I've used the USB tethering on my phone (T-Mobile Vibrant) rather often with no extra charges or complaints from T-Mobile. Phone is rooted running an AOKP-based ICS rom, Chimera v2.2.
You can "guest" onto another server. While guesting you can't compete in the Server vs Server PVP, and can't join a guild on a guest server. You can, however, play. With friends. PvP or PvE. Guesting is free.
Levels are also well handled. If you're in a zone below your current level your health, damage, etc all get scaled down to the effective level of the zone. Lvl 80 and lvl 12 friends want to play together? No problem, they'll both be about lvl 12 effective and the low level content will still be potentially challenging.
There are no real factions.
EVE online also does this well. There's one server (two really, the Chinese have their own due to government restrictions). There are no real factions (well, there are, but you can join any of them.) You can train to fly a tackler in about a month, if not faster. About 4 months to be well-skilled in an interceptor. And no FC is going to turn down extra inty pilots.
My father used to work for Intuit. Their license code scheme was terrible. Essentially they encoded the number of licenses to be bought by a simple substitution cypher (think a not-invented-here version of Base64). You could buy packs of licenses up to 999 at a time, or pay a bunch for unlimited licenses. An unlimited key was indicated by setting the number to 000. Anyone with the desire to and a few example license codes (say, from buying packs with different numbers in previous years) could easily find the encoding scheme, then change any license code into an unlimited code. He bugreported this, only to have it closed as a "won't fix". It wasn't considered an important enough problem to bother with. So yeah, I can see how they'd end up with ten million lines of code.
There's also the unified multiplayer. While I ignore most of the "social" aspects it's nice to be able to know what all my friends usernames are across all steam games instead of having to figure out which variant each used/this/ time. (My normal username has a space. Not all games allow spaces. Three of my friends normally have numbers, not all games allow numbers. etc.
AGW is a serious problem if any of the following holds true: CO2 levels continue to rise. CO2 levels stay constant at their current value. With either one peak oil will likely decrease the time needed for CO2 levels to begin falling. It still won't be instant, since there's more CO2 in the atmosphere than can be quickly absorbed by plants/algae. Also, if the ice caps melt the albedo of the earth will decrease, which adds a warming effect. That may compensate for the decreased warming of lowered CO2 levels to continue the overall warming trend. Also, as the cost of oil increases the viability of more expensive oil sources (such as shale, which IIRC has quantities of recoverable oil similar to that of conventional reserves) increases. If oil use remains high CO2 levels will at best remain constant, and likely continue to increase. Finally, few of the projections I've seen give us as long as "centuries" before the warming causes significant problems. I agree that peak oil will likely cause the first derivative of the average global temperature to decrease, but I'm not convinced it will actually be enough to decrease the temperature.
What you state is true IF the Nyquist-Shannon theorem applies. There are many DACs that don't reconstruct the original waveform in the manner described by Nyquist and Shannon, such that the output will not exactly match the input. 16 bit 44.1kHZ is probably fine, but it's not guaranteed unless the signal is reconstructed properly. Since most DACs just use a zero-order hold and low pass filter (or delta-sigma modulation in some) instead of the Whittaker–Shannon interpolation formula the signal will rarely be reconstructed properly. Whether that will have audible effects depends on the specific implementation.
That doesn't eliminate the disaster period in between oil costs rising and CO2 levels decreasing. Also, quite a lot of the CO2 comes from coal. Burning natural gas also produces CO2, and that will likely continue increase as oil use decreases.
How are the disasters listed mutually exclusive? Temps rise. Ice caps melt. Sea level rises. Coastal cities submerge. Temps rise. Inland areas experience drought when water doesn't condense into rain as often. Farmland becomes arid desert. Oil production begins to decline. Prices of oil used for food production increase. Food prices increase.
Now, if most farming was done in coastal areas, or if land had the same specific heat as ocean, then they might be mutually exclusive.
About half my friends are online-only, and the other half I know IRL. I use fake names on all my facebook accounts, and tell my friends what the name is. I use separate facebook accounts for different purposes. EG some businesses give you things if you friend them on facebook, those get 1-time use accounts made. Friends and family have different accounts.
For some people using a real name actually improves anonymity. People with particularly common names will share real names, while most people choose their pseudonyms to be unique (or very nearly so).
Understanding statistics is necessary for being an informed voter. Statistics requires algebra. Thus, it is in the public interest to make sure people understand algebra and statistics.
I don't know. The police can't protect you. The public can protect itself, but in doing so will likely cause significant harm (to other parts of the public).
The argument that "if everyone carried a gun there would be fewer gun deaths, because the shooters would be killed before they could murder lots of people" is obviously wrong in many circumstances. It's a bad argument. Using such arguments gives the gun-control side of the debate power, because they are easy to refute. If you don't want gun control legislation you should use good arguments, not bad ones.
