IANAL but isn't this a clear case of two corporations conspiring to push out a competitor?
I mean... I guess the more appropriate question would be: "is this legal?" which of course begs the next question "can they get away with this even if it is?" Or would this be considered "unethical but technically not illegal"?
Whatever it is, it smells really bad, and is IMHO a terrible PR move.
CmdrTaco must be on vacation, having left his "approve/disapprove" buttons in the hands of a monkey, who hits one or the other at random. How else to explain approving this crap?
In this country we have a judicial system that is based on the prevention of crime, not retribution. Really? What country would that be? Certainly can't be talking about the United States of America. Why do I say that? Because here, we still put people to death, even when we already have the option of keeping them in prison until they die of natural causes. Not to go into an argument about the death penalty, but statistics prove that it is NOT a deterrant, and therefore it serves no purpose as a "prevention of crime". Thus, the only logical conclusion can be that the state is enacting revenge on behalf of the victim. In any dictionary you look at, revenge and retribution are pretty much described in the same way: "inflicting punishment in return for injury".
You're trying to have it both ways. On one hand, you say punishment shouldn't be sending a message, but on the other, you want punishment to be a deterrant to prevent future crime. The problem with that, is that "the message" and "deterrant" are one and the same. So, if you want to have a punishment effective in preventing future acts, you make the punishment more serious the more serious the crime. The only way that works, is by using the differences to send a "message" to people that "this crime is more serious than that one".
Punishment in the US is basically considered to be 3 things. 1. deterrant 2. retribution 3. rehabilitation
Unfortunately, punishment doesn't usually work as a deterrant, and there are practically no systems in place to rehabilitate criminals (if anything, they're punished for life, even after they've done their time, because they have to live with the stigma of being "convicts" and in many states, if they committed a felony they can't vote or own guns even though these things are constitutionally guaranteed rights).
So, with 1 and 3 being rather ineffective or even non-existant, that leaves only retribution, and that's exactly what we have in this country (the USA).
Now, if by "preventing" you mean stopping the person who has already committed a crime from ever doing it again, you only have two choices as the legal system operates today: life in prison or execution. Sadly, somewhere along the line, the rehabilitation part of the system got kicked to the curb, so those are the options we're left with. And unfortunately, focusing on those who have already committed the crime, does absolutely nothing to prevent others from doing it.
it's not an arm of the state engaging in this pursuit.
Makes no difference. The spirit of the pursuit is one and the same: attacking those whose political views are not "correct" according to the one doing the pursuing.
I'm a liberal libertarian, and I don't particularly care for the Bush family (OK, I loathe them, but that's irrelevant here), and frankly in the last few years conservatives have bugged the shit out of me. But after reading your post, I now have hope where there once was none. We may not agree on many things politically, but at least we seem to be on the same page when it comes to protecting civil liberties and the Constitution. I wish more people were as intellectually honest as you just were (that goes for people of any political affiliation). People have to start putting their country above their political party. Both sides have been guilty of partisan hackery, and sadly, with Republicans being in power of all branches of the government, the unbridled access to power for some of them was just too much to handle. What's that line... "Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely." We've recently had front row tickets to a demonstration of what that line means.
For the record, I did support military action in Afghanistan, but opposed it in Iraq. I do support any and all action to stop Iran from developing nukes, short of unilateral invasion (which would forever damage the US economy even beyond the damage done by the boneheaded unilateral Iraq invasion).
But the things you said about the wiretapping are right on the money and I applaud you for not falling into lockstep with the Bushbots who will defend anything he does or says, no matter how boneheaded or wrong. They had the infrastructure to get warrants for any wiretap they wanted, even after the fact (they have 3 days to get the warrants after the wiretap has been ordered), but they chose not to use it. They have what amounts to the definition of a "rubber stamp" in the form of that secret court where virtually ALL requests for warrants have been granted (I think all but one).
