That doesn't solve the fact that Blizzard has committed fraud already by telling people they could sell their used copies. That only solves it for people who haven't yet bought a used copy from anyone.
The point is that that little tidbit of law is proof that the US government is not now and never was a Christian bible-based government, as the previous poster falsely implied. I wasn't saying anything about what the future might hold.
Re:I'd like to see two pointers, two focuses
on
X.Org 6.8.2 is Out
·
· Score: 1
I could have gotten something like that by just running two X servers. What I'm looking for is two input stations on the SAME windowing area.
as long as it was being copied onto the same digital medium and not onto another one.
Memory chips used for RAM are a "different digital medium". So even playing a DVD normally, would be illegal since the decoded stream at some point has to pass through RAM for the program to use it.
It's another case of "make all normal uses illegal, but promise to enforce the law selectively". Yah...right.
So, are people with only one CD drive screwed out of being allowed to burn CD's? From the sound of it, you are only allowed to do direct cd-to-cd transfers. Holding an ISO image on disk while you exchange the source CD for the target CD would be illegal.
There were rumors/stories about the Nazis exterminating Jews, but nobody entertained the notion of a war until Germany invaded Poland.
You have your timeline wrong. The mass exterminations at Auschwitz began well after the war began. All you need to see to realize that is to know your basic geography, and for the hard of thinking I'll mention this explicitly, Auschwitz is IN POLAND.
US didn't care about WWII until Japan bombed Pearl Harbor.
False. You are confusing "care about" with "be at war over". The US began donating war supplies to UK before Pearl Harbor. It never donated supplies to Germany. Also, the attack on Pearl Harbor was directly due to the US's refusal to trade crucial war supplies (especially oil) with Japan unless Japan backed out of China, and Japan's belief that the US's posturing with the pacific fleet (which is WHY it was moved out to Pearl Harbor in the first place instead of its normal home base at San Francisco) was no joke and a threat that needed to be removed. The source for this? Winston Churchil's history of WW2. Winston Chruchil - NOT some US leader, NOT some US fanatic with a reason to distort facts in the US's favor, but a well known British egotist who took many opportunities in that same series of books to brag about how much the UK is responsible for winning that war, and for taking a stand being the member of the allies that was in from the very beginning to the very end. Even HE gave credit to the US for caring about events and taking sides with the UK long before doing so officially.
You don't enact Lend-Lease with someone just to get favorable trade. Just the opposite. It's an economic drain. You do it because you agree with their cause and want to help out a bit.
I'd like to see two pointers, two focuses
on
X.Org 6.8.2 is Out
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
What with USB working the way it does, where you can chain off as many devices as you feel like, and computers being fast enough to handle all of them at once, it seems to be like it should be possible to do the following:
Three Users, user zero, one, and two, are sitting in a conference room using a giant screen projector as the monitor, attached to a laptop someone brought. There are three different keyboards and three different mice attached to the laptop as USB devices. Some might even be IR so they are being used from across the room.
User zero picks up keyboard 0 and mouse 0, uses mouse zero to click on a terminal window and focus it, then uses keyboard 0 to type into it.
Meanwhile User one sits at keyboard 1 and mouse 1 to demonstrate something on the web using a browser window.
Meanwhile User two, using keyboard 2 and mouse 2, is making a diagram in openoffice.
Essentailly, there are three different "input contexts" each one consisting of one mouse and one keyboard, and each has its own mouse pointer, and it's own keyboard focus, and the X server is interleaving thier input events together and dispatching them to the appropriate applications.
The place where I would have found such a thing useful was a roleplaying game where I had a lot of visual aids on computer, one of which was a map with little tokens players could move to represent themselves on the map (each token was a layer in Gimp) It would have been handy to have public mice for them and my private mouse for me to use on the private GM screen (the laptop's own screen).
But, it doesn't seem to be possible without writing it myself........hmmm..... I wonder how one goes about learning the X input system....
