The rules apply for both companies and the government.
No, the standards for government employees should be tougher. Goverment organizations lack the Darwinian effects of market forces (survival of the fittest, dissoloution of the wasteful and weak) and therefore require
One doesn't take such a drastic step without obtaining permission from above.
Well one sure did, thank Bob. Why the hell shouldn't he out that slackass fuckwad parasite on society that was his boss? If the AL gubbmint higher-ups have a clue they'll give the guy a raise.
Even though he was a sysadmin, he should have waited until his boss' boss said that he could engage in the activity.
So what if his boss' boss is a solitaire-playing parasite on society? What then? Just lump it and let us all get screwed? With all due respect sir, fuck you.
Vigilante justice is not justice.
Jesus man, it's not like he shot him. He just outed his boss; ongoing milking of the people. You know, those that goverment workers are supposed to be working for.
Wow, I'm shocked that anyone could possibly be such a sheep. You're the problem man, really.
As has been thoroughly explained by several replies, this parent post is dangerously wrong. Moderators who modded this nonsense up to +5, and those who leave it there, are very possibly contributing to someone getting seriously injured or killed.
"Whatever. Even just watching the DVD justifies the charge, IMHO. "
Then so does:
* eating food while driving - no, can be done without looking
* smoking while driving - no, can be done without looking
* drinking anyything (even milk or water) while driving - no, can be done without looking
* DUI (drugs/alcohol) - agreed, but unless impairment is measureable (and actually measured), establishing causality is hard
* Driving while tired - agreed, though hard to establish limits on levels of tiredness, and hard to measure
* Driving while angry ("Don't drive angry - agreed, though hard to establish limits on levels of anger, and hard to measure
* Driving under any emotional duress - agreed, though hard to establish limits on levels of duress, and hard to measure
* Getting a BJ while driving - agreed, though not always apparent that such a thing was taking place at the time of an accident
* Fiddling with the CD, mp3 player, iPod, radio, etc. while driving - agreed, though not always apparent that such a thing was taking place at the time of an accident
* driving while sick - agreed, though it's difficult to measure impariment from illness
Every single one of those can be dropped in place of (allegedly) watching a DVD.
Given my comments above, that's a non-sequitir.
Now do you think tha tteh charge is appropriate?
Yes.
If so, you'd better not do any of the above. I can practically guarantee you do.
I think what you mean (or should mean) is "you'd better not do any of the above, kill someone, and leave any evidence or admission that you were doing such things while you killed someone."
Indeed, from the article:
Liz Neblett, spokeswoman for the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, said more than 25 percent of police-reported crashes are distraction related, which covers everything from cell phone use to changing channels on a radio, screaming at kids, eating, applying makeup or reading a newspaper.
OK. So? IMHO, anytime anyone does any of that and kills someone as a result, they should be charged with murder. Of course, this assumes some evidence exists (such as a confession, like the one alleged in this case.)
I'd add "talking on the police radio" or "looking up someones licesne plate number on the computer", or fiddling with the radar. But we won't talk about that, will we?
Sure, let's talk about that -- why not? Have you any stats on cases where police officers have killed someone while using a police radio or computer? I'd love to hear about such cases, especially where the officer admits or leaves some evidence of the cause of the fatal accident.
See what happens when you let your emotions get in the way.
(1) My emotions are firmly in check and (2) nothing happened. I stand by my original assertion. A murder charge is warranted.
You wind up with over-reaching charges.
Such is your opinion.
Murder is intentional killing, manslaughter is negligent killing.
There's a bit of a gray area in the middle there, when (1) you do something you know is dangerous and likely to result in serious injury or death, (2) there's no sensible reason to take the risk (such as speeding while fleeing for your life), and (3) you admit or it can be proven that your dangerous act directly resulted in the death of another.
Note:
Initial Alaska State Trooper reports said Petterson was at fault when he took his eyes off the road to reach for a soda.
Then they saw a DVD player and they changed their tune. Not unlike the
Well, considering no less than six (6) posts before yours include the same quote verbatim, with sources ranging from woodieguthrie.com to the linked article to some commercial site that actually uses the wiklipedia entry and only cites in tiny font below the ads at the end up the page, I think we can "trust Wikipedia."
