I'm a fervent supporter of self-defense rights. But let's revisit the quote he was referring to. "But if a serial mugger chooses the wrong victim and gets kicked to death then so be it."
I live in Colorado, where we have the "make my day" law. One of the strongest self-defense statutes anywhere, ever. (This is for context, I'm well aware that it doesn't apply to a mugger.)
But I would fully expect to be prosecuted (and very possibly convicted) if I kicked a mugger to death!
Now, this, of course, depends on the details of the incident. If it were a "one in a million shot", then, as the OP says, so be it. But I don't think that's the intent here.
Wow, a bunch of people didn't get what I thought was a simple point.
I understand that the current state of supercomputing will seem primitive at some point in the future. In fact, my post is predicated on that notion.
But words mean things. At some point in the future everything about our current state of culture and technology will seem primitive. Describing the current state-of-the-art as primitive is meaningless. That approach can be applied to any topic equally.
Let me illustrate by counter-example. "The practice of medicine in parts of sub-Saharan Africa remains primitive." See how I'm creating a contrast that conveys meaning? Such a contrast only exists in the summary if the author has some frame of reference extending into the future.
Also, I was making a Back to the Future reference.
Before you overly criticize the Russian government, there may be some truth to the claim that the game's story line overly demonizes Russians as just terrorists as the Russian site GotPS3.ru alleges.
Assuming that it portrays them in an objectively false way, you still have to demonstrate that censorship is a good idea.
I propose that it's a lousy idea, that games are art, and that inaccuracy isn't a reason to suppress art.
Consider the Russian government "overly" criticized by me!
I like the way Penn Jillette put it, in the voice of the sock monkey in his novel, Sock.
Maybe you can't see this. Maybe you have to be a crazy monkey to see this, but it's insane. There's some election. Let's say it's for president. And the third-party candidate gets enough percentage points in some poll so that the meat puppets have to deal with her. This is hypothetical, so let's make it a woman. It doesn't do any harm to be progressive and fair in fiction. So they say, "Nancy Lord has to convince the electorate that she's a viable candidate. She has to show them that she can really win." Who are they talking to? Who is "they"? Who is "the electorate"? That's us, right? (By "us," I mean "y'all." They're not counting sock monkeys.) So, it's saying, "She has to convince you that she has a chance to win with you." Well, if we want her, we vote for her and she wins. Her "chances" don't matter. The media don't want you to "waste your vote" by voting for a loser. But you can't waste your vote voting for a loser you want. You can waste your vote only by voting for someone you don't want. You don't want the winner. Don't waste your vote on someone who's going to win. He doesn't need your vote; he's going to win. Keep voting for the lesser of two evils and things will just keep getting more evil. That's game theory that even this monkey understands. Who are they talking to? Meet the new boss same as the old boss.
I have a firm rule about not replying to ACs, but this is quite beyond the pale.
So let them take your nail clippers, boot up your laptop, and scan through your underwear with the camera. Because that's their effing job, so that your entitled, naive, ungrateful ass rides safely home this Thanksgiving.
You clearly don't know who you are addressing. Among many other things I'm an honorably discharged combat veteran.
I don't claim to have all the answers, but have put it on the line to defend liberty. I would dishonor my own service, and, infinitely more importantly, the service of those who came before and since, if I followed your advice and blindly licked the hands of my would-be masters.
I'm offended that you would call me "entitled". I ask for only what I have earned, and the rights of a free man.
I'm offended that you would call me "naïve". I willingly sacrificed my innocence on the alter of liberty.
I'm dismayed that you would call me "ungrateful". I'm profoundly grateful for the liberty secured to me by my forebearers. And I have shown that gratitude by defending that liberty to the limits of my abilities.
It is not the place of my government to assure my safety by abridging my liberty. It is my place to speak against such policies. I choose the level of risk I am willing to accept. I am the principal protector of my own safety.
I certainly won't stand for such disrespect from someone who values his own words so little as to post anonymously.
Whose fault is it that he didn't allow the release of prison photos in May? I don't see how you can pin that on the previous administration, fiendish bureaucrats who refuse to follow their bosses orders, or the inertia of government.
Same goes for his continuing support of warrantless wiretaps.
