...will not matter if their energy consumption gets too expensive. We need more energy, and cheaply. I swear, it's like The Little Shop of Horrors. Only this time, it's the computers screaming, "Feeeed me!!!"
I'm only picking on cellphone drivers because that is the *current* problem next to drinking and driving. Both are serious issues. But yes, some new technology or augmentation device could just as easily replace it as dangerous and distracting.
While we could pass laws that specifically go after the driver for any and all things that distract them, I tend to think that's a hard-line attitude to take. In my view, we should be going after current behavior that we now know to be causing traffic issues rather then make wild assumptions without evidence. IE issue-by-issue basis. Now that I think about it, perhaps Texting ought to be looked into as well as it's the latest distraction for drivers.
Besides, the universe had damned well better not die - at least not until I get my flying car, copy of Duke Nuken' Forever (running on HURD), and an army of Linux fembots with a penchant for evil, damnit!
Jump into a singularity, then you can have it all!
How??? Who the hell cares. My point is at the very least an attempt might be made. That attempt (depending on how well coordinated) could range anywhere from annoying to down-right crippling.
So, I believe my question still stands. Does the CCP really want to start picking fights on the Internet? Do you feel luck punk? Huh, do ya! Well, only they can answer that...
Passengers and radio can definitely be distracting, without question. Two things however. 1) passengers can sense when a drivers attention is occupied (city vs country road driving). 2) radio is passive. It's often always tuned out of the mind when the driver needs to focus more attention to driving. It's given a low attention priority.
The above two don't really compare to talking on the cellphone so much. For example, there is no visual feedback or queues to inform each other of their attention status. As such, the driver feels compelled to maintain a constant I/O of communication because the other person will never know if the driver is comprehending at all times. So it is assumed they are 100%. Naturally, the driver reciprocates by ensuring what has been said doesn't go in one ear and out the other.
Talking on a cell phone is a mental distraction. I don't care if you have cybernetic jack direct to the cellphone. It does not negate the fact that the cellphone user will be mentally distracted. People often think they can multi-task. This is false. It is of my understanding that we (as human beings) actually task-switch in a pipelined fashion. True parallel cognitive multi-tasking doesn't really happen. It might at the subconscious however. The problem is that often a cellphone user would get stuck and focus too much attention to the cellphone talking and comprehension and not enough time operating a vehicle. There's that saying that goes, "we look but don't see". DaVinci was right in that respect. Driving is dangerous while completely focused as it is.
Many of you will hate me for saying this, but I firmly believe it should be illegal for the driver to place and/or answer a cell phone while driving. Period!
I really hope this DDoS is not being sponsored by the CCP. I mean seriously, do they *want* to piss off the world? If this doesn't unite black-hats, I don't know what would. I stupid can a government be?!!
Who are you to say we are a "stubborn infestation"? Our current knowledge states life in the universe is a very rare thing. We "humanity" might be the only chance the universe has at spreading life to other worlds. Basically, we would be filling a void. Not displacing something more valuable such as nothingness.
If you happen to stumble upon some questionable content, that's one thing. However, it's quite another to be on the constant pursuit of it. The way I see it, the later is generating a market demand. While that person isn't doing anything illegal from a physical standpoint, I still view them as an accessory to a crime.
While it doesn't specifically say; and because of the valid issue you raise, I wonder if all branch offices inside the US are bared from political funding if the parent corporation is based in another country.
A domestic subsidiary of a foreign corporation may not establish a federal political action committee (PAC) to make federal contributions if:
1. The foreign parent corporation finances the PAC's establishment, administration, or solicitation costs; or
2. Individual foreign nationals:
* Participate in the operation of the PAC;
* Serve as officers of the PAC;
* Participated in the selection of persons who operate the PAC; or
* Make decisions regarding PAC contributions or expenditure. 11 CFR 110.20(i).
(See also AOs 2000-17, 1995-15, 1990-8, 1989-29, and 1989-20.)
and
Soliciting, Accepting, or Receiving Contributions and Donations from Foreign Nationals
As noted earlier, the Act prohibits knowingly soliciting, accepting or receiving contributions or donations from foreign nationals. In this context, "knowingly" means that a person:
* Has actual knowledge that the funds solicited, accepted, or received are from a foreign national;
* Is aware of facts that would lead a reasonable person to believe that the funds solicited, accepted, or received are likely to be from a foreign national;
* Is aware of facts that would lead a reasonable person to inquire whether the source of the funds solicited, accepted or received is a foreign national.
11 CFR 110.20(a)(4)(i), (ii) and (iii).
Pertinent facts that may lead to inquiry by the recipient include, but are not limited to the following: A donor or contributor uses a foreign passport, provides a foreign address,
makes a contribution from a foreign bank, or resides abroad. Obtaining a copy of a current and valid U.S. passport would satisfy the duty to inquire whether the funds solicited, accepted, or received are from a foreign national. 11 CFR 110.20(a)(7).
And I love how Corporations and Unions are now intrinsically bound! =) Together they rise, or together they fall. But one cannot be risen above the other out of political favoritism! Hahahaah, I LOVE IT!!!
Talk about cutting off your nose to spite your face! I don't mind revoking "Personhood" from Corporations. However, the 1st amendment must never be compromised in the process. Yet, that's exactly what you're advocating as it's always been the conservatives trying to defend those freedoms, not the liberals.
Every universe has its black holes. The gaming universe is no exception. In fact, there is one called DNF. Stay away, lest your company be sucked in and doomed never to return! Yes I know it's a beautiful site, but you *must* stay away from DNF.
The cop gives you a ticket for being a dumbass and disturbing the peace, not for speeding.
