Many people in the UK are subject to transfer limits, and certain periods of the day when they can transfer as much as they like without this contributing to their quota. Example: I am limited to 20GB of transfers each month, but can download without restriction between midnight and 8am. With the Windows client, it is (relatively) easy to set up a schedule to start and stop the program at the appropriate times. With the streaming content, it is much more of a pain.
Just one reason amongst many why I hope this is not the end of the BBC's plan to open up the iPlayer content to other platforms, although I expect that it probably is.
I'm as unhappy about the whole thing as you seem to be, but you obviously haven't taken a great interest in the case.
A recent dev blog* from the offender, t20, detailed the nature of the offense (abusing his position to give tech 2 blueprints to his alliance), how it was corrected (all blueprints returned to CCP and put back into the lottery), and implied the truth, that he is still an employee. Elsewhere, although I'm afraid I can't remember where, it was stated that all his characters were terminated.
It'd be nice if you actually did some research before asking a question.
I don't quite know what game you're playing, but I don't see how you're going to take 8-10 hours doing any journey in EVE, unless you're in a really slow ship, have autopilot on, and are travelling between the two farthest points you can travel between. Doing a quick estimate from the map, that'd be about 80-90 jumps. Each jump would maybe take 2 minutes of warping between gates, tops. So you're looking at 3 hours, if you could even get clearance with all the alliances to travel through some of the territory you'd be travelling through.
Unless, of course, you're talking about manually approaching an entity in a solarsystem without warping. But if you're doing that, you're probably too stupid to work out what the "point" of the game is.
I hope you realise that it's perfectly possible to do a large segment of what it's possible to do in EVE without ever venturing more than 5 jumps away from where you start, and that most of the locations you start at are within 20 jumps or so of places where the other stuff happens.
You seem to be conflating the greenhouse effect and global warming, while failing to conflate global warming with global climate change. You still haven't explained how an increase in global average temperature is any different from global climate change.
'Therefore there's going to be a lot of science out there saying "Yes, global warming is happening and is the reason for climate change!", since that's what pays the bills, gets you published, and gets you invited to all sorts of posh international conventions on global warming.'
Explain to me how the terms 'global warming' and 'climate change' differ in meaning. Then explain to me how the one can cause the other. Then continue with your ad hominems.
That's as absurdly over the top as calling linux a "cancer." Has Microsoft ever labeled anyone a terrorist? Realize that the Gates's foundation (started in 2000) has helped the world more than any linux user. You sound ridiculous.
Note that I don't really care whether or not anyone from Microsoft has ever labelled anyone a terrorist. Nonetheless:
The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation is a separate entity from Microsoft. Its activities, while they are financed, in large part, by Microsoft's success, have no bearing on the merit of Windows as an operating system or Microsoft as a company. To use its activities as a counter-argument to anything related to Microsoft is truly ridiculous.
you will not resolve "the entire question of religion" by evaluating its effect on society. first you will have to resolve whether the objects of religious belief are actually *real* or *imaginary*.
Since this is, for all intents and purposes and in lieu of a bona fide miracle, impossible, we can assume whatever we like, and then discuss the effect of each religious belief on society, which is exactly the GP's project.
How does your appeal to ignorance help anyone?
What on earth is your post about? Is it about the nature of existence, a post which would be off-topic and hugely erroneous, or is it about how humans and computers differ or otherwise? Well, both arguments appear to be completely ridiculous.
There is no puzzle about existence except for the ones we've concocted for ourselves. There's nothing special about the word, but the metaphysicians have thought there was because they thought the job of philosophy was to find out the meaning of, to put it crudely, life, the universe and everything. But that's not the job of philosophy, and unsurprisingly, they've failed time and time again. What is existence? Well, how do we use the word? That's the question you need to ask, rather than 'what is the nature of existence?'.
