Then Windows 95 was going to have preemptive multitasking and a spiffy user interface like OS/2.
It did have pre-emptive multitasking. If you had a 100% CPU application, it wouldn't take down the system as it would under DOS, Windows 3.11, or a few other operating systems. Saying that Windows does not have pre-emptive multitasking is no different than saying that Linux does not have pre-emptive multitasking (as demonstrated by compiling the Kernel with -j.)
What Windows does not have is user-preemptive multitasking where the user can open up a task manager to kill those errant processes. (Win95 doesn't count as it's task manager waits for a clock cycle, and WinXP's doesn't count as it opens it's task manager at normal priority.) While any OS in theory implements this feature, it is not guarenteed to be standard - you usually need some background process that has an ultra-high realtime priority that does the job you want.
BTW, if you want a true real-time pre-emptive multitasking system, get QNX.
I'm sure just about every single one of us has said rather stupid things in the past that we wouldn't want to admit to.
That is correct. In this case, Bill Gates won't admit to saying something that he didn't say to begin with.
You can tell, because there are two different quotes - first says "640KB is enought for anyone", and the second is "Nobody needs more than 637KB" - and they are both attributed to some alleged article in 1981. If you want to know the actual source, it was from some programmer that felt that he did not need the fancy EMS or XMS systems and could simply swap to disk as necessary (or use other paging hacks).
As you should know, the LIM specification was created in 1983. Implying that Bill Gates is too short-sighted to see ahead a few years is highly irresponsible rumour - especially since such specifications are not created on a dime.
This is no different than the "Be Nice to Nerds" quote that is also wrongly attributed to Bill Gates. No matter how many times it is attributed to him, it does not change the fact that he did not say it.
Microsoft already has the facilities to R&D such a computer. If anything, those grapes are determined to be sour after they were picked from a tree or before there is even an attempt to pick them.
BTW, I know of a local shop that sells used laptops for $100. While they run on batteries and are "expensive", they are still cheap way to break into mobile computing. However, you will consider these systems to be bottom-end, in the same way Bill Gates considers these Laptops to be a joke.
So sayeth he who claimed that 640k should be enough for anyone.
That would be very nice Irony if a person who made that quote complained about the new laptop. However, Bill Gates would remember saying something like that.
People don't vote for third parties. The republicans will say "look what happened with Perot! You'll throw away your vote and the Democrats will win!". The Democrats will say "look what happened with Nader! You'll throw away your vote and the Republicans will win!".
One third of Canada's population voted for third-parties (counting independants as a party). Not only that, but each vote qualified as a "$1.50" donation to the party - which guarentees that the vote wasn't wasted.
A few elections ago, it was considered newsworthy that 2% of the votes were achieved by the Marijuana party. While individual votes might not matter, enough of them will raise eyebrows.
And so, that is why we need a sensible election system that let's people vote their conscience, and ranks the candidates so that nobody's vote is thrown away.
The US already has such a system.
First off, take a look at all parties and candidates that you are capable of voting for. You can instantly dismiss parties that don't at least have a webpage up, as well as parties that do not have sufficient political penetration.
Next, take a look at the party's platforms. If a BS-O-Meter runs too high, if their policies highly conflict with your opinions, or if they are known to be too negative, don't vote for that party. With all the parties remaining, you should have no trouble making your decision.
This is how I vote in the elections, and it has worked for me every time. While I don't vote for my conscience every time, it is extremely good for Tactical Voting - especially when you rank the remaining parties equally (which means tactical voting isn't a moral problem for you.)
Until we have that, there will always, and rightly so, be the fear of splitting the vote between the two most-favored candidates and thus causing the least-favored candidate to win. What a moronic system.
Pick up a game at the store that neither of you have played, and agree that neither of you will play it except when you're both playing.
That way neither one will hold the advantage of having played more. It might be a little hard to keep to it, but it should pay off... that or you'll get bored.
I can tell you, that will not work.
My older brother purchased Total Annihilation: Kingdoms, and went 'easy' on me for the first game. Within the first 10 minutes, the game was over: I won.
This was quickly followed by a rematch. Within the first 10 minutes, the game was over: I Won. TA:K is known to have stronger than average defences, but that didn't do a thing.
I'm having flashbacks now... but seriously, was there an objective to that game,
Try hitting the teachers with the pea shooters - while they are knocked under a shield. As far as I know, you-re supposed to hit all the shields, but there are some shields that require a bit too much planning for my tastes.
