Shigeru Miyamoto is by far the most famous person with the Miyamoto surname. Especially outside of Japan. Don't be ridiculous with the "who else thought of" type posts.
Hey, that's stupid. It's literally seconds before the crime is committed. Wait 6 seconds and you can ticket them for actually breaking the law. The applicable field for this information is self driving cars. If a car can know when a red light running is going to occur, it can not drive out in front of it.
Because lobbying is a kind of petition for redress of grievances and therefor protected against any laws. Not that I agree with that interpretation, but it makes more sense than "money is speech" citizens united type rulings.
How do you know it doesn't involve remote crypto schemes. It's plainly implied to be a network supported system. You think linux has a chance in hell of being supported on this pony ride, you've missed the point. If file decryption can only be handled by operating systems connected a central authorization databases, Microsoft wins by denying linux users any access at all to said system. I give a hefty probability that Linux won't support this DRM at all.
Let's not overdo it, party platforms at this point are constructed out of fear of upsetting the party's base, and only something besides a winner-take-all election system is going to do away with the incentives to do that.
A quick read up is the first beginnings of it being democratic(with standard land-owning only type restrictions) began in the late 13th century. That's not exactly a short time.
Cite please? It's always good to hold politicians accountable to what they promised, but I don't recall anything more specific than "beginning withdrawal", which technically was already started a little before 2009.
I agree, I didn't want to get into assigning credit, because it's stupid to assign credit for ending a pointless war. All you really can say is "about time".
Yes, but at least the date above is the same date that the Obama administration has been giving for this action since inauguration(I can't find any reference to specifically this time prior to that). Politicians lie, but this would be a pretty dumb time for Obama to do it.
I hate to point this out to you, but in spite of having a dictator in addition, England has had a representative government for hundreds of years, and the collapses of major civilizations with one notable exception have not occurred under any such democratic condition. And Athens lost their democracy through foreign invasion, not internal corruption. This nonsense is by stupid professor trying to generate a secular justification for absolute monarchy.
It's sad that you'd prefer the ideas of a discredited monarchist philosopher above the more modern ideals of liberal democracy. History has shown democracies build stronger, more robust societies than any other system. Unless you'd like to point out a clear case to the contrary.
That means more than you're giving credit for. Actively responding to voters in the negative is taking a clear position that, come election time, can be claimed by opponents to be the wrong one. Dismissively sending a form letter to constituents with opinions gives only generic "X doesn't have time for voters outside of campaign season" fodder, which has considerably less sway. I like a clear opinion that's different from mine far more than none at all. It helps me as a voter if nothing else.
I rather favor a rights (blacklist) based approach to constitutional limitations rather than a strict constructionist point of view (whitelist). It acknowledges the abuse of power being a dangerous problem to free society(and such execution orders do not get a pass from me, though in a discussion that would serve only to frustrate, your Nazi comparison is completely misguided), without jumping the overzealous conclusion that every action taken by a government is negative unless defined by a centuries old purview. This all or nothing approach to government and freedom is, for a lack of better wording, too prone to injustice.
Your system of allowing states more power and federal less does NOTHING to curb government abuse of power, it merely localizes it. I don't really think it's internally consistent. The federal government in the US has a much better history of laws we would consider reasonable today versus states and municipalities. It's not a very compelling idea that South Carolina could allow an unregulated nuclear plant across the border from my house without my getting a voice in it at all.
Also, since you seem to have misread me, I endorse nuclear power as a concept, just not without careful watch over the creation of fissile materials. It's among the safest, cleanest, and most efficient mechanism of generating energy in the world.
That doesn't explain the supporting argument for eliminating the specific things in the article. Constitutional governance is a great thing, but eliminating the department of energy because regulating nuclear material isn't in the constitution is extraordinarily boneheaded. From a continuing to exist perspective, we're much better off from having a department of energy, and the simple, clear, and wrong answer to freedom is to eliminate anything that doesn't fit within a narrow purview from government oversight. I feel like you've done nothing to justify your criticism of my original point.
