"declare war against countries which actively shield Al Quaeda."
Excellent idea! Now we just need to get Congress to approve declarations of war against... Afghanistan, Indonesia, Iran, Syria, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, Palestine... oh wait, doesn't exist yet... Egypt, Jordan, Chechnya, Georgia (the country - relax you southerners...), and about a dozen or so other countries I can't think of offhand. You were talking about going after every single member of Al Qaeda who's being shielded by a recognized government, right? And don't forget to throw in France, Germany, and most of the rest of Europe, when they refuse to extradite suspected members of Al Qaeda to the US because they know we'll almost certainly execute them.
As for us declaring war on terrorism, let me summerize what that means. When using the phrase, "The War on ______ ", you have to understand what it means. To fully understand the situation, look at all the other "The War on _____"'s that we already have: The War on crime|AIDS|cancer|drugs|etc. Basically, when we don't like something, our politicians (usually the resident president) declare "war" on it. We never actually do anything to address the problem, the causes, or treat the effects; we just declare war on it. We've not cleaned up (or even made a difference in) crime, AIDS, drugs, or most others. We've only made progress in cancer treatment because there's so many different kinds of cancer, so the cancer industry doesn't have to worry about wiping out its cash-cow. So yes, "The War on terrorism" is going to last forever, will never end, will never get better, and will continue costing us, the taxpayers, money. Why? There's a hell of allot more money in "treating" the problem (biometric scanners, dBases, baggage screeners, radiation detection, bomb detection, etc) then there is in solving it.
Should we sit here and do nothing after Sept 11? Absolutely not; we should do something about it, but declaring "war" on it to make Americans feel warm and fuzzy again doesn't solve a thing. Find the causes, work to eliminate them; find the instigators, stop them from gathering followers; and for God's sake, find the missing anthrax/bombs/cesium/uranium/plutonium/smallpox/et c that we've had laying around for so long that they've gotten lost. We're so used to having things around that could destroy the planet, that we don't even think twice when they turn up missing. I tend to wonder if any fully intact ICBMs are missing from their silos. Somehow, it just wouldn't surprise me at this point.
It's nice to see that the $50 I recently gave 'em when I joined is being put to good use. Perhaps it's time for another donation.
For those complaining about the ACLU and what they do, just remember that you don't have to like it for it to be just and Constitutionally correct. We may not like that Tim McVeigh got a fair trial, (I'm sure plenty would have liked to have seen him strung up in the middle of town and set on fire), but you've got to admit that it's what our laws, our traditions, and our Constitution mandate.
When I was considering joining the ACLU a few months ago, I looked through their various legal battles as part of my consideration. Some of the battles they fought quite frankly pissed me off (as I didn't agree in the least bit with what was being done), but when I sat down and thought about it from a Constitutional standpoint, I couldn't argue against that for which they fought. Just remember, that when the rights of any one citizen are in danger, no matter how scummy or worthless they may seem to us, all of us have our rights endangered.
I, for one, and a very proud member of the ACLU. I'm proud to be a part of an organization of folks who, above all else, believe that our laws, our freedoms, and our Constitution must be protected at all costs. To live without freedom is to not live at all. Every man and woman who has fought in a war for this country has laid their life on the line protecting the freedom that we now enjoy. Obviously, to them (as it was to the founders of our nation), freedom is more important than life. If you ever question that ideal, ask yourself this question: Would you want your children to live in a society such as that which existed under the Taliban, or even that which exists today in communist China; where freedom of thought, word, and deed are rare? Assuming you don't, ask yourself if you'd be willing to give your life; if you're prepared to die to ensure your children have the freedoms you grew up with...
Hate to tell ya, but we're already there. Thank God some people (and some judges/Congresscritters) are starting to come to their senses about all this. People somehow seem to like rash overreactions in times of crisis, rather than clear, rational thought. It's absolutely amazing that the Declaration of Independence and the US Constitution ever came into being in such a time.
