Traffic lights are understandable even if they all have the exact same color. Thats why we let color blind people drive cars in America. UI engineers at large hardware companies have been dealing with these issues longer than you've been alive.
Just because you aren't used to intelligent UIs on PCs doesn't mean everyone follows the of the shitty gui you get on your PC.
If you aren't aware of the fact that all stop lights in America have a specific order, top to bottom for vertical, left to right for horizontal, red first then you don't need to drive a car.
You don't need to be aware of the color of the check engine light in your car to know that it comes on and indicates a problem, it still jumps out at you even though its the same color as all the other lights on the dash. If you don't notice it, you shouldn't be allowed to drive.
If you don't notice the rapidly blinking (and red) circle on your windshield showing the child about to cross your or your engine overheating, again, you shouldn't be allowed to drive your car.
I don't care what your disability is, if you are incapable of driving a car because of it, you shouldn't be allowed to drive.
Plenty of clueful people with partial or complete colorblindness do in fact drive every day. We also do electrical wiring where color coding means everything. You can learn to cope with these details and people never have to know. I can still tell you the color of every wire in every wiring harness in my car. Your brain is very capable of dealing with the issue if you pay attention.
Or you can whine like a bitch about a issue that doesn't even exist yet and try to garner sympathy.
Reality check:
You are a minority. The world isn't going to make you its primary focus, that would be stupid on many levels. Everyone has disabilities of some form or another. Its your problem, you have to overcome them. I'm an asshole, thats one of my disability, wheres my pity party?
Note: I'm also color blind, so before you start your reply, know that whiney bitches piss me off, regardless of shared disabilities.
Theres no reason perl or C# couldn't be used on those devices. The language doesn't define how much resources it requires, its just a way to describe what you want do so that it can be translated to something the CPU can actually understand. I most certainly can use C# on my phone. Its one of the preferred languages for WinMo, and mono lets me compile to a static binary for things like the iPhone which don't allow for dynamic runtimes.
The problem with higher level languages is that the compilers and VMs for them are rather shitty at optimizing things, which is fine where they are used as they aren't used for performance related bits nor are they used on light weight hardware.
If someone wanted to bother investing the time into making a extremely intelligent compiler it might change.
It won't happen because the people capable writing code of the quality needed on these devices prefer to work in assembly so they have total control and know exactly whats being done.
For reference, all cars in america after 1996 (Anything with ODB-II) is almost certainly powered by a process that is roughly 500 times slower clock rate, probably not even 32 bit, and closer to 1/10,000th the RAM. There is probably less non-volital storage on them than a common autoexec.bat file from the Win95 era takes up.
On some of these devices, there is so little ram that you can't even USE C because they have no stack pointer and nothing more than processor registers for storage of data.
Your view of programming langauges changes more than slightly when you start talking about doing things in 32 bytes of ram, total, for everything. Keep it mind, thats the amount of ram required to 11 pixels on a Windows display. Thats not even enough memory to draw the blank space between the closest letters on the screen you're looking at!
Compiling code in your basement doesn't mean you know C.
Googling random shit on the Internet and getting something to compile doesn't mean you know the language.
Backing a car out of your drive doesn't mean you can actually drive.
I'm sorry to burst the bubble you and most of the 'geeks' on the Internet seem to have, but you really don't have a clue if you didn't know this.
This is something that comes up VERY FREAKING EARLY ON in the education process of learning to program. Given enough time you should be able to infer it on your own.
My guess is that you think using visual studio wizards, cut and paste, and some primitive ability to cobble something together that compiles and runs makes you believe you know C. This is about the same as people who think because they can make a form in VB that they are programmers and can make production quality software.
I realize that not knowing much about being a programmer you think that its acceptable to not know something like this because you are learning. The thing is, if you don't know this you really have not put any effort into understanding whats going on when you compile a program. The problem is, for those of us who know what we're doing, people like you who THINK you have a clue, but really have no understanding what so ever of whats going on are EXTREMELY frustrating to us. Your the kind of people that post on the dev mailing lists for something like libxml asking for example code for your specific situation by stating something like 'I'm trying to read xml from a file and manipulate it, can someone give me everything I need to do that... as an example, but working for me!' to which if you get a response, will be one of two things 'learn to code' or 'read the docs'.
You'll find doctors have the same sort of reaction when you tell them you've been playing doctor for yourself for years with things you saw on the Internet. Those of us with a clue tend to get annoyed by people with no clue who think because they've been doing it for years (most likely wrongly) they get to be treated like they have a clue.
Make a statement that makes it clear you don't have a clue when you're hanging out with a bunch of people that DO have a clue tends to get you treated like someone who shouldn't be participating in the conversation.
To programmers, the statement made here is roughly like this:
Motivating a car using a gasoline engine or electric motor is a lot easier than pushing it with human.
Thats the level of statement made here. If someone walked up to you and told you that, you'd say 'uhm... no shit sherlock, if you didn't know that you don't need to drive a car'
While that might be useful for a caveman to know, its not useful for anyone who should be driving a car, and anyone who does drive a car, that isn't aware of the facts of the statement shouldn't be driving a car.
