If there is more damage he can cause, you will find him dead in a hot tub from a stroke or heart attack or slammed into the site of a mountain in a plane crash or in a freak car crash. If he has already done all the damage he can, then they will discredit him by fabricating hideous and socially vile crimes against him.
I just started reading some of his stuff this year and I only learned of his cancer when I googled his name this past Friday. I don't want to get political, but every time I see something like this, I can't help but opine on how many times over we could probably have cured cancer by now if we just redirected a fraction of the money we so eagerly dish out to nation-building/oil-grabbing/whatever-the-fuck-we're-doing-in-half-the-fucking-planet-right-now, surveilling our own citizens, and bailing out banks and car companies all to the tune of many trillions of dollars in only a few years.
Death invigorates life, but cancer-caused deaths are one thing we should be doing away with any day now. Not doing so sort of feels like when you see someone's kid die of an easily treatable condition due to some religious belief. "We could have fucking done something about this!!!".
I'll trust a dude with a beard on a bike with leather long before I'll trust a pig in a car with a donut or any other civil servant. Granted, that is not saying a lot.
Bu- bu- but Obama said that they're not listening into our phone calls and not to worry and everyone else says if I'm not doing anything wrong then I don't have anything to hide and should just shut the fuck up because I'm being paranoid...!
Yeah, this is all way too fucking complicated. All I want is for ANYONE who is in my home to be able to play a game I have purchased on ANY of my consoles within my home. This "ten accounts" thing is bullshit. If they have to do something like this, it is far less complex to just tie it to your SYSTEMS. If I register three systems to my name, then any game I own on any of them should be playable (by myself or anyone else) on ALL of the systems I own. Tying them to "ten accounts" is just fucking absurd and goes in solving the problem in the totally wrong direction.
Also... Steam only requires you to connect once every 30 days.
I've never heard of this movie, but it sounds completely miserable.
What's next? How about a movie about a PEPSI delivery driver? Or maybe a movie about one of those guys in third world nations who makes pennies buying soda from their local Coke bottler and stacking it onto the back of their bicycle and delivering it to the shoeless people in mid-huts many miles away, because we can't have two square inches of planet Earth that isn't addicted to corporate sugar-water? Or maybe Marissa can get Yahoo! a movie of their own, because they so desperately yearn to be "hip".
I don't even understand why any of this is necessary to debate. Isn't the CIA and NSA forbidden from spying on American citizens? How are we even overlooking this, you know, pretty fucking primary element and just jumping on to other defenses?
Wow, I am kind of shocked to read someone who got it right.
The overwhelming majority of people don't understand the point of the Constitution. They parrot the incorrect lessons they were taught in school - that the Constitution is about "granting rights to citizens". As your statement points out, citizens already have the rights to do anything they want (by default) and don't need them given to them by the Constitution. The Constitution is all about placing limitations on government to protect citizens. Just because something isn't iterated in the constitution doesn't mean it is a right a citizen doesn't have -- however, if it isn't listed in the Constitution, it's not a right the *government* has.
Free Speech, for example. People think the First Amendment gives them the right to free speech. Untrue. They already inherently *have* that right. The First Amendment *IS ALL ABOUT PREVENTING THE GOVERNMENT FROM ERODING FREE SPEECH*. It's as clear as day in the language, itself:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
Nowhere, there, does it have anything to do with your right to free speech or mine. The amendment is entirely about telling Congress that they're not allowed to make any laws prohibiting or abridging these rights.
Unfortunately, I'd say 95% of people think it is the other way around.
Bush spent two terms absolutely destroying every fundamental construct of a purportedly free society. Obama has spent almost two terms carrying that torch forward. Unfortunately, people do still seem to get hung up on pointless Bush-bashing, rather than focusing on the current threat which is Obama and the current administration. Both have pushed forward heinous precedents and damaged our society under the guise of "fightin' turrism", but only one of them has been a current threat actively in office for the last half dozen years. Going back to "but, but, Bush did this and that!" or "but but... Clinton did that and this!" is only relevant to historians or to people who approach politics as a team and are constantly masturbating with their side's jersey.
Amazon has fought against internet sales tax (or, rather, the idiocy of making people who don't live or work in one state paying taxes in it) for quite a long time. They only recently caved in and gave up bothering to fight. Remember, they even went so far as to shut down their affiliates program in response to states trying to force out of state companies into paying their sales taxes (the residents' duty to do so).
