They teach the heart of the Scientific Method and show it as being FUN. Test the hypothesis - then retest it, just like Jaime and Adam do every episode.
That would make sense... if their second set of lawyers admitted defeat and settle.
But having a second set of lawyers actually deny claims of the first/defend the company makes ZERO sense.
I don't. The crime was that he traveled to the USA electronically and did things to servers in the USA.
Nothing in the Image copy vase involved committing illegal actions on the UK servers. Also, as the law is new, sometimes the USA tries to exceed its authority. Just because a US prosecutor makes a claim does not mean he is making a VALID claim - not even if the judge agrees with him. Lawyers and judges sometimes disobey the law.
This issue strikes at the heart of the international nature of the internet.
1. In the UK, it would be a crime.
2. In the USA it is not a crime.
3. The act was done in the USA.
QED no crime was committed. The problem is that by inference we need a single global law for all electronically copyable information. That includes all photos, art, music, movies, books, etc.
The thing that makes the problem difficult is A. There is no global organization with anything close to the authority or trust to create such a global law and B. There are SIGNIFICANT philosophical differences about the kinds of laws we need. Whether it is is Freedom of the Press issue, a slander issue, or even business model issues (I personally think a 10 year renewable with sequel, copyright system would work best) there is HUGE disagreement still on what is fair and workable.
Uhm, I hate to tell you but porn was some of the FIRST things they made into steroscopic images.
Just go looking for it and you will find it.
Much of it uses the red-green 3d glasses to view.
I could see it going the other way. With 2 billion worth of cheap windmils available, some utilities might get into the wind powered energy business sooner than they otherwise would have. If they like what they get, this could speed things.
I've seen thes things. They are in no way hideous. They are artificial, just like any other man made structure.
More importantly, I love how people that don't own the property object to it being made hideous.
Complaining about an innovation because you don't like the way it looks is the ULTIMATE in childish stupidity.
Put an electronic headline news billboard up.
Then when it rains, put a fake headline like "Be on the look out for a nude 20 year old girl on Highway 3"
I assure you, all the men will slow down and be on the look out for her.
You didn't put out what you learned. You put out a bunch of value judgements that are nothing more than your personal preferences. Claiming that they are statistical simulations is fine - but that same complaint can be made about any game with a specified random component. That includes all gambling games, but also other games such as Risk, Monopoly, etc. Your claim that it is not a good simulation is rather stupid. First it assumes your basic description was accurate (it isn't - merely describing one rather insignificant part of a game does not mean you have accurately described it). Second there are many different RPGS and they simulate to varing degrees. The fact that you apparently tried one and did not like so you blame them all is called prejudice. Judgeing all by one example.
More importantly, I don't object to you not liking the game. I object to you insulting it. If you had said I played it and did not enjoy it, that would be one thing. Instead you choose to engage in a FLAMEWAR, making snide comments that implied insults to those that do enjoy it.
We know that RPGS turn some people off and are not the be and end all of games.
But we also have enough social skills not to go around insulting things other people like. The internet tends to make people forget manners - hence trolls and flamebaits etc. But that does not excuse your poor behavior.
In game, I found that it is best to: Always take the head. Merely because it looks dead doesn't mean it is.
But in real life, I found that to be rather bad advice. Things that look dead generally are either dead or helpless - whether it is a creature or a company.
I find your analysis to be faulty. Sure people could have learned them from other places, but this particular guy claims that he learned them from this game.
Maybe he would have learned them later - like say after he got fired. Better to learn things when you are young BEFORE it really matters.
That by the way is the reason why all mammals play. It is learning without consequences. It lets the cat learn how to stalk without starving in the first month. It lets the wolf pack learn how to cooperate, so they can take down bigger game, without getting into huge dominance battles right before you hunt.
Sounds like you either:
1. Had some really bad players/DM's
and/or
2. Are stupid enough to think that people that like things you don't like should be insulted, as should the things they liek.
How DARE they enjoy something you dislike? They should be taken out and SHOT. And you certainly have the right to make fun of them and insult them.