There can only be two logical reasons for that: 1. the sheer volume of wiretaps was too much for the system so the 3 days weren't enough (in which case they simply should have added manpower to process the requests). 2. the wiretaps were not likely to get warrants because they were for regular folks like you or me, who had no connections to terrorists, beyond perhaps a passing contact with a third party who was connected to someone who was suspected of terrorist affiliation or maybe they just checked out the wrong books at the local library.
Whichever it is, neither case is justification in the eyes of the law, and certainly not the Constitution's Bill of Rights.
Actually, there is a third option, but I don't really want to think of it in terms of it being an actual possibility... the ramifications are just too scary. That option would be that Bush believes he's above the law and that the Constitution is merely a goddamn piece of paper with which he doesn't have to concern himself, and that as a self appointed dictator he can spy on or imprison anyone he seems fit, for any reason or no reason at all.
I don't want to believe this is the case, but maybe that's just the liberal in me, always trying to see the best in people.
Whatever explanation there may be for this, it doesn't change the fact that there is simply no legal justification for warrantless wiretapping, and as such this is in essence what the term "high crimes and misdemeanors" was coined to describe, in Article II, Section 4 of the US Constitution. If willfully and repeatedly breaking federal law and violating the civil rights of thousands of Americans isn't an impeachable offense, I honestly don't know what is.
For all those who falsely claim warrantless wiretaps help protect us, let me quote Benjamin Franklin: "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."
ID != Supernaturalism. This is patently false. Indeed ID = Supernaturalism. How? Very simple. Science and evolution rely on NATURAL explanations. ID does not. Indeed it relies on the existance of some "higher" being, a "designer". A "designer" who himself was not designed or came to be out of nothing, is by definition a supernatural being, and therefore, by definition, ID is supernaturalism.
The point of design is that God is so great that he could cause a bee to fly (or any other astounding example from nature) within the natural order, without relying on his supernatural powers. Not so. If a fly can fly for purely natural reasons without the benefit of "supernatural powers" what exactly is the problem? And where exactly does the idea of "God" fit into all of that? If there's a natural explanation, why do we need to complicate the matter further by trying to force a man-made "supernatural" idea into it?
ID proponents are not looking outside of science to explain how the natural world works. If that were true, there would be no argument, as there would be no mention of a "higher being" that designed everything. A "designer" of nature would by definition be outside of nature, and thus the very core of ID revolves around something which is not part of nature. Science is wholly grounded in natural explanations. A designer outside of nature simply does not fit in that basic set of observational rules. Therefore, a thing like ID, which does revolve around a designer, cannot by definition be based in science. Furthermore, ID does not have any theories or even hypotheticals which can be proven one way or another, and are therefore not scientific (all science must be falsifiable in order to qualify as science).
What they are doing is questioning how the natural order came to be. That's all well and good, but the problem is, they're asking the wrong questions. They question things that have been demonstrated and explained ad nauseum, again and again because they don't like the answer (i.e. it doesn't suit their pre-conceived idea of a god or a creator).
It's nice, albeit not surprising, to see that when confronted with a well articulated and reasoned answer you can't argue on the merits, you resort to attacking the poster. That's called an "ad hominem" which is usually the refuge of those who can't argue their side but refuse to admit they could be wrong, so they try to attack the other side with personal attacks. Any scientist that falsifies his/her findings, will always be found out about, simply because of the very nature of the scientific method, which is that of verification and peer review. Just look at the Korean "clone" team that just got busted for fraud. They didn't get away with it, and neither will anyone else, because the beauty of science is that if you claim you've successfully done something, someone else will try it too, even if it's only to prove you wrong.
The only "agenda" in play here, is the religious one. Science has slowly but surely eaten away at the very foundation of religion, by demonstrating that their claims are impossible and/or naive. Religious leaders can't have their leadership being undermined by something as pesky as the truth, so they attack the method, the findings and even the people whose work is involved, all for the "glory of God" as perverse as that may be.
The real difference between science and religion: Science looks at the evidence and tries to find an explanation. Religion already has the explanation from a book with old fairytales, so the evidence must obviously be fake or misinterpreted.
