Actually, the first thing I thought of when I read the headline was that this would be a boon for the gold farmers. But since they can't do any money laundry with these starter characters, this is actually an improvement on what the starter toons were able to do previously.
Oh, no doubt the acronym is nasty. But the guy who explained how they are formed still did a fantastic job. Hey, how often do you learn something interesting on slashdot? This was great!
Wow! That was fascinating. I don't mean it sarcastically, either. Thanks! I really did think that the guy was asking if I was not skeptical enough about the claim (and therefore too trigger-happy to sue). But now I know how to tackle cockney slang! You have just made my day!
Not if the other engines are in public domain. You could argue that common knowledge does not have to be credited. When was the last time you acknowledged the writers of qsort? I am not making that argument, by the way. I don't know how well-known Fruit and Crafty are in the community. I am just saying that there is if they are understood to be the basic knowledge, then one could omit acknowledging them.
How's putting two things together plagiarism if it was never done before? The whole is bigger than the sum-total of the parts. And if anyone doubts that the whole is bigger than the sum-total of the parts, I welcome them to take any computer program composed of parts (lines of code) and to switch those parts around. If the resulting program doesn't change, they may have a point.
Where-ever you go, there you are. And every generation thinks that they are inventing new social concepts. The idea of making the Bible adult-only reading material had a big movement in the 19th century. Technology is the only progress we make. All social constructs have been discovered and tried long ago.
The Song of Solomon is a pretty good bit of literary erotica.
Yep. In fact, I don't think I ever heard anyone talk about The Song of Solomon without giving that warning first. The rest of the Bible has enough sexual imagery that there was a semi-credible-semi-facetious movement at the end of the 19th century to make it an adult-only reading material just for that reason. Mark Twain was a notable member of the movement.
Porn is not speech. It doesn't communicate ideas. It elicits a physical response. The fact is that it bypasses the rational faculties. Violent imagery does not make people want to commit violence in an impulsive manner. Sexual imagery produces arousal (which is impulsive unless, of course, you want to argue that there is such a thing a reasoned non-impulsive arousal).
even though most game developers are breathing a sigh of relief, many would like to see the industry shift toward something more creative and meaningful than violence.
Regardless of whether the "many" in that sentence are the developers or the 3rd part observers, these "many" have an opportunity to either develop other types of games themselves or to patron different types of games. The benefit of for-profit art, just as the the benefit of for-profit anything is that they have to strive to keep pleasing their customers.
Costs of Medicare are simply unknown. Since they do virtually no investigation of fraud. They are known for paying the minimum of the market rate. One must, therefore, assume that accepting Medicaid must incentivise fraud. I am not even going to bother to rehash the healthcare debate. It's been widely proven that all the left's claim on the subject are dubious at best. I won't rehash it not because the evidence isn't there. Rather because I am bored of it at this point. If I had any doubt before the debate started, examining all the evidence showed that the left was simply wrong. Social Security's cost maybe small, but it's cost of opportunity is huge. Almost any other fixed income pension or annuity scheme yields more per dollar invested.
I made no claim of persecution. I made a claim of you having your finger on the scale while trying to appear to be an impartial arbiter. That's not persecution. That's deception. That was the accusation.
Your "well known" claim doesn't hold water. Spending on consumption doesn't improve the economy. Economy is improved through actions which perpetuate creation of conditions which improve life. If the choice is between spending on consumption and spending on means of production, the obvious alternative is the spending on means of production.
But that is not why the claim that "social programs are the cheapest and best way to make a long term positive effect on society" is atrociously wrong. Entire 20th century is the history of disproving any claims that social engineering, however well-intentioned of claimed-to-be-well-intentioned, results in producing effects opposite of the stated intentions. Even the temporary relief that you claim with your citation removes the incentive for improvement. Life is a series of choices of alternatives. When costs of negative alternatives are removed, the positive alternatives becomes less advantageous (for as long as that cost continues to stay removed). As a result of a series of encouraging negative alternatives, the damage escalates. The result is either escalation of the costs in order to maintain viability of the negative alternatives or removal of such costs and eventual paying of the then-increased costs of the positive alternatives. Social programs almost universally act as removal of the cost of negative alternatives. The reason they seem cheap at first is that the initial costs of negative alternatives are smaller than their necessarily escalating costs.
I will not bite, by the way, and get myself into a correlation mud slinging. Correlational arguments are only useful to establish relative weights of trends AFTER causality of such trends had been already established.
I am agnostic on the claim. But if a contract is, in fact, ambiguous, then I can see how the meeting of the minds at the time of the signing of the contract actually prevails over the language. I am not a lawyer nor do I know the person making the claim.
"Confusing" language often means open to interpretation (ie, ambiguous). Anyone who thinks they may have a claim because the language in their contract can be read in multiple ways is probably well-advised to talk to a lawyer and sue.
I've been saying for a long time now that one of the requirements during a tech interview should be to have people write an essay. Readability of code will determine 70% of a programmer's usefulness. And those who can't structure text with future readers in mind very likely (albeit not with 100% correlation) cannot structure code with future readers in mind.
