There isn't even a story here, though. If Boeing had a press release for a new airplane and Slashdot posted that, that's kind of interesting, impactful, topically relevant, and it likely wouldn't bother many people. This, however, is substance-free garbage.
I mean, I know it's a rhetorical question, but it seems particularly incorrect. A lot of people object to the term "married" being applied to gay people. For religious reasons. And since it's a legal term, the state defines who is married and who is not. If the state used any other word, those offended would say something like "Oh, maybe in the eyes of STUPID_OTHER_DIETY you're married, but not in the eyes of MY_DIETY."
Why can't they say that already? "Oh, maybe in the eyes of THE_STATE you're married, but not in the eyes of MY_DEITY". Marriage as a concept hasn't traditionally been owned by organized religion, and marriage-the-word applying to marriage-the-concept isn't new either.
That argument strikes me as a cheap way of shifting responsibility. Rather than truthfully supporting their positions, the religious folks can just say "well, the state shouldn't be involved in marriage anyways"
Huh? They don't think that gay people should be allowed to get married. Instead of letting 800 definitions of "married" exist, the state creates one. That seems to be pretty explicit.
What secret position do you think they support?
You can have a non-State-sanctioned marriage. I can announce that I'm married to a tomato, and no one will stop me. Similarly, I can believe that your marriage isn't valid in my religion, and that's fine.
My point is that the whole "the state shouldn't be involved in marriage, but domestic unions are okay!" thing seems dishonest. State marriage is a non-religious domestic union. If they really mean "gays shouldn't be domestic unioned", they ought to just say it. If they're really concerned that the State will start interceding on their religion, why not pass a law to prevent that rather than one to stop same-sex marriage in general?
That didn't stop you from forcing your religion on homosexual couples in California.
In fairness, marriage is primarily a religious ceremony* that has no place in government. Domestic unions of some type, there's a government interest in that.
*Or non-religious ceremony. What-have-you. It's a ceremony with some mixture of religious, personal, social, and romantic significance. The only two important points are a) It has religious significance to many, and b) It should have no significance to the government.
The state is already involved in a non-religious "domestic union of some type". They call it "marriage". Who cares if it happens to share the same word as religious institutions use for their own domestic unions?
That argument strikes me as a cheap way of shifting responsibility. Rather than truthfully supporting their positions, the religious folks can just say "well, the state shouldn't be involved in marriage anyways"
A mass effect field is a field wherein the objects contained have a modified mass.
A utility fog is a particulate cloud composed of miniaturized self-assembling machines.
You're maybe thinking of an omni-tool, which (IIRC) uses mass effect fields in order to manufacture parts? An omni-tool essentially accomplishes the same thing (on-the-fly assembly of parts) as a utility fog through different means, putting the action in the omni-tool and its mass effect field generator rather than on nano-assemblers in a fog.
That is a TOS-violation (Valve will act on it if they notice it occurring, and there's no protection for either buyer or seller), and you need to sell the entire account, you can't sell it piece-wise. That option is a complete non-starter for most people.
With Steam, you can send games you have not redeemed to friends. There's no trading of used games. Any boxed game that uses Steam activation (there's a lot of them now) cannot be traded to friends after you've activated it on your account.
PC games have been definitely been doing online activation like this for longer than console games. The first I can remember buying is Tribes 2 in 2001, which required an account tied to a CD key. That's more than ten years ago, nearly a decade before I'm aware of any console games doing their current soft version of it (buy used and you need to pay ~$10 to get all the features). Most single player titles weren't doing it until Steam started to become popular, though.
Now, of my recent purchases which can be physically purchased, Skyrim, Civilization 5, Shogun 2, Mass Effect 3, Batman: AC, and Assassin's Creed 2:3 are all tied to a single account once activated, and they're all single-player games.
IANAL, but I would imagine it has to do with precedent. As I understand it, if you have a copyright on something, you have to protect it. If you don't, you lose it.
