IANAL But as I understand it you can't collect damages multiple times for the same infraction.
I.e. if I run you over with my car and cause you to roll down Joe's hill of rusty barbed wire and land in John's acid vat and you have $50k of medical bills. You can argue that I caused it all and sue me for the whole amount, but you can't go and collect $50k damage each from me, Joe and John.
If their argument is that your action caused that song to get spread to 100million other people and they sue you accordingly, then it makes those 100million people immune to the same lawsuit (at least for that individual song)
I agree, gambling isn't an issue based solely on religious grounds. My stance on gambling is that it's anti-capitilism. The concept of money is supposed to represent one's contributions to society.. (Granted there are a lot of perversions to that notion) but money is supposed to be earned.
When one gambles, they're ultimately saying that money should be guided by chance.
I'm against all forms of inherentance (Except the OOP kind) for the same reason.
Terrorism/Terrorist is a derived word from Terrorize, but they do not share the same meaning.
Terrorism/Terrorist specifically requires violence or threat of violence and it must have a political or social agenda. The RIAA has the agenda, but they don't incorporate violence.
Neither is entrapment. Entrapment can only be performed by someone with authority. These guys have none. Secondly, your example is a common bust. (although they don't do it like you said)
Entrapment for example is when a cop asks you to break a crime and then busts you for it. They're allowed to bait you (look at when they bust johns going after hookers) but they can't be the ones to suggest the criminal activity. The key difference is whether the person was predisposed to doing the crime.
No everyone isn't qualified to be a system administrator. But I certainly rather be on an internet that anyone can be a system adminstrator then one where the only qualification needed to be one is money.
But making policy decisions based on terrorism only encourages terrorism. Now the terrorists know they have the power to bully Spain's politics.
So what happens when protesters threaten to kill many civilians if Spain doesn't withdraw from EU? WTO? UN? What should Spain do?
It's a very similar problem to blackmail problem.. Just because you give the blackmailer what they want doesn't mean you're protected.. It means they know they can come back again later for more and more.
Do you give in everytime a preschooler throws a temper tantrum begging for candy??
Even if you oppose the war, you can see the bad precedent being set by Spain.
A system like that just means they're not really held responsible for the quality of the upcoming work. If it gets crappy reviews, they already have the money. This would mean moviemakers would work just hard enough to get popular then release movie after movie with lame deritive plots, poor acting (but of course important celebrities), and repetitive explosions... oh wait.
Those 13 states also have the majority of the people. What you also failed to mention is that because they have a ton of people, each individual vote means less in those states. You might as well say "if the candidate gets 70% of the vote, then the other 30% doesn't matter at all". The people's votes who really don't matter, are the ones that live in states that are onesided.
Individual votes matter the most in city elections. Vote for city officials often enough and your vote will probably eventually make the difference between candidates. An individual presidential vote is less likely to change an election then playing the lottery.
Which is why they should offer consumers choice on these bundles. Then the consumer can choose if they want the Time Warner bundle, or the Viacom bundle and each with their own fees and a note saying that the providers require them to be bundled as such. Put this online so you can change it on the fly, and put a link to viacom, timewarner and whoever else, so they can complain about their practices.
The consumer doesn't care now, because they don't know.. they're ignorant of this. If they did this, viacoms would get backlash. I certainly would drop a lot of bundles I'm not using now, and I'd pick up so more obscure channels likely as well.
I personally would drop ESPN bundles (ESPN often blamed for rate hikes, and I never watch a minute of it), and I'd get a discovery bundle. I doubt I'd get the viacom bundle, although if they bowed to pressure and offered smaller bundles or might get one.
This would be the thing the Viacoms would hate most, consumer choice because they get nothing out of it. Everyone HAS to get Viacom now, they can only lose customers.
Finally, if the gift is entertainment, a favor, a service, or any other intangible benefit, the employee must reimburse the market value to the donor.