From the mentioned article, "Federal prosecutors disagree, saying Padilla, 31, is a DANGEROUS AGENT of AL QAEDA, the ISLAMIC TERRORIST group believed to be behind the SEPTEMBER 11 TERRORIST ATTACKS." (Emph mine)
Wow, in one sentence, we have 8 keywords: dangerous, agent, Al Qaeda, islamic, terrorist, september 11, terrorist, attacks. That's quite a feat, and pretty much the only justification for holding him in the first place. Hang on to your hats, folks... looks like "Dubyah" hired some M$ PR folks to spread his little FUD campaign to keep him riding high on his little power trip. A little side note to boot: Ashcroft made 17 television appearances in the 3 months before Padilla's "arrest", (he's a media-hound) and has made 1 in the three months after Padilla's arrest and his grand announcement on national TV about the "unfolding terrorist plot". Gee, sound like maybe he fscked up?
"there's no grand event that signifies the moment of crossing."
For some reason, I think I remember reading that as matter crosses the event horizon, it's stripped apart at the subatomic level (I suppose due to extreme gravitational forces) and that matter is shot inwards (towards the singulatity), while anti-matter is shot outwards away from the singulatiry. Please do correct me if I'm wrong, but I can look up wherever I read that if you'd like.
You know, there's some poor bastard out there reading this on a machine running Minix who just read the line, "no one's used it since 1996". Imagine for a moment, if you will, how that person must feel right now...
"The diskspace used by the journal file in NTFS and this new filesystem can be put to much better use."
You mean like empty cluster tips?
NTFS might use a good amount of space, but you make up for allot of that just based on the smaller cluster sizes. Take a large directory (20,000+ files, 10GB+), put it on a Win2k machine with NTFS, then another with FAT32. Right click -> properties. Size on Disk says it all.
The Constitution doesn't even do that. It merely provides citizens with the right to form a militia. Considering the fact that many of the founders were very much against having a standing army at all, it's not surprising to see an amendment which forces the federal government to accept the legality of citizen-run militias. The resident President has decided that the Constitution gives anyone and everyone the right to own, carry, use, play with, toy with, or do what-have-you with a gun. That's not what was intended; you have to look at the context.
What it all comes down to is this: the founders wanted to ensure that the citizens of the United States of America had the ability to organize a defense against any foreign aggressor or domestic rebellion. This ensured that no group of pacifistic or disloyal officials could allow the US to be overrun by an aggressor by denying citizens the right to defense of their country by locking them up for organizing militias.
That being said, I fail to see where it is the responsibility or duty of the federal government to make laws or decisions on what items a person may buy in his or her own state. Our Constitution is one of enumerated powers; what you see is what you get. Congress is given the power to regulate interstate commerce. If I buy a gun at a local store, it doesn't qualify. Now, my state can certainly regulate which and how many weapons I may purchase, and they may also bar me for specific reasons (such as criminal background). What I see all too often lately is the federal government thinking it somehow has control over all the states. Reading the Constitution, one ought to get the feeling that the federal government was created specifically to carry out the tasks that would have caused individual states to argue amoungst themselves (such as interstate commerce). The idea being: let them argue in the congress, and let the law made there stand as law everywhere. What a state decides to let its own citizens do within the confines of that state should not be regulated by the federal government - and when it is, that state's very sovereignty is at stake. We are citizens of our state first, our nation second, our planet third. The US Constitution is a convenient arrangement between numerous seperate and soveriegn states.
"think that none of the ISPs actually run the fiber that your data goes on from city to city."
AOL, Comcast, @Home, UUnet, MCI Worldcom, Digex, Qwest... amoung many others that run their own networks from city to city. @Home had a lovely map of the fiber they owned, including OC-3's, OC-12's, etc criss-crossing the country. Anyone got a link to that old picture?
"I wonder why they'd be pushing cable as a better solution to dialup... oh yeah, that's because it is."
Yet another AC response from someone who imagines that everyone in the world must be just like them. Better solution? How about for the person who signs on for less than 5 hours a month, just to check a hotmail account every night and email friends? How about for someone who signs on to chat with a relative who's far away for 15 minutes every couple of days? People who aren't using the internet very much are much better off with dial-up. A Netzero account will suffice for a large number of people, saving them *survey says* $45/mo over the cost of broadband.