Of course, there's two or three sub-missions that you have to do. The only one I can't do is prevent one of the characters from heading to the headmaster's office to tell him of my "plan" of somesort. Even then, those missions feels a little chancy.
So, if you accuse someone of bullying, nothing can be done because bullying's not against the school's laws.
It is against the state's or country's Criminal Code.
In a business workplace, store, bank, or public city streets, the perpitrator will get taken and punished. For some strange reason, schools are somehow the magical exception where kids have a carte blanche to commit crimes - to a degree where a "normal" adult would be imprisioned for six consecutive life sentences (without even having to resort to murder).
As you know, this carte blanche is created by bigots who think children don't know any better - which encourages Ignorance of the Law.
Then once 9/11 rolled around people ralized that he had less bladder control than a scared chicken and that he didn't realize that shredding the constitution was different than defending it.
That's Hurricane Katrina you're thinking about.
In 9/11, he kept the illusion by attacking two "rogue" states: Afganistan, and Iraq. In Katrina, he didn't have an enemy to counterattack (other than the atlantic ocean, doesn't have any targets.)
If you can become Governor of the most populous state simply by being in the movies then that speaks for itself.
Actually, the real problem was that there wasn't any real competition. Any opposition votes would most likely be split among the other 33 or so candidates.
Besides, the winner stated that he would terminate the defecit - and had major bi-lateral support. You can't win an election easier than that.
About fracking time a game company figured out that people don't like the CD dongle. One of the reasons CounterStrike was such a huge hit was once you installed it, it just ran. No CD needed in the drive.
That's because it hitch-hikes on Half-Life's multiplayer system that did not require the CD to connect to remote servers. IIRC, CS was well more popular than Half-Life - so much that a CS "vet" thought that HL was some wierd server-side mod.
As for the CD... Image it. It works on most games that were on the market for a while.
Lastly, the StarForce stuff can badly munge up a system.
Forget that - it's a major security risk.
If StarForce was used for Quake 2, it would allow those trojan DLLs to wax an operating system from a Limited account. This is also ignoring buffer-overflow attacks that can also nail computers.
I think it would be a lot more sensible to have a physical switch or jumper that would have to be set to enable bios flashing. 100% gaurantee that it can't be circumvented with software, and equally sure to be immune from socially engineering the less literate... "When you see the WARNING DANGER DANGER YOU ARE ABOUT TO PERMANTLY CHANGE YOUR HARDWARE WINDOW... just click 'continue anyways'." Don't worry about why, trust us...
The Klez, Sober, or whatever virus-de-jour disguises itself as an update to Microsoft Windows. There's nothing that prevents it from disguising itself from being a firmware update.
You are correct in that it will be harder to perform - although the security system shouldn't allow a single click to pass through... Perhaps more than one click or zero clicks would be a better system.
(BTW, old bioses had an anti-virus system that prevents writing to the boot sector. It caused the Windows 95 installation to crash with a black rectangle in the middle of the screen.)
I am utterly unsympathetic. You would think that out of the hundreds of members of parliament/congress (pick your system), at least one of these idiots would bother to actually analyze the law, or at the very least have an aid do so. Politicians have been given and a charter on the limits of their powers. It is up to THEM to see that they follow their rules. One time is a mistake. Two times is incompetence.
Perhaps you need a more concrete example. Ernst Zündel was being charged for Spreading False News - in particular, denying the Holocaust. As you know, this statute was in effect for a long time and was "recently" overturned (and also demonstrates another problem with a forced-constitution restriction - most politicians have generally resigned after a few terms, thus rendering punishments from those laws to be arbitrary.)
Here is the question - without looking at any court ruling made after the law was passed, how can you tell if the law is unconstitutional? You can't.
Stating that you should punish the lawmakers for producing this law is no different than stating that you should punish lawmakers for making it illegal to yell "fire" in a crowded theatre. If you put a blanket restriction for violating a non-blanket constitution, you will run into wore problems than what your restriction will fix.
Three times is an utter failure to uphold your oath to the constitution and the people that it protects.
Whenever a politician votes for a law that will simply be forbidden to come into affect because it is unconstitutional, they are wasting MY money. They are pissing away time that they should be spending trying to solve real problem.
I'm willing to propose a law to make bigotry illegal. This certianly attacks the real problem, as most problems in society are caused by bigots. It, however, infringes on the bigots' right for free speech.