I'm not asking him to turn the fleet around on a dime. But I don't think that it is too much to ask that he not make personal, daily decisions in direct contravention of the principals he campaigned on.
This seems to be another exemption from President Obama's promise of transparency in government. In fact, I'm not sure I'm able to distinguish his policies from his predecessor's.
While this has gotten much better in later versions, we're still looking at deeply nested menus, and applications which do not necessarily have any UI themes in common with each other.
I disagree. Microsoft UI cohesiveness peaked somewhere around '95. They used a very consistent widget set, and had a firmly established menu standard. Then they got cute and overrode the default widgets with Media Player, opening the door for 3rd party apps to do so. Then they flushed the menu standard in favor of their much-hated "ribbons".
Bill Cosby did a bit, "Why is there Air?" He's well known for being a Doctor of Education, but as an undergrad he was a Physical Education major. His mock reaction to this fact, "Ha, ha. Phys. Ed. You're dumb."
He relates the story of attending a Philosophy class where the titular question is posed. He comically states his surprise at the question. Something like, "Any Phys. Ed. major can tell you that. To fill up footballs, and volley balls, and soccer balls!"
I disagree. Jobs is a salesman. Ballmer isn't. Jobs is a salesman with vision. Ballmer has very good business sense, and a competitive streak a mile wide. But I'd argue that Ballmer has far less vision, and isn't really a salesman as much as a businessman at the end of the day.
I'm not sure we agree on what "analogy" means. Here's a useful definition. "2 a : resemblance in some particulars between things otherwise unlike". My emphasis. There are any number of ways in which the two cases are unalike. But I think the salient characteristics align nicely.
I'm assuming that we agree that if I own my car, and you lease yours, and we both park in a public parking lot, we both receive the same 4th amendment protections of our effects in the glove box.
My specific question to you is, what is your theory as to why transient possession of a storage medium is relevant to applicability of the 4th amendment?
For reference, the text reads:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
I contend that, for the purposes of the 4th amendment, email are papers.
I think that this protection applies even if my papers or effects are stored in a place I have never seen, owned, leased, rented, or possessed.
I've never used it, but Pogo Sketch seems to be what you're looking for. (For those who don't want to click the link, it's a stylus that works with trackpads. You can use it with any app that lets you draw with a mouse.)
If you could make it work with Evernote that would be about ideal.
I don't understand the purpose of the thousand posts saying, "Just use pencil and paper!". That's my preferred approach, but why reply if you aren't going to answer the question? You don't really think that an advanced Math student never thought of using a notebook, do you?!
I'm also working from memory, but I think that Gecko is the engine. Firefox used to be the engineering test-bed browser component for the Mozilla suite, but end users decided they liked the light and fast standalone browser.
Didja watch the video? You play some sort of paramilitary guy that walks into an airport with his squad and just starts shooting people who appear to be waiting for a plane.
I'm not sure how that fits in to what you were saying.
Having said all that, I've had a great time running over old ladies in a stolen garbage truck in GTAIII.
Rental agreement. Netflix bought it, and, as the owner, can rent it out. You rented it under limited terms.
If Netflix had rented it, they couldn't rent it to you. (Unless their rental agreement didn't disallow it.)
Right?
If you let your Netflix account lapse, they can demand the disc back, right? But the studio can't demand it back from Netflix, because Netflix bought it.
Many individual bulbs fail to fulfill the claims. Spending many times as much on a replacement (over an incandescent) under the theory that it will last for years, only to have it fail after a few months is very disheartening. The reasons aren't very important to the consumer.
The technology on the whole isn't BS, but I have had more than one BS experience with it.
Perhaps you and I saw different materials, but when the initial push for CFLs came down. The emphasis was on how it was a direct replacement for incandescents, which is certainly BS, even by your own description.
Out of about twenty bulbs in my apartment, there are only three that are good candidates for CFLs by your criteria. I actually use them almost everywhere, but they fail early and offer poor light in most of them.