It seemed clear that when they gave up bothering to fight against it, they had something planned. This seems like what it was. "Well, if you can't beat them - join them".
I say, good on them. All of these idiots out there perpetuating this myth that the lack of enforcing out of state collection on state sales taxes was harming the little mom and pop stores in cities . . . little mom and pop stores that no longer exist. Not because of "the intarwebs", but because of the big national chains that already squeezed them out decades ago. They had this crazy idea that if you suddenly had to pay sales tax online, you would stop shopping at Amazon and Newegg and other outlets online and trudge across town into their stores to deal with their shitty staff and shitty stores and shitty checkouts and shitty parking lots and all the other BS that goes along with it.
Instead, they're going to find that people who weren't going to shop at Best Buy, Walmart, Target, Lowes, Home Depot, Ralph's and so on without sales tax collection will *still* do so . . . because if you're going to pay sales taxes either way, you might as well have the pleasure of the things showing up effortlessly at your door step the next day or two. In fact, they'll probably find a lot of people who will do whatever they can to throw their business to online services just to spite them.
The funny thing is, this is for college "kids"... in other words -- grown fucking adults.
When I saw the shitty Slashdot blurb, I assumed this was going to be for disadvantaged children or something. Instead, it's for those poor unfortunate ADULTS who are so disenfranchised and disadvantaged that they're attending (through one manner or another) tens of thousands of dollars for college tuition and related expenses, but need to beg and spam people for the $600 for a laptop.
I am starting to use Unity, despite not knowing C# (though it's easy enough to pick up) and find it beneficial to someone who has a bit of a coding background, but absolutely no experience or knowledge of "okay, I know how to write code, but how do I apply it to making a game, where you have so many different layers and abstractions. . ..?"
I mean, I could use something like SDL or a number of other options, but after the "make a ball move around on the screen" part, I have no idea where you go. How do you turn that into a small engine or a small game? In fact, this seems to be where a lot of fledgling game makers get hopelessly lost.
I eventually just caved in and realized that instead of dreaming of writing my own engine from scratch in C and building a game around it (thinking a roguelike or Dwarf Fortress style), I might benefit from learning how to use a system that has a workflow and sort of gives you a path for "where the fuck do I go from here?". Once I have a clue, maybe I can go back and write something from scratch and be all artisanal.
Instead of giving me a piece of the action - give me the option not to be part of the action in the first place. My privacy and ownership of my own data and control over who can have it and do what with it is infinitely more valuable than a couple dollars.
You can't put someone on a watchlist, because their fingerprints suggest they are predisposed to commiting future crimes or crimes of a certain sort or because it suggests they have a gene that tends to exist in people diagnosed by the DSM V as having "oppositional defiance syndrome" (meaning you don't like to do what people in authority tell you to do).
Of course, this is all irrelevant, because it's another decade before you don't even have to be arrested to hand over this data as it will be gathered as part of admission to kindergarten.
Now they just need to find a way to offload the blame for lopping off the wrong body part, performing the wrong surgery, or leaving objects in patients. I'm sure they can find a convoluted way to blame the patient or something.
There are plenty of people interested in playing old games. Hell, that is what GOG.com is all about -- and people handily give them money for twenty-five year old games.
The primary problem is the hardware, though. People consider themselves lucky if their XBOX 360 makes it through the rest of this generation without dying -- it sure as hell isn't going to keep running in 2023 or 2033, the way other consoles do and have. Even the PS3 is iffy, about that.
An additional problem is the advent of online multiplayer. Plenty of games no longer accessible as the servers that facilitate them are gone. Then, DLC and season passes. Whole chunks of content that simply will never be accessible in a collection, years from now.
The final problem, coming after this generation, will be digital. When all your games are downloaded and all your games are tied directly to your account (through a serial that has to be registered to you, personally, online -- or some sort of authentication system that locks it down to you in a way that you can't simply just give someone the CD key along with the game anymore), there *is no collection*.
As someone who has many hundreds of games on physical media and thousands of games digitally, I have resigned myself to this. The days of games being something you can collect and enjoy long term are over, despite their high price (imagine paying $60 for a book and knowing it'll be useless and unreadable in a decade). Games are nothing but a commodity, now. Your rights to utilize them and maintain and preserve them long into the future have been taken from you and the people who can make the choice to preserve and maintain these games so that people can buy and enjoy them into the future don't give two shits. They'll rarely release older titles, when they do it'll be for a ridiculously high price, it'll be on formats (PSN or XBLA, for example) that expire at the end of the generation of hardware and require you to purchase yet again some day, and the majority of titles, they'll simply let languish, because they have no interest in them and they'd rather sit on copyrighted content that never sees the light of day again than do anything with it.