If you have to read the first amendment to see if such restrictions are valid, and develop arguments (which always can be countered by a Silver Tongue) to say why those restrictions are valid, you might as well play Russian Roulette. If you have to play Russion Roulette to fix society, then society won't get fixed.
Just remember that states that have a prohibition against raising taxes cause their politicians to play Russian Roulette when they need to increase funding to a necessity.
Your virtual machine could flash your BIOS without your consent. Then you're boned.
There's two ways around that. - Flash the Bios chip. Pull the existing one out, put it in a programming unit, flash the chip, and push it into the Mainboard. - Use a mainboard that supports a "dual-bios" option (e.g. Some Gigabyte models).
No virus has can penetrate further without physically damaging the hardware (and that would be difficult with the most modern computers.)
where i work, i have lots of "user" data in a network drive. if i got fired / quit / laid off, and i deleted all of that data, i would at least expect that my employer would be pissed.
That's mitigated in most circumstances.
Most employers would lock access as soon as you are no longer employed, with turnaround times of two minutes.
Failing that, most employers have backups that do not require trawling through several loads of tapes.
of course, the/. crowd is blowing this up into scenarios like people getting prosecuted for throwing out decades old papers. in this case, it wasn't so simple. they were not just hoping to pick up his projects, contacts, etc. they were trying to find incriminating evidence against him that he violated his contract.
If they wanted to do that, they would ask for the laptop beforehand for "maintainance purposes" (e.g. installing a 7200mAh battery), and provide a temporary replacement. Then they can use the incriminating evidence against him.
Until then, it doesn't take a lawyer to poke legal loopholes (or otherwise damage PR to make that employer look like a bully.)
BTW, this isn't out of proportion by Slashdot, unless there is a false belief that the Appeals court overruled the judge in terms of the final verdict. (In that case, it would be the article's fault, which clearly state that federal hacking laws apply in the leading summary.)
I have an idea for a new law. Lets call this the "three strikes, now stop fucking with the constitution rule".
The way this bill would work is that any politician that votes for three bills that are later deemed unconstitutional by the courts and are prevented from coming into effect is kicked out of office. Any politician that blatantly fails to do their duty to uphold the constitution of the US three times in a row should have their ass thrown from office. End of story. They have violated the trust of the people far too many times and failed to uphold their oath to the constitution.
One problem with rigid laws: In Canada, it was a criminal offence to drive without a valid license - this law was declared unconstitutional on a technicality: transportation laws are Provincial regulations instead of Federal crimes. Why should policians be punished for such a simple mistake?
A much better version is to simply let the bill pass. Then as soon as a charge is laid, counter-sue the politician(s) that spear-headed the bill. Don't attack the government, attack the people who are abusing their power. I can't say whether this will succeed legally (IANAL), but this *will* cause a PR nightmare for whatever politicians voted for the bill.
I'm not gay and I would join a gay-friendly guild.
You know why?
Because I would be more comfortable in a guild that is accepting of gays.
Why is this shit so hard for people to understand?
Mainly because these "gay-friendly" guilds miss the point entirely.
You really should be looking for an anti-bigot guild. Until then, you are saying it is not okay to discriminate based on sexual preference but is still valid to discriminate based on race, sex, religion, etc.
Will Firefox not pop up a warning, saying something akin to "Hey, you can go ahead and visit this site if you like, but we think it might be a bit fishy"? Doesn't seem that bad.
That's a little bit too long for "most" users, which have entered the habit of clicking on everything.
The correct prompt to open up is "Are you a terrorist? \n Only terrorists may access this site.", with yes/no. This prompt is accurrate, since these phishers probably support some gang or terrorism group. In addition, you'd have to be the equivalent of a terrorist to knowingly support the owners of those websites.
As long as this is somehow documented with an option to disable on otherwise change back into a normal prompt (e.g. if you visit sites that auto-reloads 10 iframes to various Phishing sites), it will not be a problem.
I don't know of any insustry where the fiscal year begins in November.
Another poster beat me to stating that a fiscal year can begin at any time, and that it is on a per-company basis.
Aside from that, November -> Janurary is still good for a fiscal quarter as it covers the Christmas season and post-christmas activity. The next fiscal cycle then covers the Feburary fall-off and March rebound.
Well, even in real life a battleship might not be so good at attacking a walled city in the mountains;).