Thank you for trying to present what I asked for. That was nice of you, but I simply don't see the justification for this in the "too much government is bad" cliche.
Please illuminate me. I made my statement based on the information I had available. If their are reasonable counter-arguments, I would love to hear them. I like having my views challenged in meaningful ways. If you don't care to regurgitate arguments you didn't make yourself, at least point me at where I can find more information.
Except that the applicability is quite clear. Original scientific research with no immediate payoff is one of the easiest areas of government action to justify, economically. Blindly eliminating programs without concern for their content is, in fact, trivial reductionism that the quote was intended for.
Moreover, your position doesn't come from any sort of logic, as is basically apparent in the idea of the quote. The fact that both our statements are bare assertions doesn't make them equal, as there is a formal reasoning and history behind what I posted, and I can't find any way to cast what you posted as anything beyond petty whining. You don't make any cogent counter-argument for why this reductionism is valid, you just blindly refute the refutation.
I promise you the following: if you make a cogent rational counter argument, I won't assume you're a moron just because of your position. The post you just made, however, ain't doing you any favors.
It is not entirely clear what you want to tinker with. What do you want to test? Are you wanting to tinker with hardware? Using different software? Writing software? If the latter, what kind? To what end? This is a useless summary of your question.
No, it's not. They actually engage in tactics to guilt-trip or peer pressure you into continuing to play and pay. That doesn't feel good, it just relieves some of the stress they created in the first place.
It's the opposite of fun. It reminds me of my favorite casino game: "spot a smiling slots player."
Slashdot Mirror
What, seriously?
Shigeru Miyamoto is by far the most famous person with the Miyamoto surname. Especially outside of Japan. Don't be ridiculous with the "who else thought of" type posts.
Pliocene park.
Hey, that's stupid. It's literally seconds before the crime is committed. Wait 6 seconds and you can ticket them for actually breaking the law. The applicable field for this information is self driving cars. If a car can know when a red light running is going to occur, it can not drive out in front of it.
It's amazing how paranoid you can be.
Because lobbying is a kind of petition for redress of grievances and therefor protected against any laws. Not that I agree with that interpretation, but it makes more sense than "money is speech" citizens united type rulings.
How do you know it doesn't involve remote crypto schemes. It's plainly implied to be a network supported system. You think linux has a chance in hell of being supported on this pony ride, you've missed the point. If file decryption can only be handled by operating systems connected a central authorization databases, Microsoft wins by denying linux users any access at all to said system. I give a hefty probability that Linux won't support this DRM at all.
My thoughts too. This sounded like Microsoft trying to justify the idea of embedding DRM directly into their next filesystem.
Honestly, I thought it did.
Since it's a range of doubling frequency, it's one octave. Worst. Scale. Ever.
For that matter, why was he lying?
Would you accept the term android then? That's a word derived from its similarity to humans.
Let's not overdo it, party platforms at this point are constructed out of fear of upsetting the party's base, and only something besides a winner-take-all election system is going to do away with the incentives to do that.
A quick read up is the first beginnings of it being democratic(with standard land-owning only type restrictions) began in the late 13th century. That's not exactly a short time.
Cite please? It's always good to hold politicians accountable to what they promised, but I don't recall anything more specific than "beginning withdrawal", which technically was already started a little before 2009.
I agree, I didn't want to get into assigning credit, because it's stupid to assign credit for ending a pointless war. All you really can say is "about time".
Yes, but at least the date above is the same date that the Obama administration has been giving for this action since inauguration(I can't find any reference to specifically this time prior to that). Politicians lie, but this would be a pretty dumb time for Obama to do it.
I hate to point this out to you, but in spite of having a dictator in addition, England has had a representative government for hundreds of years, and the collapses of major civilizations with one notable exception have not occurred under any such democratic condition. And Athens lost their democracy through foreign invasion, not internal corruption. This nonsense is by stupid professor trying to generate a secular justification for absolute monarchy.
