I'm not going to wait in line, but I completely agree with what you just said. Having something like that the very moment it becomes available feels good - you've got your hands on something both fun AND scarce at once.
That said, I'm going to call the stores around noon to find out whether they're sold out, then get one the next week, because I don't have any time to waste standing in a line all day.
So, no one will respect you if you ignore the challenges, but they WILL if you complain about the challenges and then completely refuse to play...? Is that where we're at here?
I love the Grue challenge. I've decided to ignore the KOL challenge because there is no way I'm getting anywhere near the Wizard during this tournament anyway (because I suck). As for the darkness, though, all you need is a wand of light and a wand of digging (or a pickaxe), and you can buy a lamp in the Gnome town. I've made it that far on every game so far, despite the darkness.
I really don't understand why there are so many really good Nethack players who complain about new content in the game. If you're able to ascend so frequently, then maybe the game isn't challenging enough for you. Try something new.
Really? People shouldn't store personal data on Orkut? That is a really interesting idea. I don't think anyone has ever built a social networking site with no persistent data before. YOU COULD BE THE FIRST!
It doesn't really matter whether they were breaking the branches off. Small children don't need to be thrown in jail for minor crimes. In my bustling metropolis of Lincoln, Nebraska, I'd be pretty certain that the cops, given the exact same situation, would have dropped the kids off at their parents' house with a stern warning.
The scope of the police response in this case was completely out of hand.
But if you choose not to, then take steps to make it clear that it's not an open access point. If you don't, then I'm perfectly justified in assuming that it's an intentionally open spot, just like thousands of others all across the US.
You mean, for instance, by telling the guy in the article that they didn't want him to use it anymore?
Sorry for the late reply, but have you ever taken a look at Magic Engine? I think I paid $15 for this thing, and it was well worth it if you don't mind playing on your PC. I found someplace or another to download Ys (I'd point you in the direction but this was a LONG time ago) and it worked perfectly on this emulator.
If you do manage to get a full disc image of the game, the newest Daemon Tools will mount it and Magic Engine will play without a hitch from the virtual CD. Or if you pick up an original on eBay or somewhere like that, it should work as long as your CD-ROM drive can read mixed-mode CDs (unless it's really old, it should be able to).
Incidentally, most of the other games on the CD system really sucked, since they were basically just regular TG16 games with glorified soundtracks. Ys was really fun though. Dracula X is also pretty great.
The word Pod means something. iPod is an odd yet creative description of Apple's product which continues a fairly lengthy tradition of the lowercase i thing they've been doing.
What in the fuck is a Wii? How is the name in any way similar to the iPod?
Dude, OTOH, IMHO, and IANAL are not words and don't belong in your article summary, you retarded piece of shit. You might as well write A/S/L or LOL or;) in there. Nice job, jackass.
Metroid Prime ended up being pretty cool despite what people initially thought about it. "Wii" is not going to grow on people over time. They aren't going to release new screenshots and videos that make you suddenly change your mind and think, "you know, I never really gave this whole 'Wii' thing a shot - that name suddenly seems way better than it did five months ago!!!". It will instead remain the most retarded name for a console that's ever been devised.
Sorry, chump. There is seriously no way this is a good idea.
I was at some show last night and I ran into a good friend of mine - by far the biggest Nintendo fan I know. He evidently hadn't been reading the news yesterday, and when I and another guy started talking to him about this whole retarded "Wii" business, he literally got PISSED OFF about it.
Seriously, this name is PISSING OFF Nintendo's fans. I'm sorry, but there is NO WAY to spin that kind of thing in a positive direction.
I have a GBA, a Gamecube, and a DS, and you know what? Wii is the most retarded name for a console I have ever heard in my entire life. Nice job, guys.
Please read the bill and tell me how the store owner determines which games he should or should not sell to a minor. Do we assume he has played ALL of them and knows which ones contain too much violence? Should he hold a meeting with the community in order to determine their contemporary standard?
Our games aren't even required by law to be rated at all - as far as I know, the ESRB rating system was created voluntarily by the industry in response to political pressure. Some places probably won't sell adult rated games to minors, but violence is pretty much never enough reason to rate games at the highest level here (AO - Adult Only).