Don't tell us about how long you've been using GCC when you have absolutely no idea how it works, the length of time is irrelevant if you don't bother to educate yourself on how it works.
Ice is a poruis material. If theres water under it, it wicks up into the ice, carrying life with it before it freezes solid. This happens constantly, forming new ice over time and spreading out. As such, ice shelves over the open ocean almost certainly are teaming with various forms of life that can survive at least short term in those conditions. Its not uncommon at all.
600 feet in ice with no easily available source of large quanties of energy (as we think of energy needed to sustain life) and the fact that it takes a REALLY LONG TIME to get buried 600 feet into an ice sheet on land means its not new life, its been there for many generations of the organism.
It might become uninhabitable to the existing life forms that live there, but you utterly failed to get the point of this discovery.
Life exists in lots of places and ways that we thought weren't possible.
Its really silly to much such an absolute statement as yours. If the oceans 'dried up' whatever that actually means then life may die out, but its more likely it would continue on in another form. Just like the life 30k under the surface of the ocean in volcanic vents, 600 feet down in ice, or high altitude lakes that would kill anything you would be able to recognize right off the start as life without a microscope.
We know life changes, species come, evolve, and die out, but observation of the past tells us that regardless of what extreme situation happens to the planet, some life form somewhere survives and carries on to repopulate based on the new environment.
Really, from a scientific perspective, we have as much evidence that life on earth can cease to exist as we have evidence that gravity can be turned off. We've never observed either of those situations directly, but I agree life on Earth ceasing to exist is entirely possible.
I also think you have a lack of appreciate for life's ability to survive thanks to its diversity. We nor anything else is going to 'destroy life on Earth' at any point in time that we're going to find relevant.
Human life or life as we know it may end, something will carry on and evolve to survive.
LoJack and OnStar, services which cost considerably yearly fees have this feature as a selling point.
In this case its used just like LoJack. The bank requires it be installed on cars of jackasses who no one wants to finance due to their history. It in fact is something that allows the bank to feel confident that the risk of the loan is not unacceptably high for someone who indeed is an unacceptably high risk. Its really no different than the higher interest rate or larger down payment they require. Its all risk mitigation.
It is an example of what happens when a good idea gets used for bad things.
Guns intended for sport can be used to kill people. Trucks to carry product to stores can be turned into rolling bombs. Remote wipe on your blackberry/iPhone/Treo/Whatever can be used to protect your data or destroy it.
Lots of things with good, perfectly acceptable intentions can be fucked up by a bad person. If your entire DRM argument revolves around this single retarded point, you're going to fail.
If you want to get rid of DRM there have to be equal or better alternatives. Since these people couldn't buy a car without DRM, there are infact not only no better deals, there are no equal deals, and in fact no deals at all with that option off the table.
This isn't a case of using DRM to force people to buy multiple copies of the same thing to use it on multiple devices. This isn't DRM being used to restrict what you can do with something after you paid for it.
This is DRM being used to restrict something that has not in fact been paid for yet. If the people walked in and didn't require a loan, there would be no DRM. The cheaper alternative in fact has no DRM.
Your comment could not be more wrong. This is a shining example of DRM being used to benefit all involved, and shows how one douche bag can still fuck it up for you anyway.
Either way, you're an idiot if you think this is some shining example of how DRM is bad. Without the DRM, they wouldn't have had a car to be disabled or to be inconvenienced because it wouldn't start or the horn was honking.
You do realize that all of it is in the contract you sign up front so you know what you are spending if you bothered to read.
Second, you won't find a contract that says you have time after the due date before they can collect the item. Every contract states clearly that the instant you are late they can start the recovery process. If you don't want them to start the recovery process, follow the rules. If you don't like the rules, don't sign the contract, its not hard.
Just because you're used to living in a world where companies realize that most of the time its easier to float you a few days than it is to start the collection process and piss you off doesn't mean you have any sort of right or expectation that you should be able to bend the rules of the contract.
Its funny, you think its okay for you to bend the rules, but not for them to make unfair ones.
Thats pretty fucked up if you really sit down and think about it.
You might want to look around. There are laws on the books pretty much everywhere that state something like that.
In NC all the repo man has to do is have the repo order, then find the car. At that point he can report it stolen and you're now a criminal. The repo order makes them the owner and you a theif, you don't stop them from taking your car because they'll call the cops, who arrest you and take you to jail for auto theft.
As for making it harder on repo men, boo fucking who. Repo men are scumbags. I realize their job is 'required' from some viewpoint, its not one I will ever share. You're not going to find too many people with sympathy for them, I for one am happy to see anything done to make their lives more difficult.
P.P.S. throwing your political agenda on the end of a comment costs you about half your credibility off the top if you are 100% correct and all your credibility if you're even mildly inaccurate or disagreeable. Its best not to do it unless you want to make it perfectly clear that you're a sheep trying to ride the current political bashing fad and also an idiot.
if that wasn't a factor in your choice of phone, then my sympathy for you is nil.
Thats okay, I feel sympathy for the fact that you won't be able to watch as much stuff as I will since you have a codec that while open, is largely irrelevant as far as content is concerned.
Especially if you want to connect with Wikipedia, whose commitment to openness is legendary.