Frankly, I don't want my collection to be worth anything other than the joy of playing the games for myself and other people. What I really want is for every game ever made on any platform to be easily accessible (even if it requires a small REASONABLE cost) to everyone, everywhere, any time, easily and in a way that is very playable with modern peripherals (which is difficult to do with many arcade games and NES titles on PC emulators, for example).
They knew who the guys were and probably could have engaged a chopper quickly, right?
What was the risk of letting the guy go? What, was he going to get a few blocks away and open up on the public with an uzi? Of course not. No, the right decision was to give chase and pursue the guy at high speeds, driving him to ever more dangerous driving in his fight-or-flight situation and making him a certain and immediate risk to the public (along with the risk posed by all of the speeding cruisers chasing after him).
Also, there is no confirmation that the douche bag killed anyone and certainly nothing stating a COP was killed. It just says a fatal "officer involved shooting". For all we know, the cop fatally shot another one of the members.
At any rate, the fact of the matter seems quite clear. These douches were surely a "danger to the public" in a general sense, but not in the sense that "if we don't chase them down like a pack of 100mph wolves through city streets right this very second, then they're going to start killing people" sort.
The problem is that we have too much of this sense of "you did something bad and I'm gonna step you no matter what the cost". It is more important that the cops "get their man" than that they exercise some restraint, measure the situation, and accept that the safest option for the *public* might be to back the fuck off.
Then, of course, there's always the fact that there will come a day when we hear a story about some assholes who shoot a store clerk or something and it is uncovered that just weeks or months before, they were involved in a police chase where the cops had to back off . . . and now we hold the cops accountable for letting them go...
Slashdot Mirror
"Crucified" is hardly the word.
If there is more damage he can cause, you will find him dead in a hot tub from a stroke or heart attack or slammed into the site of a mountain in a plane crash or in a freak car crash. If he has already done all the damage he can, then they will discredit him by fabricating hideous and socially vile crimes against him.
Agreed. Windows is the choice for people who hate themselves, their mother, and their pets.
I just started reading some of his stuff this year and I only learned of his cancer when I googled his name this past Friday. I don't want to get political, but every time I see something like this, I can't help but opine on how many times over we could probably have cured cancer by now if we just redirected a fraction of the money we so eagerly dish out to nation-building/oil-grabbing/whatever-the-fuck-we're-doing-in-half-the-fucking-planet-right-now, surveilling our own citizens, and bailing out banks and car companies all to the tune of many trillions of dollars in only a few years.
Death invigorates life, but cancer-caused deaths are one thing we should be doing away with any day now. Not doing so sort of feels like when you see someone's kid die of an easily treatable condition due to some religious belief. "We could have fucking done something about this!!!".
I'll trust a dude with a beard on a bike with leather long before I'll trust a pig in a car with a donut or any other civil servant. Granted, that is not saying a lot.
Bu- bu- but Obama said that they're not listening into our phone calls and not to worry and everyone else says if I'm not doing anything wrong then I don't have anything to hide and should just shut the fuck up because I'm being paranoid...!
That's what sh... fuck it.
Yeah, this is all way too fucking complicated. All I want is for ANYONE who is in my home to be able to play a game I have purchased on ANY of my consoles within my home. This "ten accounts" thing is bullshit. If they have to do something like this, it is far less complex to just tie it to your SYSTEMS. If I register three systems to my name, then any game I own on any of them should be playable (by myself or anyone else) on ALL of the systems I own. Tying them to "ten accounts" is just fucking absurd and goes in solving the problem in the totally wrong direction.
Also... Steam only requires you to connect once every 30 days.
I've never heard of this movie, but it sounds completely miserable.
What's next? How about a movie about a PEPSI delivery driver? Or maybe a movie about one of those guys in third world nations who makes pennies buying soda from their local Coke bottler and stacking it onto the back of their bicycle and delivering it to the shoeless people in mid-huts many miles away, because we can't have two square inches of planet Earth that isn't addicted to corporate sugar-water? Or maybe Marissa can get Yahoo! a movie of their own, because they so desperately yearn to be "hip".
I take issue with the submitters assertion that an individual's rights are only valid if they serve society as a greater whole. Kind of gross.
