Or is it just "They're nig-nogs and ragheads, so they're all criminals"?
You could RTFA:
"Although shops in all of Pakistan's major cities have been told of the ban, the game was still available on Friday in shops crammed with pirated CDs in the capital Islamabad."
In most ME countries they really don't give a fuck about piracy.
I realize that this guy's intentions are honorable, well maybe not, but this sounds like something that really shouldn't be done along the lines of Jurassic Park. With all of the problems in the world, we have a guy here who is trying to bring back an extinct race of people? Somehow I think that the old Nazi era eugenics movement never stopped.
Eugenics was a Progressive idea that started in Europe and the US long before the Nazis adopted it. "Three generations of imbeciles are enough!" comes from an 8-1 US Supreme Court decision, Buck v Bell in 1927.
I second that. MMOs have big cult followings among women.
Women are just different. They are social beings. They want to integrate people and technology into their already existing lives. Not use it to get away as a stress reliever like men. The fact you need downtime makes them resentful. However if sheis included like in Wow has an appeal.
Women are, in aggregate, different, but I wouldn't go so far as to assume that any particular woman is that way.
What we do know is she's not a gamer, and that's more than just not knowing how the console works.
If it's a movie one person in a relationship doesn't like, they can zone out or just snuggle. With gaming, though, it's very different because if both parties aren't playing, the game is over.
Aside from the frustration of learning the game, not being good at it sucks, and losing sucks. You have to learn, when you're new at gaming, how to handle that frustration without it getting all personal or heated, or you're not going to enjoy it.
I think that's easier to do when there are people around and you're going to get more commentary and teasing from the peanut gallery, and that can be beneficial because you get more immediate feedback. But most of all you can just stop and let someone else take the controller and not feel like you're obliged to be playing.
Get friends together so she's not the only inexperienced person, and so she can take a break when she wants. Do stuff like Rock Band that is cooperative and easily adjusted for new players.
Anybody poke around yet to see how they do the client-side encryption w/o a plugin? I suppose it could be done in Javascript. Another thought I had is maybe using the SSL stream its self and storing that. I would hope they are at least not using Java or Flash.
In any case, I would imagine that this would attract a lot of attention to see just how secure the mechanism is.
SSL wraps the entire HTTP session, so by the time your Javascript is running, everything is arriving as clear text.
There are any number of Javascript crypto libraries, and for small files it's probably Good Enough.
This will obviously be watched very closely by some fellows with a lot of power.
Yes it's obvious that unknown persons with an unquantified amount of indeterminate influence will be watching a public website with an unspecified degree of closeness through some unmentioned mechanism.
but the search results were so often so much worse than of Google's that it eventually just got too clunky.
That's the awkward thing about principles, sometimes they require a little inconvenience. That's why few people exhibit any principles these days, unless the law demands it.
The more people that stick with DDG the better it will become.
Whereas the drivel on Facebook and Twitter has virtually no context what-so-ever except for the immediately preceding sentence of drivel.
If all you see is drivel on Facebook, then you need a better quality of friend, or maybe you just need to care about other human beings.
I've got plenty of smart, talented friends on Facebook, and they routinely post drivel. Hell, looking back at my posts, many of them are drivel, and I actually try to edit what I write.
If you think there's great quality stuff on Facebook, you need to be more critical.
I know it's verboten to point out any downside to this sort of thing, in this age of "Everything should be free and open!" But I just wanted to point out, before the flood of "This is great!" and "All academics should do this!" posts that are inevitably to follow, that those commercial publishers and traditional academic journals employ a lot of people who still need to feed their families. Converting to free and open source everything, whatever you opinion of it, does have casualties.
And someone has to pay for the research, and the researchers themselves have to actually get published or they have no career. So let's also think of the consumers' families and the researchers' families as well/
Lameness like that could only come from a Rachel Maddow fan.