It's sad that you'd prefer the ideas of a discredited monarchist philosopher above the more modern ideals of liberal democracy. History has shown democracies build stronger, more robust societies than any other system. Unless you'd like to point out a clear case to the contrary.
That means more than you're giving credit for. Actively responding to voters in the negative is taking a clear position that, come election time, can be claimed by opponents to be the wrong one. Dismissively sending a form letter to constituents with opinions gives only generic "X doesn't have time for voters outside of campaign season" fodder, which has considerably less sway. I like a clear opinion that's different from mine far more than none at all. It helps me as a voter if nothing else.
I rather favor a rights (blacklist) based approach to constitutional limitations rather than a strict constructionist point of view (whitelist). It acknowledges the abuse of power being a dangerous problem to free society(and such execution orders do not get a pass from me, though in a discussion that would serve only to frustrate, your Nazi comparison is completely misguided), without jumping the overzealous conclusion that every action taken by a government is negative unless defined by a centuries old purview. This all or nothing approach to government and freedom is, for a lack of better wording, too prone to injustice.
Your system of allowing states more power and federal less does NOTHING to curb government abuse of power, it merely localizes it. I don't really think it's internally consistent. The federal government in the US has a much better history of laws we would consider reasonable today versus states and municipalities. It's not a very compelling idea that South Carolina could allow an unregulated nuclear plant across the border from my house without my getting a voice in it at all.
Also, since you seem to have misread me, I endorse nuclear power as a concept, just not without careful watch over the creation of fissile materials. It's among the safest, cleanest, and most efficient mechanism of generating energy in the world.
That doesn't explain the supporting argument for eliminating the specific things in the article. Constitutional governance is a great thing, but eliminating the department of energy because regulating nuclear material isn't in the constitution is extraordinarily boneheaded. From a continuing to exist perspective, we're much better off from having a department of energy, and the simple, clear, and wrong answer to freedom is to eliminate anything that doesn't fit within a narrow purview from government oversight. I feel like you've done nothing to justify your criticism of my original point.
Thank you for trying to present what I asked for. That was nice of you, but I simply don't see the justification for this in the "too much government is bad" cliche.
Please illuminate me. I made my statement based on the information I had available. If their are reasonable counter-arguments, I would love to hear them. I like having my views challenged in meaningful ways. If you don't care to regurgitate arguments you didn't make yourself, at least point me at where I can find more information.
Except that the applicability is quite clear. Original scientific research with no immediate payoff is one of the easiest areas of government action to justify, economically. Blindly eliminating programs without concern for their content is, in fact, trivial reductionism that the quote was intended for.
Moreover, your position doesn't come from any sort of logic, as is basically apparent in the idea of the quote. The fact that both our statements are bare assertions doesn't make them equal, as there is a formal reasoning and history behind what I posted, and I can't find any way to cast what you posted as anything beyond petty whining. You don't make any cogent counter-argument for why this reductionism is valid, you just blindly refute the refutation.
I promise you the following: if you make a cogent rational counter argument, I won't assume you're a moron just because of your position. The post you just made, however, ain't doing you any favors.
I'm sorry, I pulled it off a quick google search. Would it help that knew it sounded like a misquote when I posted it?
It is not entirely clear what you want to tinker with. What do you want to test? Are you wanting to tinker with hardware? Using different software? Writing software? If the latter, what kind? To what end? This is a useless summary of your question.
"For every complex problem, there is an answer that is clear, simple--and wrong."
--H.L. Mencken
No, it's not. They actually engage in tactics to guilt-trip or peer pressure you into continuing to play and pay. That doesn't feel good, it just relieves some of the stress they created in the first place.
It's the opposite of fun. It reminds me of my favorite casino game: "spot a smiling slots player."