None of this matters, however - the bill as written never mentions the ESRB rating system at all. They are not using that as a standard for determining whether the content is appropriate for minors - they wrote their own (extremely vague) standards instead.
It's not based on the ESRB rating system, nor does it create its own similar system. It's based on "contemporary community standards" as understood by the "average person over 18 years of age". This means that the stores CAN NOT KNOW FOR CERTAIN which games are illegal to sell to a minor.
I went to lots of places without my parents when I was a kid. Do you think that parents should just wander around with their kids twenty four hours a day? Did you ever PLAY OUTSIDE with your FRIENDS when you were a kid?
Seriously, what kind of sheltered environment did you grow up in?
My band, Sad Old Lady, played a house show about a year ago. My friend Ben and I bought a keg and put it in the guy's kitchen and about a hundred people came over and drank for free (we drained it pretty fast). We charged no admission. The basement was crammed wall to wall with drunk kids having a blast while three bands played until 3:00 in the morning.
My point is that Madonna sucks and no one should ever, ever, pay fucking $250 for one or two worthless fucking hours of entertainment.
This is not a simple black and white issue and its totally pointless to point fingers at Yahoo! for supporting a state which everyone from the government down to the shareholders is obviously doing far more to support.
I agree to some extent, but at the same time, Yahoo! is directly complicit and is, in this case, part of the problem. Your statement is correct that other people are also part of the problem, but I really don't think that it excuses Yahoo's behavior in any way.
More people than you think have money to invest and will decide not to invest in Yahoo! because of stories like this. If you think that every shareholder is a big fat guy in a suit with a monocle and a cigar hanging out of his mouth and a gold pocketwatch who walks down the street with big sacks of money with dollar signs on the side, then yeah, maybe you've got yourself an awesome little point about corporate amorality.
Here in the real world, a huge portion of your investors are successful middle class people with Bachelor's degrees who are planning for their retirement. I'd be willing to bet there are a lot of us posting our opinions on Slashdot right now, and you know what? I'm keeping my investment dollars about as far away from Yahoo as I possibly can.
Are you SURE that ethics aren't important in business?
"Security through obscurity" refers to security of the encryption algorithm, rather than the encrypted text.
A really secure encryption algortithm can be shared with everyone, i.e. I would hand you a sheet of paper with an encoded message and say "Hey, I used this algorithm right here to encode this text," and then I would hand you a detailed technical description of the algorithm I used, and you would STILL not be able to break the encryption even with the best resources available at the time.
"Security through obscurity" on the other hand would mean that my encryption is only secure as long as you never are able to find out which method I used to encode the text on the paper.
You could claim that you never wrote down the key and that you no longer remember it. You could claim a hundred things just like that, too, but it is, of course, exceedingly unlikely that you would have been arrested for a crime if the only evidence they had against you was encrypted and no one had read it yet, so what difference, indeed?
Almost all legal systems, including those of the United States, Scotland, and England and Wales, require in some situations that the subject of the communication prove, in a civil court, that the defendant made the statement with "malice", meaning either believing it was false or with "reckless disregard" for whether it was false.
The original poster made a connection between creating a system on which it is possible to distribute child pornography and actively aiding the distribution of child pornography. He made this statement believing the entire time that it is true. It is a statement of opinion because others may feel that the two are not analagous; however THIS GUY DOES and is allowed to say so under reasonable definitions of libel.
I don't think you understand libel AT ALL. At the very least, the original poster would have to publish false information about someone which he knows is false (this is helpfully written in the Wikipedia link you posted). His assertion (which is an opinion, incidentally, and not a statement of fact) is that building an encrypted, anonymous network on which child pornography may or may not be distributed is tantamount to "actively helping people to distribute child pornography" - an assertion which you may or may not agree with, but not one which is, in my opinion, libelous in any remote sense.
I am kind of surprised and disgusted that you chose a forum that is essentially about FREEDOM OF SPEECH to label an opinion which disagrees with yours as LIBEL. Nice job, pal.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm not going to wait in line, but I completely agree with what you just said. Having something like that the very moment it becomes available feels good - you've got your hands on something both fun AND scarce at once.
