Mind if I search your car? No? I cant? Wait here please... and in some cases, they can get a warrant on the spot to do it, if there is a judge handy to a phone
Why would they need to? Refusing a search is probable cause to believe that you have something to hide ("My god, he's probably got a small PLANT in the car!") and that you'll destroy the evidence if it isn't obtained immediately.
Oh, and if you're black and they can't see any cameras on them, add "resisting arrest", of course.
"I'll just do such-and-such and yeah, that'll screw 'em!", here's a wake up call.
Are you in one of the 5,000 households with a Neilsen People Meter? Or failing that, are you in the "sweeps"?
No?
Then your opinion means absolutely nothing. Nil. Zilch. Nada. Zip. Nobody cares if you switch off your TV and go and frolic in the great outdoors. Nobody that matters will ever know, and nobody will change what they're doing because of your actions.
Is in Toolmaker Koan. Lousy book, interesting premise. The premise is that progress comes through conflict, and that any society with the social drive to achieve the technology necessary for space travel is - axiomatically - so conflicted that it always bombs itself back to the stone age.
It's hard to argue against. We haven't destroyed ourselves - yet - but then again, we haven't achieved space travel either. I don't count holding our breath while we dash out, touch the moon, and dash back. That's proof of concept. When we get a self sufficient and growing colony on another planet, get back to me.
Yes, but have you ever seen a Windows PC preloaded with that software?
Not as such. I bought a Win98SE laptop with (IIRC) Lotus Workwise (crappy Office suite) on it, then took it straight off (and I'm still waiting for my refund for the Win98SE I was forced to buy). If it had been OpenOffice 1.0, I would have kept it and loved it (I'm using it right not in preference to Microsoft Office on a work PC). If I was Joe Consumer, I might not even have realised that OpenOffice is different to Word. If you haven't tried it, I can heartily recommend it.
It might not be feasible, license-wise -- I don't understand the GPL well enough to know for sure, though...
There is absolutely nothing, zero, zip, zilch, nada in the GPL that would prevent it. All of these products are free speech and free beer (if you use OpenOffice instead of StarOffice). The GPL adds rights, it doesn't take them away.
However, there may be, or may come to be, terms in the WinXP OEM license that prevent it. Pure speculation, but then if you actually read the EULA modifications that they're so fond of writing into critical security updates, nothing's unthinkable any more. Microsoft have declared war on the GPL, they just haven't come up with a decent strategy yet.
Yahoo.com doesn't display adverts with 14 year old girls in sexual situations, and Yahoo.de auctions doesn't sell Mein Kampf. Local portals are localised. Every page on the web breaks some law somewhere; it's just that some make more effort to comply with a particular (and arbitrary) bunch of local morality and laws, so that they don't have to spend all their money on lawyers. Get over it.
Lindows installs by root as default, so the su is redundant (as is the ".*", what's with that?). However, that applies equally to XP, so what's the loss?
Customer: "So, which of this software can I run on this Linux PC?"
Answer: you don't have to buy any of it, it comes with equivelants as standard. And yes, that means that you don't have to pay $394.99 for the Standard edition of Office XP. (That's an Amazon link. Interestingly, WalMart only - apparently - plans on selling OfficeXP to students and teachers. Uh, sure, OK).
Great selling point for users, but, yes, lousy business sense for WalMart. Most computer retaillers effectively give the boxes away, then gouge on the extras and consumables.
But heck, there isn't a GnuCash Win32 port, so I guess that makes you right.;-P
I do have a serious point here. It's absolutely brillant that these apps are available for Win32 and other platforms, because that's pretty much the only way that market forces can actually effect Microsoft. If, for example, they start to see their highly lucrative Office sales slip in favour of Star/OpenOffice, then they might (unlikely, but possible) actually have to start doing something about stopping people from then migrating to Linux - hey, if you can run the same apps, but pay much less for the OS, then why not?
As I say, it's unlikely. I actually think that they'll just try and tighten their grip (through Palladium, tighter integration and buying legislation) rather than loosen it, but we can live in hope, right?
I'm against any scheme in which a citizen of a nation is charged money by the government to travel to or across particular public lands. They're public lands! Public!