There is no debate. The debate only exists in the minds of those who refuse to accept reality due to their preconceived ideas (which are usually based on religious dogma). Billions of pieces of evidence all point to the same conclusion, not a single piece of ecidence exists that contradicts it. What's there to debate? We have two columns with evidence, for and against. In the "for" column, you have a few billion pieces. In the "against" column you have nothing. Why is the empty column still considered a viable alternative?
You did however make one point which explains how I feel about the ID people, even though you argued it incorrectly: "it would be like someone debating against the Law of Gravity" Well, here's the thing: The Law of Gravity is actually the Theory of Gravity. It's a theory, just like evolution is. Don't believe in gravity? OK, jump out a window and prove me wrong. The ID people are in reality opposing a theory that has MORE physical evidence behind it than gravity. Imagine that! Now do you understand why I think these people are dumb?
Dr Dino is certifiable. But then, if you'd actually done a little "independent thinking" instead of being so right winged (read: sheep), you'd know that.
Evolution is not an extreme. It's a scientific fact with billions of pieces of evidence that all, both individually and collectively, not only support the theory of evolution, but outright demand it. ID is a sham, with no scientific or even logical basis, and no physical or even circumstantial evidence whatsoever. None. Nada. Zip. It has nothing to do with "belief" or "faith", it simply has to do with evidence. The evidence to support ID is about as solid as the evidence to support the Flying Spaghetti Monster. It's not a matter of what I believe, it's a matter of what we can prove. ID cannot be proven true or false, and therefore does not qualify as science (all science must be falsifiable).
I got one of those mini-ITX things, and it's worthless for any serious video playback, and forget about recording, unless you use a card with a hardware mpeg encoder. The 1ghz one I got could just barely play a dvd size divx at ntsc framerates at 100% cpu usage (30% cpu playing mpeg2, which is supposedly "accellerated" in the chipset).
I use it as a living room mp3 player with a small LCD touchscreen, but I wouldn't dream of ever using it for video again.
Currently, I use an xbox with the xbox media center for almost everything, except full on HiDef material, for which I still have to use my PC (1920x1080i DVI out).
But if you're looking for a cheap way to play back media, and don't care about recording, get the xbox media center - it plays almost everything (including internet streams). If you're looking for a cheap way to record, either get a TiVo which can then be hooked up to the xbox to be able to play the content in multiple rooms - or just get a tv tuner for your existing PC and save its recordings into a folder which then is shared on your LAN so your xbox can play from it. Keeps the PC out of the living room at least.
Google probably had some overlap because it grew so rapidly.
This is hilarious... Not only are you wrong, but you actually provided the answer as to why you're wrong, in the same paragraph - just one line earlier.
You suggest something has to be shady about a company growing "from a two person operation to one of the 500 most valuable corporations in the world". However, you said that IMMEDIATELY after explaining WHY and HOW they became so big. Let's look at your previous line: "The only reason I still use them is that all of the search engines stink ethically, and Google at least gives a clean interface and good search results." I believe this is exactly how we all feel, and this is exactly the reason it got so big so fast. Because we all use it. Why? Because it provides a clean interface and good search results, which is exactly what a search engine should do.
Well, I wouldn't say minimum... and I certainly wouldn't say no modification.
In order to show a game that is already being processed as "3D" in true 3D where you can actually see depth, the game would not only have to render twice the number of frames, but one perspective would have to be offset in order to create the illusion, so a software patch is definitely required. Also, in reality, the game would actually have to render each frame twice, once from each perspective, effectively doubling the hardware requirements for the game, if it's to maintain the same effective framerate as before.
It's like in California where we have one guy getting his gay marriage bill pushed through without having it put up for a vote by the people......
And then they wonder why we think politicians suck....
Actually, gay marriage was put up for a vote by the people, and the people said no. However, when the issue is a constitutional issue, an up or down vote by the people doesn't matter. E.g. if the people voted YES on a law that limited freedom of speech, the law wouldn't stick just because people voted on it. The Supreme Court would strike it down as unconstitutional. That's what's supposed to happen with the gay marriage issue, the bans need to get struck down by the Supreme Court as unconstitutional, but seeing how far right the courts are being stacked, I don't see that happening any time soon.
