It's you idiots that are destroying the game market, not Gamestop. There is no such thing as "day-one DLC". What you are describing is a game that was made purposefully incomplete in order to prevent consumers from excercising *their* rights of resale.
The real problem is that your licensing shenanigans aren't apparent on store shelves filled with what *used* to be a well-understood product. It's not until the unwary customer gets their purchase home do they realize they've been fucked. I've been gaming for 30+ years and have decided to directly support the indie publishers who aren't willing for fuck over their customers in order to tap into a revenue stream that they feel entitled to.
Just to put your mind at ease, Christwire is satire. As a level-10 atheist, I have advanced bullshit detection abilities far beyond the ken of normals.
Also, I don't hate anyone for what they believe, and I hope you have a nice day. Possibly because I was raised Episcopalian, and think "love your enemy" is a fine idea.
The reason that your code, podcasts, and online videos are hosted in special purpose web applications is that they understand the format and purpose of your data. This will always allow them to be more featureful, as they are full fledged applications. You are comparing them to a file transfer protocol, which is disingenuous.
Rsync is optimised for replicating frequently changing collections of small files, and is widely used for that purpose, and it peer to peer.
You seem to be arguing that there is little legal need for sharing large binary files. You must not edit video collaboratively, or develop and distribute indie games, or train neural nets, or share language corpora, or any number of other possible legal uses. The fact that it is widely used to share cultural ephemera is more a testament to advertising and poor education than a problem with a protocol.
World of Warcraft uses the bittorrent protocol to update their clients. That's far more than a "proof of concept". As an added bonus, bandwidth costs are pushed to their users.
Do you mean those non-serviceable mustard gas shells? If that's all that they found, then it's particularly clear that Iraq DID destroy their stockpiles. Finding a few shells only indicates that their compliance was not perfect. I will sleep so much better (and poorer) now that our intelligence agencies have removed their old foil against Iran.
Wow. Paranoid more than just a little?
It couldn't possibly be that there are people who honestly disagree with you could it?
It could be. In fact, it's likely. However, do not doubt the propaganda efforts of the government. The DoD and many other organizations absolutely employ astroturf bloggers. Their posts are often as sincere as yours, but rarely as condescending.
Don't conflate crazy with unsuccessful. Go watch some videos of him and notice him pacing around the stage unshaven, in sweatpants, bloodshot eyes, ranting and shouting into the microphone at the audience.
Interesting that you focus on his appearance, not the substance of his monologues. You also seem to be unaware that nearly all performers are performing in character on stage. If you don't like his shtick, fine, but trying to use it to pretend he was crazy just makes you look ignorant. Do you believe that Steven Colbert is an arch-conservative?
No one is disputing your right to not listen. In fact, that's the only workable course of action here.
Just as your fist's freedom of movement ends at my face, your speech's freedom ends at my ears,
if I so choose.
Assault is a felony. Insult, embarassment, and offense is the price of free speech and sentience.
If FCC can limit swearing on public airwaves, police can do it too -- even if the waves are in different medium and frequency...
The FCC has a very specific mission, curtailed by law, to enforce standards on a very limited resource, the radio. As the ACLU has demonstrated, the police do not have this power. Perhaps municipalities will attempt to legislate the issue, as you suggest. Then the ACLU will challenge them, and win, on first amendment grounds.
I'm a big supporter of civility, but that has to come from improving relations between cultures and classes, not enforced by fines, truncheons, and bullets.
In my opinion, either the Bible is correct or it is useless.
I can agree with this statement wholeheartedly.
However, even if you believe that revelatory knowledge is a source of truth, how could the Bible be correct? There are two conflicting stories of creation in the first chapter alone. The Catholic church decided which early Christian writings were canonical, and which were not. Do you think that they were divinely inspired? Catholics accept many apocryphal books as worthy of study, but other denominations disagree:
In 1546 the Catholic Council of Trent reconfirmed the canon of Augustine, dating to the second and third centuries, declaring "He is also to be anathema who does not receive these entire books, with all their parts, as they have been accustomed to be read in the Catholic Church, and are found in the ancient editions of the Latin Vulgate, as sacred and canonical." The whole of the books in question, with the exception of 1 Esdras and 2 Esdras and the Prayer of Manasses, were declared canonical at Trent. The Protestants, in comparison, were diverse in their opinion of the deuterocanon. Some considered them divinely inspired, others rejected them. Anglicans took a position between the Catholic Church and the Protestant Churches; they kept them as Christian intertestamental readings and a part of the Bible, but no doctrine should be based on them. John Wycliffe, a 14th century Christian Humanist, had declared in his biblical translation that "whatever book is in the Old Testament besides these twenty-five shall be set among the apocrypha, that is, without authority or belief." Nevertheless, his translation of the Bible included the apocrypha and the Epistle of the Loadiceans.
