This isn't about intelligence good / stupidity bad. There's a certain level of capability that, if you fall beneath, you should seriously think about letting someone else manage your affairs. Sending $400k abroad sounds like it falls in that catagory.
In fact I remember reading about a case where a 419 scammer used someone with learning difficulties as their proxy to funnel money from victims from the USA to Nigeria. IIRC, the guy thought he had a real job and had no idea it was a scam. Obviously in cases like that there is real exploitation going on and sympathy is deserved.
So yea, I think my front door analogy stands. If you leave it wide open you get no sympathy when robbed except from friends and family, but as a friend you sometimes just have to extend sympathy when your mates doing something wildly negligent!
if we are waging a war on this activity, who do we target, who do we punish?
I think the point being made is that if you're stupid enough to do something like send $400,000 to a foreigner you've never met then you share some of the blame if it turns out to be a scam. It's gross negligence on your part if you do something like that. It isn't about minimising the responsibility of the scammer, of course we still punish them but at the same time we should acknowledge that this woman is a complete tool and deserves no sympathy.
It's like if you were to go out and leave your front door unlocked. Sure, you didn't steal your stuff but you made it very easy for other people to do it and in such a case your insurance wouldn't pay out because of your negligence.
Also, depending on the scam, she may actually deserve to go to prison in this case because 419 scammers often try to hook victims by asking them for help smuggling stolen money out of the country. It's not clear to me if that's what happened here but if that was the case then she deserves jail time.
Most dogs will double up just fine as garbage disposal. My sister has a very hard time keeping random stuff on the floor out of her dogs, they'll just gobble anything up then go outside and either vomit it back up or crap out, diarrhoea style. Then they'll come back in for seconds.
This is despite the perfectly full bowls of dog food she keeps out for them!
? Your post makes it look like your replying to something but you're not. I haven't seen any mention of the system requirements anywhere, in fact I don't think they've even confirmed it's coming out on PC. From TFA:
Little has been revealed about the game itself yet, although weâ(TM)re promised more details about the gameplay, features, supported platforms and the release date in due course.
Obviously it'd be mental if it didn't come out on PC, but still. Your post looks like a poor troll.
There is at least one gun in Mirrors Edge. In the demo you get taught how to disarm the enemy and steal their pistol and also how to shoot. I'm a little disappointed by that tbh, I was hoping for no guns whatsoever but it does seem like the focus is on getting through the game without actually using any weapons.
Yep, merchantability and fitness for a particular purpose are part of the Sale of Goods Act here in the UK. Just about any time money changes hand for something then that act applies, at least for consumers. Of course that means that if you get something free then you basically have no rights if it doesn't work. The law isn't as tight when it comes to business purchases however, so a business can sign a contract that waives rights under the Sale of Goods act.
This is one of the reasons why I'm thinking about getting a PS3. I'm sure MS will change their policy to match as soon as PSN activity exceeds that of Live but until then I'm sure they're intent on getting as much cash out of each user as possible, which is to be expected from a business after all.
I was thinking more along the lines of "the level of MDMA in your bloodstream doesn't go up in a linear fashion. Twice the dose is more than twice the effect!" (due to nonlinear pharmacokinetics) and "drink enough water only to replenish fluid lost by sweating". There can be little gotchas like that for every drug that can make the difference between safe and dangerous use.
I'm not convinced a massive increase in addicts is that likely though. There's already alcohol and tobacco so I think that it's most likely that people who are having problems with those would spread their addiction to other drugs. The number of addicts wouldn't increase but the range of addictions would.
But still, decriminalisation is about more than just the addictive drugs. Most drugs aren't that dangerous or addictive, they're just really trippy. For some reason it seems that anything that has the power to seriously alter your perception of reality for a few hours gets banned, which is a crying shame.
Those are all already problems with Xbox Live. Your content gets assigned to both your account and the Xbox it was originally unlocked on so if you Xbox breaks you loose the ability to share your content with other people in your house who use your Xbox.
