Oh, I don't know. "Monsters, Inc." was actually nice - not the most original movie ever, but definitely better than anything Disney has done in the past 60 years or so.
Outside of things like Nethack etc. that have already been mentioned several times, I'd have to name the old LucasArts adventures - in particular, the ones between LOOM and Sam'n'Max. (I didn't really care about the later ones like CoMI etc., and neither the earlier ones either really.)
Nice strawman you have there, but the guild wasn't "limited to GLBT", it was GLBT-*friendly*. In other words, everyone would've been welcome, as long as they were willing to accept that not everyone's a straight, no-sex-before-marriage, missionary-style, condoms-are-evil kind of bible-(t)humping idiot.
Huh? Since when is forming a GLBT-friendly guild "shoving it in everyones [sic] face"? That's so idiotic and trollish on so many levels that I probably shouldn't even reply to this, but considering the fact that you managed to impress some poor moderators enough to mod up your post, I feel the need to do so, anyway.
But, sheesh, just *think* about what you said for a moment (assuming you have some kind of organ at least vaguely resembling a brain), and then try to say again with a straight face that opening a GLBT-friendly guild is shoving it in "everyones" face.
If you can do that... hey, I'm pretty sure Rush Limbaugh would enjoy an intern willing to kiss his ass. You just might have a career in right-wing talk radio or republican politics...
When someone becomes President, the title "President" stays with him for life, even when he's not in office anymore, so "President Clinton" is not only perfectly OK, but actually correct, too.
Hmm, seems that the article redirects to itself when you block cookies, essentially causing the page to reload forever and ever. Can you say "automatic slashdotting"?:)
1. Become Call yourself an "analyst". 2. Randomly select any technology, platform, website or whatever that's currently "en vogue" - let's call that X. 3. Declare that Google will / should (your choice) enter the X market / create a competitor to X. 4. PROFIT!!!
Many game endings can also be seen in the tool-assisted game movies on http://bisqwit.iki.fi/nesvideos/ . In fact, you get more than just the endings there - you also get to see the entire games, played perfectly (or at least nearly so).
(And for the record, no, I'm not affiliated with that site in any way or shape at all - I'm just a fan who enjoys those movies.)
I think the commentor right above you has hit the nail on the head, though: there is a well-known, standard way to prevent these things from happening (robots.txt and meta tags), so if you choose not to use those tools, you're granting people an implicit license index your stuff. As he said - if you leave a bowl of candy on the front lawn on the 31st of October, are you going to sue kids that help themselves to it? Probably not, and even if you did, you likely wouldn't win. Everybody knows that these things happen at Halloween, so you wouldn't have a case.
Another example (this time one of my own): if you go to a doctor who says "I'm going to give you a flu shot now", and if he then proceeds to do just that, can you sue him because you did not explicitely said "I allow you to do this"? I don't think so - you *knew* what would happen if you didn't say anything or otherwise indicate that you didn't agree to getting a flu shot. IIRC, the legal term is "concludent behaviour" (although it may be a different one in English).
Same thing applies here: if you put a web page on the web, you have to expect people to use it, and the fact that you didn't do anything to prevent that even though you easily could've means that you don't have a case later on when something someone does doesn't sit well with you. Deep links, indexing for search engines (not counting caching) and caching all fall under this.
Re:Not jump on the "Guild Wars is freeee" bandwago
on
MMOGs Branch Out
·
· Score: 1
I second that. I play Guild Wars on occasion, but by no means often; on average, I'd say I don't log in more than once a month or so to spend an evening there with friends.
With WoW or EQ, that would simply be impossible, as I'd have to pay a significant amount each month that would not decrease no matter how little I actually played. Guild Wars, on the other hand, allows me to do this without losing a fortune.
So it's Guild Wars for me, and Blizzard and Sony lost a sale each.
Oh! But can't you see that we're in a war on terrorism? A war on a tactic, with no clearly-defined enemy, no location where it's taking place, no fighting, and - most importantly - not even a clear condition whereby we could determine that we have won it...
What Gonzales means is "we (that is, the president and administration) have the right to do whatever we want, all the time, without any boundaries, oversight, or responsibility".
The strange thing about that, though, is that it should be obvious that this statement, no matter how you take it, will not only affect Dubya and future republican presidents, but Democrats as well. I'm not sure what he's thinking, but does he really want to give that kind of power to his enemies? The answer is obviously no - so what will he do to ensure that all future presidents will be republicans? Rigging the elections is a good idea, and it has been proven to work at least twice now (and there wasn't even a big outcry anymore the second time), but is that all?