First off, no one right now is going to make a purchasing choice based on if the device can play wikipedia video except Jimmy himself (MAYBE) and an idiot. Theres no content, so no point.
Wikipedia's commitment to openness isn't much of one. Other than video, everything else wikipedia has an acceptable quality and well supported alternative available. Before Wikipedia came into 'popular' existence, every major browser supported open formats for the main media types. Sound, images, and of course text is text. It wasn't hard to say 'lets use these formats' because those formats were good regardless of their 'patent' status.
If you want Wikipedia, and any other person on the planet to go with an open format, get one thats superior in some way. Until then, stop trying to brute force people into using an inferior package by making it a requirement for something that you think is a requirement for web browsing.
Two reasons for that:
A) You'll fine people can live fine without Wikipedia videos since they are now anyway, no one will care to upload since the majority of the users won't be able to view without going out of their way to do so.
B) Thats what Microsoft does. Microsoft pisses me off greatly for doing so, and that has in fact been a battlecry of the FOSS community for years. Now the instant you start doing the same thing as the people you are ranting about you've lost the only advantage you really have which is the grass roots nature of it.
The alternative is to realize that not everything is going to be open source, accept that, accept that OSS and Proprietary will always be mixed, and move on.
You'll get much further in life when you stop living your life wrapped around retarded ridged rules that make you prejudice against valid alternatives while at the same time giving your competition, which isn't so warped, an advantage.
Most important, because I save the best for last. Most of the people involved in this conversation need to realize that 'open' does not mean 'GPL' to anyone other than GPL zealots. All current codecs in question for HTML5 video are in fact open.
Heh, America is very much nicer than how it all started.
If you remember...
An eye for an eye, A tooth for a tooth, and a life for a life.
Personally, I don't want the guy locked up either. I don't feel like paying for it. Lets just get old school on the parents and take a life for life.
But how far would you like to take it? Where do you draw the line? Would you prefer that we don't punish anyone that feels bad about what they did? I'd be the 'saddest most upset about his job' car thief on the planet if that were the case. Hell, I'd probably have to feel bad for murdering a couple people as well. I could commit a lot of crimes and deal with 'feeling bad about it' later I think.
We should definitely do that, it sounds like it'll work out freaking awesome...
The world today is full of people who make excuses to avoid taking responsibility for their own actions.
Who knows why it was mentioned: Perhaps the parents killed the girl and wanted to make it look more accidental Perhaps the police noticed a Wii controller and wrote it in the report than someone else figured that the girl could have been playing with it. Maybe its a reporter or cop just making random shit up based on some photos and wanting to make a name for themselves.
Either way you are absolutely correct, it has no value to the story. The parents don't know what happened exactly, if they do, they should have stopped her from playing with the gun. But the story is, dad wasn't in the room and mom was playing on the computer and didn't see it. So NO ONE actually KNOWS what happened or they are lying.
Translation: Someone added the Wii bullshit in when they shouldn't have for some personal agenda they need to fulfill, and my money is on the parents looking for an excuse. Not so much from 'the law' but from their own personal torment knowing what they allowed to happen.
Don't like it, organize a large enough group who disagree and change it.
I for one agree with the idea of them being punished, as does the majority of the population last time this issue was brought up.
It sucks what they have to live through.
Think about what she gets to live through, oh wait... she can't. She'll never get to live through anything again. She'll never get to feel sad. Have a first date. Have children.
You tell me how their loss compares to hers. They will eventually learn to cope with it like any other death. She won't ever learn to cope with it.
Are you a parent? There's absolutely NOTHING they could do to the guy that would be worse than losing a child. I wouldn't be surprised if he winds up comitting suicide intentionally, with the same gun. I can't imagine how much this guy's hurting right now.
Are you the girl who is dead because of his and the mothers actions/inactions? I care more about her loss than his suffering.
And bullshit on 'self punishment'. It doesn't work that way, regardless of what utopian fantasy you live in. Living with the consequences of ones actions alone is generally not a deterrent in and of itself.
You feel sorry for them, I will to. I can't imagine what I'd feel like in that situation.
On that same note, lock'em both up, throw away the key, they are too irresponsible to function in the same world as me. I could give a flying fuck how bad they feel at this point, I'm more concerned with them doing it again. No, not shooting their other kid, but doing something equally as stupid like living the 1 year old next to a swimming pool alone all day.
Much like finding your daughter attached to a stipper pole at the stip club, these events are a clear indication that the parents failed. Parenting license is revoked.
I could respond by turning this into a car analogy and showing how equally irrational your post is in that context as well, but why bother, it won't change anything and you'll still be an irrational gun hater.
Just like theres a difference between a person rambling on the cell phone while getting dressed driving through the city at 90mph and a normal driver, this is also a difference between this idiot and other gun owners.
It takes a special breed of irrational to make your sort of post.
I assure you that we gun toters feel no more sympathy for this moron than the idiots a few years back who tried to trim their hedges with a lawn mower by picking it up and holding it over the hedges. They are equally freaking stupid. I share something in common with both of them, I drive a car, I use a lawn mower and I own a gun.
We all also own knives, pens and pencils which can be stabbed in someones throat or fallen on accidentally if left laying in the wrong spot.