That said, I'm going to call the stores around noon to find out whether they're sold out, then get one the next week, because I don't have any time to waste standing in a line all day.
So, no one will respect you if you ignore the challenges, but they WILL if you complain about the challenges and then completely refuse to play...? Is that where we're at here?
I love the Grue challenge. I've decided to ignore the KOL challenge because there is no way I'm getting anywhere near the Wizard during this tournament anyway (because I suck). As for the darkness, though, all you need is a wand of light and a wand of digging (or a pickaxe), and you can buy a lamp in the Gnome town. I've made it that far on every game so far, despite the darkness.
I really don't understand why there are so many really good Nethack players who complain about new content in the game. If you're able to ascend so frequently, then maybe the game isn't challenging enough for you. Try something new.
Really? People shouldn't store personal data on Orkut? That is a really interesting idea. I don't think anyone has ever built a social networking site with no persistent data before. YOU COULD BE THE FIRST!
It doesn't really matter whether they were breaking the branches off. Small children don't need to be thrown in jail for minor crimes. In my bustling metropolis of Lincoln, Nebraska, I'd be pretty certain that the cops, given the exact same situation, would have dropped the kids off at their parents' house with a stern warning.
The scope of the police response in this case was completely out of hand.
How about when the restaurant asks you to leave, like they did with the guy IN THE ARTICLE THAT NONE OF YOU READ.
But if you choose not to, then take steps to make it clear that it's not an open access point. If you don't, then I'm perfectly justified in assuming that it's an intentionally open spot, just like thousands of others all across the US.
You mean, for instance, by telling the guy in the article that they didn't want him to use it anymore?
Sorry for the late reply, but have you ever taken a look at Magic Engine? I think I paid $15 for this thing, and it was well worth it if you don't mind playing on your PC. I found someplace or another to download Ys (I'd point you in the direction but this was a LONG time ago) and it worked perfectly on this emulator.
If you do manage to get a full disc image of the game, the newest Daemon Tools will mount it and Magic Engine will play without a hitch from the virtual CD. Or if you pick up an original on eBay or somewhere like that, it should work as long as your CD-ROM drive can read mixed-mode CDs (unless it's really old, it should be able to).
Incidentally, most of the other games on the CD system really sucked, since they were basically just regular TG16 games with glorified soundtracks. Ys was really fun though. Dracula X is also pretty great.
Oh, I get it now. The US is also bad so China is.... not bad?
The word Pod means something. iPod is an odd yet creative description of Apple's product which continues a fairly lengthy tradition of the lowercase i thing they've been doing.
What in the fuck is a Wii? How is the name in any way similar to the iPod?
Dude, OTOH, IMHO, and IANAL are not words and don't belong in your article summary, you retarded piece of shit. You might as well write A/S/L or LOL or ;) in there. Nice job, jackass.
Metroid Prime ended up being pretty cool despite what people initially thought about it. "Wii" is not going to grow on people over time. They aren't going to release new screenshots and videos that make you suddenly change your mind and think, "you know, I never really gave this whole 'Wii' thing a shot - that name suddenly seems way better than it did five months ago!!!". It will instead remain the most retarded name for a console that's ever been devised.
Sorry, chump. There is seriously no way this is a good idea.
Nope. I'm not.
I was at some show last night and I ran into a good friend of mine - by far the biggest Nintendo fan I know. He evidently hadn't been reading the news yesterday, and when I and another guy started talking to him about this whole retarded "Wii" business, he literally got PISSED OFF about it.
Seriously, this name is PISSING OFF Nintendo's fans. I'm sorry, but there is NO WAY to spin that kind of thing in a positive direction.
I have a GBA, a Gamecube, and a DS, and you know what? Wii is the most retarded name for a console I have ever heard in my entire life. Nice job, guys.
Please read the bill and tell me how the store owner determines which games he should or should not sell to a minor. Do we assume he has played ALL of them and knows which ones contain too much violence? Should he hold a meeting with the community in order to determine their contemporary standard?
Our games aren't even required by law to be rated at all - as far as I know, the ESRB rating system was created voluntarily by the industry in response to political pressure. Some places probably won't sell adult rated games to minors, but violence is pretty much never enough reason to rate games at the highest level here (AO - Adult Only).