It has been a consistent feature of tyrants to ignore the rule of law and oppress the people. The rule of law in the US provides for the individual right to bear arms. Any gun control that removes this must amend the constitution or be invalid. If you want gun control you will need three fourths of the states to agree with you.
There are also practical considerations. There are 270 some million weapons privately owned in the US. It's possible to make weapons rather easily. The US culture has a significant focus on such weapons. Without a vast cultural change taking the weapons away will be impossible, and preventing new ones from being made even harder. A Sten mkII can be made from cheap metal with a rather simple machine shop setup. Black powder mortars and cannon are downright easy to make. An attempt to take away the right to bear arms will be met with opposition from the best armed segment of the populace. Since the harm done by guns is minimal when compared to that done by other means (auto accidents, for example) the public good would be better served by finding ways to decrease these greater harms than by starting a bloody civil war in a misguided attempt to stop gun violence.
Switzerland has a much higher gun ownership rate than the US. Almost all males between 20 and 30 years old serve in the militias, and are required to keep a SIG SG 550 fully-automatic rifle at home. Until 2007 they were also issued ammunition. Switzerland has consistently had a lower rate of gun-related violence than the US. Further, most non-domestic gun violence in Switzerland is perpetrated with illegally-obtained firearms, and not the service-issue weapons, though most domestic gun violence used a service weapon. (Killias M., Haymoz S., Lamon P. (2007), La criminalité cachée en Suisse et ses répercussions sur l’opinion publique: situation actuelle et évolution des 20 dernières années, Berne: Stämpfli (2007); Neue Zürcher Zeitung, 22 March 2007, 29 November 2007.)
Those are better arguments against gun control. There are others, of course. There's no need to use the bad arguments, since they add nothing to the discussion and merely damage the credibility of the person using them.
Generally I've seen the freezer trick as "stick it in a bag of rice or silica gel, then put that in the freezer. When you take it out leave it in the bag and plug the cables in without removing it from the desiccant."
Quite true. I've no debate with that, which is why I didn't mention the police in my original post. It's a totally separate argument.
The average gun owner is unlikely to be well-trained enough to eliminate a shooter in a tear-gas filled theater, in the dark, with panicking crowd. The more well-intentioned shooters there are the more likely they'll shoot each other or an innocent bystander instead of the original shooter.
The police can't protect you, they can only investigate crimes and attempt to catch the perpetrators.
I'm not sure how the second point is relevant to the discussion, I certainly am not proposing relying on the police for protection. I simply think that the argument that having most of the populace carry guns everywhere would improve safety is not universally true. I believe it is probably almost always false, but without proper statistical evidence I can't make a well-informed statement and will thus err on the side of supporting the Constitution.
Law abiding citizens that carry weapons are not police. They normally don't train with their weapons in combat situations in the dark, with innocent bystanders in the way. Most police don't do that either, that sort of situation is normally handled by a SWAT team.
I'm not anti-gun, I just think that the argument of "if everyone was armed the shooter would be killed quickly" doesn't universally apply. Pretending it does is disingenuous and weakens the authority of anyone who makes that argument.
In a dark theater 3-4 armed people would be likely to hit other patrons or each other before they hit the shooter. I can't say whether that would have decreased the harm done in this case, there are too many variables.
My grandfather was named Sam. My mother (his daughter) knew him as Sam. AFTER HE DIED we found out his real name was Harry, but he hated that so he never used it. Even his own children didn't know his legal name. I have a friend called Jack who's real name is apparently John. He never goes by John, and I only learned that was his name when we were comparing bad driver's license pictures. I have a friend I know IRL that I initially met online, though some of my other IRL friends have known him for years. His name is Llama. I'm not sure what his real name is, since I've never heard it even when we meet IRL. Likewise to my friends I am Sai. Sure, my driver's license says otherwise, but that's not the name I go by, it's not the name they know me by, and it's not a good identifier for me since only my family uses my "real" name. If I were to use that name it would only serve to confuse people.
My "real name" as seen on my scanned driver's license which hasn't been photoshopped in any way whatsoever happens to be identical to the name I use on G+ and several other sites/games/etc.
4chan is also composed of several largely separate communities./b/, (random) is similar to youtube comments, but eg/an/ (animals and nature) is generally friendly and civil throughout.
Slashdot Mirror
I've used the USB tethering on my phone (T-Mobile Vibrant) rather often with no extra charges or complaints from T-Mobile. Phone is rooted running an AOKP-based ICS rom, Chimera v2.2.
That's one of the things I like most about GW2.