You're thinking about trademark abandonment. Trademarks are treated differently from copyright because... they're different. The value of a copyrighted material still exists if someone else uses it, and the ownership is still clear.
Trademarks are used to identify something as coming from a certain person/organization; once they're "abandoned" (the company stops defending against trademark infringement), the trademark is can simply no longer do that, so the legal protection for it is lost.
You haven't even bothered trying to tell us why it's a disincentive; you've provided no justification at all, so how are we supposed to believe you? Is there a specific reason that you need to ask one of these prohibited questions? Or is there perhaps a reason why you think one of these might unavoidably come up during an interview?
They're parts being sold with fake product numbers and manufacturing dates to make it look like they came from an original parts manufacturer. Some of them probably don't meet specifications, and the danger is that you can't tell without testing them because they're misrepresenting themselves as being from a reputable source. That's definitely no good when these parts are being installed in aircraft and weapons.
As another example of potentially dangerous counterfeits, there's counterfeit climbing gear floating around out there that apparently fails at forces far lower than it's claimed to be rated for.
SimCity 4 was hybrid 3Dish; buildings and other objects were 2D, but the terrain and vehicles were 3D. It was definitely "tile-based" though, as was SimCity 3000. Maybe GP is thinking of (the unnumbered) SimCity Societies?
Yes, and what I'm saying is that any plan can fail. Only Batman plans against every possible possibility, and his utility belt likely involves wormholes somehow so he doesn't even figure into this.
And what if I'm over in the next city, and a loved one on another continent has a heart attack? I'd really be kicking myself for not buying that Learjet.
Go for "noise isolating" earphones (like the aforementioned Etymotics, or a pair of Shures, or such). Noise cancelling headphones are active (use a microphone to pick up noise, then play it back out-of-phase to cancel it out), and the cheap ones are typically no good at all. Even the pricier ones can introduce a hissing noise to the sound.
I don't care about only the "next turn", I want to know where I am, and which turn is the next one. It's pretty hard to do that when the perspective is constantly changing.
I'm a spam cop over at reddit.com & we chased iyogi off the site LONG ago, they're spam, pure & simple, & we found links between iyogi & these "support staff" that phone you AT HOME to advise you your system is compromised
Can you substantiate this, please? I'm interested.
It's physical as in it's described by physics, it exists in the physical universe, it affects and is affected by the physical universe. You can't trap it in a bottle the same way you can't trap gravity in a bottle, or can't trap wind in a bottle.
Trying to ascribe some sort of mystical supernaturalism to it simply because you can't touch it is exactly the sort of thing I was talking about when I was describing why religions are distinct from science.
But the iPad still is fine otherwise. The higher-glare screen doesn't really matter much even when reading outdoors in practice.
Yes, it does. With a high glare screen, you need to turn up the brightness to compensate, whereas the Kindle is perfectly happy at ambient light levels. This is fatiguing indoors, and trying to manoeuvre the thing so that it's not afflicted with glare is just obnoxious. I like reading to be a comfortable thing I can do wherever I feel like sitting down, I shouldn't have to struggle to get in the right position for it.
And reading outdoors on an iPad is just plain exhausting. Unless you've got photos showing that it no longer looks like this in the sunlight, I don't see why that would have changed any with the new one.
> 'Religion' is pretty damn fuzzy, that's true, but I've yet to see one that's based solely on empiricism.
As a mystic "You are doing it wrong." Instead of looking for an external Religion, look for an internal religion.
Nope, still not empirical. Of course there's value at examining your own mind and figuring out how you tick, but there's no reason to wrap that up in the term 'religion' when 'introspection' works fine.
And what is a mystic? Exactly what do you do, other than "debunking" science with nonsensical arguments?
I haven't seen any recent games that cost more in Canada. Several years ago they were (inconsistently) $10 more, but it's been hard to find any price difference for at least a decade or so. I suppose some older games don't have as severe price drops in Canada, and we can't always ship from Amazon, but Steam mostly balances that out.
