Reuters, if I recall, counts as main-stream media. Those people put their lives on the line to bring us news, and they paid the price so that we might know. It's one thing to go to war and lose your life in service of your country. It's another thing entirely to go to war and lose your life in service of the truth. Rest in peace, Reuters reporters - your sacrifice will not go unremarked.
Uhh... bullshit. Maybe the Americans would like to think that their laws extend to everybody on Earth, but I'm quite sure that that isn't actually the case. And yes, rights are granted by law, depending on the jurisdiction in which you live (which for most people is not the US). The closest we get to a recognition of universal rights is the UN charter on human rights, and it makes no mention of a right to weaponry - not that every country is a signatory, anyway.
The hardpoint system had much more in common with the loadouts in Mechcommander than Solaris VII.
Sure, custom mechs are expensive. However, if that's the tack you're taking, why have hardpoints at all, instead of just stock configurations? More importantly, if you have an omnimech, say, why aren't all its hardpoints generic hardpoints, rather than having them typed like they do in the game? It would have bothered me less if IS designs had limited hardpoint configurations but omnimechs had full flexibility.
I think the reason they went down this path was actually laziness. They didn't like the look of missiles shooting out of a barrel and decided to prevent you from building configurations where that could happen, rather than spending more effort to make a system that would put a 3D model of a missile launcher there instead.
Also, reload times were used ever since MW2; it was not a new feature in MW4 by a long shot.
I think most people would agree that it doesn't matter who or what does the raping, being violated is bad. To say that gay rape is somehow more damaging than straight rape is simply ludicrous.
"Well, billy, it was awful that she took advantage of you that way, but on the bright side - at least it was a woman." I'm sure that will make the scars easier to bear.
Actually, that number comes from a bunch of sexology studies and is well supported in the literature. The wikipedia article on the topic lists 2-13%, depending on the study quoted. I have most often seen 5%, which would be on the conservative side of things.
I agree entirely - Battletech was my hobby and passion growing up, and it's not what it was under the reign of FASA. Wizkids just about ran it into the ground.
That said, compared to MW2, MW3 was beautiful but ultimately limited. The options for random scenario play was pretty constrained; it was a sterile environment compared to the first two games that gave you dozens and dozens of chassis' and planets and scenarios. MW4 was even worse - not only was it sterile, it was also unfaithful to the mech building mechanics that gave the franchise so much life in the first place. I installed MW4 and played it for an afternoon before uninstalling it and never looking back. The disappointment reached into my soul and extinquished the fire I'd been keeping alight for Mechwarrior. We had fun times, but those times are over.
Greymond below comments that the mechs look like refugees from the 90s... maybe that's for the best. That's where all the best memories are.
Given that some 5% of males are gay, it seems a bit ridiculous to call it an abnormal any more than calling ginger hair abberant. Calling it a 'mistake' is simply flamebait. Also, given that non-reproducing males offer a survival benefit for their own genetics through support of their siblings offspring (the so-called gay uncle), I would disagree that homossexuality is an inherently gene-terminal condition. In fact, in cases where resources are tight, more gay males would increase population fitness by focussing more resources on fewer children and so increasing their survival potential.
Also, many gay and bi males still want offspring and produce them, even though their primary attraction is to other males. I know a few gay/bi people who have successfully reared children.
And don't forget - there are heterosexual pedophiles too. The notion that homosexuals are more likely to mollest children was FUD spread by the religious right in the late 80s and early 90s to whip up public vehemence against gay people.
It boggles my mind that they even consider this a legitimate avenue of inquiry... I mean, really. How many opportunities do kiddy-fiddlers present for you to analyse their keystrokes, but not say... their IP? Sure, it allows you to tie an online interaction to a particular user, but if you have that kind of hook into their system odds are you know more than enough to do that already.
Oh wait, you mean there are applications where you want to tie users to content generically on the internet, but you think it's too invasive to make everyone agree to it simply so you can sell them more soda or send them to prison for their political ideas? That's OK - we'll just say it's targeting pedophiles.
Using the size of the diners' heads as a basis for comparison, the Wansinks used computers to compare the sizes of the plates in front of the apostles, the food servings on those plates and the bread on the table.
Maybe people's heads have just been getting smaller? It would sure explain a lot.
