Of course they should accept advertising. If they don't, they'll eventually be cloned by someone who does and provides a better product with the extra funds.
On impartiality - just sell advertising on an exchange to the highest bidder. Google ad-words would be fine and not obnoxious. That way there is no direct connection between a corporate sponsor and a page.
Smoking killed more people than wars? Hmmm. Did it cost more years of life? That is, did most lung cancer victims die around age 63, while most war victims died around age 20? That would suggest a net loss of 7 to 12 years of life per smoking death, and 50 to 55 years of life per war death. Is that close to true? If so, war might have been a more destructive murderer than smoking, even if smoking has the higher kill count.
Oh, and if the script uses document.write (), you'll have to dynamically create a new IFRAME definition that contains that script, then glue the iframe into your dom, so the script has its own document to play with.
If page designers were very careful, the tag could be inserted dynamically by js, allowing the entire page to render before rendering the ad. See YSlow. The JS that inserts the script advertisements should be placed at the bottom of the page so it won't block rendering.
They've been accused of tinkering within a single match as well, which was against the rules. In any case, deep blue was an expert system carefully hand-tweaked and monitored by more than 4 top chess players during and between matches. It did a good job leveraging human intelligence to some extent. But, if those top chess players had all collaborated in a game against Kasparov, I wonder who would have won without the computer in the middle? I bet the group of top players would have won, perhaps handily. If so, who knows whether the computer increased or reduced their effectiveness?
Rowling is now worth over 1 billion dollars. She has made more money off her books than any other author, ever. She is the second wealthiest woman in entertainment. I think it would be entirely reasonable to consider the first Harry Potter book "paid for" by the public. It would cause her no hardship if the story were freely distributable. The characters would still be protected by trademark, giving her a monopoly on future work involving the Harry Potter characters.
If someone wants to make vile fan fiction involving Harry Peter and Jenny Sleazly, they could do so now without violating copyright law. Copyright doesn't proclude that work, since the work wouldn't copy the text provided by Rowling. Trademark protection prevents that type of thing, and we aren't talking about expiring trademarks.
Another big problem is that serious gamer geeks are early adopters. We don't like waiting until 6 months after those running windows have the game to buy it. I'd bet that game companies would see much better follow through on petitions if the Linux version were available at the same time as the windows version. As it is, they're tapping the portion of the Linux market that can't conveniently boot into windows, or is willing to wait to buy a game out of principal.
While the paper is interesting, there are too many variables unaccounted for by this paper's simple formulation of the problem.
First, increasing the time and money required to execute a plot increases the barrier to entry for terrorists, and reduces the efficiency of skilled terror attack planners. Increased barrier to entry, and decreased planning efficiency, implies a reduction in the number of attempted attacks. Second, in order to probe the CAPS system, the terrorist organization must involve more people than it would if the plot could be executed without probing. Plans that involve more people are more likely to be uncovered. Third, there is probably a correlation between the CAPS risk assessment and terrorist reliability. That is, terrorists with low CAPS risk may be more likely to get cold feet and expose the plot, or fail to execute. That is especially true if the plan requires more time to develop because the terrorist must perform CAPS probing.
So, even though the probability of an attack being successful once the attackers hit the security gate might go up a little, the authors did not correct for the reduction in the number of attacks due to the increased barrier to entry, the reduction in numbers of attacks due to increased communication risk, or the reduction in attacks due to lower commitment on the part of the attackers.
Consider two terrorists.
One was raised in a terrorist training camp in Afghanistan. He's been indoctrinated with hatred all his life. So, he's completely comfortable with what he's going to do. He has no anxiety, no fear of death, and no remorse for the people whose lives he will take.
The second is a kid from the outskirts of San Francisco who was guided into a violent sect by some people he met recently.
Which is more likely to visibly freak out when executing the attack? Would administrative search work better for hard cases, or for the newbies? Which is more likely to feel remorse and back out after a year of planning?
Consider what would happen if you were employing random profiling, and the terrorists chose to send 80 people to perform a terrorist act. With random profiling of 8% of the people, 7 might be caught. That's 73 successful attacks. If you sent one a week, every week, chaos...
Now consider a CAPS system in terrorists self-eliminated 3/4ths of their own candidates because CAPS flags most of them as high risk. In addition, 5 of the remaining terrorists get cold feet because they have a family. So, you send 15 terrorists, all of which are successful
From the victim's perspective, I'd rather see 15 successful attacks than 73. So, I'd want the terrorists to try to game the system.
