What content distribution system widely in use does News Corp own? A large ISP, telco, or cable operation perhaps? None? That's why this is a big deal.
Well, honestly, how is the christian right any different? They certainly are trying to force their way of living on everyone, for example regarding gay marriage. They bomb others they don't like, such as abortion providers.
If you're from philly, you know how shitty comcast is, and why old women smash their offices with a hammer.
Of course this isn't the same now; NBC is a lot more than just NBC, and while NBC broadcast TV and RCA made TVs, they didn't OWN the method of broadcast. Comcast (and cable / sat.) is the ONLY way to receive most channels today. Add in to this that comcast also controls many peoples connection to the internet, and thats where the problelm comes in.
Try telling that to the officer who pulls you over, or the judge when you try contesting the ticket in court some 3-5 months later.
Ya, part of my claim is that the government is corrupt and not following its own laws. That the cop or judges continue helping the state break the law doesn't mean they aren't in fact breaking the law. Of course, if you have the money, you can usually appearl to a real court, and this makes it more likely you'll get the ticket thrown out on those grounds.
Because I have no intention of slowing myself down in order to merge into the traffic in the next lane over just to let some fucktard tailgater pass me.
Ahh, so you're a self centered ass? Well don't be mad at the fucktard tailgating you then, you have a chance to get him off your ass, and you refuse to take it. And in some states, you're now breaking two laws, because some have a law stating you need to keep right if you're not passing. Who said you need to slow down in the right lane anyway? Are you afraind youll be stuck in the right lane b/c of heavy traffic? Then just speed up.
But if you're blocking someone, I don't think you have any justification to call them a fuckward for tailgating when you can move over or speed up and you refuse to do so.
Legal rights are determined by law, and law protects legal rights. Natural rights shouldn't be infringed on by law, but the punitive nature of law has nothing to do with this argument.
Our Constitution is designed such that its there to protect our natural rights as well. This is evidenced by the fact that the Declaration of Independence discussess them. To some extent the founders didn't mention them again in the Constitution because they believed it went without saying, although there was some disagreement here, hence the Bill of Rights.
As far as I can tell, the term "sovereign individual" as you are using it has existed since 1997. I would be interested in how you think our country was founded on this philosophy.
The term was popularly developed recently, but the concept is not, and it can be traced to Self-ownership, an idea traced back to John Locke. Notice that the concept is also part of the foundation of Classic Liberalism, which IS the philosophy our country was founded on.
Really, a quick google search and you stop at the first link you find, and say "not ah!" ? Please.
Its not rubbish because I don't agree with him, its rubbish because a good majority of gamers probaby would notice the difference. The fact that you agree with him just shows you're probably not that observant, it doesn't prove his point.
I got your point; its utter rubbish though. Details like that, especially when everything else is done realisticly, can jar you out of your suspension of disbelief. But I guess you've never watched a movie, been enjoying it, but were pulled out of it because of some glitch in the movie.
It also might suprise you that not every game is nonstop action where you're madly pressing buttons constantly. Maybe that's the kind of game you like, but that's not the only kind out there.
Nicely for you maybe, probably not so much for them.
And of course you can lock down a windows computer that much if you choose, but I don't its the right choice for the vast majority of computer purchasers.
Ya, you don't know what you're talking about. Clearly nasa isn't using 486s because they care about speed, its because they KNOW THE HARDWARE WORKS. It has nothing to do with "real programmers use assembly." I've programmed assembly too, who fucking cares? And for what its worth, I think they're now using pentiums (including p3s).
You're nonsense about "real programmers use assembly" is just an ego-trip, because you feel somehow superior because you use assembly, meanwhile you're probably one of the fuckwits I mentioned that are still a shitty programmer.
Please, get over yourself, I don't give a fuck what you use, because real programmers use the right tools for the job!
Your chained reasoning is suspect. By that reasoning you can't outlaw anything.
No, that's not true at all. Remember, the purpose of law is to punish those who violate another's rights.
Do you think people should be allowed to make and sell meth?
I absolutely do. Meth is no different than any other drug or substance we put into our bodies. who are you to tell another individual that they can't put meth, pot, alcohol or a transfat laden 1/4er with cheese into their body? You have no right to do so.
All of the problems with meth are due to the fact that its illegal. Yes, some will abuse it as they do alcohol. That's not sufficent reason to outlaw it, and outlawing it has given rise to violent crime, just like prohibition did.