Actually, I would disagree that there is a conflict between science and religion... well... the scientists don't think so, at least. The scientists: "We know the following stuff about how the world works - here's what our experiments tell us." The religious: "Scientists aren't agreeing with us on everything! They're a threat to us and they must be stopped!" Is it possible to have a conflict where really only one side is trying to 'beat' the other?
Is Richard Dawkins up to snuff with his science? I don't know - I'm not an evolutionary biologist. Is there a conflict between science and religion? No, not really, but the religious folks out there seem to be making capital out of the idea that there might be.
As a robotics research engineer very little of my science has anything to do with religion. I have, however, attempted to create the robot devil with so far inconclusive results. The prototype can fiddle, but hasn't yet bought a soul.
It is possible that our scientists could be mostly wrong about everything.
And pretty much every scientist out there agrees with you. It's the religious people who can't admit they're wrong, and that's the reason they shouldn't speak for us. Humility would indeed be the best practice.
Gasp! Are you saying we shouldn't imprison anyone even for a moment passes a thought we disagree with? Heavens! We must punish swiftly and severely for even the most trifling victimless offense so no one anywhere will be tempted to transgress, regardless of whether they hurt anyone or not. Summary punishment is too important to reserve only for the people who actually hurt people.
But that's not what the article even says. The judge ruled that the technician's testimony about the nature of the camera setup and the links observed on the computer where ambiguous. As the technician didn't even follow any of the links, it seems strange to me that he should be able to tell at-a-glance what they lead to (unless they were patently advertising what they linked to, which strikes me as unlikely).
The search warrant was quashed because it was issued under faulty information. "My god, judge - the guy had a camera setup and was filming his kid, and there were links on his computer to pornographic websites!" Well... was he filming his kid playing for Kodak memories in years to come, and were those links to pornography perfectly legitimate adult websites? Even in the article, you get the idea that simply having links to pornography somehow constitutes reasonable suspicion that you might be a kiddy-fiddler, regardless of whether that pornography is perfectly legal and unassociated with it.
I, for one, am tired of people tacitly assuming that pornography is corrupt and corrupting, regardless of what it contains. It's ignorant moral panic at its finest.
Even the most hardcore supporters of the Second Amendment doesn't think that the government needs to GIVE everyone a weapon so that they can bear arms.
That would be an interesting proposition. If your free weapon came with a rigourous firearm safety training program and range time, it would put guns in the hands of the citizenry rather than just the police or military. I don't know that that's a good thing, but I do know that the government is no longer afraid of the people - the people are afraid of the government, and that's not the way it's supposed to be.
See now, I'm confused by where the article states that the filtering is predominantly aimed at preventing kids from accidentally stumbling on child pornography. Now, it strikes me that given that such images are strictly illegal pretty much everywhere it's actually quite difficult to 'accidentally stumble' on.
In fact, the mere fact that the article then goes on to say that criminals already have ways around it that are not prevented by this kind of filtering suggests to me that you're not going to just enter keywords somewhere and have it show up.
The whole premise of the network filter - stopping kids from accidentally finding kiddy pron - is utter baloney. If it was so easy for a kid to find it accidentally, law enforcement wouldn't need to go to such measures to shut it down.
'Think of the children' is, as always, an excuse. Given that's not the real goal of the filter, one can imagine what the actual purpose might be.
When they keep having to hand over shoe-boxes of cash to pay for hearing aids they are told they need, it's easy to see why being on a fixed income is a problem for them. Maybe if they were properly informed, they'd not have to save all that money and could live more comfortably.
Prostip: Cheque or debit - someone who had the money come in last week. Shoebox of money - someone who has saved up for a year.
I think any smart Christian has to agree that theocracy is a bad idea. After all, nothing guarantees that the state religion has to be the one you happen to believe in.
Fellow member of the unborn-again choir here. I think Tom Lehrer's song Who's Next said it best:
Egypt's gonna get one too,
Just to use on you-know-who,
So Israel's getting tense,
wants one in self-defence,
The Lord's our shepherd says the psalm
But just in case... we'd better get The Bomb
Slashdot Mirror
Reuters, if I recall, counts as main-stream media. Those people put their lives on the line to bring us news, and they paid the price so that we might know. It's one thing to go to war and lose your life in service of your country. It's another thing entirely to go to war and lose your life in service of the truth. Rest in peace, Reuters reporters - your sacrifice will not go unremarked.