Angband and the many variants, Egoboo, and several of the games at the site you mentioned are nifty.
However, spiderweb isn't "ripping people off." Send in your money or don't. If it's half assed, you get to find out before you buy. No biggie, don't buy.
I paged through several of the games on the indie rpg site and saw alot of short episodes and demos developed in a week or a couple months. But, I probably just don't know what's good on the site. Can you list some of the better titles, with long game play and a fairly original mythos? I'd love to see some new ideas.
Um, anti-Muslim sentiment is not racist. Anti-Arab sentiment would be racist. Anti-Muslim is religionist. It's like being anti-communist, anti-fascist, anti-Christian, or anti-Greek-mythos. Disrespecting a system of thought, even a religion, is much different than disrespecting the color of a person's skin. That's why "religionist" isn't an insult, yet.
I was hoping someone would make a snide remark about my intellect and make a link to spiderweb software to correct my original posts trajic omission. Looks like I'll have to do it myself.
Statutory ad hominem: The grandparent who forgot to use the little <a> tag obviously doesn't have the brains of a chimp, so it's amazing that he was able to recognize good RPGs like the Avernum series. Oh, and it's spelled tragic. Moron.
Get a group together and talk to your boss about compensation up front. Don't threaten to quit, don't threaten to walk out. Just talk about what's fair.
Say you'll be putting in 5 months of work in 4 months. Ask for 4 weeks vacation to be added to your personal leave.
If they say no, don't threaten to quit. Just interview elsewhere, get a job, and leave.
Wow. Clinton didn't technically lie to the American public?
"I did not have sexual relations with that women."
I heard Clinton say that on national TV while staring soulfully into the camera. I mean, even if you like the guy and think he was persecuted beyond human endurance - even if you understand why he lied - it's hard to dispute the fact that he lied, straight out, on national television, in an address to the American people.
Comparing Bush's statements about WMD in Iraq to that is pretty silly at this point. Your claim is that Blair, Bush, and Colin Powell all knowingly lied through their teeth about WMD so they could attack Iraq? Even if they just thought it was probably true, they were more honest than Clinton.
There were other reasons for the war, obviously. Our presence in Saudi was inspiring terrorist actions. We had to be in Saudi to enforce UN sanctions on Iraq. Saddam justified civilian deaths by pointing to those sanctions, and that inspired more terrorists. And, Saddam directly funded Palestinian terrorist groups that scuttled the career of a promising dove in Israel. The continued conflict in Israel inspires more terrorists.
The administration also presented some of this line, but it didn't catch the press. Do you claim they lied through their teeth about that as well?
Just because the superficial reasons get the limelight doesn't mean a guy lied. It would be as accurate to say a scientist lied when he's reported as having found the "musician gene". We all know reporters present simplified claptrap.
Of course, everyone lies, so Bush has too. But, find it hard to believe that he, Blair, and Powell were all willing to present a bald faced lie, as Clinton did, in order to get the US into a war with Iraq.
This is your cue to haul out the double edged sword of commercial interest, if you want to point out that France, Russia and the U.S. all played their pocket book in this one.
One could simply create pre-tax investments and accomplish the same thing with less administrative overhead. That way, people are encouraged to invest their money before they cash that paycheck. The government can change spending by changing the cap on allowed pre-tax investment per pay check.
I don't know how VAT is implemented in the UK. But, unless the VAT is set quarterly by a financial board that is independent from those who want money for government programs, I doubt it's really being used to regulate the economy. In the US, sales tax is purely a revenue source for local government. We also use sales tax punitively (cigarettes) at times, but never as a money supply regulator.
Given the success of the US economy, it must be possible to regulate an economy without using VAT. I'm not saying VAT is evil, just that you don't need it to encourage/discourage spending.
$170.00 - VIA EPIA-M10000 nehemiah (~28W peak)
integrated video
6 channel audio
10/100 LAN
2xpc133
ata100
1 pci
1 USB connector for 2 USB 1.1 ports
TV-out
$ 40.00 - Toshiba DVD-ROM drive, CD-ROM, DVD-RAM too (~20W)
That would have cost about $554.00 last month. My plan is to eventually use Freevo
to make myself a nice hackable home theatre box that no one can cripple in the future, and that supports OGG files.