Of course, in a world where nothing is illegal, maybe everyone would need guns.
You're argueing a strawman, of course you can still have laws and freedoms. They are not mutually exclusive. As for everyone owning guns, I tend to think an armed society is a polite society. Would you start threatening anyone if you knew everyone around you was armed? I didn't think so.
I have no idea what you mean by "sovereign individual". Societies make laws which say what you can and can't do for the good of the society.
The good of society is a myth, and you really should look up sovereign individual, because its an important part of the philosphy our country was founded on.
Good of society is a myth, because your rights + someone elses rights do not trumpt my rights. We are all equal, you don't add rights of groups and say it outweighs the rights of an individual.
Unless you believe in mob rule... but that hardly seems like an ideal way of life to me. I know our founders didn't believe in mob rule, which is why we have a republic and not a democracy, and why your religious beliefs, no matter how few other people share them, are protected from interference by our government.
I realize your problem is you're terrified; you think other people, if not controlled would be terrible and and society would collapse. That's not reality though, and most people are fine and not out to rape or murder you.
The margin of error on laser guns (no one really uses radar anymore) is about 0.5 - 1 mph.
I think you have some reading to do. There are arguments that laser is less accurate than radar, as there are a number of factors that can affect it (rain I believe being one). And plenty of places still use radar... its still the most widely used tool.
Most cops aren't going to give tickets for people in the 5-10 range because, that is what everyone does. They want to focus on the people who are really breaking the laws, not just the people who kinda do.
Actually it is people loitering in the passing lane which causes accidents, as do those to vary greatly from the flow of traffic.
That said, someone who is going really fast probably don't care about your indesesiviness, and probably won't move to pass on the right if you're indicating you'll move. All you do by blocking someone like that is piss them off, which increases irrational thought, thus leading to a more dangerous situtation. Better to move out of the way.
Except speed limits by and large aren't legally set to begin with, which is why pretty much everyone does speed. And if you're doing 70 in a 55, and someone wants to pass why not let them? You feel you have some moral high ground for you to be a jerk?
. If someone is driving in the left lane intending to turn off the left exit ramp, they will not nor should not be expected to move over for you to pass.
I think its reasonable then to expect them to speed up to match the speed others are expecting.
I think the problem is that DX9 has gotten "good enough" for most folks, at least IMHO.
It is? The difference in the two images of the car driving through water was immediately clear to me. The DX11 one had water coming up along side, and over the lower part of the car below the grill. Which is what it would look like in real life. The DX9 version lacks this realism.. so we're not even at a point yet where games can render realistic scenes, but you think most gamers dont' care about realism? I'd be suprised.
Well by that arguement the model-t was "good enough," right? The fact that there are always dumbasses that don't care about an increase in standards doesn't mean the rest of society doesn't. Standard def. is usually good enough for people that don't actually have an HD tv. I didn't think it would make that much of a difference (except for my ps3), but watching standard tv downstairs isn't nearly as nice as watching the hd tv I have upstairs. The jump in quality is far greater than I imagined it would be.
Right, because when the 486 was around, all we had was assembly. Nevermind that you can be just a bad a programmer in assembly as you can any other language. Just admit you don't know what you're talking about an move on.
Can you cite where they said that? I've seen "most secure version of IE" and "most secure version of Windows" but I've yet to see "most secure product on the market."
There comes a point where the only way to improve resistence to malware is to deny administrator access to the owner of the computer. I don't really see that taking off.
A right to life is unalienable, wouldn't you agree? Wouldn't it follow your right to life by definition includes an unalienable right to self-defense?
I would say a right to use a weapon in self-defense exists from there, and a gun, being a weapon, would be included in that... as would a right to own a knife, or a rock, or brass knuckles.
Of course, you're approaching this from the wrong angle. What right do you have to say to another sovereign individual they DON'T have a right to own a gun, without first going through due process of law? BTW, due process of law doesn't mean you just make a law saying gun ownership is illegal. Denying someone's rights because they MIGHT use it to violate the rights of another is not enough.
Slashdot Mirror
What content distribution system widely in use does News Corp own? A large ISP, telco, or cable operation perhaps? None? That's why this is a big deal.
Well, honestly, how is the christian right any different? They certainly are trying to force their way of living on everyone, for example regarding gay marriage. They bomb others they don't like, such as abortion providers.