No. Dishonesty is the MOST uncivil thing someone can do. Spreading Lies is more civilly damaging than spreading happy falsehoods. If you don't agree with that, then you're wrong. It's as simple as that. And, no it's not more civil to cover that truth up with some happy sugar-coating like "in my opinion, I think you might be mistaken". No, you're just wrong - as objectively wrong as believing 2+2=3. I have offered proof for my assertions
Here in the real world where the rest of us live, no you haven't. You did provide some quotes, none of which back you up in the slightest.
Perhaps you simply consider this kind of behavior "civil". Most do not.
Civility includes honesty. When describing your behavoir, I cannot be simultaneously honest and non-insulting. I'm not spreading bullshit. I'm simply making a valid, backed statement about the motivations of people who incessantly mock us.
If you believe that, then you are an idiot instead of a lair and are beyond help.
You want a concrete suggestion? Become smarter so you make less blatantly false statements. No, I have no idea how you can do that.
The US publishes geographic data in a variety of weird formats (but they are parsable and are documented), and has done so for some time. Parhaps the reason for more US data on mapping services - it's easier to obtain the data fot it.
How do you have a committie quickly judge a video game? They are designed to be hard, and take time to play through. You can't see the whole thing in 2 hours like you can with a movie. What if, for example, there's a particular piece of really "offensive" content in Grand Theft Auto, offensive enough to bump up into the next rating category, but it doesn't occur until, say, the 30th mission into the game? How is the review board going to know about it when they make their judgement after only taken a few days, having watched only the first 20 or so missions into the game.?
Do I think a wrong is done when someone buys an ad that hijacks a competitors trademark and redirects it to a knockoff business? Yes, of course. But the guilty party is the one who bought the ad, NOT the one whom the ad was bought from (Google). What this ruling says is that it is Google's responsibility to have hordes of people manually checking on every single keyword anyone ever buys to check it for trademark overlap. Yah, that's really fucking fair.
If I take out a classified Ad in the newspaper that makes fradulent claims, then *I* am the one responsible for the fraud, not the newspaper. This should be the same way.
But, of course, that's not the way the bullshit courts in the world work. Instead people attack the richest party that was even slightly involved, because that's where the big payout is, instead of attacking the guiltiest party.
The slant in the northern schools (and I'm not saying I agree with it, in fact I don't) is that had the south not done a grab for the military forts in their borders, they might have been let go. The idea is that the "cause" of the war was not the succession, but that the north felt that most of the war materiel and real estate in the south that was being taken over was not theirs to take because it had been funded, maintained, and created as a federal effort, and so all that stuff belonged to the federal Union government as a whole.
I don't believe that, but then again I also don't believe the politically correct revisionism that slavery had nothing to do with it. Slavery was one of several topics that had something to do with it, and it was a lot more signifigant than people are giving it credit for. Reading his letters, it's clear that abolitionism was a major motivation of Lincoln in his whole life up to that point, and I have to believe that had a major influence on his decision to not just let the south go its own seperate way. He got so obsessed that he started doing some really nasty things to his own citizens up north during the war, in sort of a "ends justifies the means" mentality that doesn't fit if his only motivation was just "keep the union together" like he publicly said it was.
And, yeah, the emancipation proclamation only freed slaves in areas controlled by the union, and only in areas that were taken over from the south (not the few northern states that had slaves), but given that he's the head of the executive branch, not the legislative branch, thats all he had the authority to pull off. He could do it in military occupied territory and therefore claim that it's a military order given in his capacity as Commander-in-Chief, rather than a law that has to pass through congress first.
Did most people involved in the war think slavery was a relevant issue? No. Did the man at the top who is singlehandedly responsible for making the succession into a war think it was? Yes. Absolutely. He couldn't say it publicly, but his actions after becoming president, and his private letters penned before becoming president, support this claim.
When you say things that only an idiot would believe to be true, then the only alternative to calling you a liar is to call you an idiot. I actually WAS being civil by assuming you weren't stupid enough to believe what you claimed. I now see that I made a mistake.