Navarone would be close enough to be a walled city in the mountains, although it's armament isn't really sticks.:)
It matches the requirements: a walled "city" (really a fortress) within a mountain. There's nothing preventing the battleship from waxing whatever's on the mountain - the only problem would be the coastal defences in the mountain that return fire.
Firstly, I would argue that even the 1:05(or whatever they got it down to) Zerg rush takes more mental strain than playing the average FPS.
Once it's obtained, others are sure to follow. It may take some mental strain but only for the first group of times you do it.
Secondly, not every strategy game is so flawed. You brought up Civilization, which is the perfect example of what happens when you try to make combat a gradual numerical increase in power and defense and then fit real world equivilents over it. A better example all around would be Alpha Centauri where the combat actually makes sense.
It is true that not every strategy game in flawed - but most are. In some cases, you won't know problems exist until after the game is released.
Civilization used a system where the total attack value is paired against the total defence value. A Militia has a base defence of 1. +50% for veteren, +200 City walls, and +200 for mountains gives an increase of +450% raising the defence to 4. This gives it around a 4/18 chance of surviving a battleship attack. It also means that throwing sticks against Fighters/Bombers is an effective way of driving them off.
You could state that the Militia have been upgraded to better weaponry (e.g. muskets) but in that case, the unit itself should be upgraded. It's also a general reason why old cities controlled by players simply have a single Militia or Phalanx - they are cheap and effective defenders.
That's why Civilization 2 started with the strength system.
Alpha Centauri has it's own oddities, where there's a varying strength about units depending on whether it is attacking or defending. While this does make sense, it puts a strain on the feeling of the combat system - and generally results in 13-1-1 or 1-13-1 units or however they are.
Wnat to go even further, explain to me how the complexity of Counterstrike rivals Hearts of Iron, a game even I refuse to play because I don't want to think that hard.
Haven't played Hearts of Iron.
But yes, there is that kind of complexity even in an FPS. There's already complaints about "AWP whores" and shields being the invulnerability device of the 21st century. Obviously, those weapons are generally restricted on clan servers.
Their nimble little fingers may rule FPSs and fighting games but RTS and TBS will always be the domain of a well sculpted mind.
No.
TBS and RTS games, at the current level of implementation, follow the "click-on-build-dwarf, attack-with-dwarf-army" click-fest. Some games are worse than others, where there is an extremely early rush tactic that wipes everything out. (Civilization included, since enough militia can wipe out a battleship - and "enough" is suprisingly small based on the combat mechanics.)
Even a kid will recognize when a single unit type is going to be too powerful, and with the advent of the Internet, a kid can just as easily do a websearch. I hope you know the counter-unit (if there is one at all.)
This is also not counting how most RTS games do their buildup - you start with one Capitol and a few Zerg Drones and need to start from there. This encourages the optimum rush tactic - as well as cranking up the speed to a point where a single Musketeer shoots enough bullets per second to pierce through an invulnerability device.
Nethack is groundbreaking because you can do almost anything you can think of with the items in the game.
It is not groundbreaking until you can use a flask of oil to light your head on fire and proceed to head-butt a troll. There might not be much tactical benefit to that maneuver, but until that style of actions can be implemented, Nethack cannot be groundbreaking.
Also, in Nethack, the use of items is still limited to what the developers have thought of. It was a few versions ago where saddles were available but you couldn't use them on Centaurs as they were "humanoids".
Nethack has a higher level of actions available than most other RPGs (even among rougelikes), but it is still not groundbreaking.
Laptops don't help in lectures. I've not seen one professor who has ever asked me to bring one to a lecture, and hearing the tap-tap-tap of someone not even looking up from their screen must be distracting. People with laptops, even with best intentions, have their attention split two ways, and it doesn't work. If you want to absorb what you're being told in lectures, pen and paper, or better, pre-printed lecture notes and annotating them helps you stay focused on the lecturer.
I had a new professor in college that was experimenting with lecture notes:
First off, he had lecture notes on the webpage with a fill-in-the-blanks. The feedback was not to do that because it was too damn easy to miss that given word.
He followed with complete notes on the web. Class attendance dropped.
He handed out pre-printed notes.
He eventually did the entire class without handing out notes.
In my experience, copying down notes generally requires you to look at the paper - however, laptops are not restricted in that fashion. As evidence, I will repeat this paragraph - while the text I am typing is occluded with task manager. You will note typos, but the text will still be readable enough to correct.
