specifically all the phishers and botnetters that register disposable domain names continuously. maybe that would at least be another thorn in their side?
"up to", that means "as long as our system is theoretically capable of 20gps, we can give you 1gbps without breaking any of the rules. enjoy your bits through our straw!"
That's one thing I'd change if I had the authority... new consumer protection law... "when advertising, you're not allowed to state any maximum possible customer value without also stating the minimum possible value using equal authority"
NaN is actually pretty simple to deal with using computers. If you use 16 bits to store a signed integer, you have 65,536 units to use. One of them needs to be 0, so you have an imbalance. -32768 to +32767 is common. But you can just use -32768 to represent NaN instead, and keep things slightly more tidy when handing overflows and underflows.
Then anytime NaN comes up at any point in the calculation or comparison, even when divided by or subtracted from itself, the result automatically equals NaN.
Nice and simple. Now go watch Numberphile and lose your afternoon watching all his other videos.
You'd think they would have to provide some sort of reason why this specific venue was chosen for this "dragnet" law enforcement. This isn't like license plate scanners where they're throwing them up all over the place on highways... this is a very specific deployment. If they're going to use the reason of "catching cell phone thieves" (which by itself seems to be a very trumped-up reason) you'd thing they would be expected to provide some justification, why they have any reasonable belief that any significant number of said theives are going to be there.
That reason could actually probably be dismantled now that they've announced they intend to BE there, any said thief would be very likely to avoid the venue as a result. So just based on that alone, they should be packing up?
It'd be like the police planning a raid on a local bar that had a track record of lots of underage drinkers. If news of the date/time of the raid gets out, it'd be pointless to go ahead as scheduled with the raid? If they went ahead with it even after being exposed, you'd have to assume that the "looking for undeage drinking" was just an excuse for the raid and there was some other specific reason that they didn't want to become public knowledge.
NASA scientists who think we can't move water to people
When you've got 10 units of water and 15 units of demand, you move the water, but that's 5 less for someone else. Califormia has a huge overdraw on their supply, and is already moving water in from other places, and isn't letting a drop leave to the south. (they're not too happy about california UNmoving their water, see how well "move the water" is working with the Rio)
This isn't a case of product sitting in a warehouse across the country collecting dust, it's a limited natural resource, and they're already drawing heavily from all the "easy" AND all the "not so easy" sources. Yes you can move the water, but you can be darn well sure they don't want to pay for that. That's a big part of the problem, there's too much red tape holding the cost of water down right now. If the price would rise with the scarcity of the resource as it really should, CA wouldn't be having this problem. But that wheel is broken, and the machine is dysfunctional as a result. And everyone's been livinng on borrowed time, like borrowing from the bank to prop up an unprofitable business, without actually fixing the business. That can't go on forever.
So much of CA's water is getting shipped out of state or evaporating due to their agriculture. That's where the whole "this is an arid state" thing comes into play. Sure you can move there and live there, but trying to grow thirsty fruit and nut trees there is just plain dumb, and SHOULD be uneconomical, but they aren't being charged for their water relative to the actual value of the resource, to keep it a viable business. All these farmers out there crying "this water shortage is going to put me out of business!", yeah, it is. And it SHOULD. You've been relying on a crutch for decades and now the crutch has rotted and collaped under your weight, and so you're going down. The politicians down there are more than willing to help keep you propped up, and have been doing so for decades, but now it comes down to basic physics - there's simply no water left for them to give you to keep you afloat. They'll bend over backwards to keep the industry going, but it just won't be enough, not anymore. You can keep your agriculture, but you're going to have to change what you're growing. A single walnut costs almost five galons of water to produce. Look at that walnut tree and tell me how many galons of water that takes. You just don't DO that in a location where water is scarce, unless you're an idiot or have a government that's being an idiot for you and giving it away. "Just move the water!" uhhh... how about "Just MOVE the TREE?!" It makes a lot more sense to plant a tree over there than to try to move all that water over HERE.
"We live in an arid and semi-arid state and we need to start acting that way." - Jay Famiglietti, a senior water scientist with Nasa.
"arid" is one step away from "desert". "Arid" basically means "deserts are the only dryer places on the planet". And unfortunately, a majority of the developed parts of california are in the arid portions of the state.