But isn't that exactly what religion attempts to do, come up with an explanation of the real world based on empirical observations? Whether it is the Elemental forces of paganism or the poly-gods of Greek mythology, man looked at the world around him and sought an explanation.
No. Science just describes what's observed, that's why it's an empirical system.
Religion's explanations and observations inevitably seem to involve something non-empirical. Explaining thunder as the beating drums of the gods is an explanation, but it's not a scientific or empirical explanation. Explaining that we hear thunder, but don't know what causes it, is scientific.
Let's say you pray for rain, and you get rain, so you conclude there's a rain god. Then you call him Bob, and form a religion around him. There's a few problems there:
1) Concluding that prayer leads to rain actually is at least an empirically-based conclusion. It isn't very scientific though, unless you conduct a proper experiment and try to avoid your own biases. Out of X prayers, how many actually lead to rain? This type of premature correlation is easy to get into, and we've even seen animals form superstitions in the same way, which is why science involves experimentation and reproduction of experimental results. This is one of the main differences between pre-science attempts at empirical explanations of the world, and scientific ones.
2) Concluding from this that there's a rain god and that his name is Bob isn't empirical, and certainly isn't scientific
Like I said, I've never heard of a religion based purely on empiricism or science. There's always some element of "I don't know, but I'm going to fill it in with something anyways".
And lest you think that "science" is exempt from irrational conflict here are some counter examples.
No, of course it isn't. Whenever humans are involved, irrationality will follow:P
"Religion bad, science good" or vice versa is quite literally, meaningless.
Just to reiterate what's above: Science is one thing, Religion is another thing. They do have actual meanings.
Slashdot Mirror
There isn't even a story here, though. If Boeing had a press release for a new airplane and Slashdot posted that, that's kind of interesting, impactful, topically relevant, and it likely wouldn't bother many people. This, however, is substance-free garbage.
I just did. I've always had Slashdot Adblock whitelisted with The Box unchecked, but now I give up. Too bad that box doesn't get rid of this "story".
Though, I sort of appreciated the subversiveness of
whatever-you-just-said-made-no-sense
I mean, I know it's a rhetorical question, but it seems particularly incorrect. A lot of people object to the term "married" being applied to gay people. For religious reasons. And since it's a legal term, the state defines who is married and who is not. If the state used any other word, those offended would say something like "Oh, maybe in the eyes of STUPID_OTHER_DIETY you're married, but not in the eyes of MY_DIETY."
Why can't they say that already? "Oh, maybe in the eyes of THE_STATE you're married, but not in the eyes of MY_DEITY". Marriage as a concept hasn't traditionally been owned by organized religion, and marriage-the-word applying to marriage-the-concept isn't new either.
Huh? They don't think that gay people should be allowed to get married. Instead of letting 800 definitions of "married" exist, the state creates one. That seems to be pretty explicit.
What secret position do you think they support?
You can have a non-State-sanctioned marriage. I can announce that I'm married to a tomato, and no one will stop me. Similarly, I can believe that your marriage isn't valid in my religion, and that's fine.
My point is that the whole "the state shouldn't be involved in marriage, but domestic unions are okay!" thing seems dishonest. State marriage is a non-religious domestic union. If they really mean "gays shouldn't be domestic unioned", they ought to just say it. If they're really concerned that the State will start interceding on their religion, why not pass a law to prevent that rather than one to stop same-sex marriage in general?
In fairness, marriage is primarily a religious ceremony* that has no place in government. Domestic unions of some type, there's a government interest in that.
*Or non-religious ceremony. What-have-you. It's a ceremony with some mixture of religious, personal, social, and romantic significance. The only two important points are a) It has religious significance to many, and b) It should have no significance to the government.
The state is already involved in a non-religious "domestic union of some type". They call it "marriage". Who cares if it happens to share the same word as religious institutions use for their own domestic unions?