None of this matters, however - the bill as written never mentions the ESRB rating system at all. They are not using that as a standard for determining whether the content is appropriate for minors - they wrote their own (extremely vague) standards instead.
It's not based on the ESRB rating system, nor does it create its own similar system. It's based on "contemporary community standards" as understood by the "average person over 18 years of age". This means that the stores CAN NOT KNOW FOR CERTAIN which games are illegal to sell to a minor.
This is a STUPID law.
I went to lots of places without my parents when I was a kid. Do you think that parents should just wander around with their kids twenty four hours a day? Did you ever PLAY OUTSIDE with your FRIENDS when you were a kid?
Seriously, what kind of sheltered environment did you grow up in?
My band, Sad Old Lady, played a house show about a year ago. My friend Ben and I bought a keg and put it in the guy's kitchen and about a hundred people came over and drank for free (we drained it pretty fast). We charged no admission. The basement was crammed wall to wall with drunk kids having a blast while three bands played until 3:00 in the morning.
My point is that Madonna sucks and no one should ever, ever, pay fucking $250 for one or two worthless fucking hours of entertainment.
This is not a simple black and white issue and its totally pointless to point fingers at Yahoo! for supporting a state which everyone from the government down to the shareholders is obviously doing far more to support.
I agree to some extent, but at the same time, Yahoo! is directly complicit and is, in this case, part of the problem. Your statement is correct that other people are also part of the problem, but I really don't think that it excuses Yahoo's behavior in any way.
More people than you think have money to invest and will decide not to invest in Yahoo! because of stories like this. If you think that every shareholder is a big fat guy in a suit with a monocle and a cigar hanging out of his mouth and a gold pocketwatch who walks down the street with big sacks of money with dollar signs on the side, then yeah, maybe you've got yourself an awesome little point about corporate amorality.
Here in the real world, a huge portion of your investors are successful middle class people with Bachelor's degrees who are planning for their retirement. I'd be willing to bet there are a lot of us posting our opinions on Slashdot right now, and you know what? I'm keeping my investment dollars about as far away from Yahoo as I possibly can.
Are you SURE that ethics aren't important in business?
"Security through obscurity" refers to security of the encryption algorithm, rather than the encrypted text.
A really secure encryption algortithm can be shared with everyone, i.e. I would hand you a sheet of paper with an encoded message and say "Hey, I used this algorithm right here to encode this text," and then I would hand you a detailed technical description of the algorithm I used, and you would STILL not be able to break the encryption even with the best resources available at the time.
"Security through obscurity" on the other hand would mean that my encryption is only secure as long as you never are able to find out which method I used to encode the text on the paper.
You could claim that you never wrote down the key and that you no longer remember it. You could claim a hundred things just like that, too, but it is, of course, exceedingly unlikely that you would have been arrested for a crime if the only evidence they had against you was encrypted and no one had read it yet, so what difference, indeed?
Please finish reading your link:
Almost all legal systems, including those of the United States, Scotland, and England and Wales, require in some situations that the subject of the communication prove, in a civil court, that the defendant made the statement with "malice", meaning either believing it was false or with "reckless disregard" for whether it was false.
The original poster made a connection between creating a system on which it is possible to distribute child pornography and actively aiding the distribution of child pornography. He made this statement believing the entire time that it is true. It is a statement of opinion because others may feel that the two are not analagous; however THIS GUY DOES and is allowed to say so under reasonable definitions of libel.
I don't think you understand libel AT ALL. At the very least, the original poster would have to publish false information about someone which he knows is false (this is helpfully written in the Wikipedia link you posted). His assertion (which is an opinion, incidentally, and not a statement of fact) is that building an encrypted, anonymous network on which child pornography may or may not be distributed is tantamount to "actively helping people to distribute child pornography" - an assertion which you may or may not agree with, but not one which is, in my opinion, libelous in any remote sense.
I am kind of surprised and disgusted that you chose a forum that is essentially about FREEDOM OF SPEECH to label an opinion which disagrees with yours as LIBEL. Nice job, pal.