Look, the big jobs have life and death consequences. At Benghazi, four people died. It wasn't simple and I'm not going to get into the weeds with you on it here. But, yes. People died on her watch.
I don't think that means she couldn't do her job or that she was derelict in her duty somehow.
The Iraq war vote was a mistake. She admitted it was a mistake. In fact, it probably cost her the Presidency in 2008. But she was in the majority on that one. In fact, 70% of Americans supported the invasion at the time. A lot of that was faulty intelligence, a lot of that was ginned up intelligence, and a lot of that was just a feeling that Hussein was a bad guy that needed to go.
The Afghanistan vote, I would contend was *not* a mistake. In fact, Barbra Lee was the *only* member of either house to vote "no" for the AUMF.
Or if these votes are so terrible, should everyone connected to them be thrown out of office? Or be intelligible for office if they weren't in at the time? Because we can split hairs about Trump's support of the Iraq invasion (he said both), but he absolutely supported the invasion of Afghanistan. Virtually all Americans did.
So yeah.... I guess President Lee it is by that standard.
Or do you just not like Clinton for reasons you can't articulate and so you apply a litmus that you'd never dream of applying elsewhere to her to make her seem like a monster?
Which is it? Are you on the Lee Train, or are you a trolling shill?
In most places, there are basically two types of written contracts that the law recognizes:
Negotiated - What you're thinking about, where you and another party have the ability to negotiate, haggle, and come to a consensus.
Contracts of Adhesion - This includes ELUAs, the contract between you and your electric company, etc. These *are* non-negotiable, take-it-or-leave-it contracts.
Seems unfair, doesn't it? There is a bright side.
Contracts of Adhesion are generally held to a higher standard than Negotiable contracts. If there's ambiguous wording, or a typo, or whatever, it doesn't matter, the courts take that literally, and the company or entity that wrote the contract is held responsible.
Basically, if in doubt with a Contract of Adhesion, the law will side with the party that had no choice. I'm simplifying things here, but that's the general spirit of the difference.
We use these contracts every day. No major provider of services would be able to do business without them. Public utilities, airlines, software vendors, schools, telcos, ISPs all use these types of contracts.
Dell is not going to negotiate with you on the terms of their wifi driver. Verizon isn't going to negotiate their TOU. Those things just aren't going to happen, despite how your mind extrapolated that "all contracts are the same!" when you learned about negotiated contracts.
But I *do* like how you spouted off like you knew exactly what you were talking about, despite not knowing very basic things about contract law. Well done.
I suspect that The Tetris Company would prefer not to license any early versions of the game.
They standardized it just a few years after the NES / Gameboy era to make games that used the Tetris name more uniform and frankly better.
Those standardizations included:
* The randomizer algorithm must be the "bag random" type. This prevents you from being starved for any one shape for more than 10 pieces and ensures you'll never get the same piece more than twice in a row. * They must include the classic Tetris theme song * The colors are standardized. L is always a certain color Square is another color, backwards L is a different standard color, etc. This standard is adhered to whether it's on the Wii, the Xbox, in the arcade, or on the Sega Saturn. * There must be a "hold" space where you can take the current piece and hold it in reserve, or swap it for the one currently in reserve.
There are others, but those are it off the top of my head. The NES Tetris misses on the colors, the randomizer, and the hold space if memory serves. It's frankly a bad implementation (but they all were in that era).
The N64 didn't have it as far as I know, but the Gameboy Color did (As Super Mario Bros. Deluxe in 1999). As did the Gameboy Advance after that.
It was an unlockable game on the GCN version of Animal Crossing in 2002, but you had to have the e-Reader accessory and a trading card, and nobody did because they weren't that popular.
In 2004 they released another GBA game, this one a compilation that included other Mario games as well.
In 2006 they released it on Virtual Console for the Wii for $5.
It was released on the 3DS and the Wii U as soon as those consoles were released as well.
The Gameboy Color edition didn't come out until 1999, this is true. Even if Nintendo stopped selling SNES games the same year they published the last new title, this is still a gap of less than a year. Comparable to the gap that used to exist between a movie coming out in the theater and being released on VHS.
I don't think we've seen a full calendar year where you couldn't walk into a store and purchase Nintendo-made hardware and software to play Super Mario Bros. since it was released in 1985.
There *might* have been a gap in the end of 1998 into early 1999. Not sure. But it's damn close to continuous.
Nintendo has always had a slow trickle of fresh blood. Emphasis on the slow. They still do new IP, but increasingly those new IPs don't go anywhere.
So far, this year they've got no new IP at all. Ditto last year. Though they did publish Xenoblade Saga (developed by Monolith, but Nintendo owns controlling interest in them).
In 2011:
Fortune Street (looks like a more they took Mario Party and tried to make it more like Monopoly, I wouldn't really call this original, even if it's an original title.)
