It's funny, but I've accidentally converted two people to Firefox. One was a nearly computer-illiterate friend who needed to use a page on our church web site that didn't work in IE. I tried Firefox, and bingo, no problem. Now maybe she still uses IE for everything else, but still. The other is my wife, who was an IE user until I had to reinstall Windows and her Microsoft Outlook webmail stopped working with IE. How ironic is that? So again, fired it up with Firefox and it worked perfectly. So IE6 really is driving people to Firefox, even people who don't hate MS, don't care about OSS, and don't know the difference. Multiply my experince by 20 million and maybe we'll start to see something.:-)
You don't think there should be any limitations on free speech at all, or you think specifically that it should be legal to harass, threaten, or intimidate employees on the basis of sex, race, etc?
Yes, the army might come after you if necessary. But not about the subpoena. They would come after you to neutralize the immediate threat to national security/the public order/whatever. The army does not have the authority to enforce subpoenas. Let's say you were given a subpoena and said "no". If the police decided at that time that you are a supervillain and they don't have the physical ability to enforce their court order, they could not legally call upon the army to do it for them. Bringing this killing spree idea into it makes it a different issue - then you're talking about what kind of force might be used to stop a superhuman (because that's what would be required) on a rampage against law enforcement. Clearly a different matter than enforcing court orders.
That's fine, but the problem is that they were right and you were wrong. Subpoena power is simply not enforced by the army. It's not just a practical matter, either, by which I mean that it's not the case that the army has the authority to enforce subpoenas, but just hasn't ever had to because the police can handle it. The army has no authority to do it and is prohibited by law from doing it. If there was a full-scale armed revolution that was originally started about the subpoena, then the army will probably get involved, but then the army would be putting down a revolution, not enforcing a subpoena.
Subpoenas are backed up by force, but that force is applied by law enforcement, not the military.
Thank you for the laugh. "a thousand strong horde of hideously beweaponed Orcish disembowlers" is fantastic. I'm still trying not to look silly in my office laughing at it.
You're talking about the case where a guy gets subpoenaed, and proceeds to wipe out the ENTIRE LOCAL POLICE FORCE AND FBI. OK, thanks for your highly useful contribution to/. Hope your sarcasm meter is working.
So your suggestion is that we should not have laws against defamation of character? Or is there some other law under which you see people "heading to court" for making comments around lesbians?
Oh, so every time a US law enforcement officer has been killed (surely this has happened hundreds if not thousands of times) the army has been "sent in"? Sent in to do what exactly? They're not equipped as an investigative organization. If there's an immediate threat of violence against other officers or civilians, I guarantee YOU that law enforcement will be way faster to respond to that than the army, perhaps faster by days. Then there's the problem of who exactly would "send in" the army. And the fact that it's actually illegal to do so unless there's a declared state of emergency or martial law. So basically you're completely full of crap.
Then again, you probably already know that, are a complete troll and I just wasted my time.:-)
"Everything we need to do what we need to do to get what we want, collectively that is, is all here. Instead, we surf for porn. *sigh*"
That IS what we want.;-)
You're offering this as evidence that cars were *not* disruptive? How fast does the 90-99% reduction in the old technology have to be to qualify as disruptive?
Personally, I think there will be a next big thing for two reasons. One is that there has always been a next big thing in the past, and I don't see any force that would change that in the future. Second is there are lots of people always looking for the next big thing, whether corporate researchers, academic scientists, or people who love to tinker in their basements. Even if the academic funding dries up, surely there will be companies who believe they can capitalize on the next big thing. Failing that, there will always be people driven to experiment on their own. Eventually somebody will come up with something great. How could they all fail every time forever?