Though at the rate they're emptying their groundwater, it's going to start looking like a desert. Drilling is just borrowing water from tomorrow. Eventually that debt is going to cause them to bottom out, and the water supply is going to suddenly slip into a steeper dive and cause a lot of "shock damage" due to their not being willing to slow down their consumption gradually. It's like the famous athelete that retires and spends money like the bank is bottomless, and suddenly finds out he's almost broke. Should have put on the brakes a lot sooner, and now has to really clamp down to avoid complete disaster, but is in for one heck of a shock on lifestyle changes to come.
FWIW, the law very rarely supports "finders keepers losers weepers". The short story on that is that "physical posession does not prove or establish transfer of ownership". The only time that has a chance of winning is when the loser fails to establish they ever had ownership. But in this case, she gave it to them, and that 100% transfers ownership. Legally, they owe her nothing, and would be unlikely to lose in a court case.
Someone above cited big business as above this law, such as a "bank error in your favor" getting yoinked back. No, in that case when you sign the paperwork to set up the account, there will be specific wording in there saying you agree that bank errors are NOT in your favor and you will be legally obligated to return any cash withdrawn under those circumstances. The only difference here as far as the bank is concerned is they didn't stop you before you got money from them (unlke say, a bounced check) and so now there's a bit of additional burden to having go to after you to get the money back. (it usually doesn't work that way, so that just tends to get them wound up)
there are a lot of them for sale, they're very cheap. http://www.ebay.com/itm/221602... is the first one I spotted. They usually run on four AA. That one even has a light in it, that's a feature mine doesn't. (but hey, mine was free)
I have a rechargeable battery bank, a bank that uses 4xAA drycells, and a few 12v-powered usb sources. The drycell one stays in my globebox with some AAs, as it can be "recharged" on short notice with a trip to any store. The rechargeable one is in my center console, to be grabbed if I need to recharge my phone. That one also has a simple little bright white LED light on it and makes a nice impromptu flashlight. (IMHO every battery bank should have this feature, look for it if you are shopping around, it also has a charge level indicator and can be switched off without unplugging the device, but alas only one USB port)
On the floor is one 7 port power station, that can supply two 2amp and 5 1amp ports off the truck's 12v power, good for rapid-charging high-demand things like tablets or other banks. Its daily duty is to power my GPS, a pair of USB speakers on my dash, and keep my iphone charged. Most of the "high power usb chargers" are garbage and a waste of money. This one's actually designed for it and speced to do the job. (http://www.startech.com/Cards-Adapters/USB-3.0/Hubs/7-Port-Dedicated-USB-Charging-Station~ST7CU35122)
I know several people that have those cheap usb-personal-fans and use a bank to run them, they keep them in their purse and pull them out when they're somewhere hot and want to cool off.
I'm also ordering two DC-DC converters shortly, one that steps down and one that steps up. It occurs to me that I can use the step-up to generate 12v etc from a 5v USB source, which may come in handy.
Though just because "everyone else is doing it" doesn't make it right. This particular one is just something more people would like to see action taken on.
(I won't shed a single tear for scientologists gettting a slashdot effect)
agreed. I'd say gas pumps rank second only to ATMs for their target value by the hackers. I think trying to get them on any physical network may be a bad idea. And I'd be willing to bet the manufacturers made it the way it is very much on purpose. Security is generally a 1:500 option. You add 1% of inconvenience to use and maintain, and it adds 500% of inconvenience to compromise. You see "pain in the butt". Hackers see "practically impossible".
While it would be nice to see someone grow a pair and say "Nope, I'm not here for hush money, I'm here for my pound of flesh. So buckle up and prepare for some publicity and federal exposure." it's also hard for me to honestly say I wouldn't turn down a free 20g.
It does seem a bit low though? If it were significantly larger, well, everyone has their price, but 20g is really flying low.
privacy issues aside, it's refreshing to occasionally see any government group not rubberstamp any expense that they don't have to worry about paying for. "We can't use this, we're not going to buy it." "but, but... it's so SHINY!"
So now I think we're up to something like... Common Sense: 5 - SNAFU: 885,236
Grant or no grant, that money doesn't just get tossed in a fire if it's not spent. It'll get repurposed somehow, somewhere, maybe by someone else but for public benefit, and hopefully into something more useful and less harmful to the public.
(hopefully we don't hear a shout from the grant people, "so... does somebody else want a free Stingray?")
The airlines will simply insert a clause in the purchase agreement that says they can dock you the difference if you don't show up on the second leg.