Travel != drive. You can walk, cycle, skateboard, motorcycle, or hop along in a kangeroo suit if you want. Also, you don't pay if you're disabled, a cab driver, working for the emergency services, or driving a public service vehicle (including community minibuses). You get 90% discount if you're a local resident, and a 100% discount if you're driving a low pollution car. For local residents who choose to drive a motor vehicle every weekday of the year, this works out (effectively) to an extra tax of somewhere under $200 a year, compared to the ~$240 they already pay in road tax. If you've ever tried to drive in central London, you'll understand why this isn't entirely unreasonable.
Basically, you only pay the full amount if you choose to drive into this area in a vehicle with 4 or more wheels, burning fossil fuels, without a clear benefit to the community. There are plenty of options and alternatives.
this "fee" is essentially meaningless to those with enough money
It's not meaningless, but it's positively beneficial to them, because all of the money is going into improving public transport for at least the next ten years. Is it fair that some people will be able to afford this and others not? No. Is it fair that some people can't afford cars anyway? Well, not really, but they can't. Is it fair that rich people pay more taxes than poor people? Again, not, that's just pragmatism, as is this.
On the privacy side, you do have a point, it really is only a matter of degree worse than the current situation, where registrations are clearly displayed and can be (and are) regularly checked by anyone with a badge or a uniform. The only way you'll achieve privacy is to remove license plates. Good luck.
Did you have a better solution? As far as I can see, this is one of those schemes that would be roundly welcomed by 95% of the people it effects - if only it didn't effect them personally.
Re:You can ALL participate in Freeciv development
on
Freeciv-1.13.0 Stable
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
I took the time to do a really long list of cities for my favorite nation [...] I can call myself a developer of the game
And proudly so. If we gave half as much kudos to content providers as we do to coders, we'd have much more enjoyable o/s games. At a conservative estimate, a modern commercial game has three times as many content providers (sound, text/voice, models, textures, CGI, design, scripting) as developers, plus a whackload of QA, testing, localisation, and parasites. Er, management, I mean. Open source tends to make do with four coders and one guy with a copy of GIMP.
When I started reading this, I thought "we'll never let this happen". And then I thought: well, what exactly will we do to stop it? What's going to be the one final incident that wakes the sleeping giant that is Joe Sixpack? It's the boiling frogs principle. Do it just a little at a time, and Mr Froggie doesn't even realise he's fucked until his eyeballs explode.
If you disagree, then answer the question. What exactly will be the single event that will make Joe Sixpack give a damn? Patterns don't cut it. Patterns are about history. It'll have to be an acute critical event that someone with a 95 IQ can understand. What's it going to be?
Yes, cloaked and masked in anonymising black, operating in secret without accountability, striking without warning, acting in the name of justice without being burdened by due process. Everything that we've come to expect from our modern paramilitary protectors, in fact.
What, did you think I was going to talk about Superman? Jeez, grow up.
What do slashdotters think about the popularity of a serious big-budget Hollywood superheronie movie?
Given the popularity of Alias, if Jennifer Garner doesn't get an Elektra spinoff from Daredevil then I'll be very surprised. However, if she does then I'll be very disappointed, but I'll be in a minority, I suspect.
Or, go and look at the plethora of rumours about a Wonder Woman movie. Front runner though is Sandra Bullock, another lips-on-stilts slipping clsoer to anorexia every birthday.
As an aside, how many superheroines aren't based to some degree on titilation?
Matt Damon may get his choice of playing either Batman or Superman
Oh dear god. And here we see how Hollywood funding works. Title, Director, headline name, cha-CHING, fill in the blanks (including concept and script) later. How can Matt Damon be ideal for both roles? Does he get to pick his favourite, and then they just cast the other? What if he changes his mind after filming starts? We know (from the way he dumped Minnie Driver via an announcement on Oprah) that he's an arrogant, self important prick. How smart is it to give him license to dictate and decide terms on a project like this, and what does it say about the artistic vision of the director that his image of both characters has the same face?
The more that I hear about this, the more I become convinced that this will be just another tedious by-the-numbers banker. No tough decisions, no risk. The only possible point of interest is how they'll cripple Superman so that they can work in the inevitable fist fight. I rather suspect that we'll just see the Dark Knight Returns scene, lifted out of context.