Uhh... bullshit. Maybe the Americans would like to think that their laws extend to everybody on Earth, but I'm quite sure that that isn't actually the case. And yes, rights are granted by law, depending on the jurisdiction in which you live (which for most people is not the US). The closest we get to a recognition of universal rights is the UN charter on human rights, and it makes no mention of a right to weaponry - not that every country is a signatory, anyway.
The hardpoint system had much more in common with the loadouts in Mechcommander than Solaris VII. Sure, custom mechs are expensive. However, if that's the tack you're taking, why have hardpoints at all, instead of just stock configurations? More importantly, if you have an omnimech, say, why aren't all its hardpoints generic hardpoints, rather than having them typed like they do in the game? It would have bothered me less if IS designs had limited hardpoint configurations but omnimechs had full flexibility.
I think the reason they went down this path was actually laziness. They didn't like the look of missiles shooting out of a barrel and decided to prevent you from building configurations where that could happen, rather than spending more effort to make a system that would put a 3D model of a missile launcher there instead.
Also, reload times were used ever since MW2; it was not a new feature in MW4 by a long shot.
I think most people would agree that it doesn't matter who or what does the raping, being violated is bad. To say that gay rape is somehow more damaging than straight rape is simply ludicrous.
"Well, billy, it was awful that she took advantage of you that way, but on the bright side - at least it was a woman." I'm sure that will make the scars easier to bear.
Actually, that number comes from a bunch of sexology studies and is well supported in the literature. The wikipedia article on the topic lists 2-13%, depending on the study quoted. I have most often seen 5%, which would be on the conservative side of things.
'Gotta catch 'em all'?
I agree entirely - Battletech was my hobby and passion growing up, and it's not what it was under the reign of FASA. Wizkids just about ran it into the ground.
That said, compared to MW2, MW3 was beautiful but ultimately limited. The options for random scenario play was pretty constrained; it was a sterile environment compared to the first two games that gave you dozens and dozens of chassis' and planets and scenarios. MW4 was even worse - not only was it sterile, it was also unfaithful to the mech building mechanics that gave the franchise so much life in the first place. I installed MW4 and played it for an afternoon before uninstalling it and never looking back. The disappointment reached into my soul and extinquished the fire I'd been keeping alight for Mechwarrior. We had fun times, but those times are over.
Greymond below comments that the mechs look like refugees from the 90s... maybe that's for the best. That's where all the best memories are.
Given that some 5% of males are gay, it seems a bit ridiculous to call it an abnormal any more than calling ginger hair abberant. Calling it a 'mistake' is simply flamebait. Also, given that non-reproducing males offer a survival benefit for their own genetics through support of their siblings offspring (the so-called gay uncle), I would disagree that homossexuality is an inherently gene-terminal condition. In fact, in cases where resources are tight, more gay males would increase population fitness by focussing more resources on fewer children and so increasing their survival potential.
Also, many gay and bi males still want offspring and produce them, even though their primary attraction is to other males. I know a few gay/bi people who have successfully reared children.
And don't forget - there are heterosexual pedophiles too. The notion that homosexuals are more likely to mollest children was FUD spread by the religious right in the late 80s and early 90s to whip up public vehemence against gay people.
It boggles my mind that they even consider this a legitimate avenue of inquiry... I mean, really. How many opportunities do kiddy-fiddlers present for you to analyse their keystrokes, but not say... their IP? Sure, it allows you to tie an online interaction to a particular user, but if you have that kind of hook into their system odds are you know more than enough to do that already.
Oh wait, you mean there are applications where you want to tie users to content generically on the internet, but you think it's too invasive to make everyone agree to it simply so you can sell them more soda or send them to prison for their political ideas? That's OK - we'll just say it's targeting pedophiles.
That always works.
With a straight face, a ton a market research. They know their target demographic well. I'll bet these people laugh all the way to and from the bank.
Some people pay good money for a 'lady' with those unique assets.
Using the size of the diners' heads as a basis for comparison, the Wansinks used computers to compare the sizes of the plates in front of the apostles, the food servings on those plates and the bread on the table.
Maybe people's heads have just been getting smaller? It would sure explain a lot.
