It's because the majority of people will not accept someone who is pragmatic and responsible. The majority (read: idiots) hate people who talk about hard truths and propose pragmatic solutions; they'd rather listen to someone spew bile and vitriol while hopping around like a chimpanzee on crack (read: Glenn Beck). The slightly-less-than-majority hate anyone who can spend the time to balance a checkbook and limit their spending to be something within their means.
People in large numbers do not value truth or pragmatism. They value appearance and theater.
Maybe after the next revolution we'll limit payment for elected office to be room and board at the rate of the national average, a limit of one term in elected office at a given level (elected to a national office? you can never be elected to any national office ever again...), dissolution of any corporation giving funds to any candidate, and no benefits continuing past the term of election.
TL;DR: You have to be a piece of shit to win an election that means anything in almost every case.
So, in the absence of laws against murder, it's alright to murder someone just because you want to?
"Inherent" doesn't mean you have protection against being murdered. It's an abstract concept, not a description of something tangible or functional. Unfortunately, many people cannot grasp theory and separate it from what they see in the physical world. Abstract concepts do not necessarily align completely with actual practice. "Inherent" is an assumption about the nature of a thing. It has very little practical bearing, but most people won't fault me for killing you if you assault me with a deadly weapon. That's the practical part of the abstraction "inherent."
Yup. Doing what S.O.B. described is likely to get you forfeiture of your own "right to life" as the response to murder in absence of government is usually a swift death of the murderer if they're caught.
Inherent rights are mostly just those things that are the result of reaction to unwarranted force being used against a given person. I work a plot of land and you try to take it, I'm going to do whatever is in my power to prevent that. You attempt to take my life, ditto. That's pretty much the beginning and end of the fundamental basis of inherent rights. Nobody who has a functional sense of morality is going to fault me for defending myself. That's what makes it inherent.
Each Dreamhost account has a 50GB space for backups of anything (legal) you want to put there. Most webhosts don't, though it's fairly easy to backup things like pictures by installing gallery software and "publicly" hosting them. I have many GBs worth of pictures hosted that way, and it's easy to make them private but still fall within the terms of service. As long as you provide a web interface, you can "host" pretty much anything that you wouldn't otherwise want publicly available.
After looking a bit more, it seems that when re-instated they are frequently allowed so long as the have exceptions for protected activities.
Then again, the rights of minors are routinely held to be less than adults when convenient, with only a few exceptions where they're strengthened (such as after arrest).
I'd be interested in seeing anything other than anecdotal evidence that they do anything to reduce crime. Not like the lack of empirical evidence would do anything to change the mind of someone who already has decided they know what's best for society though.
Regardless of whether it would be effective at stopping crime, curfews are routinely struck down as unconstitutional. All this will do is cost the city of Philadelphia money in legal fees when it is inevitably challenged in court and struck down.
Stating you don't like a pattern of behavior and leaving so it doesn't continue to bug you isn't whining. Some people don't feel the need to continually put up with assholes who are bent on harassing them. Walking away is perfectly reasonable. There's nothing whiny about recounting a perfectly on-topic personal experience in a remarkably neutral way regarding incredibly immature behavior on the part of a Wikicrat.
Or, if he's lying, why are you whining about it? Your post certainly qualifies more as whining than the OP's does.
No citation needed at all, for either part of that statement. Almost every President ever elected provides pretty ample evidence that the statement is likely true. There are always partisans who attempt to elevate a given President above the level of competency that he actually operates at. Second, all Presidents are human and all humans make mistakes. Given the power of the Presidency, mistakes made at that level can easily become colossal because of the reach of impact they can have.
If you do research on a given President and don't find at least a couple colossal mistakes, you're not a very good researcher.
I'm still baffled as to why this series is held up as the crown of "hard-core" RPGs, when it's such a hybrid...
It's because of the amount of choice available in gameplay. The series, on a whole, is very open-ended. Very few others provide anything other than linear play in single-player games. That's the essence of role-playing: being able to do what you want, when you want, without being railroaded down a storyline.
There are few games that you can spend hundreds of hours actively exploring new things and not be required to even look at the main questline if you don't want to.