Minor nitpick:
If you live in Texas, that would be exhibition of acceleration and can be a Class B misdemeanor if an audience is standing around. You can get away with far less for simply "being a dumbass and disturbing the peace"
If you RMA your unit, they ship you one back with the 1.15 rev (so I've read). Regardless, do not upgrade to 1.21. That would be a fatal mistake as you can't roll back.
Silly me, I though all updates were supposed to be better than the last. Obviously not. Damn them.
Slashdot Mirror
Driving in of itself is dangerous! It's also a privilege, not a legal right.
So if you want to take a hardline approach, ban driving.
...will not matter if their energy consumption gets too expensive. We need more energy, and cheaply. I swear, it's like The Little Shop of Horrors. Only this time, it's the computers screaming, "Feeeed me!!!"
I'm only picking on cellphone drivers because that is the *current* problem next to drinking and driving. Both are serious issues. But yes, some new technology or augmentation device could just as easily replace it as dangerous and distracting.
While we could pass laws that specifically go after the driver for any and all things that distract them, I tend to think that's a hard-line attitude to take. In my view, we should be going after current behavior that we now know to be causing traffic issues rather then make wild assumptions without evidence. IE issue-by-issue basis. Now that I think about it, perhaps Texting ought to be looked into as well as it's the latest distraction for drivers.
drunk drivers are drunk. Address them not alcohol.
Fixed that for ya. You get the idea now?
Talking on cell phones can be just as dangerous. Here's a nice write up on CNET about it.
http://news.cnet.com/8301-10784_3-6090342-7.html
Jump into a singularity, then you can have it all!
Already been answered at the link below.
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1523920&cid=30899200
How??? Who the hell cares. My point is at the very least an attempt might be made. That attempt (depending on how well coordinated) could range anywhere from annoying to down-right crippling.
So, I believe my question still stands. Does the CCP really want to start picking fights on the Internet? Do you feel luck punk? Huh, do ya! Well, only they can answer that...
Passengers and radio can definitely be distracting, without question. Two things however. 1) passengers can sense when a drivers attention is occupied (city vs country road driving). 2) radio is passive. It's often always tuned out of the mind when the driver needs to focus more attention to driving. It's given a low attention priority.
The above two don't really compare to talking on the cellphone so much. For example, there is no visual feedback or queues to inform each other of their attention status. As such, the driver feels compelled to maintain a constant I/O of communication because the other person will never know if the driver is comprehending at all times. So it is assumed they are 100%. Naturally, the driver reciprocates by ensuring what has been said doesn't go in one ear and out the other.
I always give credit where credit is due. It's an unwritten rule of Slashdotters :)
You sure you didn't just see Sam Beckett?
Spun is right.
Talking on a cell phone is a mental distraction. I don't care if you have cybernetic jack direct to the cellphone. It does not negate the fact that the cellphone user will be mentally distracted. People often think they can multi-task. This is false. It is of my understanding that we (as human beings) actually task-switch in a pipelined fashion. True parallel cognitive multi-tasking doesn't really happen. It might at the subconscious however. The problem is that often a cellphone user would get stuck and focus too much attention to the cellphone talking and comprehension and not enough time operating a vehicle. There's that saying that goes, "we look but don't see". DaVinci was right in that respect. Driving is dangerous while completely focused as it is.
Many of you will hate me for saying this, but I firmly believe it should be illegal for the driver to place and/or answer a cell phone while driving. Period!
I don't think a bunch of hackers are going to take down the Chinese government
Question: What do gangster taggers, skydivers, base jumpers and black-hat hackers all have in common?
Answer: They do it for the thrill.
Don't think for once it couldn't happen, because it could.
I really hope this DDoS is not being sponsored by the CCP. I mean seriously, do they *want* to piss off the world? If this doesn't unite black-hats, I don't know what would. I stupid can a government be?!!
Who are you to say we are a "stubborn infestation"? Our current knowledge states life in the universe is a very rare thing. We "humanity" might be the only chance the universe has at spreading life to other worlds. Basically, we would be filling a void. Not displacing something more valuable such as nothingness.
So, the family tree doesn't really branch out. It's more like a piece of rope that weaves in and out. Some ropes are just more narrow than others. ;-p
There are many moons. Earth's would be called .luna
I disagree.
If you happen to stumble upon some questionable content, that's one thing. However, it's quite another to be on the constant pursuit of it. The way I see it, the later is generating a market demand. While that person isn't doing anything illegal from a physical standpoint, I still view them as an accessory to a crime.
While it doesn't specifically say; and because of the valid issue you raise, I wonder if all branch offices inside the US are bared from political funding if the parent corporation is based in another country.
Quote from from the fec.gov. http://www.fec.gov/pages/brochures/foreign.shtml#PAC_Contributions
and
And I love how Corporations and Unions are now intrinsically bound! =) Together they rise, or together they fall. But one cannot be risen above the other out of political favoritism! Hahahaah, I LOVE IT!!!
Talk about cutting off your nose to spite your face! I don't mind revoking "Personhood" from Corporations. However, the 1st amendment must never be compromised in the process. Yet, that's exactly what you're advocating as it's always been the conservatives trying to defend those freedoms, not the liberals.
And you can do that by turning the world upside down.
Every universe has its black holes. The gaming universe is no exception. In fact, there is one called DNF. Stay away, lest your company be sucked in and doomed never to return! Yes I know it's a beautiful site, but you *must* stay away from DNF.
You've all been warned.
Minor nitpick:
If you live in Texas, that would be exhibition of acceleration and can be a Class B misdemeanor if an audience is standing around. You can get away with far less for simply "being a dumbass and disturbing the peace"
If you RMA your unit, they ship you one back with the 1.15 rev (so I've read). Regardless, do not upgrade to 1.21. That would be a fatal mistake as you can't roll back.
Silly me, I though all updates were supposed to be better than the last. Obviously not. Damn them.