I'm more worried about Comcast owning the internet. They already own a major portion of the US cable market, and they're offering broadband to all those customers. In fact, they're pushing it rather heavily as a better solution than dial-up.
If I run a commercial site, where does the responsibility end? Must the site be made accessible to the blind? How about those who are blind and deaf? And how about those who are blind, deaf, mute, and paralyzed from the neck down? There's always someone who will be discriminated against because of their disability. It wouldn't be called a disability if you were able to do whatever you wanted. I'm not indifferent to the needs of the disabled, and I can certainly understand having businesses make a reasonable effort to accommodate the disabled as best as possible; but where do you draw the line?
My point is that no one needs to use the internet. People got along just fine before internet use was popular. Now we have a great convenience to do everything from ordering pizza to booking flights online. Does this mean that everyone must by law be able to use these conveniences? We don't allow the blind to fly airplanes, nor do we allow multiple amputees to fly the space shuttle. In those cases, there's a safety hazzard, obviously, but we're still denying them that. I don't see too many blind atheletes running around either (although the ref' sometimes appears to be). Should all businesses be forced to serve a customer over the telephone who's blind, deaf, and mute? Surely it's possible to serve this customer over the phone, but you know what? People got along fine before phones as well. As a side note, I don't believe newpapers are very accessible to the blind either.
Should we bring the web experience for everyone to a lower level to make it more accessible to people? Two websites? Do you know how much more that would cost a company like Southwest Airlines? The more likely scenerio is that if they were forced to make it accessible to the blind, we'd see a very, very wattered-down, much less user-friendly website where Southwest's site used to be. I don't know about you, but I don't think it's fair to make it less accessible to millions just to make it a little more accessible to dozens. As far as the cheaper web faires, I'm sure Southwest would be happy to make a best effort to ensure they help the disabled who contact them via telephone to get the best faires possible. Has anyone even asked?
My point is simply this - we should be thankful for whatever modern conveniences we're able to make use of, as we're much better off than those who came before us. Those who are paralyzed, blind, deaf, etc are now much better off than ever before. But don't think for a moment that that entitles every single person to enjoy every single convenience. I think this is one instance where more government intervention isn't going to help matters at all.
Assuming that both the Apple campaign to switch (here) and the microsoft campaign to switch (here) target the same people are are equally effective, won't this create an infinite loop amoung their customers?
Person1: I just switched to Apple because my PC kept crashing. Person2: I just switched to Windows because it's flexible and easy. Person1: I just switched to Windows because it's flexible and easy. Person2: I just switched to Apple because my PC kept crashing. Person1: I just switched to Apple because my PC kept crashing!! Person2: I just switched to Windows because it's flexible and easy!! ...
I never commented one way or another on my feelings about people using bots. My only comment relating to that was to say that when I first started, they were annoying, but they later became useful to me.
As far as whether or not I think it's ok to use a bot? On some things, I don't see a problem with it; such as first-person shooters (quake, UT, etc). Where I do see a problem with bots is when someone has invested significant time and energy to build up a particular character which can in some way be damaged by someone elses' use of a bot. An example here would be a MUD which allows pkilling (player killing). On a game like Quake, if you're killed by a bot, so what? You've lost nothing, just press 'fire' and you'll respawn. The only exception there would be tournament play, or clan matchs; both of which generally have very strong bot detection in place anyway, though I would say it's wrong to use a bot in that instance. Basically, in the context in which I was playing, I can see no real fault with the use of bots, unless they're making the game somehow unplayable for everyone else (spamming non-stop nukes, lagging the server, etc). In all honesty, most bots are really no different from a very good player. If you assume that no bots should be allowed to be used in a game like Quake, then you should also assume that no especially good players should be allowed either. My reasoning is that from the perspective of the other players in the game, there is no difference between a very good player and a bot. I, myself, along with many other good players I knew personally, were often accused of being bots, when in fact we were just talented and well-practiced. Whether it was me, or someone's bot slaughtering 20 mediocre players on a server made no difference to those playing, except that I usually cracked jokes throughout the game. On the other hand, as I sit here remembering how I was when I first started playing, I can understand how someone might think me a bot when they've jumped from a very high spot and get railed on their way down to the floor at a high rate of speed, especially at an odd angle.