So, was it divine inspiration that struck a church council in 1546? Were the Protestants right? Do you believe, as many Protestants do, in KJV only? What about recently found books, such as the Gospel of Judas. Is that book divine? It's certainly closer to the original sources. It seems to me that without even agreement on which books should be included, calling it correct or incorrect is a useless endeavor, as its contents vary from church to church.
I love GURPS, but you're absolutely right about it being simulation-heavy. It's still the only RPG that has ever asked me to produce a cube-root for a calculation. (while designing a boat with their Vehicles supplement)
I'd second Fudge as well. It's a nice, light, flexible, open system.
...once mechanisms to prevent 'copyright abuses' are in place, the same mechanisms can also easily be used to prevent any 'undesirable' sources of opinion, information or activity. once gates and controls are in place, no upstart will be coming up politically or business wise and upsetting the power balance that is already established...
I'm not interested in having those freedoms of which you speak.
You're not interested in being able to choose which sources of information you can use? You're not interested in being able to use the political system to change the status quo? Those are the only freedoms he spoke of, so what do you find objectionable?
I'm guessing you won't be happy until the Internet is as interesting as American TV.
What a dumb shit you are, not knowing what "explicit" means. I'd cowardly anonymize myself too if I were that stupid.
Hey, watch the language! Kids read this page.
Couldn't you have just implied that he was a dumb shit? Or maybe you could have been interrupted by some situation right before you said, and I quote, "dumb shit". That would have been witty and tasteful!
So I don't think there's any point trying to come up with explanations for it, it just seems that all the robots in the movie have anthropomorphic tendencies. No exceeding of programming required. Most of the other robots were too distracted by their jobs to explore their own potential, whereas Wall-E had fsck all to do really and started building cities and tinkering with junk he found.
Do yourself a favor and watch it again. Judge it on its own merits, not in relation to the ad campaign. Notice how it's not only the robots who are too distracted to explore their own potential, but the humans as well. The story is not about AI, it's about how getting dirty, doing the hard work, and following your curiosity will build better character than having your every whim catered to you. That, and don't litter.
Understanding the basic principles = important.
Being able to code your own = only important for those who never evolved beyond just-a-coder.
Wrong, and dangerously so.
Understanding the basic principles = Being able to code your own.
If you are not able to code your own, you absolutely do not understand it aside from a cursory familiarity. I'm certainly not advocating writing your own when a quality implementation is available, but pretending to understand how something like a red-black tree works without being capable of coding one is nothing but posturing.
PS: I agree with you that higher level data flow optimization is far more important for a good application than low-level optimization.
Ada is a fine language, especially considering some of its contemporaries (*cough* COBOL *cough*). The safety features built into the language made it a good choice for high-reliability systems. My main problem with it was that the DoD mandated it for every development effort. It's good, but not that good. No one language is a panacea. Also, library support was lacking.
Consider: If a force exists which is capable of being neutralized through the unconscious intent and will of observers who do not want to see it, then how do you measure it? I've never seen an experiment performed which takes this question into account.
Perhaps they could gather a group of observers all of whom genuinely wish to measure said "force" and take measurements while minimizing the "negative influence" of outsiders. While it would be difficult or impossible for any particular group to reproduce, at least it could be filmed and meticulously documented to determine if there were methodological faults.
Of course, that will never happen. Many believers don't care to have their cherished notions put to the test, and many skeptics would immediately dismiss such an experimental setup, but one who would thoroughly investigate such an experiment would be James Randi.
Your are correct in that he is not a scientist, but he is a rationalist. All he asks is for someone to actually demonstrate what they claim to be capable of doing in an experimental setup that removes opportunities for deception. Many have tried, and all have failed. All participants have to agree to a testing protocol beforehand, but it is not forced upon them. If people were truly capable of performing these feats, it should not matter whether or not a double-blind experimental setup is used. Unfortunately, such rigorous testing is needed because people have an amazing capacity to deceive, both themselves and others.
Personally, I am open to new ideas and experiences, but I ask that someone actually provide evidence. Since the beginning of recorded history, mankind has held one bogus notion after another. Our minds are pattern seeking devices, and they are quite capable of seeing patterns where none exist. Ideas that map usefully to reality are investigated, modified, corrected, and revised until they match the observable world as closely as possible.
Subjective experiences are just that, subjective. In meditation, you may experience vivid images, the feeling of other "presences", phantom noises, or other phenomena. However, wholly subjective experiences are by definition not demonstrable to others. Dreams, hallucinations, inner voices...they may have some deep meaning to you, but it is likely because they emanate from your mind, not the outside world.