I don't even understand why any of this is necessary to debate. Isn't the CIA and NSA forbidden from spying on American citizens? How are we even overlooking this, you know, pretty fucking primary element and just jumping on to other defenses?
Wow, I am kind of shocked to read someone who got it right.
The overwhelming majority of people don't understand the point of the Constitution. They parrot the incorrect lessons they were taught in school - that the Constitution is about "granting rights to citizens". As your statement points out, citizens already have the rights to do anything they want (by default) and don't need them given to them by the Constitution. The Constitution is all about placing limitations on government to protect citizens. Just because something isn't iterated in the constitution doesn't mean it is a right a citizen doesn't have -- however, if it isn't listed in the Constitution, it's not a right the *government* has.
Free Speech, for example. People think the First Amendment gives them the right to free speech. Untrue. They already inherently *have* that right. The First Amendment *IS ALL ABOUT PREVENTING THE GOVERNMENT FROM ERODING FREE SPEECH*. It's as clear as day in the language, itself:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
Nowhere, there, does it have anything to do with your right to free speech or mine. The amendment is entirely about telling Congress that they're not allowed to make any laws prohibiting or abridging these rights.
Unfortunately, I'd say 95% of people think it is the other way around.
Or, you know, the people who keep extending The USA PATRIOT Act of 2001.
Unfortunately, people get hung up . . .
Bush spent two terms absolutely destroying every fundamental construct of a purportedly free society. Obama has spent almost two terms carrying that torch forward. Unfortunately, people do still seem to get hung up on pointless Bush-bashing, rather than focusing on the current threat which is Obama and the current administration. Both have pushed forward heinous precedents and damaged our society under the guise of "fightin' turrism", but only one of them has been a current threat actively in office for the last half dozen years. Going back to "but, but, Bush did this and that!" or "but but... Clinton did that and this!" is only relevant to historians or to people who approach politics as a team and are constantly masturbating with their side's jersey.
Sure, why not? Just like the PATRIOT Act was supposed to be temporary.
Amazon has fought against internet sales tax (or, rather, the idiocy of making people who don't live or work in one state paying taxes in it) for quite a long time. They only recently caved in and gave up bothering to fight. Remember, they even went so far as to shut down their affiliates program in response to states trying to force out of state companies into paying their sales taxes (the residents' duty to do so).
It seemed clear that when they gave up bothering to fight against it, they had something planned. This seems like what it was. "Well, if you can't beat them - join them".
I say, good on them. All of these idiots out there perpetuating this myth that the lack of enforcing out of state collection on state sales taxes was harming the little mom and pop stores in cities . . . little mom and pop stores that no longer exist. Not because of "the intarwebs", but because of the big national chains that already squeezed them out decades ago. They had this crazy idea that if you suddenly had to pay sales tax online, you would stop shopping at Amazon and Newegg and other outlets online and trudge across town into their stores to deal with their shitty staff and shitty stores and shitty checkouts and shitty parking lots and all the other BS that goes along with it.
Instead, they're going to find that people who weren't going to shop at Best Buy, Walmart, Target, Lowes, Home Depot, Ralph's and so on without sales tax collection will *still* do so . . . because if you're going to pay sales taxes either way, you might as well have the pleasure of the things showing up effortlessly at your door step the next day or two. In fact, they'll probably find a lot of people who will do whatever they can to throw their business to online services just to spite them.
The funny thing is, this is for college "kids"... in other words -- grown fucking adults.
When I saw the shitty Slashdot blurb, I assumed this was going to be for disadvantaged children or something. Instead, it's for those poor unfortunate ADULTS who are so disenfranchised and disadvantaged that they're attending (through one manner or another) tens of thousands of dollars for college tuition and related expenses, but need to beg and spam people for the $600 for a laptop.
Ridiculous.
I am starting to use Unity, despite not knowing C# (though it's easy enough to pick up) and find it beneficial to someone who has a bit of a coding background, but absolutely no experience or knowledge of "okay, I know how to write code, but how do I apply it to making a game, where you have so many different layers and abstractions. . . .?"
I mean, I could use something like SDL or a number of other options, but after the "make a ball move around on the screen" part, I have no idea where you go. How do you turn that into a small engine or a small game? In fact, this seems to be where a lot of fledgling game makers get hopelessly lost.