Seriously, have you any examples of Wikipedia being wrong? Wikipedia does have examples of Encyclopedia Britanica being wrong. I wonder if you'd have included such a disclaimer when citing EB? How about now, after reading this?;)
Your Rights Online: DVD-Watching Driver Charged with Murder
Rights online? What, was the idot browsing the web on a wifi connection also? Watching a DVD and driving a car wasn't enough stimulus, so he needed to, er, post on slashdot? IMDB forums? download porn at the same time?
Whatever. Even just watching the DVD justifies the charge, IMHO.
Farid and his students have built a statistical model that captures the mathematical regularities inherent in natural images. Because these statistics fundamentally change when images are altered, the model can be used to detect digital tampering.
That's pretty much all the detail on the method to detect image altering. Seems reasonable, but:
1) How many real photos deviate how far from the statistical "norm" (i.e., how likely are false positives when checking for alteration?)
2) How long before there are tools that can inject the proper (expected) statistical characteristics into a faked image?
These are not addressed in the article. Anyone have more info?
Understand the risks, ans assume much worse odds than you are told. If you're still up for it, go on. If you aren't sure, wait. It keeps getting better and safer, you know.
Indeed. ATI has some support issues. For a while, they definitely had the fastest card, but stability has never been thier forte, especially compared to the likes of Matrox or nVidia.
That said, their drivers have gotten much better (I'm referring to Windows binaries only here -- the Linux drivers leave a lot to be desired,) but my point was I think ATI will have to fix this problem (if it's fixable,) not just wait for iD to fix it for them as the OP suggested.
I wouldn't be surprised that within a few months of Doom 3's release there will be a Version 1.1 of Doom 3 with internal code changes that will fully take advantage of the registers of ATI's R300 and newer graphics chipsets.
Funny, seems Carmack would:
Looking at the cream of the crop in video cards, it is painfully obvious that ATI is going to have to make some changes in their product line to stay competitive, at least with DOOM 3 gamers. There is no way for a $500 X800XT-PE to compete with a $400 6800GT when the GT is simply going to outperform the more expensive card by a good margin. I am sure ATI is trying their best to figure out their next move and it will certainly be interesting to see if their driver teams pull a rabbit out of their hat or not.
Wow, I hope you're kidding. Serious tinfoil. And such blasphemy against JC, as if he were so shallow a man! As Carmack said, it's the pipecount:
That said, it looks as if ATI's decision to scale their current line of flagship video cards by crippling the Radeon X800Pro's graphics pipelines to 12 pipes, instead of the 16 pipes of the Radeon X800XT-PE might have been a bad move, at least in terms of satisfying DOOM 3 players. NVIDIA on the other hand chose to scale from their Ultra to GT models by only decreasing the clock speed of the GPUs. The NVIDIA 6800GT certainly stood out among the crowd as its DOOM 3 framerates continually outpaced the Radeon X800XT-PE that currently has a list price that is $100 more than the GeForce 6800GT.
Look, I'm not thrilled that my more expensive ATI card won't do as well either, but tossing about silly accusations like that makes you look very bad, IMHO. If I can get over it and upgrade, so can you.
Hey, the ATI 9800, which was benchmarked in the article, is only $147 if you're in So. Cal. and $179.99 anywhere else (BestBuy, even.) GeForceFX5950 isn't much more, if not less (online.)
Yes, the ATI high end and amazingly-high-performance nVidia6800 Ultra are $500ish, but the nVidia6800GT trounced the $500 ATI card and it's $100 less. That's three choices $400 and under, two under $200!
they have only 3 cards listed in the test and none of htem are widely in use
Keep R'ing TFA -- they test (1) nVidia Geforce6800 Ultra (1st place with a bullet), (2) nVidia Geforce6800GT (strong second), (3) ATI X800XT-PE (3rd and more costly than (2)), (4) and (5) nVidia GeForceFX5950 and ATI9800XT (pretty much a tie -- ATI is a tad faster with AF [anisotopic filtering] but no AA [anti-aliasing], add in the AA and nVidia edges ahead.)
That's five, and at least two of them are what I'd call "widely in use." YMMV.
Looking at the cream of the crop in video cards, it is painfully obvious that ATI is going to have to make some changes in their product line to stay competitive, at least with DOOM 3 gamers. There is no way for a $500 [ATI] X800XT-PE to compete with a $400 [nVidia] 6800GT when the GT is simply going to outperform the more expensive card by a good margin. I am sure ATI is trying their best to figure out their next move and it will certainly be interesting to see if their driver teams pull a rabbit out of their hat or not.