Steel Diver - Doesn't look like the most creative idea ever, but I haven't played it and it is new.
Pushmo - Developed by Intelligent Systems, also a Nintendo subsidiary. Uninspiring looking puzzle game...
2008: No new IP. I thought Endless Ocean was, but upon closer inspection, it is neither a Nintendo IP, nor is it original, it's a sequel. Maybe you could count Wii Fit?
2007:
Hotel Dusk: Room 215 - I'm not sure who owns the IP for this one. But Nintendo has the publishing rights and I really enjoyed it. They did a follow-up too. Reminds me of the old games like Shadowgate and Deja Vu.
2006:
Electroplankton - Kind of a art concept thing more than a game.
Excite Truck I own this. It's fun. But I likely wouldn't have picked it up if it wasn't the "spiritual successor to Excite Bike". It's hard to see any similarities though.
Odama Quirky medieval Japanese warfare pinball thing.
2005:
Geist - Not sure if Nintendo owns this or not. They co-developed it with n-Space and Miyamoto himself was involved. I own it and the concept is great, but the execution is often silly. This is the kind of title they could revisit, polish more and turn into something special.
Custom Robo - Older series, but 2004 marks the year Nintendo finally released it outside of Japan.
2003:
Fire Emblem - Again, not new, but new outside Japan.
I skipped a lot of fun games that are spinoff IPs. For instance, Super Princess Peach, Warioware, Luigi's Mansion, and Mario Kart can all be considered spinoffs of the Mario series. Even if the game p
This is 2013. Some people are stupid, yes. But information often gets out there even to stupid people. We live in a world where people think all kinds of things about "hackers" and identity theft, etc. They may not have a deep understanding, but they know that 20/20 did a story on it, so they should be afraid of... whatever. "Hackers".
Anecdotaly, excluding my own network, there are 14 networks within range of me as I type this from my home. All of them are secured with (mostly WPA, 1 WEP) and there is one Open "guest" network (with an identical name to one of the secure networks), which presumably is open by design, but has restrictions when connected.
Granted, only 5 of these networks have names that were obviously user-selected. So perhaps some of these networks were set up by the ISP, or the devices shipped with security on by default. But regardless, I see more secure networks than I do open ones today.
Who cares if the user selected it or not? As long as the password is unique and it works for them. They don't need to know unless they have a reason to. If the ISP or the device manufacturer has figured out a scheme to get them secured without a major hassle, it's a win-win. Those who care to know more will go out and learn more.
For what it's worth, I live in central New Jersey. Maybe things are radically different in Scranton, PA or Las Vegas or the suburbs of Atlanta, but I kind of have my doubts.
I get why that could be a problem with a PC. After all, it's not unusual to file one's taxes on one's PC, or have other records that might include one's SSN on a PC. But who the hell is doing anything like via a phone?
While I agree with you in principal (the ability to run whatever I wish is one of the reasons I use Android and avoid iOS myself), in practice, what you describe is the same on both platforms.
If I'm selling a commercial app, even on Android, the built-in store is more or less the only avenue to making money. Google's store has rules just like Apple's does.
Sure I can sell through Amazon or some of the other third parties instead. But this obviously greatly diminishes my potential market (and they will likely have similar rules too). What percent of Android users ever install a third party store? What percent are even aware they can do so?
If you're talking about commercially selling software to sideload, the problem is even worse. Most users have no idea this is possible. So in effect, if you're investing a lot of money into a project and Google says "no", the results aren't much different from Apple saying "no".
Leaving aside the fact questionable legality of your little nerd-vigilante justice fantasies and granting for a moment that the fact that what the guy is doing is technically a felony...
Ignoring the possibility that the poor sap that opens the door might have nothing to do with the attempt - could be his 15 year old kid... worse yet, it could be a zombie machine trying to connect...
Leaving all that aside and assuming that everything is as it appears on it's face. You go over and knock, assault the guy and get the right person...
This all falls under a category I like to call "things I don't want to have to explain to a judge".
Regarding the accessory socket: Depends on the car. And some cars give you the option of behaving in either way.
My CTS actually has a fuse in the fuse box that serves as a jumper between two positions. In the first position, the socket is as you describe that you expect it: On only when the key is in the "run" position. In the other position, the socket is on continuously, only switching off when the key moves to the "start" position (to protect against surges).
The car also has battery rundown protection, but I don't know the details of this. All I know is that it occasionally turns to dome light off when I leave it on the "on" position overnight, presumably when the battery reached a certain threshold. I don't see any reason it couldn't govern the accessory socket in the same way, but I do not know if it does.
First, everyone tells me this about being a game dev. Everyone. Oh, and how it's not glamorous and some companies (read: most of them) treat you poorly. But once a week, we get a "what nobody tells you" about game devs article here or on Extra Credits or the Escapist or wherever.
Stop it.
