Of course they're "pioneers" of Internet law! What else do you call it when their ideas are completely different from everybody else's (regardless of the fact that they're insane)?
That if I call 911 saying there's somebody in my house who's already killed somebody and is about to kill me, that they should first go to the court and ask for a warrant before coming over to my house to try to, you know, stop me from being killed? How exactly is that supposed to go down at the courthouse, anyway?
No, that they should send regular cops instead of a SWAT team! If it turns out that the SWAT team was indeed necessary, then the regular cops could call for backup.
If that was your brother, or your son, or your father -- would you want his ports probed, even if he did do something incredibly stupid?
"Stupid" is one thing; psychopathically malicious is another!
Would you want your mother raped repeatedly over the course of years if she was found with a piddling amount of a controlled substance
There's a difference between approving of it for someone who actually deserves to be there and approving of it for all prisoners. Every time I've heard or read someone glorifying about prison rape, they were referring to it being applied to someone who committed a really heinous crime.
In other words, that's a big fat strawman.
Rape is not, and should not be a part of incarceration in America. It is not helpful for punishing or rehabilitating criminals...
Rehabilitation? Sure, rape's not good for that... but then again, neither is prison itself.
Punishment, on the other hand, is something prison is really good at. And once you start realizing that crininals are there to be punished, it becomes that much easier to ignore the situation when the other inmates take it upon themselves to be "cruel and unusual." Now, that doesn't mean prison rape is okay; far from it! But it does mean that prison rape is not as bad as rape of a non-criminal. And, dispite being cruel and unsual, rape is an effective punishment.
Helpful hint. If you hear a sound in your backyard don't grab a knife and check on it. A knife is probably just going to get you killed.
What should you do then? Stand just inside your door and attack the first person through it? (No good; you're probably more likely to be shot for that than going outside!) Put the knife away and lay prone on the floor? (No good; what if they really were home invaders, rather than cops?) Can you think of any other options?
In my opinion, this was the best possible outcome: he made himself known to the cops before they were in full attack mode, and did so from far enough away that they didn't consider him an instant lethal threat. He's damn lucky; if he'd been standing inside with that knife when the cops burst through the door, I firmly believe he'd have been killed.
Personally, my inclination would be to fortify the residence enough that the intruders wouldn't be able to get in before losing the element of surprise. At least then I'd be able to realize they were cops and get my ass on the ground before they thought I was about to shoor them.
I would rather the police always erred on the side of caution in this sort of encounter rather than risk shooting someone innocent. At least that way, if bad things happen, it's not our own authorities doing it to us.
Exactly: it's better for an officer to end up dead than an innocent -- the officer signed up for it.
And it is his positions that I am commenting on when I say that his level of sophistication is at what I would consider a five-year-old level. For instance, advocating a return to the gold standard is a juvenille position based on the need to have a shiny object to represent an abstract concept. Gold is just as arbitrary as silver or platinum.
I think you need to reconsider just which of you is reasoning on a five-year-old level. Gold, as an arbitrary substance, is most emphatically not the point! (And I'm absolutely sure any gold-standard advocate competent enough to be running for President understands this.) The point of going back on the "gold" standard is to return to a fixed, asset-based currency, as opposed to the exponentially-increasing, debt-based one we have now. Watch this video to understand what I'm talking about.
SWAT shouldn't be able to be summoned without a warrant. A real warrant, issued by a real judge, based on real evidence. And if it takes an extra half hour to wake up a judge to issue it? Then so-fucking-be it, because it's more important to preserve innocent lives than it is to catch the criminals, regardless of how bad the crime!
Even if the 911 call claims that the entire Red Army, Hitler, and Satan himself are there, the initial response should still be to send a regular officer, not SWAT. Why? Because -- as this incident makes abundantly clear -- they have to verify the fucking thing's actually true!
So it all comes down to the question of what classifies a game as 3D? We have accepted that it is not the use of 3D models because many early games used 2D sprites. That really only leaves us with control mechanics.