Yes, there are problems with all the games. I don't think anyone would dispute that. Almost anyone who's played tabletop RPGs is going to identify more with TES games as true RPGs than almost anything else though, frequently more so than even official D&D roleplaying computer games.
Camera rotation in the RPG is the same, and navigating anything more complex than the Final Fantasy menus on the NES/SNES is faster and easier with a mouse than a joypad.
Skyrim is an RPG with an FPS world interface, so it's completely relevant. Pretty much any MMO you want to pick is the same.
Joypads are great for games that have limited UIs and non-3d worldspace. Otherwise, they can't hold a candle to a mouse. That's not fanboyism; it's fact.
I said "should." In law, what should happen and what will happen are usually two very different things. There is very little justice in the US legal system.
The judge should be removed from the bench and the prosecutor should be disbarred. This is blatant abuse of the judicial process, and both are either complicit or incompetent, and either one should warrant their removal from their respective offices.
The headline is more than likely directed toward the US demographic, where the only thing higher than about 15Mbps is if you're lucky enough to live in one of the few cities with fiber service.
All the utilities in the NW US I'm aware of have the option of time-of-use pricing for residential customers. Some still haven't had meters changed out, but the utilities are rapidly catching up.
Yeah, it seems like a good deal of the anti-Opera posts are from people who haven't even looked at it in the last 10 years and bash it with claims that haven't been true in as long (or ever, in some cases).
Opera has built-in flashblock and noscript, and since ads pay websites that I like in order to stay in business, I prefer to selectively block ads rather than take away all ad revenue from sites I use.
In the current era of broadband, blocking non-intrusive ads that pay for free sites to operate is a pretty shitty choice to make in my opinion. That makes the Opera adblocker much more preferable to me than AdBlock. All in all, it just works better. Don't have to deal with plugins and updates, and everything works just fine. I can even selectively block parts of sites that are annoying, rather than actual advertisements.
I'm coming to think the real challenge to FLOSS isn't the people who will spend $500 on proprietary software rather than $0 on free (as in speech) software, but the people who will spend $0 on bootleg proprietary software instead of $0 on free software.
That's why even Bill Gates admits he'd rather have people pirate his software than use someone else' software. Piracy helps Microsoft keep a dominant position.
There is no contract for commission. Lucas outright bought the helmets as they were produced, via a word-of-mouth agreement. So, it's really just one person's word against another. In a sane legal system that gives the burden of proof to the accuser, that means he should have every right to continue making them. Lucas cannot prove that he legally commissioned the work, simply that he bought a product from the original producer.
The comment wasn't about purchasing apps though. It was about purchasing through apps. Otherwise it wouldn't make sense in the context of an article about removing links in apps that circumvent direct in-app purchasing.
Apple said if they direct a consumer to purchase through an app, they deserve a 30% commission, but if publishers get a person to the app without Apple's help, the publisher gets 100% revenue from the purchase. Given Apple's walled-garden approach, I don't see how the latter is possible without jailbreaking, hence my question.
Actually, even if it was about directly purchasing apps, you still have to jailbreak or go through Apple's "Apple brings the customer process." I'm really trying to find out if there is a mechanism for installing and purchasing through apps that does not require either jailbreaking or using Apple's app store. If there's not a mainstream process for that, the statement really is a lie of omission, since you wouldn't be able to do app purchasing without Apple claiming to bring the customer. I want to know if there's actually a method that exists to allow purchasing through the publisher's direction, without being subject to the Apple tax. The statement by Apple clearly implies there is a method to do so, otherwise there would be no case in which a developer is not subject to their tax. If the latter is true the statement is clearly misleading. If not, what method other than jailbreaking allows the installation and in-app purchasing that is not subject to Apple's control.
Hopefully I've stated the thing enough different ways to get across what I'm trying to find out. I know the above is full of redundancies.:)
Slashdot Mirror
It's because the majority of people will not accept someone who is pragmatic and responsible. The majority (read: idiots) hate people who talk about hard truths and propose pragmatic solutions; they'd rather listen to someone spew bile and vitriol while hopping around like a chimpanzee on crack (read: Glenn Beck). The slightly-less-than-majority hate anyone who can spend the time to balance a checkbook and limit their spending to be something within their means.