All that considered, for those of you that are in the high end video card market, the GeForce 6800GT looks to very much be the sweet spot when it comes to playing DOOM 3 with all the eye candy turned on at high resolutions. Obviously the 6800 Ultra is even faster for those of you that need the best no matter the cost. If I had to make a list of high end video cards to purchase to play DOOM 3, the GeForce 6800Ultra and GeForce 6800GT would easily take the number 1 and number 2 spots with the ATI Radeon X800XT-PE rounding out the number 3 place.
nVidia's back, I guess. This will sell a lot of 6800GT's.
I'm going to wait a while, for them to get cheaper, before trading in the ATI though. Should still be playable, just not as great as I'd hoped (even the 9800 doesn't do much better than the 5950.)
Mod this -1 Offtopic if you must, but it's because of his sig:
Mod anything funny up as Underrated until the/. devs repair the mod system, or dont mod up funny at all. See Journal
Mods, it has been shown, always do the opposite of what you tell them to do in any post. Including the score (-1, +1, even moreso -5 or +5) and the proper capitalization of the moderation increase the efficiency of this method, while spelling errors in the moderation name decrease it. Hence so many posts including "I know this will be modded down, but . .." or "Mod me down if you must, but . .."
Can multi-core processors put the final nail in per-processor licensing?"
So, like a nail in a voodoo doll, MCPs are tortuting per-processor licensing? Cool as that may be, I think the saying is "put the final nail in the coffin of [ . . . ]"
Sorry for being pedantic, but it sounds funny without the coffin part.
Imagine, if you will, that I run a soup kitchen for the homeless and/or needy. Maybe a whole chain of them, in a variety of major cities. Some (undisclosed) percentage of my kitchens have, over the last few weeks, served tainted food that won't kill anyone but will make them very sick. Which kitchens, what food, and at what times, you ask?
Well I won't tell you. It's bad for business. See, I count on donations to my non-profit to keep distributing the food (a free service!) and if this accident (which killed no one!) got out, I might suffer financially and have to stop giving out my free service.
"No effing way!," You say. I have a right to know this! There should be a low! But no, nkntr has the answer to that:
It sounds like a good idea for a moment, before you think about it. First of all, the food at the soup kitchens in question is offered as free with no warranties or guarantees of anything. You eat at your own risk. Second, a person may go through several soup kitchens in a day, hundreds of people may eat at a given kitchen. Third, most people with any health have a stong immune system, so they won't die. And although this particular type of food poison is contagious, those that actually come into contact with soup-kitchen patrons are either asking for it and they know it, or wouldn't know what to do if they did get a virus. In reality, not getting sick is the responsibility of the user. True, it is absolutely insane that people hand out tainted food, but since the soup kitchens are public, there is really no way to say who does what without limiting the "for all people" part of it. The charity system is a beautiful thing because it is open to everyone, regardless.
Doesn't sound very convincing now, I'm afraid.
But wait, you say: "Unlike the food example, where bad food could kill you, a computer virus in your home machine won't"
[A computer virus won't kill you . ..] until it's used as a bot to distribute kiddie porn, and the FBI comes and knocks on your door and they throw you in jail for 50 years. Yes, yes, death is irreversible, whereas you can always get acquitted later, but it comes pretty darn close to ruining your life.
I don't think he was trolling. Yes, there are no 10k IDE drives. But his point stands: you don't really need a 10k drive (7200 + 8MB cache performance is very close, and quieter) to upgrade your CPU/mobo/RAM to play Doom3. You can do it later, if you like, or better yet wait for the drives with NCQ to see a real performance difference.
I think you based your argument on false, or at least exaggerated assumptions, and the parent post pointed that out without trolling at all.
Personally, I'm kind of looking forward to 4 player multi. The 32 player games where a random rocket will kill 3 people just because everyone's packed so close together are getting old.
So set the server to 4-player max, and let those that want their carnage have it. There's no reason, other than performance issues or lack of time to tweak netcode properly, to have such a limit enforced on doom3 when 64-player multiplayer is common and even 100-player (Joint Operations) can be done well.
Nice work but the advantages of being too lazy to update win the day: I moved 6 months ago (to another place in Natick,) and my current car is dary grey. But the last name's right.:)
Your point is well taken, but since I know I make no effort to hide such info about me, I wouldn't be all that shocked to find that someone knows it (as I'm not in this case.)
I like the other ACs suggestion -- include just enough vague details with few enough common options each (hair/eye color, car color, some random names of "friends," etc.)
