A computer will be consistent IF it's counting the same list of numbers. What of the situation where it's discovered that a polling station didn't get it's records sent to the central server correctly and thus wasn't counted the first time - or something like that?
I'm in favor of killing all exit polls, myself. Why should people who vote later in the day get to have more information about how the election is going so far? A person voting in the morning should have just as much access (or lack thereof) to information about how other people have voted as the person who votes late in the day. It shouldn't be possible to let something like that influence votes. (Especially when there's no punishment for a news agency that lies about it, as happened in the previous election when the major networks were giving the illusion that they knew who was winning the election, even though their statisticians kept telling them the results were inside the margin of error and shouldn't be trusted - hence the many flip-flops announcing the "winner".)
Because this is America, where money is more important than democracy. If a mistake can cause people to lost track of money, that's a big deal. If a mistake can cause people to lose track of votes, no biggie, right? Get your priorities straight.
Your double standard is noted. It's okay for people to make a repetative statement, but when countering it I have to pick just one such statement and reply to it only and then leave the rest unopposed.
My repetition was because the point I was responding to was already repeated all over the place before I got to it.
I don't understand how this is analogous to what has transpired here. Your statement was neither "all x are y" nor "some X are Y', but merely "X's are Y's", without a qualifier mentioned. When you leave off the qualifier, "all" is implied.
No, I'm not. The statement given was that you don't like it when people give predictable responses. That statement IS an attack against rationality. It might not be what you MEANT to say, but it's what you ended up saying.
Yeah... I don't have "complete" control over the hardware/software with the Xbox, but in the case of Xbox Live, this is a "Good Thing(tm)"
To you, maybe. To me, no. The price paid is too great. I'd rather not have online gaming available at all than have it be the excuse to remove functionality from my (note, MY) machine I bought.
Are you seriously implying that PS2 everquest is on par with PC everquest? Everquest is mostly a glorified chat program with some munchkin gaming thrown in on top. Chat programs would suck without a keyboard.
If you're use of PC's is that limited, then I'd understand why you don't think they're worth it. But some people here are actual computer geeks and know there are a few more uses than that.
Large difference number 1 - I can't program on my console. It ONLY runs programs other people have made.
Large difference number 2 - Those removable memory cards can't store large savegames, so console programs have to be designed not to save much information, and it shows.
Large difference number 3 - PC's have more memory, and thus can have more complex games with complex data structures.
Large difference number 4 - Keyboard/mouse is a better interface for hitting multiple buttons in conjunction than controller pads are. For example, when platying Thief, I'd often hit Shift/W while rolling the mouse left and holding down the left mouse button to draw an arrow. On a console pad, that kind of action sucks because you need some of your fingers to actually HOLD the controller - they aren't free to hit the pads.
Large difference number 5 - console pads are designed to be used left-handed for some oddball reason, which pisses me off since most console games are dexterity-based rather than intellect-based (such that forcing me to use my left thumb on the movement stick rather than my right makes a very signifigant difference). Keyboard games are configurable to be used either way.
Large difference number 6 - A mouse is a more precise device than the analog stick of a console pad.
Large difference number 7 - A console is more portable, for lan parties (I had to throw in some advantage on the console side.)
Large difference number 8 - In cases where a game exists for the console and not the PC, I usually am not that impressed with it so I don't care (with Vice City being a rare exception - in fact Vice City is what caused me to finally purchase a PS/2). In cases where a game exists for the PC but not consoles, I usually am impressed with the game. In cases where it exists for both, the PC version is usually more intricate.
In this debate you must remain honest and define what it is you are arguing about - is it the capabilities of the platform or the MARKET surrounding the platform? They aren't the same thing. The console MARKET is richer, but the PC capabilities are greater. Take Deus Ex for example. The PC version blows away the Playstation version, because of the advantages the PC has over a console. Numbers of games? The console wins. Complexity of the engine within the games that do exist? The PC wins.
(local storage, patches, large centralized gaming network, etc - basically everything that makes online PC gaming so good).
Those are features that make PC online gaming so BAD. They are the reason they have to lock down your box (since some of the checking is done locally, if you could change the local client, you could cheat at the game.) The local patches end up meaning you cannot choose to be in control of your own software you bought - don't patch and you can't play the game at all (since it requires the network the be useful, and the network is going to insist that you patch.) And, the centralized network means the company has you by the balls and you have to keep subscribing to ONE company's service to use the software you already bought into. There is no competition once you pick a game, so there is no market incentive for them to be fair and honest with their pricing or terms of service policies.