"Humans are bio-bots with a 3lb multithreaded cpu made up of grey and white matter." I find this argument fascinating, really. The human drive to model ourselves on our own creations is truly bizarre. I wonder if the druids ever compared their minds to stone circles... Computers are machines; we are not. Computers can already calculate better than us, given that they are calculating machines. So far as that goes, you are correct; computers have already surpassed us. But as soon as a computer begins to think (as opposed to calculate), then it's no longer a machine, is it? It's entirely possible that someone (perversely) will develop a computer to the point at which it can no longer be called a computer, but something for which we probably don't yet have a word, namely a 'computer that thinks', but that doesn't entail that 'computers will surpass us' in this respect, nor that our minds are anything like computers.
"Actually, that "Jack" is a parenthetical. It should be set off by commas."
No it shouldn't. It can be set off by commas, but there's no need to do that at all. If everything you call 'parenthetical' in a sentence were delimited by commas, English would be a nightmare to read. For example: "I'm going to visit my aunt, Mabel..." (Your comma there has introduced a new ambiguity!); "Software company, Microsoft...", "the, red, dog..." and so on and so forth.
Nouns and adjectives in the attributive position are not 'parentheticals', and I have no idea whence you got the idea that they need to be set off by commas.
"People looking at me as I walk down the street (a public location) = not an invasion of privacy.
People looking at me as I sit in my front room (a private location) = an invasion of privacy.
"That's really not a very hard distinction to make."
People filming me with not necessarily visible cameras wherever I go, albeit in public? How does that fit into your scheme?
Think things through and realise that very few issues are black and white before you start taking a condescending tone, please.
"The original designers did put the thought in when they purposely used poor grammar in some of the books."
...
"If she corrects all the grammar mistakes, then a player who reads the books will assume that everyone (who writes) in the land of Oblivion uses good grammer, which is not what the game developers intended."
I figured another slashdotter would comment on that part of Romero's post.
Modders are not screwing the industry; if anything is in this case, (and I really think the whole thing is being blown out of proportion) it's the fact that a depiction of female anatomy which the majority of users will never see is enough to warrant a change in rating. It. Is. A. Nipple. Jesus.
Neither are modders under any obligation to "help the industry". Game studios may well release data in the hope that mods will help their game sell more, but I doubt that very many modders have as their primary motivation a desire to help the studio, and I doubt that anyone but the most blinkered suits really thinks they do. Except Romero, of course.
"In one of the ads the PC repeat itself several times because it had to reboot."
"In an other one... PC is sick because of a virus, while Mac is healthy."
Is the submitter actually a robot manufactured by Apple to demonstrate what happens when you make a language engine out of MS Office's grammar checker?
The irony of pointing out to someone whose joke you didn't get that your comment was intended as a joke is delicious.
Unless you did get the joke, and the aforementioned irony was intended. In which case the irony continues to this post, and this thread could go on forever!
"For nearly 1,000 years western civilization (English common law at least) has recognized the right of an individual to bring suit against another individual even if no criminal law was violated."
Erm. More than 2000 years, actually. All court cases in the ancient Greco-Roman world were civil, in this respect at least. Criminal law and prosecution by the state are later developments.
The annoying part about this is, that only atheists can be proven wrong. If you are religious and believe in an afterlife, you are proven right if there is one. And you can mock all atheists and infidels. However if there isn't an afterlife, you will never know (you are dead after all) and us atheists can't make fun of you.
This is a particularly poor formulation of Pascal's wager, which patently begs the question.
Besides, the notion of a theistic God arguably entails determinism. Prove determinism inconsistent, and you prove the belief in a theistic God inconsistent.
"Well, that's one of the two characteristics that makes it an acronym (the other is that it is composed of initial letters taken from the words of the phrase)."
No it's not. An acronym need only be composed of initial letters taken from the words of a phrase and be pronounced as a word rather than as individual letters. It's a long jump from being able to pronounce an abbreviation as a word to its use being so common that capital letters are no longer felt necessary.
Slashdot Mirror
Who said it was 'deeply woven into the language'?
You do realise that we're talking about the entire API? A GPL Java interpreter/compiler is (and has been proved to be) trivial to implement.
s/obvious/funny/g
What's wrong with good old 'compared'? Is it just old hat?