This has exactly nothing to do with "having to justify" anything, but rather FIGURING OUT WHAT IS BROKEN instead of firing from the hip. So the Donald "Duck" Trump style "you're fired!" approach makes little sense unless you are actually firing someone who is heavily contributing to the problem. And this is not proven at all wrt teachers and how schools work.
Except that millions of people are firing the public school system, even while they're still paying taxes for it.
I've been in both public and private schools, and the public schools let students run around like madmen. I've even been back to volunteer at public schools, and some inner city schools are so loud it's like walking into a jet engine. Students just do whatever the fuck they please, teachers are dispirited and all looking for transfers.
The whole notion that we have to continually prop up a firm that is failing is bullshit. That's what got us "too big to fail" with completely broken banks or companies like GM. Those firms should have been liquidated and someone else given a chance to make something that works.
And the same is true of schools. There is nothing special about the public school system that makes it the ideal vehicle for educating children. If anything, it's probably going to be obsolete in 20 years time.
What banking website are you using that doesn't use SSL/TLS? I think what you're suggesting is that instead of websites using a simple username and password (something you know), they should move to having user certificates for each client (something you have). The problem with that is you still have a single factor authentication, which is no more secure.
Bullshit. A good single factor is a lot more secure than a shitty single factor.
With passwords, you're still transmitting the secret token, which is what makes phishing work in the first place. With a client cert, you explicitly do not send your secret key. The phisher can't use that to impersonate you.
Unfortunately it's easier to come up with scapegoats than address real problems.
For example, see how many people will blame Teacher's Unions or the Federal Department of Education rather than question how much emphasis the local school board puts on Football stadiums.
I don't need to justify firing them. They need to justify their jobs because they're being paid with money extracted from people by the threat of jail.
You want to take tax dollars to pay for your noble cause, the burden of proof is on you, not on the taxpayers.
With a question like this, anecdotes are pretty much worthless, just a way of distracting people from thinking rationally about the real issues of risk and benefit. For every anecdote of somebody whose life or the life of a loved one was saved because a gun was in the house, there is another anecdote of somebody who died in an accidental shooting or shot a loved one by mistake.
No there aren't. There are about 20,000 accidental gun deaths per year. There are possibly 2 million defensive usages.
You wanted numbers, here you go. Decent numbers are anywhere from 800,000 to 2.5 million defensive usages in a year. Firearms prevent crime at a rate that utterly dwarfs all the killings, even including the racial and drug fueled violence in our inner cities.
So how do you explain the current government tyranny? According to you there should be none.
Seatbelts protect people from crashes, but they don't make you invincible.
An armed populace can, if the provocation is severe enough, form an insurgent movement and wage asymmetric war against an invading force. It's quite effective; we saw just how so in Iraq and Afghanistan. We were unable to make real progress until we finally developed a counterinsurgency doctrine that was based on getting the locals on our side. A more brutal approach would not have worked, as the Soviets discovered in Afghanistan earlier.
Firearms have historically protected against many local tyrannies. Even without proper firearms, Native Americans fought us to a draw, and had they been a more unified people, the face of the US might be quite different.
After the civil war, the confederates couldn't fight a conventional war, so they formed the KKK and used lynchings and such to terrorize newly freed blacks. The freemen defended their lands with firearms, and the Democrats working with the KKK pushed for some of the earliest gun control measures.
Tyranny doesn't, of course, come just from governments. The worst tyranny in the US is from criminal gangs terrorizing poor urban areas; those areas invariably have strict gun control.
Firearms are nothing without human spirit resolved to use them if need be. That's why the worst abuses of government power are, invariably, the popular ones. The war on drugs has been incredibly popular in the name of The Children, and it's still a minority view to oppose it.
And that makes gun control the greatest potential tyranny because so many people are entirely willing to give the police license to forcibly disarm their neighbors.
You do realize that you guys lost that war at least 35 years ago? I was raised in the 1960s and 1970s, around lots of cops and other heavy users of firearms, who all called their handgun magazines "clips". I don't think I even heard the word "magazine" used for such things until I was an adult.
