I haven't bought anything from MPAA or RIAA in 15 years. Nor have I downloaded
anything illegally. I just quit consuming their crap entirely.
If their stuff is crap, then you shouldn't be consuming it anyway, although I'm not sure it's a good idea to avoid modern pop culture entirely, as you'll end up sounding out of touch and all get-off-my-lawn-y
I guess one of the point of being a game developer is to make money out of it. If you are doing it for fun, then sure, you can spend 3 years on your pet project. If you are planning to make money, how do you eat for 3 years?
Get an intellectually undemanding part time job in the same way that budding actors or musicians have to.
The whole black people are monkeys thing is purely a US idiom. In the rest of the English-speaking world, there isn't that connotation and it's fairly common to call people (of any phenotype) monkeys with no racist overtones.
I don't know what part of the English-speaking world you're from, but I can assure you that here in the UK calling black people "monkeys" is a very common insult amongst racists, hence the bananas thrown at black football players.
Monkey/monkey boy are also used here in insulting but non-racist ways, but that is a separate question.
I'm not saying you're wrong in the general sentiment of your statement (racism is wrong), but: what is intrinsically wrong with saying races/ethnicities are different? We know that they are - it's intellectually dishonest to say otherwise. Different genes are present, and different genes express more strongly in different races. How, and why, is it wrong to say "sickle cell anemia is bad" or "red hair is bad"?
What's wrong is that the genetic differences are trivial. We are all homo sapiens. And it makes as much sense to say "all people with red hair are X" as it does to say "all people with brown skin are Y", i.e. none at all.
What's odd is why such people seem to feel ashamed of being racists, but are anyway. If you truly hold stupid ideas about race, you should have the courage of your convictions.
I can only assume that racists have just enough intelligence to realise that their views are abhorrent to the majority of people, but nowhere near enough to take a look at those views and see how idiotic they are and not expound them in public..
Woah, slow down... Why pull the "racist" card? Isn't that precisely what genetics is about? I'm not a racist but I think they might have a valid point. Our ancestors with dark skin weren't the result of breeding with Neanderthals, but the light skinned folks were. So, hmm, I don't know if you'd say blacks were closer to being apes, but whites are more likely to carry Neanderthal genes as well as homsapien genes. That probably means they're further from apes if you measure "distance" by genetic differentiation. If you count that merging as a node in the graph, that's one more node further, no? Not that it matters much, I'm sure there's been sufficient cross breeding that you'd have a hard time finding anyone alive without Neanderthal genes.
I think I prefer racists who are just straightforwardly stupid, rather than ones who mis-use the brains they've been given.
People with black, white or any other colour skin are all part of the same species, homo sapiens. That's it.
The idea that white people are a different type of human is racism, pure and simple. You are a fucking idiot.
Some people like to surprise their kids for Christmas.
Those people can go fuck themselves with a chili pepper coated dildo up their butts. As a kid, I HATED surprises, because no one ever got my tastes right. For example, I once got this huge, expensive GI Joe airplane from an aunt for xmas... and I couldn't hide my disappointment, because I thought GI Joe was crap. I could say "thanks, it's cool", but my expression was clearly saying "what am I gonna do with this crap".
You really were a charmless little cunt weren't you? I hope your aunt shoved the huge airplane up your butt.
Nope. There have been several hijackings and attempted hijackings done by women acting either with groups or alone.
Yes, and you would weight your profile accordingly. Similarly, I'm sure that some terrorists are middle-aged, white, married with children, well-educated, well-off, with no history of involvement in extremism or travel to suspicious countries.
No one is suggersting that profiling could even theoretically catch every terrorist, but that doesn't matter because all it's intended to do is narrow down the number of passengers given extra questioning.
Well, in practice it's completely untestable (you'd have to let a randomised selection of "high-risk" subjects into the country and see how many of them commit terrorist acts, and nobody is going to allow that)
Or you could, you know, use the information you have already gathered on convicted terrorists and work backwards from that.
This software is just going to try to focus attention on certain passengers who will be more closely questioned. It's not being used to find people guilty and execute them on the spot. Get some perspective.
How? It's already very hard for them to find idiots who would participate in a suicide bombing. Trying to find one among non-Muslim whites may be impossible.
You don't have to have brown skin to be a Muslim, you know, and there will always be ideological sympathisers/deluded retards (depending on your point of view) who will help terrorists. You can view most terrorist causes in purely political, non-religious terms if you're so inclined. You don't even have to make all attacks suicide ones, if that's what's necessary to get some outside help. Terrorism always used to work perfectly well without having to kill yourself.
How would you know that? Burglars don't carry their lock pickers in plain sight.
You could profile the people you saw so that, for instance, you'd be more inclined to question the unfamiliar teenager with a hoodie and trainers carrying an empty rucksack than the 80 year old with a zimmer frame who's your next door neighbour. In fact, you could write a piece of software to assign values to various characteristics in order to whittle down the number of likely burglars!
It's not as though they're going to use the profile as evidence to jail them or anything, it's just a way of flagging people it might be worth questioning further. So, yes, there are bound to be false positives, but it just means a few people will have ten minutes added to the time it takes to get through passport control.