On a lighter note, I actually considered writing a bot to practice against once. The reason was that I'd never seen a bot that made any significant use of the 'hook', while I and some others I played against made frequent use of it. The result was that when playing against bots on a server, I could practice foot-on-foot shots, hook-on-foot shots (me using the hook), but not hook-on-hook shots (by far the most difficult). My only real practice for those was against friends, which left me at less of an advantage. My saving grace was that very few people used the hook as much as I did - I actually used the hook more than walking for movement; the obvious advantages being less predictable movement, speed, momentum, and direction.
"Using a bot written by someone else to play is even lamer. That just shows you have no skill in any manner."
From the point of view of an outside observer, I can see this point. However, one of the things I used to do when playing Quake II: Weapons of Destruction was to hop on a server where at least a couple of bots were running around. It used to annoy the hell out of me when I found what was obviously a bot playing on a server (firing rail shots without facing you, etc), but once I started to get a bit better in the game, I began using them for practice. It's like playing against the best players in the game any time you like; after a while, that's the level on which you're playing. Once you become a difficult target for a bot, you become an nearly impossible target for a human. And if you've only got two or three chances at most to kill your target, you learn to fire accurately and quickly. The end result was that I could log on and cream some of the best players in the game at the time. It was even more fun when logging onto a server with 15 or 20 mediocre players and slaughtering all of them while they complain about how you must be a bot, because no one can move like that and fire that accurately.;)
Props to RAV, we were young and cocky, but hot damn we were good.:)
Well, I suppose that "burn down their corporate offices, flip Rosen's car over, and handcuff yourself to the fence outside Rosen's house demanding that the RIAA be disolved" isn't the answer you were looking for?
Apparently, Will Wheaton will star, Natalie Portman will make a brief appearance (her first "full-frontal" scene), the special effects will be rendered on a Beowulf cluster of Ti notebooks running whatever the latest beta Linux kernel is available, a new character will be created who can only say the words, "cowboy" and "neil", and the movie will end with Yoda using the force to make the entire universe disappear.
Well between the all-star cast and the killer ending, I'd say we don't have much hope of any sequels...
"Lessig's approach to go back to the copyright clause and not focus on the first amendment issues was not the right approach."
Considering the fact that the supremes basically dismissed the First Amendment approach immediately, I'd say focusing on it now would be a bit of a mistake. That being said, I think a well-developed argument against the insanely long extended copyrights based exclusively on the idea that they are detrimental to the free and open exchange of ideas (read: free speech), and that the costs outweigh whatever benefits are derived from the latest extension to copyrights would have at least as much of a chance in court as does the current arguement. I also think that someone needs to point out, in response to the justices' repeated questions about the ensuing copyright chaos that would follow a decision against the mouse act, that chaos already reigns supreme in the world of copyrights. Patents and trademarks are fairly well tracked, but copyrights are most certainly not. If they want to keep copyrights more simple, strike down every single extension and go back to the original 14 years. (I think it was 14, could be wrong - too lazy to double check) If the whole of Disney's entertainment empire rests squarely on its control over an imaginary rodent, then perhaps the investors should re-evaluate their portfolios.
Put simply, if your business sucks, no amount of legislation can keep you afloat forever, and shame on those elected officials who would help you at the expensive of those they (supposedly) represent.
Slashdot Mirror
"declare war against countries which actively shield Al Quaeda."
t c that we've had laying around for so long that they've gotten lost. We're so used to having things around that could destroy the planet, that we don't even think twice when they turn up missing. I tend to wonder if any fully intact ICBMs are missing from their silos. Somehow, it just wouldn't surprise me at this point.