The upside of it is that when you go to someone else's house you can just log on to your Live account from their machine and download all the content you've already paid for. You don't, however, have any resale rights for the content you pay for / unlock on Live.
Any business reselling games at or higher than the price of a new game is not going to be in business for long.
I've paid full price for second hand games on eBay before now for out of print games. That's just madness on the part of the publisher, they can clearly see people are still prepared to pay full price for back catalogue games but they let them stay out of print. Some publishers are better than others in this regard at least though.
There are states that let you disclaim merchantability or fitness for a particular purpose? That's mad! In the UK and, I think, all of Europe those are basic statutory rights. If these developers were serious about these sorts of schemes I doubt they'd be able to get away with them over here, I bet the courts would turn any purchased codes into the property of whomever bought them and make the first sale doctrine apply thereby making the whole scheme moot.
Of course there can be regulation! Stuff like age controls and making sure user information leaflets are distributed with each sale would drastically reduce the harm caused by recreational drugs. The one thing that's been shown more than anything else to reduce harm caused by drugs is honest information. People generally don't want to harm themselves so if you had, for example, regulated doses of MDMA along with information leaflets telling people honestly what the known side effects over the medium to long term were for various usage patterns then people would react accordingly.
Regarding addictive personalities, my experience has been that drugs are so freely available to anyone who cares to find them (anyone who doesn't believe me - ask all your friends for a random drug saying you'd be interested in taking it. You'll be surprised) that addictive personalities end up in contact with them anyway, they then make a choice to either stay far away or they loose themselves. Having it all out in the open would make it better, I feel, as here in the UK there isn't as big a stigma associated with being an alcoholic as there is with being, say, a heroin addict. If drugs were decriminalised then maybe people would see them in more similar lights as they're both drug addictions.
Surely the problem is just patents? If you violate someone's copyright it means you've taken their work and are using it to make money yourself, if you violate their patent it just means you've only taken their idea.
Seriously. Those recordings of classical music are copyrighted in exactly the same way as recordings of pop music are! It's only the copyright on the composition that's run out.
You wouldn't get a symphony orchestra putting out CDs if we didn't have copyright. The only way for them to make money would be live performances which would mean they would only put out recordings insofar as they drove people to turn up at live events, it'd just be advertisements.
Nvidia have, historically, been the only company with a decent cheap full OpenGL solution in Linux. Presumably they've made the decision that most of their advantage over ATI is due to their better drivers and so there is no benefit to releasing them. I'm sure as soon as the GPL ATI drivers get better than Nvidia's (some people say they're almost there) they'll start thinking about releasing their code under the GPL. After all if the ATI drivers were to catch up then their proprietary drivers would just be an extra cost for no advantage, so better to let the community develop them at a lower cost.
I'm sure Nvidia have been aware all along that Linux users are often professionals, in fact their linux drivers are targeted at that market - if that market didn't exist those drivers would never have been written!
Obama is clearly not even close to Marxism, that you suggest he is means you have no clue as to what Marxism is. A Marxist would have no place running for POTUSA as a Marxist is primarily concerned with class struggle. That means organising working people within the working class.
The PC version should have obviously been delayed and tested, now more than 50% (judging by the forums) of people can't even play the game.
Selection fallacy. Those who don't have problems are playing the game. I'm only not playing because I'm watching Massa pit.
This is following the disaster that is Far Cry 2 for the exact same reasons.
Which also works fine on my system. I have a plain Windows installation with the latest drivers I use only for games and I have so few problems in general. Sure, I guess developers should test with common software configuration but I don't really have much sympathy when people have problems when they install loads of crud on their computer.
Morphine depersonalises your experience of pain. Someone could stab you and you'd feel it, have a reflex reaction and it'd hurt like hell but you know what? It'd be fine, everything would be OK. The fact that your wife just stabbed you, the thought that you could die, it's all just fine....
