No, YOU didn't read the original submission carefully enough.
He is being ACCUSED of laundering drug profits by purchasing valuable comic books.
Until it is proven that he has done such and he has had a fair trial which concluded in his conviction of that crime, there is no rightful justification for stealing his property.
Being ACCUSED of something is not justification for stealing your property from you. Well, it IS . . . people have their cars and other property stolen by the government all the time for merely being ACCUSED rather than being accused, tried, and convicted of a crime, first. But it SHOULDN'T be justification.
Geeks have a predilection toward the libertarian view.
Also, I like how you try to use the word as if it's some sort of attrocity. What a terrible biased view thinking that capitalism and individual freedom and small government is! Oh noes!
Seriously? How about the fact that the government is seeking ownership of half a million dollars in posessions that belong to a man who has not yet been convicted? Should you lose your comic or game collection or your car or even your home for merely being *accused* and tried for a crime? If the government has any business taking your property at ANY time, shouldn't it at least be AFTER you are CONVICTED? You know, when you've been found to actually be GUILTY?
I used to think the dream was having 3+ monitors connected to a single system. I even bought three 30" Apple cinema displays and stuck with them for a year. The conclusion I reached was that I'd rather have a single monitor and use multiple hot-keyed desktops, instead. I can swing two monitors, if I'm using one for a set of information and the other for another set (or one for primary work and the other for watching video, perhaps). Anything more than that and I begin to feel the expense would have been better invested in a neck brace and a masseuse.
As much as I despise MMOs that aren't EVE, I've been giving Rift a go and have to wonder if you've played with the launch client as I haven't experienced any such stutter at all. Even with plenty of NPCs and a couple dozen players or more on the screen with the highest presets (plus a little). In fact, I found myself impressed with its performance after a few hours and a few big public quest experiences.
I didn't participate in the beta, so I wouldn't be surprised if the performance was fairly atrocious then. Especially in the closed beta.
Granting someone any degree of honor, just because it was slapped on them by a state, employer, or academic institution is childish, petty, and ridiculous. You have to earn honor and respect.
Geohots rap video alone has over 1.5 million views (not counting copies of the video uploaded under other people's accounts).
Also, it only seems right that if they're going to drag people into the lawsuit who have absolutely nothing to do with it other than, say, they watched Tech News Today and saw the video mentioned and partially played by Tom Merritt then they should be sure to subpoena everyone who has watched Geohot over the last couple years when he was interviewed on G4 or CNN or elsewhere. Eventually, they'll need to subpoena the information on everyone who has ever even heard his name.
The post states that it runs the newest games at the highest settings. I find that seriously hard to believe. Fire up, say, RIFT. Throw a quad core i7 at it with 12gb ram and a $600 ATI and on a 30" screen in native resolution (2560x1600) you will get 20-40fps. And that's not even at max settings. That's at very high, but not "max" settings.
So I find it hard to believe that this system which came in at less than double the price of a current card but includes an entire system and three monitors could possibly come anywhere close to running both current games and at max settings. Unreal Tournament 3, as mentioned in the post? Quite possibly. But that's not so much "current" as it is, four years old.
The important thing is whether it satisfies the owner and gamer in question. If it does, then that's all that matters. But let's be rational about what we claim it can handle.
Star Wars fans have been kicking it for thirty years. I can see how it would have been an amazing experience in the 70s. I don't understand why they haven't fucking moved on in three decades.
Pseudo-self-esteem from pseudo-social activities is not "real". Nobody thinks better of you, because you spam your facebook page with really "confident" inane trivial crap. People react to a sense of self derived from merit. From accomplishment. From personality. They see through bullshit. Further, regardless of what they taught us in public school, what you think about yourself is almost entirely irrelevant. There is an endless supply of self-assured wastes of oxygen. I'd rather be judged on my merit and accomplishments and even personality than just looking in a mirror and telling myself "gosh darn it, I love myself!" and therefore deluding myself into believing that nothing else mattered but my own opinion of self. And chances are, if I accomplish those things, I *will* feel good about myself. And posting inane garbage on Facebook to rack up friend numbers or mingle with pretend-friends online is not accomplishing anything. It's the most empty form of self-esteem.