You can't have your cake and eat it, too. The reality, as I see it, is that CFLs offer a great deal of advantage in very limited circumstances, and a much lesser advantage in most practical circumstances. The problem is that they're marketed (by the manufacturers, retailers, environmental groups, and the government) as if the optimal advantage can be achieved merely by installing them, which is manifestly untrue.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm a fervent supporter of self-defense rights. But let's revisit the quote he was referring to. "But if a serial mugger chooses the wrong victim and gets kicked to death then so be it."
I live in Colorado, where we have the "make my day" law. One of the strongest self-defense statutes anywhere, ever. (This is for context, I'm well aware that it doesn't apply to a mugger.)
But I would fully expect to be prosecuted (and very possibly convicted) if I kicked a mugger to death!
Now, this, of course, depends on the details of the incident. If it were a "one in a million shot", then, as the OP says, so be it. But I don't think that's the intent here.
-Peter
Wow, a bunch of people didn't get what I thought was a simple point.
I understand that the current state of supercomputing will seem primitive at some point in the future. In fact, my post is predicated on that notion.
But words mean things. At some point in the future everything about our current state of culture and technology will seem primitive. Describing the current state-of-the-art as primitive is meaningless. That approach can be applied to any topic equally.
Let me illustrate by counter-example. "The practice of medicine in parts of sub-Saharan Africa remains primitive." See how I'm creating a contrast that conveys meaning? Such a contrast only exists in the summary if the author has some frame of reference extending into the future.
Also, I was making a Back to the Future reference.
*shrug*
-Peter
Wait, what? You lost me. Are you from the future? How can you describe the state of the art as "primitive"?
-Peter
Assuming that it portrays them in an objectively false way, you still have to demonstrate that censorship is a good idea.
I propose that it's a lousy idea, that games are art, and that inaccuracy isn't a reason to suppress art.
Consider the Russian government "overly" criticized by me!
-Peter
You're preaching to the choir, sir.
I like the way Penn Jillette put it, in the voice of the sock monkey in his novel, Sock.
I have a firm rule about not replying to ACs, but this is quite beyond the pale.
You clearly don't know who you are addressing. Among many other things I'm an honorably discharged combat veteran.
I don't claim to have all the answers, but have put it on the line to defend liberty. I would dishonor my own service, and, infinitely more importantly, the service of those who came before and since, if I followed your advice and blindly licked the hands of my would-be masters.
I'm offended that you would call me "entitled". I ask for only what I have earned, and the rights of a free man.
I'm offended that you would call me "naïve". I willingly sacrificed my innocence on the alter of liberty.
I'm dismayed that you would call me "ungrateful". I'm profoundly grateful for the liberty secured to me by my forebearers. And I have shown that gratitude by defending that liberty to the limits of my abilities.
It is not the place of my government to assure my safety by abridging my liberty. It is my place to speak against such policies. I choose the level of risk I am willing to accept. I am the principal protector of my own safety.
I certainly won't stand for such disrespect from someone who values his own words so little as to post anonymously.
-Peter
Whose fault is it that he didn't allow the release of prison photos in May? I don't see how you can pin that on the previous administration, fiendish bureaucrats who refuse to follow their bosses orders, or the inertia of government.
Same goes for his continuing support of warrantless wiretaps.
I'm not asking him to turn the fleet around on a dime. But I don't think that it is too much to ask that he not make personal, daily decisions in direct contravention of the principals he campaigned on.
-Peter
This seems to be another exemption from President Obama's promise of transparency in government. In fact, I'm not sure I'm able to distinguish his policies from his predecessor's.
-Peter
After presenting his paper, researcher David O'Carroll strode off the stage and into a sliding glass door.
-Peter
I disagree. Microsoft UI cohesiveness peaked somewhere around '95. They used a very consistent widget set, and had a firmly established menu standard. Then they got cute and overrode the default widgets with Media Player, opening the door for 3rd party apps to do so. Then they flushed the menu standard in favor of their much-hated "ribbons".
Now the UI is total soup.
-Peter
Very nice.
Bill Cosby did a bit, "Why is there Air?" He's well known for being a Doctor of Education, but as an undergrad he was a Physical Education major. His mock reaction to this fact, "Ha, ha. Phys. Ed. You're dumb."
He relates the story of attending a Philosophy class where the titular question is posed. He comically states his surprise at the question. Something like, "Any Phys. Ed. major can tell you that. To fill up footballs, and volley balls, and soccer balls!"