I think Superman needs to be at least a six-footer. Christopher Reeve is listed at 6' 4", and that actually looks accurate
That's part of the problem. Christopher Reeve made the role his own. Dean Cain and Tom Welling have just been playing in his shadow. Reeve was so right for the character (as drawn) that anyone else will look awkward and unconvincing in comparison.
So, why not take advantage of that? Superman and Batman have historically been drawn with similar physiques, but that's comic convention. Both Dark Knight and Kingdom Come played on Superman's godlike aspect, but I seriously doubt whether we're going to see anything like an adaptation of either of those, given the title.
Given the title, we're just going to see a conflict. For conflict, you need difference. The difference is largely in attitude and methods, but what's wrong with a difference of appearance as well? Batman needs a big physique. Superman doesn't. I'm picturing the dramatic potential of having a slight Superman that can physically intimidate a bulky Batman. That's an instant illustration that a conflict between these two characters cannot be the movie convention of two big men flexing and posturing and sweating testosterone. Superman is a misnomer; he's not human, not a man, and there's no reason to have him conform to the stereotypical macho man physique, other than habit and convention.
I don't Superman should be short, skinny and look gay.
Wil is 5'11", and if we're talking gay, I've got some really bad news for you about guys who spend a lot of time in the gym...;-)
If it still bothers you, consider that the same actor is playing both Bruce Banner and the Hulk in next year's ">Ang Lee / James Shamus interpretation. We have the technology.
I thought the idea of an RPG is that you get to play different roles. I'm inferring from this preview that you only get to be a Jedi or Sith, with extra capabilities supplied by a a couple of AI henchmen.
I'm not sure how this is significantly different from a team game of Jedi Knight 2. I mean, it's fun running around swing a saber and using Force Grip and all, but in an RPG, wouldn't it be more fulfilling to have a range of options? The henchman/familiar system in Neverwinter Nights is great, but who'd want to play it if you only got to be a wizard?
Also, one of the things that's really pissing me off about Eps 1 & 2 is that all of the protagonists are either Jedi, comic relief, or (admittedly rather tasty) sweater meat. Contrast with IV-VI, where Han doesn't get to use Deus ex machina. In fact, the hyperdrive breakdowns are, to my eyes, a nice play on how we've become tolerate of "and with one bound, our hero was free" solutions. While Luke's off being an icicle or getting in touch with his inner midichlorian, the real grunt work is done by Han and Chewie, by Leia and Lando, and even good old Wedge, who, please note, manages to not get bitchslapped by an AT-AT, and without the benefit of midichlorians at that. For me, this is the dramatic strength of IV-VI, and, be honest, who did you want to be when you played Star Wars as a kid? Han or Luke? Be honest now.;-)
The comment from John Gilmore is (in conclusion) "Now tell me again that free speech guarantees should not be part of the incorporation charter of ICANN."
Hard to argue against that. Until, that is, you remember that John's definition of freedom of speech extends to running an open mail relay that he knows is being used by spammers. The tacitly admitted reason is that securing it might inconvenience his friends (to the extend that they'd have to remember a password), but the touted reason is that it's a freedom of speech issue. Sure, whatever.
John Gilmore doesn't necessarily represent my ideas about what constitutes freedom of speech, and you really have to consider everything he says on a case by case basis to decide if it's an informed insight, or just blind kneejerk rhetoric. I believe he's right in this case, but let's be careful about just quoting him as though he's the authority on everything related to net issues.
The subject under discussion is Good Omens, which, in case you haven't read it, relies very heavily on "tell, don't show" asides to flesh out the characters. It could, I suppose, be done with a voiceover, but simply taking the dialogue and direction from the novel and putting it in a screenplay would leave a very thin story, and if you change it, well, then you're not filming Good Omens, are you?
This is utterly superfluous. If the gay site is in Australia, can't they just shut it down by saying that it's not suitable for children?. I mean, who's thinking of the children? Won't someone please think of the children!
Make an adaptation of this? It's a superb novel, but reduce it to what can be conveyed via a screenplay, and you have something with a simplistic plot, thin characters, flat dialogue, a few sparse pieces of visual humour, and over reliant on FX to fill the holes. I mean, what kind of idiot would pay to see... oh, hang on...