If you're from philly, you know how shitty comcast is, and why old women smash their offices with a hammer.
Of course this isn't the same now; NBC is a lot more than just NBC, and while NBC broadcast TV and RCA made TVs, they didn't OWN the method of broadcast. Comcast (and cable / sat.) is the ONLY way to receive most channels today. Add in to this that comcast also controls many peoples connection to the internet, and thats where the problelm comes in.
Try telling that to the officer who pulls you over, or the judge when you try contesting the ticket in court some 3-5 months later.
Ya, part of my claim is that the government is corrupt and not following its own laws. That the cop or judges continue helping the state break the law doesn't mean they aren't in fact breaking the law. Of course, if you have the money, you can usually appearl to a real court, and this makes it more likely you'll get the ticket thrown out on those grounds.
Because I have no intention of slowing myself down in order to merge into the traffic in the next lane over just to let some fucktard tailgater pass me.
Ahh, so you're a self centered ass? Well don't be mad at the fucktard tailgating you then, you have a chance to get him off your ass, and you refuse to take it. And in some states, you're now breaking two laws, because some have a law stating you need to keep right if you're not passing. Who said you need to slow down in the right lane anyway? Are you afraind youll be stuck in the right lane b/c of heavy traffic? Then just speed up.
But if you're blocking someone, I don't think you have any justification to call them a fuckward for tailgating when you can move over or speed up and you refuse to do so.
Hmm... some jackass actually said that. Of course I personally default to dismissing claims like that as marketing nonsense.
Legal rights are determined by law, and law protects legal rights. Natural rights shouldn't be infringed on by law, but the punitive nature of law has nothing to do with this argument.
Our Constitution is designed such that its there to protect our natural rights as well. This is evidenced by the fact that the Declaration of Independence discussess them. To some extent the founders didn't mention them again in the Constitution because they believed it went without saying, although there was some disagreement here, hence the Bill of Rights.
As far as I can tell, the term "sovereign individual" as you are using it has existed since 1997. I would be interested in how you think our country was founded on this philosophy.
The term was popularly developed recently, but the concept is not, and it can be traced to Self-ownership, an idea traced back to John Locke. Notice that the concept is also part of the foundation of Classic Liberalism, which IS the philosophy our country was founded on.
Really, a quick google search and you stop at the first link you find, and say "not ah!" ? Please.
Its not rubbish because I don't agree with him, its rubbish because a good majority of gamers probaby would notice the difference. The fact that you agree with him just shows you're probably not that observant, it doesn't prove his point.
I got your point; its utter rubbish though. Details like that, especially when everything else is done realisticly, can jar you out of your suspension of disbelief. But I guess you've never watched a movie, been enjoying it, but were pulled out of it because of some glitch in the movie.
It also might suprise you that not every game is nonstop action where you're madly pressing buttons constantly. Maybe that's the kind of game you like, but that's not the only kind out there.
Nicely for you maybe, probably not so much for them.
And of course you can lock down a windows computer that much if you choose, but I don't its the right choice for the vast majority of computer purchasers.
Ya, you don't know what you're talking about. Clearly nasa isn't using 486s because they care about speed, its because they KNOW THE HARDWARE WORKS. It has nothing to do with "real programmers use assembly." I've programmed assembly too, who fucking cares? And for what its worth, I think they're now using pentiums (including p3s).
You're nonsense about "real programmers use assembly" is just an ego-trip, because you feel somehow superior because you use assembly, meanwhile you're probably one of the fuckwits I mentioned that are still a shitty programmer.
Please, get over yourself, I don't give a fuck what you use, because real programmers use the right tools for the job!
Your chained reasoning is suspect. By that reasoning you can't outlaw anything.
No, that's not true at all. Remember, the purpose of law is to punish those who violate another's rights.
Do you think people should be allowed to make and sell meth?
I absolutely do. Meth is no different than any other drug or substance we put into our bodies. who are you to tell another individual that they can't put meth, pot, alcohol or a transfat laden 1/4er with cheese into their body? You have no right to do so.
All of the problems with meth are due to the fact that its illegal. Yes, some will abuse it as they do alcohol. That's not sufficent reason to outlaw it, and outlawing it has given rise to violent crime, just like prohibition did.
Of course, in a world where nothing is illegal, maybe everyone would need guns.
