Shit, I'm sitting here with a wiimote in my hand, wondering how you can use the strap to keep the wiimote in your hand, when it goes around your wrist. If I don't hold onto the wiimote, then it drops and dangles from my wrist. Seriously, WTF?
The lawsuit is over the wristband itself being nothing more than a false sense of security.
And I have to admit, that's always been the most surprising part to me, that the wiimote strap was under-engineered instead of over. Nintendo doesn't usually slouch on the durability of their products. There's tons of videos out there where the wiimote will hit a tv, a wall, the floor, etc, but the wiimote always works just fine even after multiple impacts. I saw one where some frat boy was playing Wii Baseball and was literally pitching fast balls and he threw the wiimote directly into a wall at close range twice. It worked fine.
But the straps were flimsy pieces of garbage? Even if the only purpose of the strap as far as Nintendo was concerned was so that you wouldn't drop it, I would have expected it to be strong enough to survive any abuse a player could dish out. The controller itself can, and it has to be harder to make a cheap plastic shell that can withstand that abuse than a cord.
I really never expected this from Nintendo. So I gotta say, even if I do think the lawsuit is a little silly, it's such a screwup I can't say they don't deserve it.
Whenever this comes up, we have people who first say "Who doesn't know that coffee is hot and you should be careful with it?" and then say "But that's how hot coffee is supposed to be!" with links to Wikipedia or other sources indicating that coffee should indeed be brewed at temperatures similar to what McDonalds was serving their coffee at.
For the first, there's a big difference between "Everyone knows coffee is hot" and "Everyone knows acetylene torches are hot". I don't know anyone who treats coffee with a level of care proportional to the degree of injuries caused by this coffee. You wouldn't walk around your office casually holding a lit acetylene torch in one hand while you carry your laptop or shake hands with coworkers with the other, and you wouldn't expect that if you did accidentally spill your coffee on yourself that you'd be in the hospital for a week getting skin grafts. That's not in anyone's expectation. I don't think most people even associate 2nd degree burns with hot coffee, much less 3rd.
And for the second, as you stated, and is so obvious, there's a big difference between brewing and serving. You don't stick your mouth directly under the drip, because you know you'd get burned. Because it's too hot, indeed dangerous, to drink.
It's sort of as if by combining a double natural 'magnifying glass' with the power of ESO's Very Large Telescope, astronomers have scrutinized the inner parts of a car 10 billion light-years away. They were able to study the car with a level of detail a thousand times better than that of the best telescopes in the world, providing the first observational confirmation of the prevalent theoretical models of such cars.
Just because it's not the answer you wanted, doesn't mean it isn't the right answer. Because if you did disable it, it wouldn't be there in the first place, making your real question completely moot. And knowing that, but asking anyway, is pretty effin retarded.
But because I'm nice, I'll answer the real question: To inspire posts like yours, for the amusement of others.
That minute a day could easily be overlapped with the time I spend getting coffee after arriving at work. It's not like I'll actually get anything done in that one minute.
No, the reason this won't work for my corporate environment is that we use desktop systems as extra compute farm resources after hours. Though I guess that doesn't so much mean that it "won't work" as much as that it breaks the assumption that motivates the idea in the first place, which is that desktop systems would be sitting idle after hours. It's not wasted electricity if we're using it for something.
Okay, I just tried this, and DAMN I see the light now. I now fully appreciate anonymity and its ability to keep my person and my clothes free from frothing spittle, multiple-chin sweat, and greasy cheetos stains.
Though standing a little closer to the door would have had largely the same effect as anonymity. They didn't exactly surge after me like a pride of lions.
It may be in luck however, if it's equiped with "USB On The Go". This would allow it to switch roles of master and slave device on the fly as necessary.
Yeah well the 'as necessary' part might be the problem.
How does that work, exactly? They charge you with perjury or obstruction of justice or something for not providing the password to an encrypted file that they can't prove even exists? What if it doesn't exist? Or what if it exists, you give them the password, there's nothing illegal in it, so they ask for the password to the hidden-hidden volume? Is this a guaranteed way for them to put you in jail -- just keep asking for the passwords for successive hidden volumes until you can't because there aren't any more, then get you for not giving up the non-existent password?
Yeah, I'm not so sure I'd call a counter "perfect" when it inevitably ends with a billy club up your arse.
I mean, unless that's the goal. Then by all means, thwart, threaten, and call the police "piggies". You might even be able to sue the PD for the medical expenses of sewing your bung hole back together.
Yeah, but unless the alcohol cooled computer is driving a car, I don't see how that's illegal.
But seriously, people, don't let your PC drive under the influence. Yeah, yeah, it says that it's "overclocked' and much more efficient than when it's just running on water, but then it'll kill a little old C64 crossing the street and wind up in "Pound Me In the USB Port" Prison.
You sir are very correct and I think it's worth pointing out that part of the modern definition of "planet" is that it should be massive enough that its own gravity overcomes the electrostatic forces of its constituent material and forces it into a rounded shape. Earth certainly qualifies.
I had assumed what you said was what they meant, but the summary still could have been worded better.