I'd say that the chance of *finding* life on this planet is essentially zero, anyway, simply because it's essentially zero for just about any planet we find - how are you going to take a close enough look to determine whether there's life at a rock that's so far away that it's almost impossible to even register that it's there at all?
The chance of life *existing*, of course, is another matter...
Google is also censoring its (not "it's", BTW) search results in the USA. Just try searching for "kazaa", and you'll get a notice about how they were forced to do so under the DMCA.
Is Google being evil by complying with the USA's censorship laws?
Why is this evil? Well, easy: censoring information (even when you're announcing you're doing so) in order to ensure freedom of information is just like, say, fighting for peace. You can always argue "if I hadn't done it, somebody else would, and they probably would've been even worse", but in the end, it's not going to get you anywhere.
Phrased another way - do you vote? If so, why? Your own vote is not going to change anything, so you could just as well stay home and laugh at all those idiots who invest time and energy into doing something that's ultimately pointless, right? But you don't do that, and you don't because while your own vote may not make a difference on its own, voting *overall* still is important and can change things (even if it's just choosing your poison, if you're in the USA). The same is true here: of course Google isn't able to really accomplish anything on their own, but it's the very fact that *everyone* is arguing like that that is the problem.
War simply wouldn't happen if everyone refused to fight. And censorship simply wouldn't happen if everyone refused to censor. You may not be able to influence everyone else, but you can at least do what *you* can and stick to your personal (corporate) ethics rather than making lame excuses about why what you're doing is OK when you full well know it isn't.
You can't have it both ways. Either a high population density is bad (and a low population density good) because you need land mass to grow renewable sources, or a low population density is bad (and a high one good) because you need to get the energy to where people actually are.
So, which is it?
Also, one might add that the population densities of Sweden (20/km^2) and the USA (32/km^2) are not that different really, and that in Sweden, people are pretty much concentrated in one or two general areas, too - namely, in the lower and middle parts. In fact, I'd say that overall, they're more concentrated in Sweden than they are in the USA, since about the only state I can think of in the USA that really has a low population density is Alaska.
You don't need a geothermal plant to heat a house, though. A friend of mine is just in the process of building a new house, using geothermal heating, and all it seems to require is a deep hole (a few hundred meters) drilled into the ground from his basement, filled with a special fluid, and some extra equipment to make use of the heat gained. I don't know the details about how it works, but the only external energy he'll need to heat his house now is some electricity to run the equipment.
It's pretty cool really, and I imagine that in a place like Iceland with lots of volcanic activity etc., it'd be even easier to heat your home this way, as you probably (I'm just guessing, though) wouldn't have to drill as deep.
Of course, you can't just get rid of every oil-based heating system in the country overnight, but that's why they're aiming for 2050, I guess...:)
The problem with nuclear power is not just the waste, though - it's also that uranium, too, is a natural resource that will be depleted sooner or later. Most people who push for nuclear power as the single alternative to everything we have now tend to conveniently ignore that.
Besides, he could just drive another mile to any other grade school and commit his felonies there.
You have to look at these things in terms of agenda. School officials are (probably) fully aware that they won't be able to stop child abductions, but if they can make sure they child abductions only happen at *other* schools instead of theirs, then they're fine with that - if the sh*t hits the fan, it won't be hitting their fan, at least, and none of *them* will lose their jobs or anything.
Furthermore, even *if* something happens at their school, they'll be able to point to this system and say "don't say we didn't do anything - we did!", which might also save their own asses. And that, ultimately, is all they care about - it's all pretty much everyone ever cares about.
There's no 16 billion junk IPs, simply because there's no 16 billion IPs, at least not as long as you limit yourself to IPv4 (which I assume we do). About one quarter of that address space is reserved, anyway, and then there's a few subnets (10.0.0.0/8, 127.0.0.0/8, 172.16.0.0/12 and 192.168.0.0/16, at least) which are also not for public use, so that leaves you with less than three billion IP addresses. Still a lot of junk in there, of course, but I'd say "try to attack the boxes attached to random IPs" still won't just work, but will in fact work better than trying phish for "valid" IP addresses. (With "work better" as in "require less effort and yield results faster".)
Slashdot Mirror
Oh, I don't know. "Monsters, Inc." was actually nice - not the most original movie ever, but definitely better than anything Disney has done in the past 60 years or so.