You stand in fine comedic company!
-Peter
How is it an ID if reuse in the same context has no ill effects? What does it mean to identify something if all things can have the same ID?
Something is missing here.
-Peter
I disagree. Jobs is a salesman. Ballmer isn't. Jobs is a salesman with vision. Ballmer has very good business sense, and a competitive streak a mile wide. But I'd argue that Ballmer has far less vision, and isn't really a salesman as much as a businessman at the end of the day.
-Peter
If you have the first one, the second one becomes redundant. Loads of problems just go away if you have cheap, abundant, clean energy.
-Peter
I'm not sure we agree on what "analogy" means. Here's a useful definition. "2 a : resemblance in some particulars between things otherwise unlike". My emphasis. There are any number of ways in which the two cases are unalike. But I think the salient characteristics align nicely.
I'm assuming that we agree that if I own my car, and you lease yours, and we both park in a public parking lot, we both receive the same 4th amendment protections of our effects in the glove box.
My specific question to you is, what is your theory as to why transient possession of a storage medium is relevant to applicability of the 4th amendment?
For reference, the text reads:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
I contend that, for the purposes of the 4th amendment, email are papers.
I think that this protection applies even if my papers or effects are stored in a place I have never seen, owned, leased, rented, or possessed.
Where is the flaw in my thinking?
-Peter
Oh, we can torture this analogy much, much more.
Private parking. Not in my possession. Still protected.
Also, do you have any particular criticism of the analogy? Or do you just find it naughty?
-Peter
By this reasoning, do I lose 4th amendment protection of property in "my" glove box if the car is leased?
Absurd.
-Peter
I've never used it, but Pogo Sketch seems to be what you're looking for. (For those who don't want to click the link, it's a stylus that works with trackpads. You can use it with any app that lets you draw with a mouse.)
If you could make it work with Evernote that would be about ideal.
I don't understand the purpose of the thousand posts saying, "Just use pencil and paper!". That's my preferred approach, but why reply if you aren't going to answer the question? You don't really think that an advanced Math student never thought of using a notebook, do you?!
-Peter
Was my use of the past tense lost on you?
-Peter
I'm also working from memory, but I think that Gecko is the engine. Firefox used to be the engineering test-bed browser component for the Mozilla suite, but end users decided they liked the light and fast standalone browser.
-Peter
Didja watch the video? You play some sort of paramilitary guy that walks into an airport with his squad and just starts shooting people who appear to be waiting for a plane.
I'm not sure how that fits in to what you were saying.
Having said all that, I've had a great time running over old ladies in a stolen garbage truck in GTAIII.
-Peter
Rental agreement. Netflix bought it, and, as the owner, can rent it out. You rented it under limited terms.
If Netflix had rented it, they couldn't rent it to you. (Unless their rental agreement didn't disallow it.)
Right?
If you let your Netflix account lapse, they can demand the disc back, right? But the studio can't demand it back from Netflix, because Netflix bought it.
Or am I missing your point?
-Peter
Dear Internet,
Be neutral. Except when we don't want you to be neutral.
Love,
Congress
Many individual bulbs fail to fulfill the claims. Spending many times as much on a replacement (over an incandescent) under the theory that it will last for years, only to have it fail after a few months is very disheartening. The reasons aren't very important to the consumer.
The technology on the whole isn't BS, but I have had more than one BS experience with it.
Perhaps you and I saw different materials, but when the initial push for CFLs came down. The emphasis was on how it was a direct replacement for incandescents, which is certainly BS, even by your own description.
Out of about twenty bulbs in my apartment, there are only three that are good candidates for CFLs by your criteria. I actually use them almost everywhere, but they fail early and offer poor light in most of them.
You can't have your cake and eat it, too. The reality, as I see it, is that CFLs offer a great deal of advantage in very limited circumstances, and a much lesser advantage in most practical circumstances. The problem is that they're marketed (by the manufacturers, retailers, environmental groups, and the government) as if the optimal advantage can be achieved merely by installing them, which is manifestly untrue.
This concept is also known as bullshit.
-Peter
I bet you're a gas at parties.
-Peter