I have not killed anyone, even though I'm more than capable of doing so. Some of us a capable of surviving and not harming others around dangerous things, I take it from the sound of your post that are unaware of this ability. I'm going to have to also assume you don't own a car, have any sharp objects in your home, or even a home for that matter since it could possibly harm you. Hell, I can't see how you can even eat since its more likely that you'll die from a food allergy than an shooting (accidental or intentional).
You describe a situation where someone woke by surprise and half asleep shoots someone who didn't deserve it, someone so asleep they are that unaware of their situation isn't likely to be able to hit the broad side of a barn either. An accidental shooting like that would be something like a kid walking into daddies bedroom and daddy blows his head off by accident. Of course this doesn't happen because daddy has known for a long time that the kid randomly wakes up in the middle of the night since its been doing that since before it could walk.
Really, accidental shootings are fucking rare, get some perspective.
I concur. I regularly carry an H&K USP that has no safety. Safety is trigger discipline, sight discipline (don't point it at valuable things and treat it as though it is loaded at all times), and storage discipline.
No the safety is to prevent accidentally firing the weapon without a user command.
Everything you speak of is for preventing the user from making a stupid command.
The point of a safety isn't to stop you from making a stupid command, its to prevent the weapon from firing on its own.
Well, I don't know what the controller in question is, but if there was a controller that looked exactly like my gun, I'd probably buy it so I could 'shoot my own gun' while playing games on the Wii.
The story sounds flaky as all hell, but I can see that particular part being true.
Thats the way it works, at least from one perspective.
He (and she I expect) will punished for doing something so grossly negligent that it resulted in the death of a human being.
That is not to prevent you from doing it again. That is to make it clear that the law is not a joke and will be carried out when the situation occurs.
The law is the deterrent. The law says you'll be punished if you are so grossly negligent that someone gets killed. Its a law that we as a country have more or less agreed on.
The fact that the guilty party here has suffered a side effect of lossing their 3 year old daughter as well is simply extra punishment for them and if you weren't so self centered, you'd maybe think about the fact that not only would being a fuck up like him result in punishment from the law, but also the possibility of hurting someone you love in a way that can never be taken back. You're worried about being punished to deter others and how unfair that might be to you after you've done something so wrong someone has died, and ignoring the fact that a little girl died and will never have the opportunity to be here to have this discussion with you. You sir are an amazingly selfish fuck, but I'm getting off track.
People will do the right thing, sometimes they don't agree on what the right thing is, so we have law that defines it (for the most part) and sets deterrents to get people to do the agreed on 'right thing'. The law deters those who can be detered because they do not like the resulting punishment. For those that it doesn't deter, they get punished. Not to deter you from accidentally shooting someone, to show you that we (the people) are not joking when we say you will be punished for breaking the law, including if it was just sheer ignorance in certain cases were we expect higher standards. His daughters death is simply a twist of fate which they will personally have to deal with in their own way for the rest of their lives, thats simply extra punishment thrown on top by no one other than themselves through their own personal anguish.
I'm glad they will have to suffer through that for the rest of their lives, the 3 year old won't have the option. Do I feel sorry for these people? Certainly, I can't imagine what they are going through. I also don't leave loaded weapons laying around 3 year olds, which prevents me from having to go through this situation.
I admit I only own a shotgun and I'm not a 'gun nut' by any means, but I honestly don't know of a place off the top of my head that you can even buy something that doesn't qualify as 'semi-automatic' without putting a mild amount of effort into it.
I mean, you actually have to have a specific reason to get something fully manual, it tends to cost more anyway since mass production is dedicated to the popular items, which are all semi-auto.
While keeping it loaded will buy you a few seconds of readystate, that few seconds is worthless if you wake up and the 'robber' is already pointing something at you, preventing you from even getting at your weapon.
Versus, the 12 seconds it takes you (and probably anyone else mildly proficient) which would probably be better spent listening while loading the weapon to determine who's there, how many are there, and if you really indeed want to shoot these people (You'd feel like a bitch if you woke up and shot the fireman who was coming to save your half dead from smoke inhalation ass because you were only partially aware of what was going on).
Leaving a loaded weapon laying (locked or otherwise) around is something you do if you expect that the next 15 minutes of your life are probably going to be your last. Theres a reason a soldier does it, its not something you do because you may get robbed and the cops are 12 minutes away.
I'm a firm supporter of EVERY SANE person owning a weapon, if you feel that you need to keep your weapon loaded and unlocked in your own home, you do not qualify as SANE to me, regardless of the reason you feel the need to do so.
I should also note that while my shotgun is in the closet nearest my bed, the shells are in my workshed locked in a safe, and the key to the lock for the gun is in the kitchen. Makes it pretty much useless in a home invasion. Thats intentional. I don't think I have what it takes to shoot someone, I could be wrong, but I don't really want to find out. Second, its going to be REALLY hard for someone to use my own gun against me or my family. If someone robs me, they can take my stuff, I can replace it. I can't replace my family or remove the feeling that will follow me for the rest of my life if I shoot someone.
Slashdot Mirror
Traffic lights are understandable even if they all have the exact same color. Thats why we let color blind people drive cars in America. UI engineers at large hardware companies have been dealing with these issues longer than you've been alive.