Think about it. He's handsome in a boy-next-door Young Republican poster kind of way, he has the correct wholesome, too good to be true, "I'll save-the-day" associations in the public consciousness, he can actually act, he has geek appeal, and he looks good in a skin tight unitard.
Slashdot Mirror
Slashmaths: 3 + 10 + 17 + 13 + 6 + 7 < 36
God help us all.
Why would they need to? Refusing a search is probable cause to believe that you have something to hide ("My god, he's probably got a small PLANT in the car!") and that you'll destroy the evidence if it isn't obtained immediately.
Oh, and if you're black and they can't see any cameras on them, add "resisting arrest", of course.
You're saying there's a difference?
"I'll just do such-and-such and yeah, that'll screw 'em!", here's a wake up call.
Are you in one of the 5,000 households with a Neilsen People Meter? Or failing that, are you in the "sweeps"?
No?
Then your opinion means absolutely nothing. Nil. Zilch. Nada. Zip. Nobody cares if you switch off your TV and go and frolic in the great outdoors. Nobody that matters will ever know, and nobody will change what they're doing because of your actions.
Are we all clear on that now?
Is in Toolmaker Koan. Lousy book, interesting premise. The premise is that progress comes through conflict, and that any society with the social drive to achieve the technology necessary for space travel is - axiomatically - so conflicted that it always bombs itself back to the stone age.
It's hard to argue against. We haven't destroyed ourselves - yet - but then again, we haven't achieved space travel either. I don't count holding our breath while we dash out, touch the moon, and dash back. That's proof of concept. When we get a self sufficient and growing colony on another planet, get back to me.
Not as such. I bought a Win98SE laptop with (IIRC) Lotus Workwise (crappy Office suite) on it, then took it straight off (and I'm still waiting for my refund for the Win98SE I was forced to buy). If it had been OpenOffice 1.0, I would have kept it and loved it (I'm using it right not in preference to Microsoft Office on a work PC). If I was Joe Consumer, I might not even have realised that OpenOffice is different to Word. If you haven't tried it, I can heartily recommend it.
There is absolutely nothing, zero, zip, zilch, nada in the GPL that would prevent it. All of these products are free speech and free beer (if you use OpenOffice instead of StarOffice). The GPL adds rights, it doesn't take them away.
However, there may be, or may come to be, terms in the WinXP OEM license that prevent it. Pure speculation, but then if you actually read the EULA modifications that they're so fond of writing into critical security updates, nothing's unthinkable any more. Microsoft have declared war on the GPL, they just haven't come up with a decent strategy yet.
- I actually think that they'll just try and tighten their grip rather than loosen it
Are you sure that's the correct spelling? I've been reading Slashdot for some time now and I would have to disagree with you.You are a bad, bad man (or lady). What would it be in Slashtalk? Losen? Lossen? Loozen? ;-)
Yahoo.com doesn't display adverts with 14 year old girls in sexual situations, and Yahoo.de auctions doesn't sell Mein Kampf. Local portals are localised. Every page on the web breaks some law somewhere; it's just that some make more effort to comply with a particular (and arbitrary) bunch of local morality and laws, so that they don't have to spend all their money on lawyers. Get over it.
Lindows installs by root as default, so the su is redundant (as is the ".*", what's with that?). However, that applies equally to XP, so what's the loss?
Answer: you don't have to buy any of it, it comes with equivelants as standard. And yes, that means that you don't have to pay $394.99 for the Standard edition of Office XP. (That's an Amazon link. Interestingly, WalMart only - apparently - plans on selling OfficeXP to students and teachers. Uh, sure, OK).
Great selling point for users, but, yes, lousy business sense for WalMart. Most computer retaillers effectively give the boxes away, then gouge on the extras and consumables.
But heck, there isn't a GnuCash Win32 port, so I guess that makes you right. ;-P
I do have a serious point here. It's absolutely brillant that these apps are available for Win32 and other platforms, because that's pretty much the only way that market forces can actually effect Microsoft. If, for example, they start to see their highly lucrative Office sales slip in favour of Star/OpenOffice, then they might (unlikely, but possible) actually have to start doing something about stopping people from then migrating to Linux - hey, if you can run the same apps, but pay much less for the OS, then why not?
As I say, it's unlikely. I actually think that they'll just try and tighten their grip (through Palladium, tighter integration and buying legislation) rather than loosen it, but we can live in hope, right?
