They didn't "preselect" the drive-in somewhat near me that I've gone to growing up, instead they selected one ten miles further away as the crow flies, and in the opposite direction.
Legally, it's texting. If they get into a wreck, if the phone records were pulled it would show that indeed, they were texting at that time. I don't think these anti-texting-while-driving laws make a distinction between different input methods.
I wasn't saying that you should hold devices closer to your eyes as resolution increases. I'm just saying that the closer you have to get to discern individual pixels, the better.
To be fair, it's arguable that there is a victim in copyright infringement. Not to say that these punishments aren't wholly out of balance with the severity of the infringement in most cases, but there is a victim.
Before anyone mods me down thinking I'm a shill or some shit, I've been a media pirate, for personal use, for 25 years.
Next thing you know the NFL will be suing them for using the same rules as the "official" game though, "want to use a 120 yard field & six points per touchdown? Fork over $1 million"
Horseshit. The game of football, using more or less the same "official" rules, predates the existence of the NFL. They would only have a claim over any NFL-specific rules, if even that (with the whole "can't copyright essential game elements, only expressive artwork" deal, they might not have a leg if you make a "Pro Football 2014" with every rule the same as the NFL down to a T, as long as you don't mention the NFL or use any trademarked or copyrighted material while doing so).
If text gets smaller when resolution increases, your device is doing it wrong. The goal is to have higher density displays, so that your eye can be closer and closer and still not discern any individual pixels (in theory, anyway).
It's an illusion held by the paranoid or genuinely guilty.
This is the mainstream mindset, ladies and gentlemen. Those who are concerned about privacy from the government as a default stance, even in public, are "paranoid or genuinely guilty". Yup. No room for the truly innocent to object on moral grounds, if you object to the government being able to track you then you must have something to hide, and to people like this that is the excuse they will then use to violate your privacy in a much worse way. "What have you got to hide, Citizen? SUBMIT"
Windows 3.1, when in Enhanced Mode, was actually a fully preemptively multitasking OS. However, it did not preemptively multitask Windows apps themselves. What it did preemptively multitask was the Windows apps as a whole with DOS boxes that you may have had open. Even in Windows 3.1, the Virtual Machine Manager was 32-bit protected code, so one could argue that Windows 3.1 was technically a 32-bit OS at its core. However, as we all know, individual 16-bit Windows apps were cooperatively multitasked, and it wasn't until Win32S that there was an official, MS-supported way to run any 32-bit code within a Windows app.
I brought up cannabis legalization as it's tangentially related - instead of states trying to use laws to restrict the rights of others, we have a Federal government which I'm surprised hasn't already tried to fight these state laws at the behest of the DEA. It's an example of "states' rights" that, when exercised by the states, does not deprive anyone of their rights, contrary to popular belief that "states' rights" is just a code word for discrimination.
I'm with you there. The Federal government has gotten fat and lazy, and it's time we return proper rights to our states and leave the Feds to deal with interstate matters, as they were intended to, and get them the hell away from intrastate affairs.
Well, I'm sort of making a bit of a leap there based on the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the Constitution. States must respect the "public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state." However, doing some further reading, it seems that the SCOTUS only overturned section 3 of DOMA, which prevents the federal government from recognizing a same-sex marriage. Section 2, which allows states to basically violate the Full Faith and Credit Clause, still stands, so I was mistaken in my original comment. Baby steps...
As I understand it, it should mean that while not every state has to perform same-sex marriages, every state does have to recognize those performed in states that have. It also means the Federal government cannot refuse to recognize them, as it was in the case that led to this decision (which centered around the IRS refusing an estate tax exemption and refund to a New York widow whose wife had died, and their marriage was legal in NY).
You know, "states' rights" doesn't equal "racism" no matter how hard you try. The Federal government should be ensuring that people's rights aren't violated, but there's plenty of room for states to have their own rights as per the Constitution, without cutting off our nose to spite our face. That's where DOMA came into play - it didn't seek to invalidate the rights of states to respect same-sex marriage, it sought to allow other states to invalidate those rights. This has been struck down, and it's a good thing. But, to change the subject, let's talk about cannabis legalization. Two states have outright legalized it even for recreational use, and those laws should be upheld as they infringe on nobody's rights. That's the type of thing that is actually within the purview of "states' rights" without being discriminatory or prejudicial.
To some people, there are only two options they see - either the Federal government micro-manages the states, or the states have full autonomy regardless of who is being wronged. This speaks more to an inability of many people to see an issue in anything other than black and white, and in fact is the major reason that the US is so divided on social issues nowadays.
How come we never hear people bitching that the newest Safari doesn't run on anything older than OS X 10.7? It doesn't look like Safari 7 will be available on anything other than 10.9, as well. Why is that any different to MS not supporting XP, which is much older than 10.6?
Slashdot Mirror
They didn't "preselect" the drive-in somewhat near me that I've gone to growing up, instead they selected one ten miles further away as the crow flies, and in the opposite direction.
Eligible for rehire with the employer being spoken to.
I think we're working to the mind-set of "If I don't already believe it, nothing you can say will ever prove anything."
Very popular position amongst conspiracy theorists.
FTFY.
Natalie Portman and hot grits? Go oldschool.