There's a difference between being hated by your competition, and being hated by your clients.
Google is hated by their competition, but loved by their clients.
As for the "not nearly as many results as yahoo" claim... 1. yahoo overstated their results dramatically, and their claim has been thoroughly refuted. 2. even if it were true, quantity does not equal quality. I'd rather have 10 good results, than 100 so-so results. That's kinda what a search engine is for in the first place...
The government staying out of religious matters does not mean they encourage atheism. It simply means the government is color blind when it comes to religious beliefs. That also means the government can not ask for prayer in school, "under God" in the pledge, "in God we trust" on our currency, or put religious icons in public buildings. It must remain "secular" if it is to maintain a neutral position on religious matters.
Nowhere, in the 229 year history of this Union, can you find one specific example of the government encouraging atheism over religion.
What is relevant, is that they knew first hand what kind of problems limiting religious freedom generated, so they made a big point of ensuring nobody in this experiment we call The United States of America would be persecuted or discriminated against for his religious beliefs, or lack thereof. Sadly, the GOP of late seems to ignore the "lack thereof" part, and in many instances the "religious beliefs" part as well if it doesn't match the distorted ideas they have of what Christianity should be.
Freedom of religion means you can subscribe to any faith you want, or none at all. Freedom of religion also means freedom FROM religion.
It also means the government does not have the right to encourage religion over none, or one religion over another. This is exactly why the 1st amendment says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof".
Translation: No laws can be made that specifically discriminate against or benefit religion or religious beliefs.
Injecting religion into poltics is an extremely bad idea.
Slashdot Mirror
Skype pretty much owns the pc-based-voip market.
I'd say they qualify.
IANAL but isn't this a clear case of two corporations conspiring to push out a competitor?
I mean... I guess the more appropriate question would be: "is this legal?" which of course begs the next question "can they get away with this even if it is?"
Or would this be considered "unethical but technically not illegal"?
Whatever it is, it smells really bad, and is IMHO a terrible PR move.
CmdrTaco must be on vacation, having left his "approve/disapprove" buttons in the hands of a monkey, who hits one or the other at random. How else to explain approving this crap?
How do I mod the O/P -1: Off-Topic?
In this country we have a judicial system that is based on the prevention of crime, not retribution.
Really? What country would that be? Certainly can't be talking about the United States of America.
Why do I say that? Because here, we still put people to death, even when we already have the option of keeping them in prison until they die of natural causes. Not to go into an argument about the death penalty, but statistics prove that it is NOT a deterrant, and therefore it serves no purpose as a "prevention of crime". Thus, the only logical conclusion can be that the state is enacting revenge on behalf of the victim. In any dictionary you look at, revenge and retribution are pretty much described in the same way: "inflicting punishment in return for injury".
You're trying to have it both ways. On one hand, you say punishment shouldn't be sending a message, but on the other, you want punishment to be a deterrant to prevent future crime. The problem with that, is that "the message" and "deterrant" are one and the same. So, if you want to have a punishment effective in preventing future acts, you make the punishment more serious the more serious the crime. The only way that works, is by using the differences to send a "message" to people that "this crime is more serious than that one".
Punishment in the US is basically considered to be 3 things.
1. deterrant
2. retribution
3. rehabilitation
Unfortunately, punishment doesn't usually work as a deterrant, and there are practically no systems in place to rehabilitate criminals (if anything, they're punished for life, even after they've done their time, because they have to live with the stigma of being "convicts" and in many states, if they committed a felony they can't vote or own guns even though these things are constitutionally guaranteed rights).
So, with 1 and 3 being rather ineffective or even non-existant, that leaves only retribution, and that's exactly what we have in this country (the USA).
Now, if by "preventing" you mean stopping the person who has already committed a crime from ever doing it again, you only have two choices as the legal system operates today: life in prison or execution. Sadly, somewhere along the line, the rehabilitation part of the system got kicked to the curb, so those are the options we're left with. And unfortunately, focusing on those who have already committed the crime, does absolutely nothing to prevent others from doing it.
it's not an arm of the state engaging in this pursuit.