Lol, yeah, of course you did, but an "I understand it, but think the summary could have been worded better" post isn't as fun as an "I'm smarter than NASA" post, is it?
Probably because if you went to NSF and said "I could make a breakthrough in AI research, if only I had a powerful enough computer", they would (most likely correctly) not believe you. If you go to them and said "I could make a breakthrough in astrophysics, if only I had a big enough neutrino detector", they would.
Differently than what? The summary? No. The summary says the same thing. The only thing missing is stressing that this planet cannot support life. The summary does not claim that this planet can support life. Only that it demonstrates that Kepler will be able to find planets which can. Which is the same thing the article says.
Ooh, the temptation to alter the wiki pages to say Ice Cube is the spokesperson for the neutrino detector is huge... Must... resist... Vandalism... bad...
Is it really not obvious what they were saying? Does it really need to be spelled out? Apparently, so here goes. They were able to identify a planet that has both water and carbon dioxide. It happens to be very hot, and thus this particular planet is unlikely to host life, however it is a proof of concept for the technique of doing spectroscopy on distant exoplanets. They are going to be fielding better telescopes in the future, which should be able to detect smaller and cooler planets that are capable of supporting life.
And if so we will have a remarkably short period of time to write a paper about it.
Academic paper writing... you're doing it wrong!
The way it works is that the paper is written in advance, with blank spots for the data and the graphs that can be plugged in, and then they do the experiments. With mocked-up data and graphs as backup. So don't worry, they should be able to have the paper out very quickly.:)
Well, okay, but the key word in the whatever-up post was "determine". Neither you nor I can determine Constitutionality. We can form opinions, but that's all they are. They don't determine anything. And the (un-)Constitutionality of an action is not "there". It's not like a geologic formation you simply have to discover. It's by necessity an act of interpretation to decide whether or not something is Constitutional, not as an act of discovering a pre-existing reality, but as an act of reasoning about present beliefs that could change in different times and circumstances. The reality of constitutionality does not exist until it has been determined, and it can only be determined by a judge.
So I agree with you, but only to the extent that what you're saying is that we're free to form opinions about anything whatsoever, whether that opinion matters or not, whether that opinion is informed or not. I thought you were saying something more substantial than that, though.
Slashdot Mirror
Shit, I'm sitting here with a wiimote in my hand, wondering how you can use the strap to keep the wiimote in your hand, when it goes around your wrist. If I don't hold onto the wiimote, then it drops and dangles from my wrist. Seriously, WTF?
The lawsuit is over the wristband itself being nothing more than a false sense of security.
And I have to admit, that's always been the most surprising part to me, that the wiimote strap was under-engineered instead of over. Nintendo doesn't usually slouch on the durability of their products. There's tons of videos out there where the wiimote will hit a tv, a wall, the floor, etc, but the wiimote always works just fine even after multiple impacts. I saw one where some frat boy was playing Wii Baseball and was literally pitching fast balls and he threw the wiimote directly into a wall at close range twice. It worked fine.
But the straps were flimsy pieces of garbage? Even if the only purpose of the strap as far as Nintendo was concerned was so that you wouldn't drop it, I would have expected it to be strong enough to survive any abuse a player could dish out. The controller itself can, and it has to be harder to make a cheap plastic shell that can withstand that abuse than a cord.
I really never expected this from Nintendo. So I gotta say, even if I do think the lawsuit is a little silly, it's such a screwup I can't say they don't deserve it.
Thank you for this piece of sanity.
Whenever this comes up, we have people who first say "Who doesn't know that coffee is hot and you should be careful with it?" and then say "But that's how hot coffee is supposed to be!" with links to Wikipedia or other sources indicating that coffee should indeed be brewed at temperatures similar to what McDonalds was serving their coffee at.
For the first, there's a big difference between "Everyone knows coffee is hot" and "Everyone knows acetylene torches are hot". I don't know anyone who treats coffee with a level of care proportional to the degree of injuries caused by this coffee. You wouldn't walk around your office casually holding a lit acetylene torch in one hand while you carry your laptop or shake hands with coworkers with the other, and you wouldn't expect that if you did accidentally spill your coffee on yourself that you'd be in the hospital for a week getting skin grafts. That's not in anyone's expectation. I don't think most people even associate 2nd degree burns with hot coffee, much less 3rd.
And for the second, as you stated, and is so obvious, there's a big difference between brewing and serving. You don't stick your mouth directly under the drip, because you know you'd get burned. Because it's too hot, indeed dangerous, to drink.
It's sort of as if by combining a double natural 'magnifying glass' with the power of ESO's Very Large Telescope, astronomers have scrutinized the inner parts of a car 10 billion light-years away. They were able to study the car with a level of detail a thousand times better than that of the best telescopes in the world, providing the first observational confirmation of the prevalent theoretical models of such cars.
Hope that helps!
Just because it's not the answer you wanted, doesn't mean it isn't the right answer. Because if you did disable it, it wouldn't be there in the first place, making your real question completely moot. And knowing that, but asking anyway, is pretty effin retarded.
But because I'm nice, I'll answer the real question: To inspire posts like yours, for the amusement of others.