So, the damage reduction bonus FO3 Med-X gives would make sense for Morphine.
The Med-X gives you a damage resistance bonus. The Aussie censors had a problem with associating morphine with a bonus. You actually get something similar in the UK, drinks companies aren't allowed to associate alcohol with success or benefit in their advertisements.
I actually found that quest quite impressive. I finished it without killing anyone - I got The Family to agree to protect the village (name removed for spoiler reasons, also cos I can't remember:) ). I also convinced the girl's brother to return. I was expecting a bloodbath but was pleasantly surprised by how investing in speech skills had paid off - something that was broken in vanilla Oblivion.
I'm pretty much loving FO3 and that's as someone who's a long-time fan of FO and TES. I'd be playing it right now if I wasn't watching the build-up to Interlagos, Hamilton FTW!
WoW costs less than the money I spend on my internet connection. Not that I play it, I tried it for the first time a few months ago and didn't get the habit. Seems MMORPGS really aren't my thing!
WoW is cheap for its target market, i.e. North America and Western Europe. It's the price of a few pints of beer here in the UK. It's cheap.
I'd consider myself a fairly hardcore RPGer and I thought Oblivion was excellent after applying the appropriate fan mods. The only massive mistake out of the box was the auto-levelling. On my original playthrough I made a char with things like speechcraft, mercantile and sneak as primary attributes with an aim to avoid combat as much as possible until I was rich enough to afford good gear. This was a good strategy in Morrowind but the auto-levelling completely ruined it.
I got jumped by three goblins at around level 15 in the Imperial City Sewers, they all had full mythril armour and lots of HP whilst I had nothing because I was levelling up with my trading/sneaking/stealing - not with my ability to swing a sword. Luckily by that point OOO was starting to stabilise so I started a new playthrough using that and never looked back!
The AC below suggested that you haven't played it which, tbh, they have no way of knowing. It is obvious, however, that you didn't read the GP as he made a good point about VATS pointing out that you can mostly avoid the FPS elements in FO3. Whilst I doubt it'll be that simple (and I'm not that bothered as I'm OK at FPS games), all the reviews I've read so far suggest that you can use VATS in that manner to a large degree.
As I live in the UK I'll be finding out myself tomorrow!
That's pretty unusual. I, reviewers and also most people I know who've played it think that the controls are tight and that the camera has its moments but is generally OK. Even my eight year old nephew found the controls very intuitive! I think its because Mario's shadow always falls on the point directly beneath him, that makes perfecting jumps pretty easy.
That would be central control and we'd be on our way to socialism. Just a warning for those of you who actually want socialism; you will be working to support me because in a socialist economy, I will refuse to bust my ass to support deadbeats: I'll just become one.
The emergence of Socialism can only arise from the working class winning the class war against the bourgeois. That could only be done with massive organised action amongst working people.
The defining feature of Socialism isn't central control, it's workers owning the means of production. If you stop and think about that, you'll realise that basically means there has never been a Socialist state anywhere in the world. The USSR qualified briefly after the 1918 revolution as there was a system of Soviets - democratic councils that represented the interests of the workers who owned the factories - but that was dismantled for various reasons that are still argued about amongst the far left.
I'm in the UK and our politics are quite different. I wouldn't class myself as part of our far left, although I'm left enough to be aware of their existence, I happen to think that social ownership of all industry would be better than the current system. We could still have markets and there would still be free national elections but people would also vote as shareholders for the boards of their companies. It'd be more democratic and I reckon that a degree of central planning would naturally emerge as there wouldn't be private companies trying to kill each other for maximum profit, there would be a few large co-operatives competing in each market. It'd make the economy more stable, the people at the bottom would be better off and because it'd be all based around workers having all the rights there'd be a strong social pressure to have a good job down at the mill/plant/foundry/office.
Neither Obama or McCain would support socialisation of industry in that manner though, so neither of them can be called Socialist in any meaningful sense of the word.