Just because you aren't used to intelligent UIs on PCs doesn't mean everyone follows the of the shitty gui you get on your PC.
If you aren't aware of the fact that all stop lights in America have a specific order, top to bottom for vertical, left to right for horizontal, red first then you don't need to drive a car.
You don't need to be aware of the color of the check engine light in your car to know that it comes on and indicates a problem, it still jumps out at you even though its the same color as all the other lights on the dash. If you don't notice it, you shouldn't be allowed to drive.
If you don't notice the rapidly blinking (and red) circle on your windshield showing the child about to cross your or your engine overheating, again, you shouldn't be allowed to drive your car.
I don't care what your disability is, if you are incapable of driving a car because of it, you shouldn't be allowed to drive.
Plenty of clueful people with partial or complete colorblindness do in fact drive every day. We also do electrical wiring where color coding means everything. You can learn to cope with these details and people never have to know. I can still tell you the color of every wire in every wiring harness in my car. Your brain is very capable of dealing with the issue if you pay attention.
Or you can whine like a bitch about a issue that doesn't even exist yet and try to garner sympathy.
Reality check:
You are a minority. The world isn't going to make you its primary focus, that would be stupid on many levels. Everyone has disabilities of some form or another. Its your problem, you have to overcome them. I'm an asshole, thats one of my disability, wheres my pity party?
Note: I'm also color blind, so before you start your reply, know that whiney bitches piss me off, regardless of shared disabilities.
Virtual memory pretty much allows the same sort of operation from a practical standpoint. Mapping IO storage directly into ram and all that.
I code for a processor like that ever day.
32 registers, no RAM otherwise.
Theres no reason perl or C# couldn't be used on those devices. The language doesn't define how much resources it requires, its just a way to describe what you want do so that it can be translated to something the CPU can actually understand. I most certainly can use C# on my phone. Its one of the preferred languages for WinMo, and mono lets me compile to a static binary for things like the iPhone which don't allow for dynamic runtimes.
The problem with higher level languages is that the compilers and VMs for them are rather shitty at optimizing things, which is fine where they are used as they aren't used for performance related bits nor are they used on light weight hardware.
If someone wanted to bother investing the time into making a extremely intelligent compiler it might change.
It won't happen because the people capable writing code of the quality needed on these devices prefer to work in assembly so they have total control and know exactly whats being done.
For reference, all cars in america after 1996 (Anything with ODB-II) is almost certainly powered by a process that is roughly 500 times slower clock rate, probably not even 32 bit, and closer to 1/10,000th the RAM. There is probably less non-volital storage on them than a common autoexec.bat file from the Win95 era takes up.
On some of these devices, there is so little ram that you can't even USE C because they have no stack pointer and nothing more than processor registers for storage of data.
Your view of programming langauges changes more than slightly when you start talking about doing things in 32 bytes of ram, total, for everything. Keep it mind, thats the amount of ram required to 11 pixels on a Windows display. Thats not even enough memory to draw the blank space between the closest letters on the screen you're looking at!
Compiling code in your basement doesn't mean you know C.
Googling random shit on the Internet and getting something to compile doesn't mean you know the language.
Backing a car out of your drive doesn't mean you can actually drive.
I'm sorry to burst the bubble you and most of the 'geeks' on the Internet seem to have, but you really don't have a clue if you didn't know this.
This is something that comes up VERY FREAKING EARLY ON in the education process of learning to program. Given enough time you should be able to infer it on your own.
My guess is that you think using visual studio wizards, cut and paste, and some primitive ability to cobble something together that compiles and runs makes you believe you know C. This is about the same as people who think because they can make a form in VB that they are programmers and can make production quality software.
I realize that not knowing much about being a programmer you think that its acceptable to not know something like this because you are learning. The thing is, if you don't know this you really have not put any effort into understanding whats going on when you compile a program. The problem is, for those of us who know what we're doing, people like you who THINK you have a clue, but really have no understanding what so ever of whats going on are EXTREMELY frustrating to us. Your the kind of people that post on the dev mailing lists for something like libxml asking for example code for your specific situation by stating something like 'I'm trying to read xml from a file and manipulate it, can someone give me everything I need to do that ... as an example, but working for me!' to which if you get a response, will be one of two things 'learn to code' or 'read the docs'.
You'll find doctors have the same sort of reaction when you tell them you've been playing doctor for yourself for years with things you saw on the Internet. Those of us with a clue tend to get annoyed by people with no clue who think because they've been doing it for years (most likely wrongly) they get to be treated like they have a clue.
Make a statement that makes it clear you don't have a clue when you're hanging out with a bunch of people that DO have a clue tends to get you treated like someone who shouldn't be participating in the conversation.
To programmers, the statement made here is roughly like this:
Motivating a car using a gasoline engine or electric motor is a lot easier than pushing it with human.
Thats the level of statement made here. If someone walked up to you and told you that, you'd say 'uhm ... no shit sherlock, if you didn't know that you don't need to drive a car'
While that might be useful for a caveman to know, its not useful for anyone who should be driving a car, and anyone who does drive a car, that isn't aware of the facts of the statement shouldn't be driving a car.
