My point is, speculation is (IMO) inappropriate in such a situation. If it turns out that the shooter was indeed motivated by that graphic, THEN it might be acceptable to begin talking about this. How many people, though, would retract what they say if it turns out the guy was just a lunatic and wasn't motivated by this at all?
And yes, any knee jerk reaction with gun control ideas would be completely misguided.
As is any kneejerk reaction to connect this to Palin. We have no idea the motive of the gunman, so until we do I feel it best to await further information.
Multiple sources, including a spokesman for the Tucson University Medical Center, are saying she is alive and in surgery, albeit in critical condition.
Personally, I didn't see a complete cessation of flashing/pulsating/shapeshifting, although it did seem to slow while the dots were rotating as a unit. I could definitely still sense that the dots were changing independently of the rotation, however.
The gorilla illusion isn't universal, either - I successfully counted 15 passes AND saw the gorilla (complete with chest-beating) on my first view. I would wager than a not-insignificant percentage of people could do the same. I would even posit that the set of people who are "immune" to the gorilla illusion would intersect somewhat with the set of people who have high skill at rhythm gaming - both require tracking lots of moving objects.
What, are we going to start covering up the statue of David or something now because somebody was scared of a stone penis and might interpret that as modern pornography?
Well according to Wikipedia, that does happen, at least with some of the replicas:
The plaster cast of David at the Victoria and Albert Museum has a detachable plaster fig leaf which is displayed nearby. It was created for visits by Queen Victoria and other important ladies, when it was hung on the figure using two strategically placed hooks.
You mean like how when you have over an ounce of weed in most jurisdictions, it's automatically considered "intent" to resell, even if it's all in one container? Or if you have one or more plants?
Yeah, intent is well defined. The trouble is, the legal definition of "intent" doesn't match the dictionary definition.
Doesn't mean it won't be tried again. Welcome socialism, fuck capitalism, right guys? Being successful in business is evil, and mooching off the government is noble, right? (Not specifically directed to the person I replied to, of course.)
No, they can't. They can ban you from Live, but they can not remotely brick your device and make it impossible to use even offline. I remember there was a minor shitstorm when they removed the ability to install games on the hard drive of a modded 360, because there was nothing in the EULA that allowed them to remove such functionality.
I'm not saying this has anything to do with nullification, just that this will be yet one more way to suppress it. Also, as I said before, I think it should be reversed because I don't think that a judge should be a bottleneck for generic information.
How is it a non-sequitur? If you are strictly limited to information that the judge provides you, then jury nullification is essentially dead, as the entire legal system has been fighting against it for years (attempting to discover potential jurors that accept nullification during voir dire, disallowing jurors from having literature that explains its legal history, repeated findings that judges CAN NOT inform jurors of nullification). It's entirely relevant, and I see it no different than doing research on an issue (not a specific case, but a class of cases involving the same laws), which I also don't think should be actionable. Requiring jurors go through judges to get ANY information whatsoever makes jury service nothing more than being a pawn of the state, rather than something to be proud of.
I never understood the phenomenon of posters following other posters around just to point out past issues, as if you're "telling the REAL truth about ".
That's not 100% true, it's my understanding that if you own a TV for the sole use of connecting it to non-broadcast devices (game consoles, DVD players, PC without TV tuner, etc) then you are exempt from the license fee. As you can tell by my spelling of "license", however, I am not British, so I'm not 100% certain, but I seem to remember that's how a British friend of mine explained it to me.
Slashdot Mirror
My point is, speculation is (IMO) inappropriate in such a situation. If it turns out that the shooter was indeed motivated by that graphic, THEN it might be acceptable to begin talking about this. How many people, though, would retract what they say if it turns out the guy was just a lunatic and wasn't motivated by this at all?
You are a douchebag troll. If it was the other way around and someone had shot Palin, you'd be here supporting it.
And you are a troll. Good job.
Your hatred for anything conservative and Republican doesn't help yours, either.