Anyhow, if you don't want multimedia power, you can reconfigure to use the fanless VIA and ditch the fancy sound card, tv card, dvd player, and PCI riser. That'd drop the price to around $350.00. A chopped down machine will use 35W (peak) and be 16"x12"x4" - about the size of a VCR.
Disclamer: I haven't actually tried this yet, I'm just planning.
It's an awful idea to limit the types of DRM that industry can employ. They'll just weasle up to the edge of legality, then seep over while attention is elsewhere. We need a bill that affirms the legality of fair use tools, even if they bypass DRM. This bill will still allow the industry to control the methodology of fair use. I can provide a resale mechanism that artificially inflates the resale price due to inconvenience. No prob.
We need to let the market drive the mechanism for backups, resale, time shifting, format shifting, etc. Otherwise, consumers lose because certain companies don't see a profit in making those things convenient. This bill attempts to substitute a government beaurocracy for market forces, which is inefficient and ineffective.
On the other hand, these items are all great:
Government mandated copy-prevention for general purpose computers is excluded.
Media with copy-prevention mechanisms must be labelled.
I wouldn't support this particular bill because it's a band-aid when stiches are needed.
I just want to let you know that I appreciated the art in your response. It's an excellent use of the classic methods for introducing discord.
Don't make assumptions.
This one always cracks me up. I mean, is there a more succinct way to get another person to waste days covering all the implicit assumptions in their argument? The best part is, once they get done, the result is a post no one will read because it's too dang long. And, you can always find another assumption that's not justified. Sweet.
You really have no clue about thinking, do you? Not a flame...
"Not a flame". It's like an abusive relationship. "This is intended to offend you, no offense". ROFL.
Atheism isn't 'a-rational' [sic].
After making that statement, you never mention atheism again. You state that my point is wrong, then offer an unrelated but true argument... that's classic. It's like saying:
"There's an 'e' in religion. Therefore, atheism can't have an 'e' in it because they're opposites."
Of course, the really funny part is that you use the question which proves my point about atheism.
Question: What evidence do you have that God can't exist?
Answer: None.
Since atheism declares that God can't exist, it's irrational. Wait, that can't be. Religion and atheism are opposites, and we know religion is irrational.
Your next muddle about "eternal law" is classic in it's purposeful misinterpretation of the original argument. You say several things that are quite obviously not what I meant, then attribute the resulting ludicrous mix to me. Very nice.
Finally, you end by agreeing with my major point that religion is usually only a rationalization, not motivation, for violence. Then you quibble over whether it's the most frequently used rationalization. That's a classic too, implicitly agree with the major point, then attack a disputable sub-point to maintain controversy.
Anyhow, I just thought I'd let you know that I appreciate a well crafted instrument of discord. Nicely done.
Walking the walk, eh? Pesonally, I'd probably be "Discordian" too if Eris wore a funny calico hat. I think the Goddess of Chaos should. Sewing discord is fun, but not as much fun as calico. I dig calico.
Slashdot Mirror
Of course they should accept advertising. If they don't, they'll eventually be cloned by someone who does and provides a better product with the extra funds.
On impartiality - just sell advertising on an exchange to the highest bidder. Google ad-words would be fine and not obnoxious. That way there is no direct connection between a corporate sponsor and a page.
Just curious.
Oh, and if the script uses document.write (), you'll have to dynamically create a new IFRAME definition that contains that script, then glue the iframe into your dom, so the script has its own document to play with.
If page designers were very careful, the tag could be inserted dynamically by js, allowing the entire page to render before rendering the ad. See YSlow. The JS that inserts the script advertisements should be placed at the bottom of the page so it won't block rendering.
They've been accused of tinkering within a single match as well, which was against the rules. In any case, deep blue was an expert system carefully hand-tweaked and monitored by more than 4 top chess players during and between matches. It did a good job leveraging human intelligence to some extent. But, if those top chess players had all collaborated in a game against Kasparov, I wonder who would have won without the computer in the middle? I bet the group of top players would have won, perhaps handily. If so, who knows whether the computer increased or reduced their effectiveness?
Rowling is now worth over 1 billion dollars. She has made more money off her books than any other author, ever. She is the second wealthiest woman in entertainment. I think it would be entirely reasonable to consider the first Harry Potter book "paid for" by the public. It would cause her no hardship if the story were freely distributable. The characters would still be protected by trademark, giving her a monopoly on future work involving the Harry Potter characters.