Excellent idea! Now we just need to get Congress to approve declarations of war against... Afghanistan, Indonesia, Iran, Syria, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, Palestine... oh wait, doesn't exist yet... Egypt, Jordan, Chechnya, Georgia (the country - relax you southerners...), and about a dozen or so other countries I can't think of offhand. You were talking about going after every single member of Al Qaeda who's being shielded by a recognized government, right? And don't forget to throw in France, Germany, and most of the rest of Europe, when they refuse to extradite suspected members of Al Qaeda to the US because they know we'll almost certainly execute them.
As for us declaring war on terrorism, let me summerize what that means. When using the phrase, "The War on ______ ", you have to understand what it means. To fully understand the situation, look at all the other "The War on _____"'s that we already have: The War on crime|AIDS|cancer|drugs|etc. Basically, when we don't like something, our politicians (usually the resident president) declare "war" on it. We never actually do anything to address the problem, the causes, or treat the effects; we just declare war on it. We've not cleaned up (or even made a difference in) crime, AIDS, drugs, or most others. We've only made progress in cancer treatment because there's so many different kinds of cancer, so the cancer industry doesn't have to worry about wiping out its cash-cow. So yes, "The War on terrorism" is going to last forever, will never end, will never get better, and will continue costing us, the taxpayers, money. Why? There's a hell of allot more money in "treating" the problem (biometric scanners, dBases, baggage screeners, radiation detection, bomb detection, etc) then there is in solving it.
Should we sit here and do nothing after Sept 11? Absolutely not; we should do something about it, but declaring "war" on it to make Americans feel warm and fuzzy again doesn't solve a thing. Find the causes, work to eliminate them; find the instigators, stop them from gathering followers; and for God's sake, find the missing anthrax/bombs/cesium/uranium/plutonium/smallpox/e
It's nice to see that the $50 I recently gave 'em when I joined is being put to good use. Perhaps it's time for another donation.
For those complaining about the ACLU and what they do, just remember that you don't have to like it for it to be just and Constitutionally correct. We may not like that Tim McVeigh got a fair trial, (I'm sure plenty would have liked to have seen him strung up in the middle of town and set on fire), but you've got to admit that it's what our laws, our traditions, and our Constitution mandate.
When I was considering joining the ACLU a few months ago, I looked through their various legal battles as part of my consideration. Some of the battles they fought quite frankly pissed me off (as I didn't agree in the least bit with what was being done), but when I sat down and thought about it from a Constitutional standpoint, I couldn't argue against that for which they fought. Just remember, that when the rights of any one citizen are in danger, no matter how scummy or worthless they may seem to us, all of us have our rights endangered.
I, for one, and a very proud member of the ACLU. I'm proud to be a part of an organization of folks who, above all else, believe that our laws, our freedoms, and our Constitution must be protected at all costs. To live without freedom is to not live at all. Every man and woman who has fought in a war for this country has laid their life on the line protecting the freedom that we now enjoy. Obviously, to them (as it was to the founders of our nation), freedom is more important than life. If you ever question that ideal, ask yourself this question: Would you want your children to live in a society such as that which existed under the Taliban, or even that which exists today in communist China; where freedom of thought, word, and deed are rare? Assuming you don't, ask yourself if you'd be willing to give your life; if you're prepared to die to ensure your children have the freedoms you grew up with...
Think about that for a while...
"and detaining citizenz, it'd be another matter."
You mean like this?
Hate to tell ya, but we're already there. Thank God some people (and some judges/Congresscritters) are starting to come to their senses about all this. People somehow seem to like rash overreactions in times of crisis, rather than clear, rational thought. It's absolutely amazing that the Declaration of Independence and the US Constitution ever came into being in such a time.
From the mentioned article, "Federal prosecutors disagree, saying Padilla, 31, is a DANGEROUS AGENT of AL QAEDA, the ISLAMIC TERRORIST group believed to be behind the SEPTEMBER 11 TERRORIST ATTACKS." (Emph mine)
Wow, in one sentence, we have 8 keywords: dangerous, agent, Al Qaeda, islamic, terrorist, september 11, terrorist, attacks. That's quite a feat, and pretty much the only justification for holding him in the first place. Hang on to your hats, folks... looks like "Dubyah" hired some M$ PR folks to spread his little FUD campaign to keep him riding high on his little power trip. A little side note to boot: Ashcroft made 17 television appearances in the 3 months before Padilla's "arrest", (he's a media-hound) and has made 1 in the three months after Padilla's arrest and his grand announcement on national TV about the "unfolding terrorist plot". Gee, sound like maybe he fscked up?
