Bush screwed up that saying "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me" and instead screwed it up and had to explain at the end, "the point is, you can't fool me again".
Which he also got wrong as the meaning of the "saying" is that once you have been fooled you should have learned from your mistake and if you are fooled again you have no one to blame but yourself.
My favorite bush quote is after the preztel assasination attempt, where he explained that his mother had to repeatedly tell him to chew his food before swallowing it. Repeatedly. How to Eat. Seriously.
Try licensing the Serious Sam engine, I believe it is 100 for the first engine and 1000 for the second. For 100 bucks you get amazing graphics and no boundaries on maps... as well as thoroughly documented engine and SDK... If you gross enough you could license the second;)
"That's why I just don't buy this BS where the administration is trying to get the search engines to divulge who's searching for things like "sex". This "driftnetting" approach is going to net so many people who aren't "the problem"."
That's the wole point isn't it, to find a way to deal with the problem without solving it, thus creating a new Government branch with wide sweeping powers and no oversight, like the "war on drugs"...
" However, even after that experience, I am STILL against you, and I'm quite certain she would be, too. Don't you DARE try to twist that sort of horror into an excuse to force people to give up their freedoms."
having dated several myself in the same situation, AND being married to someone who was molested for several years and still living with the effects 25+ years later, I still wholeheartily agree with you. glad to see the +5
Amen, that's exactly how I feel when i get home...
I look back on the 60's and now I tend to feel that the powers that be saw that people who expanded their minds and had free time tend to protest those things that they see as being wrong, so the powers smartened up and took away both.
"If MS didn't charge for the updates it would obviously not be a new source of income. If Joe set up a mirror offering the updates for free MS couldn't rely on that income anymore."
They don't charge for updates, which adds to the value of purchasing the media, again, why would I go to some third party website to get updates when i could go to the manufacturers source, a third party could have malicious reasons for providing bandwidth with no financial gain.
"Yes and Daggon wants to know how you'd generate that extra income if the data on the medium does not need any additional services (e.g. a music CD)."
Well the whole point the parent was making (and thus my reason for asking if he had read the parent) is that the medium offered a basic program which is enhanced by the additonal offerings that the customer could purchase..
Did you read the parent? I really don't want to further expound on someone else's idea, i was just trying to clarify what I thought was a pretty succinct point.
My experiences with Mushkin have proven them to make overall decent RAM, but I got burned on my last purchase in regards to a rebate offered by Mushkin, I met all the requirements but they still rejected me.. so they are on my blacklist for now... >:(
"Do you pay for those updates?" I paid for the OS which included updates for a period of time, why would I go to Joe instead? He didn't make the OS I purchased...
Does Joe make a competing operating system?" If he does then i'll evaluate if it is a better OS and then make my purchasing decision.
"What about products that don't require updates, or can be maintained by third parties?"
What about them... if you'll look at the parent post you'll see this is about not making money ONLY from the media (Which IP laws make very profitable) but from the value of additional services that can be purchased that enhance the main creation.
"but because they had to invest nothing into the creation they can do it cheaper than you."
If his main source of revenue is being able to train others on his product, tailor the product for specific customers, get support for the product, and/or provide a community for his users, then who could really be able to provide this better than the creator of the product himself or his "official" affiliates?
When I want to update my windows installation I don't go to www.joes.update.com I go to windowsupdate.microsoft.com
Hmm, well CS has a way to deal with snipers (smoke or flashbang) to allow you to get close up, and most of the other games have some way of making the sniper rifle's power and stealth balanced (like quake3 with the multicolored rail, CS with FB smoke and high price of rifle).
I actually always liked campers/snipers... once they shoot you know where they are, once you get up close they are defenseless and they usually camp the same spot (or the usual "camper" spots) so regularly firing a few rockets or tossing a grenade in the typical camper spots usually gets me some free kills.
It would be kind of boring if every game only had one gun right?
There are a couple of good stat reporting add-ons for CS that you can "tweak" to do this very thing, of course it is not in-game, but it is something you could parse out after each map or round and then display on a wall with a projector.