Oh, and furthermore, I just had a look at my recent posts list (like I usually do to see if anyone responded), and nobody responded to my points with the public library example (except for yours where you claimed they did.) All posts involving the public library example were NOT responses to my posts, but seperate posts not chained off of mine, so of course I won't see them unless I feel like re-reading the whole thread.
Nope. If you say "two plus two" and I say "you said 'four'", then I'm not strawmanning you. It's not my fault you don't see that my summary of what you said IS logically identical to what you said. It's not my fault you put forth such an absurd position that you won't trust people who provide predictable responses.
Against an army? No, they can't, because they are normal human beings. For popular uprising to work, it requires a LOT of the citizens participating, not just an enclave of a few of them. When only a few use thier weapons to resist, their use of weapons just becomes an excuse for the government to bring in bigger forces and wipe them out. The eradication of the Jews would still have happened if they used armed resistance, but it would have looked more like the Waco incident rather than what did happen.
Did you read any of the responses patiently explaining that the use of Symantec product in a public library is a civil liberties issue, your 47 denials notwithstanding.
1. My messages were posted back-to-back within a span of a few minutes. Your implication that I posted once, waited, then posted again, waited, then posted again, such that I had time to see any replies first, is false.
2. The responses about using it in a public library are not relevant unless someone provides an example of THIS SPECIFIC PRODUCT being thus used, not just "in theory it might be used to fufill the rule that filters have to be installed in libraries, as opposed to some other product." If and when it does get so used, THEN there is a case (and it's a case against the government using the filter, not against Symantec making it.)
3. I already did mention the library situation, as a THEORETICAL place where it could become a civil liberties issue in other posts. Maybe next time YOU should read MY posts before spouting your mouth off.
Yes, I read the thread. The thread is NOT, as you characterize it "Let's talk about something totally off-topic about the ACLU and the second amendment." The thread was "Let's explain why the ACLU won't get invloved in this." The theory that it's because they don't defend the second amendment is irrelevant IN THAT CONTEXT since there's an even bigger reason, that the bill of rights doesn't even have jursidiction over the actions of a private company.
Consider: Why is it easier to own a gun than get a driver's license? Because driving a car isn't mentioned as a right in the constitution. Because they didn't exist yet. It's really that simple.
I have no problem with lots of people owning guns. I have a BIG problem with lots of STUPID people owning guns who clearly don't know what they're doing, just like I'd have a problem if the guy behind me in traffic was driving without any sort of skill at it at all.
(And one of the stupidest arguments ever used by the pro-let-every-idiot-carry-a-gun side is the one you used. That lots of other things that kill people (like cars) are acceptable, so why not guns? Well, Einstien, it's because those other things exist for a primary purpose for which their ability to kill is purely incedental. A car exists to be a vehicle. The fact that it is deadly is a side-effect of the fact that it needs to travel at high speed to achive it's primary function. A handgun's PRIMARY reason to exist is to be a weapon that can kill a person. It's not purely a secondary side effect that it can kill. That's what it's MADE to be able to do. People talk about using it as a 'deterrent' as if that was somehow independant of it's ability to kill. To that argument I say, *bullshit*. It's a deterrent only because people know it was made to kill. If you used it as a deterrent on an ignorant hermit who'd never seen a gun before and didn't know what it can do, it wouldn't work as a deterrent. It's deterring ability is secondary.
Idiot. Symantec is not the government. What it censors, right or wrong, is NOT a CIVIL liberties issue. That's the reason the ACLU will never get involved in this.
Please point out what in my original post is "mindless ACLU bashing".
You said the failure of the ACLU to take on this is because it is biased for gun control. That's bullshit bashing since there's a better reason for the ACLU not to take the case - it's NOT the government that's doing it so it doesn't matter if it's unconstitutional or not.
Slashdot Mirror
A computer will be consistent IF it's counting the same list of numbers. What of the situation where it's discovered that a polling station didn't get it's records sent to the central server correctly and thus wasn't counted the first time - or something like that?