"there's no grand event that signifies the moment of crossing."
For some reason, I think I remember reading that as matter crosses the event horizon, it's stripped apart at the subatomic level (I suppose due to extreme gravitational forces) and that matter is shot inwards (towards the singulatity), while anti-matter is shot outwards away from the singulatiry. Please do correct me if I'm wrong, but I can look up wherever I read that if you'd like.
You know, there's some poor bastard out there reading this on a machine running Minix who just read the line, "no one's used it since 1996". Imagine for a moment, if you will, how that person must feel right now...
Round and round my Mozilla tab goes..
Loading? No one really knows..
Is it just me, or did the guy in the picture in that article look like a damn corpse?
You know, I just realized I needed to put a disclaimer on that...
Disclaimer: Please folks, no "3. blow the professor" jokes.
1. Write a paper on something that doesn't yet exist. ...???
2. References: none
3.
4. Get an A+ on the paper
"The diskspace used by the journal file in NTFS and this new filesystem can be put to much better use."
You mean like empty cluster tips?
NTFS might use a good amount of space, but you make up for allot of that just based on the smaller cluster sizes. Take a large directory (20,000+ files, 10GB+), put it on a Win2k machine with NTFS, then another with FAT32. Right click -> properties. Size on Disk says it all.
The Constitution doesn't even do that. It merely provides citizens with the right to form a militia. Considering the fact that many of the founders were very much against having a standing army at all, it's not surprising to see an amendment which forces the federal government to accept the legality of citizen-run militias. The resident President has decided that the Constitution gives anyone and everyone the right to own, carry, use, play with, toy with, or do what-have-you with a gun. That's not what was intended; you have to look at the context.
What it all comes down to is this: the founders wanted to ensure that the citizens of the United States of America had the ability to organize a defense against any foreign aggressor or domestic rebellion. This ensured that no group of pacifistic or disloyal officials could allow the US to be overrun by an aggressor by denying citizens the right to defense of their country by locking them up for organizing militias.
That being said, I fail to see where it is the responsibility or duty of the federal government to make laws or decisions on what items a person may buy in his or her own state. Our Constitution is one of enumerated powers; what you see is what you get. Congress is given the power to regulate interstate commerce. If I buy a gun at a local store, it doesn't qualify. Now, my state can certainly regulate which and how many weapons I may purchase, and they may also bar me for specific reasons (such as criminal background). What I see all too often lately is the federal government thinking it somehow has control over all the states. Reading the Constitution, one ought to get the feeling that the federal government was created specifically to carry out the tasks that would have caused individual states to argue amoungst themselves (such as interstate commerce). The idea being: let them argue in the congress, and let the law made there stand as law everywhere. What a state decides to let its own citizens do within the confines of that state should not be regulated by the federal government - and when it is, that state's very sovereignty is at stake. We are citizens of our state first, our nation second, our planet third. The US Constitution is a convenient arrangement between numerous seperate and soveriegn states.
"think that none of the ISPs actually run the fiber that your data goes on from city to city."
AOL, Comcast, @Home, UUnet, MCI Worldcom, Digex, Qwest... amoung many others that run their own networks from city to city. @Home had a lovely map of the fiber they owned, including OC-3's, OC-12's, etc criss-crossing the country. Anyone got a link to that old picture?
"I wonder why they'd be pushing cable as a better solution to dialup... oh yeah, that's because it is."
:-)
Yet another AC response from someone who imagines that everyone in the world must be just like them. Better solution? How about for the person who signs on for less than 5 hours a month, just to check a hotmail account every night and email friends? How about for someone who signs on to chat with a relative who's far away for 15 minutes every couple of days? People who aren't using the internet very much are much better off with dial-up. A Netzero account will suffice for a large number of people, saving them *survey says* $45/mo over the cost of broadband.