IN my experience, copying down notes generally requires you to look at the paper- however. laptops are not restricted in that fashion. As exidence, I wull repeat this paragraph - while the text I am tpying is occluded with task manager. You will note typos, bit the tekt will still be readable enough to correct.
Touch typing is a skill to master - I haven't mastered it for the Dvorak keyboard yet, but it still looks like it can be corrected. ("exidence" is unusual for a typo, but that's hitting the QWERTY 'V' rather than the Dvorak 'V'.) Can't comment on the noise aspect - there aren't that many silent keyboards around, and you will have those who cannot phase out keypresses in the background.
Slashdot Mirror
It did have pre-emptive multitasking. If you had a 100% CPU application, it wouldn't take down the system as it would under DOS, Windows 3.11, or a few other operating systems. Saying that Windows does not have pre-emptive multitasking is no different than saying that Linux does not have pre-emptive multitasking (as demonstrated by compiling the Kernel with -j.)
What Windows does not have is user-preemptive multitasking where the user can open up a task manager to kill those errant processes. (Win95 doesn't count as it's task manager waits for a clock cycle, and WinXP's doesn't count as it opens it's task manager at normal priority.) While any OS in theory implements this feature, it is not guarenteed to be standard - you usually need some background process that has an ultra-high realtime priority that does the job you want.
BTW, if you want a true real-time pre-emptive multitasking system, get QNX.
That is correct. In this case, Bill Gates won't admit to saying something that he didn't say to begin with.
You can tell, because there are two different quotes - first says "640KB is enought for anyone", and the second is "Nobody needs more than 637KB" - and they are both attributed to some alleged article in 1981. If you want to know the actual source, it was from some programmer that felt that he did not need the fancy EMS or XMS systems and could simply swap to disk as necessary (or use other paging hacks).
As you should know, the LIM specification was created in 1983. Implying that Bill Gates is too short-sighted to see ahead a few years is highly irresponsible rumour - especially since such specifications are not created on a dime.
This is no different than the "Be Nice to Nerds" quote that is also wrongly attributed to Bill Gates. No matter how many times it is attributed to him, it does not change the fact that he did not say it.
Microsoft already has the facilities to R&D such a computer. If anything, those grapes are determined to be sour after they were picked from a tree or before there is even an attempt to pick them.
BTW, I know of a local shop that sells used laptops for $100. While they run on batteries and are "expensive", they are still cheap way to break into mobile computing. However, you will consider these systems to be bottom-end, in the same way Bill Gates considers these Laptops to be a joke.
That would be very nice Irony if a person who made that quote complained about the new laptop. However, Bill Gates would remember saying something like that.
One third of Canada's population voted for third-parties (counting independants as a party). Not only that, but each vote qualified as a "$1.50" donation to the party - which guarentees that the vote wasn't wasted.
A few elections ago, it was considered newsworthy that 2% of the votes were achieved by the Marijuana party. While individual votes might not matter, enough of them will raise eyebrows.
The US already has such a system.
First off, take a look at all parties and candidates that you are capable of voting for. You can instantly dismiss parties that don't at least have a webpage up, as well as parties that do not have sufficient political penetration.
Next, take a look at the party's platforms. If a BS-O-Meter runs too high, if their policies highly conflict with your opinions, or if they are known to be too negative, don't vote for that party. With all the parties remaining, you should have no trouble making your decision.
This is how I vote in the elections, and it has worked for me every time. While I don't vote for my conscience every time, it is extremely good for Tactical Voting - especially when you rank the remaining parties equally (which means tactical voting isn't a moral problem for you.)
Until we have that, there will always, and rightly so, be the fear of splitting the vote between the two most-favored candidates and thus causing the least-favored candidate to win. What a moronic system.
What (legally) prevents the constitution from being amended with something that strikes the first amendment?
No man's life, liberty, or security is guarenteed when congress is in session.
I can tell you, that will not work.
My older brother purchased Total Annihilation: Kingdoms, and went 'easy' on me for the first game. Within the first 10 minutes, the game was over: I won.
This was quickly followed by a rematch. Within the first 10 minutes, the game was over: I Won. TA:K is known to have stronger than average defences, but that didn't do a thing.
He does not want to do a 3 out of 5.
Try hitting the teachers with the pea shooters - while they are knocked under a shield. As far as I know, you-re supposed to hit all the shields, but there are some shields that require a bit too much planning for my tastes.