Anyway, while science is by no means complete, we do have a handle on the basic forces of the universe. While there may be some untestable force only measurable by believers, it is quite unlikely. What is likely, and common, is the desire for believers in the paranormal to clock their beliefs in jargon to make them sound more scientific than they truly are. Using the word "force" doesn't make it science, only observation and experimentation. However, such a force would be a very useful device for charlatans to explain the failures of their abilities any time that they are put to the test.
If you own a gun and he is threatening you with that axe, you are perfectly within your rights to blow his deranged brains out, or if you're like me you'll try and disable him instead of kill (multiple shots - if I can't get his shoulder or arm, then with the remaining rounds I might be forced for a body shot - yes I have been bored and thought through the classical canon of nightmare scenarios, you should too).
You should reconsider your response. You should never (unless you are a police or military marksman with specialized training) fire a gun with the intention of "disabling" someone. Do not point a gun at someone you do not have the intention of killing. Fear, stress, and anger will reduce your accuracy. If they comply when threatened with a gun, by all means hold your fire, but if you genuinely fear for your life then open fire. Always shoot at center of mass, and continue firing until they are down. Don't even consider shooting the gun from their hand, crippling a limb, taking a head shot or any other movie-inspired bullshit. And never, ever fire if you are not in genuine fear of your life. Any coup-de-grace delivered after the threat to your life is ended crosses the line from self-defence into murder.
Slashdot Mirror
It's you idiots that are destroying the game market, not Gamestop. There is no such thing as "day-one DLC". What you are describing is a game that was made purposefully incomplete in order to prevent consumers from excercising *their* rights of resale.
The real problem is that your licensing shenanigans aren't apparent on store shelves filled with what *used* to be a well-understood product. It's not until the unwary customer gets their purchase home do they realize they've been fucked. I've been gaming for 30+ years and have decided to directly support the indie publishers who aren't willing for fuck over their customers in order to tap into a revenue stream that they feel entitled to.
Just to put your mind at ease, Christwire is satire. As a level-10 atheist, I have advanced bullshit detection abilities far beyond the ken of normals.
Also, I don't hate anyone for what they believe, and I hope you have a nice day. Possibly because I was raised Episcopalian, and think "love your enemy" is a fine idea.
The reason that your code, podcasts, and online videos are hosted in special purpose web applications is that they understand the format and purpose of your data. This will always allow them to be more featureful, as they are full fledged applications. You are comparing them to a file transfer protocol, which is disingenuous.
Rsync is optimised for replicating frequently changing collections of small files, and is widely used for that purpose, and it peer to peer. You seem to be arguing that there is little legal need for sharing large binary files. You must not edit video collaboratively, or develop and distribute indie games, or train neural nets, or share language corpora, or any number of other possible legal uses. The fact that it is widely used to share cultural ephemera is more a testament to advertising and poor education than a problem with a protocol.
World of Warcraft uses the bittorrent protocol to update their clients. That's far more than a "proof of concept". As an added bonus, bandwidth costs are pushed to their users.
Older.
Clearly, the best way to discuss falsification in science is to cast it as a discussion between a cannibalistic dictator and a strawman.
“He can compress the most words into the smallest ideas of any man I ever met” - Abraham Lincoln
"Stop...making...your...point...so...ineffectively!" - Phillip J. Fry
ASUS RT-N16 + TomatoUSB + Optware + DLNA + external 1TB drive = PC-free movie streaming to 7+ devices in my home. Highly recommended.
Do you mean those non-serviceable mustard gas shells? If that's all that they found, then it's particularly clear that Iraq DID destroy their stockpiles. Finding a few shells only indicates that their compliance was not perfect. I will sleep so much better (and poorer) now that our intelligence agencies have removed their old foil against Iran.
It could be. In fact, it's likely. However, do not doubt the propaganda efforts of the government. The DoD and many other organizations absolutely employ astroturf bloggers. Their posts are often as sincere as yours, but rarely as condescending.
What does your car run on, rainbows?
Interesting that you focus on his appearance, not the substance of his monologues. You also seem to be unaware that nearly all performers are performing in character on stage. If you don't like his shtick, fine, but trying to use it to pretend he was crazy just makes you look ignorant. Do you believe that Steven Colbert is an arch-conservative?
No one is disputing your right to not listen. In fact, that's the only workable course of action here.
Ignatius J. Reilly, is that you?
I can agree with this statement wholeheartedly.
However, even if you believe that revelatory knowledge is a source of truth, how could the Bible be correct? There are two conflicting stories of creation in the first chapter alone. The Catholic church decided which early Christian writings were canonical, and which were not. Do you think that they were divinely inspired? Catholics accept many apocryphal books as worthy of study, but other denominations disagree:
So, was it divine inspiration that struck a church council in 1546? Were the Protestants right? Do you believe, as many Protestants do, in KJV only? What about recently found books, such as the Gospel of Judas. Is that book divine? It's certainly closer to the original sources. It seems to me that without even agreement on which books should be included, calling it correct or incorrect is a useless endeavor, as its contents vary from church to church.