All of the points you listed can be assigned point values that determine the players overall score in a leaderboard as well as distinctive ranks for each type of action (last man standing, most knife kills, most damage done, etc.)
Overall this (your) suggestion seems more appealing than watering down the game to the point where you have to shake hands with your opponent before firing your M4...
This is the inherent flaw in Civil disputes (i don't mean small claims court).
Until we can figure out a way to hold persons or companies responsible for their actions in civil court regardless of the size of a plaintiffs bankroll AND protect against frivolous or "harrassment" types of lawsuits, civil law will always favor those with more money, quite the opposite of the "scales of justice" the ideal of law is based on...
The whole point is FISA requires a warrant, you can get one after the wiretap is setup but you still need to get one, and it pertains to international calls only...
The president wiretapped DOMESTIC calls, with no warrants....
See the problem here? I doubt you do, i'm sure you feel that "whatever our president deems necessary is fine with me because we are at "War"".
The fact remains (after all of your statements are examined) there was no need for the president to do what he did, we already have processes in place to do what he is doing, the only difference is when it is done legally it still keeps our constitutional rights in-tact, but who needs the constitution when there is a "War" right?
1) The 2001 war powers resolution gives the president the right to prosecute the war. That includes monitoring international communications that are thought to be related to terrorists.
2) The FISA Court of Appeals, in 2002, held that the program was legal and outside of FISA's jurisdiction.
But it matters not anymore. The whistle has been blown. The Times is very proud of this - having told Al Qaeda and sympathizers of one of our most critical and secret ways of monitoring them."
The key word there is international, not domestic, which is what the whole uproar is about.. but who cares about facts when your war-mongering?
I'm sure AlQaeda knows it could be monitored at any time, you act like these guys are 3 years old... it's not like FISA isn't public knowledge.
"I am saying that the media is dramatically one sided in its portrayal of the war (just as it was in Vietnam - starting with the Tet offensive). I constantly read letters from soldiers who return from Iraq and say they are startled at how much worse the situation looks in the main streaam media than it did actually in country."
Maybe those soilders are desensitized to violence and despair? When i see pictures of rioting and 10 suicide cars bombs from opposing Rivals in a "civil" dispute, I tend to think that the region is "unstable", soilders might see this as "not such a big deal" but opinions vary...
"But when we have the media doing things like revealing highly sensitive and critical secrets (NSA wiretaps, CIA overseas prison facilities), then you have a media that is dramatically injuring the war effort - that is, the effort to fight Islamofascism and protect Americans."
So now the papers reporting on the President's actions violating american rights and civil liberties is labeled as one sided?
Oh ok nvm.. I understand what you are saying, and I don't need to hear any more...
BTW, Dan Rather didn't "forge" any documents either, and the documents in question have never been proven to be authentic OR forged.. so basically your whole post was FUD.. gj!
The United States has actively been deploying new satellites above the Middle East since the Fall of 1996. In January 2003 the USA replaced a 10-year-old GPS satellite station above Iraq, which was no longer working, and thus wasn't able to take photographs. Images sent from the live satellite would be in color, not black and white, as Powell shows. It is therefore unknown when the pictures Powell shows us were taken. The Poker bluff. The USA couldn't let the world know they were madly deploying new satellites above Iraq, therefore discrediting their claims Iraq held weapons.
Furthermore, the USA does monitor live images. Why didn't Powell show this? If you recall, the Bush administration claims against Iraq predates these images by one year. Powell and the Bush administration claim they had proof of Iraq weapons in January 2002, but via satellite, they fail to marry images with claims.
Slashdot Mirror
My coworker in the cube next to me went to watch one of the videos through firefox and his system crashed on him also, he's running unbuntu.
Strangely enough My windows XP box ran everything just fine (using firefox also).
I was actually trying to quote the parent, but forgot the quote marks, first paragraph was the parents =/
Bush screwed up that saying "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me" and instead screwed it up and had to explain at the end, "the point is, you can't fool me again".