Mail that out to enough people and someone dumb enough matching enough of your guesses is bound to bite . . .
Note : - Your death has been paid for by someone you offended sometime ago and it will be adviceable that you co-operate with us a.s.a.p.
TOWOGBOLA.A.JOHNSON SECRETARY.
Oh please. "Someone" from "sometime" ago. $40k to not kill me. Riight. I guess, as the article mentions, this might be a little scary if it's, say, you're first email ever. But c'mon -- some anonymous hotmail account which has never been linked to me gets such a threat, and I'm supposed to worry enough to send $40k to a stranger? They'd need to include at least some personal info (name, address, car make/model/color, what I'm wearing and doing right now, etc.) to make it scary.
I don't see how this can work as well as the "traditional" greed-exploiting 419 scam.
And, assuming the bank account info is legit, seems like the authorities could put the smack down on this silliness pretty quickly.
That could lead to trouble dealing with businesses such as banks and major fast food companies that often check local phone listings to verify addresses.
Really? I haven't had a landline in almost 2 years (wifey and I use cellphones) and I've never had a problem getting any food delivered or banking.
My cellphone number isn't listed. I don't see why this is any different than the situation with VoIP service. The other "drawbacks" seem FUDdy too: my town 911 service uses my cellphones GPS to find me if I need it. Doesn't VoIP have a way to se location for this purpose (I think so)? Power failure isn't a problem for cellphone, of course. I guess this might be an issue for VoIP, but how often does the power fail (where I live, never had it happen in 8 years.)
Despite its drawbacks, VoIP is attracting a growing number of consumers, although significantly more people are dropping their traditional phone lines and relying solely on a cell phone, which faces many of the same drawbacks.
Again, what drawbacks? I live near Boston -- are things really that different in the rest of the country?
I've been ignoring the silly sig, but that's just a huge stretch and one abortion reference too many. Your agenda is (1) too obvious and (2) getting on my nerves.
Slashdot Mirror
The rules apply for both companies and the government.
No, the standards for government employees should be tougher. Goverment organizations lack the Darwinian effects of market forces (survival of the fittest, dissoloution of the wasteful and weak) and therefore require
One doesn't take such a drastic step without obtaining permission from above.
Well one sure did, thank Bob. Why the hell shouldn't he out that slackass fuckwad parasite on society that was his boss? If the AL gubbmint higher-ups have a clue they'll give the guy a raise.
Even though he was a sysadmin, he should have waited until his boss' boss said that he could engage in the activity.
So what if his boss' boss is a solitaire-playing parasite on society? What then? Just lump it and let us all get screwed? With all due respect sir, fuck you.
Vigilante justice is not justice.
Jesus man, it's not like he shot him. He just outed his boss; ongoing milking of the people. You know, those that goverment workers are supposed to be working for.
Wow, I'm shocked that anyone could possibly be such a sheep. You're the problem man, really.
As has been thoroughly explained by several replies, this parent post is dangerously wrong. Moderators who modded this nonsense up to +5, and those who leave it there, are very possibly contributing to someone getting seriously injured or killed.
Please fix the moderation on this misinformation.
"Whatever. Even just watching the DVD justifies the charge, IMHO. "
Then so does:
* eating food while driving - no, can be done without looking
* smoking while driving - no, can be done without looking
* drinking anyything (even milk or water) while driving - no, can be done without looking
* DUI (drugs/alcohol) - agreed, but unless impairment is measureable (and actually measured), establishing causality is hard
* Driving while tired - agreed, though hard to establish limits on levels of tiredness, and hard to measure
* Driving while angry ("Don't drive angry - agreed, though hard to establish limits on levels of anger, and hard to measure
* Driving under any emotional duress - agreed, though hard to establish limits on levels of duress, and hard to measure
* Getting a BJ while driving - agreed, though not always apparent that such a thing was taking place at the time of an accident
* Fiddling with the CD, mp3 player, iPod, radio, etc. while driving - agreed, though not always apparent that such a thing was taking place at the time of an accident
* driving while sick - agreed, though it's difficult to measure impariment from illness
Every single one of those can be dropped in place of (allegedly) watching a DVD.
Given my comments above, that's a non-sequitir.
Now do you think tha tteh charge is appropriate?
Yes.
If so, you'd better not do any of the above. I can practically guarantee you do.
