Ah. The perfect troll... one with a grain of truth to it. Anyway, the GP does make a good point, but misapplies it through abusive language and misses The Point. I personally don't mind being stereotyped as a "gamer" insofar as the stereotypers don't act overmuch on the stereotypes. As soon as laws start to be made to back up their narrow views, I get pissed off. I am a gamer, and fit many aspects of a generality, but nowhere near all. Last thing I would think of myself as is violent... but I don't care if people think I'm eccentric (I am), quirky (I am), messy (I am) or what ever, insofar as policy is not made to reinforce these narrow views.
You know my solution: don't go to high school. I didn't, and homeschooled instead. Currently, I'm a college student with a 3.6-3.7 GPA (depends on how many xfer credits are counted) and in the honors program. I have a healthy respect for my rights, and for my freedoms. I cannot but help but reaffirm my hatred of public schools by this article.
The best propaganda is that which people do not believe is propaganda. If it is accepted in schools as "cirriculum," then it can't be propaganda, can it? Furthermore, propaganda can take the form of silence on a specific issue, or acting upon an implicit assumption. Very rarely did Americans hear "the hijackers were from Iraq," which is blatantly false, but rather they heard "Iraq had a part in 9/11," and saw us act as if the hijackers were from Iraq. These implicit assumptions are perhaps the strongest and most insidious of the forms which American propaganda takes today.
This whole thing brings me back to a point I have tried to make over and over: School succeeds wonderfully at its purpose. Its purpose, however, is not to educate but to maintain a status quo under which individuals sit down, shut up and don't vote.
I apologize for not making my point more clearly. What I was hoping to illustrate was not that such portrayals are "OK," but that the nature of the opposition and support of such imagery is very much so not what the stereotypes lead one to believe. What I took offense at in the original post was the use of the deragatory term "feminazi," coined by the sexist chauvanist Rush. Such a term does not contribute to the discussion, and invokes a very specific set of stereotypes which do not accurately characterize this controversy.
RTFA. This article challenges the perception that women are the only ones stereotyped against, as well as that the portrayal of women in games must be inherently anti-feminist. Playboy: Mansion's lead designer is a woman. Moreover, she is pregnant with twins.
Good point. From that perspective, let's write all codecs in Java, since the specs for the Java VM already support sandboxing. Furthermore, we could do a lot under Linux by `su'ing processes to lower privliges. The codecs are mainly seperated into independant shared objects already, so it should be fairly straightforward to make a daemon that listens on a local TCP port that takes in an encoded stream and spits out an unencoded one. This daemon could run as a local user w/o a login shell, and could load in the shared objects in process. If it is comprimised, it can't even modify its own configs, since they'd be stored with a normal user at the least, depending on the invocation method.
On the other hand, so much of this could be avoided by at least not tying DRM into the lowest levels of the OS. Same issue as I have with MSIE. Comprimise Firefox, and you've comprimised an application. Comprimise MSIE, and you've comprimised Windows itself. Furthermore, since all lusers have admin privliges by default, any damage done by even an application can be severe. Hence, my reommendations. First, move the DRM layer out of the OS. Second, don't allow an admin to run the DRM-encrusted software.
Besides the obvious troubles of Windows, and of DRM, we now have the added issues of security? Well, at least I don't have to worry about it on my Linux desktop. Just on my Windows laptop. Really, I think that MS must try and leave these open so that they can sell subscriptions to their new AntiSpyware.
Idea: GPG signed config files that don't work if modified w/o the right sigs. For instance, you set up your.bashrc how you want it, and then sign it. If the file doesn't match.bashrc.asc, then it won't work.