Who gives a fuck? What esteem I hold myself in is nowhere near is pertinent as the esteem others hold me in. Being a self-involved twat engaging in pseudo-social activities on a social-networking website, where I present myself to the world in my best possible light (and often driveling endlessly about inane trivial personal thoughts and events in the hopes of getting "likes" and "fans" and "friends") is the equivalent of being a cup-stacking champion.
Now, please mod this comment down so that no sense of hypocrisy can be perceived in my spending three minutes posting on Slashdot.
They definitely need to deal with living persons, too. A friend of mine has an article on her and she uses a pseudonym since she's in the media. People have added her real full name, before. Mentioned the real names of various family members. Even mentioned fairly specific parts of town that she lives in. Wikipedia requires that a great deal of consideration be given to such content for real living persons, but all you can do (I believe) is revert an article to its former status. That information is still there, if you click on the history. Not a very good solution.
Whether people are living or not, it's clearly a tool frequently used for personal vendettas and promotion of personal agendas (yeah, I know that's not news).
That's the thing that I've never quite grasped. Notability is really already covered by something being covered by reputable external sources. Having a podcast or a website doesn't qualify someone as a worthy subject of an article. Being mentioned in a magazine, about your podcast or website, does. Therefore, "notability" should be a very binary condition. Instead, it has somehow become fluid and is used to push one's individual agenda or for some d-bag to fell a sense of power in deleting something that doesn't meet *their* definition of "notable" (which, again, should be a binary state already covered by no-original-research and covered-by-external-sources requirements).
Of course, there is a growing concern of what is a reputable source in this age, when no-name blogs are breaking news stories and stalwart media standards are crumbling.
I don't like the idea of Wikipedia becoming a flood of about.me pages, but I don't care to participate in the extensive navel-gazing.
I guess the additional question to ask is . . . why isn't this sort of thing being addressed. With thirty or forty million dollars per year being raised for the "non-profit" (with for-profit board members and executives, of course), wouldn't they want to put more focus on these issues to stay relevant?
The primary sources thing doesn't make a lot of sense, either, though. Granted, a first-person source about a person shouldn't be given any/much weight due to obvious bias. However, characters in a book or movie shouldn't need additional sources, since they *are* documented within the material itself and are easily verifiable. I don't think having to read a book to refer to the characters for an article is itself considered "original research". At least, it shouldn't be. There is an inherent problem in saying that only things covered by "the news" (where "the news" is a loose term to cover all media) are article-worthy. There are a lot of significant things in the world that aren't particularly well covered but are deserving of being documented.
I don't actually have a problem with every character from every piece of fiction in history being documented. In fact, I think it's often quite valuable. I just think that it's important to give real people serious consideration rather than so flippantly discarding them. Potentially treat them at least as well as actual people.
By the way, did you know that "Slashdot People" has an entire wikipedia Hub for itself?
Same here. I stopped going to the theater in 1998, because I won't directly support the MPAA. Haven't bought a DVD since then, either. Also haven't bought a CD since then, except for CDs from places like CDBaby or otherwise directly from smaller artists. A lot of people have the attitude that they can't possibly boycott some things, because, well, then what's left for them to consume?! Well, they're just fucking movies and music. Nobody's going to fucking die, because they didn't have some tunes.
A lot of people don't know better. Many (or even most?) people don't realize when a movie is a remake of a movie from decades ago. Or when a song is really a cover. Just read youtube (gah) comments for any modern cover of an older song and look at the throngs of younger people who think, for example, the Eurythmics "Sweet Dreams" is a Marylin Manson song.
Why roll out something new when you can just repackage something old to a new audience that is too naive to have a clue?
Slashdot Mirror
You don't have the slightest little problem with the government stealing your property before you've even been CONVICTED of a crime?
No, YOU didn't read the original submission carefully enough.
He is being ACCUSED of laundering drug profits by purchasing valuable comic books.
Until it is proven that he has done such and he has had a fair trial which concluded in his conviction of that crime, there is no rightful justification for stealing his property.
ACCUSED.
Get this through your fucking heads, people.
Being ACCUSED of something is not justification for stealing your property from you. Well, it IS . . . people have their cars and other property stolen by the government all the time for merely being ACCUSED rather than being accused, tried, and convicted of a crime, first. But it SHOULDN'T be justification.