In language, actual usage always wins.
Not necessarily. In this case, you've got a debate between gun rights and gun control and when people demonstrate their ignorance, they lose credibility.
Here's the classic example in the gun rights debate, where she is proposing to regulate "barrel shrouds" and can't explain what one is.
I have a good friend that got charged for drunk driving when a cop found her sleeping in her running car in the parking lot of a bar. The cop rolled up on her and asked what she was doing. She said she was too drunk to drive and didn't have anyone to come get her. It was 15 degrees out so she started the car and went to sleep. He immediately arrested her despite the fact that she never drove the car anywhere, simply putting the key in the ignition is apparently illegal. When they got back to the station she even blew bellow the legal limit, but she signed a statement describing what had happened which they then used as evidence against her in court and she lost. She spent the night in jail, paid a $1000 fine and lost her license for a year... for doing the right thing.
The other part to this is to understand the mentality of the cop.
Yes, he didn't catch her doing anything. His assumption, though, is that where there's smoke there's fire, that is, he assumes she probably does drive drunk habitually.
So say politicians write a shitty law and someone points out an absurd effect. Talking heads claim the cops and prosecutors won't enforce it that way, no reasonable person would read it to mean that.
Voters need to realize that LE have a very different perspective from most people. Two simple reasons: a. the desire to go into law enforcement requires a certain mentality, and b. they deal with criminals (often career criminals) on a daily basis.
balderdash. A person should absolutely be free to live or free to choose to die.
They are free, that's free will, it's stil wrong to do it.
Remember that "morals" are something that you believe. Each person's are a little different, even within the same subculture.
You're confusing a personal code with morality. Your personal code is your best guess about what is right and wrong, cobbled together from your personal experiences.
It's no different from your personal understanding of how physics work vs. actual physics. I don't grasp 1% of relativity, but I still know gravity pulls things down, and that on earth things will accelerate at roughy 9.8 m/s^2. Similarly, I'm not a doctor, but I realize that releasing a dense object over someone's head will result in an impact that may fracture their skull and severely injure them if not kill them. And I have never had a skull fracture, but I can infer that it would be painful or fatal.
Thus, even with limited information, I know it's wrong to drop a bowling ball on someone's head. Different people might come to the same conclusion in different ways, but the fact that they will all come to roughly the same conclusion demonstrates that the underlying truths were always there whether or not some arrogant humans stumbled across them.
I certainly don't find anything immoral in killing oneself. You do. So for you, it would be immoral to kill yourself. For others, not so much. But don't try to pass off the definition of morality that your own ego holds as being some central morality that we all should subscribe to.
Okay, then kill yourself. Not dead yet? That's because you have a life to live, which has an inherent value. It's self-evident, and you've been basing decisions on that inherent value the whole time, not killing yourself obviously, but also trying to better yourself, provide an example to others, etc.
Slashdot Mirror
Got proof?
Or is it just "They're nig-nogs and ragheads, so they're all criminals"?
You could RTFA:
"Although shops in all of Pakistan's major cities have been told of the ban, the game was still available on Friday in shops crammed with pirated CDs in the capital Islamabad."
In most ME countries they really don't give a fuck about piracy.
I realize that this guy's intentions are honorable, well maybe not, but this sounds like something that really shouldn't be done along the lines of Jurassic Park. With all of the problems in the world, we have a guy here who is trying to bring back an extinct race of people? Somehow I think that the old Nazi era eugenics movement never stopped.
Eugenics was a Progressive idea that started in Europe and the US long before the Nazis adopted it. "Three generations of imbeciles are enough!" comes from an 8-1 US Supreme Court decision, Buck v Bell in 1927.
They need "humans" with thicker skulls after all the brain damage lawsuits.
No one's fracturing their skull in football, it's squishing the brain up against it that does the damage.
I second that. MMOs have big cult followings among women.