That argument strikes me as a cheap way of shifting responsibility. Rather than truthfully supporting their positions, the religious folks can just say "well, the state shouldn't be involved in marriage anyways"
A mass effect field is a field wherein the objects contained have a modified mass.
A utility fog is a particulate cloud composed of miniaturized self-assembling machines.
You're maybe thinking of an omni-tool, which (IIRC) uses mass effect fields in order to manufacture parts? An omni-tool essentially accomplishes the same thing (on-the-fly assembly of parts) as a utility fog through different means, putting the action in the omni-tool and its mass effect field generator rather than on nano-assemblers in a fog.
That is a TOS-violation (Valve will act on it if they notice it occurring, and there's no protection for either buyer or seller), and you need to sell the entire account, you can't sell it piece-wise. That option is a complete non-starter for most people.
With Steam, you can send games you have not redeemed to friends. There's no trading of used games. Any boxed game that uses Steam activation (there's a lot of them now) cannot be traded to friends after you've activated it on your account.
PC games have been definitely been doing online activation like this for longer than console games. The first I can remember buying is Tribes 2 in 2001, which required an account tied to a CD key. That's more than ten years ago, nearly a decade before I'm aware of any console games doing their current soft version of it (buy used and you need to pay ~$10 to get all the features). Most single player titles weren't doing it until Steam started to become popular, though.
Now, of my recent purchases which can be physically purchased, Skyrim, Civilization 5, Shogun 2, Mass Effect 3, Batman: AC, and Assassin's Creed 2:3 are all tied to a single account once activated, and they're all single-player games.
IANAL, but I would imagine it has to do with precedent. As I understand it, if you have a copyright on something, you have to protect it. If you don't, you lose it.
You're thinking about trademark abandonment. Trademarks are treated differently from copyright because... they're different. The value of a copyrighted material still exists if someone else uses it, and the ownership is still clear.
Trademarks are used to identify something as coming from a certain person/organization; once they're "abandoned" (the company stops defending against trademark infringement), the trademark is can simply no longer do that, so the legal protection for it is lost.
You haven't even bothered trying to tell us why it's a disincentive; you've provided no justification at all, so how are we supposed to believe you? Is there a specific reason that you need to ask one of these prohibited questions? Or is there perhaps a reason why you think one of these might unavoidably come up during an interview?
They're parts being sold with fake product numbers and manufacturing dates to make it look like they came from an original parts manufacturer. Some of them probably don't meet specifications, and the danger is that you can't tell without testing them because they're misrepresenting themselves as being from a reputable source. That's definitely no good when these parts are being installed in aircraft and weapons.
As another example of potentially dangerous counterfeits, there's counterfeit climbing gear floating around out there that apparently fails at forces far lower than it's claimed to be rated for.
SimCity 4 was hybrid 3Dish; buildings and other objects were 2D, but the terrain and vehicles were 3D. It was definitely "tile-based" though, as was SimCity 3000. Maybe GP is thinking of (the unnumbered) SimCity Societies?
Yes, and what I'm saying is that any plan can fail. Only Batman plans against every possible possibility, and his utility belt likely involves wormholes somehow so he doesn't even figure into this.
And what if I'm over in the next city, and a loved one on another continent has a heart attack? I'd really be kicking myself for not buying that Learjet.
Why aren't you just linking to them here?
Go for "noise isolating" earphones (like the aforementioned Etymotics, or a pair of Shures, or such). Noise cancelling headphones are active (use a microphone to pick up noise, then play it back out-of-phase to cancel it out), and the cheap ones are typically no good at all. Even the pricier ones can introduce a hissing noise to the sound.
I don't care about only the "next turn", I want to know where I am, and which turn is the next one. It's pretty hard to do that when the perspective is constantly changing.
Yeah, and I'm sure you'd love an army of robo-humans to fight the Shadows with. I'm onto your meddling.
