as the bible progressed - eventually wanting to cast off the shackles of the old religion for a new one.
Remind yourself that if YOU got enough power, you would start out the ultimate force for good in society -but one day, you WILL wake and discover you are a mad dictator.
On a smaller scale, let's say you become a Wikipedia administrator. You have lots of power, and become the ultimate force for good (well, pen-ultimate in this case.) When you abuse your position, you lose administrative privileges, which is why you'll never be corrupted. While the group of administrators as a whole may be corrupted, they won't since Wikipedia could easily stop being the bastion that it should be, thus causing the administrators to lose their power. (This is the case, since people in power allegedly don't want to lose their power.)
Thus, you may want to change the cliche to "Immunity corrupts; absolute immunity corrupts absolutely."
If a process dies on Windows (or worse, becomes an out of control process), it CAN bring the entire system down with it.
Only on Windows 9x. Windows NT has long fixed that issue by isolating process space.
Also, if a critical driver fails (such as a keyboard driver - and for this, it doesn't need to crash), the stability of the core operating system is moot for most people, since they need to reboot the system to get the driver working again. (I experienced this with an OEM "Multimedia keyboard" driver, and know how to correct it.) The same applies to the display driver - if you don't see anything on the screen, you can't do much with your system.
This is why you can continually remove processes and daemons that you do not want on Linux as they are not all tied into each other like on Windows.
Want to see which processes/services are "core" in Windows? Run it in safe mode. When you reboot normally, you can disable anything that wasn't enabled in safe mode - but you'll risk losing important functionality such as networking. If you take it to enough of an extreme, some applications won't have dependencies that they expect to be installed. The same applies to Linux - most applications expect things to be running.
Most definitely there is a market for that, and someone else innovated exceedingly well (innovation is about executing on an idea, not necessarily inventing a new one).
How is Scrabulous more innovative than Yahoo's version of Literati? I haven't played wither game, but as far as I know, Literati was first.
Hasbro instead came late to the game with a mediocre competitor that simply won't win. So instead of becoming the better product and competing for mindshare (the free market way!), they went to court (whose way is that??).
It is the way of a publically traded company. Shareholders want to see the bottom line maxed out whenever possible, which means the following:
- Hasbro must defend their trademarks to prevent dilution. If they don't, consumers will get confused on what is a "canon" game of Scrabble from Hasbro, causing Hasbro to lose profit. In fact, they are actively expected to defend their trademarks when other people of making a profit from it.
- Since they aren't a software company, they can't justify hiring a programming team. However, they can contract or license the Scrabble trademark to EA or other interested parties. They may have a barrier to entry to prevent an infinite number of requests pouring in, which does prevent rapid deployment but also ensures the value of the trademark.
- Releasing an online version does require a bit of discussion. As you know, releasing a game for free on Facebook provides no direct profit and relies on ad revenue instead, which is something shareholders aren't necessarily comfortable with.
I forget what game it was, but to beat the end boss you had to move the controller to the second port on the system (ps1 if I remember correctly.) That's just out of context with the game and obnoxiously stupid.
Metal Gear Solid, and Psycho Mantis wasn't a final boss.
There were clues that Psycho Mantis was breaking the forth wall, such as the ability to detect which games you've played (commenting on Castlevania, etc.) This alone changes the context of how to solve the puzzle.
In the game, if you had trouble with a section, you generally use the Codec to contact other characters - they can give you information on how to proceed, such as a possible route you can take, or in the Psycho Mantis boss fight, that you use the second controller.
I assume you are talking about the underground tram in the Selenetic Age (or whatever it was called). Stupid question, as I haven't played the game in years. Is there an actual "solve the puzzle" solution to that part?
The sound played whenever you were on the right track, and indicated the direction at which you should be heading. It can either be a pure sound for one of the cardinal directions, or a combined sound if it's NE/SE/NW/SW. This is the same sound that you hear when in the spinning fortress (where that sound indicates the orientation.)
Even with the walkthrough in the masterpiece edition, I still didn't understand the significance of the sound until later in the game. Based on that maze, I felt that it was critical to use the walkthrough in order to proceed because it would take an excessive amount of time to go through the maze for the first time.
You haven't played any of the REALLY old adventure/puzzle games. These were games where you COULDN'T backtrack. A lot of the old ones (the King's quest series has a number of examples of this) had points where if you didn't pick up something at a certain point, you were SCREWED and had to start the game over again.
That's called Dead-ending, and is covered under Obscure puzzles (or non-sensical, depending on the severity).
I have played Multi-dimensional Thief if that's what you're asking, and I even had a bugged version that couldn't be completed (one of the timers wouldn't stop as required). There are plenty of dead-ends in that game because you explicitly did something wrong (as opposed to simply forgetting an item in various obscure puzzles.)
This kind of thing is a big part of what killed adventure/puzzle games.
Not exactly - backtracking is acceptable and is known to be present in other games as well. For example, Quake 4 usually had ammo laying about the map - since you usually had maxed out ammo, you could leave it behind and come back later to collect it when you were running low.