You can "guest" onto another server. While guesting you can't compete in the Server vs Server PVP, and can't join a guild on a guest server. You can, however, play. With friends. PvP or PvE. Guesting is free.
Levels are also well handled. If you're in a zone below your current level your health, damage, etc all get scaled down to the effective level of the zone. Lvl 80 and lvl 12 friends want to play together? No problem, they'll both be about lvl 12 effective and the low level content will still be potentially challenging.
There are no real factions.
EVE online also does this well. There's one server (two really, the Chinese have their own due to government restrictions). There are no real factions (well, there are, but you can join any of them.) You can train to fly a tackler in about a month, if not faster. About 4 months to be well-skilled in an interceptor. And no FC is going to turn down extra inty pilots.
My father used to work for Intuit. Their license code scheme was terrible.
Essentially they encoded the number of licenses to be bought by a simple substitution cypher (think a not-invented-here version of Base64). You could buy packs of licenses up to 999 at a time, or pay a bunch for unlimited licenses. An unlimited key was indicated by setting the number to 000. Anyone with the desire to and a few example license codes (say, from buying packs with different numbers in previous years) could easily find the encoding scheme, then change any license code into an unlimited code.
He bugreported this, only to have it closed as a "won't fix". It wasn't considered an important enough problem to bother with.
So yeah, I can see how they'd end up with ten million lines of code.
There's also the unified multiplayer. While I ignore most of the "social" aspects it's nice to be able to know what all my friends usernames are across all steam games instead of having to figure out which variant each used /this/ time. (My normal username has a space. Not all games allow spaces. Three of my friends normally have numbers, not all games allow numbers. etc.
AGW is a serious problem if any of the following holds true:
CO2 levels continue to rise.
CO2 levels stay constant at their current value.
With either one peak oil will likely decrease the time needed for CO2 levels to begin falling. It still won't be instant, since there's more CO2 in the atmosphere than can be quickly absorbed by plants/algae. Also, if the ice caps melt the albedo of the earth will decrease, which adds a warming effect. That may compensate for the decreased warming of lowered CO2 levels to continue the overall warming trend.
Also, as the cost of oil increases the viability of more expensive oil sources (such as shale, which IIRC has quantities of recoverable oil similar to that of conventional reserves) increases. If oil use remains high CO2 levels will at best remain constant, and likely continue to increase.
Finally, few of the projections I've seen give us as long as "centuries" before the warming causes significant problems. I agree that peak oil will likely cause the first derivative of the average global temperature to decrease, but I'm not convinced it will actually be enough to decrease the temperature.
What you state is true IF the Nyquist-Shannon theorem applies.
There are many DACs that don't reconstruct the original waveform in the manner described by Nyquist and Shannon, such that the output will not exactly match the input.
16 bit 44.1kHZ is probably fine, but it's not guaranteed unless the signal is reconstructed properly. Since most DACs just use a zero-order hold and low pass filter (or delta-sigma modulation in some) instead of the Whittaker–Shannon interpolation formula the signal will rarely be reconstructed properly. Whether that will have audible effects depends on the specific implementation.
That doesn't eliminate the disaster period in between oil costs rising and CO2 levels decreasing. Also, quite a lot of the CO2 comes from coal. Burning natural gas also produces CO2, and that will likely continue increase as oil use decreases.
And which were largely solved by being moderated down to -1 troll.
How are the disasters listed mutually exclusive?
Temps rise. Ice caps melt. Sea level rises. Coastal cities submerge.
Temps rise. Inland areas experience drought when water doesn't condense into rain as often. Farmland becomes arid desert.
Oil production begins to decline. Prices of oil used for food production increase. Food prices increase.
Now, if most farming was done in coastal areas, or if land had the same specific heat as ocean, then they might be mutually exclusive.
I'm pretty sure gnupg is still free.
About half my friends are online-only, and the other half I know IRL.
I use fake names on all my facebook accounts, and tell my friends what the name is.
I use separate facebook accounts for different purposes. EG some businesses give you things if you friend them on facebook, those get 1-time use accounts made. Friends and family have different accounts.
For some people using a real name actually improves anonymity. People with particularly common names will share real names, while most people choose their pseudonyms to be unique (or very nearly so).
Understanding statistics is necessary for being an informed voter.
Statistics requires algebra.
Thus, it is in the public interest to make sure people understand algebra and statistics.
I don't know.
The police can't protect you. The public can protect itself, but in doing so will likely cause significant harm (to other parts of the public).
The argument that "if everyone carried a gun there would be fewer gun deaths, because the shooters would be killed before they could murder lots of people" is obviously wrong in many circumstances. It's a bad argument. Using such arguments gives the gun-control side of the debate power, because they are easy to refute. If you don't want gun control legislation you should use good arguments, not bad ones.