I think what you mean (or should mean) is "you'd better not do any of the above, kill someone, and leave any evidence or admission that you were doing such things while you killed someone."
Indeed, from the article: Liz Neblett, spokeswoman for the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, said more than 25 percent of police-reported crashes are distraction related, which covers everything from cell phone use to changing channels on a radio, screaming at kids, eating, applying makeup or reading a newspaper.
OK. So? IMHO, anytime anyone does any of that and kills someone as a result, they should be charged with murder. Of course, this assumes some evidence exists (such as a confession, like the one alleged in this case.)
I'd add "talking on the police radio" or "looking up someones licesne plate number on the computer", or fiddling with the radar. But we won't talk about that, will we?
Sure, let's talk about that -- why not? Have you any stats on cases where police officers have killed someone while using a police radio or computer? I'd love to hear about such cases, especially where the officer admits or leaves some evidence of the cause of the fatal accident.
See what happens when you let your emotions get in the way.
(1) My emotions are firmly in check and (2) nothing happened. I stand by my original assertion. A murder charge is warranted.
You wind up with over-reaching charges.
Such is your opinion.
Murder is intentional killing, manslaughter is negligent killing.
There's a bit of a gray area in the middle there, when (1) you do something you know is dangerous and likely to result in serious injury or death, (2) there's no sensible reason to take the risk (such as speeding while fleeing for your life), and (3) you admit or it can be proven that your dangerous act directly resulted in the death of another.
Note: Initial Alaska State Trooper reports said Petterson was at fault when he took his eyes off the road to reach for a soda.
Then they saw a DVD player and they changed their tune. Not unlike the
Well, considering no less than six (6) posts before yours include the same quote verbatim, with sources ranging from woodieguthrie.com to the linked article to some commercial site that actually uses the wiklipedia entry and only cites in tiny font below the ads at the end up the page, I think we can "trust Wikipedia."
;)
Seriously, have you any examples of Wikipedia being wrong? Wikipedia does have examples of Encyclopedia Britanica being wrong. I wonder if you'd have included such a disclaimer when citing EB? How about now, after reading this?
Your Rights Online: DVD-Watching Driver Charged with Murder
Rights online? What, was the idot browsing the web on a wifi connection also? Watching a DVD and driving a car wasn't enough stimulus, so he needed to, er, post on slashdot? IMDB forums? download porn at the same time?
Whatever. Even just watching the DVD justifies the charge, IMHO.
Sounds cool. Why don't you test it on your kid? Let us know how it works out.
Farid and his students have built a statistical model that captures the mathematical regularities inherent in natural images. Because these statistics fundamentally change when images are altered, the model can be used to detect digital tampering.
That's pretty much all the detail on the method to detect image altering. Seems reasonable, but:
1) How many real photos deviate how far from the statistical "norm" (i.e., how likely are false positives when checking for alteration?)
2) How long before there are tools that can inject the proper (expected) statistical characteristics into a faked image?
These are not addressed in the article. Anyone have more info?
Avoid frauds and unrealistic expectations.
Understand the risks, ans assume much worse odds than you are told. If you're still up for it, go on. If you aren't sure, wait. It keeps getting better and safer, you know.
Good luck!
Indeed. ATI has some support issues. For a while, they definitely had the fastest card, but stability has never been thier forte, especially compared to the likes of Matrox or nVidia.
That said, their drivers have gotten much better (I'm referring to Windows binaries only here -- the Linux drivers leave a lot to be desired,) but my point was I think ATI will have to fix this problem (if it's fixable,) not just wait for iD to fix it for them as the OP suggested.
I wouldn't be surprised that within a few months of Doom 3's release there will be a Version 1.1 of Doom 3 with internal code changes that will fully take advantage of the registers of ATI's R300 and newer graphics chipsets.
Funny, seems Carmack would:
Looking at the cream of the crop in video cards, it is painfully obvious that ATI is going to have to make some changes in their product line to stay competitive, at least with DOOM 3 gamers. There is no way for a $500 X800XT-PE to compete with a $400 6800GT when the GT is simply going to outperform the more expensive card by a good margin. I am sure ATI is trying their best to figure out their next move and it will certainly be interesting to see if their driver teams pull a rabbit out of their hat or not.