Many people in the UK are subject to transfer limits, and certain periods of the day when they can transfer as much as they like without this contributing to their quota. Example: I am limited to 20GB of transfers each month, but can download without restriction between midnight and 8am. With the Windows client, it is (relatively) easy to set up a schedule to start and stop the program at the appropriate times. With the streaming content, it is much more of a pain.
Just one reason amongst many why I hope this is not the end of the BBC's plan to open up the iPlayer content to other platforms, although I expect that it probably is.
Obviously not slow enough to give editors time to check submitters' spelling.
While you're entirely correct, I find it highly amusing that your post is full of other, far less subtle, grammatical errors.
I'm as unhappy about the whole thing as you seem to be, but you obviously haven't taken a great interest in the case.
A recent dev blog* from the offender, t20, detailed the nature of the offense (abusing his position to give tech 2 blueprints to his alliance), how it was corrected (all blueprints returned to CCP and put back into the lottery), and implied the truth, that he is still an employee. Elsewhere, although I'm afraid I can't remember where, it was stated that all his characters were terminated.
It'd be nice if you actually did some research before asking a question.
*Registration required, AFAIK. Sorry, non-capsuleers!
I don't quite know what game you're playing, but I don't see how you're going to take 8-10 hours doing any journey in EVE, unless you're in a really slow ship, have autopilot on, and are travelling between the two farthest points you can travel between. Doing a quick estimate from the map, that'd be about 80-90 jumps. Each jump would maybe take 2 minutes of warping between gates, tops. So you're looking at 3 hours, if you could even get clearance with all the alliances to travel through some of the territory you'd be travelling through.
Unless, of course, you're talking about manually approaching an entity in a solarsystem without warping. But if you're doing that, you're probably too stupid to work out what the "point" of the game is.
I hope you realise that it's perfectly possible to do a large segment of what it's possible to do in EVE without ever venturing more than 5 jumps away from where you start, and that most of the locations you start at are within 20 jumps or so of places where the other stuff happens.
You seem to be conflating the greenhouse effect and global warming, while failing to conflate global warming with global climate change. You still haven't explained how an increase in global average temperature is any different from global climate change.
'Therefore there's going to be a lot of science out there saying "Yes, global warming is happening and is the reason for climate change!", since that's what pays the bills, gets you published, and gets you invited to all sorts of posh international conventions on global warming.'
Explain to me how the terms 'global warming' and 'climate change' differ in meaning. Then explain to me how the one can cause the other. Then continue with your ad hominems.
That's as absurdly over the top as calling linux a "cancer." Has Microsoft ever labeled anyone a terrorist? Realize that the Gates's foundation (started in 2000) has helped the world more than any linux user. You sound ridiculous.
Note that I don't really care whether or not anyone from Microsoft has ever labelled anyone a terrorist. Nonetheless:
The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation is a separate entity from Microsoft. Its activities, while they are financed, in large part, by Microsoft's success, have no bearing on the merit of Windows as an operating system or Microsoft as a company. To use its activities as a counter-argument to anything related to Microsoft is truly ridiculous.
you will not resolve "the entire question of religion" by evaluating its effect on society. first you will have to resolve whether the objects of religious belief are actually *real* or *imaginary*.
Since this is, for all intents and purposes and in lieu of a bona fide miracle, impossible, we can assume whatever we like, and then discuss the effect of each religious belief on society, which is exactly the GP's project. How does your appeal to ignorance help anyone?What on earth is your post about? Is it about the nature of existence, a post which would be off-topic and hugely erroneous, or is it about how humans and computers differ or otherwise? Well, both arguments appear to be completely ridiculous.
There is no puzzle about existence except for the ones we've concocted for ourselves. There's nothing special about the word, but the metaphysicians have thought there was because they thought the job of philosophy was to find out the meaning of, to put it crudely, life, the universe and everything. But that's not the job of philosophy, and unsurprisingly, they've failed time and time again. What is existence? Well, how do we use the word? That's the question you need to ask, rather than 'what is the nature of existence?'.