Slashdot Mirror
This isn't about intelligence good / stupidity bad. There's a certain level of capability that, if you fall beneath, you should seriously think about letting someone else manage your affairs. Sending $400k abroad sounds like it falls in that catagory.
In fact I remember reading about a case where a 419 scammer used someone with learning difficulties as their proxy to funnel money from victims from the USA to Nigeria. IIRC, the guy thought he had a real job and had no idea it was a scam. Obviously in cases like that there is real exploitation going on and sympathy is deserved.
So yea, I think my front door analogy stands. If you leave it wide open you get no sympathy when robbed except from friends and family, but as a friend you sometimes just have to extend sympathy when your mates doing something wildly negligent!
if we are waging a war on this activity, who do we target, who do we punish?
I think the point being made is that if you're stupid enough to do something like send $400,000 to a foreigner you've never met then you share some of the blame if it turns out to be a scam. It's gross negligence on your part if you do something like that. It isn't about minimising the responsibility of the scammer, of course we still punish them but at the same time we should acknowledge that this woman is a complete tool and deserves no sympathy.
It's like if you were to go out and leave your front door unlocked. Sure, you didn't steal your stuff but you made it very easy for other people to do it and in such a case your insurance wouldn't pay out because of your negligence.
Also, depending on the scam, she may actually deserve to go to prison in this case because 419 scammers often try to hook victims by asking them for help smuggling stolen money out of the country. It's not clear to me if that's what happened here but if that was the case then she deserves jail time.
Most dogs will double up just fine as garbage disposal. My sister has a very hard time keeping random stuff on the floor out of her dogs, they'll just gobble anything up then go outside and either vomit it back up or crap out, diarrhoea style. Then they'll come back in for seconds.
This is despite the perfectly full bowls of dog food she keeps out for them!
? Your post makes it look like your replying to something but you're not. I haven't seen any mention of the system requirements anywhere, in fact I don't think they've even confirmed it's coming out on PC. From TFA:
Little has been revealed about the game itself yet, although weâ(TM)re promised more details about the gameplay, features, supported platforms and the release date in due course.
Obviously it'd be mental if it didn't come out on PC, but still. Your post looks like a poor troll.
There is at least one gun in Mirrors Edge. In the demo you get taught how to disarm the enemy and steal their pistol and also how to shoot. I'm a little disappointed by that tbh, I was hoping for no guns whatsoever but it does seem like the focus is on getting through the game without actually using any weapons.
Yep, merchantability and fitness for a particular purpose are part of the Sale of Goods Act here in the UK. Just about any time money changes hand for something then that act applies, at least for consumers. Of course that means that if you get something free then you basically have no rights if it doesn't work. The law isn't as tight when it comes to business purchases however, so a business can sign a contract that waives rights under the Sale of Goods act.
This is one of the reasons why I'm thinking about getting a PS3. I'm sure MS will change their policy to match as soon as PSN activity exceeds that of Live but until then I'm sure they're intent on getting as much cash out of each user as possible, which is to be expected from a business after all.
I was thinking more along the lines of "the level of MDMA in your bloodstream doesn't go up in a linear fashion. Twice the dose is more than twice the effect!" (due to nonlinear pharmacokinetics) and "drink enough water only to replenish fluid lost by sweating". There can be little gotchas like that for every drug that can make the difference between safe and dangerous use.
I'm not convinced a massive increase in addicts is that likely though. There's already alcohol and tobacco so I think that it's most likely that people who are having problems with those would spread their addiction to other drugs. The number of addicts wouldn't increase but the range of addictions would.
But still, decriminalisation is about more than just the addictive drugs. Most drugs aren't that dangerous or addictive, they're just really trippy. For some reason it seems that anything that has the power to seriously alter your perception of reality for a few hours gets banned, which is a crying shame.
Those are all already problems with Xbox Live. Your content gets assigned to both your account and the Xbox it was originally unlocked on so if you Xbox breaks you loose the ability to share your content with other people in your house who use your Xbox.