I think people have already invented this. It is called Readers Digest. Merely switching from a magazine format to a book format is irrelevant, particularly because it is coming in electronic format, not paper.
Porn for medical purposes:
Photographs of a woman's breasts with say lines drawn on it indicating where they plan on cutting to remove the breast cancer.
Any medical book.
It's not that hard to understand.
Similarly, only a total moron refuses to admit that a drug has medical benefits. Pot has been proven to help glaucoma and loss of appetite, both real medical conditions.
You may personally claim that there are other treatements but you are clearly not a doctor and therefore not qualified to make that decision.
Look, it's not just that the method they choose to do this is evil. It's not just that they could track us.
It's the belief that they should be tracking mileage in the first place.
One of the major advantages of taxing gasoline instead of taxing miles its that it rewards people who have better gas mileage.
If we just want to raise more cash, raise the general income or sales tax.
If we just want to charge car owners to maintain the highways, use tollbooths and also put in higher registration fees.
But the reason we put in a tax on gas was to charge MORE to people that use more GAS. The idea is to thereby encourage people, financially, to use less gas.
This is a blatant attempt to get rid of one of the best ideas we have ever had - to tax GASOLINE because it's use is bad for the environment and it is a limited commodity.
Anyone that supports using a mileage tax by itself is an evil, vile person, and it should not be surprised that they would try the most evil method of all, trackign everyone everywhere they went via GPS.
If we are not getting enough money from the gas tax then raise the gas tax.
I noticed you cut out the one sentence where I actually proved you wrong.
Again, I bet most bosses will NOT listen.
As for 30/40 years - If you seriously think you know enough about what software is going to be like in 30-40 years to base business decisions on it, then you should quit posting on Slashdot and spend your time working on more important things.
Basing your business decisions on what happens this year instead of 5-10 years would be myopic. Basing your decisions on 15-20 years would be far-sighted. Basing your decisions on 25+ years might be prophetic. Trying to base your decisions on 30+ year, in this business is insane and arrogant = megamaniacal.
I believe that the majority of corporate bosses are too stupid to pick up on this meme for the foreseeable future.
I am sure that in 30 or forty years it may become a problem, but by that time I will have retired.
In addition, many of the "costs" Microsoft calculates are in fact dependent on Linux being less poopular than MS. If everyone is using Linux, then the costs to retrain etc. will NOT be present.
No, Microsoft is not allowed to put in tons of "Linux is not the primary system people know" costs and then exclude the "Linux is not the primary system people write viruses for" costs.
Wrong. Just because there is a logical REASON for Microsoft to have more viruses/bugs than Linux does NOT mean that you should not include such costs when considering whether or not to use Linux.
Yes, your complaint would apply if the entire world was considering switching from Microsoft to Linux. But when I advise my boss about the comparitive costs of using MS or of Linux, I would be foolish to refuse to include costs related to viruses simply because if in a mythical world where people used Linux more than MS then in that mysthical world the virus cost would be lower for Microsoft.
As a busineman, I must live in the real world and base my costs on reality, not your dream world. In reality, currently, Linux has lower virus related costs and I there MUST include the cost to deal with such problems when calculating the lifetime cost of software.
Your comment is 100% completely correct and also 100% completely irrelevant.
The question is not "Is Linux inherently as cheap as Microsoft". No. The question is, if we include all costs, including virus and other malware related costs, will Microsoft cost more than Linux.
Just as Microsoft is correct that when considering the real cost of 'free software', you have to include costs such as training, you ALSO have to consider the costs incurred due to malware.
You are obviously not a math major. Doubling 50 times is prohibitively expensive.
Try it at 1 cent.
1 =1, 2 = 2, 3 = 4, 4 = 8, 5 = 16, 6 = 32, 7 = 64, 8 = 128, 9 = 256, 10 = 512,
11 = $10 and 24 cents, drop the pennies. so each 10 = x1000.
21= $10,000 (plus change)
31= $10,000,000 (plus change)
41 = $10 billion (plus change)
51 would be $10 trillion (plus change).