Larsen not Larson. This isn't the first time I've seen these two names widely mixed up, only this time it's not widely, just timothy.
Well, I wasn't arguing against you so much as the person who replied to you and said "no victim no crime".
Legally, it's texting. If they get into a wreck, if the phone records were pulled it would show that indeed, they were texting at that time. I don't think these anti-texting-while-driving laws make a distinction between different input methods.
I wasn't saying that you should hold devices closer to your eyes as resolution increases. I'm just saying that the closer you have to get to discern individual pixels, the better.
To be fair, it's arguable that there is a victim in copyright infringement. Not to say that these punishments aren't wholly out of balance with the severity of the infringement in most cases, but there is a victim.
Before anyone mods me down thinking I'm a shill or some shit, I've been a media pirate, for personal use, for 25 years.
If only I had mod points...
Next thing you know the NFL will be suing them for using the same rules as the "official" game though, "want to use a 120 yard field & six points per touchdown? Fork over $1 million"
Horseshit. The game of football, using more or less the same "official" rules, predates the existence of the NFL. They would only have a claim over any NFL-specific rules, if even that (with the whole "can't copyright essential game elements, only expressive artwork" deal, they might not have a leg if you make a "Pro Football 2014" with every rule the same as the NFL down to a T, as long as you don't mention the NFL or use any trademarked or copyrighted material while doing so).
How on earth can you "know" that didn't happen?
Coulda swore this was /., not Reddit.
If text gets smaller when resolution increases, your device is doing it wrong. The goal is to have higher density displays, so that your eye can be closer and closer and still not discern any individual pixels (in theory, anyway).
The signs use Arial, and I'm pretty sure that legitimate signs have specific legal standards for the fonts they use, and that Arial is not included.
It's an illusion held by the paranoid or genuinely guilty.
This is the mainstream mindset, ladies and gentlemen. Those who are concerned about privacy from the government as a default stance, even in public, are "paranoid or genuinely guilty". Yup. No room for the truly innocent to object on moral grounds, if you object to the government being able to track you then you must have something to hide, and to people like this that is the excuse they will then use to violate your privacy in a much worse way. "What have you got to hide, Citizen? SUBMIT"
Windows 3.1, when in Enhanced Mode, was actually a fully preemptively multitasking OS. However, it did not preemptively multitask Windows apps themselves. What it did preemptively multitask was the Windows apps as a whole with DOS boxes that you may have had open. Even in Windows 3.1, the Virtual Machine Manager was 32-bit protected code, so one could argue that Windows 3.1 was technically a 32-bit OS at its core. However, as we all know, individual 16-bit Windows apps were cooperatively multitasked, and it wasn't until Win32S that there was an official, MS-supported way to run any 32-bit code within a Windows app.
There's a patch that modifies the game to save/load from SRAM instead of the tape recorder.
You know, there were more than three 2D games.
I brought up cannabis legalization as it's tangentially related - instead of states trying to use laws to restrict the rights of others, we have a Federal government which I'm surprised hasn't already tried to fight these state laws at the behest of the DEA. It's an example of "states' rights" that, when exercised by the states, does not deprive anyone of their rights, contrary to popular belief that "states' rights" is just a code word for discrimination.
I'm with you there. The Federal government has gotten fat and lazy, and it's time we return proper rights to our states and leave the Feds to deal with interstate matters, as they were intended to, and get them the hell away from intrastate affairs.
Well, I'm sort of making a bit of a leap there based on the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the Constitution. States must respect the "public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state." However, doing some further reading, it seems that the SCOTUS only overturned section 3 of DOMA, which prevents the federal government from recognizing a same-sex marriage. Section 2, which allows states to basically violate the Full Faith and Credit Clause, still stands, so I was mistaken in my original comment. Baby steps...
As I understand it, it should mean that while not every state has to perform same-sex marriages, every state does have to recognize those performed in states that have. It also means the Federal government cannot refuse to recognize them, as it was in the case that led to this decision (which centered around the IRS refusing an estate tax exemption and refund to a New York widow whose wife had died, and their marriage was legal in NY).
You know, "states' rights" doesn't equal "racism" no matter how hard you try. The Federal government should be ensuring that people's rights aren't violated, but there's plenty of room for states to have their own rights as per the Constitution, without cutting off our nose to spite our face. That's where DOMA came into play - it didn't seek to invalidate the rights of states to respect same-sex marriage, it sought to allow other states to invalidate those rights. This has been struck down, and it's a good thing. But, to change the subject, let's talk about cannabis legalization. Two states have outright legalized it even for recreational use, and those laws should be upheld as they infringe on nobody's rights. That's the type of thing that is actually within the purview of "states' rights" without being discriminatory or prejudicial.
To some people, there are only two options they see - either the Federal government micro-manages the states, or the states have full autonomy regardless of who is being wronged. This speaks more to an inability of many people to see an issue in anything other than black and white, and in fact is the major reason that the US is so divided on social issues nowadays.
How come we never hear people bitching that the newest Safari doesn't run on anything older than OS X 10.7? It doesn't look like Safari 7 will be available on anything other than 10.9, as well. Why is that any different to MS not supporting XP, which is much older than 10.6?
Wait, what? People bitching about the forced removal of OtherOS are "just whiny pirates"?