Travel != drive. You can walk, cycle, skateboard, motorcycle, or hop along in a kangeroo suit if you want. Also, you don't pay if you're disabled, a cab driver, working for the emergency services, or driving a public service vehicle (including community minibuses). You get 90% discount if you're a local resident, and a 100% discount if you're driving a low pollution car. For local residents who choose to drive a motor vehicle every weekday of the year, this works out (effectively) to an extra tax of somewhere under $200 a year, compared to the ~$240 they already pay in road tax. If you've ever tried to drive in central London, you'll understand why this isn't entirely unreasonable.
Basically, you only pay the full amount if you choose to drive into this area in a vehicle with 4 or more wheels, burning fossil fuels, without a clear benefit to the community. There are plenty of options and alternatives.
It's not meaningless, but it's positively beneficial to them, because all of the money is going into improving public transport for at least the next ten years. Is it fair that some people will be able to afford this and others not? No. Is it fair that some people can't afford cars anyway? Well, not really, but they can't. Is it fair that rich people pay more taxes than poor people? Again, not, that's just pragmatism, as is this.
It's all explained here
On the privacy side, you do have a point, it really is only a matter of degree worse than the current situation, where registrations are clearly displayed and can be (and are) regularly checked by anyone with a badge or a uniform. The only way you'll achieve privacy is to remove license plates. Good luck.
Did you have a better solution? As far as I can see, this is one of those schemes that would be roundly welcomed by 95% of the people it effects - if only it didn't effect them personally.
And proudly so. If we gave half as much kudos to content providers as we do to coders, we'd have much more enjoyable o/s games. At a conservative estimate, a modern commercial game has three times as many content providers (sound, text/voice, models, textures, CGI, design, scripting) as developers, plus a whackload of QA, testing, localisation, and parasites. Er, management, I mean. Open source tends to make do with four coders and one guy with a copy of GIMP.
A link to, or a copy of their T&C's? I can't find one on their website, and without reading the T&C's, we're just mouthing off.
+1 Fucking Scarily Insightful.
When I started reading this, I thought "we'll never let this happen". And then I thought: well, what exactly will we do to stop it? What's going to be the one final incident that wakes the sleeping giant that is Joe Sixpack? It's the boiling frogs principle. Do it just a little at a time, and Mr Froggie doesn't even realise he's fucked until his eyeballs explode.
If you disagree, then answer the question. What exactly will be the single event that will make Joe Sixpack give a damn? Patterns don't cut it. Patterns are about history. It'll have to be an acute critical event that someone with a 95 IQ can understand. What's it going to be?
Yes, cloaked and masked in anonymising black, operating in secret without accountability, striking without warning, acting in the name of justice without being burdened by due process. Everything that we've come to expect from our modern paramilitary protectors, in fact.
What, did you think I was going to talk about Superman? Jeez, grow up.
Given the popularity of Alias, if Jennifer Garner doesn't get an Elektra spinoff from Daredevil then I'll be very surprised. However, if she does then I'll be very disappointed, but I'll be in a minority, I suspect.
Or, go and look at the plethora of rumours about a Wonder Woman movie. Front runner though is Sandra Bullock, another lips-on-stilts slipping clsoer to anorexia every birthday.
As an aside, how many superheroines aren't based to some degree on titilation?
Oh dear god. And here we see how Hollywood funding works. Title, Director, headline name, cha-CHING, fill in the blanks (including concept and script) later. How can Matt Damon be ideal for both roles? Does he get to pick his favourite, and then they just cast the other? What if he changes his mind after filming starts? We know (from the way he dumped Minnie Driver via an announcement on Oprah ) that he's an arrogant, self important prick. How smart is it to give him license to dictate and decide terms on a project like this, and what does it say about the artistic vision of the director that his image of both characters has the same face?
The more that I hear about this, the more I become convinced that this will be just another tedious by-the-numbers banker. No tough decisions, no risk. The only possible point of interest is how they'll cripple Superman so that they can work in the inevitable fist fight. I rather suspect that we'll just see the Dark Knight Returns scene, lifted out of context.
That's part of the problem. Christopher Reeve made the role his own. Dean Cain and Tom Welling have just been playing in his shadow. Reeve was so right for the character (as drawn) that anyone else will look awkward and unconvincing in comparison.