Hey, just because the enemies in Wolf3D and Doom were sprites, doesn't mean they weren't 3D! Was their position described in terms of 2D screen coordinates or 3D level space? Did the levels have 3D geometry? Could you aim up and down, as well as left and right (thereby requiring vectors representing shot trajectories to be 3D)? Any of those things would cause the games to be classified as 3D, from a technical perspective.
Now, if you want to classify games instead by the way they look, lots of even really old games could be 3D. Take racing games on the Super Nintendo, for instance. Even though the console was entirely 2D, games like F-Zero and Mario Kart allowed apparent movement in all three directions (movement down the track, side-to-side movement, and jumping). Heck, Top Gear for the SNES even had hills! And even Pole Position had the same sort of perspective (but had neither jumps nor hills).
So, what's the answer? I say that either the distinction should be based on whether the game world is described in terms of 3D space (whether it uses sprites or not), or all of these games -- from Pole Position to Doom -- should be classified as "2.5D."
Correction: Banks hold money, which is printed and distributed by the Federal Reserve.
No, banks create money, in the form of debt. Here's how:
Back in the day, banks did just hold money, as you said. They could loan out money and collect interest on it, but they could only do that for money already in the vault. Then, the rules changed. Now banks can actually give out loans for money they do not have, but still require payment. This creates entirely new money.
Of course, that's a vastly simplified explanation, and I've failed to mention the implications of it... so watch this video instead. It's rather amazing, and sure opened my eyes!
When you alter your phone in a way not supported by company, you lose your warranty.
No, you don't! There is a law, called the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, which says that unless Apple Can prove that the alteration caused the particular problem, it has to honor the warranty. Apple cannot just decide to void the warranty on unrelated components for no reason.
In good Slashdot tradition, here's a car analogy: If you modify the engine in your vehicle and the radio stops working, the maker cannot refuse to replace the radio because of that modification. In contrast, if it were the transmission that broke, and the maker could prove that the transmission broke because it could rot handle the extra torque of the engine created by the modification, then it could legitimately void the warranty of the transmission (but still not the whole car).
PDAs with styluses really do suck, but everybody seems to love the idea of a multitouch PDA.
Styluses are fine. The problem is the crappy, low-resolution touchscreens PDAs use. If a PDA used a Wacom-style digitizer for smooth (subpixel) writing, it would be much better. Of course, it would also be better if the PDA's screen was larger too, so you could write more than one word without running out of room. And "multitouch" is right out -- how are you supposed to write with it?!
By the last model, there was only one thing still wrong with it as a device - the form factor. It was a bit too big and heavy for a pocket.
Nah. I've already got a device that fits in my pocket -- a Palm Tungsten E -- and one of the primary problems with it is that it's too small. A Newton-sized device, preferably with a screen that covered the whole surface and a high-res Wacom-style digitizer*, would be perfect.
(*Unfortunately, Apple's current "multi-touch" direction seems to make it unlikely that they'd ship a product with a proper stylus. That really sucks, 'cause some of us would like to actually write on our screen, rather than poke at it.)
Make no mistake, this is the downfall of civilization as we know it.
...and I feel fine.
I just wish these RIAA, MPAA, BSA, and FBI idiots (as well as Jack Thompson) would stop trying to muck it up by turning it into something out of an old Apple commercial or RMS short story instead.
And who's fault is it but theirs that they became addicted in the first place?
...public officials are not stripped of all rights to expression, even in the context of their official roles and capacities.
Maybe they should be!
The dividing lines can be dicey, especially with religious expression.
Absolutely not. The lines should be clear: as far as their official roles and capacities go, their behavior should be indistinguishable from that of an atheist's (excepting, of course, any sort of "evangelical atheism" -- that should be disallowed too). If people want to express themselves religiously at work, then they should join the clergy instead of becoming public servants!
What's so hard about giving back to the community a tiny little something.
Nothing, which is why they do give back, in the form of complying with the license and releasing the code for the device itself! They've already done everything we expected them to do; conversely, if you want them to do more then write that into the license requirements next time.
Look, I'm about as pro-Free-Sofware as they come. I'm even an EFF and FSF member (are you?). But do I have a problem with a company not going above and beyond the license requirements? No, because "above and beyond" is called that exactly because it's not required.