That is very unlikely to survive a legal challenge, because although statistically people doing what you are doing may be costing them money, (difficult to prove, but plausible) they would have a very hard time proving that not providing YOU the service caused them additional expenses that requires recovery.
Just because it's included in the contract doesn't guarantee it's enforceable.
I've had my 5S for close to a year now and it has never actually crashed. It's rebooted for OS updates and for a few dozen dead batteries but that's about it. I *have* had to reboot it maybe a dozen times in all due to lagging performance though when it hadn't been rebooted in weeks. My desktop computer's the same way though. Every 2-3 weeks it just needs a reboot to clean house.
It'll sure make a huge cut in the bot accounts that are being used for scamming and spamming. Some of these scammers are probably looking at thousands of accounts used on a given day. Busting their "business model" is the best way to get rid of them.
The job of the FBI is to arrest people who commit crimes.
That's like saying my mechanic's job is to change spark plugs.
The FBI's main goal is to protect and defend the United States, to uphold and enforce the criminal laws of the United States, and to provide leadership and criminal justice services to federal, state, municipal, and international agencies and partners.
Currently, the FBI's top investigative priorities are:
Protect the United States from terrorist attacks (see counter-terrorism); Protect the United States against foreign intelligence operations and espionage (see counterintelligence); Protect the United States against cyber-based attacks and high-technology crimes (see cyberwarfare); Combat public corruption at all levels; Protect civil rights; Combat transnational/national criminal organizations and enterprises (see organized crime); Combat major white-collar crime; Combat significant violent crime.
Assuming they list that in the traditional "in order of importance", then their main job is to "protect and defend the United States". It gets a little more specific below that, but nowhere does it even mention "arrest". The FBI's goals are much more general, they talk about "what we are going to do", not "how we are going to do it".
Law enforcement is a complex business and occurs at many levels. Education, intervention, protection, deterrant, punishment, rehabilitation, enforcement, investigation, infiltration, just to name a few. Steps that prevent crime at earlier stages (education, deterrant, intervention) usually have a bigger effect on criminal activity. Assuming you just want them operating in the USA, and the terrorists are getting their training abroad, your work starts as soon as the radical lands back in the states. The problem there is although they are plotting against the USA, they're still protected by its laws. So you either have to catch them plotting, or catch them doing damage. Obviously it's better to catch them while plotting, especially when they are suicide bombers that obviously don't concern themselves with getting caught after the act.
entrapment: "Hey buddy, you look like someone that wants to kill people for jihad, would you like to drive my truck bomb?"
NOT entrapment: "Hello there I'm looking to kill people for jihad, can you set me up with something?" "What did you have in mind?" "A truck bomb would be great, can you set me up with one of those?"
It can get blurry sometimes, but they follow specific rules set up around court cases that decided what was and what was not entrapment. "In criminal law, entrapment is a practice whereby a law enforcement agent induces a person to commit a criminal offense that the person would have otherwise been unlikely to commit." In a nutshell, if they suggest you break a law, it's entrapment. If you ask them to help you break the law, it's a sting. This wingnut asked for a truckbomb. He obviously was going to try to get one, one way or another, without the FBI's help. So it's not entrapment. He asked them for a rope to hang himself with, and they gave it to him.
And in this case, yes, he got arrested. Most of the FBI's enforcement work ends in arrest, but that only accounts for a small percentage of their total activity. But when they identify someone that's determined to do something dangerous (or substantially illegal), they're more than happy to play the role of an assistant so they can (A) have inside access for gathering evidence, and (B) prevent the attack.
People that are complaining that the FBI ought to find a different way to deal with wingnuts like this need to understand something. You can (A) prevent them from becoming a threat, (B) prevent them from acting, or (C) deal with them after they've acted. These radicals tend to get their training abroad, so (A) is out. I doubt you'd find them walking around with a basket picking up the pieces to arrest, so (C) is out too. So that leaves just (B), which is exactly what they're doing. "If you have a better idea, lets hear it, otherwise quit complaining".
One wonders if they would feel less "threatened" if we made fun of female anatomy?
That's the first thing that occurred to me. Look at all the games that focus on female anatomy. Now you get an entirely different group of people complaining. The game devs can't make even 1/2 the people happy at any given time. So why bother trying? Novelty sells. Cash in on it.