Which he also got wrong as the meaning of the "saying" is that once you have been fooled you should have learned from your mistake and if you are fooled again you have no one to blame but yourself.
My favorite bush quote is after the preztel assasination attempt, where he explained that his mother had to repeatedly tell him to chew his food before swallowing it. Repeatedly. How to Eat. Seriously.
Try licensing the Serious Sam engine, I believe it is 100 for the first engine and 1000 for the second. For 100 bucks you get amazing graphics and no boundaries on maps... as well as thoroughly documented engine and SDK... If you gross enough you could license the second ;)
:)
100 bucks... come on!
"That's why I just don't buy this BS where the administration is trying to get the search engines to divulge who's searching for things like "sex". This "driftnetting" approach is going to net so many people who aren't "the problem"."
That's the wole point isn't it, to find a way to deal with the problem without solving it, thus creating a new Government branch with wide sweeping powers and no oversight, like the "war on drugs"...
" However, even after that experience, I am STILL against you, and I'm quite certain she would be, too. Don't you DARE try to twist that sort of horror into an excuse to force people to give up their freedoms."
having dated several myself in the same situation, AND being married to someone who was molested for several years and still living with the effects 25+ years later, I still wholeheartily agree with you. glad to see the +5
So drug dealers are in the same class as child rapists?!?!? How about drug users?
Amen, that's exactly how I feel when i get home...
I look back on the 60's and now I tend to feel that the powers that be saw that people who expanded their minds and had free time tend to protest those things that they see as being wrong, so the powers smartened up and took away both.
maybe because when you are old and senile and sucking up all of the medicare, my 2-5-7-80 children will be footing your bill?
Definitely, just making the distinction ;)
The parent was talking about roadside attacks which are mainly IEDs...
Although this does nothing to deter or stop IEDs or landmines, this is only effective against projectile type weapons...
"If MS didn't charge for the updates it would obviously not be a new source of income. If Joe set up a mirror offering the updates for free MS couldn't rely on that income anymore."
They don't charge for updates, which adds to the value of purchasing the media, again, why would I go to some third party website to get updates when i could go to the manufacturers source, a third party could have malicious reasons for providing bandwidth with no financial gain.
"Yes and Daggon wants to know how you'd generate that extra income if the data on the medium does not need any additional services (e.g. a music CD)."
Well the whole point the parent was making (and thus my reason for asking if he had read the parent) is that the medium offered a basic program which is enhanced by the additonal offerings that the customer could purchase..
Did you read the parent? I really don't want to further expound on someone else's idea, i was just trying to clarify what I thought was a pretty succinct point.
My experiences with Mushkin have proven them to make overall decent RAM, but I got burned on my last purchase in regards to a rebate offered by Mushkin, I met all the requirements but they still rejected me.. so they are on my blacklist for now... >:(
"Do you pay for those updates?"
I paid for the OS which included updates for a period of time, why would I go to Joe instead? He didn't make the OS I purchased...
Does Joe make a competing operating system?"
If he does then i'll evaluate if it is a better OS and then make my purchasing decision.
"What about products that don't require updates, or can be maintained by third parties?"
What about them... if you'll look at the parent post you'll see this is about not making money ONLY from the media (Which IP laws make very profitable) but from the value of additional services that can be purchased that enhance the main creation.
Did you read the parent?
"but because they had to invest nothing into the creation they can do it cheaper than you."
If his main source of revenue is being able to train others on his product, tailor the product for specific customers, get support for the product, and/or provide a community for his users, then who could really be able to provide this better than the creator of the product himself or his "official" affiliates?
When I want to update my windows installation I don't go to www.joes.update.com I go to windowsupdate.microsoft.com
Hmm, well CS has a way to deal with snipers (smoke or flashbang) to allow you to get close up, and most of the other games have some way of making the sniper rifle's power and stealth balanced (like quake3 with the multicolored rail, CS with FB smoke and high price of rifle).
I actually always liked campers/snipers... once they shoot you know where they are, once you get up close they are defenseless and they usually camp the same spot (or the usual "camper" spots) so regularly firing a few rockets or tossing a grenade in the typical camper spots usually gets me some free kills.