Wow, I hope you're kidding. Serious tinfoil. And such blasphemy against JC, as if he were so shallow a man! As Carmack said, it's the pipecount:
That said, it looks as if ATI's decision to scale their current line of flagship video cards by crippling the Radeon X800Pro's graphics pipelines to 12 pipes, instead of the 16 pipes of the Radeon X800XT-PE might have been a bad move, at least in terms of satisfying DOOM 3 players. NVIDIA on the other hand chose to scale from their Ultra to GT models by only decreasing the clock speed of the GPUs. The NVIDIA 6800GT certainly stood out among the crowd as its DOOM 3 framerates continually outpaced the Radeon X800XT-PE that currently has a list price that is $100 more than the GeForce 6800GT.
Look, I'm not thrilled that my more expensive ATI card won't do as well either, but tossing about silly accusations like that makes you look very bad, IMHO. If I can get over it and upgrade, so can you.
Hey, the ATI 9800, which was benchmarked in the article, is only $147 if you're in So. Cal. and $179.99 anywhere else (BestBuy, even.) GeForceFX5950 isn't much more, if not less (online.)
Yes, the ATI high end and amazingly-high-performance nVidia6800 Ultra are $500ish, but the nVidia6800GT trounced the $500 ATI card and it's $100 less. That's three choices $400 and under, two under $200!
they have only 3 cards listed in the test and none of htem are widely in use
Keep R'ing TFA -- they test (1) nVidia Geforce6800 Ultra (1st place with a bullet), (2) nVidia Geforce6800GT (strong second), (3) ATI X800XT-PE (3rd and more costly than (2)), (4) and (5) nVidia GeForceFX5950 and ATI9800XT (pretty much a tie -- ATI is a tad faster with AF [anisotopic filtering] but no AA [anti-aliasing], add in the AA and nVidia edges ahead.)
That's five, and at least two of them are what I'd call "widely in use." YMMV.
Looking at the cream of the crop in video cards, it is painfully obvious that ATI is going to have to make some changes in their product line to stay competitive, at least with DOOM 3 gamers. There is no way for a $500 [ATI] X800XT-PE to compete with a $400 [nVidia] 6800GT when the GT is simply going to outperform the more expensive card by a good margin. I am sure ATI is trying their best to figure out their next move and it will certainly be interesting to see if their driver teams pull a rabbit out of their hat or not.
All that considered, for those of you that are in the high end video card market, the GeForce 6800GT looks to very much be the sweet spot when it comes to playing DOOM 3 with all the eye candy turned on at high resolutions. Obviously the 6800 Ultra is even faster for those of you that need the best no matter the cost. If I had to make a list of high end video cards to purchase to play DOOM 3, the GeForce 6800Ultra and GeForce 6800GT would easily take the number 1 and number 2 spots with the ATI Radeon X800XT-PE rounding out the number 3 place.
nVidia's back, I guess. This will sell a lot of 6800GT's.
I'm going to wait a while, for them to get cheaper, before trading in the ATI though. Should still be playable, just not as great as I'd hoped (even the 9800 doesn't do much better than the 5950.)
You picked the wrong kind. Try these. Many varieties are quite tasty, though they're much more popular in Japan than the West in my experience.
Mod this -1 Offtopic if you must, but it's because of his sig:
/. devs repair the mod system, or dont mod up funny at all. See Journal
." or "Mod me down if you must, but . . ."
:)
Mod anything funny up as Underrated until the
Mods, it has been shown, always do the opposite of what you tell them to do in any post. Including the score (-1, +1, even moreso -5 or +5) and the proper capitalization of the moderation increase the efficiency of this method, while spelling errors in the moderation name decrease it. Hence so many posts including "I know this will be modded down, but . .
And, hence my opening line
Can multi-core processors put the final nail in per-processor licensing?"
So, like a nail in a voodoo doll, MCPs are tortuting per-processor licensing? Cool as that may be, I think the saying is "put the final nail in the coffin of [ . . . ]"
Sorry for being pedantic, but it sounds funny without the coffin part.
Imagine, if you will, that I run a soup kitchen for the homeless and/or needy. Maybe a whole chain of them, in a variety of major cities. Some (undisclosed) percentage of my kitchens have, over the last few weeks, served tainted food that won't kill anyone but will make them very sick. Which kitchens, what food, and at what times, you ask? Well I won't tell you. It's bad for business. See, I count on donations to my non-profit to keep distributing the food (a free service!) and if this accident (which killed no one!) got out, I might suffer financially and have to stop giving out my free service.
