Loot distribution is pretty straightforward, if everyone trusts each other and all have the success of the guild in mind. (Yeah, hell of an assumption, I know.) For my guild, when running new content, it's generally obvious who should have any given item: always outfit the person in whose hands it will provide the greatest functional upgrade to the guild's performance. High DPS item? Those characters who dish out the second- and third-highest DPS on the charts are in the running for it. Great paladin tanking item? Second-best pally-tank probably gets it. Tanking item, clearly better for a druid? Feral druid gets it.
If it's *so* good an item that it makes a significant difference to the top performer in the category, then they will normally get it. Or at least, first right of refusal on it; we have a culture of doing that, because we all know that all of us get geared up for the guild's benefit first and foremost, because that helps us all get better gear sooner. Once we have an instance on farm status, it quickly becomes Alt Christmas; gearing alts through Kara helps us push TK, because it gives us greater flexibility, for example.
We're casuals, I guess, but we're mostly long-term gamers aged 25-40; we don't really give a damn about bling, we're more interested in "winning the game" in a sense, although that often manifests in odd ways, like kiting outdoor bosses around the world, or 3-manning Onyxia, etc, since we don't have the numbers to field a 40-man every weekend, and a lot of our members are *very* casual-oriented. (They get gear upgrades too; just less often.:)
Yawn. Find out some time how much nitpicking is done over the company CEO's personal expenditure. He wants $40 million for a personal jet? He gets it. Don't compare the powerless corporate drone to the powerful politician.
There is only one way to make a machine capable of identifying copyright material, and I heartily endorse Microsoft using that way. Specifically, putting all the copyright material on the Zune, so that it can be compared against any I might put on. In fact if they do that, I promise never to put any copyright material on it myself.
Even piracy doesn't hurt that much as most people want to try the software before they buy it. It is like kicking the tires before buying a car and taking it out for a test drive before signing the papers to buy it.
Nope, better. Kicking the tires and test-driving the car add tiny amounts of wear and tear.
Yes. It's bullshit. Shareholders should be protected from being lied to or otherwise defrauded, but in terms of the day-to-day activities of the business in which they invest, they should have no more expectations or control than a punter at a horse race. In other words, a shareholder has the right to know what the business is doing, and the right to buy and sell their shares at whatever price they see fit in response, but absolutely zero right whatsoever by mere virtue of being shareholders, to interfere in the actions of the business.
Obviously shareholders should retain the same rights to interfere in the actions of the business as all other members of the public have, of course (injunctions, class actions, etc); but the basis for such legal action should never be a mere financial loss (although there will be financial remedies for non-financial harm), and absolutely never due to a potential financial loss. Actually, getting rid of those last two legal causes of action entirely would be a good thing for everybody, as their unintended consequences are choking us all.
No, you really won't, and I'm not sure what rhetorical point you're trying to make by saying that you will. That said, if I knew you well enough to let you into my house, I'd have no objection to you copying my archive hard drives. I commonly let my friends do so, and copy things I want from theirs. This is what normal people do, in 2008. Now there are directories on my main personal computer I'd prefer not to let you into, because you have no reason to do so that isn't directly harmful to me, but if it came to that, I'd still prefer you copied them than stole them.
That said, if you're too dumb to understand the distinction between "copying" and "stealing", I'd rather not let you near my computers at all, but if you bring a hard drive, I'll virus-check it, then you can sit by me and have a cookie and a glass of milk, and you can point and make grunting noises to you indicate what files you do and don't want, and I'll copy the files you want across for you.
Also, I'll be stopping by later to ask your mother to take a photo of me, wearing a green vest, sitting on your couch. It makes as much sense as what you said.
Why would you want this anyway? Do you really want the government to have the right to steal your work?
I don't want anyone to have the right to steal my work. I'd like to keep it available for my use and my purposes, to have any time I like. Stealing it would really irritate me a lot, because if it was stolen I wouldn't have it any more. Why, if it was a song and it was stolen I wouldn't be able to listen to it! If someone stole my movie, I wouldn't be able to watch it! Worst of all, if someone stole my books, I couldn't read them any more!