So, why not take advantage of that? Superman and Batman have historically been drawn with similar physiques, but that's comic convention. Both Dark Knight and Kingdom Come played on Superman's godlike aspect, but I seriously doubt whether we're going to see anything like an adaptation of either of those, given the title.
Given the title, we're just going to see a conflict. For conflict, you need difference. The difference is largely in attitude and methods, but what's wrong with a difference of appearance as well? Batman needs a big physique. Superman doesn't. I'm picturing the dramatic potential of having a slight Superman that can physically intimidate a bulky Batman. That's an instant illustration that a conflict between these two characters cannot be the movie convention of two big men flexing and posturing and sweating testosterone. Superman is a misnomer; he's not human, not a man, and there's no reason to have him conform to the stereotypical macho man physique, other than habit and convention.
Wil is 5'11", and if we're talking gay, I've got some really bad news for you about guys who spend a lot of time in the gym... ;-)
If it still bothers you, consider that the same actor is playing both Bruce Banner and the Hulk in next year's ">Ang Lee / James Shamus interpretation. We have the technology.
I thought the idea of an RPG is that you get to play different roles. I'm inferring from this preview that you only get to be a Jedi or Sith, with extra capabilities supplied by a a couple of AI henchmen.
I'm not sure how this is significantly different from a team game of Jedi Knight 2. I mean, it's fun running around swing a saber and using Force Grip and all, but in an RPG, wouldn't it be more fulfilling to have a range of options? The henchman/familiar system in Neverwinter Nights is great, but who'd want to play it if you only got to be a wizard?
Also, one of the things that's really pissing me off about Eps 1 & 2 is that all of the protagonists are either Jedi, comic relief, or (admittedly rather tasty) sweater meat. Contrast with IV-VI, where Han doesn't get to use Deus ex machina. In fact, the hyperdrive breakdowns are, to my eyes, a nice play on how we've become tolerate of "and with one bound, our hero was free" solutions. While Luke's off being an icicle or getting in touch with his inner midichlorian, the real grunt work is done by Han and Chewie, by Leia and Lando, and even good old Wedge, who, please note, manages to not get bitchslapped by an AT-AT, and without the benefit of midichlorians at that. For me, this is the dramatic strength of IV-VI, and, be honest, who did you want to be when you played Star Wars as a kid? Han or Luke? Be honest now. ;-)
The comment from John Gilmore is (in conclusion) "Now tell me again that free speech guarantees should not be part of the incorporation charter of ICANN."
Hard to argue against that. Until, that is, you remember that John's definition of freedom of speech extends to running an open mail relay that he knows is being used by spammers. The tacitly admitted reason is that securing it might inconvenience his friends (to the extend that they'd have to remember a password), but the touted reason is that it's a freedom of speech issue. Sure, whatever.
John Gilmore doesn't necessarily represent my ideas about what constitutes freedom of speech, and you really have to consider everything he says on a case by case basis to decide if it's an informed insight, or just blind kneejerk rhetoric. I believe he's right in this case, but let's be careful about just quoting him as though he's the authority on everything related to net issues.
Oooh, nice strawman.
The subject under discussion is Good Omens, which, in case you haven't read it, relies very heavily on "tell, don't show" asides to flesh out the characters. It could, I suppose, be done with a voiceover, but simply taking the dialogue and direction from the novel and putting it in a screenplay would leave a very thin story, and if you change it, well, then you're not filming Good Omens, are you?
This is utterly superfluous. If the gay site is in Australia, can't they just shut it down by saying that it's not suitable for children?. I mean, who's thinking of the children? Won't someone please think of the children!
Make an adaptation of this? It's a superb novel, but reduce it to what can be conveyed via a screenplay, and you have something with a simplistic plot, thin characters, flat dialogue, a few sparse pieces of visual humour, and over reliant on FX to fill the holes. I mean, what kind of idiot would pay to see... oh, hang on...
Our own dear Wil Wheaton.
Think about it. He's handsome in a boy-next-door Young Republican poster kind of way, he has the correct wholesome, too good to be true, "I'll save-the-day" associations in the public consciousness, he can actually act, he has geek appeal, and he looks good in a skin tight unitard.
Petition here.