It has been a consistent feature of tyrants to ignore the rule of law and oppress the people. The rule of law in the US provides for the individual right to bear arms. Any gun control that removes this must amend the constitution or be invalid. If you want gun control you will need three fourths of the states to agree with you.
There are also practical considerations. There are 270 some million weapons privately owned in the US. It's possible to make weapons rather easily. The US culture has a significant focus on such weapons. Without a vast cultural change taking the weapons away will be impossible, and preventing new ones from being made even harder. A Sten mkII can be made from cheap metal with a rather simple machine shop setup. Black powder mortars and cannon are downright easy to make. An attempt to take away the right to bear arms will be met with opposition from the best armed segment of the populace. Since the harm done by guns is minimal when compared to that done by other means (auto accidents, for example) the public good would be better served by finding ways to decrease these greater harms than by starting a bloody civil war in a misguided attempt to stop gun violence.
Switzerland has a much higher gun ownership rate than the US. Almost all males between 20 and 30 years old serve in the militias, and are required to keep a SIG SG 550 fully-automatic rifle at home. Until 2007 they were also issued ammunition. Switzerland has consistently had a lower rate of gun-related violence than the US. Further, most non-domestic gun violence in Switzerland is perpetrated with illegally-obtained firearms, and not the service-issue weapons, though most domestic gun violence used a service weapon. (Killias M., Haymoz S., Lamon P. (2007), La criminalité cachée en Suisse et ses répercussions sur l’opinion publique: situation actuelle et évolution des 20 dernières années, Berne: Stämpfli (2007); Neue Zürcher Zeitung, 22 March 2007, 29 November 2007.)
Those are better arguments against gun control. There are others, of course. There's no need to use the bad arguments, since they add nothing to the discussion and merely damage the credibility of the person using them.
Generally I've seen the freezer trick as "stick it in a bag of rice or silica gel, then put that in the freezer. When you take it out leave it in the bag and plug the cables in without removing it from the desiccant."
Given that it was "signed" "Lots of stupid Americans" I think you should get your sarcasm detector checked.
Quite true. I've no debate with that, which is why I didn't mention the police in my original post. It's a totally separate argument.
The average gun owner is unlikely to be well-trained enough to eliminate a shooter in a tear-gas filled theater, in the dark, with panicking crowd. The more well-intentioned shooters there are the more likely they'll shoot each other or an innocent bystander instead of the original shooter.
The police can't protect you, they can only investigate crimes and attempt to catch the perpetrators.
I'm not sure how the second point is relevant to the discussion, I certainly am not proposing relying on the police for protection. I simply think that the argument that having most of the populace carry guns everywhere would improve safety is not universally true. I believe it is probably almost always false, but without proper statistical evidence I can't make a well-informed statement and will thus err on the side of supporting the Constitution.
Law abiding citizens that carry weapons are not police.
They normally don't train with their weapons in combat situations in the dark, with innocent bystanders in the way. Most police don't do that either, that sort of situation is normally handled by a SWAT team.
I'm not anti-gun, I just think that the argument of "if everyone was armed the shooter would be killed quickly" doesn't universally apply. Pretending it does is disingenuous and weakens the authority of anyone who makes that argument.
In a dark theater 3-4 armed people would be likely to hit other patrons or each other before they hit the shooter. I can't say whether that would have decreased the harm done in this case, there are too many variables.
Then buy Irish. Red Breast is good and not terribly expensive.
My grandfather was named Sam. My mother (his daughter) knew him as Sam. AFTER HE DIED we found out his real name was Harry, but he hated that so he never used it. Even his own children didn't know his legal name.
I have a friend called Jack who's real name is apparently John. He never goes by John, and I only learned that was his name when we were comparing bad driver's license pictures.
I have a friend I know IRL that I initially met online, though some of my other IRL friends have known him for years. His name is Llama. I'm not sure what his real name is, since I've never heard it even when we meet IRL.
Likewise to my friends I am Sai. Sure, my driver's license says otherwise, but that's not the name I go by, it's not the name they know me by, and it's not a good identifier for me since only my family uses my "real" name. If I were to use that name it would only serve to confuse people.
My "real name" as seen on my scanned driver's license which hasn't been photoshopped in any way whatsoever happens to be identical to the name I use on G+ and several other sites/games/etc.
So from your /. username you are probably one of the many, many people named "Steve Garcia" in the US.
There is an option of "My channel is personal, but I can't use my real name." which asks no further questions.
4chan is also composed of several largely separate communities. /b/, (random) is similar to youtube comments, but eg /an/ (animals and nature) is generally friendly and civil throughout.