Makes no difference. The spirit of the pursuit is one and the same: attacking those whose political views are not "correct" according to the one doing the pursuing.
You could be right... sad to say.
I'm a liberal libertarian, and I don't particularly care for the Bush family (OK, I loathe them, but that's irrelevant here), and frankly in the last few years conservatives have bugged the shit out of me. But after reading your post, I now have hope where there once was none. We may not agree on many things politically, but at least we seem to be on the same page when it comes to protecting civil liberties and the Constitution. I wish more people were as intellectually honest as you just were (that goes for people of any political affiliation). People have to start putting their country above their political party. Both sides have been guilty of partisan hackery, and sadly, with Republicans being in power of all branches of the government, the unbridled access to power for some of them was just too much to handle. What's that line... "Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely." We've recently had front row tickets to a demonstration of what that line means.
For the record, I did support military action in Afghanistan, but opposed it in Iraq. I do support any and all action to stop Iran from developing nukes, short of unilateral invasion (which would forever damage the US economy even beyond the damage done by the boneheaded unilateral Iraq invasion).
But the things you said about the wiretapping are right on the money and I applaud you for not falling into lockstep with the Bushbots who will defend anything he does or says, no matter how boneheaded or wrong.
They had the infrastructure to get warrants for any wiretap they wanted, even after the fact (they have 3 days to get the warrants after the wiretap has been ordered), but they chose not to use it. They have what amounts to the definition of a "rubber stamp" in the form of that secret court where virtually ALL requests for warrants have been granted (I think all but one).
There can only be two logical reasons for that:
1. the sheer volume of wiretaps was too much for the system so the 3 days weren't enough (in which case they simply should have added manpower to process the requests).
2. the wiretaps were not likely to get warrants because they were for regular folks like you or me, who had no connections to terrorists, beyond perhaps a passing contact with a third party who was connected to someone who was suspected of terrorist affiliation or maybe they just checked out the wrong books at the local library.
Whichever it is, neither case is justification in the eyes of the law, and certainly not the Constitution's Bill of Rights.
Actually, there is a third option, but I don't really want to think of it in terms of it being an actual possibility... the ramifications are just too scary.
That option would be that Bush believes he's above the law and that the Constitution is merely a goddamn piece of paper with which he doesn't have to concern himself, and that as a self appointed dictator he can spy on or imprison anyone he seems fit, for any reason or no reason at all.
I don't want to believe this is the case, but maybe that's just the liberal in me, always trying to see the best in people.
Whatever explanation there may be for this, it doesn't change the fact that there is simply no legal justification for warrantless wiretapping, and as such this is in essence what the term "high crimes and misdemeanors" was coined to describe, in Article II, Section 4 of the US Constitution. If willfully and repeatedly breaking federal law and violating the civil rights of thousands of Americans isn't an impeachable offense, I honestly don't know what is.
For all those who falsely claim warrantless wiretaps help protect us, let me quote Benjamin Franklin: "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."
ID != Supernaturalism.
This is patently false. Indeed ID = Supernaturalism.
How? Very simple. Science and evolution rely on NATURAL explanations.
ID does not. Indeed it relies on the existance of some "higher" being, a "designer".
A "designer" who himself was not designed or came to be out of nothing, is by definition a supernatural being, and therefore, by definition, ID is supernaturalism.
The point of design is that God is so great that he could cause a bee to fly (or any other astounding example from nature) within the natural order, without relying on his supernatural powers.
Not so. If a fly can fly for purely natural reasons without the benefit of "supernatural powers" what exactly is the problem? And where exactly does the idea of "God" fit into all of that? If there's a natural explanation, why do we need to complicate the matter further by trying to force a man-made "supernatural" idea into it?
ID proponents are not looking outside of science to explain how the natural world works.
If that were true, there would be no argument, as there would be no mention of a "higher being" that designed everything. A "designer" of nature would by definition be outside of nature, and thus the very core of ID revolves around something which is not part of nature. Science is wholly grounded in natural explanations. A designer outside of nature simply does not fit in that basic set of observational rules. Therefore, a thing like ID, which does revolve around a designer, cannot by definition be based in science.