I tire of this. How much do you need? I have posted several links already, as have others before me. This is not a new issue... there were articles about it before the 2000 (s)election, and there are articles now. You want articles? Here:
Some of these links are from admittedly conservative sources, others from admittedly liberal sources. They do discuss the releases of info by the WH on the issue, and all come to the same conclusion: the pay stubs and the dental record do not disprove the gap in service, but only support it. Now, as I have said before, I tire of this. You obviously have your opinion, which is fine. What wears on me, though, is your steadfast dedication to the expression of this opinion through falsehood. It is one thing to state that Bush is a "war president," or to state that he is at all presidential material. It's a clearly seperate thing, though, to state that Bush was obviously not AWOL. This is not an opinion, but a simply act of willful ignorance. Maybe Bush wasn't AWOL. I sure as hell don't know. What I do know, though, is that I have evidence supporting that he was AWOL, and none opposing. Thus, until the situation stands, it is not logical, nor reasonable to confuse this simple reality with opinion. What is the signifigance of this issue? Well, that's your opinion. What is the fact of the issue? That isn't.
As I've said before, back it up. The burden of proof is on you here. An overwhelming amount of evidence has emerged to support the conclusion that he did not fulfil his duty, but all I have to show that he did his duty is your assurance and a dental record. As I've said before, the dental record proves nothing but that he got his teeth looked at. It does not show that he did his duty.
Absent w/o Leave. Correct me if I'm wrong, but Bush was absent, and he did not have leave. If this isn't the correct term, then that's fine as well. Since he didn't fulfil his duty at wartime, deserter will work. That make you happy?
I believe that you misrepresent me. I did not claim that that was the only evidence, but assumed so, for the purpose of responding to earlier posts. As mentioned in some of my other posts on this thread, there are indeed many credible sources. To find them, just do a search for awol bush on Google. Yes, the results will be biased, but they will often link to other news sites to support their bias. This is probably what you are interested in, so I leave you to it.
Another way that I feel that I've been misrepresented is that you seem to feel that I am certian in my conviction. As a scientist-in-training, I feel that would be shameful of me. Rather, I have made a conclusion based on the best available data, and stand by it until presented with better data which contradicts. This data has yet to surface, so I shall act as if it does not exist, until I have a reasonable motivation to change this stance. Does that mean that I am taking this as on faith, or stand by it as an infalliable conclusion? No. Please don't misconstrue my meaning as such.
Except, you know, for the fact that he was honorably discharged, not an honor conferred upon them what don't show up. And the public record of Bush's attendance. And the expert opinion of Lt. Col. Lloyd given upon examining the records. And the dental check-up that you guys love to forget about.
First off, honorable discharges are indeed bestowed upon the AWOL... if the AWOLee in question is the son of a rich and powerful man who pulls a few strings. Much more conclusive are first-hand accounts like these. As for the public record, what public record? Dental check-up? I hardly call a dental check-up flying a jet. If all you have to do to fulfill your wartime duties is to get a dental check-up, then Clinton and Kerry should both be fine!
Hell, even CBS News admits that ample evidence of the president's honorable service exists.
Quote sources, please.
Oooh, one quote taken out of context and misrepresented. (He was talking about an event that happened in the winter of 1968, dumbass.)
You baffle me. "There's no evidence at all! Except for all that evidence, which doesn't count because the Boston Globe which never, ever lies told me so!"
Loser.
Ad homenim attack if I've ever seen one. You can't produce anything concrete, so you resort to attacking me? And besides, I only tried to pick a representative sample. If you want something not from the Globe, do a search for awol bush on Google. Before you even say biased, realize that what will turn up are sites that link to news articles about the issue. Please at least look before you respond with another ad homenim. Your karma will thank you.
My god. This comment is enough to bring me out of a nearly year-long hiatus from posting to/..
Of course there is other evidence. Try this. In fact, there is no evidence to support that Bush was not AWOL. In this case, since the military should have been keeping meticulous records, it is a reasonable conclusion that Bush was AWOL in lieu of any credible evidence to suggest that he did in fact show up for his duty at wartime.
By your idea of "logic," because there is no document saying there is not an invisible pink unicorn flying above your head, there must be. Here, there should be documentation of his service, but there isn't. Were this a case where we shouldn't expect records to exist, you'd be right. However, at fault is your assumption that a (fictious) lack of evidence to incriminate Bush in fact clears him. It does not. Furthermore, as I specified above, there is evidence to incriminate Bush. Take this quote from the article:
And Bush himself, in his 1999 autobiography, ''A Charge to Keep,'' recounts the thrills of his pilot training, which he completed in June 1970. ''I continued flying with my unit for the next several years,'' the governor wrote.