The real killers are:
Tor and block cookies?
Tor is blockable, and there really isn't a reason to visit the forum through a Tor node.
Blocking cookies might work, but to be effective, you need multiple IP addresses and accounts.
The fact that alternatives exist does not mean that entertainment is not being withheld.
The only thing Hasbro is withholding is the authorization to use their trademark - which isn't necessary for Scrabulous to function. Picking a different name would easily avoid this issue, and if the game really was optimized, wouldn't affect the popularity.
Hasbro won't care that they lost your business, since you were already giving it to a competitor. As far as they are concerned, you were supporting that competitor because you knew they were infringing on the trademark and trying to capitalize on their hard work.
Oh, and by the way, you can rest assured that I've never paid for a copy of Microsoft Windows.
And yet, you were playing M:TGO, a game for Microsoft Windows. Whether you are using a copy of Windows or are playing it through Wine, you are encouraging the development of applications for that platform, thus encouraging OEMs and businesses to keep purchasing licenses for that platform.
If you want to boycott Microsoft, do it properly and boycott the platform. In fact, treat Microsoft Windows in the same way you treat The game.
Fuck companies that cling to the antiquated business model that withholding entertainment through legal action is still a valid way to do things.
No entertainment is being withheld. As you know, there's already a competitor known as Literati that doesn't violate the trademark or copyright of Scrabble. You can find a version on Yahoo! games. (Oh, and they do have an electronic version of Scrabble as well. It's hotseat rather than networked, but it's available.)
Of course, if you want to boycott companies that sue competitors that violate their trademark, go right ahead. Feel free to uninstall Microsoft Windows, since Microsoft sued Linspire when they were called LindowsOS.
Patents are only good for 15 years or so. so the workings of Scrabble are public domain (ie the addition and multiplication of points, placements etc... Only the name and logo are protect-able at this point.
Scrabble isn't protected by patent - it's protected by copyright.
Anyone can create a 15x15 grid with various points to multiply a score. However, copyright law protects the decoration of the board in certain patterns.
If I were Scrabulous, I would counter sue for infringement on the new EA Scrabble version, on the grounds that the similarities between EA Scrabble and Scrabulous are greater than the similarities between Scrabble-the-Board-Game, and Scrabulous. In short, the addition of internet connectivity and facebook integration is a novel game which serves a customer base which is completely unavailble to a Boardgame due to distance - while the duplicate EA version serves exactly the same customer in exactly the same way.
The only similarity between EA's Scrabble and Scrabulous that is not covered under the board game is the addition of Internet connectivity - which was already handled by EA's wide variety of games released many years before Scrabulous. Any other similarities between EA Scrabble and Scrabulous are already sanctioned by Hasbro's licensing agreement with EA, and attempting to use these similarities on the basis for the suit is a form of plagiarism.
Taking his PC i think was a bit overboard unless they had hard evidence that some crime was committed with the PC. The judge should never have permitted that warrant to go thru.
The PC can contain evidence, such as unpublished photos. Saying you can't grab a PC for evidence is just like saying you can't search the personal diary for evidence (which obviously isn't the case.)
In criminal court, search warrants can be issued as long as they can convince a judge that there's a good chance evidence can be improved or obtained. It's a tactic popular with child porn cases, but can be extended to other cases as well.
Since a minor (age 6) agreed, does that invalidate them?
If the license is invalid for one reason or another, it means you are using unlicensed software.
It's also a license, not a contract.
Which sane person centralizes their information on a laptop? They have a reliability rate lower on desktops (counting temporary/permanent disappearance, damage, etc.) and are meant only for work away from the central location.
At the very least, they should get a copy of SyncToy (a Microsoft product) that's capable of ensuring the local and remote folders are up-to-date. That insures that if you've forgot your laptop somewhere, you won't be dead in the water.
It may be good to have auto-expiring laws, but not good to base the entire system around it. Laws are meant to be stable (i.e. not change fluidly based on the government's activities or lack thereof), and need a specific procedure to implement these laws.
Not all laws or bills passed are meant to make things illegal - they can also provide procedures and funding in some instances, or setup international trade plans. In one case, they can be used to issue a divorce (before the divorce system was possible through the court system), but putting an auto-expiry on a divorce would cause much more problems, whether it has to do with the bill expiring after a re-marriage with a third person, or when the divorce becomes public record every 10 years.
While you can avoid repassing the divorce bills by setting up a divorce framework in the court system, what's a fair way to distribute the funds obtained in the marriage? Will the government choose a 50/50 split over division based on the contribution to the marriage? If a government can't agree on the result (which can happen in some minority governments), you'll be back to passing divorce bills.
Missing out on the divorce framework may be minor, but wait until some more important law gets forgotten by the government.