Furthermore, ID does not have any theories or even hypotheticals which can be proven one way or another, and are therefore not scientific (all science must be falsifiable in order to qualify as science).
What they are doing is questioning how the natural order came to be.
That's all well and good, but the problem is, they're asking the wrong questions. They question things that have been demonstrated and explained ad nauseum, again and again because they don't like the answer (i.e. it doesn't suit their pre-conceived idea of a god or a creator).
It's nice, albeit not surprising, to see that when confronted with a well articulated and reasoned answer you can't argue on the merits, you resort to attacking the poster.
That's called an "ad hominem" which is usually the refuge of those who can't argue their side but refuse to admit they could be wrong, so they try to attack the other side with personal attacks.
Any scientist that falsifies his/her findings, will always be found out about, simply because of the very nature of the scientific method, which is that of verification and peer review. Just look at the Korean "clone" team that just got busted for fraud. They didn't get away with it, and neither will anyone else, because the beauty of science is that if you claim you've successfully done something, someone else will try it too, even if it's only to prove you wrong.
The only "agenda" in play here, is the religious one. Science has slowly but surely eaten away at the very foundation of religion, by demonstrating that their claims are impossible and/or naive. Religious leaders can't have their leadership being undermined by something as pesky as the truth, so they attack the method, the findings and even the people whose work is involved, all for the "glory of God" as perverse as that may be.
The real difference between science and religion:
Science looks at the evidence and tries to find an explanation.
Religion already has the explanation from a book with old fairytales, so the evidence must obviously be fake or misinterpreted.
There is no debate. The debate only exists in the minds of those who refuse to accept reality due to their preconceived ideas (which are usually based on religious dogma).
Billions of pieces of evidence all point to the same conclusion, not a single piece of ecidence exists that contradicts it. What's there to debate?
We have two columns with evidence, for and against.
In the "for" column, you have a few billion pieces.
In the "against" column you have nothing.
Why is the empty column still considered a viable alternative?
You did however make one point which explains how I feel about the ID people, even though you argued it incorrectly:
"it would be like someone debating against the Law of Gravity"
Well, here's the thing: The Law of Gravity is actually the Theory of Gravity. It's a theory, just like evolution is. Don't believe in gravity? OK, jump out a window and prove me wrong.
The ID people are in reality opposing a theory that has MORE physical evidence behind it than gravity. Imagine that! Now do you understand why I think these people are dumb?
Dr Dino is certifiable. But then, if you'd actually done a little "independent thinking" instead of being so right winged (read: sheep), you'd know that.
Evolution is not an extreme. It's a scientific fact with billions of pieces of evidence that all, both individually and collectively, not only support the theory of evolution, but outright demand it.
ID is a sham, with no scientific or even logical basis, and no physical or even circumstantial evidence whatsoever. None. Nada. Zip. It has nothing to do with "belief" or "faith", it simply has to do with evidence. The evidence to support ID is about as solid as the evidence to support the Flying Spaghetti Monster. It's not a matter of what I believe, it's a matter of what we can prove. ID cannot be proven true or false, and therefore does not qualify as science (all science must be falsifiable).
You wanted a flame, right?
Well, burn baby burn.
Based on the crap that gets posted these days, it makes me wonder how bad my rejected posts must have been... yikes.
Like I said, "unless you use a card with a hardware mpeg encoder", and the PVR250 definitely does have a hardware encoder.
I got one of those mini-ITX things, and it's worthless for any serious video playback, and forget about recording, unless you use a card with a hardware mpeg encoder.
The 1ghz one I got could just barely play a dvd size divx at ntsc framerates at 100% cpu usage (30% cpu playing mpeg2, which is supposedly "accellerated" in the chipset).
I use it as a living room mp3 player with a small LCD touchscreen, but I wouldn't dream of ever using it for video again.