I'm not sure that we're working off the same definition of "being trolled", and holy shit that's an annoying abbreviation.
I'm a spam cop over at reddit.com & we chased iyogi off the site LONG ago, they're spam, pure & simple, & we found links between iyogi & these "support staff" that phone you AT HOME to advise you your system is compromised
Can you substantiate this, please? I'm interested.
It's physical as in it's described by physics, it exists in the physical universe, it affects and is affected by the physical universe. You can't trap it in a bottle the same way you can't trap gravity in a bottle, or can't trap wind in a bottle.
Trying to ascribe some sort of mystical supernaturalism to it simply because you can't touch it is exactly the sort of thing I was talking about when I was describing why religions are distinct from science.
But the iPad still is fine otherwise. The higher-glare screen doesn't really matter much even when reading outdoors in practice.
Yes, it does. With a high glare screen, you need to turn up the brightness to compensate, whereas the Kindle is perfectly happy at ambient light levels. This is fatiguing indoors, and trying to manoeuvre the thing so that it's not afflicted with glare is just obnoxious. I like reading to be a comfortable thing I can do wherever I feel like sitting down, I shouldn't have to struggle to get in the right position for it.
And reading outdoors on an iPad is just plain exhausting. Unless you've got photos showing that it no longer looks like this in the sunlight, I don't see why that would have changed any with the new one.
My Kindle is lighter, doesn't need backlighting, has a low-glare screen, and gets nearly a month of battery life.
A tablet is better for reference books, but I'd rather use an eink reader for novels.
> 'Religion' is pretty damn fuzzy, that's true, but I've yet to see one that's based solely on empiricism.
As a mystic "You are doing it wrong." Instead of looking for an external Religion, look for an internal religion.
Nope, still not empirical. Of course there's value at examining your own mind and figuring out how you tick, but there's no reason to wrap that up in the term 'religion' when 'introspection' works fine.
And what is a mystic? Exactly what do you do, other than "debunking" science with nonsensical arguments?
I haven't seen any recent games that cost more in Canada. Several years ago they were (inconsistently) $10 more, but it's been hard to find any price difference for at least a decade or so. I suppose some older games don't have as severe price drops in Canada, and we can't always ship from Amazon, but Steam mostly balances that out.
But isn't that exactly what religion attempts to do, come up with an explanation of the real world based on empirical observations? Whether it is the Elemental forces of paganism or the poly-gods of Greek mythology, man looked at the world around him and sought an explanation.
No. Science just describes what's observed, that's why it's an empirical system.
Religion's explanations and observations inevitably seem to involve something non-empirical. Explaining thunder as the beating drums of the gods is an explanation, but it's not a scientific or empirical explanation. Explaining that we hear thunder, but don't know what causes it, is scientific.
Let's say you pray for rain, and you get rain, so you conclude there's a rain god. Then you call him Bob, and form a religion around him. There's a few problems there:
1) Concluding that prayer leads to rain actually is at least an empirically-based conclusion. It isn't very scientific though, unless you conduct a proper experiment and try to avoid your own biases. Out of X prayers, how many actually lead to rain? This type of premature correlation is easy to get into, and we've even seen animals form superstitions in the same way, which is why science involves experimentation and reproduction of experimental results. This is one of the main differences between pre-science attempts at empirical explanations of the world, and scientific ones.
2) Concluding from this that there's a rain god and that his name is Bob isn't empirical, and certainly isn't scientific
Like I said, I've never heard of a religion based purely on empiricism or science. There's always some element of "I don't know, but I'm going to fill it in with something anyways".
And lest you think that "science" is exempt from irrational conflict here are some counter examples.
No, of course it isn't. Whenever humans are involved, irrationality will follow :P
"Religion bad, science good" or vice versa is quite literally, meaningless.
Just to reiterate what's above: Science is one thing, Religion is another thing. They do have actual meanings.