Sure, it would be nice if the TomTom people gave me a free GPS unit, a million dollars, and a pony, but I'm not about to start bitching at them for choosing not to do so! In exactly the same way, it would be nice if TomTom supported Linux, but I'm not about to bitch at them for choosing not to do that, either.
The "overwhelming public" would fail to notice that the unsupported Linux driver even existed, much less have a negative reaction to it! The only people who would notice would be the Linux community, which is almost entirely composed of geeks that aren't scared by unsupported code (especially if it was also Free Software itself).
Slashdot Mirror
Of course they're "pioneers" of Internet law! What else do you call it when their ideas are completely different from everybody else's (regardless of the fact that they're insane)?
No, that they should send regular cops instead of a SWAT team! If it turns out that the SWAT team was indeed necessary, then the regular cops could call for backup.
"Stupid" is one thing; psychopathically malicious is another!
There's a difference between approving of it for someone who actually deserves to be there and approving of it for all prisoners. Every time I've heard or read someone glorifying about prison rape, they were referring to it being applied to someone who committed a really heinous crime.
In other words, that's a big fat strawman.
Rehabilitation? Sure, rape's not good for that... but then again, neither is prison itself.
Punishment, on the other hand, is something prison is really good at. And once you start realizing that crininals are there to be punished, it becomes that much easier to ignore the situation when the other inmates take it upon themselves to be "cruel and unusual." Now, that doesn't mean prison rape is okay; far from it! But it does mean that prison rape is not as bad as rape of a non-criminal. And, dispite being cruel and unsual, rape is an effective punishment.
What should you do then? Stand just inside your door and attack the first person through it? (No good; you're probably more likely to be shot for that than going outside!) Put the knife away and lay prone on the floor? (No good; what if they really were home invaders, rather than cops?) Can you think of any other options?
In my opinion, this was the best possible outcome: he made himself known to the cops before they were in full attack mode, and did so from far enough away that they didn't consider him an instant lethal threat. He's damn lucky; if he'd been standing inside with that knife when the cops burst through the door, I firmly believe he'd have been killed.
Personally, my inclination would be to fortify the residence enough that the intruders wouldn't be able to get in before losing the element of surprise. At least then I'd be able to realize they were cops and get my ass on the ground before they thought I was about to shoor them.
Exactly: it's better for an officer to end up dead than an innocent -- the officer signed up for it.
"Immediately" is not quick enough if the homeowner already had his gun pointed at the door.
If you happened to have been visibly armed at the time, then by the time you read that somebody's already dead.
I think you need to reconsider just which of you is reasoning on a five-year-old level. Gold, as an arbitrary substance, is most emphatically not the point! (And I'm absolutely sure any gold-standard advocate competent enough to be running for President understands this.) The point of going back on the "gold" standard is to return to a fixed, asset-based currency, as opposed to the exponentially-increasing, debt-based one we have now. Watch this video to understand what I'm talking about.
SWAT shouldn't be able to be summoned without a warrant. A real warrant, issued by a real judge, based on real evidence. And if it takes an extra half hour to wake up a judge to issue it? Then so-fucking-be it, because it's more important to preserve innocent lives than it is to catch the criminals, regardless of how bad the crime!
Even if the 911 call claims that the entire Red Army, Hitler, and Satan himself are there, the initial response should still be to send a regular officer, not SWAT. Why? Because -- as this incident makes abundantly clear -- they have to verify the fucking thing's actually true!
Except failing to verify that the action was warranted (literally!) in the first place, of course -- a minor detail.
Hey, just because the enemies in Wolf3D and Doom were sprites, doesn't mean they weren't 3D! Was their position described in terms of 2D screen coordinates or 3D level space? Did the levels have 3D geometry? Could you aim up and down, as well as left and right (thereby requiring vectors representing shot trajectories to be 3D)? Any of those things would cause the games to be classified as 3D, from a technical perspective.
Now, if you want to classify games instead by the way they look, lots of even really old games could be 3D. Take racing games on the Super Nintendo, for instance. Even though the console was entirely 2D, games like F-Zero and Mario Kart allowed apparent movement in all three directions (movement down the track, side-to-side movement, and jumping). Heck, Top Gear for the SNES even had hills! And even Pole Position had the same sort of perspective (but had neither jumps nor hills).