Don't tell us about how long you've been using GCC when you have absolutely no idea how it works, the length of time is irrelevant if you don't bother to educate yourself on how it works.
Yea, and add a slice of 'no shit, ASM can do it in less than anything else', since you know, thats how EVERYTHING ENDS UP anyway.
Taco, seriously, remove kdawson and timithoy's access to post stories to the front page.
Ice is a poruis material. If theres water under it, it wicks up into the ice, carrying life with it before it freezes solid. This happens constantly, forming new ice over time and spreading out. As such, ice shelves over the open ocean almost certainly are teaming with various forms of life that can survive at least short term in those conditions. Its not uncommon at all.
600 feet in ice with no easily available source of large quanties of energy (as we think of energy needed to sustain life) and the fact that it takes a REALLY LONG TIME to get buried 600 feet into an ice sheet on land means its not new life, its been there for many generations of the organism.
Doubtful.
It might become uninhabitable to the existing life forms that live there, but you utterly failed to get the point of this discovery.
Life exists in lots of places and ways that we thought weren't possible.
Its really silly to much such an absolute statement as yours. If the oceans 'dried up' whatever that actually means then life may die out, but its more likely it would continue on in another form. Just like the life 30k under the surface of the ocean in volcanic vents, 600 feet down in ice, or high altitude lakes that would kill anything you would be able to recognize right off the start as life without a microscope.
We know life changes, species come, evolve, and die out, but observation of the past tells us that regardless of what extreme situation happens to the planet, some life form somewhere survives and carries on to repopulate based on the new environment.
Really, from a scientific perspective, we have as much evidence that life on earth can cease to exist as we have evidence that gravity can be turned off. We've never observed either of those situations directly, but I agree life on Earth ceasing to exist is entirely possible.
I also think you have a lack of appreciate for life's ability to survive thanks to its diversity. We nor anything else is going to 'destroy life on Earth' at any point in time that we're going to find relevant.
Human life or life as we know it may end, something will carry on and evolve to survive.
Shrug, several people pay for these features.
LoJack and OnStar, services which cost considerably yearly fees have this feature as a selling point.
In this case its used just like LoJack. The bank requires it be installed on cars of jackasses who no one wants to finance due to their history. It in fact is something that allows the bank to feel confident that the risk of the loan is not unacceptably high for someone who indeed is an unacceptably high risk. Its really no different than the higher interest rate or larger down payment they require. Its all risk mitigation.
It is an example of what happens when a good idea gets used for bad things.
Guns intended for sport can be used to kill people.
Trucks to carry product to stores can be turned into rolling bombs.
Remote wipe on your blackberry/iPhone/Treo/Whatever can be used to protect your data or destroy it.
Lots of things with good, perfectly acceptable intentions can be fucked up by a bad person. If your entire DRM argument revolves around this single retarded point, you're going to fail.
If you want to get rid of DRM there have to be equal or better alternatives. Since these people couldn't buy a car without DRM, there are infact not only no better deals, there are no equal deals, and in fact no deals at all with that option off the table.
This isn't a case of using DRM to force people to buy multiple copies of the same thing to use it on multiple devices. This isn't DRM being used to restrict what you can do with something after you paid for it.
This is DRM being used to restrict something that has not in fact been paid for yet. If the people walked in and didn't require a loan, there would be no DRM. The cheaper alternative in fact has no DRM.
Your comment could not be more wrong. This is a shining example of DRM being used to benefit all involved, and shows how one douche bag can still fuck it up for you anyway.
Either way, you're an idiot if you think this is some shining example of how DRM is bad. Without the DRM, they wouldn't have had a car to be disabled or to be inconvenienced because it wouldn't start or the horn was honking.
You do realize that all of it is in the contract you sign up front so you know what you are spending if you bothered to read.
Second, you won't find a contract that says you have time after the due date before they can collect the item. Every contract states clearly that the instant you are late they can start the recovery process. If you don't want them to start the recovery process, follow the rules. If you don't like the rules, don't sign the contract, its not hard.
Just because you're used to living in a world where companies realize that most of the time its easier to float you a few days than it is to start the collection process and piss you off doesn't mean you have any sort of right or expectation that you should be able to bend the rules of the contract.
Its funny, you think its okay for you to bend the rules, but not for them to make unfair ones.
Thats pretty fucked up if you really sit down and think about it.
You might want to look around. There are laws on the books pretty much everywhere that state something like that.
In NC all the repo man has to do is have the repo order, then find the car. At that point he can report it stolen and you're now a criminal. The repo order makes them the owner and you a theif, you don't stop them from taking your car because they'll call the cops, who arrest you and take you to jail for auto theft.
As for making it harder on repo men, boo fucking who. Repo men are scumbags. I realize their job is 'required' from some viewpoint, its not one I will ever share. You're not going to find too many people with sympathy for them, I for one am happy to see anything done to make their lives more difficult.
P.P.S. throwing your political agenda on the end of a comment costs you about half your credibility off the top if you are 100% correct and all your credibility if you're even mildly inaccurate or disagreeable. Its best not to do it unless you want to make it perfectly clear that you're a sheep trying to ride the current political bashing fad and also an idiot.