You think they're looking for terrorists? Notice the part where they're analyzing data they get after the flight has left? They're looking for smugglers, illegal aliens and other undesirables, who are prevalent enough that stats will probably help them immensely.
You're saying that as though it's a bad thing and part of some evil government conspiracy. Why wouldn't they use the data for more than one purpose? Sounds fair enough to me.
could bring aboard a hand-grenade, untracable, in a body-cavity, remove it on the loo and detonate it without it being damped.
This needs absolutely nothing except from a somewhat dirty imagination and lube.
The fact that this does not happen all the time tells me that there are way less people eager to blow up planes than we are made believe.
I've often wondered why whatsisname the Shoe Bomber didn't do just that, instead of fucking around mixing obvious chemicals. It's not as though he was going to survive if the thing went off either way. It seems hard to believe that a would-be suicide bomber is going to be squeamish about sticking something uncomfortable up his arse for a few hours.
Why haven't the "terr'sts" detonated a bomb on a bus in Downtown Washington or LA?
The answer is quite simple, they are either unable to or unwilling to. Occams Razor leads me towards the former.
I don't see how they can be unable to. Terrorists in Northern Ireland manage(d) to make car bombs quite effectively, and Ireland was a lot more closely policed than the US is now. And there are bombs in the Middle East on a weekly basis.
I think it's more likely that they don't consider the rewards in terms of publicity (or whatever) outweigh the risks of getting caught, which would suggest there aren't that many active terrorists in the US if they can't afford to lose a few.
ask yourself what it would take to convince you to blow up a building and kill hundreds of civilians. If you're a sane, rational, non-religious person, the answer is nothing whatsoever
The bombings of Hiroshima or Dresden were sane, rational and non-religiously motivated. In a war, civilians get killed, and the terrorists would say they are engaged in asymmetrical warfare.
Slashdot Mirror
Having kids is no excuse. I do have kids and admittedly its more tempting to "give in" but I still manage not to support the MPAA or RIAA at all.
I bet your kids are really popular at school and never get teased for never having heard of Hanna Montana, or whatever.
I haven't bought anything from MPAA or RIAA in 15 years. Nor have I downloaded anything illegally. I just quit consuming their crap entirely.
If their stuff is crap, then you shouldn't be consuming it anyway, although I'm not sure it's a good idea to avoid modern pop culture entirely, as you'll end up sounding out of touch and all get-off-my-lawn-y
</em>
Seriously... the italic tag is deprecated and not used anymore!
who says?
I guess one of the point of being a game developer is to make money out of it. If you are doing it for fun, then sure, you can spend 3 years on your pet project. If you are planning to make money, how do you eat for 3 years?
Get an intellectually undemanding part time job in the same way that budding actors or musicians have to.
Let's ask Japan, they have probably already done some work towards catgirls.
I am intrigued, please post further details immediately.
The whole black people are monkeys thing is purely a US idiom. In the rest of the English-speaking world, there isn't that connotation and it's fairly common to call people (of any phenotype) monkeys with no racist overtones.
I don't know what part of the English-speaking world you're from, but I can assure you that here in the UK calling black people "monkeys" is a very common insult amongst racists, hence the bananas thrown at black football players.
Monkey/monkey boy are also used here in insulting but non-racist ways, but that is a separate question.
I'm not saying you're wrong in the general sentiment of your statement (racism is wrong), but: what is intrinsically wrong with saying races/ethnicities are different? We know that they are - it's intellectually dishonest to say otherwise. Different genes are present, and different genes express more strongly in different races. How, and why, is it wrong to say "sickle cell anemia is bad" or "red hair is bad"?
What's wrong is that the genetic differences are trivial. We are all homo sapiens. And it makes as much sense to say "all people with red hair are X" as it does to say "all people with brown skin are Y", i.e. none at all.
"I'm not a racist but ..."
'Something an idiot says just before making a comment that proves the idiot is, in fact, a racist.' http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=i'm%20not%20racist%2C%20but%20.%20.%20.
What's odd is why such people seem to feel ashamed of being racists, but are anyway. If you truly hold stupid ideas about race, you should have the courage of your convictions.
I can only assume that racists have just enough intelligence to realise that their views are abhorrent to the majority of people, but nowhere near enough to take a look at those views and see how idiotic they are and not expound them in public..
yeah, blacks
No. Racists
Woah, slow down... Why pull the "racist" card? Isn't that precisely what genetics is about? I'm not a racist but I think they might have a valid point. Our ancestors with dark skin weren't the result of breeding with Neanderthals, but the light skinned folks were. So, hmm, I don't know if you'd say blacks were closer to being apes, but whites are more likely to carry Neanderthal genes as well as homsapien genes. That probably means they're further from apes if you measure "distance" by genetic differentiation. If you count that merging as a node in the graph, that's one more node further, no? Not that it matters much, I'm sure there's been sufficient cross breeding that you'd have a hard time finding anyone alive without Neanderthal genes.
I think I prefer racists who are just straightforwardly stupid, rather than ones who mis-use the brains they've been given.