Second, there is nothing interesting about procedurally generated anything any more. Diablo did this. The first one. In 1996. It can be a nice feature, but it's not noteworthy any more. The move from sprites to polygons was noteworthy for early titles like StarFox. But nobody is putting "polygon-based graphics" stickers on their game boxes today.
If someone praises a product that has been hammered by review after review it's likely a paid marketing attempt.
Or it's likely a differing opinion. As someone who enjoys (some) Microsoft products, and occasionally defends that position here on Slashdot, the whole "shill" thing gets tiresome.
If someone praises a product within seconds of a new story being posted they are either the world's fastest typist or they are copy and pasting something.
This is fair. If it's happening. I read Slashdot daily, and either these are getting moderated down to -1 SUPER quick (I read at 0) or it's not happening enough for me to notice. Can you link to examples?
The Microsoft astroturfers are all over slashdot and we all know it, but as you point out not everything pro Microsoft is a paid astroturfer.
No, I don't think we all know it. I see this idea parroted a lot. I don't see examples cited, other than people saying "Hey OneNote is pretty good! You should give it a chance!" followed by ten replies calling the poster an astroturfer.
It gets really old and frankly is embarrassing to watch.
Um... use your head. You fill out forms when you get a license. Logically you would "sign up for that" when you fill out the form, or you'd just not be able to get a license.
It's possible they've overlooked it, but I'm not going to hold my breath.
You can't really expect the math to be on Discovery.com. It's a general interest site for the public. It needs to be accessible (though perhaps it wouldn't hurt them to link to it...).
Someone else posted the original paper, which can be found here.
1) Why on earth would you pick Qatar of all places? They have a population of 1.9 Million. I live within an hour of at least two cities that are larger than that. You then compare it to all of the United States? Really? 2) GDP per capita is a terrible measure of poverty. If you've got unequal income distribution (lots of poor, and some super rich) it skews the numbers. 3) Qatar has fantastically low violence. Like lower than the United States. Even though GDP per capita isn't the best metric to use, Qatar is still a very well off country. The unemployment is low (1.5%!!!), poverty is low, literacy rate is on par with western nations, higher education rates are high, etc. And you know what? Their murder rate is half that of the United States.
Now I bet if we went through all the majority Muslim nations one by one, we'd find exceptions - nations where the populace is relatively well off and educated that are more violent than other nations that are poorer (Muslim or non-Muslim majority),
But I also bet that if we ranked all the nations in order that violence and other social ills would largely trend with some other metrics (unemployment, median income vs. cost of living, education, literacy). I further bet that the Muslim nations on this list would *mostly* cluster with nations that are statistically similar to themselves.
Does culture matter? Absolutely. Look at the violent crime rates in the U.S. vs. Japan or Germany, three nations who have very similar makeups on paper.
But my point is that culture goes *way* further than just religion. Stop being obtuse, or stop trolling. I can't tell which one you're doing.
Where were the moderate Christians when Christian extremists bombed abortion clinics and shot staff members?
I'll grant you that there are probably more violent extremists who would cite their motivation as Islam than there are violent extremists who would cite Christianity as their motivating force. But so what? That still doesn't put the blame on the rest of the Muslims.
The fact is that there were no U.S. security forces there. The consulate was defended by and the mob was engaged with deadly force by Libyan security forces. Early reports indicate that when it became clear that the mob was overrunning the consulate, a local Militia intervened and stepped in to defend the consulate. Many / most of these Libyans were likely Muslims themselves.
Today, there were rallies in Egypt and Libya of people expressing remorse for what happened. But I guess they must not be Muslims because they weren't violent and because they denounced the violence. Funny that.
To answer your questions:
How many of them did you see spoke out against the beheading of non-moslems, carried out by their moslem brethren, in the name of Islam?
Every single Muslim I know. Every. Single. One. To say nothing of Muslim politicians and prominent leaders speaking out in more prominent venues than my living room or office.
were those so-called "moderate moslems" when the Madrid Train Stations got bombed?
There are 1.1 Million Muslims in Spain. 29 individuals were charged in involvements in the Madrid train bombings. While I'm sure there are other violent crimes that have been committed in that population of 1.1 million, am I to believe that the vast bulk of them are what? Biding their time? Waiting for the right moment to detonate their suicide vests that they've all been issued at the local mosque / radicalization center? Wow! Spain is a ticking time bomb!
Did we see any of those "moderate moslems" spoke out against the bombing of the London subway system?
Do you know that them moslems beheaded little kids in southern Thailand, just because their parents were (the parents were butchered as well) non-moslems?
Did you know that Patriotic Resistance Force in Ituri (a group that indentifies itself as a Christian militia) has committed genocide, kept prisoners locked in rooms that were essentially mass graves, kept women and children as sex slaves, and engaged in conscription of child soldiers? Does this mean all Christians are vile? Or maybe just all African Christians? Maybe just Ugandan Christians? I'm sure we can find a sweeping bigoted generalization you can agree with!