Women are just different. They are social beings. They want to integrate people and technology into their already existing lives. Not use it to get away as a stress reliever like men. The fact you need downtime makes them resentful. However if sheis included like in Wow has an appeal.
Women are, in aggregate, different, but I wouldn't go so far as to assume that any particular woman is that way.
What we do know is she's not a gamer, and that's more than just not knowing how the console works.
If it's a movie one person in a relationship doesn't like, they can zone out or just snuggle. With gaming, though, it's very different because if both parties aren't playing, the game is over.
Aside from the frustration of learning the game, not being good at it sucks, and losing sucks. You have to learn, when you're new at gaming, how to handle that frustration without it getting all personal or heated, or you're not going to enjoy it.
I think that's easier to do when there are people around and you're going to get more commentary and teasing from the peanut gallery, and that can be beneficial because you get more immediate feedback. But most of all you can just stop and let someone else take the controller and not feel like you're obliged to be playing.
This is a joke, right? Even the tone of this is utterly rediculous.
It's "ridiculous", from the verb ridicule. (Yes, I know, feeding the troll, but some people honestly don't know how to spell that word.)
Thats really unfair on the baby. How would you like to be related to a Kardashian?
OK, am I the only one who finds it fucking hilarious this was modded Insightful?
Oh, c'mon! When you read this post, deep inside you that 12-year old just screamed out, "OOHHH, BUUUUUURRRRRN!!!" and you know it.
That's pretty much what Insightful means in that context...
Get friends together so she's not the only inexperienced person, and so she can take a break when she wants. Do stuff like Rock Band that is cooperative and easily adjusted for new players.
Anybody poke around yet to see how they do the client-side encryption w/o a plugin? I suppose it could be done in Javascript. Another thought I had is maybe using the SSL stream its self and storing that. I would hope they are at least not using Java or Flash.
In any case, I would imagine that this would attract a lot of attention to see just how secure the mechanism is.
SSL wraps the entire HTTP session, so by the time your Javascript is running, everything is arriving as clear text.
There are any number of Javascript crypto libraries, and for small files it's probably Good Enough.
Sounds more like an acknowledgment that, 'Yes, we KNEW we were hosting pirated binaries before, but now we're much more clever at it".
It's more, "it's not our job to police our members and we've made it computationally impossible for us to do so."
This will obviously be watched very closely by some fellows with a lot of power.
Yes it's obvious that unknown persons with an unquantified amount of indeterminate influence will be watching a public website with an unspecified degree of closeness through some unmentioned mechanism.
but the search results were so often so much worse than of Google's that it eventually just got too clunky.
That's the awkward thing about principles, sometimes they require a little inconvenience. That's why few people exhibit any principles these days, unless the law demands it.
The more people that stick with DDG the better it will become.
What principle was this, again?
If all you see is drivel on Facebook, then you need a better quality of friend, or maybe you just need to care about other human beings.
I've got plenty of smart, talented friends on Facebook, and they routinely post drivel. Hell, looking back at my posts, many of them are drivel, and I actually try to edit what I write.
If you think there's great quality stuff on Facebook, you need to be more critical.
I know it's verboten to point out any downside to this sort of thing, in this age of "Everything should be free and open!" But I just wanted to point out, before the flood of "This is great!" and "All academics should do this!" posts that are inevitably to follow, that those commercial publishers and traditional academic journals employ a lot of people who still need to feed their families. Converting to free and open source everything, whatever you opinion of it, does have casualties.
And someone has to pay for the research, and the researchers themselves have to actually get published or they have no career. So let's also think of the consumers' families and the researchers' families as well/
phobicity? ...philicity?
weren't phobia and ...philia good enough already?
Foophobia is the fear or hatred of foo. Foophobicity is the degree of fear or hatred of foo.
You, madame, have obviously been home schooled.
Lameness like that could only come from a Rachel Maddow fan.