But both accounts are contradicted by copies of Bush's military records, obtained by the Globe. In his final 18 months of military service in 1972 and 1973, Bush did not fly at all. And for much of that time, Bush was all but unaccounted for: For a full year, there is no record that he showed up for the periodic drills required of part-time guardsmen.
I rest my case. Here, we have evidence to specifically incriminate him, and none to save him. Until further evidence is produced on this issue, there is no logical conclusion but that he failed in his duty, then lied about it.
I have always wondered what gold itself is backed by. You can't eat gold... it only has value inasmuch as people give it value. Truly, then, what is gold backed by?
What? Mixing genres leads to pissing people off, and never to anything good? Huh? So, I guess you didn't like Metroid Prime (to take a recent example), probably not FF:CC, nor Mario Sunshine... hell, even GTA is a genre-crosser, and you seem to like it! Noted, there are some horrible examples of genre-mixing done wrong, but without those brave enough to try, we'd still be stuck with Mario and Duck Hunt. Please, at least try to recognize that we need that sort of creativity in our games.
As I've said before, here as well as other places, then why isn't Ken Lay in jail? One year for a few hundred bucks that aren't even stolen directly? In the examples you gave, there are many points that you haven't addressed:
You probably aren't going to go to jail over a speeding ticket, nor Ford is likely to give you the speeding ticket.
It isn't universally agreed that one should go to jail over drug crimes... far from it. This is a very recent idea in law enforcement. For many, many years, there were no such laws. Besides, if you're parents catch you, then that can very easily be handled inside the family without causing the taxpayer expense of keeping someone in prison who isn't that dangerous!
Define public place. Certainally, there are times and places where this would be inappropiate, but would you also be opposed to a couple (married, even!) having sex, at night, on a beach when no one else was there? Or during a camping trip? A national park might be considered a "public place." So, really, have we even established that the hypothetical couple has commited a moral offense?
Laws are not always right, nor are the associated punishments. Just because something is a "crime," doesn't mean that you need to go to jail for it. I hope I never see the day that people go to jail over speeding tickets.
Slashdot Mirror
Ah. The perfect troll... one with a grain of truth to it. Anyway, the GP does make a good point, but misapplies it through abusive language and misses The Point. I personally don't mind being stereotyped as a "gamer" insofar as the stereotypers don't act overmuch on the stereotypes. As soon as laws start to be made to back up their narrow views, I get pissed off. I am a gamer, and fit many aspects of a generality, but nowhere near all. Last thing I would think of myself as is violent... but I don't care if people think I'm eccentric (I am), quirky (I am), messy (I am) or what ever, insofar as policy is not made to reinforce these narrow views.
You know my solution: don't go to high school. I didn't, and homeschooled instead. Currently, I'm a college student with a 3.6-3.7 GPA (depends on how many xfer credits are counted) and in the honors program. I have a healthy respect for my rights, and for my freedoms. I cannot but help but reaffirm my hatred of public schools by this article.
The best propaganda is that which people do not believe is propaganda. If it is accepted in schools as "cirriculum," then it can't be propaganda, can it? Furthermore, propaganda can take the form of silence on a specific issue, or acting upon an implicit assumption. Very rarely did Americans hear "the hijackers were from Iraq," which is blatantly false, but rather they heard "Iraq had a part in 9/11," and saw us act as if the hijackers were from Iraq. These implicit assumptions are perhaps the strongest and most insidious of the forms which American propaganda takes today.
This whole thing brings me back to a point I have tried to make over and over: School succeeds wonderfully at its purpose. Its purpose, however, is not to educate but to maintain a status quo under which individuals sit down, shut up and don't vote.