Of course, there's two or three sub-missions that you have to do. The only one I can't do is prevent one of the characters from heading to the headmaster's office to tell him of my "plan" of somesort. Even then, those missions feels a little chancy.
It is against the state's or country's Criminal Code.
In a business workplace, store, bank, or public city streets, the perpitrator will get taken and punished. For some strange reason, schools are somehow the magical exception where kids have a carte blanche to commit crimes - to a degree where a "normal" adult would be imprisioned for six consecutive life sentences (without even having to resort to murder).
As you know, this carte blanche is created by bigots who think children don't know any better - which encourages Ignorance of the Law.
That's Hurricane Katrina you're thinking about.
In 9/11, he kept the illusion by attacking two "rogue" states: Afganistan, and Iraq. In Katrina, he didn't have an enemy to counterattack (other than the atlantic ocean, doesn't have any targets.)
Actually, the real problem was that there wasn't any real competition. Any opposition votes would most likely be split among the other 33 or so candidates.
Besides, the winner stated that he would terminate the defecit - and had major bi-lateral support. You can't win an election easier than that.
That's because it hitch-hikes on Half-Life's multiplayer system that did not require the CD to connect to remote servers. IIRC, CS was well more popular than Half-Life - so much that a CS "vet" thought that HL was some wierd server-side mod.
As for the CD... Image it. It works on most games that were on the market for a while.
Forget that - it's a major security risk.
If StarForce was used for Quake 2, it would allow those trojan DLLs to wax an operating system from a Limited account. This is also ignoring buffer-overflow attacks that can also nail computers.
The Klez, Sober, or whatever virus-de-jour disguises itself as an update to Microsoft Windows. There's nothing that prevents it from disguising itself from being a firmware update.
You are correct in that it will be harder to perform - although the security system shouldn't allow a single click to pass through... Perhaps more than one click or zero clicks would be a better system.
(BTW, old bioses had an anti-virus system that prevents writing to the boot sector. It caused the Windows 95 installation to crash with a black rectangle in the middle of the screen.)
Perhaps you need a more concrete example. Ernst Zündel was being charged for Spreading False News - in particular, denying the Holocaust. As you know, this statute was in effect for a long time and was "recently" overturned (and also demonstrates another problem with a forced-constitution restriction - most politicians have generally resigned after a few terms, thus rendering punishments from those laws to be arbitrary.)
Here is the question - without looking at any court ruling made after the law was passed, how can you tell if the law is unconstitutional? You can't.
Stating that you should punish the lawmakers for producing this law is no different than stating that you should punish lawmakers for making it illegal to yell "fire" in a crowded theatre. If you put a blanket restriction for violating a non-blanket constitution, you will run into wore problems than what your restriction will fix.
I'm willing to propose a law to make bigotry illegal. This certianly attacks the real problem, as most problems in society are caused by bigots. It, however, infringes on the bigots' right for free speech.
If you have to read the first amendment to see if such restrictions are valid, and develop arguments (which always can be countered by a Silver Tongue) to say why those restrictions are valid, you might as well play Russian Roulette. If you have to play Russion Roulette to fix society, then society won't get fixed.
Just remember that states that have a prohibition against raising taxes cause their politicians to play Russian Roulette when they need to increase funding to a necessity.
There's two ways around that.
- Flash the Bios chip. Pull the existing one out, put it in a programming unit, flash the chip, and push it into the Mainboard.
- Use a mainboard that supports a "dual-bios" option (e.g. Some Gigabyte models).
No virus has can penetrate further without physically damaging the hardware (and that would be difficult with the most modern computers.)
That's mitigated in most circumstances.
If they wanted to do that, they would ask for the laptop beforehand for "maintainance purposes" (e.g. installing a 7200mAh battery), and provide a temporary replacement. Then they can use the incriminating evidence against him.
Until then, it doesn't take a lawyer to poke legal loopholes (or otherwise damage PR to make that employer look like a bully.)
BTW, this isn't out of proportion by Slashdot, unless there is a false belief that the Appeals court overruled the judge in terms of the final verdict. (In that case, it would be the article's fault, which clearly state that federal hacking laws apply in the leading summary.)
One problem with rigid laws: In Canada, it was a criminal offence to drive without a valid license - this law was declared unconstitutional on a technicality: transportation laws are Provincial regulations instead of Federal crimes. Why should policians be punished for such a simple mistake?