People in large numbers do not value truth or pragmatism. They value appearance and theater.
Maybe after the next revolution we'll limit payment for elected office to be room and board at the rate of the national average, a limit of one term in elected office at a given level (elected to a national office? you can never be elected to any national office ever again...), dissolution of any corporation giving funds to any candidate, and no benefits continuing past the term of election.
TL;DR: You have to be a piece of shit to win an election that means anything in almost every case.
So, in the absence of laws against murder, it's alright to murder someone just because you want to?
"Inherent" doesn't mean you have protection against being murdered. It's an abstract concept, not a description of something tangible or functional. Unfortunately, many people cannot grasp theory and separate it from what they see in the physical world. Abstract concepts do not necessarily align completely with actual practice. "Inherent" is an assumption about the nature of a thing. It has very little practical bearing, but most people won't fault me for killing you if you assault me with a deadly weapon. That's the practical part of the abstraction "inherent."
Yup. Doing what S.O.B. described is likely to get you forfeiture of your own "right to life" as the response to murder in absence of government is usually a swift death of the murderer if they're caught.
Inherent rights are mostly just those things that are the result of reaction to unwarranted force being used against a given person. I work a plot of land and you try to take it, I'm going to do whatever is in my power to prevent that. You attempt to take my life, ditto. That's pretty much the beginning and end of the fundamental basis of inherent rights. Nobody who has a functional sense of morality is going to fault me for defending myself. That's what makes it inherent.
Each Dreamhost account has a 50GB space for backups of anything (legal) you want to put there. Most webhosts don't, though it's fairly easy to backup things like pictures by installing gallery software and "publicly" hosting them. I have many GBs worth of pictures hosted that way, and it's easy to make them private but still fall within the terms of service. As long as you provide a web interface, you can "host" pretty much anything that you wouldn't otherwise want publicly available.
After looking a bit more, it seems that when re-instated they are frequently allowed so long as the have exceptions for protected activities.
Then again, the rights of minors are routinely held to be less than adults when convenient, with only a few exceptions where they're strengthened (such as after arrest).
I'd be interested in seeing anything other than anecdotal evidence that they do anything to reduce crime. Not like the lack of empirical evidence would do anything to change the mind of someone who already has decided they know what's best for society though.
Washington, D.C. is the first that comes to mind. Do a search, you'll turn up many more.
Regardless of whether it would be effective at stopping crime, curfews are routinely struck down as unconstitutional. All this will do is cost the city of Philadelphia money in legal fees when it is inevitably challenged in court and struck down.
Local politicians rarely learn though.
Stating you don't like a pattern of behavior and leaving so it doesn't continue to bug you isn't whining. Some people don't feel the need to continually put up with assholes who are bent on harassing them. Walking away is perfectly reasonable. There's nothing whiny about recounting a perfectly on-topic personal experience in a remarkably neutral way regarding incredibly immature behavior on the part of a Wikicrat.
Or, if he's lying, why are you whining about it? Your post certainly qualifies more as whining than the OP's does.
No citation needed at all, for either part of that statement. Almost every President ever elected provides pretty ample evidence that the statement is likely true. There are always partisans who attempt to elevate a given President above the level of competency that he actually operates at. Second, all Presidents are human and all humans make mistakes. Given the power of the Presidency, mistakes made at that level can easily become colossal because of the reach of impact they can have.
If you do research on a given President and don't find at least a couple colossal mistakes, you're not a very good researcher.
I'm still baffled as to why this series is held up as the crown of "hard-core" RPGs, when it's such a hybrid...
It's because of the amount of choice available in gameplay. The series, on a whole, is very open-ended. Very few others provide anything other than linear play in single-player games. That's the essence of role-playing: being able to do what you want, when you want, without being railroaded down a storyline.
There are few games that you can spend hundreds of hours actively exploring new things and not be required to even look at the main questline if you don't want to.