Geeks have a predilection toward the libertarian view.
Also, I like how you try to use the word as if it's some sort of attrocity. What a terrible biased view thinking that capitalism and individual freedom and small government is! Oh noes!
Yeah, what does the government seeking ownership of your property before you're even found guilty of a crime have to do with your rights?
Seriously? How about the fact that the government is seeking ownership of half a million dollars in posessions that belong to a man who has not yet been convicted? Should you lose your comic or game collection or your car or even your home for merely being *accused* and tried for a crime? If the government has any business taking your property at ANY time, shouldn't it at least be AFTER you are CONVICTED? You know, when you've been found to actually be GUILTY?
Oh, I had missed the "only running on one monitor" part. Well, then that's even more ridiculous. Those are mid-range laptop monitor resolutions.
I used to think the dream was having 3+ monitors connected to a single system. I even bought three 30" Apple cinema displays and stuck with them for a year. The conclusion I reached was that I'd rather have a single monitor and use multiple hot-keyed desktops, instead. I can swing two monitors, if I'm using one for a set of information and the other for another set (or one for primary work and the other for watching video, perhaps). Anything more than that and I begin to feel the expense would have been better invested in a neck brace and a masseuse.
As much as I despise MMOs that aren't EVE, I've been giving Rift a go and have to wonder if you've played with the launch client as I haven't experienced any such stutter at all. Even with plenty of NPCs and a couple dozen players or more on the screen with the highest presets (plus a little). In fact, I found myself impressed with its performance after a few hours and a few big public quest experiences.
I didn't participate in the beta, so I wouldn't be surprised if the performance was fairly atrocious then. Especially in the closed beta.
Granting someone any degree of honor, just because it was slapped on them by a state, employer, or academic institution is childish, petty, and ridiculous. You have to earn honor and respect.
Geohots rap video alone has over 1.5 million views (not counting copies of the video uploaded under other people's accounts).
Also, it only seems right that if they're going to drag people into the lawsuit who have absolutely nothing to do with it other than, say, they watched Tech News Today and saw the video mentioned and partially played by Tom Merritt then they should be sure to subpoena everyone who has watched Geohot over the last couple years when he was interviewed on G4 or CNN or elsewhere. Eventually, they'll need to subpoena the information on everyone who has ever even heard his name.
The post states that it runs the newest games at the highest settings. I find that seriously hard to believe. Fire up, say, RIFT. Throw a quad core i7 at it with 12gb ram and a $600 ATI and on a 30" screen in native resolution (2560x1600) you will get 20-40fps. And that's not even at max settings. That's at very high, but not "max" settings.
So I find it hard to believe that this system which came in at less than double the price of a current card but includes an entire system and three monitors could possibly come anywhere close to running both current games and at max settings. Unreal Tournament 3, as mentioned in the post? Quite possibly. But that's not so much "current" as it is, four years old.
The important thing is whether it satisfies the owner and gamer in question. If it does, then that's all that matters. But let's be rational about what we claim it can handle.
Star Wars fans have been kicking it for thirty years. I can see how it would have been an amazing experience in the 70s. I don't understand why they haven't fucking moved on in three decades.
It's called Diaspora.
Pseudo-self-esteem from pseudo-social activities is not "real". Nobody thinks better of you, because you spam your facebook page with really "confident" inane trivial crap. People react to a sense of self derived from merit. From accomplishment. From personality. They see through bullshit. Further, regardless of what they taught us in public school, what you think about yourself is almost entirely irrelevant. There is an endless supply of self-assured wastes of oxygen. I'd rather be judged on my merit and accomplishments and even personality than just looking in a mirror and telling myself "gosh darn it, I love myself!" and therefore deluding myself into believing that nothing else mattered but my own opinion of self. And chances are, if I accomplish those things, I *will* feel good about myself. And posting inane garbage on Facebook to rack up friend numbers or mingle with pretend-friends online is not accomplishing anything. It's the most empty form of self-esteem.