I'm in favor of killing all exit polls, myself. Why should people who vote later in the day get to have more information about how the election is going so far? A person voting in the morning should have just as much access (or lack thereof) to information about how other people have voted as the person who votes late in the day. It shouldn't be possible to
let something like that influence votes. (Especially when there's no punishment for a news agency that lies about it, as happened in the previous election when the major networks were giving the illusion that they knew who was winning the election, even though their statisticians kept telling them the results were inside the margin of error and shouldn't be trusted - hence the many flip-flops announcing the "winner".)
Because this is America, where money is more important than democracy. If a mistake can cause people to lost track of money, that's a big deal. If a mistake can cause people to lose track of votes, no biggie, right? Get your priorities straight.
Do you have a USB keyboard?
No. So how many PS2 games actually let you USE the keyboard, versus being made to only understand the controller pad?
same damn point over and bloody over.
Your double standard is noted. It's okay for people to make a repetative statement, but when countering it I have to pick just one such statement and reply to it only and then leave the rest unopposed.
My repetition was because the point I was responding to was already repeated all over the place before I got to it.
So you weren't responding to the actual topic, and got pissed when I gave you the benefit of the doubt by assuming you were. Understood.
I don't understand how this is analogous to what has transpired here. Your statement was neither "all x are y" nor "some X are Y', but merely "X's are Y's", without a qualifier mentioned. When you leave off the qualifier, "all" is implied.
No, I'm not. The statement given was that you don't like it when people give predictable responses. That statement IS an attack against rationality. It might not be what you MEANT to say, but it's what you ended up saying.
Yeah... I don't have "complete" control over the hardware/software with the Xbox, but in the case of Xbox Live, this is a "Good Thing(tm)"
To you, maybe. To me, no. The price paid is too great. I'd rather not have online gaming available at all than have it be the excuse to remove functionality from my (note, MY) machine I bought.
You know what I was referring to, liar. PC games are more intellectually challenging TO PLAY.
How about Everquest?
Are you seriously implying that PS2 everquest is on par with PC everquest? Everquest is mostly a glorified chat program with some munchkin gaming thrown in on top. Chat programs would suck without a keyboard.
What are PCs for? Games and porn.
If you're use of PC's is that limited, then I'd understand why you don't think they're worth it. But some people here are actual computer geeks and know there are a few more uses than that.
More precisely, I generally dont care for FPS titles, and am more interested in a fun game than hi-res eye candy.
And so you prefer consoles, WHY? Console games are all about the eye candy being the most important thing.
Large difference number 1 - I can't program on my console. It ONLY runs programs other people have made.
Large difference number 2 - Those removable memory cards can't store large savegames, so console programs have to be designed not to save much information, and it shows.
Large difference number 3 - PC's have more memory, and thus can have more complex games with complex data structures.
Large difference number 4 - Keyboard/mouse is a better interface for hitting multiple buttons in conjunction than controller pads are. For example, when platying Thief, I'd often hit Shift/W while rolling the mouse left and holding down the left mouse button to draw an arrow. On a console pad, that kind of action sucks because you need some of your fingers to actually HOLD the controller - they aren't free to hit the pads.
Large difference number 5 - console pads are designed to be used left-handed for some oddball reason, which pisses me off since most console games are dexterity-based rather than intellect-based (such that forcing me to use my left thumb on the movement stick rather than my right makes a very signifigant difference). Keyboard games are configurable to be used either way.
Large difference number 6 - A mouse is a more precise device than the analog stick of a console pad.
Large difference number 7 - A console is more portable, for lan parties (I had to throw in some advantage on the console side.)
Large difference number 8 - In cases where a game exists for the console and not the PC, I usually am not that impressed with it so I don't care (with Vice City being a rare exception - in fact Vice City is what caused me to finally purchase a PS/2). In cases where a game exists for the PC but not consoles, I usually am impressed with the game. In cases where it exists for both, the PC version is usually more intricate.
I'd rather have a game that's barely working, but intellectually challenging, then yet another brain-dead button mash fest.
In this debate you must remain honest and define what it is you are arguing about - is it the capabilities of the platform or the MARKET surrounding the platform? They aren't the same thing. The console MARKET is richer, but the PC capabilities are greater. Take Deus Ex for example. The PC version blows away the Playstation version, because of the advantages the PC has over a console. Numbers of games? The console wins. Complexity of the engine within the games that do exist? The PC wins.
(local storage, patches, large centralized gaming network, etc - basically everything that makes online PC gaming so good).