Government or private entity, to have someone do that to me would be awful.
Actually, that's a good question. Philosophically speaking there is no reason why, if the English have free will, anyone else therefore should; nor, if the English are deterministic, should anyone else be deterministic also. Usually the question is cut more finely, ie "me" vs "you", but any separation of entities you can come up with is valid: "men" vs "women", "England" vs "France", "activity at night" vs "activity during the day", "things done to please Satan" vs "things done to please God". It may not even matter: we could have free will in England, and not in France, and never know the difference.
The problem facing philosophers is not how to come up with new questions, it's finding answers to old ones.
Wouldn't it be easier to have a small "pseudo-card" go into the card slot, run a cable from it through the slot into a "graphics unit box" (with its own separate power and cooling), and attach the monitor to the graphics unit box?
It means that if are going to have sexual relations with someone, that you are true to them.
In what sense "true"? Tell the truth to them? Sure, that's clearly good. If you mean, not be in a sexual relationship with more than one person at a time, I'm inclined to agree *for myself* but so long as all are fully informed I don't see it being anyone else's business. However if you mean that a person should only ever have sex with one other person, life-long... that's your choice to make, but (a) I don't respect it much, as it makes a virtue of cowardice; (b) you don't get to make that choice for anyone else.
It also means that you do not cause harm to others by interfering in their relationships.
Up to a point, sure. Where exactly that point is, is a matter of opinion. I'll damn well interfere in a relationship that I have good grounds to consider abusive. I also don't see a problem with reminding someone who's going out with a jerk, that other options do exist.
You also to not cause harm to others with inappropriate behaviour in the workplace and elsewhere.
Agreed.
There are other ways to solve problems than violence. Where I live, people talk to each other. There is also significant trust in the legal system. Look to Newfoundland in Canada, which has the lowest death rate of pretty much any nation.
A legal system that forbids women from talking to me, or me to them, isn't worth much trust.
By western standards, it is obviously unfair for a father and mother to dictate the sexual activities of their sons and daughters until they are married.
No, it's just obviously unfair, regardless of one's cultural standards.
Nonetheless, if a young women wants to leave her culture
That it's that much of an issue is wrong too. Having sex with someone isn't the sort of decision that one ought to have to contemplate abandoning one's entire family and everyone one knows, to do it.
she won't be locked up as is common in some cultures.
Good, but you don't get to congratulate yourselves for not being worse.
I know a traditional tibetan lady who recently got married and first moved to the west just a few years ago. She has lived a very different life to western women, and is also very kind.
A core precept is not committing sexual misconduct.
What's "misconduct"?
In Tibet - if you want to talk to a girl you have to ask the parents for marriage.
Or what? Or there will be violence, is my guess. That ludicrous proposition itself constitutes sexual misconduct by the culture generally, and by the specific people who enforce it, in that the girl here is denied any free right of sexual expression. It sexually enslaves her. Obviously not as violently as the Chinese army; but at the core of it, the intention is the same: you get to decide how she will express her sexuality.
It also constitutes a breach of free right of association amounting to violence, in that she is denied simple personal interaction with other people merely on the basis of her, and their, gender. It is an absurd and disgusting idea, and you should be, yourself, ashamed for suggesting it.
"Using the chessboard, the retarded monkey wasn't the decisive winner, but the loser... The college-level physics student overall produced the best results."
Who's actually surprised by this? Bueller? Bueller?
The judge can (and most likely has) set aside such contracts. If a judge says YOU pay, and they're prepared to push it to that extent, then YOU will pay. If you then turn around and try to bill your client for it, you'll just have created grounds for your client to have the invoice declared invalid (and you possibly further punished), or if they paid up, to sue you later.
It's very difficult to mess with judges. Not impossible, mind, but this is one way they've got well covered.
But you do not have an right to not incur losses. Every time I buy a Subway sub, McDonalds and KFC incur a loss, because I did not buy my takeaway meal from them. What if I made a sandwich myself? What if I picked an apple off a tree? Would you argue that the fast-food companies have a right to be compensated?