So, what's the answer? I say that either the distinction should be based on whether the game world is described in terms of 3D space (whether it uses sprites or not), or all of these games -- from Pole Position to Doom -- should be classified as "2.5D."
No, banks create money, in the form of debt. Here's how:
Back in the day, banks did just hold money, as you said. They could loan out money and collect interest on it, but they could only do that for money already in the vault. Then, the rules changed. Now banks can actually give out loans for money they do not have, but still require payment. This creates entirely new money.
Of course, that's a vastly simplified explanation, and I've failed to mention the implications of it... so watch this video instead. It's rather amazing, and sure opened my eyes!
No, HL: Source doesn't do anything for the graphics; it uses the old textures and geometry. The better alternative is Black Mesa.
No, better yet, the previous post's message, but written in white on black rather than vice-versa. Then you get the best of both worlds!
Yeah, I wish there was a CAD format that worked the way POVRay does.
No, you don't! There is a law, called the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, which says that unless Apple Can prove that the alteration caused the particular problem, it has to honor the warranty. Apple cannot just decide to void the warranty on unrelated components for no reason.
In good Slashdot tradition, here's a car analogy: If you modify the engine in your vehicle and the radio stops working, the maker cannot refuse to replace the radio because of that modification. In contrast, if it were the transmission that broke, and the maker could prove that the transmission broke because it could rot handle the extra torque of the engine created by the modification, then it could legitimately void the warranty of the transmission (but still not the whole car).
Styluses are fine. The problem is the crappy, low-resolution touchscreens PDAs use. If a PDA used a Wacom-style digitizer for smooth (subpixel) writing, it would be much better. Of course, it would also be better if the PDA's screen was larger too, so you could write more than one word without running out of room. And "multitouch" is right out -- how are you supposed to write with it?!
Nah. I've already got a device that fits in my pocket -- a Palm Tungsten E -- and one of the primary problems with it is that it's too small. A Newton-sized device, preferably with a screen that covered the whole surface and a high-res Wacom-style digitizer*, would be perfect.
(*Unfortunately, Apple's current "multi-touch" direction seems to make it unlikely that they'd ship a product with a proper stylus. That really sucks, 'cause some of us would like to actually write on our screen, rather than poke at it.)
...and I feel fine.
I just wish these RIAA, MPAA, BSA, and FBI idiots (as well as Jack Thompson) would stop trying to muck it up by turning it into something out of an old Apple commercial or RMS short story instead.
And who's fault is it but theirs that they became addicted in the first place?
Maybe they should be!
Absolutely not. The lines should be clear: as far as their official roles and capacities go, their behavior should be indistinguishable from that of an atheist's (excepting, of course, any sort of "evangelical atheism" -- that should be disallowed too). If people want to express themselves religiously at work, then they should join the clergy instead of becoming public servants!
Nothing, which is why they do give back, in the form of complying with the license and releasing the code for the device itself! They've already done everything we expected them to do; conversely, if you want them to do more then write that into the license requirements next time.
Look, I'm about as pro-Free-Sofware as they come. I'm even an EFF and FSF member (are you?). But do I have a problem with a company not going above and beyond the license requirements? No, because "above and beyond" is called that exactly because it's not required.
Sure, it would be nice if the TomTom people gave me a free GPS unit, a million dollars, and a pony, but I'm not about to start bitching at them for choosing not to do so! In exactly the same way, it would be nice if TomTom supported Linux, but I'm not about to bitch at them for choosing not to do that, either.
The "overwhelming public" would fail to notice that the unsupported Linux driver even existed, much less have a negative reaction to it! The only people who would notice would be the Linux community, which is almost entirely composed of geeks that aren't scared by unsupported code (especially if it was also Free Software itself).
Quick correction for you: cigarette taxes are a tax on smokers, i.e., the stupid, not the poor (although there may be some coincidental overlap).
Free expression is the right of private citizens, not government officials acting in their official capacity.
Unless you also get time-and-a-half overtime pay, that dinner wasn't free.