Welcome to the real world, have a nice day.
"They are great to get started, like diapers."
Are you insinuating that AOL users frequently piss themselves?
I'm more worried about Comcast owning the internet. They already own a major portion of the US cable market, and they're offering broadband to all those customers. In fact, they're pushing it rather heavily as a better solution than dial-up.
"Good-bye"
*Obi-Wan voice*
"It's as if millions of voices cried out at once, and then suddenly went silent."
If I run a commercial site, where does the responsibility end? Must the site be made accessible to the blind? How about those who are blind and deaf? And how about those who are blind, deaf, mute, and paralyzed from the neck down? There's always someone who will be discriminated against because of their disability. It wouldn't be called a disability if you were able to do whatever you wanted. I'm not indifferent to the needs of the disabled, and I can certainly understand having businesses make a reasonable effort to accommodate the disabled as best as possible; but where do you draw the line?
My point is that no one needs to use the internet. People got along just fine before internet use was popular. Now we have a great convenience to do everything from ordering pizza to booking flights online. Does this mean that everyone must by law be able to use these conveniences? We don't allow the blind to fly airplanes, nor do we allow multiple amputees to fly the space shuttle. In those cases, there's a safety hazzard, obviously, but we're still denying them that. I don't see too many blind atheletes running around either (although the ref' sometimes appears to be). Should all businesses be forced to serve a customer over the telephone who's blind, deaf, and mute? Surely it's possible to serve this customer over the phone, but you know what? People got along fine before phones as well. As a side note, I don't believe newpapers are very accessible to the blind either.
Should we bring the web experience for everyone to a lower level to make it more accessible to people? Two websites? Do you know how much more that would cost a company like Southwest Airlines? The more likely scenerio is that if they were forced to make it accessible to the blind, we'd see a very, very wattered-down, much less user-friendly website where Southwest's site used to be. I don't know about you, but I don't think it's fair to make it less accessible to millions just to make it a little more accessible to dozens. As far as the cheaper web faires, I'm sure Southwest would be happy to make a best effort to ensure they help the disabled who contact them via telephone to get the best faires possible. Has anyone even asked?
My point is simply this - we should be thankful for whatever modern conveniences we're able to make use of, as we're much better off than those who came before us. Those who are paralyzed, blind, deaf, etc are now much better off than ever before. But don't think for a moment that that entitles every single person to enjoy every single convenience. I think this is one instance where more government intervention isn't going to help matters at all.
Assuming that both the Apple campaign to switch (here) and the microsoft campaign to switch (here)
...
target the same people are are equally effective, won't this create an infinite loop amoung their customers?
Person1: I just switched to Apple because my PC kept crashing.
Person2: I just switched to Windows because it's flexible and easy.
Person1: I just switched to Windows because it's flexible and easy.
Person2: I just switched to Apple because my PC kept crashing.
Person1: I just switched to Apple because my PC kept crashing!!
Person2: I just switched to Windows because it's flexible and easy!!
Donald Becker,
With all that you've accomplished to date, how much do you think a Beowulf cluster of Donald Beckers could accomplish?
"So.. why is it OK to use a bot again?"
I never commented one way or another on my feelings about people using bots. My only comment relating to that was to say that when I first started, they were annoying, but they later became useful to me.
As far as whether or not I think it's ok to use a bot? On some things, I don't see a problem with it; such as first-person shooters (quake, UT, etc). Where I do see a problem with bots is when someone has invested significant time and energy to build up a particular character which can in some way be damaged by someone elses' use of a bot. An example here would be a MUD which allows pkilling (player killing). On a game like Quake, if you're killed by a bot, so what? You've lost nothing, just press 'fire' and you'll respawn. The only exception there would be tournament play, or clan matchs; both of which generally have very strong bot detection in place anyway, though I would say it's wrong to use a bot in that instance. Basically, in the context in which I was playing, I can see no real fault with the use of bots, unless they're making the game somehow unplayable for everyone else (spamming non-stop nukes, lagging the server, etc). In all honesty, most bots are really no different from a very good player. If you assume that no bots should be allowed to be used in a game like Quake, then you should also assume that no especially good players should be allowed either. My reasoning is that from the perspective of the other players in the game, there is no difference between a very good player and a bot. I, myself, along with many other good players I knew personally, were often accused of being bots, when in fact we were just talented and well-practiced. Whether it was me, or someone's bot slaughtering 20 mediocre players on a server made no difference to those playing, except that I usually cracked jokes throughout the game. On the other hand, as I sit here remembering how I was when I first started playing, I can understand how someone might think me a bot when they've jumped from a very high spot and get railed on their way down to the floor at a high rate of speed, especially at an odd angle.