You're argueing a strawman, of course you can still have laws and freedoms. They are not mutually exclusive. As for everyone owning guns, I tend to think an armed society is a polite society. Would you start threatening anyone if you knew everyone around you was armed? I didn't think so.
I have no idea what you mean by "sovereign individual". Societies make laws which say what you can and can't do for the good of the society.
The good of society is a myth, and you really should look up sovereign individual, because its an important part of the philosphy our country was founded on.
Good of society is a myth, because your rights + someone elses rights do not trumpt my rights. We are all equal, you don't add rights of groups and say it outweighs the rights of an individual.
Unless you believe in mob rule... but that hardly seems like an ideal way of life to me. I know our founders didn't believe in mob rule, which is why we have a republic and not a democracy, and why your religious beliefs, no matter how few other people share them, are protected from interference by our government.
I realize your problem is you're terrified; you think other people, if not controlled would be terrible and and society would collapse. That's not reality though, and most people are fine and not out to rape or murder you.
The margin of error on laser guns (no one really uses radar anymore) is about 0.5 - 1 mph.
I think you have some reading to do. There are arguments that laser is less accurate than radar, as there are a number of factors that can affect it (rain I believe being one). And plenty of places still use radar... its still the most widely used tool.
Most cops aren't going to give tickets for people in the 5-10 range because, that is what everyone does. They want to focus on the people who are really breaking the laws, not just the people who kinda do.
It depend on how much revenue the locality needs.
Huh? I've been to the traffic kangaroo courts a few times. Its exactly as the OP claimed, hence why I refer to it as McJustice.
Actually it is people loitering in the passing lane which causes accidents, as do those to vary greatly from the flow of traffic.
That said, someone who is going really fast probably don't care about your indesesiviness, and probably won't move to pass on the right if you're indicating you'll move. All you do by blocking someone like that is piss them off, which increases irrational thought, thus leading to a more dangerous situtation. Better to move out of the way.
Except speed limits by and large aren't legally set to begin with, which is why pretty much everyone does speed. And if you're doing 70 in a 55, and someone wants to pass why not let them? You feel you have some moral high ground for you to be a jerk?
. If someone is driving in the left lane intending to turn off the left exit ramp, they will not nor should not be expected to move over for you to pass.
I think its reasonable then to expect them to speed up to match the speed others are expecting.
Yes, you're still impeding traffic. The law doesn't say you can't imped traffic unless you're going the speed limit.
You're creating a dangerous situtation, regardless of the actions of others.
I think the problem is that DX9 has gotten "good enough" for most folks, at least IMHO.
It is? The difference in the two images of the car driving through water was immediately clear to me. The DX11 one had water coming up along side, and over the lower part of the car below the grill. Which is what it would look like in real life. The DX9 version lacks this realism.. so we're not even at a point yet where games can render realistic scenes, but you think most gamers dont' care about realism? I'd be suprised.
Well by that arguement the model-t was "good enough," right? The fact that there are always dumbasses that don't care about an increase in standards doesn't mean the rest of society doesn't. Standard def. is usually good enough for people that don't actually have an HD tv. I didn't think it would make that much of a difference (except for my ps3), but watching standard tv downstairs isn't nearly as nice as watching the hd tv I have upstairs. The jump in quality is far greater than I imagined it would be.
Right, because when the 486 was around, all we had was assembly. Nevermind that you can be just a bad a programmer in assembly as you can any other language. Just admit you don't know what you're talking about an move on.
Can you cite where they said that? I've seen "most secure version of IE" and "most secure version of Windows" but I've yet to see "most secure product on the market."
How would this be any different if the configuration settings were stored in a flat file?
There comes a point where the only way to improve resistence to malware is to deny administrator access to the owner of the computer. I don't really see that taking off.
I believe you're wrong; there was Win2k WORKSTATION used heavily by many businesses for their desktop.
A right to life is unalienable, wouldn't you agree? Wouldn't it follow your right to life by definition includes an unalienable right to self-defense?
I would say a right to use a weapon in self-defense exists from there, and a gun, being a weapon, would be included in that... as would a right to own a knife, or a rock, or brass knuckles.
Of course, you're approaching this from the wrong angle. What right do you have to say to another sovereign individual they DON'T have a right to own a gun, without first going through due process of law? BTW, due process of law doesn't mean you just make a law saying gun ownership is illegal. Denying someone's rights because they MIGHT use it to violate the rights of another is not enough.