Oh, I knew these were around somewhere:
Penn and Teller Bullshit S08E09 Self Esteem
George Carlin - Self Esteem Movement
Well, by the math they're using in that article, one meter is equal to four feet which is pretty inaccurate ( 1 meter actually is about 3.3 feet).
Who gives a fuck? What esteem I hold myself in is nowhere near is pertinent as the esteem others hold me in. Being a self-involved twat engaging in pseudo-social activities on a social-networking website, where I present myself to the world in my best possible light (and often driveling endlessly about inane trivial personal thoughts and events in the hopes of getting "likes" and "fans" and "friends") is the equivalent of being a cup-stacking champion.
Now, please mod this comment down so that no sense of hypocrisy can be perceived in my spending three minutes posting on Slashdot.
It can resolve the surface at 2 feet (0.5 m) per pixel — good enough to reveal even the paths worn in the lunar soil by the astronauts' boots.
Holy crap.
They definitely need to deal with living persons, too. A friend of mine has an article on her and she uses a pseudonym since she's in the media. People have added her real full name, before. Mentioned the real names of various family members. Even mentioned fairly specific parts of town that she lives in. Wikipedia requires that a great deal of consideration be given to such content for real living persons, but all you can do (I believe) is revert an article to its former status. That information is still there, if you click on the history. Not a very good solution.
Whether people are living or not, it's clearly a tool frequently used for personal vendettas and promotion of personal agendas (yeah, I know that's not news).
That's the thing that I've never quite grasped. Notability is really already covered by something being covered by reputable external sources. Having a podcast or a website doesn't qualify someone as a worthy subject of an article. Being mentioned in a magazine, about your podcast or website, does. Therefore, "notability" should be a very binary condition. Instead, it has somehow become fluid and is used to push one's individual agenda or for some d-bag to fell a sense of power in deleting something that doesn't meet *their* definition of "notable" (which, again, should be a binary state already covered by no-original-research and covered-by-external-sources requirements).
Of course, there is a growing concern of what is a reputable source in this age, when no-name blogs are breaking news stories and stalwart media standards are crumbling.
I don't like the idea of Wikipedia becoming a flood of about.me pages, but I don't care to participate in the extensive navel-gazing.
I guess the additional question to ask is . . . why isn't this sort of thing being addressed. With thirty or forty million dollars per year being raised for the "non-profit" (with for-profit board members and executives, of course), wouldn't they want to put more focus on these issues to stay relevant?
The primary sources thing doesn't make a lot of sense, either, though. Granted, a first-person source about a person shouldn't be given any/much weight due to obvious bias. However, characters in a book or movie shouldn't need additional sources, since they *are* documented within the material itself and are easily verifiable. I don't think having to read a book to refer to the characters for an article is itself considered "original research". At least, it shouldn't be. There is an inherent problem in saying that only things covered by "the news" (where "the news" is a loose term to cover all media) are article-worthy. There are a lot of significant things in the world that aren't particularly well covered but are deserving of being documented.
I don't actually have a problem with every character from every piece of fiction in history being documented. In fact, I think it's often quite valuable. I just think that it's important to give real people serious consideration rather than so flippantly discarding them. Potentially treat them at least as well as actual people.
By the way, did you know that "Slashdot People" has an entire wikipedia Hub for itself?
Editing your content and story to be consumable by little kids isn't the recipe for a good movie, either.
Yippee ki-yay [ . . . ] . . . !
Same here. I stopped going to the theater in 1998, because I won't directly support the MPAA. Haven't bought a DVD since then, either. Also haven't bought a CD since then, except for CDs from places like CDBaby or otherwise directly from smaller artists. A lot of people have the attitude that they can't possibly boycott some things, because, well, then what's left for them to consume?! Well, they're just fucking movies and music. Nobody's going to fucking die, because they didn't have some tunes.
A lot of people don't know better. Many (or even most?) people don't realize when a movie is a remake of a movie from decades ago. Or when a song is really a cover. Just read youtube (gah) comments for any modern cover of an older song and look at the throngs of younger people who think, for example, the Eurythmics "Sweet Dreams" is a Marylin Manson song.
Why roll out something new when you can just repackage something old to a new audience that is too naive to have a clue?
You can't really blame them, either. How much of a risk would you be willing to take when $100,000,000 to $300,000,000 is on the line?