You should be modded down as a troll, because you are a troll.
There are bad Muslims in the world. Congratulations for figuring that bit out.
But guess what? If there are a million Muslims in an area and 100 of them go on a killing spree, guess which group gets news coverage?
Nobody is apologizing for anything. We're trying to make sure bigots and morons understand that a couple billion people aren't responsible for the actions of a few.
No, but the narrative is that he's not just successful, but a ruthless plutocrat. The narrative (true or not) is that he's not just successful, but he'll do anything to make a buck, moral or not.
The tax question goes to the question of did he take every slimeball loophole possible, or did he file as intended by the spirit of the law? His father made a very public point of doing the latter.
It's widely known that George Romney released 12 years of taxes. What's not as widely known is that when he did, he released it to a journalist with Look magazine. When he did, the folks that poured over his returns noticed something:
"Auditors notice two unusual facts in these returns. First, the Romneys have never made much use of tax loopholes, such as depletion allowances, that are taken for granted by most people who reach their bracket. Second, over the 12-year period, they have donated an average of 19 percent of each year's adjusted gross income to their church."
The question isn't does Mitt Romney do anything illegal (though the Dems would love it if he did), the question is do his tax returns make him look unethical?
I'll grant you that although the OJ Simpson saga should have been just tabloid fodder, because of his celebrity it was widely covered by legit media.
But story of the year? Story of the decade? Are you insane?
Just that year, we had the Shoemaker-Levy 9 impact with Jupiter. Clinton signed the Assault Weapons Ban, and the Kremlin accords. Arafat got the Nobel Peace Prize. Nixon died. The Yugoslav wars were in full swing, THE RWANDAN GENOCIDE OCCURRED. Apartheid ended and Nelson Mandela was elected President of South Africa.
So seriously, this was the biggest news of the 1990s? The same decade that had the gulf war, Bill Clinton elected twice, and then impeached, the rise of the world wide web, (speaking of which, Netscape was 1994 also), the Oklahoma City Bombing, Columbine massacre, Branch Davidian Compound, Rodney King Beating and subsequent LA riots...
Yes, the media oversold the importance of the OJ Simpson story. Please don't perpetuate that today.
I'm not going to argue for McCarthyism. But you're providing a false comparison.
In this instance, you're demonizing the tools themselves as a problem. But under McCarthyism, government used the tools of the day, tools we *still* use today and see nothing wrong with when applied correctly.
This isn't, and shouldn't be an argument about tools. It should be an argument about *rules*. Due process, and who gets to collect and use data and how.
I don't have any problem with government collecting massive amounts of public information. I just want the way that data is collected, archived and retrieved to be regulated.
You wan to know what cars were on Maple St. between 1:00AM and 3:00AM on the 5th of May, because of a murder investigation? We've got the records. Any sane judge would issue a warrant to retrieve those records when a serious crime like murder is involved.
You want to check the records for what time your ex-wife's car left her house on Monday, because you're spiteful and you happen to be a cop? Sorry, you don't get the records without a warrant.
Will there be rule breakers? Probably. Will there be abuses? Probably. But we have that now with the current tools, and we punish these folks when we catch them.
Just because we have stalker cops, doesn't mean we don't give cops police cars.
Just because we had McCarthyism doesn't mean we stopped having Congressional investigation or wiretaps.
Your speed limit example is just wrong. If you go 65.1 in a 65, you can get a ticket now. Just because you don't *see* a cop there doesn't make it suddenly legal.
Your First example, five cars near three murders, starts out sane. We could do that today if this was discovered by eyewitness or by security camera footage at a gas station. But then you make the leap to "the cops will beat all five suspects". This could happen, or it could not. It would have everything to do with bad cops and nothing to do with the tools. It could happen today.
Don't blame tools for bad actors using them in bad faith. Put controls in place to restrict how these tools can be used.
We give cops lethal weapons. But we hold them responsible for how they use them. I think they can handle *cameras* if we apply sane standards to them.
A good friend of mine lives in South Carolina. There's a barbecue chain there called Maurice's Barbecue. Big chain, everyone knows about them. And everyone knows that they are openly unapologetic racists.
The guy who runs them fought a court case all the way to SCOTUS to keep blacks out of his restaurants (lost by unanimous decision). Walk in today, and you'll find literature on shelves with racist tracts and his book promoting "a lost way of life" and promoting slavery.
The Chick-Fil-A analogy is apt. These guys can't keep blacks out of their restaurants any more than Chick-Fil-A can keep gays out of theirs. And the kids behind the counter making minimum wage, along with the management of individual stores may or may not have a prejudiced bone in their bodies.
But the owners are intolerant dinosaurs from a bygone era. They may not have a completely free hand to run the company the way they wish with regards to bigoted policies. But they're still jerks.