Finally the RIAA has another way to make a profit on their poor business model without suing endusers. They just need to send performers as gifts to DoD employees. The employees would be required to pay out of their own pocket.
discrimination law is applied far to widely to take profession/degrees into account.
-The lawyer that is refused a house because he's a lawyer is akin to -The store clerk that is refused a job as an astrophysicist because he has no high school education.
Granted the counterargument is the second doesn't have the merits to fulfill that role.. but people are turned down simpler jobs because they're overqualified.
You're right in that zones are on different servers but the real reason for the "Loading.... " is to load stuff client side. Remember when EQ first came out computers had a lot less memory, so they couldn't keep all those textures/models in memory.
The transfer from server to server shouldn't take long at all, the time to write the character file to database and load it again.
Everquest puts real variety in textures/models between zones, For example, a zone as a sunny green pasture with animals is adjacent to a desert, a city, a dark dreary forest. For a zoneless crossing, the computer would have to load the resources from all zones you can see.
This works in some of the other games (like DAOC) because one zone is quite similar to the next. the transitions from snow textures to grass textures takes a while. Plus with the higher memory machines, DAOC can keep many of these textures loaded all the time and just unload/load the zone specific stuff as you approach. That way you only get the hiccup crossing zonelines as it transfers between servers.
I disagree... I know everyone will say "Never Trust the Client" but it shouldn't be considered a rule, but taken as very sound advice. If it was to be considered a strict rule multiplayer FPS and MMORPG's just wouldn't be viable. In the mudding community there's been a few games that have tried to move to graphical versoins using a dumb client, they always suffer awfully from lag, very tilebased movement or slow movement.
There are certain things that are still appropriate to be done on client, in fact some are pretty much required. Most (all?) mmorpg's do movement prediction and collision detection (if it's in the game) on client side. This is where distribution could help the most.
Most games players CAN speed hack, it's possible and most of the security mechanisms are on client (so the client turns you in as a cheater). The GM's take a reactive approach, banning anyone getting caught doing it (and it's quite easy to detect a speed hacker)
So how can this be distributed? Make player's clients police eachother, every client observes the movements of X (3?) other nearby players. If they go over the speedlimit or break collision rules (walk through trees? other players?), flag them for the server. Get enough flags and the server will do calculations. If there's false flaggings (hacked client reporting others as cheaters) coming from someone, take less heed from their reportings (or investigate them).
This doesn't need to be instantaneous (because this is reactive not proactive, just like how mmorpg's are done now). This will work on huge datasets since it's being broken down into small problems (the bandwidth requirements may be a bit higher, but should be negligible). Finally, it puts less trust then the current model.
The problem with this is it still allows collusion (not to be confused with collision) of players with hacked clients. But they can't cheat near other players at the cahnce they'll be policed (which they pretty much have to do with current model anyways). So it'd work well in adversial (pvp/pk) games but maybe not in EQ-type where 3 people can go to a corner of a world and cheat out of sight (all 3 with hacked clients).
Distributed clients would be perfect for integrity checking of others. Since these games require you to trust the client to some extent. Furthermore it may not be game related, but its about time these patch servers took a BT approach.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes it is awesome.. I'd rather pay the same price for 5 channels I can pick out of 300 then letting the cable company pick 50 crappy channels for me.
IANAL But as I understand it you can't collect damages multiple times for the same infraction.
I.e. if I run you over with my car and cause you to roll down Joe's hill of rusty barbed wire and land in John's acid vat and you have $50k of medical bills. You can argue that I caused it all and sue me for the whole amount, but you can't go and collect $50k damage each from me, Joe and John.
If their argument is that your action caused that song to get spread to 100million other people and they sue you accordingly, then it makes those 100million people immune to the same lawsuit (at least for that individual song)
I agree, gambling isn't an issue based solely on religious grounds. My stance on gambling is that it's anti-capitilism. The concept of money is supposed to represent one's contributions to society.. (Granted there are a lot of perversions to that notion) but money is supposed to be earned.