On a lighter note, I actually considered writing a bot to practice against once. The reason was that I'd never seen a bot that made any significant use of the 'hook', while I and some others I played against made frequent use of it. The result was that when playing against bots on a server, I could practice foot-on-foot shots, hook-on-foot shots (me using the hook), but not hook-on-hook shots (by far the most difficult). My only real practice for those was against friends, which left me at less of an advantage. My saving grace was that very few people used the hook as much as I did - I actually used the hook more than walking for movement; the obvious advantages being less predictable movement, speed, momentum, and direction.
"Using a bot written by someone else to play is even lamer. That just shows you have no skill in any manner."
;)
:)
From the point of view of an outside observer, I can see this point. However, one of the things I used to do when playing Quake II: Weapons of Destruction was to hop on a server where at least a couple of bots were running around. It used to annoy the hell out of me when I found what was obviously a bot playing on a server (firing rail shots without facing you, etc), but once I started to get a bit better in the game, I began using them for practice. It's like playing against the best players in the game any time you like; after a while, that's the level on which you're playing. Once you become a difficult target for a bot, you become an nearly impossible target for a human. And if you've only got two or three chances at most to kill your target, you learn to fire accurately and quickly. The end result was that I could log on and cream some of the best players in the game at the time. It was even more fun when logging onto a server with 15 or 20 mediocre players and slaughtering all of them while they complain about how you must be a bot, because no one can move like that and fire that accurately.
Props to RAV, we were young and cocky, but hot damn we were good.
"Dealing with the RIAA?"
Well, I suppose that "burn down their corporate offices, flip Rosen's car over, and handcuff yourself to the fence outside Rosen's house demanding that the RIAA be disolved" isn't the answer you were looking for?
"Moderation Totals: Offtopic=1, Total=1"
;)
oh pleeeaasse lemme get ahold of this one on M2
Apparently, Will Wheaton will star, Natalie Portman will make a brief appearance (her first "full-frontal" scene), the special effects will be rendered on a Beowulf cluster of Ti notebooks running whatever the latest beta Linux kernel is available, a new character will be created who can only say the words, "cowboy" and "neil", and the movie will end with Yoda using the force to make the entire universe disappear.
Well between the all-star cast and the killer ending, I'd say we don't have much hope of any sequels...
"Lessig's approach to go back to the copyright clause and not focus on the first amendment issues was not the right approach."
Considering the fact that the supremes basically dismissed the First Amendment approach immediately, I'd say focusing on it now would be a bit of a mistake. That being said, I think a well-developed argument against the insanely long extended copyrights based exclusively on the idea that they are detrimental to the free and open exchange of ideas (read: free speech), and that the costs outweigh whatever benefits are derived from the latest extension to copyrights would have at least as much of a chance in court as does the current arguement. I also think that someone needs to point out, in response to the justices' repeated questions about the ensuing copyright chaos that would follow a decision against the mouse act, that chaos already reigns supreme in the world of copyrights. Patents and trademarks are fairly well tracked, but copyrights are most certainly not. If they want to keep copyrights more simple, strike down every single extension and go back to the original 14 years. (I think it was 14, could be wrong - too lazy to double check) If the whole of Disney's entertainment empire rests squarely on its control over an imaginary rodent, then perhaps the investors should re-evaluate their portfolios.
Put simply, if your business sucks, no amount of legislation can keep you afloat forever, and shame on those elected officials who would help you at the expensive of those they (supposedly) represent.