The point is bigots of all kinds are still around. But there are disgusting things that we have decided are lawful (for instance, hate speech), and disgusting things that we've decided as a society that will be unlawful (discriminating in places of public accommodation).
Slashdot Mirror
Wait... you're telling me that a sci-fi / fantasy / capeshit property is using allegory to make social commentary?
This is unique and new in the history of storytelling. You should inform the press.
In a property based on a comic book aimed at children? Really? You can't see it, but I assure you, I am making my shocked face.
So you want Barbra Lee to be President?
Look, the big jobs have life and death consequences. At Benghazi, four people died. It wasn't simple and I'm not going to get into the weeds with you on it here. But, yes. People died on her watch.
I don't think that means she couldn't do her job or that she was derelict in her duty somehow.
The Iraq war vote was a mistake. She admitted it was a mistake. In fact, it probably cost her the Presidency in 2008. But she was in the majority on that one. In fact, 70% of Americans supported the invasion at the time. A lot of that was faulty intelligence, a lot of that was ginned up intelligence, and a lot of that was just a feeling that Hussein was a bad guy that needed to go.
The Afghanistan vote, I would contend was *not* a mistake. In fact, Barbra Lee was the *only* member of either house to vote "no" for the AUMF.
Or if these votes are so terrible, should everyone connected to them be thrown out of office? Or be intelligible for office if they weren't in at the time? Because we can split hairs about Trump's support of the Iraq invasion (he said both), but he absolutely supported the invasion of Afghanistan. Virtually all Americans did.
So yeah.... I guess President Lee it is by that standard.
Or do you just not like Clinton for reasons you can't articulate and so you apply a litmus that you'd never dream of applying elsewhere to her to make her seem like a monster?
Which is it? Are you on the Lee Train, or are you a trolling shill?
Actually, no. It doesn't work like that at all.
In most places, there are basically two types of written contracts that the law recognizes:
Negotiated - What you're thinking about, where you and another party have the ability to negotiate, haggle, and come to a consensus.
Contracts of Adhesion - This includes ELUAs, the contract between you and your electric company, etc. These *are* non-negotiable, take-it-or-leave-it contracts.
Seems unfair, doesn't it? There is a bright side.
Contracts of Adhesion are generally held to a higher standard than Negotiable contracts. If there's ambiguous wording, or a typo, or whatever, it doesn't matter, the courts take that literally, and the company or entity that wrote the contract is held responsible.
Basically, if in doubt with a Contract of Adhesion, the law will side with the party that had no choice. I'm simplifying things here, but that's the general spirit of the difference.
We use these contracts every day. No major provider of services would be able to do business without them. Public utilities, airlines, software vendors, schools, telcos, ISPs all use these types of contracts.
Dell is not going to negotiate with you on the terms of their wifi driver. Verizon isn't going to negotiate their TOU. Those things just aren't going to happen, despite how your mind extrapolated that "all contracts are the same!" when you learned about negotiated contracts.
But I *do* like how you spouted off like you knew exactly what you were talking about, despite not knowing very basic things about contract law. Well done.
I suspect that The Tetris Company would prefer not to license any early versions of the game.
They standardized it just a few years after the NES / Gameboy era to make games that used the Tetris name more uniform and frankly better.
Those standardizations included:
* The randomizer algorithm must be the "bag random" type. This prevents you from being starved for any one shape for more than 10 pieces and ensures you'll never get the same piece more than twice in a row.
* They must include the classic Tetris theme song
* The colors are standardized. L is always a certain color Square is another color, backwards L is a different standard color, etc. This standard is adhered to whether it's on the Wii, the Xbox, in the arcade, or on the Sega Saturn.
* There must be a "hold" space where you can take the current piece and hold it in reserve, or swap it for the one currently in reserve.
There are others, but those are it off the top of my head. The NES Tetris misses on the colors, the randomizer, and the hold space if memory serves. It's frankly a bad implementation (but they all were in that era).
Well, that's also because nobody in the Donner Party was accused of actually killing anyone.
The accepted story of the Donner Party was that the survivors ate those who had succumbed to starvation or disease.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D...
When was this?
The SNES had Super Mario Bros. All Stars on it.
The N64 didn't have it as far as I know, but the Gameboy Color did (As Super Mario Bros. Deluxe in 1999). As did the Gameboy Advance after that.
It was an unlockable game on the GCN version of Animal Crossing in 2002, but you had to have the e-Reader accessory and a trading card, and nobody did because they weren't that popular.
In 2004 they released another GBA game, this one a compilation that included other Mario games as well.
In 2006 they released it on Virtual Console for the Wii for $5.
It was released on the 3DS and the Wii U as soon as those consoles were released as well.
When, exactly was it unavailable?
The last new NES game was released in late 1994.