Most window AC units have a mode where you can just run the fan that's built in without running the compressor. :P
That minute a day could easily be overlapped with the time I spend getting coffee after arriving at work. It's not like I'll actually get anything done in that one minute.
No, the reason this won't work for my corporate environment is that we use desktop systems as extra compute farm resources after hours. Though I guess that doesn't so much mean that it "won't work" as much as that it breaks the assumption that motivates the idea in the first place, which is that desktop systems would be sitting idle after hours. It's not wasted electricity if we're using it for something.
You might think that. Just wait until you discover the sort of sites that the police now trace to your IP address.
Oh shit. Um, would it help if I said that they were like lions? Well, sea lions, at least.
Actually, every time you don't masturbate, god kills a kitten. Think of the kittens.
Well then if you see a dead kitten, it isn't my fault.
Okay, I just tried this, and DAMN I see the light now. I now fully appreciate anonymity and its ability to keep my person and my clothes free from frothing spittle, multiple-chin sweat, and greasy cheetos stains.
Though standing a little closer to the door would have had largely the same effect as anonymity. They didn't exactly surge after me like a pride of lions.
It may be in luck however, if it's equiped with "USB On The Go". This would allow it to switch roles of master and slave device on the fly as necessary.
Yeah well the 'as necessary' part might be the problem.
"Can I be the master now?"
"No, bitch!"
"*whimper*"
Important note: Do NOT skip step 3!
They don't need to prove it. In the UK at least.
How does that work, exactly? They charge you with perjury or obstruction of justice or something for not providing the password to an encrypted file that they can't prove even exists? What if it doesn't exist? Or what if it exists, you give them the password, there's nothing illegal in it, so they ask for the password to the hidden-hidden volume? Is this a guaranteed way for them to put you in jail -- just keep asking for the passwords for successive hidden volumes until you can't because there aren't any more, then get you for not giving up the non-existent password?
Yeah, I'm not so sure I'd call a counter "perfect" when it inevitably ends with a billy club up your arse.
I mean, unless that's the goal. Then by all means, thwart, threaten, and call the police "piggies". You might even be able to sue the PD for the medical expenses of sewing your bung hole back together.
It's never too late for a revolution to get those rights...
Won't that only work with alcohol cooled systems?
Yeah, but unless the alcohol cooled computer is driving a car, I don't see how that's illegal.
But seriously, people, don't let your PC drive under the influence. Yeah, yeah, it says that it's "overclocked' and much more efficient than when it's just running on water, but then it'll kill a little old C64 crossing the street and wind up in "Pound Me In the USB Port" Prison.
You sir are very correct and I think it's worth pointing out that part of the modern definition of "planet" is that it should be massive enough that its own gravity overcomes the electrostatic forces of its constituent material and forces it into a rounded shape. Earth certainly qualifies.
I had assumed what you said was what they meant, but the summary still could have been worded better.
Lol, yeah, of course you did, but an "I understand it, but think the summary could have been worded better" post isn't as fun as an "I'm smarter than NASA" post, is it?
Probably because if you went to NSF and said "I could make a breakthrough in AI research, if only I had a powerful enough computer", they would (most likely correctly) not believe you. If you go to them and said "I could make a breakthrough in astrophysics, if only I had a big enough neutrino detector", they would.
Differently than what? The summary? No. The summary says the same thing. The only thing missing is stressing that this planet cannot support life. The summary does not claim that this planet can support life. Only that it demonstrates that Kepler will be able to find planets which can. Which is the same thing the article says.
Ooh, the temptation to alter the wiki pages to say Ice Cube is the spokesperson for the neutrino detector is huge... Must... resist... Vandalism... bad...
Is it really not obvious what they were saying? Does it really need to be spelled out? Apparently, so here goes. They were able to identify a planet that has both water and carbon dioxide. It happens to be very hot, and thus this particular planet is unlikely to host life, however it is a proof of concept for the technique of doing spectroscopy on distant exoplanets. They are going to be fielding better telescopes in the future, which should be able to detect smaller and cooler planets that are capable of supporting life.
Hope that makes sense!
So... you're saying that black holes form around giant space nematodes?
And if so we will have a remarkably short period of time to write a paper about it.
Academic paper writing... you're doing it wrong!
The way it works is that the paper is written in advance, with blank spots for the data and the graphs that can be plugged in, and then they do the experiments. With mocked-up data and graphs as backup. So don't worry, they should be able to have the paper out very quickly. :)
Well, okay, but the key word in the whatever-up post was "determine". Neither you nor I can determine Constitutionality. We can form opinions, but that's all they are. They don't determine anything. And the (un-)Constitutionality of an action is not "there". It's not like a geologic formation you simply have to discover. It's by necessity an act of interpretation to decide whether or not something is Constitutional, not as an act of discovering a pre-existing reality, but as an act of reasoning about present beliefs that could change in different times and circumstances. The reality of constitutionality does not exist until it has been determined, and it can only be determined by a judge.
So I agree with you, but only to the extent that what you're saying is that we're free to form opinions about anything whatsoever, whether that opinion matters or not, whether that opinion is informed or not. I thought you were saying something more substantial than that, though.