The upside of it is that when you go to someone else's house you can just log on to your Live account from their machine and download all the content you've already paid for. You don't, however, have any resale rights for the content you pay for / unlock on Live.
Any business reselling games at or higher than the price of a new game is not going to be in business for long.
I've paid full price for second hand games on eBay before now for out of print games. That's just madness on the part of the publisher, they can clearly see people are still prepared to pay full price for back catalogue games but they let them stay out of print. Some publishers are better than others in this regard at least though.
There are states that let you disclaim merchantability or fitness for a particular purpose? That's mad! In the UK and, I think, all of Europe those are basic statutory rights. If these developers were serious about these sorts of schemes I doubt they'd be able to get away with them over here, I bet the courts would turn any purchased codes into the property of whomever bought them and make the first sale doctrine apply thereby making the whole scheme moot.
Of course there can be regulation! Stuff like age controls and making sure user information leaflets are distributed with each sale would drastically reduce the harm caused by recreational drugs. The one thing that's been shown more than anything else to reduce harm caused by drugs is honest information. People generally don't want to harm themselves so if you had, for example, regulated doses of MDMA along with information leaflets telling people honestly what the known side effects over the medium to long term were for various usage patterns then people would react accordingly.
Regarding addictive personalities, my experience has been that drugs are so freely available to anyone who cares to find them (anyone who doesn't believe me - ask all your friends for a random drug saying you'd be interested in taking it. You'll be surprised) that addictive personalities end up in contact with them anyway, they then make a choice to either stay far away or they loose themselves. Having it all out in the open would make it better, I feel, as here in the UK there isn't as big a stigma associated with being an alcoholic as there is with being, say, a heroin addict. If drugs were decriminalised then maybe people would see them in more similar lights as they're both drug addictions.
Surely the problem is just patents? If you violate someone's copyright it means you've taken their work and are using it to make money yourself, if you violate their patent it just means you've only taken their idea.
Seriously. Those recordings of classical music are copyrighted in exactly the same way as recordings of pop music are! It's only the copyright on the composition that's run out.
You wouldn't get a symphony orchestra putting out CDs if we didn't have copyright. The only way for them to make money would be live performances which would mean they would only put out recordings insofar as they drove people to turn up at live events, it'd just be advertisements.
Nvidia have, historically, been the only company with a decent cheap full OpenGL solution in Linux. Presumably they've made the decision that most of their advantage over ATI is due to their better drivers and so there is no benefit to releasing them. I'm sure as soon as the GPL ATI drivers get better than Nvidia's (some people say they're almost there) they'll start thinking about releasing their code under the GPL. After all if the ATI drivers were to catch up then their proprietary drivers would just be an extra cost for no advantage, so better to let the community develop them at a lower cost.
I'm sure Nvidia have been aware all along that Linux users are often professionals, in fact their linux drivers are targeted at that market - if that market didn't exist those drivers would never have been written!
Obama is clearly not even close to Marxism, that you suggest he is means you have no clue as to what Marxism is. A Marxist would have no place running for POTUSA as a Marxist is primarily concerned with class struggle. That means organising working people within the working class.
So yes, you're clueless.
The PC version should have obviously been delayed and tested, now more than 50% (judging by the forums) of people can't even play the game.
Selection fallacy. Those who don't have problems are playing the game. I'm only not playing because I'm watching Massa pit.
This is following the disaster that is Far Cry 2 for the exact same reasons.
Which also works fine on my system. I have a plain Windows installation with the latest drivers I use only for games and I have so few problems in general. Sure, I guess developers should test with common software configuration but I don't really have much sympathy when people have problems when they install loads of crud on their computer.
Morphine depersonalises your experience of pain. Someone could stab you and you'd feel it, have a reflex reaction and it'd hurt like hell but you know what? It'd be fine, everything would be OK. The fact that your wife just stabbed you, the thought that you could die, it's all just fine....