The SNES versions came out in 1993 in all regions.
It looks like SNES game production continued until 1998.
The Gameboy Color edition didn't come out until 1999, this is true. Even if Nintendo stopped selling SNES games the same year they published the last new title, this is still a gap of less than a year. Comparable to the gap that used to exist between a movie coming out in the theater and being released on VHS.
It looks like they were releasing new GBA games until 2007. So that covers the gap where the Animal Crossing unlockable was the most recent version, because the first Virtual Console version on the Wii came out in 2006.
I don't think we've seen a full calendar year where you couldn't walk into a store and purchase Nintendo-made hardware and software to play Super Mario Bros. since it was released in 1985.
There *might* have been a gap in the end of 1998 into early 1999. Not sure. But it's damn close to continuous.
Nintendo has always had a slow trickle of fresh blood. Emphasis on the slow. They still do new IP, but increasingly those new IPs don't go anywhere.
So far, this year they've got no new IP at all. Ditto last year. Though they did publish Xenoblade Saga (developed by Monolith, but Nintendo owns controlling interest in them).
In 2011:
2010:
2009:
2008: No new IP. I thought Endless Ocean was, but upon closer inspection, it is neither a Nintendo IP, nor is it original, it's a sequel. Maybe you could count Wii Fit?
2007:
Hotel Dusk: Room 215 - I'm not sure who owns the IP for this one. But Nintendo has the publishing rights and I really enjoyed it. They did a follow-up too. Reminds me of the old games like Shadowgate and Deja Vu.
2006:
2005:
2003:
I skipped a lot of fun games that are spinoff IPs. For instance, Super Princess Peach, Warioware, Luigi's Mansion, and Mario Kart can all be considered spinoffs of the Mario series. Even if the game p
This is 2013. Some people are stupid, yes. But information often gets out there even to stupid people. We live in a world where people think all kinds of things about "hackers" and identity theft, etc. They may not have a deep understanding, but they know that 20/20 did a story on it, so they should be afraid of... whatever. "Hackers".
Anecdotaly, excluding my own network, there are 14 networks within range of me as I type this from my home. All of them are secured with (mostly WPA, 1 WEP) and there is one Open "guest" network (with an identical name to one of the secure networks), which presumably is open by design, but has restrictions when connected.
Granted, only 5 of these networks have names that were obviously user-selected. So perhaps some of these networks were set up by the ISP, or the devices shipped with security on by default. But regardless, I see more secure networks than I do open ones today.
Who cares if the user selected it or not? As long as the password is unique and it works for them. They don't need to know unless they have a reason to. If the ISP or the device manufacturer has figured out a scheme to get them secured without a major hassle, it's a win-win. Those who care to know more will go out and learn more.
For what it's worth, I live in central New Jersey. Maybe things are radically different in Scranton, PA or Las Vegas or the suburbs of Atlanta, but I kind of have my doubts.
For real.
I get why that could be a problem with a PC. After all, it's not unusual to file one's taxes on one's PC, or have other records that might include one's SSN on a PC. But who the hell is doing anything like via a phone?
While I agree with you in principal (the ability to run whatever I wish is one of the reasons I use Android and avoid iOS myself), in practice, what you describe is the same on both platforms.
If I'm selling a commercial app, even on Android, the built-in store is more or less the only avenue to making money. Google's store has rules just like Apple's does.
Sure I can sell through Amazon or some of the other third parties instead. But this obviously greatly diminishes my potential market (and they will likely have similar rules too). What percent of Android users ever install a third party store? What percent are even aware they can do so?
If you're talking about commercially selling software to sideload, the problem is even worse. Most users have no idea this is possible. So in effect, if you're investing a lot of money into a project and Google says "no", the results aren't much different from Apple saying "no".
Leaving aside the fact questionable legality of your little nerd-vigilante justice fantasies and granting for a moment that the fact that what the guy is doing is technically a felony...
Ignoring the possibility that the poor sap that opens the door might have nothing to do with the attempt - could be his 15 year old kid... worse yet, it could be a zombie machine trying to connect...
Leaving all that aside and assuming that everything is as it appears on it's face. You go over and knock, assault the guy and get the right person...
This all falls under a category I like to call "things I don't want to have to explain to a judge".
TL;DR: You're being criminally stupid.
Wow, I remember when I thought those were really stylish and I wanted to buy a broken one to gut figure out a way to stuff it full of PC components.
Those have not aged well.
Regarding the accessory socket: Depends on the car. And some cars give you the option of behaving in either way.
My CTS actually has a fuse in the fuse box that serves as a jumper between two positions. In the first position, the socket is as you describe that you expect it: On only when the key is in the "run" position. In the other position, the socket is on continuously, only switching off when the key moves to the "start" position (to protect against surges).