"Humans are bio-bots with a 3lb multithreaded cpu made up of grey and white matter." I find this argument fascinating, really. The human drive to model ourselves on our own creations is truly bizarre. I wonder if the druids ever compared their minds to stone circles... Computers are machines; we are not. Computers can already calculate better than us, given that they are calculating machines. So far as that goes, you are correct; computers have already surpassed us. But as soon as a computer begins to think (as opposed to calculate), then it's no longer a machine, is it? It's entirely possible that someone (perversely) will develop a computer to the point at which it can no longer be called a computer, but something for which we probably don't yet have a word, namely a 'computer that thinks', but that doesn't entail that 'computers will surpass us' in this respect, nor that our minds are anything like computers.
Please don't spout gibberish.
"Actually, that "Jack" is a parenthetical. It should be set off by commas."
No it shouldn't. It can be set off by commas, but there's no need to do that at all. If everything you call 'parenthetical' in a sentence were delimited by commas, English would be a nightmare to read. For example: "I'm going to visit my aunt, Mabel..." (Your comma there has introduced a new ambiguity!); "Software company, Microsoft...", "the, red, dog..." and so on and so forth.
Nouns and adjectives in the attributive position are not 'parentheticals', and I have no idea whence you got the idea that they need to be set off by commas.
"People looking at me as I walk down the street (a public location) = not an invasion of privacy. People looking at me as I sit in my front room (a private location) = an invasion of privacy.
"That's really not a very hard distinction to make."
People filming me with not necessarily visible cameras wherever I go, albeit in public? How does that fit into your scheme?
Think things through and realise that very few issues are black and white before you start taking a condescending tone, please.
"The original designers did put the thought in when they purposely used poor grammar in some of the books."
"If she corrects all the grammar mistakes, then a player who reads the books will assume that everyone (who writes) in the land of Oblivion uses good grammer, which is not what the game developers intended."
Go you.
Apparently, you couldn't even read the whole front page.
Ulysses, man. Ulysses.
I figured another slashdotter would comment on that part of Romero's post.
Modders are not screwing the industry; if anything is in this case, (and I really think the whole thing is being blown out of proportion) it's the fact that a depiction of female anatomy which the majority of users will never see is enough to warrant a change in rating. It. Is. A. Nipple. Jesus.
Neither are modders under any obligation to "help the industry". Game studios may well release data in the hope that mods will help their game sell more, but I doubt that very many modders have as their primary motivation a desire to help the studio, and I doubt that anyone but the most blinkered suits really thinks they do. Except Romero, of course.
"Correct grammer"
Heh. :P
"In one of the ads the PC repeat itself several times because it had to reboot."
... PC is sick because of a virus, while Mac is healthy."
"In an other one
Is the submitter actually a robot manufactured by Apple to demonstrate what happens when you make a language engine out of MS Office's grammar checker?
No, this title does. Is a Sentence? Is a Question? Why There a Space Before the Question Mark? What 'Programmation'?
The irony of pointing out to someone whose joke you didn't get that your comment was intended as a joke is delicious.
Unless you did get the joke, and the aforementioned irony was intended. In which case the irony continues to this post, and this thread could go on forever!
"For nearly 1,000 years western civilization (English common law at least) has recognized the right of an individual to bring suit against another individual even if no criminal law was violated."
Erm. More than 2000 years, actually. All court cases in the ancient Greco-Roman world were civil, in this respect at least. Criminal law and prosecution by the state are later developments.The annoying part about this is, that only atheists can be proven wrong.
If you are religious and believe in an afterlife, you are proven right if there is one. And you can mock all atheists and infidels. However if there isn't an afterlife, you will never know (you are dead after all) and us atheists can't make fun of you.
This is a particularly poor formulation of Pascal's wager, which patently begs the question.
Besides, the notion of a theistic God arguably entails determinism. Prove determinism inconsistent, and you prove the belief in a theistic God inconsistent.
"Well, that's one of the two characteristics that makes it an acronym (the other is that it is composed of initial letters taken from the words of the phrase)."
No it's not. An acronym need only be composed of initial letters taken from the words of a phrase and be pronounced as a word rather than as individual letters. It's a long jump from being able to pronounce an abbreviation as a word to its use being so common that capital letters are no longer felt necessary.