A much better version is to simply let the bill pass. Then as soon as a charge is laid, counter-sue the politician(s) that spear-headed the bill. Don't attack the government, attack the people who are abusing their power. I can't say whether this will succeed legally (IANAL), but this *will* cause a PR nightmare for whatever politicians voted for the bill.
Mainly because these "gay-friendly" guilds miss the point entirely.
You really should be looking for an anti-bigot guild. Until then, you are saying it is not okay to discriminate based on sexual preference but is still valid to discriminate based on race, sex, religion, etc.
That's a little bit too long for "most" users, which have entered the habit of clicking on everything.
The correct prompt to open up is "Are you a terrorist? \n Only terrorists may access this site.", with yes/no. This prompt is accurrate, since these phishers probably support some gang or terrorism group. In addition, you'd have to be the equivalent of a terrorist to knowingly support the owners of those websites.
As long as this is somehow documented with an option to disable on otherwise change back into a normal prompt (e.g. if you visit sites that auto-reloads 10 iframes to various Phishing sites), it will not be a problem.
Another poster beat me to stating that a fiscal year can begin at any time, and that it is on a per-company basis.
Aside from that, November -> Janurary is still good for a fiscal quarter as it covers the Christmas season and post-christmas activity. The next fiscal cycle then covers the Feburary fall-off and March rebound.
Navarone would be close enough to be a walled city in the mountains, although it's armament isn't really sticks.
It matches the requirements: a walled "city" (really a fortress) within a mountain. There's nothing preventing the battleship from waxing whatever's on the mountain - the only problem would be the coastal defences in the mountain that return fire.
Once it's obtained, others are sure to follow. It may take some mental strain but only for the first group of times you do it.
It is true that not every strategy game in flawed - but most are. In some cases, you won't know problems exist until after the game is released.
Civilization used a system where the total attack value is paired against the total defence value. A Militia has a base defence of 1. +50% for veteren, +200 City walls, and +200 for mountains gives an increase of +450% raising the defence to 4. This gives it around a 4/18 chance of surviving a battleship attack. It also means that throwing sticks against Fighters/Bombers is an effective way of driving them off.
You could state that the Militia have been upgraded to better weaponry (e.g. muskets) but in that case, the unit itself should be upgraded. It's also a general reason why old cities controlled by players simply have a single Militia or Phalanx - they are cheap and effective defenders.
That's why Civilization 2 started with the strength system.
Alpha Centauri has it's own oddities, where there's a varying strength about units depending on whether it is attacking or defending. While this does make sense, it puts a strain on the feeling of the combat system - and generally results in 13-1-1 or 1-13-1 units or however they are.
Haven't played Hearts of Iron.
But yes, there is that kind of complexity even in an FPS. There's already complaints about "AWP whores" and shields being the invulnerability device of the 21st century. Obviously, those weapons are generally restricted on clan servers.
No.
TBS and RTS games, at the current level of implementation, follow the "click-on-build-dwarf, attack-with-dwarf-army" click-fest. Some games are worse than others, where there is an extremely early rush tactic that wipes everything out. (Civilization included, since enough militia can wipe out a battleship - and "enough" is suprisingly small based on the combat mechanics.)
Even a kid will recognize when a single unit type is going to be too powerful, and with the advent of the Internet, a kid can just as easily do a websearch. I hope you know the counter-unit (if there is one at all.)
This is also not counting how most RTS games do their buildup - you start with one Capitol and a few Zerg Drones and need to start from there. This encourages the optimum rush tactic - as well as cranking up the speed to a point where a single Musketeer shoots enough bullets per second to pierce through an invulnerability device.
It is not groundbreaking until you can use a flask of oil to light your head on fire and proceed to head-butt a troll. There might not be much tactical benefit to that maneuver, but until that style of actions can be implemented, Nethack cannot be groundbreaking.
Also, in Nethack, the use of items is still limited to what the developers have thought of. It was a few versions ago where saddles were available but you couldn't use them on Centaurs as they were "humanoids".
Nethack has a higher level of actions available than most other RPGs (even among rougelikes), but it is still not groundbreaking.
Nope.
+++ activates the command mode of the modem - anything before that is treated as regular transmissions.
I had a new professor in college that was experimenting with lecture notes:
In my experience, copying down notes generally requires you to look at the paper - however, laptops are not restricted in that fashion. As evidence, I will repeat this paragraph - while the text I am typing is occluded with task manager. You will note typos, but the text will still be readable enough to correct.