If someone wants to make vile fan fiction involving Harry Peter and Jenny Sleazly, they could do so now without violating copyright law. Copyright doesn't proclude that work, since the work wouldn't copy the text provided by Rowling. Trademark protection prevents that type of thing, and we aren't talking about expiring trademarks.
Another big problem is that serious gamer geeks are early adopters. We don't like waiting until 6 months after those running windows have the game to buy it. I'd bet that game companies would see much better follow through on petitions if the Linux version were available at the same time as the windows version. As it is, they're tapping the portion of the Linux market that can't conveniently boot into windows, or is willing to wait to buy a game out of principal.
While the paper is interesting, there are too many variables unaccounted for by this paper's simple formulation of the problem.
First, increasing the time and money required to execute a plot increases the barrier to entry for terrorists, and reduces the efficiency of skilled terror attack planners. Increased barrier to entry, and decreased planning efficiency, implies a reduction in the number of attempted attacks. Second, in order to probe the CAPS system, the terrorist organization must involve more people than it would if the plot could be executed without probing. Plans that involve more people are more likely to be uncovered. Third, there is probably a correlation between the CAPS risk assessment and terrorist reliability. That is, terrorists with low CAPS risk may be more likely to get cold feet and expose the plot, or fail to execute. That is especially true if the plan requires more time to develop because the terrorist must perform CAPS probing.
So, even though the probability of an attack being successful once the attackers hit the security gate might go up a little, the authors did not correct for the reduction in the number of attacks due to the increased barrier to entry, the reduction in numbers of attacks due to increased communication risk, or the reduction in attacks due to lower commitment on the part of the attackers.
Consider two terrorists.
One was raised in a terrorist training camp in Afghanistan. He's been indoctrinated with hatred all his life. So, he's completely comfortable with what he's going to do. He has no anxiety, no fear of death, and no remorse for the people whose lives he will take.
The second is a kid from the outskirts of San Francisco who was guided into a violent sect by some people he met recently.
Which is more likely to visibly freak out when executing the attack? Would administrative search work better for hard cases, or for the newbies? Which is more likely to feel remorse and back out after a year of planning?
Consider what would happen if you were employing random profiling, and the terrorists chose to send 80 people to perform a terrorist act. With random profiling of 8% of the people, 7 might be caught. That's 73 successful attacks. If you sent one a week, every week, chaos...
Now consider a CAPS system in terrorists self-eliminated 3/4ths of their own candidates because CAPS flags most of them as high risk. In addition, 5 of the remaining terrorists get cold feet because they have a family. So, you send 15 terrorists, all of which are successful
From the victim's perspective, I'd rather see 15 successful attacks than 73. So, I'd want the terrorists to try to game the system.
Real life wall hacking
Now here's the moral delimna. If we can do it in real life, is it cheating?
You don't have to manually manage memory in c++ if you don't want to. C++ can be garbage collected.
Angband and the many variants, Egoboo, and several of the games at the site you mentioned are nifty.
However, spiderweb isn't "ripping people off." Send in your money or don't. If it's half assed, you get to find out before you buy. No biggie, don't buy.
I paged through several of the games on the indie rpg site and saw alot of short episodes and demos developed in a week or a couple months. But, I probably just don't know what's good on the site. Can you list some of the better titles, with long game play and a fairly original mythos? I'd love to see some new ideas.
Um, anti-Muslim sentiment is not racist. Anti-Arab sentiment would be racist. Anti-Muslim is religionist. It's like being anti-communist, anti-fascist, anti-Christian, or anti-Greek-mythos. Disrespecting a system of thought, even a religion, is much different than disrespecting the color of a person's skin. That's why "religionist" isn't an insult, yet.
Statutory ad hominem: The grandparent who forgot to use the little <a> tag obviously doesn't have the brains of a chimp, so it's amazing that he was able to recognize good RPGs like the Avernum series. Oh, and it's spelled tragic. Moron.
www.spiderwebsoftware.com
I personally recommend Avernum II and III. Geneforge looks interesting as well. There, but for the cruelty of life, go you.
fraudvertising?
Doh! 17th post and already redundant thrice.
Typo - make that loser system.
Say you'll be putting in 5 months of work in 4 months. Ask for 4 weeks vacation to be added to your personal leave.
If they say no, don't threaten to quit. Just interview elsewhere, get a job, and leave.
"I did not have sexual relations with that women."