"There is no gambling in "gambling" or "gaming". If you play enough, you will ALWAYS lose exactly the percentage they say you will lose. "Gambling" is a tax on those who don't understand the mathematics of statistics. "
It depends who you play against. If you're playing against the house, then yes that's right (although playing "enough" == playing forever). If you're playing against other gamblers (ie poker) you can win money from them minus a rake for the house. Another exception is when a lottery jackpot is big enough. As the number of times you play for a big enough pot approaches infinity, your chance of coming out ahead approaces one. Big enough means the expected returns exceed the cost of a ticket.
It doesn't take much, though. Having a few players that are a little bit faster or a little bit stronger will give you that occasional opportunity such as a sack, a punt return, a long reception, etc that can be the difference between winning and losing. Not every week, but sometimes.
Besides, you don't need to determine that steroids affect the outcome of a game to decide whether they affect the sport's integrity. They're against the rules, and that by itself is enough. Beyond that, most fans want to see a contest of who can make the best plays, not who can take the best drugs. When players know this and lie about how they're acheiving their performance, I don't see how anybody can say that's not an issue of integrity, although that word gets thrown around way too much these days IMO.
"This is the problem with america, too many idiots think free speech means speaking out against someone doing something unacceptable is in violation of their first amendment rights. That's a terrible misunderstanding of everything and those people should not be allowed to be in arguments."
Please, somebody mod this funny! It's either a great joke or painfully ironic, but either way it's funny.
Did you watch the video? It is (at this point) not a realtime MMOG. Yes, you get content downloaded from the internet that's been created by other players, but you don't interact with them like you do in WoW, etc. From the demo it sounded like it's pretty much a single-player game.
You're suggesting that it could be too expensive for the military to use it, but not too expensive to use for medical reasons? And you're from what planet again?:-)
What is it about the PSP that makes it a PDA? It can play movies? What do you consider "PDA functionality"? Do you think business people would be satisfied to switch from a Blackberry to a PSP?
Slashdot Mirror
It's funny, but I've accidentally converted two people to Firefox. One was a nearly computer-illiterate friend who needed to use a page on our church web site that didn't work in IE. I tried Firefox, and bingo, no problem. Now maybe she still uses IE for everything else, but still. The other is my wife, who was an IE user until I had to reinstall Windows and her Microsoft Outlook webmail stopped working with IE. How ironic is that? So again, fired it up with Firefox and it worked perfectly. So IE6 really is driving people to Firefox, even people who don't hate MS, don't care about OSS, and don't know the difference. Multiply my experince by 20 million and maybe we'll start to see something. :-)
You don't think there should be any limitations on free speech at all, or you think specifically that it should be legal to harass, threaten, or intimidate employees on the basis of sex, race, etc?
Yes, the army might come after you if necessary. But not about the subpoena. They would come after you to neutralize the immediate threat to national security/the public order/whatever. The army does not have the authority to enforce subpoenas. Let's say you were given a subpoena and said "no". If the police decided at that time that you are a supervillain and they don't have the physical ability to enforce their court order, they could not legally call upon the army to do it for them. Bringing this killing spree idea into it makes it a different issue - then you're talking about what kind of force might be used to stop a superhuman (because that's what would be required) on a rampage against law enforcement. Clearly a different matter than enforcing court orders.
That's fine, but the problem is that they were right and you were wrong. Subpoena power is simply not enforced by the army. It's not just a practical matter, either, by which I mean that it's not the case that the army has the authority to enforce subpoenas, but just hasn't ever had to because the police can handle it. The army has no authority to do it and is prohibited by law from doing it. If there was a full-scale armed revolution that was originally started about the subpoena, then the army will probably get involved, but then the army would be putting down a revolution, not enforcing a subpoena.
Subpoenas are backed up by force, but that force is applied by law enforcement, not the military.
AFAIK those only apply to employment, housing and the like. I think I'm free to make sexually harassing comments in a public place.
Thank you for the laugh. "a thousand strong horde of hideously beweaponed Orcish disembowlers" is fantastic. I'm still trying not to look silly in my office laughing at it.
You're talking about the case where a guy gets subpoenaed, and proceeds to wipe out the ENTIRE LOCAL POLICE FORCE AND FBI. OK, thanks for your highly useful contribution to /. Hope your sarcasm meter is working.