The car also has battery rundown protection, but I don't know the details of this. All I know is that it occasionally turns to dome light off when I leave it on the "on" position overnight, presumably when the battery reached a certain threshold. I don't see any reason it couldn't govern the accessory socket in the same way, but I do not know if it does.
This drives me crazy.
First, everyone tells me this about being a game dev. Everyone. Oh, and how it's not glamorous and some companies (read: most of them) treat you poorly.
But once a week, we get a "what nobody tells you" about game devs article here or on Extra Credits or the Escapist or wherever.
Stop it.
Second, there is nothing interesting about procedurally generated anything any more. Diablo did this. The first one. In 1996. It can be a nice feature, but it's not noteworthy any more. The move from sprites to polygons was noteworthy for early titles like StarFox. But nobody is putting "polygon-based graphics" stickers on their game boxes today.
If someone praises a product that has been hammered by review after review it's likely a paid marketing attempt.
Or it's likely a differing opinion. As someone who enjoys (some) Microsoft products, and occasionally defends that position here on Slashdot, the whole "shill" thing gets tiresome.
If someone praises a product within seconds of a new story being posted they are either the world's fastest typist or they are copy and pasting something.
This is fair. If it's happening. I read Slashdot daily, and either these are getting moderated down to -1 SUPER quick (I read at 0) or it's not happening enough for me to notice. Can you link to examples?
The Microsoft astroturfers are all over slashdot and we all know it, but as you point out not everything pro Microsoft is a paid astroturfer.
No, I don't think we all know it. I see this idea parroted a lot. I don't see examples cited, other than people saying "Hey OneNote is pretty good! You should give it a chance!" followed by ten replies calling the poster an astroturfer.
It gets really old and frankly is embarrassing to watch.
Um... use your head. You fill out forms when you get a license. Logically you would "sign up for that" when you fill out the form, or you'd just not be able to get a license.
It's possible they've overlooked it, but I'm not going to hold my breath.
I'm going to go out on a limb and say that none of them drove.
You can't really expect the math to be on Discovery.com. It's a general interest site for the public. It needs to be accessible (though perhaps it wouldn't hurt them to link to it...).
Someone else posted the original paper, which can be found here.
You're a moron.
I don't even know where to begin...
1) Why on earth would you pick Qatar of all places? They have a population of 1.9 Million. I live within an hour of at least two cities that are larger than that. You then compare it to all of the United States? Really?
2) GDP per capita is a terrible measure of poverty. If you've got unequal income distribution (lots of poor, and some super rich) it skews the numbers.
3) Qatar has fantastically low violence. Like lower than the United States. Even though GDP per capita isn't the best metric to use, Qatar is still a very well off country. The unemployment is low (1.5%!!!), poverty is low, literacy rate is on par with western nations, higher education rates are high, etc. And you know what? Their murder rate is half that of the United States.
Now I bet if we went through all the majority Muslim nations one by one, we'd find exceptions - nations where the populace is relatively well off and educated that are more violent than other nations that are poorer (Muslim or non-Muslim majority),
But I also bet that if we ranked all the nations in order that violence and other social ills would largely trend with some other metrics (unemployment, median income vs. cost of living, education, literacy). I further bet that the Muslim nations on this list would *mostly* cluster with nations that are statistically similar to themselves.
Does culture matter? Absolutely. Look at the violent crime rates in the U.S. vs. Japan or Germany, three nations who have very similar makeups on paper.
But my point is that culture goes *way* further than just religion. Stop being obtuse, or stop trolling. I can't tell which one you're doing.
Where were the moderate Christians when Christian extremists bombed abortion clinics and shot staff members?
I'll grant you that there are probably more violent extremists who would cite their motivation as Islam than there are violent extremists who would cite Christianity as their motivating force. But so what? That still doesn't put the blame on the rest of the Muslims.
The fact is that there were no U.S. security forces there. The consulate was defended by and the mob was engaged with deadly force by Libyan security forces. Early reports indicate that when it became clear that the mob was overrunning the consulate, a local Militia intervened and stepped in to defend the consulate. Many / most of these Libyans were likely Muslims themselves.
Today, there were rallies in Egypt and Libya of people expressing remorse for what happened. But I guess they must not be Muslims because they weren't violent and because they denounced the violence. Funny that.
To answer your questions:
Every single Muslim I know. Every. Single. One. To say nothing of Muslim politicians and prominent leaders speaking out in more prominent venues than my living room or office.
There are 1.1 Million Muslims in Spain. 29 individuals were charged in involvements in the Madrid train bombings. While I'm sure there are other violent crimes that have been committed in that population of 1.1 million, am I to believe that the vast bulk of them are what? Biding their time? Waiting for the right moment to detonate their suicide vests that they've all been issued at the local mosque / radicalization center? Wow! Spain is a ticking time bomb!
Why yes we did see moderate Muslims speak out after the 7/7 bombings. In fact, 500 of their religious leaders in the U.K. issued a Fatwa condemning the bombings.