Currently, I use an xbox with the xbox media center for almost everything, except full on HiDef material, for which I still have to use my PC (1920x1080i DVI out).
But if you're looking for a cheap way to play back media, and don't care about recording, get the xbox media center - it plays almost everything (including internet streams).
If you're looking for a cheap way to record, either get a TiVo which can then be hooked up to the xbox to be able to play the content in multiple rooms - or just get a tv tuner for your existing PC and save its recordings into a folder which then is shared on your LAN so your xbox can play from it. Keeps the PC out of the living room at least.
Google probably had some overlap because it grew so rapidly.
This is hilarious... Not only are you wrong, but you actually provided the answer as to why you're wrong, in the same paragraph - just one line earlier.
You suggest something has to be shady about a company growing "from a two person operation to one of the 500 most valuable corporations in the world".
However, you said that IMMEDIATELY after explaining WHY and HOW they became so big. Let's look at your previous line:
"The only reason I still use them is that all of the search engines stink ethically, and Google at least gives a clean interface and good search results."
I believe this is exactly how we all feel, and this is exactly the reason it got so big so fast. Because we all use it. Why? Because it provides a clean interface and good search results, which is exactly what a search engine should do.
Well, I wouldn't say minimum... and I certainly wouldn't say no modification.
In order to show a game that is already being processed as "3D" in true 3D where you can actually see depth, the game would not only have to render twice the number of frames, but one perspective would have to be offset in order to create the illusion, so a software patch is definitely required.
Also, in reality, the game would actually have to render each frame twice, once from each perspective, effectively doubling the hardware requirements for the game, if it's to maintain the same effective framerate as before.
Now their motherboards can suck twice as much as before.
Actually, gay marriage was put up for a vote by the people, and the people said no.
However, when the issue is a constitutional issue, an up or down vote by the people doesn't matter. E.g. if the people voted YES on a law that limited freedom of speech, the law wouldn't stick just because people voted on it. The Supreme Court would strike it down as unconstitutional. That's what's supposed to happen with the gay marriage issue, the bans need to get struck down by the Supreme Court as unconstitutional, but seeing how far right the courts are being stacked, I don't see that happening any time soon.
There's a difference between being hated by your competition, and being hated by your clients.
Google is hated by their competition, but loved by their clients.
As for the "not nearly as many results as yahoo" claim...
1. yahoo overstated their results dramatically, and their claim has been thoroughly refuted.
2. even if it were true, quantity does not equal quality. I'd rather have 10 good results, than 100 so-so results. That's kinda what a search engine is for in the first place...
And I agree with O'Hare.
Prayer in school promotes religion over none, and is therefore a violation of my religious freedom as an atheist.
The government staying out of religious matters does not mean they encourage atheism.
It simply means the government is color blind when it comes to religious beliefs.
That also means the government can not ask for prayer in school, "under God" in the pledge, "in God we trust" on our currency, or put religious icons in public buildings.
It must remain "secular" if it is to maintain a neutral position on religious matters.
Nowhere, in the 229 year history of this Union, can you find one specific example of the government encouraging atheism over religion.
Their religious beliefs are irrelevant.
What is relevant, is that they knew first hand what kind of problems limiting religious freedom generated, so they made a big point of ensuring nobody in this experiment we call The United States of America would be persecuted or discriminated against for his religious beliefs, or lack thereof.
Sadly, the GOP of late seems to ignore the "lack thereof" part, and in many instances the "religious beliefs" part as well if it doesn't match the distorted ideas they have of what Christianity should be.
Freedom of religion means you can subscribe to any faith you want, or none at all. Freedom of religion also means freedom FROM religion.
It also means the government does not have the right to encourage religion over none, or one religion over another. This is exactly why the 1st amendment says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof".
Translation: No laws can be made that specifically discriminate against or benefit religion or religious beliefs.
Injecting religion into poltics is an extremely bad idea.
Whoever modded this admittedly lame attempt at humor as "troll" may have taken it a bit personally.
This was most decidedly NOT a troll post.
What's wrong with people? Argh!
No, it's the Openly Defined Sex Limitation.