More to the point, requiring a citation is only an indication of intellectual rigor when such standard of proof is applied to both sides of the argument. When it is applied only to one side, it serves not as an indication of an intellectual rigor, but rather as a personal bias of the self-appointed arbiter.
Odd how you haven't made the same request of the person making the statement "Social programs are the cheapest and best way to make a long term positive effect on society." Is there any chance that you haven't asked them to prove their case because you know that a full argument will not be made in the short space of an Internet post and you are looking to make a "gotcha" claim resulting from a necessarily curtailed explanation?
I am not sure I would agree with your accusation of the intellectuals. A well-informed intellectual cannot remain on the left without necessarily being intellectually dishonest. I know the case for intellectuals being on the left is often thrown out there. But I think the indictment of all intellectuals as leftist (and therefore intellectually dishonest) is guilt by association.
Not really. While the accusation that there is a lot of dumb people on the right probably holds true, the implied dichotomy that the people on the left are smarter doesn't hold. Most intelligent people who are historically educated are not left-leaning. Intelligent people only allow themselves to espouse leftist ideas if they are lying for a living or if they happen to be ignorant.
"Commie" is an insult, but it's also a throwback to the time when it was already well-understood that the left had lost its case. It serves as a derisive term of dismissiveness for just the kinds of fools who won't take the advice given to them by history.
Let me be clear, when fools challenge the wise, it is pointless to argue with them. The most adequate course of action is to dismiss them. And commies are fools. This isn't arrogance for the simple reason that a wise man isn't dismissive towards everyone (that would be arrogance). He isn't even dismissive towards most -- just towards those selective few for whom reason isn't really a tool for making judgements (ie, the fools).
You might still be thinking of "commie" as a knee jerk insult of the time when the folly of the left was so well understood that it didn't have to be explained. The insult was then repeated by those who not only wouldn't explain why the left had been discredited, but also by those who couldn't. Let me assure you, that time is gone. The foolishness of the left is in need of being exposed once again. And using the term "commie" is a form of nostalgia for the time when less effort had to be spent on stating the obvious.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, the first thing I thought of when I read the headline was that this would be a boon for the gold farmers. But since they can't do any money laundry with these starter characters, this is actually an improvement on what the starter toons were able to do previously.
Oh, no doubt the acronym is nasty. But the guy who explained how they are formed still did a fantastic job. Hey, how often do you learn something interesting on slashdot? This was great!
Wow! That was fascinating. I don't mean it sarcastically, either. Thanks! I really did think that the guy was asking if I was not skeptical enough about the claim (and therefore too trigger-happy to sue). But now I know how to tackle cockney slang! You have just made my day!
Not if the other engines are in public domain. You could argue that common knowledge does not have to be credited. When was the last time you acknowledged the writers of qsort? I am not making that argument, by the way. I don't know how well-known Fruit and Crafty are in the community. I am just saying that there is if they are understood to be the basic knowledge, then one could omit acknowledging them.
How's putting two things together plagiarism if it was never done before? The whole is bigger than the sum-total of the parts. And if anyone doubts that the whole is bigger than the sum-total of the parts, I welcome them to take any computer program composed of parts (lines of code) and to switch those parts around. If the resulting program doesn't change, they may have a point.
Where-ever you go, there you are. And every generation thinks that they are inventing new social concepts. The idea of making the Bible adult-only reading material had a big movement in the 19th century. Technology is the only progress we make. All social constructs have been discovered and tried long ago.
The Song of Solomon is a pretty good bit of literary erotica.
Yep. In fact, I don't think I ever heard anyone talk about The Song of Solomon without giving that warning first. The rest of the Bible has enough sexual imagery that there was a semi-credible-semi-facetious movement at the end of the 19th century to make it an adult-only reading material just for that reason. Mark Twain was a notable member of the movement.
Porn is not speech. It doesn't communicate ideas. It elicits a physical response. The fact is that it bypasses the rational faculties. Violent imagery does not make people want to commit violence in an impulsive manner. Sexual imagery produces arousal (which is impulsive unless, of course, you want to argue that there is such a thing a reasoned non-impulsive arousal).
even though most game developers are breathing a sigh of relief, many would like to see the industry shift toward something more creative and meaningful than violence.
Regardless of whether the "many" in that sentence are the developers or the 3rd part observers, these "many" have an opportunity to either develop other types of games themselves or to patron different types of games. The benefit of for-profit art, just as the the benefit of for-profit anything is that they have to strive to keep pleasing their customers.
Why wouldn't the court treat violent images and sexual images differently? Human brain has a different response to seeing violence and to seeing sex.