Thats okay, I feel sympathy for the fact that you won't be able to watch as much stuff as I will since you have a codec that while open, is largely irrelevant as far as content is concerned.
First off, no one right now is going to make a purchasing choice based on if the device can play wikipedia video except Jimmy himself (MAYBE) and an idiot. Theres no content, so no point.
Wikipedia's commitment to openness isn't much of one. Other than video, everything else wikipedia has an acceptable quality and well supported alternative available. Before Wikipedia came into 'popular' existence, every major browser supported open formats for the main media types. Sound, images, and of course text is text. It wasn't hard to say 'lets use these formats' because those formats were good regardless of their 'patent' status.
If you want Wikipedia, and any other person on the planet to go with an open format, get one thats superior in some way. Until then, stop trying to brute force people into using an inferior package by making it a requirement for something that you think is a requirement for web browsing.
Two reasons for that:
A) You'll fine people can live fine without Wikipedia videos since they are now anyway, no one will care to upload since the majority of the users won't be able to view without going out of their way to do so.
B) Thats what Microsoft does. Microsoft pisses me off greatly for doing so, and that has in fact been a battlecry of the FOSS community for years. Now the instant you start doing the same thing as the people you are ranting about you've lost the only advantage you really have which is the grass roots nature of it.
The alternative is to realize that not everything is going to be open source, accept that, accept that OSS and Proprietary will always be mixed, and move on.
You'll get much further in life when you stop living your life wrapped around retarded ridged rules that make you prejudice against valid alternatives while at the same time giving your competition, which isn't so warped, an advantage.
Most important, because I save the best for last. Most of the people involved in this conversation need to realize that 'open' does not mean 'GPL' to anyone other than GPL zealots. All current codecs in question for HTML5 video are in fact open.
Heh, America is very much nicer than how it all started.
If you remember ...
An eye for an eye,
A tooth for a tooth,
and a life for a life.
Personally, I don't want the guy locked up either. I don't feel like paying for it. Lets just get old school on the parents and take a life for life.
But how far would you like to take it? Where do you draw the line? Would you prefer that we don't punish anyone that feels bad about what they did? I'd be the 'saddest most upset about his job' car thief on the planet if that were the case. Hell, I'd probably have to feel bad for murdering a couple people as well. I could commit a lot of crimes and deal with 'feeling bad about it' later I think.
We should definitely do that, it sounds like it'll work out freaking awesome ...
The world today is full of people who make excuses to avoid taking responsibility for their own actions.
Who knows why it was mentioned:
Perhaps the parents killed the girl and wanted to make it look more accidental
Perhaps the police noticed a Wii controller and wrote it in the report than someone else figured that the girl could have been playing with it.
Maybe its a reporter or cop just making random shit up based on some photos and wanting to make a name for themselves.
Either way you are absolutely correct, it has no value to the story. The parents don't know what happened exactly, if they do, they should have stopped her from playing with the gun. But the story is, dad wasn't in the room and mom was playing on the computer and didn't see it. So NO ONE actually KNOWS what happened or they are lying.
Translation: Someone added the Wii bullshit in when they shouldn't have for some personal agenda they need to fulfill, and my money is on the parents looking for an excuse. Not so much from 'the law' but from their own personal torment knowing what they allowed to happen.
If you got 50 lashes, you wouldn't be walking the next day, let alone going to work.
You realize punishment only works to deter people if people know its going to be carried out ... right?
When you don't carry it out, it becomes nothing more than a threat and threats deter no one.
Because the law says so. Period.
Don't like it, organize a large enough group who disagree and change it.
I for one agree with the idea of them being punished, as does the majority of the population last time this issue was brought up.
It sucks what they have to live through.
Think about what she gets to live through, oh wait ... she can't. She'll never get to live through anything again. She'll never get to feel sad. Have a first date. Have children.
You tell me how their loss compares to hers. They will eventually learn to cope with it like any other death. She won't ever learn to cope with it.
Are you the girl who is dead because of his and the mothers actions/inactions? I care more about her loss than his suffering.
And bullshit on 'self punishment'. It doesn't work that way, regardless of what utopian fantasy you live in. Living with the consequences of ones actions alone is generally not a deterrent in and of itself.
You feel sorry for them, I will to. I can't imagine what I'd feel like in that situation.
On that same note, lock'em both up, throw away the key, they are too irresponsible to function in the same world as me. I could give a flying fuck how bad they feel at this point, I'm more concerned with them doing it again. No, not shooting their other kid, but doing something equally as stupid like living the 1 year old next to a swimming pool alone all day.
Much like finding your daughter attached to a stipper pole at the stip club, these events are a clear indication that the parents failed. Parenting license is revoked.
I could respond by turning this into a car analogy and showing how equally irrational your post is in that context as well, but why bother, it won't change anything and you'll still be an irrational gun hater.
Just like theres a difference between a person rambling on the cell phone while getting dressed driving through the city at 90mph and a normal driver, this is also a difference between this idiot and other gun owners.
It takes a special breed of irrational to make your sort of post.