Slashdot Mirror
specifically all the phishers and botnetters that register disposable domain names continuously. maybe that would at least be another thorn in their side?
"up to", that means "as long as our system is theoretically capable of 20gps, we can give you 1gbps without breaking any of the rules. enjoy your bits through our straw!"
That's one thing I'd change if I had the authority... new consumer protection law... "when advertising, you're not allowed to state any maximum possible customer value without also stating the minimum possible value using equal authority"
NaN is actually pretty simple to deal with using computers. If you use 16 bits to store a signed integer, you have 65,536 units to use. One of them needs to be 0, so you have an imbalance. -32768 to +32767 is common. But you can just use -32768 to represent NaN instead, and keep things slightly more tidy when handing overflows and underflows.
Then anytime NaN comes up at any point in the calculation or comparison, even when divided by or subtracted from itself, the result automatically equals NaN.
Nice and simple. Now go watch Numberphile and lose your afternoon watching all his other videos.
You'd think they would have to provide some sort of reason why this specific venue was chosen for this "dragnet" law enforcement. This isn't like license plate scanners where they're throwing them up all over the place on highways... this is a very specific deployment. If they're going to use the reason of "catching cell phone thieves" (which by itself seems to be a very trumped-up reason) you'd thing they would be expected to provide some justification, why they have any reasonable belief that any significant number of said theives are going to be there.
That reason could actually probably be dismantled now that they've announced they intend to BE there, any said thief would be very likely to avoid the venue as a result. So just based on that alone, they should be packing up?
It'd be like the police planning a raid on a local bar that had a track record of lots of underage drinkers. If news of the date/time of the raid gets out, it'd be pointless to go ahead as scheduled with the raid? If they went ahead with it even after being exposed, you'd have to assume that the "looking for undeage drinking" was just an excuse for the raid and there was some other specific reason that they didn't want to become public knowledge.
When you've got 10 units of water and 15 units of demand, you move the water, but that's 5 less for someone else. Califormia has a huge overdraw on their supply, and is already moving water in from other places, and isn't letting a drop leave to the south. (they're not too happy about california UNmoving their water, see how well "move the water" is working with the Rio)
This isn't a case of product sitting in a warehouse across the country collecting dust, it's a limited natural resource, and they're already drawing heavily from all the "easy" AND all the "not so easy" sources. Yes you can move the water, but you can be darn well sure they don't want to pay for that. That's a big part of the problem, there's too much red tape holding the cost of water down right now. If the price would rise with the scarcity of the resource as it really should, CA wouldn't be having this problem. But that wheel is broken, and the machine is dysfunctional as a result. And everyone's been livinng on borrowed time, like borrowing from the bank to prop up an unprofitable business, without actually fixing the business. That can't go on forever.
So much of CA's water is getting shipped out of state or evaporating due to their agriculture. That's where the whole "this is an arid state" thing comes into play. Sure you can move there and live there, but trying to grow thirsty fruit and nut trees there is just plain dumb, and SHOULD be uneconomical, but they aren't being charged for their water relative to the actual value of the resource, to keep it a viable business. All these farmers out there crying "this water shortage is going to put me out of business!", yeah, it is. And it SHOULD. You've been relying on a crutch for decades and now the crutch has rotted and collaped under your weight, and so you're going down. The politicians down there are more than willing to help keep you propped up, and have been doing so for decades, but now it comes down to basic physics - there's simply no water left for them to give you to keep you afloat. They'll bend over backwards to keep the industry going, but it just won't be enough, not anymore. You can keep your agriculture, but you're going to have to change what you're growing. A single walnut costs almost five galons of water to produce. Look at that walnut tree and tell me how many galons of water that takes. You just don't DO that in a location where water is scarce, unless you're an idiot or have a government that's being an idiot for you and giving it away. "Just move the water!" uhhh... how about "Just MOVE the TREE?!" It makes a lot more sense to plant a tree over there than to try to move all that water over HERE.
"We live in an arid and semi-arid state and we need to start acting that way." - Jay Famiglietti, a senior water scientist with Nasa.
"arid" is one step away from "desert". "Arid" basically means "deserts are the only dryer places on the planet". And unfortunately, a majority of the developed parts of california are in the arid portions of the state.