It would be kind of boring if every game only had one gun right?
There are a couple of good stat reporting add-ons for CS that you can "tweak" to do this very thing, of course it is not in-game, but it is something you could parse out after each map or round and then display on a wall with a projector.
All of the points you listed can be assigned point values that determine the players overall score in a leaderboard as well as distinctive ranks for each type of action (last man standing, most knife kills, most damage done, etc.)
Overall this (your) suggestion seems more appealing than watering down the game to the point where you have to shake hands with your opponent before firing your M4...
This is the inherent flaw in Civil disputes (i don't mean small claims court).
Until we can figure out a way to hold persons or companies responsible for their actions in civil court regardless of the size of a plaintiffs bankroll AND protect against frivolous or "harrassment" types of lawsuits, civil law will always favor those with more money, quite the opposite of the "scales of justice" the ideal of law is based on...
The whole point is FISA requires a warrant, you can get one after the wiretap is setup but you still need to get one, and it pertains to international calls only...
The president wiretapped DOMESTIC calls, with no warrants....
See the problem here? I doubt you do, i'm sure you feel that "whatever our president deems necessary is fine with me because we are at "War"".
The fact remains (after all of your statements are examined) there was no need for the president to do what he did, we already have processes in place to do what he is doing, the only difference is when it is done legally it still keeps our constitutional rights in-tact, but who needs the constitution when there is a "War" right?
As far as the legality of the NSA program:
1) The 2001 war powers resolution gives the president the right to prosecute the war. That includes monitoring international communications that are thought to be related to terrorists.
2) The FISA Court of Appeals, in 2002, held that the program was legal and outside of FISA's jurisdiction.
But it matters not anymore. The whistle has been blown. The Times is very proud of this - having told Al Qaeda and sympathizers of one of our most critical and secret ways of monitoring them."
The key word there is international, not domestic, which is what the whole uproar is about.. but who cares about facts when your war-mongering?
I'm sure AlQaeda knows it could be monitored at any time, you act like these guys are 3 years old... it's not like FISA isn't public knowledge.
The only people that game copy protection effects are those who legally buy the game, it's not hassling anyone else.
"I am saying that the media is dramatically one sided in its portrayal of the war (just as it was in Vietnam - starting with the Tet offensive). I constantly read letters from soldiers who return from Iraq and say they are startled at how much worse the situation looks in the main streaam media than it did actually in country."
Maybe those soilders are desensitized to violence and despair? When i see pictures of rioting and 10 suicide cars bombs from opposing Rivals in a "civil" dispute, I tend to think that the region is "unstable", soilders might see this as "not such a big deal" but opinions vary...
"But when we have the media doing things like revealing highly sensitive and critical secrets (NSA wiretaps, CIA overseas prison facilities), then you have a media that is dramatically injuring the war effort - that is, the effort to fight Islamofascism and protect Americans."
So now the papers reporting on the President's actions violating american rights and civil liberties is labeled as one sided?
Oh ok nvm.. I understand what you are saying, and I don't need to hear any more...
BTW, Dan Rather didn't "forge" any documents either, and the documents in question have never been proven to be authentic OR forged.. so basically your whole post was FUD.. gj!
"Those photos were real photos."
The United States has actively been deploying new satellites above the Middle East since the Fall of 1996. In January 2003 the USA replaced a 10-year-old GPS satellite station above Iraq, which was no longer working, and thus wasn't able to take photographs. Images sent from the live satellite would be in color, not black and white, as Powell shows. It is therefore unknown when the pictures Powell shows us were taken. The Poker bluff. The USA couldn't let the world know they were madly deploying new satellites above Iraq, therefore discrediting their claims Iraq held weapons.
Furthermore, the USA does monitor live images. Why didn't Powell show this? If you recall, the Bush administration claims against Iraq predates these images by one year. Powell and the Bush administration claim they had proof of Iraq weapons in January 2002, but via satellite, they fail to marry images with claims.