I eventually just caved in and realized that instead of dreaming of writing my own engine from scratch in C and building a game around it (thinking a roguelike or Dwarf Fortress style), I might benefit from learning how to use a system that has a workflow and sort of gives you a path for "where the fuck do I go from here?". Once I have a clue, maybe I can go back and write something from scratch and be all artisanal.
Instead of giving me a piece of the action - give me the option not to be part of the action in the first place. My privacy and ownership of my own data and control over who can have it and do what with it is infinitely more valuable than a couple dollars.
You can't put someone on a watchlist, because their fingerprints suggest they are predisposed to commiting future crimes or crimes of a certain sort or because it suggests they have a gene that tends to exist in people diagnosed by the DSM V as having "oppositional defiance syndrome" (meaning you don't like to do what people in authority tell you to do).
Of course, this is all irrelevant, because it's another decade before you don't even have to be arrested to hand over this data as it will be gathered as part of admission to kindergarten.
Now they just need to find a way to offload the blame for lopping off the wrong body part, performing the wrong surgery, or leaving objects in patients. I'm sure they can find a convoluted way to blame the patient or something.
The majority of newspaper content is just reprinted AP bullshit. Don't need your own photographs for that.
There are plenty of people interested in playing old games. Hell, that is what GOG.com is all about -- and people handily give them money for twenty-five year old games.
The primary problem is the hardware, though. People consider themselves lucky if their XBOX 360 makes it through the rest of this generation without dying -- it sure as hell isn't going to keep running in 2023 or 2033, the way other consoles do and have. Even the PS3 is iffy, about that.
An additional problem is the advent of online multiplayer. Plenty of games no longer accessible as the servers that facilitate them are gone. Then, DLC and season passes. Whole chunks of content that simply will never be accessible in a collection, years from now.
The final problem, coming after this generation, will be digital. When all your games are downloaded and all your games are tied directly to your account (through a serial that has to be registered to you, personally, online -- or some sort of authentication system that locks it down to you in a way that you can't simply just give someone the CD key along with the game anymore), there *is no collection*.
As someone who has many hundreds of games on physical media and thousands of games digitally, I have resigned myself to this. The days of games being something you can collect and enjoy long term are over, despite their high price (imagine paying $60 for a book and knowing it'll be useless and unreadable in a decade). Games are nothing but a commodity, now. Your rights to utilize them and maintain and preserve them long into the future have been taken from you and the people who can make the choice to preserve and maintain these games so that people can buy and enjoy them into the future don't give two shits. They'll rarely release older titles, when they do it'll be for a ridiculously high price, it'll be on formats (PSN or XBLA, for example) that expire at the end of the generation of hardware and require you to purchase yet again some day, and the majority of titles, they'll simply let languish, because they have no interest in them and they'd rather sit on copyrighted content that never sees the light of day again than do anything with it.
Frankly, I don't want my collection to be worth anything other than the joy of playing the games for myself and other people. What I really want is for every game ever made on any platform to be easily accessible (even if it requires a small REASONABLE cost) to everyone, everywhere, any time, easily and in a way that is very playable with modern peripherals (which is difficult to do with many arcade games and NES titles on PC emulators, for example).
You're a gross fucking human being.
Car chases look fun as shit. Of course they want to hop in their cruisers and give chase.
They knew who the guys were and probably could have engaged a chopper quickly, right?
What was the risk of letting the guy go? What, was he going to get a few blocks away and open up on the public with an uzi? Of course not. No, the right decision was to give chase and pursue the guy at high speeds, driving him to ever more dangerous driving in his fight-or-flight situation and making him a certain and immediate risk to the public (along with the risk posed by all of the speeding cruisers chasing after him).
Also, there is no confirmation that the douche bag killed anyone and certainly nothing stating a COP was killed. It just says a fatal "officer involved shooting". For all we know, the cop fatally shot another one of the members.
At any rate, the fact of the matter seems quite clear. These douches were surely a "danger to the public" in a general sense, but not in the sense that "if we don't chase them down like a pack of 100mph wolves through city streets right this very second, then they're going to start killing people" sort.
The problem is that we have too much of this sense of "you did something bad and I'm gonna step you no matter what the cost". It is more important that the cops "get their man" than that they exercise some restraint, measure the situation, and accept that the safest option for the *public* might be to back the fuck off.
Then, of course, there's always the fact that there will come a day when we hear a story about some assholes who shoot a store clerk or something and it is uncovered that just weeks or months before, they were involved in a police chase where the cops had to back off . . . and now we hold the cops accountable for letting them go...