Well, there go any thoughts of moving to Australia.
So your suggestion is that we should not have laws against defamation of character? Or is there some other law under which you see people "heading to court" for making comments around lesbians?
Oh, so every time a US law enforcement officer has been killed (surely this has happened hundreds if not thousands of times) the army has been "sent in"? Sent in to do what exactly? They're not equipped as an investigative organization. If there's an immediate threat of violence against other officers or civilians, I guarantee YOU that law enforcement will be way faster to respond to that than the army, perhaps faster by days. Then there's the problem of who exactly would "send in" the army. And the fact that it's actually illegal to do so unless there's a declared state of emergency or martial law. So basically you're completely full of crap.
:-)
Then again, you probably already know that, are a complete troll and I just wasted my time.
"Everything we need to do what we need to do to get what we want, collectively that is, is all here. Instead, we surf for porn. *sigh*" That IS what we want. ;-)
You're offering this as evidence that cars were *not* disruptive? How fast does the 90-99% reduction in the old technology have to be to qualify as disruptive?
Personally, I think there will be a next big thing for two reasons. One is that there has always been a next big thing in the past, and I don't see any force that would change that in the future. Second is there are lots of people always looking for the next big thing, whether corporate researchers, academic scientists, or people who love to tinker in their basements. Even if the academic funding dries up, surely there will be companies who believe they can capitalize on the next big thing. Failing that, there will always be people driven to experiment on their own. Eventually somebody will come up with something great. How could they all fail every time forever?
Your computer reboots without being told to, and you're not sure if it's a normal operation?
"There is no gambling in "gambling" or "gaming". If you play enough, you will ALWAYS lose exactly the percentage they say you will lose. "Gambling" is a tax on those who don't understand the mathematics of statistics. "
It depends who you play against. If you're playing against the house, then yes that's right (although playing "enough" == playing forever). If you're playing against other gamblers (ie poker) you can win money from them minus a rake for the house. Another exception is when a lottery jackpot is big enough. As the number of times you play for a big enough pot approaches infinity, your chance of coming out ahead approaces one. Big enough means the expected returns exceed the cost of a ticket.
It doesn't take much, though. Having a few players that are a little bit faster or a little bit stronger will give you that occasional opportunity such as a sack, a punt return, a long reception, etc that can be the difference between winning and losing. Not every week, but sometimes.
Besides, you don't need to determine that steroids affect the outcome of a game to decide whether they affect the sport's integrity. They're against the rules, and that by itself is enough. Beyond that, most fans want to see a contest of who can make the best plays, not who can take the best drugs. When players know this and lie about how they're acheiving their performance, I don't see how anybody can say that's not an issue of integrity, although that word gets thrown around way too much these days IMO.
So you think all those players taking juice are mistaken in their belief that it will help them win?
Please, somebody mod this funny! It's either a great joke or painfully ironic, but either way it's funny.
Yeah I just realized I was replying to a post in the wrong thread as well... no wonder it seemed like a sudden gear change.
Did you watch the video? It is (at this point) not a realtime MMOG. Yes, you get content downloaded from the internet that's been created by other players, but you don't interact with them like you do in WoW, etc. From the demo it sounded like it's pretty much a single-player game.
Also keep in mind that:
1. It was a joke
2. Notwithstanding all that, the military could research it to see if there might be some use for them that we haven't thought of yet
I'm not very familiar with The Sims, but you should probably watch the video before declaring it the same.
You're suggesting that it could be too expensive for the military to use it, but not too expensive to use for medical reasons? And you're from what planet again? :-)
Better yet, how was he able to see neutrinos?
BTW to grandparent it's spelled Geordi. As if you care.
What is it about the PSP that makes it a PDA? It can play movies? What do you consider "PDA functionality"? Do you think business people would be satisfied to switch from a Blackberry to a PSP?