I love GURPS, but you're absolutely right about it being simulation-heavy. It's still the only RPG that has ever asked me to produce a cube-root for a calculation. (while designing a boat with their Vehicles supplement) I'd second Fudge as well. It's a nice, light, flexible, open system.
You're not interested in being able to choose which sources of information you can use? You're not interested in being able to use the political system to change the status quo? Those are the only freedoms he spoke of, so what do you find objectionable?
I'm guessing you won't be happy until the Internet is as interesting as American TV.
Hey, watch the language! Kids read this page.
Couldn't you have just implied that he was a dumb shit? Or maybe you could have been interrupted by some situation right before you said, and I quote, "dumb shit". That would have been witty and tasteful!
Do yourself a favor and watch it again. Judge it on its own merits, not in relation to the ad campaign. Notice how it's not only the robots who are too distracted to explore their own potential, but the humans as well. The story is not about AI, it's about how getting dirty, doing the hard work, and following your curiosity will build better character than having your every whim catered to you. That, and don't litter.
Sex is taboo, and wrong.
It's wrong, UNLESS you are selling something. Not sex, That would be wrong, but something entirely unrelated.
In other words, sex is not exactly being repressed, but channeled for the highest purpose...making money.
It's a classic. Take something free. Package it. Sell it. Legislate and agitate against the alternative.
Wrong, and dangerously so.
Understanding the basic principles = Being able to code your own.
If you are not able to code your own, you absolutely do not understand it aside from a cursory familiarity. I'm certainly not advocating writing your own when a quality implementation is available, but pretending to understand how something like a red-black tree works without being capable of coding one is nothing but posturing.
PS: I agree with you that higher level data flow optimization is far more important for a good application than low-level optimization.
Ada is a fine language, especially considering some of its contemporaries (*cough* COBOL *cough*). The safety features built into the language made it a good choice for high-reliability systems. My main problem with it was that the DoD mandated it for every development effort. It's good, but not that good. No one language is a panacea. Also, library support was lacking.
Of course not! Eventually, the Sun will enlarge and swallow the Earth before going supernova.
No, but you can deduce ethics by negotiation and deliberation with other people.
Perhaps they could gather a group of observers all of whom genuinely wish to measure said "force" and take measurements while minimizing the "negative influence" of outsiders. While it would be difficult or impossible for any particular group to reproduce, at least it could be filmed and meticulously documented to determine if there were methodological faults.
Of course, that will never happen. Many believers don't care to have their cherished notions put to the test, and many skeptics would immediately dismiss such an experimental setup, but one who would thoroughly investigate such an experiment would be James Randi.
Your are correct in that he is not a scientist, but he is a rationalist. All he asks is for someone to actually demonstrate what they claim to be capable of doing in an experimental setup that removes opportunities for deception. Many have tried, and all have failed. All participants have to agree to a testing protocol beforehand, but it is not forced upon them. If people were truly capable of performing these feats, it should not matter whether or not a double-blind experimental setup is used. Unfortunately, such rigorous testing is needed because people have an amazing capacity to deceive, both themselves and others.
Personally, I am open to new ideas and experiences, but I ask that someone actually provide evidence. Since the beginning of recorded history, mankind has held one bogus notion after another. Our minds are pattern seeking devices, and they are quite capable of seeing patterns where none exist. Ideas that map usefully to reality are investigated, modified, corrected, and revised until they match the observable world as closely as possible.
Subjective experiences are just that, subjective. In meditation, you may experience vivid images, the feeling of other "presences", phantom noises, or other phenomena. However, wholly subjective experiences are by definition not demonstrable to others. Dreams, hallucinations, inner voices...they may have some deep meaning to you, but it is likely because they emanate from your mind, not the outside world.
Anyway, while science is by no means complete, we do have a handle on the basic forces of the universe. While there may be some untestable force only measurable by believers, it is quite unlikely. What is likely, and common, is the desire for believers in the paranormal to clock their beliefs in jargon to make them sound more scientific than they truly are. Using the word "force" doesn't make it science, only observation and experimentation. However, such a force would be a very useful device for charlatans to explain the failures of their abilities any time that they are put to the test.
You should reconsider your response. You should never (unless you are a police or military marksman with specialized training) fire a gun with the intention of "disabling" someone. Do not point a gun at someone you do not have the intention of killing. Fear, stress, and anger will reduce your accuracy. If they comply when threatened with a gun, by all means hold your fire, but if you genuinely fear for your life then open fire. Always shoot at center of mass, and continue firing until they are down. Don't even consider shooting the gun from their hand, crippling a limb, taking a head shot or any other movie-inspired bullshit. And never, ever fire if you are not in genuine fear of your life. Any coup-de-grace delivered after the threat to your life is ended crosses the line from self-defence into murder.