And yes, any knee jerk reaction with gun control ideas would be completely misguided.
As is any kneejerk reaction to connect this to Palin. We have no idea the motive of the gunman, so until we do I feel it best to await further information.
Speculate much?
I'm sure you have some facts to back that up, or are you just spewing more political rhetoric?
Multiple sources, including a spokesman for the Tucson University Medical Center, are saying she is alive and in surgery, albeit in critical condition.
Personally, I didn't see a complete cessation of flashing/pulsating/shapeshifting, although it did seem to slow while the dots were rotating as a unit. I could definitely still sense that the dots were changing independently of the rotation, however.
The gorilla illusion isn't universal, either - I successfully counted 15 passes AND saw the gorilla (complete with chest-beating) on my first view. I would wager than a not-insignificant percentage of people could do the same. I would even posit that the set of people who are "immune" to the gorilla illusion would intersect somewhat with the set of people who have high skill at rhythm gaming - both require tracking lots of moving objects.
What, are we going to start covering up the statue of David or something now because somebody was scared of a stone penis and might interpret that as modern pornography?
Well according to Wikipedia, that does happen, at least with some of the replicas:
The plaster cast of David at the Victoria and Albert Museum has a detachable plaster fig leaf which is displayed nearby. It was created for visits by Queen Victoria and other important ladies, when it was hung on the figure using two strategically placed hooks.
You mean like how when you have over an ounce of weed in most jurisdictions, it's automatically considered "intent" to resell, even if it's all in one container? Or if you have one or more plants?
Yeah, intent is well defined. The trouble is, the legal definition of "intent" doesn't match the dictionary definition.
Doesn't mean it won't be tried again. Welcome socialism, fuck capitalism, right guys? Being successful in business is evil, and mooching off the government is noble, right? (Not specifically directed to the person I replied to, of course.)
It is censorship, just not government censorship.
The story also mentions a previous warning put out by Sony, so you need to read TFA a little closer yourself.
No, they can't. They can ban you from Live, but they can not remotely brick your device and make it impossible to use even offline. I remember there was a minor shitstorm when they removed the ability to install games on the hard drive of a modded 360, because there was nothing in the EULA that allowed them to remove such functionality.
I'm not saying this has anything to do with nullification, just that this will be yet one more way to suppress it. Also, as I said before, I think it should be reversed because I don't think that a judge should be a bottleneck for generic information.
Well, as I don't know who the fuck "APK" is, that really means nothing to me.
I think there are plenty of other excuses for them to use to come up with these ideas, so much so that it wouldn't do any good anyway.
How is it a non-sequitur? If you are strictly limited to information that the judge provides you, then jury nullification is essentially dead, as the entire legal system has been fighting against it for years (attempting to discover potential jurors that accept nullification during voir dire, disallowing jurors from having literature that explains its legal history, repeated findings that judges CAN NOT inform jurors of nullification). It's entirely relevant, and I see it no different than doing research on an issue (not a specific case, but a class of cases involving the same laws), which I also don't think should be actionable. Requiring jurors go through judges to get ANY information whatsoever makes jury service nothing more than being a pawn of the state, rather than something to be proud of.
bah, should have used square brackets, that should have said "telling the REAL truth about [insert poster name]".
Wow, hold grudges much?
I never understood the phenomenon of posters following other posters around just to point out past issues, as if you're "telling the REAL truth about ".
Get a life.
That's not 100% true, it's my understanding that if you own a TV for the sole use of connecting it to non-broadcast devices (game consoles, DVD players, PC without TV tuner, etc) then you are exempt from the license fee. As you can tell by my spelling of "license", however, I am not British, so I'm not 100% certain, but I seem to remember that's how a British friend of mine explained it to me.
Their rationale is that if ISPs have managed to block all child porn, they'll also be able to block all other porn as well.
What? I wasn't aware that ISPs have been able to "block all child porn".
So you equate conservatives (especially "small-c" conservatives) with Nazis?
Somehow I feel that doesn't help things.