I apologize for not making my point more clearly. What I was hoping to illustrate was not that such portrayals are "OK," but that the nature of the opposition and support of such imagery is very much so not what the stereotypes lead one to believe. What I took offense at in the original post was the use of the deragatory term "feminazi," coined by the sexist chauvanist Rush. Such a term does not contribute to the discussion, and invokes a very specific set of stereotypes which do not accurately characterize this controversy.
RTFA. This article challenges the perception that women are the only ones stereotyped against, as well as that the portrayal of women in games must be inherently anti-feminist. Playboy: Mansion's lead designer is a woman. Moreover, she is pregnant with twins.
Good point. From that perspective, let's write all codecs in Java, since the specs for the Java VM already support sandboxing. Furthermore, we could do a lot under Linux by `su'ing processes to lower privliges. The codecs are mainly seperated into independant shared objects already, so it should be fairly straightforward to make a daemon that listens on a local TCP port that takes in an encoded stream and spits out an unencoded one. This daemon could run as a local user w/o a login shell, and could load in the shared objects in process. If it is comprimised, it can't even modify its own configs, since they'd be stored with a normal user at the least, depending on the invocation method.
On the other hand, so much of this could be avoided by at least not tying DRM into the lowest levels of the OS. Same issue as I have with MSIE. Comprimise Firefox, and you've comprimised an application. Comprimise MSIE, and you've comprimised Windows itself. Furthermore, since all lusers have admin privliges by default, any damage done by even an application can be severe. Hence, my reommendations. First, move the DRM layer out of the OS. Second, don't allow an admin to run the DRM-encrusted software.
Besides the obvious troubles of Windows, and of DRM, we now have the added issues of security? Well, at least I don't have to worry about it on my Linux desktop. Just on my Windows laptop. Really, I think that MS must try and leave these open so that they can sell subscriptions to their new AntiSpyware.
Try the US Civil Rights Commission. (Their report on the Florida electoral fraud is available here: http://www.usccr.gov/pubs/vote2000/report/main.htm )
Don't insult the monkeys!
If the gpg-agent has been comprimised such that the passphrase for the seckey has been captured. Else, it would take a brute force attack.
Idea: GPG signed config files that don't work if modified w/o the right sigs. For instance, you set up your .bashrc how you want it, and then sign it. If the file doesn't match .bashrc.asc, then it won't work.
I tire of this. How much do you need? I have posted several links already, as have others before me. This is not a new issue... there were articles about it before the 2000 (s)election, and there are articles now. You want articles? Here:
Some of these links are from admittedly conservative sources, others from admittedly liberal sources. They do discuss the releases of info by the WH on the issue, and all come to the same conclusion: the pay stubs and the dental record do not disprove the gap in service, but only support it. Now, as I have said before, I tire of this. You obviously have your opinion, which is fine. What wears on me, though, is your steadfast dedication to the expression of this opinion through falsehood. It is one thing to state that Bush is a "war president," or to state that he is at all presidential material. It's a clearly seperate thing, though, to state that Bush was obviously not AWOL. This is not an opinion, but a simply act of willful ignorance. Maybe Bush wasn't AWOL. I sure as hell don't know. What I do know, though, is that I have evidence supporting that he was AWOL, and none opposing. Thus, until the situation stands, it is not logical, nor reasonable to confuse this simple reality with opinion. What is the signifigance of this issue? Well, that's your opinion. What is the fact of the issue? That isn't.
As I've said before, back it up. The burden of proof is on you here. An overwhelming amount of evidence has emerged to support the conclusion that he did not fulfil his duty, but all I have to show that he did his duty is your assurance and a dental record. As I've said before, the dental record proves nothing but that he got his teeth looked at. It does not show that he did his duty.
I didn't think Opera was open-source.
Absent w/o Leave. Correct me if I'm wrong, but Bush was absent, and he did not have leave. If this isn't the correct term, then that's fine as well. Since he didn't fulfil his duty at wartime, deserter will work. That make you happy?
I believe that you misrepresent me. I did not claim that that was the only evidence, but assumed so, for the purpose of responding to earlier posts. As mentioned in some of my other posts on this thread, there are indeed many credible sources. To find them, just do a search for awol bush on Google. Yes, the results will be biased, but they will often link to other news sites to support their bias. This is probably what you are interested in, so I leave you to it.