Another solution is to use TOR. It's a bit flaky when you want to download big files, but it does work beautifully.
Outside of things like Nethack etc. that have already been mentioned several times, I'd have to name the old LucasArts adventures - in particular, the ones between LOOM and Sam'n'Max. (I didn't really care about the later ones like CoMI etc., and neither the earlier ones either really.)
Nice strawman you have there, but the guild wasn't "limited to GLBT", it was GLBT-*friendly*. In other words, everyone would've been welcome, as long as they were willing to accept that not everyone's a straight, no-sex-before-marriage, missionary-style, condoms-are-evil kind of bible-(t)humping idiot.
Huh? Since when is forming a GLBT-friendly guild "shoving it in everyones [sic] face"? That's so idiotic and trollish on so many levels that I probably shouldn't even reply to this, but considering the fact that you managed to impress some poor moderators enough to mod up your post, I feel the need to do so, anyway.
But, sheesh, just *think* about what you said for a moment (assuming you have some kind of organ at least vaguely resembling a brain), and then try to say again with a straight face that opening a GLBT-friendly guild is shoving it in "everyones" face.
If you can do that... hey, I'm pretty sure Rush Limbaugh would enjoy an intern willing to kiss his ass. You just might have a career in right-wing talk radio or republican politics...
Search for "kazaa", for example...
Not just supposedly - that is an actual verified quote from an interview with Gustave Gilbert.
When someone becomes President, the title "President" stays with him for life, even when he's not in office anymore, so "President Clinton" is not only perfectly OK, but actually correct, too.
At least get the facts right, you stupid troll.
Hmm, seems that the article redirects to itself when you block cookies, essentially causing the page to reload forever and ever. Can you say "automatic slashdotting"? :)
Now we know the final step:
1. Become Call yourself an "analyst".
2. Randomly select any technology, platform, website or whatever that's currently "en vogue" - let's call that X.
3. Declare that Google will / should (your choice) enter the X market / create a competitor to X.
4. PROFIT!!!
Many game endings can also be seen in the tool-assisted game movies on http://bisqwit.iki.fi/nesvideos/ . In fact, you get more than just the endings there - you also get to see the entire games, played perfectly (or at least nearly so).
(And for the record, no, I'm not affiliated with that site in any way or shape at all - I'm just a fan who enjoys those movies.)
I think the commentor right above you has hit the nail on the head, though: there is a well-known, standard way to prevent these things from happening (robots.txt and meta tags), so if you choose not to use those tools, you're granting people an implicit license index your stuff. As he said - if you leave a bowl of candy on the front lawn on the 31st of October, are you going to sue kids that help themselves to it? Probably not, and even if you did, you likely wouldn't win. Everybody knows that these things happen at Halloween, so you wouldn't have a case.
Another example (this time one of my own): if you go to a doctor who says "I'm going to give you a flu shot now", and if he then proceeds to do just that, can you sue him because you did not explicitely said "I allow you to do this"? I don't think so - you *knew* what would happen if you didn't say anything or otherwise indicate that you didn't agree to getting a flu shot. IIRC, the legal term is "concludent behaviour" (although it may be a different one in English).
Same thing applies here: if you put a web page on the web, you have to expect people to use it, and the fact that you didn't do anything to prevent that even though you easily could've means that you don't have a case later on when something someone does doesn't sit well with you. Deep links, indexing for search engines (not counting caching) and caching all fall under this.
Still doesn't beat Monkey Trauma Center, though.
I second that. I play Guild Wars on occasion, but by no means often; on average, I'd say I don't log in more than once a month or so to spend an evening there with friends.
With WoW or EQ, that would simply be impossible, as I'd have to pay a significant amount each month that would not decrease no matter how little I actually played. Guild Wars, on the other hand, allows me to do this without losing a fortune.
So it's Guild Wars for me, and Blizzard and Sony lost a sale each.
Oh! But can't you see that we're in a war on terrorism? A war on a tactic, with no clearly-defined enemy, no location where it's taking place, no fighting, and - most importantly - not even a clear condition whereby we could determine that we have won it...
What Gonzales means is "we (that is, the president and administration) have the right to do whatever we want, all the time, without any boundaries, oversight, or responsibility".
The strange thing about that, though, is that it should be obvious that this statement, no matter how you take it, will not only affect Dubya and future republican presidents, but Democrats as well. I'm not sure what he's thinking, but does he really want to give that kind of power to his enemies? The answer is obviously no - so what will he do to ensure that all future presidents will be republicans? Rigging the elections is a good idea, and it has been proven to work at least twice now (and there wasn't even a big outcry anymore the second time), but is that all?