Actually, I would disagree that there is a conflict between science and religion... well... the scientists don't think so, at least. The scientists: "We know the following stuff about how the world works - here's what our experiments tell us." The religious: "Scientists aren't agreeing with us on everything! They're a threat to us and they must be stopped!" Is it possible to have a conflict where really only one side is trying to 'beat' the other?
Is Richard Dawkins up to snuff with his science? I don't know - I'm not an evolutionary biologist. Is there a conflict between science and religion? No, not really, but the religious folks out there seem to be making capital out of the idea that there might be.
As a robotics research engineer very little of my science has anything to do with religion. I have, however, attempted to create the robot devil with so far inconclusive results. The prototype can fiddle, but hasn't yet bought a soul.
It is possible that our scientists could be mostly wrong about everything.
And pretty much every scientist out there agrees with you. It's the religious people who can't admit they're wrong, and that's the reason they shouldn't speak for us. Humility would indeed be the best practice.
I'm in ur commune, stealin ur moviez!
Gasp! Are you saying we shouldn't imprison anyone even for a moment passes a thought we disagree with? Heavens! We must punish swiftly and severely for even the most trifling victimless offense so no one anywhere will be tempted to transgress, regardless of whether they hurt anyone or not. Summary punishment is too important to reserve only for the people who actually hurt people.
"Hi, you look like you're trying to download illegal pornography. Would you like to use a template?"
But that's not what the article even says. The judge ruled that the technician's testimony about the nature of the camera setup and the links observed on the computer where ambiguous. As the technician didn't even follow any of the links, it seems strange to me that he should be able to tell at-a-glance what they lead to (unless they were patently advertising what they linked to, which strikes me as unlikely).
The search warrant was quashed because it was issued under faulty information. "My god, judge - the guy had a camera setup and was filming his kid, and there were links on his computer to pornographic websites!" Well... was he filming his kid playing for Kodak memories in years to come, and were those links to pornography perfectly legitimate adult websites? Even in the article, you get the idea that simply having links to pornography somehow constitutes reasonable suspicion that you might be a kiddy-fiddler, regardless of whether that pornography is perfectly legal and unassociated with it.
I, for one, am tired of people tacitly assuming that pornography is corrupt and corrupting, regardless of what it contains. It's ignorant moral panic at its finest.
Even the most hardcore supporters of the Second Amendment doesn't think that the government needs to GIVE everyone a weapon so that they can bear arms.
That would be an interesting proposition. If your free weapon came with a rigourous firearm safety training program and range time, it would put guns in the hands of the citizenry rather than just the police or military. I don't know that that's a good thing, but I do know that the government is no longer afraid of the people - the people are afraid of the government, and that's not the way it's supposed to be.
See now, I'm confused by where the article states that the filtering is predominantly aimed at preventing kids from accidentally stumbling on child pornography. Now, it strikes me that given that such images are strictly illegal pretty much everywhere it's actually quite difficult to 'accidentally stumble' on.
In fact, the mere fact that the article then goes on to say that criminals already have ways around it that are not prevented by this kind of filtering suggests to me that you're not going to just enter keywords somewhere and have it show up.
The whole premise of the network filter - stopping kids from accidentally finding kiddy pron - is utter baloney. If it was so easy for a kid to find it accidentally, law enforcement wouldn't need to go to such measures to shut it down.
'Think of the children' is, as always, an excuse. Given that's not the real goal of the filter, one can imagine what the actual purpose might be.
When they keep having to hand over shoe-boxes of cash to pay for hearing aids they are told they need, it's easy to see why being on a fixed income is a problem for them. Maybe if they were properly informed, they'd not have to save all that money and could live more comfortably.
Prostip:
Cheque or debit - someone who had the money come in last week.
Shoebox of money - someone who has saved up for a year.
I wear a Dalhmer T-shirt, you insensitive clod!
No - there's just one really smart guy who can't decide which party he's in and keeps switching back and forth.
I think any smart Christian has to agree that theocracy is a bad idea. After all, nothing guarantees that the state religion has to be the one you happen to believe in.
Fellow member of the unborn-again choir here. I think Tom Lehrer's song Who's Next said it best:
Egypt's gonna get one too,
Just to use on you-know-who,
So Israel's getting tense,
wants one in self-defence,
The Lord's our shepherd says the psalm
But just in case... we'd better get The Bomb