I doubt ford could pay for 30 domains using this silly idea, even starting at 1 penny.
Quite a few large businesses have many domains. For example, Ford might own each and every brand name they have as a domain.
Similarly, food companies could own a domain for each and every food brand.
Slashdot Mirror
I realized that what I wrote may be misinterpreted. I am statying that homophobia is a a mental problem, but being gay is totally sane.
I.E. Given that it is just a cold reading technique, that does not mean it is irrelvant, nonsense, junk, etc.
It can be EXTREMELY hard to get people to admit stuff. Someone that is homophobic may be gay, or just an a-hole.
Cold Reading type techniques to get the patient to tell you that yes, he is gay can be very valuable.
That said, I see zero reason not to publish the old tests and then create some random new ones.
They teach the heart of the Scientific Method and show it as being FUN. Test the hypothesis - then retest it, just like Jaime and Adam do every episode.
That would make sense ... if their second set of lawyers admitted defeat and settle.
But having a second set of lawyers actually deny claims of the first/defend the company makes ZERO sense.
Would it be all that hard for the US government to raise the price $5 and include a blocking sheath?
I don't. The crime was that he traveled to the USA electronically and did things to servers in the USA. Nothing in the Image copy vase involved committing illegal actions on the UK servers. Also, as the law is new, sometimes the USA tries to exceed its authority. Just because a US prosecutor makes a claim does not mean he is making a VALID claim - not even if the judge agrees with him. Lawyers and judges sometimes disobey the law.
1. In the UK, it would be a crime.
2. In the USA it is not a crime.
3. The act was done in the USA.
QED no crime was committed. The problem is that by inference we need a single global law for all electronically copyable information. That includes all photos, art, music, movies, books, etc.
The thing that makes the problem difficult is A. There is no global organization with anything close to the authority or trust to create such a global law and B. There are SIGNIFICANT philosophical differences about the kinds of laws we need. Whether it is is Freedom of the Press issue, a slander issue, or even business model issues (I personally think a 10 year renewable with sequel, copyright system would work best) there is HUGE disagreement still on what is fair and workable.
Uhm, I hate to tell you but porn was some of the FIRST things they made into steroscopic images. Just go looking for it and you will find it. Much of it uses the red-green 3d glasses to view.
I could see it going the other way. With 2 billion worth of cheap windmils available, some utilities might get into the wind powered energy business sooner than they otherwise would have. If they like what they get, this could speed things.
I've seen thes things. They are in no way hideous. They are artificial, just like any other man made structure. More importantly, I love how people that don't own the property object to it being made hideous. Complaining about an innovation because you don't like the way it looks is the ULTIMATE in childish stupidity.
Put an electronic headline news billboard up. Then when it rains, put a fake headline like "Be on the look out for a nude 20 year old girl on Highway 3" I assure you, all the men will slow down and be on the look out for her.
More importantly, I don't object to you not liking the game. I object to you insulting it. If you had said I played it and did not enjoy it, that would be one thing. Instead you choose to engage in a FLAMEWAR, making snide comments that implied insults to those that do enjoy it.
We know that RPGS turn some people off and are not the be and end all of games.
But we also have enough social skills not to go around insulting things other people like. The internet tends to make people forget manners - hence trolls and flamebaits etc. But that does not excuse your poor behavior.
But in real life, I found that to be rather bad advice. Things that look dead generally are either dead or helpless - whether it is a creature or a company.
I find your analysis to be faulty. Sure people could have learned them from other places, but this particular guy claims that he learned them from this game. Maybe he would have learned them later - like say after he got fired. Better to learn things when you are young BEFORE it really matters. That by the way is the reason why all mammals play. It is learning without consequences. It lets the cat learn how to stalk without starving in the first month. It lets the wolf pack learn how to cooperate, so they can take down bigger game, without getting into huge dominance battles right before you hunt.
Sounds like you either: 1. Had some really bad players/DM's and/or 2. Are stupid enough to think that people that like things you don't like should be insulted, as should the things they liek. How DARE they enjoy something you dislike? They should be taken out and SHOT. And you certainly have the right to make fun of them and insult them.