Though at the rate they're emptying their groundwater, it's going to start looking like a desert. Drilling is just borrowing water from tomorrow. Eventually that debt is going to cause them to bottom out, and the water supply is going to suddenly slip into a steeper dive and cause a lot of "shock damage" due to their not being willing to slow down their consumption gradually. It's like the famous athelete that retires and spends money like the bank is bottomless, and suddenly finds out he's almost broke. Should have put on the brakes a lot sooner, and now has to really clamp down to avoid complete disaster, but is in for one heck of a shock on lifestyle changes to come.
FWIW, the law very rarely supports "finders keepers losers weepers". The short story on that is that "physical posession does not prove or establish transfer of ownership". The only time that has a chance of winning is when the loser fails to establish they ever had ownership. But in this case, she gave it to them, and that 100% transfers ownership. Legally, they owe her nothing, and would be unlikely to lose in a court case.
Someone above cited big business as above this law, such as a "bank error in your favor" getting yoinked back. No, in that case when you sign the paperwork to set up the account, there will be specific wording in there saying you agree that bank errors are NOT in your favor and you will be legally obligated to return any cash withdrawn under those circumstances. The only difference here as far as the bank is concerned is they didn't stop you before you got money from them (unlke say, a bounced check) and so now there's a bit of additional burden to having go to after you to get the money back. (it usually doesn't work that way, so that just tends to get them wound up)
I'm going to have sooo much difficulty not auto-translating that to "RTFM" when I hear or read it...
there are a lot of them for sale, they're very cheap. http://www.ebay.com/itm/221602... is the first one I spotted. They usually run on four AA. That one even has a light in it, that's a feature mine doesn't. (but hey, mine was free)
I have a rechargeable battery bank, a bank that uses 4xAA drycells, and a few 12v-powered usb sources. The drycell one stays in my globebox with some AAs, as it can be "recharged" on short notice with a trip to any store. The rechargeable one is in my center console, to be grabbed if I need to recharge my phone. That one also has a simple little bright white LED light on it and makes a nice impromptu flashlight. (IMHO every battery bank should have this feature, look for it if you are shopping around, it also has a charge level indicator and can be switched off without unplugging the device, but alas only one USB port)
On the floor is one 7 port power station, that can supply two 2amp and 5 1amp ports off the truck's 12v power, good for rapid-charging high-demand things like tablets or other banks. Its daily duty is to power my GPS, a pair of USB speakers on my dash, and keep my iphone charged. Most of the "high power usb chargers" are garbage and a waste of money. This one's actually designed for it and speced to do the job. (http://www.startech.com/Cards-Adapters/USB-3.0/Hubs/7-Port-Dedicated-USB-Charging-Station~ST7CU35122)
I know several people that have those cheap usb-personal-fans and use a bank to run them, they keep them in their purse and pull them out when they're somewhere hot and want to cool off.
I'm also ordering two DC-DC converters shortly, one that steps down and one that steps up. It occurs to me that I can use the step-up to generate 12v etc from a 5v USB source, which may come in handy.
Though just because "everyone else is doing it" doesn't make it right. This particular one is just something more people would like to see action taken on.
(I won't shed a single tear for scientologists gettting a slashdot effect)
wait, didn't ISIS just claim responsibility for this?
There's nothing "free" about getting ads and spam thrown at you. If advertisement was free, they wouldn't charge you to do it.
was just gonna say that... 40kb is quite a lot of assembly, or even C as long as it's not using bloated libraries.
Does anyone here happen to know if they code the rovers in assembly? or code the patches in assembly?
agreed. I'd say gas pumps rank second only to ATMs for their target value by the hackers. I think trying to get them on any physical network may be a bad idea. And I'd be willing to bet the manufacturers made it the way it is very much on purpose. Security is generally a 1:500 option. You add 1% of inconvenience to use and maintain, and it adds 500% of inconvenience to compromise. You see "pain in the butt". Hackers see "practically impossible".
While it would be nice to see someone grow a pair and say "Nope, I'm not here for hush money, I'm here for my pound of flesh. So buckle up and prepare for some publicity and federal exposure." it's also hard for me to honestly say I wouldn't turn down a free 20g.
It does seem a bit low though? If it were significantly larger, well, everyone has their price, but 20g is really flying low.
You'd think that [i]somewhere[/i] in the article they'd least ONCE explain that short acronym. But no. Short acronyms are difficult to google.