Take this example: One city has an ordinance prohibiting the use of a firearm within the urban area (with some exceptions.) When the state comes out with a handgun/firearm ban, the local city can no longer state that there is a benefit for carrying the law anymore and must let it go. When the state's law later gets repealed or declared unconstitutional, the city is not as likely to remember that they had that initial law to begin with.
There's also the very rare case where parties want to push their own version of a given law, and as a result, it doesn't get renewed since the parties don't cooperate.
I don't understand why there is a problem here. Simply shut down FF when you aren't using it, then let the tabs repopulate when you start again.
When I use shut down firefox when it isn't in use, I don't have an idea what I'll use it for the next time I launch it. It may be for Slashdot, to look up information about a function, or for some other reason. Having background tabs load tends to slow down what I intend on doing at that given time.
Also, loading an instance of an application is perceived to be slower than pressing alt-tab.
Why expose your system to possible attacks from a freshly compromised web site, when you aren't actively browsing?
A better question is to ask is why web browsers automatically gives that level of trust to a foreign website, given the number and type of attacks that have occurred in the past 10 years. Web pages are just that: pages. They don't need to automatically refresh (unless the website operator is desperate for traffic enough to cycle ads), and the content doesn't change that frequently (unless it's a really high-traffic website, in which case you'll miss stuff anyway.)
In the more general case, why keep any software running for hours in an idle mode when you aren't using it?
I came up with an even more general case - why keep software installed if you aren't going to use them? This resulted in installing only the minimal components of Windows 95, causing some later applications to falter since I didn't install any networking components on a non-networked computer.
Basically, you have to have software installed, even if there's no perceived use. At that point, you can keep certain applications in memory with full knowledge that they can be swapped to disk if they aren't doing anything (they'll be reloaded if you click on the window.)
I've had a CPU hogging issue with Firefox 3.0, and no, it wasn't flash.
I use two computers - a desktop and a notebook. My desktop still runs Firefox 2.0 (and it's beginning to crash a bit too frequently for my tastes), and my notebook runs Firefox 3.0. I export the bookmarks from my desktop, and import them onto the laptop. If I ran Firefox 2.0, it would be done very quickly (10 seconds maximum). However, Firefox 3.0 takes 1 minute to do so, given the quantity of bookmarks I have. Even if it's a "minor" section in the Firefox code, don't be suprised if there's some other portion of Firefox that's taking longer than normal, in the same way that Netscape Communicator 4.7 CPU-hogged on some cascaded tables.
As for flash, I haven't seen it hog CPU very recently. The worst case where was Flash was able to take out Firefox on certain embedded objects (i.e. as with Sonny) by somehow locking portions of Firefox's interface (i.e. you couldn't select menu items).
If they start looking at packet sizes to determine different kinds of encrypted traffic then the packets will just be padded, causing their network to be further overloaded...
Packets involved in a P2P transfer or any other form of data stream are designed to maximize throughput - they send a full packet whenever possible. Padding or adding extra data is in direct contravention to this because it sends useless data that will be discarded. You can identify them because the local to remote packet size is typically large and continuous, which is not normal for an SSH connection.
There would be a case (a minor one) if you include 18+ 'AO' content in the 17+ 'M' game. Aside from breaching the contract with the ESRB, it's also implying that the game itself was safe enough for parents to buy for the children they believed could properly handle the 17+ rating. (Remember: The ESRB states 'M' rated games are suitable for people aged 17+, and does not exclude 16-year-olds. The 'AO' rating is much more strict. )
For example, take Quake - it's gameplay is handled through a scripting engine known as Quake-C, which reacts to events (such as player movement or timers, etc.) It's only capable of running one script at a time, thus giving the entities with a lower index to preempt actions from newer entities - however, you are free to create as much complexity as you want since you don't have any constraints.
A multi-core game works much differently. When a mob/player needs to do something, it is given a snapshot of what's around and available. It then sends a request to the server saying that this is what I want to do. The server can process this request in parallel and dispatch events to individual mobs/players telling what happened to them, and the mobs then react accordingly. In this architecture, the mobs/players are not allowed to directly interact with each other aside from politely asking the other mob to take 1d6 damage. (You also notice some quirks as well which might not be present in the first design.)
I'm not sure about Dwarf Fortress, but I suspect it may be in the first category.
I was placing orders on these sites in question. Should I continue doing so?
As far as I know, the server accepts orders as long as the client-side Javascript doesn't make an objection - I could easily use randomly generated contact information for filling these forms or otherwise turn off Javascript to create an order with blank billing information. Of course, they've blocked TOR with a spurious "Invalid Server Configuration" error message, thus I actually have to use a direct connection from multiple points.
(Well, $1.00 really, but it's the thought that counts. )
Basic arithmetic, also known as mental math, is extremely important. Whether it's in the form of making on-the-fly corrections or detecting that there may be something wrong with a given result, it provides a foundation for basically everything in society.
If you have some embarrassing information on your system (e.g. a collection of images, comics, or stories), they will become inaccessible unless you've backed up your security certificate to another secure location.