People with black, white or any other colour skin are all part of the same species, homo sapiens. That's it.
The idea that white people are a different type of human is racism, pure and simple. You are a fucking idiot.
I would love to know what you consider witty. The banter before WWF matches? Videos on YouTube of dogs eating their own shit?
Some people like to surprise their kids for Christmas.
Those people can go fuck themselves with a chili pepper coated dildo up their butts. As a kid, I HATED surprises, because no one ever got my tastes right. For example, I once got this huge, expensive GI Joe airplane from an aunt for xmas... and I couldn't hide my disappointment, because I thought GI Joe was crap. I could say "thanks, it's cool", but my expression was clearly saying "what am I gonna do with this crap".
You really were a charmless little cunt weren't you? I hope your aunt shoved the huge airplane up your butt.
Buy them some books instead.
You'd probably do well to remember who were the native people of America. Hint: it wasn't white Europeans.
Nope. There have been several hijackings and attempted hijackings done by women acting either with groups or alone.
Yes, and you would weight your profile accordingly. Similarly, I'm sure that some terrorists are middle-aged, white, married with children, well-educated, well-off, with no history of involvement in extremism or travel to suspicious countries.
No one is suggersting that profiling could even theoretically catch every terrorist, but that doesn't matter because all it's intended to do is narrow down the number of passengers given extra questioning.
Well, in practice it's completely untestable (you'd have to let a randomised selection of "high-risk" subjects into the country and see how many of them commit terrorist acts, and nobody is going to allow that)
Or you could, you know, use the information you have already gathered on convicted terrorists and work backwards from that.
This software is just going to try to focus attention on certain passengers who will be more closely questioned. It's not being used to find people guilty and execute them on the spot. Get some perspective.
How? It's already very hard for them to find idiots who would participate in a suicide bombing. Trying to find one among non-Muslim whites may be impossible.
You don't have to have brown skin to be a Muslim, you know, and there will always be ideological sympathisers/deluded retards (depending on your point of view) who will help terrorists. You can view most terrorist causes in purely political, non-religious terms if you're so inclined. You don't even have to make all attacks suicide ones, if that's what's necessary to get some outside help. Terrorism always used to work perfectly well without having to kill yourself.
How would you know that? Burglars don't carry their lock pickers in plain sight.
You could profile the people you saw so that, for instance, you'd be more inclined to question the unfamiliar teenager with a hoodie and trainers carrying an empty rucksack than the 80 year old with a zimmer frame who's your next door neighbour. In fact, you could write a piece of software to assign values to various characteristics in order to whittle down the number of likely burglars!
Just a wild thought.
It's not as though they're going to use the profile as evidence to jail them or anything, it's just a way of flagging people it might be worth questioning further. So, yes, there are bound to be false positives, but it just means a few people will have ten minutes added to the time it takes to get through passport control.
You think they're looking for terrorists? Notice the part where they're analyzing data they get after the flight has left? They're looking for smugglers, illegal aliens and other undesirables, who are prevalent enough that stats will probably help them immensely.
You're saying that as though it's a bad thing and part of some evil government conspiracy. Why wouldn't they use the data for more than one purpose? Sounds fair enough to me.
could bring aboard a hand-grenade, untracable, in a body-cavity, remove it on the loo and detonate it without it being damped. This needs absolutely nothing except from a somewhat dirty imagination and lube.
The fact that this does not happen all the time tells me that there are way less people eager to blow up planes than we are made believe.
I've often wondered why whatsisname the Shoe Bomber didn't do just that, instead of fucking around mixing obvious chemicals. It's not as though he was going to survive if the thing went off either way. It seems hard to believe that a would-be suicide bomber is going to be squeamish about sticking something uncomfortable up his arse for a few hours.
Why haven't the "terr'sts" detonated a bomb on a bus in Downtown Washington or LA?
The answer is quite simple, they are either unable to or unwilling to. Occams Razor leads me towards the former.
I don't see how they can be unable to. Terrorists in Northern Ireland manage(d) to make car bombs quite effectively, and Ireland was a lot more closely policed than the US is now. And there are bombs in the Middle East on a weekly basis.
I think it's more likely that they don't consider the rewards in terms of publicity (or whatever) outweigh the risks of getting caught, which would suggest there aren't that many active terrorists in the US if they can't afford to lose a few.
Want to improve security? ...security people can have a 10 second chat with each passenger as they go through the gates.
That doesn't work because any basic anti-depression medication will stop people from having nervous reactions when lying.
Just rehearse the scenario a couple of times and pop a double-dose half an hour before you go through.
So you test everyone for drugs and don't let them on the plane if they're on something. Simples.
If I were "absolutely obsessed" with blowing up a 'plane I'd just put the bomb up my ass and walk through the scanners...
I'm sure if it were that simple some terrorist would have done it by now. It's not as though they're afraid of dying.
ask yourself what it would take to convince you to blow up a building and kill hundreds of civilians. If you're a sane, rational, non-religious person, the answer is nothing whatsoever
The bombings of Hiroshima or Dresden were sane, rational and non-religiously motivated. In a war, civilians get killed, and the terrorists would say they are engaged in asymmetrical warfare.