Those are features that make PC online gaming so BAD. They are the reason they have to lock down your box (since some of the checking is done locally, if you could change the local client, you could cheat at the game.) The local patches end up meaning you cannot choose to be in control of your own software you bought - don't patch and you can't play the game at all (since it requires the network the be useful, and the network is going to insist that you patch.) And, the centralized network means the company has you by the balls and you have to keep subscribing to ONE company's service to use the software you already bought into. There is no competition once you pick a game, so there is no market incentive for them to be fair and honest with their pricing or terms of service policies.
Oh, and furthermore, I just had a look at my recent posts list (like I usually do to see if anyone responded), and nobody responded to my points with the public library example (except for yours where you claimed they did.) All posts involving the public library example were NOT responses to my posts, but seperate posts not chained off of mine, so of course I won't see them unless I feel like re-reading the whole thread.
Nope. If you say "two plus two" and I say "you said 'four'", then I'm not strawmanning you. It's not my fault you don't see that my summary of what you said IS logically identical to what you said. It's not my fault you put forth such an absurd position that you won't trust people who provide predictable responses.
Against an army? No, they can't, because they are normal human beings. For popular uprising to work, it requires a LOT of the citizens participating, not just an enclave of a few of them. When only a few use thier weapons to resist, their use of weapons just becomes an excuse for the government to bring in bigger forces and wipe them out. The eradication of the Jews would still have happened if they used armed resistance, but it would have looked more like the Waco incident rather than what did happen.
Did you read any of the responses patiently explaining that the use of Symantec product in a public library is a civil liberties issue, your 47 denials notwithstanding.
1. My messages were posted back-to-back within a span of a few minutes. Your implication that I posted once, waited, then posted again, waited, then posted again, such that I had time to see any replies first, is false.
2. The responses about using it in a public library are not relevant unless someone provides an example of THIS SPECIFIC PRODUCT being thus used, not just "in theory it might be used to fufill the rule that filters have to be installed in libraries, as opposed to some other product." If and when it does get so used, THEN there is a case (and it's a case against the government using the filter, not against Symantec making it.)
3. I already did mention the library situation, as a THEORETICAL place where it could become a civil liberties issue in other posts. Maybe next time YOU should read MY posts before spouting your mouth off.
Yes, I read the thread. The thread is NOT, as you characterize it "Let's talk about something totally off-topic about the ACLU and the second amendment." The thread was "Let's explain why the ACLU won't get invloved in this." The theory that it's because they don't defend the second amendment is irrelevant IN THAT CONTEXT since there's an even bigger reason, that the bill of rights doesn't even have jursidiction over the actions of a private company.
Consider: Why is it easier to own a gun than get a driver's license? Because driving a car isn't mentioned as a right in the constitution. Because they didn't exist yet. It's really that simple.
I have no problem with lots of people owning guns. I have a BIG problem with lots of STUPID people owning guns who clearly don't know what they're doing, just like I'd have a problem if the guy behind me in traffic was driving without any sort of skill at it at all.
(And one of the stupidest arguments ever used by the pro-let-every-idiot-carry-a-gun side is the one you used. That lots of other things that kill people (like cars) are acceptable, so why not guns? Well, Einstien, it's because those other things exist for a primary purpose for which their ability to kill is purely incedental. A car exists to be a vehicle. The fact that it is deadly is a side-effect of the fact that it needs to travel at high speed to achive it's primary function. A handgun's PRIMARY reason to exist is to be a weapon that can kill a person. It's not purely a secondary side effect that it can kill. That's what it's MADE to be able to do. People talk about using it as a 'deterrent' as if that was somehow independant of it's ability to kill. To that argument I say, *bullshit*. It's a deterrent only because people know it was made to kill. If you used it as a deterrent on an ignorant hermit who'd never seen a gun before and didn't know what it can do, it wouldn't work as a deterrent. It's deterring ability is secondary.
Idiot. Symantec is not the government. What it censors, right or wrong, is NOT a CIVIL liberties issue. That's the reason the ACLU will never get involved in this.
Please point out what in my original post is "mindless ACLU bashing".
You said the failure of the ACLU to take on this is because it is biased for gun control. That's bullshit bashing since there's a better reason for the ACLU not to take the case - it's NOT the government that's doing it so it doesn't matter if it's unconstitutional or not.