So, the damage reduction bonus FO3 Med-X gives would make sense for Morphine.
The Med-X gives you a damage resistance bonus. The Aussie censors had a problem with associating morphine with a bonus. You actually get something similar in the UK, drinks companies aren't allowed to associate alcohol with success or benefit in their advertisements.
I actually found that quest quite impressive. I finished it without killing anyone - I got The Family to agree to protect the village (name removed for spoiler reasons, also cos I can't remember :) ). I also convinced the girl's brother to return. I was expecting a bloodbath but was pleasantly surprised by how investing in speech skills had paid off - something that was broken in vanilla Oblivion.
I'm pretty much loving FO3 and that's as someone who's a long-time fan of FO and TES. I'd be playing it right now if I wasn't watching the build-up to Interlagos, Hamilton FTW!
WoW costs less than the money I spend on my internet connection. Not that I play it, I tried it for the first time a few months ago and didn't get the habit. Seems MMORPGS really aren't my thing!
WoW is cheap for its target market, i.e. North America and Western Europe. It's the price of a few pints of beer here in the UK. It's cheap.
I'd consider myself a fairly hardcore RPGer and I thought Oblivion was excellent after applying the appropriate fan mods. The only massive mistake out of the box was the auto-levelling. On my original playthrough I made a char with things like speechcraft, mercantile and sneak as primary attributes with an aim to avoid combat as much as possible until I was rich enough to afford good gear. This was a good strategy in Morrowind but the auto-levelling completely ruined it.
I got jumped by three goblins at around level 15 in the Imperial City Sewers, they all had full mythril armour and lots of HP whilst I had nothing because I was levelling up with my trading/sneaking/stealing - not with my ability to swing a sword. Luckily by that point OOO was starting to stabilise so I started a new playthrough using that and never looked back!
The AC below suggested that you haven't played it which, tbh, they have no way of knowing. It is obvious, however, that you didn't read the GP as he made a good point about VATS pointing out that you can mostly avoid the FPS elements in FO3. Whilst I doubt it'll be that simple (and I'm not that bothered as I'm OK at FPS games), all the reviews I've read so far suggest that you can use VATS in that manner to a large degree.
As I live in the UK I'll be finding out myself tomorrow!
That's pretty unusual. I, reviewers and also most people I know who've played it think that the controls are tight and that the camera has its moments but is generally OK. Even my eight year old nephew found the controls very intuitive! I think its because Mario's shadow always falls on the point directly beneath him, that makes perfecting jumps pretty easy.
That would be central control and we'd be on our way to socialism. Just a warning for those of you who actually want socialism; you will be working to support me because in a socialist economy, I will refuse to bust my ass to support deadbeats: I'll just become one.
The emergence of Socialism can only arise from the working class winning the class war against the bourgeois. That could only be done with massive organised action amongst working people.
The defining feature of Socialism isn't central control, it's workers owning the means of production. If you stop and think about that, you'll realise that basically means there has never been a Socialist state anywhere in the world. The USSR qualified briefly after the 1918 revolution as there was a system of Soviets - democratic councils that represented the interests of the workers who owned the factories - but that was dismantled for various reasons that are still argued about amongst the far left.
I'm in the UK and our politics are quite different. I wouldn't class myself as part of our far left, although I'm left enough to be aware of their existence, I happen to think that social ownership of all industry would be better than the current system. We could still have markets and there would still be free national elections but people would also vote as shareholders for the boards of their companies. It'd be more democratic and I reckon that a degree of central planning would naturally emerge as there wouldn't be private companies trying to kill each other for maximum profit, there would be a few large co-operatives competing in each market. It'd make the economy more stable, the people at the bottom would be better off and because it'd be all based around workers having all the rights there'd be a strong social pressure to have a good job down at the mill/plant/foundry/office.
Neither Obama or McCain would support socialisation of industry in that manner though, so neither of them can be called Socialist in any meaningful sense of the word.