How about sharing the contents of your bank account?
If you could make a copy of it without taking away my copy, sure. But bank accounts don't work like that, do they? So this is also completely different.
Actually, bank accounts do work like that. A bank balance really is nothing more than a number. Same with things that are easily fungible into bank balances, such as invoices. The purpose of double-entry book-keeping, which has existed since the 15th Century, is to create certainty in the otherwise uncertain world of banking. For every number I put here, I must have a corresponding number somewhere else. However, that broke down some time ago, and nowadays banks create money out of nothing more or less as they see fit, restrained only by statutes requiring them to actually be able to present some tiny percentage of the money they owe and are owed.
You've missed Hussein's intended switch to selling oil for euros. As long as oil is sold only for US dollars, the oil serves as the standard for the US currency. If the Middle Eastern oil producing nations switch to euros, the US can no longer outsource its runaway inflation.
Slashdot Mirror
If it's *so* good an item that it makes a significant difference to the top performer in the category, then they will normally get it. Or at least, first right of refusal on it; we have a culture of doing that, because we all know that all of us get geared up for the guild's benefit first and foremost, because that helps us all get better gear sooner. Once we have an instance on farm status, it quickly becomes Alt Christmas; gearing alts through Kara helps us push TK, because it gives us greater flexibility, for example.
We're casuals, I guess, but we're mostly long-term gamers aged 25-40; we don't really give a damn about bling, we're more interested in "winning the game" in a sense, although that often manifests in odd ways, like kiting outdoor bosses around the world, or 3-manning Onyxia, etc, since we don't have the numbers to field a 40-man every weekend, and a lot of our members are *very* casual-oriented. (They get gear upgrades too; just less often. :)
Yawn. Find out some time how much nitpicking is done over the company CEO's personal expenditure. He wants $40 million for a personal jet? He gets it. Don't compare the powerless corporate drone to the powerful politician.
If these people aren't pedophiles by now, that would seem to indicate that looking at such material does not induce pedophilia.
There is only one way to make a machine capable of identifying copyright material, and I heartily endorse Microsoft using that way. Specifically, putting all the copyright material on the Zune, so that it can be compared against any I might put on. In fact if they do that, I promise never to put any copyright material on it myself.
Nope, better. Kicking the tires and test-driving the car add tiny amounts of wear and tear.
Obviously shareholders should retain the same rights to interfere in the actions of the business as all other members of the public have, of course (injunctions, class actions, etc); but the basis for such legal action should never be a mere financial loss (although there will be financial remedies for non-financial harm), and absolutely never due to a potential financial loss. Actually, getting rid of those last two legal causes of action entirely would be a good thing for everybody, as their unintended consequences are choking us all.
That said, if you're too dumb to understand the distinction between "copying" and "stealing", I'd rather not let you near my computers at all, but if you bring a hard drive, I'll virus-check it, then you can sit by me and have a cookie and a glass of milk, and you can point and make grunting noises to you indicate what files you do and don't want, and I'll copy the files you want across for you.
Also, I'll be stopping by later to ask your mother to take a photo of me, wearing a green vest, sitting on your couch. It makes as much sense as what you said.
Vat-o-meat can have as much or as little fat and cholesterol as is nutritionally desirable. In theory, it can have the amount as you personally need.
I don't want anyone to have the right to steal my work. I'd like to keep it available for my use and my purposes, to have any time I like. Stealing it would really irritate me a lot, because if it was stolen I wouldn't have it any more. Why, if it was a song and it was stolen I wouldn't be able to listen to it! If someone stole my movie, I wouldn't be able to watch it! Worst of all, if someone stole my books, I couldn't read them any more!
Government or private entity, to have someone do that to me would be awful.
There is no real detail on *how* this is done, at least that I saw. What does this imply for OCR tech?
The problem facing philosophers is not how to come up with new questions, it's finding answers to old ones.
Wouldn't it be easier to have a small "pseudo-card" go into the card slot, run a cable from it through the slot into a "graphics unit box" (with its own separate power and cooling), and attach the monitor to the graphics unit box?
And this is the only way they can succeed.