I heard Clinton say that on national TV while staring soulfully into the camera. I mean, even if you like the guy and think he was persecuted beyond human endurance - even if you understand why he lied - it's hard to dispute the fact that he lied, straight out, on national television, in an address to the American people.
Comparing Bush's statements about WMD in Iraq to that is pretty silly at this point. Your claim is that Blair, Bush, and Colin Powell all knowingly lied through their teeth about WMD so they could attack Iraq? Even if they just thought it was probably true, they were more honest than Clinton.
There were other reasons for the war, obviously. Our presence in Saudi was inspiring terrorist actions. We had to be in Saudi to enforce UN sanctions on Iraq. Saddam justified civilian deaths by pointing to those sanctions, and that inspired more terrorists. And, Saddam directly funded Palestinian terrorist groups that scuttled the career of a promising dove in Israel. The continued conflict in Israel inspires more terrorists.
The administration also presented some of this line, but it didn't catch the press. Do you claim they lied through their teeth about that as well?
Just because the superficial reasons get the limelight doesn't mean a guy lied. It would be as accurate to say a scientist lied when he's reported as having found the "musician gene". We all know reporters present simplified claptrap.
Of course, everyone lies, so Bush has too. But, find it hard to believe that he, Blair, and Powell were all willing to present a bald faced lie, as Clinton did, in order to get the US into a war with Iraq.
This is your cue to haul out the double edged sword of commercial interest, if you want to point out that France, Russia and the U.S. all played their pocket book in this one.
I don't know how VAT is implemented in the UK. But, unless the VAT is set quarterly by a financial board that is independent from those who want money for government programs, I doubt it's really being used to regulate the economy. In the US, sales tax is purely a revenue source for local government. We also use sales tax punitively (cigarettes) at times, but never as a money supply regulator.
Given the success of the US economy, it must be possible to regulate an economy without using VAT. I'm not saying VAT is evil, just that you don't need it to encourage/discourage spending.
That would have cost about $554.00 last month. My plan is to eventually use Freevo to make myself a nice hackable home theatre box that no one can cripple in the future, and that supports OGG files.
Anyhow, if you don't want multimedia power, you can reconfigure to use the fanless VIA and ditch the fancy sound card, tv card, dvd player, and PCI riser. That'd drop the price to around $350.00. A chopped down machine will use 35W (peak) and be 16"x12"x4" - about the size of a VCR.
Disclamer: I haven't actually tried this yet, I'm just planning.
We need to let the market drive the mechanism for backups, resale, time shifting, format shifting, etc. Otherwise, consumers lose because certain companies don't see a profit in making those things convenient. This bill attempts to substitute a government beaurocracy for market forces, which is inefficient and ineffective.
On the other hand, these items are all great:
I wouldn't support this particular bill because it's a band-aid when stiches are needed.
This one always cracks me up. I mean, is there a more succinct way to get another person to waste days covering all the implicit assumptions in their argument? The best part is, once they get done, the result is a post no one will read because it's too dang long. And, you can always find another assumption that's not justified. Sweet.
"Not a flame". It's like an abusive relationship. "This is intended to offend you, no offense". ROFL.
After making that statement, you never mention atheism again. You state that my point is wrong, then offer an unrelated but true argument... that's classic. It's like saying:
"There's an 'e' in religion. Therefore, atheism can't have an 'e' in it because they're opposites."
Of course, the really funny part is that you use the question which proves my point about atheism.
- Question: What evidence do you have that God can't exist?
- Answer: None.
Since atheism declares that God can't exist, it's irrational. Wait, that can't be. Religion and atheism are opposites, and we know religion is irrational.Your next muddle about "eternal law" is classic in it's purposeful misinterpretation of the original argument. You say several things that are quite obviously not what I meant, then attribute the resulting ludicrous mix to me. Very nice.
Finally, you end by agreeing with my major point that religion is usually only a rationalization, not motivation, for violence. Then you quibble over whether it's the most frequently used rationalization. That's a classic too, implicitly agree with the major point, then attack a disputable sub-point to maintain controversy.
Anyhow, I just thought I'd let you know that I appreciate a well crafted instrument of discord. Nicely done.
This is evidence, not proof. It's an interesting argument, but calling it "proof" is intentionally misleading and will cause Discord. Ah, nice work.
Walking the walk, eh? Pesonally, I'd probably be "Discordian" too if Eris wore a funny calico hat. I think the Goddess of Chaos should. Sewing discord is fun, but not as much fun as calico. I dig calico.