When one gambles, they're ultimately saying that money should be guided by chance.
I'm against all forms of inherentance (Except the OOP kind) for the same reason.
Terrorism/Terrorist is a derived word from Terrorize, but they do not share the same meaning.
Terrorism/Terrorist specifically requires violence or threat of violence and it must have a political or social agenda. The RIAA has the agenda, but they don't incorporate violence.
It's not terrorism, and they're not terrorists but it certainly can be considered terrorizing.
Terrorize:
To coerce by intimidation or fear
If that doesn't describe what the RIAA is trying to accomplish, then I don't know what does.
Inattentive drivers cause FAR more accidents than attentive drivers who speed.
This just in... Canadian cannibals eat far more babies then hardworking honest Americans!
It's easy to load a statement like that to be true but its a useless conclusion... we all know American's eat more babies. (maybe not per capita)
Welcome to every point in the past 10 years except NOW.
Now by definition is not a point in the past 10 years.
But your Now is, well it is now.. it wasn't then. *scratches head*
But my nows aren't, except for the ones above.
Neither is entrapment. Entrapment can only be performed by someone with authority. These guys have none. Secondly, your example is a common bust. (although they don't do it like you said)
Entrapment for example is when a cop asks you to break a crime and then busts you for it. They're allowed to bait you (look at when they bust johns going after hookers) but they can't be the ones to suggest the criminal activity. The key difference is whether the person was predisposed to doing the crime.
Entrapment
No everyone isn't qualified to be a system administrator. But I certainly rather be on an internet that anyone can be a system adminstrator then one where the only qualification needed to be one is money.
But making policy decisions based on terrorism only encourages terrorism. Now the terrorists know they have the power to bully Spain's politics.
So what happens when protesters threaten to kill many civilians if Spain doesn't withdraw from EU? WTO? UN? What should Spain do?
It's a very similar problem to blackmail problem.. Just because you give the blackmailer what they want doesn't mean you're protected.. It means they know they can come back again later for more and more.
Do you give in everytime a preschooler throws a temper tantrum begging for candy??
Even if you oppose the war, you can see the bad precedent being set by Spain.
I propose Debian renames it FireFaux
A system like that just means they're not really held responsible for the quality of the upcoming work. If it gets crappy reviews, they already have the money. This would mean moviemakers would work just hard enough to get popular then release movie after movie with lame deritive plots, poor acting (but of course important celebrities), and repetitive explosions... oh wait.
You have them reversed. Proserpina is the Roman one.
Proserpina
Those 13 states also have the majority of the people. What you also failed to mention is that because they have a ton of people, each individual vote means less in those states. You might as well say "if the candidate gets 70% of the vote, then the other 30% doesn't matter at all". The people's votes who really don't matter, are the ones that live in states that are onesided.
Individual votes matter the most in city elections. Vote for city officials often enough and your vote will probably eventually make the difference between candidates. An individual presidential vote is less likely to change an election then playing the lottery.
Which is why they should offer consumers choice on these bundles. Then the consumer can choose if they want the Time Warner bundle, or the Viacom bundle and each with their own fees and a note saying that the providers require them to be bundled as such. Put this online so you can change it on the fly, and put a link to viacom, timewarner and whoever else, so they can complain about their practices.
The consumer doesn't care now, because they don't know.. they're ignorant of this. If they did this, viacoms would get backlash. I certainly would drop a lot of bundles I'm not using now, and I'd pick up so more obscure channels likely as well.
I personally would drop ESPN bundles (ESPN often blamed for rate hikes, and I never watch a minute of it), and I'd get a discovery bundle. I doubt I'd get the viacom bundle, although if they bowed to pressure and offered smaller bundles or might get one.
This would be the thing the Viacoms would hate most, consumer choice because they get nothing out of it. Everyone HAS to get Viacom now, they can only lose customers.
Finally, if the gift is entertainment, a favor, a service, or any other intangible benefit, the employee must reimburse the market value to the donor.