.] until it's used as a bot to distribute kiddie porn, and the FBI comes and knocks on your door and they throw you in jail for 50 years. Yes, yes, death is irreversible, whereas you can always get acquitted later, but it comes pretty darn close to ruining your life.
"No effing way!," You say. I have a right to know this! There should be a low! But no, nkntr has the answer to that:
It sounds like a good idea for a moment, before you think about it. First of all, the food at the soup kitchens in question is offered as free with no warranties or guarantees of anything. You eat at your own risk. Second, a person may go through several soup kitchens in a day, hundreds of people may eat at a given kitchen. Third, most people with any health have a stong immune system, so they won't die. And although this particular type of food poison is contagious, those that actually come into contact with soup-kitchen patrons are either asking for it and they know it, or wouldn't know what to do if they did get a virus. In reality, not getting sick is the responsibility of the user. True, it is absolutely insane that people hand out tainted food, but since the soup kitchens are public, there is really no way to say who does what without limiting the "for all people" part of it. The charity system is a beautiful thing because it is open to everyone, regardless.
Doesn't sound very convincing now, I'm afraid.
But wait, you say: "Unlike the food example, where bad food could kill you, a computer virus in your home machine won't"
Oh, but like jdreed1024 said:
[A computer virus won't kill you . .
I don't think he was trolling. Yes, there are no 10k IDE drives. But his point stands: you don't really need a 10k drive (7200 + 8MB cache performance is very close, and quieter) to upgrade your CPU/mobo/RAM to play Doom3. You can do it later, if you like, or better yet wait for the drives with NCQ to see a real performance difference.
I think you based your argument on false, or at least exaggerated assumptions, and the parent post pointed that out without trolling at all.
10x sized maps - 128 player, anyone?
Here you go.
Personally, I'm kind of looking forward to 4 player multi. The 32 player games where a random rocket will kill 3 people just because everyone's packed so close together are getting old.
So set the server to 4-player max, and let those that want their carnage have it. There's no reason, other than performance issues or lack of time to tweak netcode properly, to have such a limit enforced on doom3 when 64-player multiplayer is common and even 100-player (Joint Operations) can be done well.
Nice work but the advantages of being too lazy to update win the day: I moved 6 months ago (to another place in Natick,) and my current car is dary grey. But the last name's right. :)
Your point is well taken, but since I know I make no effort to hide such info about me, I wouldn't be all that shocked to find that someone knows it (as I'm not in this case.)
I like the other ACs suggestion -- include just enough vague details with few enough common options each (hair/eye color, car color, some random names of "friends," etc.)
Mail that out to enough people and someone dumb enough matching enough of your guesses is bound to bite . . .
Note : - Your death has been paid for by someone you offended sometime ago and it will be adviceable that you co-operate with us a.s.a.p.
.A.JOHNSON SECRETARY.
TOWOGBOLA
Oh please. "Someone" from "sometime" ago. $40k to not kill me. Riight. I guess, as the article mentions, this might be a little scary if it's, say, you're first email ever. But c'mon -- some anonymous hotmail account which has never been linked to me gets such a threat, and I'm supposed to worry enough to send $40k to a stranger? They'd need to include at least some personal info (name, address, car make/model/color, what I'm wearing and doing right now, etc.) to make it scary.
I don't see how this can work as well as the "traditional" greed-exploiting 419 scam.
And, assuming the bank account info is legit, seems like the authorities could put the smack down on this silliness pretty quickly.
That could lead to trouble dealing with businesses such as banks and major fast food companies that often check local phone listings to verify addresses.
Really? I haven't had a landline in almost 2 years (wifey and I use cellphones) and I've never had a problem getting any food delivered or banking.
My cellphone number isn't listed. I don't see why this is any different than the situation with VoIP service. The other "drawbacks" seem FUDdy too: my town 911 service uses my cellphones GPS to find me if I need it. Doesn't VoIP have a way to se location for this purpose (I think so)? Power failure isn't a problem for cellphone, of course. I guess this might be an issue for VoIP, but how often does the power fail (where I live, never had it happen in 8 years.)
Despite its drawbacks, VoIP is attracting a growing number of consumers, although significantly more people are dropping their traditional phone lines and relying solely on a cell phone, which faces many of the same drawbacks.
Again, what drawbacks? I live near Boston -- are things really that different in the rest of the country?
This one.
:)
I've been ignoring the silly sig, but that's just a huge stretch and one abortion reference too many. Your agenda is (1) too obvious and (2) getting on my nerves.
No offense intended, but you asked