I think they're talking about this?
privacy issues aside, it's refreshing to occasionally see any government group not rubberstamp any expense that they don't have to worry about paying for. "We can't use this, we're not going to buy it." "but, but... it's so SHINY!"
So now I think we're up to something like... Common Sense: 5 - SNAFU: 885,236
Grant or no grant, that money doesn't just get tossed in a fire if it's not spent. It'll get repurposed somehow, somewhere, maybe by someone else but for public benefit, and hopefully into something more useful and less harmful to the public.
(hopefully we don't hear a shout from the grant people, "so... does somebody else want a free Stingray?")
That is very unlikely to survive a legal challenge, because although statistically people doing what you are doing may be costing them money, (difficult to prove, but plausible) they would have a very hard time proving that not providing YOU the service caused them additional expenses that requires recovery.
Just because it's included in the contract doesn't guarantee it's enforceable.
I've had my 5S for close to a year now and it has never actually crashed. It's rebooted for OS updates and for a few dozen dead batteries but that's about it. I *have* had to reboot it maybe a dozen times in all due to lagging performance though when it hadn't been rebooted in weeks. My desktop computer's the same way though. Every 2-3 weeks it just needs a reboot to clean house.
It'll sure make a huge cut in the bot accounts that are being used for scamming and spamming. Some of these scammers are probably looking at thousands of accounts used on a given day. Busting their "business model" is the best way to get rid of them.
That's like saying my mechanic's job is to change spark plugs.
Assuming they list that in the traditional "in order of importance", then their main job is to "protect and defend the United States". It gets a little more specific below that, but nowhere does it even mention "arrest". The FBI's goals are much more general, they talk about "what we are going to do", not "how we are going to do it".
Law enforcement is a complex business and occurs at many levels. Education, intervention, protection, deterrant, punishment, rehabilitation, enforcement, investigation, infiltration, just to name a few. Steps that prevent crime at earlier stages (education, deterrant, intervention) usually have a bigger effect on criminal activity. Assuming you just want them operating in the USA, and the terrorists are getting their training abroad, your work starts as soon as the radical lands back in the states. The problem there is although they are plotting against the USA, they're still protected by its laws. So you either have to catch them plotting, or catch them doing damage. Obviously it's better to catch them while plotting, especially when they are suicide bombers that obviously don't concern themselves with getting caught after the act.
entrapment:
"Hey buddy, you look like someone that wants to kill people for jihad, would you like to drive my truck bomb?"
NOT entrapment:
"Hello there I'm looking to kill people for jihad, can you set me up with something?" "What did you have in mind?" "A truck bomb would be great, can you set me up with one of those?"
It can get blurry sometimes, but they follow specific rules set up around court cases that decided what was and what was not entrapment. "In criminal law, entrapment is a practice whereby a law enforcement agent induces a person to commit a criminal offense that the person would have otherwise been unlikely to commit." In a nutshell, if they suggest you break a law, it's entrapment. If you ask them to help you break the law, it's a sting. This wingnut asked for a truckbomb. He obviously was going to try to get one, one way or another, without the FBI's help. So it's not entrapment. He asked them for a rope to hang himself with, and they gave it to him.
And in this case, yes, he got arrested. Most of the FBI's enforcement work ends in arrest, but that only accounts for a small percentage of their total activity. But when they identify someone that's determined to do something dangerous (or substantially illegal), they're more than happy to play the role of an assistant so they can (A) have inside access for gathering evidence, and (B) prevent the attack.
People that are complaining that the FBI ought to find a different way to deal with wingnuts like this need to understand something. You can (A) prevent them from becoming a threat, (B) prevent them from acting, or (C) deal with them after they've acted. These radicals tend to get their training abroad, so (A) is out. I doubt you'd find them walking around with a basket picking up the pieces to arrest, so (C) is out too. So that leaves just (B), which is exactly what they're doing. "If you have a better idea, lets hear it, otherwise quit complaining".
Well, if you have a thimble of common sense, you don't. Which is why our goverment does it all the time. It's one of their favorite passtimes.
Here in Iowa I can legally purchase any number of guns, shotguns, rifles, etc. But I can't buy a firecracker. Because it's too dangerous.
That acutally sounds like a really good summary of modern democracy...
That's the first thing that occurred to me. Look at all the games that focus on female anatomy. Now you get an entirely different group of people complaining. The game devs can't make even 1/2 the people happy at any given time. So why bother trying? Novelty sells. Cash in on it.