Did you know that Patriotic Resistance Force in Ituri (a group that indentifies itself as a Christian militia) has committed genocide, kept prisoners locked in rooms that were essentially mass graves, kept women and children as sex slaves, and engaged in conscription of child soldiers? Does this mean all Christians are vile? Or maybe just all African Christians? Maybe just Ugandan Christians? I'm sure we can find a sweeping bigoted generalization you can agree with!
You should be modded down as a troll, because you are a troll.
There are bad Muslims in the world. Congratulations for figuring that bit out.
But guess what? If there are a million Muslims in an area and 100 of them go on a killing spree, guess which group gets news coverage?
Nobody is apologizing for anything. We're trying to make sure bigots and morons understand that a couple billion people aren't responsible for the actions of a few.
No, but the narrative is that he's not just successful, but a ruthless plutocrat. The narrative (true or not) is that he's not just successful, but he'll do anything to make a buck, moral or not.
The tax question goes to the question of did he take every slimeball loophole possible, or did he file as intended by the spirit of the law? His father made a very public point of doing the latter.
It's widely known that George Romney released 12 years of taxes. What's not as widely known is that when he did, he released it to a journalist with Look magazine. When he did, the folks that poured over his returns noticed something:
http://itcouldhappenhere.com/blog/romneys-ryan-timing-a-taxing-matter/
The question isn't does Mitt Romney do anything illegal (though the Dems would love it if he did), the question is do his tax returns make him look unethical?
I'll grant you that although the OJ Simpson saga should have been just tabloid fodder, because of his celebrity it was widely covered by legit media.
But story of the year? Story of the decade? Are you insane?
Just that year, we had the Shoemaker-Levy 9 impact with Jupiter. Clinton signed the Assault Weapons Ban, and the Kremlin accords. Arafat got the Nobel Peace Prize. Nixon died. The Yugoslav wars were in full swing, THE RWANDAN GENOCIDE OCCURRED. Apartheid ended and Nelson Mandela was elected President of South Africa.
So seriously, this was the biggest news of the 1990s? The same decade that had the gulf war, Bill Clinton elected twice, and then impeached, the rise of the world wide web, (speaking of which, Netscape was 1994 also), the Oklahoma City Bombing, Columbine massacre, Branch Davidian Compound, Rodney King Beating and subsequent LA riots...
Yes, the media oversold the importance of the OJ Simpson story. Please don't perpetuate that today.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rationale_for_the_Iraq_War#Weapons_of_mass_destruction
I'm not going to argue for McCarthyism. But you're providing a false comparison.
In this instance, you're demonizing the tools themselves as a problem. But under McCarthyism, government used the tools of the day, tools we *still* use today and see nothing wrong with when applied correctly.
This isn't, and shouldn't be an argument about tools. It should be an argument about *rules*. Due process, and who gets to collect and use data and how.
I don't have any problem with government collecting massive amounts of public information. I just want the way that data is collected, archived and retrieved to be regulated.
You wan to know what cars were on Maple St. between 1:00AM and 3:00AM on the 5th of May, because of a murder investigation? We've got the records. Any sane judge would issue a warrant to retrieve those records when a serious crime like murder is involved.
You want to check the records for what time your ex-wife's car left her house on Monday, because you're spiteful and you happen to be a cop? Sorry, you don't get the records without a warrant.
Will there be rule breakers? Probably. Will there be abuses? Probably. But we have that now with the current tools, and we punish these folks when we catch them.
Don't blame tools for bad actors using them in bad faith. Put controls in place to restrict how these tools can be used.
We give cops lethal weapons. But we hold them responsible for how they use them. I think they can handle *cameras* if we apply sane standards to them.
A good friend of mine lives in South Carolina. There's a barbecue chain there called Maurice's Barbecue. Big chain, everyone knows about them. And everyone knows that they are openly unapologetic racists.
The guy who runs them fought a court case all the way to SCOTUS to keep blacks out of his restaurants (lost by unanimous decision). Walk in today, and you'll find literature on shelves with racist tracts and his book promoting "a lost way of life" and promoting slavery.
http://www.amazon.com/Defending-My-Heritage-Maurice-Bessinger/dp/0971336903
The Chick-Fil-A analogy is apt. These guys can't keep blacks out of their restaurants any more than Chick-Fil-A can keep gays out of theirs. And the kids behind the counter making minimum wage, along with the management of individual stores may or may not have a prejudiced bone in their bodies.
But the owners are intolerant dinosaurs from a bygone era. They may not have a completely free hand to run the company the way they wish with regards to bigoted policies. But they're still jerks.
The point is bigots of all kinds are still around. But there are disgusting things that we have decided are lawful (for instance, hate speech), and disgusting things that we've decided as a society that will be unlawful (discriminating in places of public accommodation).