Yes, there are problems with all the games. I don't think anyone would dispute that. Almost anyone who's played tabletop RPGs is going to identify more with TES games as true RPGs than almost anything else though, frequently more so than even official D&D roleplaying computer games.
Camera rotation in the RPG is the same, and navigating anything more complex than the Final Fantasy menus on the NES/SNES is faster and easier with a mouse than a joypad.
Skyrim is an RPG with an FPS world interface, so it's completely relevant. Pretty much any MMO you want to pick is the same.
Joypads are great for games that have limited UIs and non-3d worldspace. Otherwise, they can't hold a candle to a mouse. That's not fanboyism; it's fact.
I said "should." In law, what should happen and what will happen are usually two very different things. There is very little justice in the US legal system.
The judge should be removed from the bench and the prosecutor should be disbarred. This is blatant abuse of the judicial process, and both are either complicit or incompetent, and either one should warrant their removal from their respective offices.
Yes, and I know of a town of 3000 with 100mbps fiber service. That doesn't make it widespread.
The headline is more than likely directed toward the US demographic, where the only thing higher than about 15Mbps is if you're lucky enough to live in one of the few cities with fiber service.
That was my first thought. It may be blistering for the US. The rest of the first world? Not so much...
All the utilities in the NW US I'm aware of have the option of time-of-use pricing for residential customers. Some still haven't had meters changed out, but the utilities are rapidly catching up.
Or in some cases more than a decade later.
Yeah, it seems like a good deal of the anti-Opera posts are from people who haven't even looked at it in the last 10 years and bash it with claims that haven't been true in as long (or ever, in some cases).
Opera has built-in flashblock and noscript, and since ads pay websites that I like in order to stay in business, I prefer to selectively block ads rather than take away all ad revenue from sites I use.
In the current era of broadband, blocking non-intrusive ads that pay for free sites to operate is a pretty shitty choice to make in my opinion. That makes the Opera adblocker much more preferable to me than AdBlock. All in all, it just works better. Don't have to deal with plugins and updates, and everything works just fine. I can even selectively block parts of sites that are annoying, rather than actual advertisements.
No, it's not full of ads and hasn't been for years.
I'm coming to think the real challenge to FLOSS isn't the people who will spend $500 on proprietary software rather than $0 on free (as in speech) software, but the people who will spend $0 on bootleg proprietary software instead of $0 on free software.
That's why even Bill Gates admits he'd rather have people pirate his software than use someone else' software. Piracy helps Microsoft keep a dominant position.
Desire for power. The same reason most politicians do anything: because they can.
There is no contract for commission. Lucas outright bought the helmets as they were produced, via a word-of-mouth agreement. So, it's really just one person's word against another. In a sane legal system that gives the burden of proof to the accuser, that means he should have every right to continue making them. Lucas cannot prove that he legally commissioned the work, simply that he bought a product from the original producer.
There was no legalese; there was no contract.
The comment wasn't about purchasing apps though. It was about purchasing through apps. Otherwise it wouldn't make sense in the context of an article about removing links in apps that circumvent direct in-app purchasing.
Apple said if they direct a consumer to purchase through an app, they deserve a 30% commission, but if publishers get a person to the app without Apple's help, the publisher gets 100% revenue from the purchase. Given Apple's walled-garden approach, I don't see how the latter is possible without jailbreaking, hence my question.
Actually, even if it was about directly purchasing apps, you still have to jailbreak or go through Apple's "Apple brings the customer process." I'm really trying to find out if there is a mechanism for installing and purchasing through apps that does not require either jailbreaking or using Apple's app store. If there's not a mainstream process for that, the statement really is a lie of omission, since you wouldn't be able to do app purchasing without Apple claiming to bring the customer. I want to know if there's actually a method that exists to allow purchasing through the publisher's direction, without being subject to the Apple tax. The statement by Apple clearly implies there is a method to do so, otherwise there would be no case in which a developer is not subject to their tax. If the latter is true the statement is clearly misleading. If not, what method other than jailbreaking allows the installation and in-app purchasing that is not subject to Apple's control.
Hopefully I've stated the thing enough different ways to get across what I'm trying to find out. I know the above is full of redundancies. :)