Another way that I feel that I've been misrepresented is that you seem to feel that I am certian in my conviction. As a scientist-in-training, I feel that would be shameful of me. Rather, I have made a conclusion based on the best available data, and stand by it until presented with better data which contradicts. This data has yet to surface, so I shall act as if it does not exist, until I have a reasonable motivation to change this stance. Does that mean that I am taking this as on faith, or stand by it as an infalliable conclusion? No. Please don't misconstrue my meaning as such.
A Boston Globe story? You've got a lot of balls posting that link in here.
Why? It's not as if it's Fox.
Except, you know, for the fact that he was honorably discharged, not an honor conferred upon them what don't show up. And the public record of Bush's attendance. And the expert opinion of Lt. Col. Lloyd given upon examining the records. And the dental check-up that you guys love to forget about.
First off, honorable discharges are indeed bestowed upon the AWOL... if the AWOLee in question is the son of a rich and powerful man who pulls a few strings. Much more conclusive are first-hand accounts like these. As for the public record, what public record? Dental check-up? I hardly call a dental check-up flying a jet. If all you have to do to fulfill your wartime duties is to get a dental check-up, then Clinton and Kerry should both be fine!Hell, even CBS News admits that ample evidence of the president's honorable service exists.
Quote sources, please.
Oooh, one quote taken out of context and misrepresented. (He was talking about an event that happened in the winter of 1968, dumbass.) You baffle me. "There's no evidence at all! Except for all that evidence, which doesn't count because the Boston Globe which never, ever lies told me so!" Loser.
Ad homenim attack if I've ever seen one. You can't produce anything concrete, so you resort to attacking me? And besides, I only tried to pick a representative sample. If you want something not from the Globe, do a search for awol bush on Google. Before you even say biased, realize that what will turn up are sites that link to news articles about the issue. Please at least look before you respond with another ad homenim. Your karma will thank you.
My god. This comment is enough to bring me out of a nearly year-long hiatus from posting to /..
Of course there is other evidence. Try this. In fact, there is no evidence to support that Bush was not AWOL. In this case, since the military should have been keeping meticulous records, it is a reasonable conclusion that Bush was AWOL in lieu of any credible evidence to suggest that he did in fact show up for his duty at wartime.
By your idea of "logic," because there is no document saying there is not an invisible pink unicorn flying above your head, there must be. Here, there should be documentation of his service, but there isn't. Were this a case where we shouldn't expect records to exist, you'd be right. However, at fault is your assumption that a (fictious) lack of evidence to incriminate Bush in fact clears him. It does not. Furthermore, as I specified above, there is evidence to incriminate Bush. Take this quote from the article:
I rest my case. Here, we have evidence to specifically incriminate him, and none to save him. Until further evidence is produced on this issue, there is no logical conclusion but that he failed in his duty, then lied about it.
I have always wondered what gold itself is backed by. You can't eat gold... it only has value inasmuch as people give it value. Truly, then, what is gold backed by?
What? Mixing genres leads to pissing people off, and never to anything good? Huh? So, I guess you didn't like Metroid Prime (to take a recent example), probably not FF:CC, nor Mario Sunshine... hell, even GTA is a genre-crosser, and you seem to like it! Noted, there are some horrible examples of genre-mixing done wrong, but without those brave enough to try, we'd still be stuck with Mario and Duck Hunt. Please, at least try to recognize that we need that sort of creativity in our games.
Others losing in a big way today: Netflix and DoubleClick. Don't expect me to be shedding any tears today, nossir.
But, those are all good wholesome Christian values!
As I've said before, here as well as other places, then why isn't Ken Lay in jail? One year for a few hundred bucks that aren't even stolen directly? In the examples you gave, there are many points that you haven't addressed:
Laws are not always right, nor are the associated punishments. Just because something is a "crime," doesn't mean that you need to go to jail for it. I hope I never see the day that people go to jail over speeding tickets.