This has exactly nothing to do with "having to justify" anything, but rather FIGURING OUT WHAT IS BROKEN instead of firing from the hip.
So the Donald "Duck" Trump style "you're fired!" approach makes little sense unless you are actually firing someone who is heavily contributing to the problem. And this is not proven at all wrt teachers and how schools work.
Except that millions of people are firing the public school system, even while they're still paying taxes for it.
I've been in both public and private schools, and the public schools let students run around like madmen. I've even been back to volunteer at public schools, and some inner city schools are so loud it's like walking into a jet engine. Students just do whatever the fuck they please, teachers are dispirited and all looking for transfers.
But that's just an anecdote. In Chicago, the real educational authorities have spoken: almost 40% of Chicago teachers have fired their school system, sending their kids to private schools.
The whole notion that we have to continually prop up a firm that is failing is bullshit. That's what got us "too big to fail" with completely broken banks or companies like GM. Those firms should have been liquidated and someone else given a chance to make something that works.
And the same is true of schools. There is nothing special about the public school system that makes it the ideal vehicle for educating children. If anything, it's probably going to be obsolete in 20 years time.
What banking website are you using that doesn't use SSL/TLS? I think what you're suggesting is that instead of websites using a simple username and password (something you know), they should move to having user certificates for each client (something you have). The problem with that is you still have a single factor authentication, which is no more secure.
Bullshit. A good single factor is a lot more secure than a shitty single factor.
With passwords, you're still transmitting the secret token, which is what makes phishing work in the first place. With a client cert, you explicitly do not send your secret key. The phisher can't use that to impersonate you.
Unfortunately it's easier to come up with scapegoats than address real problems.
For example, see how many people will blame Teacher's Unions or the Federal Department of Education rather than question how much emphasis the local school board puts on Football stadiums.
I don't need to justify firing them. They need to justify their jobs because they're being paid with money extracted from people by the threat of jail.
You want to take tax dollars to pay for your noble cause, the burden of proof is on you, not on the taxpayers.
With a question like this, anecdotes are pretty much worthless, just a way of distracting people from thinking rationally about the real issues of risk and benefit. For every anecdote of somebody whose life or the life of a loved one was saved because a gun was in the house, there is another anecdote of somebody who died in an accidental shooting or shot a loved one by mistake.
No there aren't. There are about 20,000 accidental gun deaths per year. There are possibly 2 million defensive usages.
You wanted numbers, here you go. Decent numbers are anywhere from 800,000 to 2.5 million defensive usages in a year. Firearms prevent crime at a rate that utterly dwarfs all the killings, even including the racial and drug fueled violence in our inner cities.
So how do you explain the current government tyranny? According to you there should be none.
Seatbelts protect people from crashes, but they don't make you invincible.
An armed populace can, if the provocation is severe enough, form an insurgent movement and wage asymmetric war against an invading force. It's quite effective; we saw just how so in Iraq and Afghanistan. We were unable to make real progress until we finally developed a counterinsurgency doctrine that was based on getting the locals on our side. A more brutal approach would not have worked, as the Soviets discovered in Afghanistan earlier.
Firearms have historically protected against many local tyrannies. Even without proper firearms, Native Americans fought us to a draw, and had they been a more unified people, the face of the US might be quite different.
After the civil war, the confederates couldn't fight a conventional war, so they formed the KKK and used lynchings and such to terrorize newly freed blacks. The freemen defended their lands with firearms, and the Democrats working with the KKK pushed for some of the earliest gun control measures.
Tyranny doesn't, of course, come just from governments. The worst tyranny in the US is from criminal gangs terrorizing poor urban areas; those areas invariably have strict gun control.
Firearms are nothing without human spirit resolved to use them if need be. That's why the worst abuses of government power are, invariably, the popular ones. The war on drugs has been incredibly popular in the name of The Children, and it's still a minority view to oppose it.
And that makes gun control the greatest potential tyranny because so many people are entirely willing to give the police license to forcibly disarm their neighbors.