Finally the RIAA has another way to make a profit on their poor business model without suing endusers. They just need to send performers as gifts to DoD employees. The employees would be required to pay out of their own pocket.
I'd like to know how you have .440 of a byte... or is this some weird system that has 25 bits per byte?
Software doesn't kill people; programmers kill people.
Actually that'd be:
Software doesn't kill people; the big death laser the software is controlling kills people.
Yeah, 7-bit operating systems kill in groups of 28. 8-bit systems kill in groups of 32.
So with a beowulf cluster would I have a WMD?
Japanese Seizure Robots!
(Don't click if you really get seizures!)
WTF I had a seizure why didn't you warn me?!!
Slashdot needs a clickthrough page for all links, warning that they may cause seizures.
IANAL (In other words I'm probably deadwrong)
discrimination law is applied far to widely to take profession/degrees into account.
-The lawyer that is refused a house because he's a lawyer
is akin to
-The store clerk that is refused a job as an astrophysicist because he has no high school education.
Granted the counterargument is the second doesn't have the merits to fulfill that role.. but people are turned down simpler jobs because they're overqualified.
You're right in that zones are on different servers but the real reason for the "Loading .... " is to load stuff client side. Remember when EQ first came out computers had a lot less memory, so they couldn't keep all those textures/models in memory.
The transfer from server to server shouldn't take long at all, the time to write the character file to database and load it again.
Everquest puts real variety in textures/models between zones, For example, a zone as a sunny green pasture with animals is adjacent to a desert, a city, a dark dreary forest. For a zoneless crossing, the computer would have to load the resources from all zones you can see.
This works in some of the other games (like DAOC) because one zone is quite similar to the next. the transitions from snow textures to grass textures takes a while. Plus with the higher memory machines, DAOC can keep many of these textures loaded all the time and just unload/load the zone specific stuff as you approach. That way you only get the hiccup crossing zonelines as it transfers between servers.
I disagree... I know everyone will say "Never Trust the Client" but it shouldn't be considered a rule, but taken as very sound advice. If it was to be considered a strict rule multiplayer FPS and MMORPG's just wouldn't be viable. In the mudding community there's been a few games that have tried to move to graphical versoins using a dumb client, they always suffer awfully from lag, very tilebased movement or slow movement.
There are certain things that are still appropriate to be done on client, in fact some are pretty much required. Most (all?) mmorpg's do movement prediction and collision detection (if it's in the game) on client side. This is where distribution could help the most.
Most games players CAN speed hack, it's possible and most of the security mechanisms are on client (so the client turns you in as a cheater). The GM's take a reactive approach, banning anyone getting caught doing it (and it's quite easy to detect a speed hacker)
So how can this be distributed? Make player's clients police eachother, every client observes the movements of X (3?) other nearby players. If they go over the speedlimit or break collision rules (walk through trees? other players?), flag them for the server. Get enough flags and the server will do calculations. If there's false flaggings (hacked client reporting others as cheaters) coming from someone, take less heed from their reportings (or investigate them).
This doesn't need to be instantaneous (because this is reactive not proactive, just like how mmorpg's are done now). This will work on huge datasets since it's being broken down into small problems (the bandwidth requirements may be a bit higher, but should be negligible). Finally, it puts less trust then the current model.
The problem with this is it still allows collusion (not to be confused with collision) of players with hacked clients. But they can't cheat near other players at the cahnce they'll be policed (which they pretty much have to do with current model anyways). So it'd work well in adversial (pvp/pk) games but maybe not in EQ-type where 3 people can go to a corner of a world and cheat out of sight (all 3 with hacked clients).
Distributed clients would be perfect for integrity checking of others. Since these games require you to trust the client to some extent. Furthermore it may not be game related, but its about time these patch servers took a BT approach.
(Voice through speaker): Stop rocking the elevator!
or we can build a reallllly big spring but then we'll get blamed for launching WMD's when the asteroid destroys all life on neptune.