What *does* he really have planned?
I'd say that the chance of *finding* life on this planet is essentially zero, anyway, simply because it's essentially zero for just about any planet we find - how are you going to take a close enough look to determine whether there's life at a rock that's so far away that it's almost impossible to even register that it's there at all?
The chance of life *existing*, of course, is another matter...
Google is also censoring its (not "it's", BTW) search results in the USA. Just try searching for "kazaa", and you'll get a notice about how they were forced to do so under the DMCA.
Is Google being evil by complying with the USA's censorship laws?
Why is this evil? Well, easy: censoring information (even when you're announcing you're doing so) in order to ensure freedom of information is just like, say, fighting for peace. You can always argue "if I hadn't done it, somebody else would, and they probably would've been even worse", but in the end, it's not going to get you anywhere.
Phrased another way - do you vote? If so, why? Your own vote is not going to change anything, so you could just as well stay home and laugh at all those idiots who invest time and energy into doing something that's ultimately pointless, right? But you don't do that, and you don't because while your own vote may not make a difference on its own, voting *overall* still is important and can change things (even if it's just choosing your poison, if you're in the USA). The same is true here: of course Google isn't able to really accomplish anything on their own, but it's the very fact that *everyone* is arguing like that that is the problem.
War simply wouldn't happen if everyone refused to fight. And censorship simply wouldn't happen if everyone refused to censor. You may not be able to influence everyone else, but you can at least do what *you* can and stick to your personal (corporate) ethics rather than making lame excuses about why what you're doing is OK when you full well know it isn't.
I'm pretty sure you don't want to know.
You can't have it both ways. Either a high population density is bad (and a low population density good) because you need land mass to grow renewable sources, or a low population density is bad (and a high one good) because you need to get the energy to where people actually are.
So, which is it?
Also, one might add that the population densities of Sweden (20/km^2) and the USA (32/km^2) are not that different really, and that in Sweden, people are pretty much concentrated in one or two general areas, too - namely, in the lower and middle parts. In fact, I'd say that overall, they're more concentrated in Sweden than they are in the USA, since about the only state I can think of in the USA that really has a low population density is Alaska.
You don't need a geothermal plant to heat a house, though. A friend of mine is just in the process of building a new house, using geothermal heating, and all it seems to require is a deep hole (a few hundred meters) drilled into the ground from his basement, filled with a special fluid, and some extra equipment to make use of the heat gained. I don't know the details about how it works, but the only external energy he'll need to heat his house now is some electricity to run the equipment.
:)
It's pretty cool really, and I imagine that in a place like Iceland with lots of volcanic activity etc., it'd be even easier to heat your home this way, as you probably (I'm just guessing, though) wouldn't have to drill as deep.
Of course, you can't just get rid of every oil-based heating system in the country overnight, but that's why they're aiming for 2050, I guess...
The problem with nuclear power is not just the waste, though - it's also that uranium, too, is a natural resource that will be depleted sooner or later. Most people who push for nuclear power as the single alternative to everything we have now tend to conveniently ignore that.
You have to look at these things in terms of agenda. School officials are (probably) fully aware that they won't be able to stop child abductions, but if they can make sure they child abductions only happen at *other* schools instead of theirs, then they're fine with that - if the sh*t hits the fan, it won't be hitting their fan, at least, and none of *them* will lose their jobs or anything.
Furthermore, even *if* something happens at their school, they'll be able to point to this system and say "don't say we didn't do anything - we did!", which might also save their own asses. And that, ultimately, is all they care about - it's all pretty much everyone ever cares about.
Landover Baptist isn't anti-christian, it's anti-idiot. (And yes, that *is* a difference...)
There's no 16 billion junk IPs, simply because there's no 16 billion IPs, at least not as long as you limit yourself to IPv4 (which I assume we do). About one quarter of that address space is reserved, anyway, and then there's a few subnets (10.0.0.0/8, 127.0.0.0/8, 172.16.0.0/12 and 192.168.0.0/16, at least) which are also not for public use, so that leaves you with less than three billion IP addresses. Still a lot of junk in there, of course, but I'd say "try to attack the boxes attached to random IPs" still won't just work, but will in fact work better than trying phish for "valid" IP addresses. (With "work better" as in "require less effort and yield results faster".)