In what sense "true"? Tell the truth to them? Sure, that's clearly good. If you mean, not be in a sexual relationship with more than one person at a time, I'm inclined to agree *for myself* but so long as all are fully informed I don't see it being anyone else's business. However if you mean that a person should only ever have sex with one other person, life-long ... that's your choice to make, but (a) I don't respect it much, as it makes a virtue of cowardice; (b) you don't get to make that choice for anyone else.
It also means that you do not cause harm to others by interfering in their relationships.
Up to a point, sure. Where exactly that point is, is a matter of opinion. I'll damn well interfere in a relationship that I have good grounds to consider abusive. I also don't see a problem with reminding someone who's going out with a jerk, that other options do exist.
You also to not cause harm to others with inappropriate behaviour in the workplace and elsewhere.
Agreed.
There are other ways to solve problems than violence. Where I live, people talk to each other. There is also significant trust in the legal system. Look to Newfoundland in Canada, which has the lowest death rate of pretty much any nation.
A legal system that forbids women from talking to me, or me to them, isn't worth much trust.
By western standards, it is obviously unfair for a father and mother to dictate the sexual activities of their sons and daughters until they are married.
No, it's just obviously unfair, regardless of one's cultural standards.
Nonetheless, if a young women wants to leave her culture
That it's that much of an issue is wrong too. Having sex with someone isn't the sort of decision that one ought to have to contemplate abandoning one's entire family and everyone one knows, to do it. she won't be locked up as is common in some cultures.
Good, but you don't get to congratulate yourselves for not being worse. I know a traditional tibetan lady who recently got married and first moved to the west just a few years ago. She has lived a very different life to western women, and is also very kind.
Hooray for the singular anecdote.
Fair enough.
A core precept is not committing sexual misconduct.
What's "misconduct"?
In Tibet - if you want to talk to a girl you have to ask the parents for marriage.
Or what? Or there will be violence, is my guess. That ludicrous proposition itself constitutes sexual misconduct by the culture generally, and by the specific people who enforce it, in that the girl here is denied any free right of sexual expression. It sexually enslaves her. Obviously not as violently as the Chinese army; but at the core of it, the intention is the same: you get to decide how she will express her sexuality.
It also constitutes a breach of free right of association amounting to violence, in that she is denied simple personal interaction with other people merely on the basis of her, and their, gender. It is an absurd and disgusting idea, and you should be, yourself, ashamed for suggesting it.
Who's actually surprised by this? Bueller? Bueller?
Bwhahahaaaa! *wipes tear from eye* Been asleep for the last eight years, have you?
This is the Bush Administration. It started subject to corruption.
It's very difficult to mess with judges. Not impossible, mind, but this is one way they've got well covered.
Because the people in charge of actually making the purchasing decisions are (a) idiots; (b) corruptible; (c) never going to use the thing anyway.
"Copyright infringer", not "thief".
But you do not have an right to not incur losses. Every time I buy a Subway sub, McDonalds and KFC incur a loss, because I did not buy my takeaway meal from them. What if I made a sandwich myself? What if I picked an apple off a tree? Would you argue that the fast-food companies have a right to be compensated?
If you could make a copy of it without taking away my copy, sure. But bank accounts don't work like that, do they? So this is also completely different.
Actually, bank accounts do work like that. A bank balance really is nothing more than a number. Same with things that are easily fungible into bank balances, such as invoices. The purpose of double-entry book-keeping, which has existed since the 15th Century, is to create certainty in the otherwise uncertain world of banking. For every number I put here, I must have a corresponding number somewhere else. However, that broke down some time ago, and nowadays banks create money out of nothing more or less as they see fit, restrained only by statutes requiring them to actually be able to present some tiny percentage of the money they owe and are owed.
Exactly. Osama bin Laden successfully persuaded Americans to build, prime, and set off a "bomb" in their own civil society.
You've missed Hussein's intended switch to selling oil for euros. As long as oil is sold only for US dollars, the oil serves as the standard for the US currency. If the Middle Eastern oil producing nations switch to euros, the US can no longer outsource its runaway inflation.