Costs of Medicare are simply unknown. Since they do virtually no investigation of fraud. They are known for paying the minimum of the market rate. One must, therefore, assume that accepting Medicaid must incentivise fraud. I am not even going to bother to rehash the healthcare debate. It's been widely proven that all the left's claim on the subject are dubious at best. I won't rehash it not because the evidence isn't there. Rather because I am bored of it at this point. If I had any doubt before the debate started, examining all the evidence showed that the left was simply wrong. Social Security's cost maybe small, but it's cost of opportunity is huge. Almost any other fixed income pension or annuity scheme yields more per dollar invested.
I made no claim of persecution. I made a claim of you having your finger on the scale while trying to appear to be an impartial arbiter. That's not persecution. That's deception. That was the accusation.
Your "well known" claim doesn't hold water. Spending on consumption doesn't improve the economy. Economy is improved through actions which perpetuate creation of conditions which improve life. If the choice is between spending on consumption and spending on means of production, the obvious alternative is the spending on means of production.
But that is not why the claim that "social programs are the cheapest and best way to make a long term positive effect on society" is atrociously wrong. Entire 20th century is the history of disproving any claims that social engineering, however well-intentioned of claimed-to-be-well-intentioned, results in producing effects opposite of the stated intentions. Even the temporary relief that you claim with your citation removes the incentive for improvement. Life is a series of choices of alternatives. When costs of negative alternatives are removed, the positive alternatives becomes less advantageous (for as long as that cost continues to stay removed). As a result of a series of encouraging negative alternatives, the damage escalates. The result is either escalation of the costs in order to maintain viability of the negative alternatives or removal of such costs and eventual paying of the then-increased costs of the positive alternatives. Social programs almost universally act as removal of the cost of negative alternatives. The reason they seem cheap at first is that the initial costs of negative alternatives are smaller than their necessarily escalating costs.
I will not bite, by the way, and get myself into a correlation mud slinging. Correlational arguments are only useful to establish relative weights of trends AFTER causality of such trends had been already established.
By the way, I assume you meant "skeptic" rather than someone prone to suffering from inflammations.
I am agnostic on the claim. But if a contract is, in fact, ambiguous, then I can see how the meeting of the minds at the time of the signing of the contract actually prevails over the language. I am not a lawyer nor do I know the person making the claim.
"Confusing" language often means open to interpretation (ie, ambiguous). Anyone who thinks they may have a claim because the language in their contract can be read in multiple ways is probably well-advised to talk to a lawyer and sue.
Not true. I am willing to give them a pass for being ignorant rather than stupid.
That might explain it. I know this may come off as trolling. But I've never seen a programmer from UK.
I've been saying for a long time now that one of the requirements during a tech interview should be to have people write an essay. Readability of code will determine 70% of a programmer's usefulness. And those who can't structure text with future readers in mind very likely (albeit not with 100% correlation) cannot structure code with future readers in mind.
I am an atheist. But you are a bully. And your excuse (that you are only bullying a group because it has bullies in it) doesn't fly.
More to the point, requiring a citation is only an indication of intellectual rigor when such standard of proof is applied to both sides of the argument. When it is applied only to one side, it serves not as an indication of an intellectual rigor, but rather as a personal bias of the self-appointed arbiter.
Come at me Fat Boy! Oh, is that your mother calling you up for dinner? +5 Flamebait : )
Talking about a pot calling a kettle black.
Since when does providing for oneself make one a slave?
Odd how you haven't made the same request of the person making the statement "Social programs are the cheapest and best way to make a long term positive effect on society." Is there any chance that you haven't asked them to prove their case because you know that a full argument will not be made in the short space of an Internet post and you are looking to make a "gotcha" claim resulting from a necessarily curtailed explanation?
I am not sure I would agree with your accusation of the intellectuals. A well-informed intellectual cannot remain on the left without necessarily being intellectually dishonest. I know the case for intellectuals being on the left is often thrown out there. But I think the indictment of all intellectuals as leftist (and therefore intellectually dishonest) is guilt by association.
Not really. While the accusation that there is a lot of dumb people on the right probably holds true, the implied dichotomy that the people on the left are smarter doesn't hold. Most intelligent people who are historically educated are not left-leaning. Intelligent people only allow themselves to espouse leftist ideas if they are lying for a living or if they happen to be ignorant.
"Commie" is an insult, but it's also a throwback to the time when it was already well-understood that the left had lost its case. It serves as a derisive term of dismissiveness for just the kinds of fools who won't take the advice given to them by history.
Let me be clear, when fools challenge the wise, it is pointless to argue with them. The most adequate course of action is to dismiss them. And commies are fools. This isn't arrogance for the simple reason that a wise man isn't dismissive towards everyone (that would be arrogance). He isn't even dismissive towards most -- just towards those selective few for whom reason isn't really a tool for making judgements (ie, the fools).
You might still be thinking of "commie" as a knee jerk insult of the time when the folly of the left was so well understood that it didn't have to be explained. The insult was then repeated by those who not only wouldn't explain why the left had been discredited, but also by those who couldn't. Let me assure you, that time is gone. The foolishness of the left is in need of being exposed once again. And using the term "commie" is a form of nostalgia for the time when less effort had to be spent on stating the obvious.