I assure you that we gun toters feel no more sympathy for this moron than the idiots a few years back who tried to trim their hedges with a lawn mower by picking it up and holding it over the hedges. They are equally freaking stupid. I share something in common with both of them, I drive a car, I use a lawn mower and I own a gun.
We all also own knives, pens and pencils which can be stabbed in someones throat or fallen on accidentally if left laying in the wrong spot.
I have not killed anyone, even though I'm more than capable of doing so. Some of us a capable of surviving and not harming others around dangerous things, I take it from the sound of your post that are unaware of this ability. I'm going to have to also assume you don't own a car, have any sharp objects in your home, or even a home for that matter since it could possibly harm you. Hell, I can't see how you can even eat since its more likely that you'll die from a food allergy than an shooting (accidental or intentional).
You describe a situation where someone woke by surprise and half asleep shoots someone who didn't deserve it, someone so asleep they are that unaware of their situation isn't likely to be able to hit the broad side of a barn either. An accidental shooting like that would be something like a kid walking into daddies bedroom and daddy blows his head off by accident. Of course this doesn't happen because daddy has known for a long time that the kid randomly wakes up in the middle of the night since its been doing that since before it could walk.
Really, accidental shootings are fucking rare, get some perspective.
No the safety is to prevent accidentally firing the weapon without a user command.
Everything you speak of is for preventing the user from making a stupid command.
The point of a safety isn't to stop you from making a stupid command, its to prevent the weapon from firing on its own.
Well, I don't know what the controller in question is, but if there was a controller that looked exactly like my gun, I'd probably buy it so I could 'shoot my own gun' while playing games on the Wii.
The story sounds flaky as all hell, but I can see that particular part being true.
Did you just wake up to reality or something?
Thats the way it works, at least from one perspective.
He (and she I expect) will punished for doing something so grossly negligent that it resulted in the death of a human being.
That is not to prevent you from doing it again. That is to make it clear that the law is not a joke and will be carried out when the situation occurs.
The law is the deterrent. The law says you'll be punished if you are so grossly negligent that someone gets killed. Its a law that we as a country have more or less agreed on.
The fact that the guilty party here has suffered a side effect of lossing their 3 year old daughter as well is simply extra punishment for them and if you weren't so self centered, you'd maybe think about the fact that not only would being a fuck up like him result in punishment from the law, but also the possibility of hurting someone you love in a way that can never be taken back. You're worried about being punished to deter others and how unfair that might be to you after you've done something so wrong someone has died, and ignoring the fact that a little girl died and will never have the opportunity to be here to have this discussion with you. You sir are an amazingly selfish fuck, but I'm getting off track.
People will do the right thing, sometimes they don't agree on what the right thing is, so we have law that defines it (for the most part) and sets deterrents to get people to do the agreed on 'right thing'. The law deters those who can be detered because they do not like the resulting punishment. For those that it doesn't deter, they get punished. Not to deter you from accidentally shooting someone, to show you that we (the people) are not joking when we say you will be punished for breaking the law, including if it was just sheer ignorance in certain cases were we expect higher standards. His daughters death is simply a twist of fate which they will personally have to deal with in their own way for the rest of their lives, thats simply extra punishment thrown on top by no one other than themselves through their own personal anguish.
I'm glad they will have to suffer through that for the rest of their lives, the 3 year old won't have the option. Do I feel sorry for these people? Certainly, I can't imagine what they are going through. I also don't leave loaded weapons laying around 3 year olds, which prevents me from having to go through this situation.
I admit I only own a shotgun and I'm not a 'gun nut' by any means, but I honestly don't know of a place off the top of my head that you can even buy something that doesn't qualify as 'semi-automatic' without putting a mild amount of effort into it.
I mean, you actually have to have a specific reason to get something fully manual, it tends to cost more anyway since mass production is dedicated to the popular items, which are all semi-auto.
I'd like to add to that ...
While keeping it loaded will buy you a few seconds of readystate, that few seconds is worthless if you wake up and the 'robber' is already pointing something at you, preventing you from even getting at your weapon.
Versus, the 12 seconds it takes you (and probably anyone else mildly proficient) which would probably be better spent listening while loading the weapon to determine who's there, how many are there, and if you really indeed want to shoot these people (You'd feel like a bitch if you woke up and shot the fireman who was coming to save your half dead from smoke inhalation ass because you were only partially aware of what was going on).
Leaving a loaded weapon laying (locked or otherwise) around is something you do if you expect that the next 15 minutes of your life are probably going to be your last. Theres a reason a soldier does it, its not something you do because you may get robbed and the cops are 12 minutes away.
I'm a firm supporter of EVERY SANE person owning a weapon, if you feel that you need to keep your weapon loaded and unlocked in your own home, you do not qualify as SANE to me, regardless of the reason you feel the need to do so.
I should also note that while my shotgun is in the closet nearest my bed, the shells are in my workshed locked in a safe, and the key to the lock for the gun is in the kitchen. Makes it pretty much useless in a home invasion. Thats intentional. I don't think I have what it takes to shoot someone, I could be wrong, but I don't really want to find out. Second, its going to be REALLY hard for someone to use my own gun against me or my family. If someone robs me, they can take my stuff, I can replace it. I can't replace my family or remove the feeling that will follow me for the rest of my life if I shoot someone.