You do realize that you guys lost that war at least 35 years ago? I was raised in the 1960s and 1970s, around lots of cops and other heavy users of firearms, who all called their handgun magazines "clips". I don't think I even heard the word "magazine" used for such things until I was an adult.
In language, actual usage always wins.
Not necessarily. In this case, you've got a debate between gun rights and gun control and when people demonstrate their ignorance, they lose credibility.
Here's the classic example in the gun rights debate, where she is proposing to regulate "barrel shrouds" and can't explain what one is.
"'It's very difficult to say, 'I don't have your phone,' in any other way other than, 'I don't have your phone.'''
No, it's easy: "My neighbor steals phones all the time. Maybe you should try his house"
Why pick on your neighbor?
Find the address of a Sprint exec, claim he knows where their phone is, and it might actually get fixed.
I have a good friend that got charged for drunk driving when a cop found her sleeping in her running car in the parking lot of a bar. The cop rolled up on her and asked what she was doing. She said she was too drunk to drive and didn't have anyone to come get her. It was 15 degrees out so she started the car and went to sleep. He immediately arrested her despite the fact that she never drove the car anywhere, simply putting the key in the ignition is apparently illegal. When they got back to the station she even blew bellow the legal limit, but she signed a statement describing what had happened which they then used as evidence against her in court and she lost. She spent the night in jail, paid a $1000 fine and lost her license for a year... for doing the right thing.
The other part to this is to understand the mentality of the cop.
Yes, he didn't catch her doing anything. His assumption, though, is that where there's smoke there's fire, that is, he assumes she probably does drive drunk habitually.
So say politicians write a shitty law and someone points out an absurd effect. Talking heads claim the cops and prosecutors won't enforce it that way, no reasonable person would read it to mean that.
Voters need to realize that LE have a very different perspective from most people. Two simple reasons: a. the desire to go into law enforcement requires a certain mentality, and b. they deal with criminals (often career criminals) on a daily basis.
"Ars is where you go for quality "news for nerds, stuff that matters", with good editorial insight, and much, much higher quality conversation."
Please, 90% of the commenters (and roughly 60% of the article writers) are as fucking bad as YouTube commenters.
Ars' commentary was pretty good, but it seems to have decline pretty steeply over the past year or so.
I thought most of the writers are still quite good, though.
homogenous literally means "no lumps"
No, it literally means "same kind". Homo genos, the Greek words for 'same' and 'kind or type.'
You're using the literal meaning of literally, which is the one that literally no one uses.
balderdash. A person should absolutely be free to live or free to choose to die.
They are free, that's free will, it's stil wrong to do it.
Remember that "morals" are something that you believe. Each person's are a little different, even within the same subculture.
You're confusing a personal code with morality. Your personal code is your best guess about what is right and wrong, cobbled together from your personal experiences.
It's no different from your personal understanding of how physics work vs. actual physics. I don't grasp 1% of relativity, but I still know gravity pulls things down, and that on earth things will accelerate at roughy 9.8 m/s^2. Similarly, I'm not a doctor, but I realize that releasing a dense object over someone's head will result in an impact that may fracture their skull and severely injure them if not kill them. And I have never had a skull fracture, but I can infer that it would be painful or fatal.
Thus, even with limited information, I know it's wrong to drop a bowling ball on someone's head. Different people might come to the same conclusion in different ways, but the fact that they will all come to roughly the same conclusion demonstrates that the underlying truths were always there whether or not some arrogant humans stumbled across them.
I certainly don't find anything immoral in killing oneself. You do. So for you, it would be immoral to kill yourself. For others, not so much. But don't try to pass off the definition of morality that your own ego holds as being some central morality that we all should subscribe to.
Okay, then kill yourself. Not dead yet? That's because you have a life to live, which has an inherent value. It's self-evident, and you've been basing decisions on that inherent value the whole time, not killing yourself obviously, but also trying to better yourself, provide an example to others, etc.