Shopping for the right equiptment may take as much time as using it does, but it is well worth the effort.
I think people have already invented this. It is called Readers Digest. Merely switching from a magazine format to a book format is irrelevant, particularly because it is coming in electronic format, not paper.
Porn for medical purposes: Photographs of a woman's breasts with say lines drawn on it indicating where they plan on cutting to remove the breast cancer. Any medical book. It's not that hard to understand. Similarly, only a total moron refuses to admit that a drug has medical benefits. Pot has been proven to help glaucoma and loss of appetite, both real medical conditions. You may personally claim that there are other treatements but you are clearly not a doctor and therefore not qualified to make that decision.
It's the belief that they should be tracking mileage in the first place.
One of the major advantages of taxing gasoline instead of taxing miles its that it rewards people who have better gas mileage.
If we just want to raise more cash, raise the general income or sales tax.
If we just want to charge car owners to maintain the highways, use tollbooths and also put in higher registration fees.
But the reason we put in a tax on gas was to charge MORE to people that use more GAS. The idea is to thereby encourage people, financially, to use less gas.
This is a blatant attempt to get rid of one of the best ideas we have ever had - to tax GASOLINE because it's use is bad for the environment and it is a limited commodity.
Anyone that supports using a mileage tax by itself is an evil, vile person, and it should not be surprised that they would try the most evil method of all, trackign everyone everywhere they went via GPS.
If we are not getting enough money from the gas tax then raise the gas tax.
I noticed you cut out the one sentence where I actually proved you wrong. Again, I bet most bosses will NOT listen. As for 30/40 years - If you seriously think you know enough about what software is going to be like in 30-40 years to base business decisions on it, then you should quit posting on Slashdot and spend your time working on more important things. Basing your business decisions on what happens this year instead of 5-10 years would be myopic. Basing your decisions on 15-20 years would be far-sighted. Basing your decisions on 25+ years might be prophetic. Trying to base your decisions on 30+ year, in this business is insane and arrogant = megamaniacal.
I believe that the majority of corporate bosses are too stupid to pick up on this meme for the foreseeable future.
I am sure that in 30 or forty years it may become a problem, but by that time I will have retired.
In addition, many of the "costs" Microsoft calculates are in fact dependent on Linux being less poopular than MS. If everyone is using Linux, then the costs to retrain etc. will NOT be present.
No, Microsoft is not allowed to put in tons of "Linux is not the primary system people know" costs and then exclude the "Linux is not the primary system people write viruses for" costs.
Not to me at least.
Yes, your complaint would apply if the entire world was considering switching from Microsoft to Linux. But when I advise my boss about the comparitive costs of using MS or of Linux, I would be foolish to refuse to include costs related to viruses simply because if in a mythical world where people used Linux more than MS then in that mysthical world the virus cost would be lower for Microsoft.
As a busineman, I must live in the real world and base my costs on reality, not your dream world. In reality, currently, Linux has lower virus related costs and I there MUST include the cost to deal with such problems when calculating the lifetime cost of software.
The question is not "Is Linux inherently as cheap as Microsoft". No. The question is, if we include all costs, including virus and other malware related costs, will Microsoft cost more than Linux.
Just as Microsoft is correct that when considering the real cost of 'free software', you have to include costs such as training, you ALSO have to consider the costs incurred due to malware.
You are obviously not a math major. Doubling 50 times is prohibitively expensive. Try it at 1 cent. 1 =1, 2 = 2, 3 = 4, 4 = 8, 5 = 16, 6 = 32, 7 = 64, 8 = 128, 9 = 256, 10 = 512, 11 = $10 and 24 cents, drop the pennies. so each 10 = x1000. 21= $10,000 (plus change) 31= $10,000,000 (plus change) 41 = $10 billion (plus change) 51 would be $10 trillion (plus change). I doubt ford could pay for 30 domains using this silly idea, even starting at 1 penny.
Quite a few large businesses have many domains. For example, Ford might own each and every brand name they have as a domain. Similarly, food companies could own a domain for each and every food brand.