I could refraing from name-calling Could you? You haven't.
That's another falsehood. I just haven't with YOU and you make the assumption then that I am this way all the time. When talking to people who, unlike you, aren't hateful assholes who spread bullshit about others in order to support a claim, I can be very civil. I doubt you'll ever see that side of me, though, since a spreader of bullshit like you doesn't deserve to be treated respectfully. You deserve nothing but scorn for attempting to damage people's reputations with falsehoods, and you will receive nothing but scorn from me for doing it.
I am standing up for the people you are slandering and you call it childish. Even though I don't agree with them, and agree with you more, on the "is the US in the wrong" stance, being someone who respects honesty, I can't condone your tactic of spreading bullshit about your oppononents' motivations. (Which you are doing again now, with me as the target instead of Canadians.)
You mistake unwillingness with incapability. I could refraing from name-calling. But that would be lying on my part. You lie. I honestly point this out.
It's just like the crap that comes from Microsoft shills who say the Linux fans dislike Windows simply because they are jealous. It's just as full of shit as you are, and for the same reason.
Yeah, I know I called you full of shit. No I'm not trolling. I'm being honest.
invading a country by boat takes a hell of a lot of build-up and effort - it's many times harder than doing it by land, because people typically don't have enough boats around to carry whole armies at once. It took years of buildup to create the armada of D-Day, and the problem wasn't numbers of troops. It was numbers of boats.
When he called it a founding document of the United States, he indirectly did. It is not a founding document of the United States - it's a founding document of the thirteen colonies fighting independantly. Until the Constitution, we really weren't a country. We were more of a confederated group of countries, akin to, say, the British Commonwealth.
This is a hotbutton issue for me, since fundamentalist nutcases like to use the "by our creator" line of the Declaration as a reason to claim that God is the foundation of everything in this country - a statement that is very disrespectful to the founding fathers who explicitly defined that they wanted a secular country in which, while religion may be important in people's private lives, it has no place in the government.
large red letters "NOT TO BE USED FOR ID PURPOSES".
Well, if that's the case then I agree with you. All your first post said was that the license looked different in some way - which is perfectly reasonable since it is a different sort of license. I was thinking something like "has a different color background" or "says 'temp' on it" or something like that. In fact, I'd been thinking the only reason you had been issued one was that everyone expects it for the purposes of ID.
Slashdot Mirror
If you wrote it down, you WOULD be bound to it. The EULA is written down.
That doesn't solve the fact that Blizzard has committed fraud already by telling people they could sell their used copies. That only solves it for people who haven't yet bought a used copy from anyone.
The point is that that little tidbit of law is proof that the US government is not now and never was a Christian bible-based government, as the previous poster falsely implied. I wasn't saying anything about what the future might hold.
I could have gotten something like that by just running two X servers. What I'm looking for is two input stations on the SAME windowing area.
as long as it was being copied onto the same digital medium and not onto another one.
Memory chips used for RAM are a "different digital medium".
So even playing a DVD normally, would be illegal since the decoded stream at some point has to pass through RAM for the program to use it.
It's another case of "make all normal uses illegal, but promise to enforce the law selectively". Yah...right.
So, are people with only one CD drive screwed out of being allowed to burn CD's? From the sound of it, you are only allowed to do direct cd-to-cd transfers. Holding an ISO image on disk while you exchange the source CD for the target CD would be illegal.
Biblical law would not include in article VI of the constitution that no religious test is allowed for holding public office.
Lend-lease, despite its name, was never paid back. It was never expected to be either. It was a way for FDR to sell the idea to isolationists.
The dismantling of the British Empire came from movements INSIDE the British Empire.
There were rumors/stories about the Nazis exterminating Jews, but nobody entertained the notion of a war until Germany invaded Poland.
You have your timeline wrong. The mass exterminations at Auschwitz began well after the war began. All you need to see to realize that is to know your basic geography, and for the hard of thinking I'll mention this explicitly, Auschwitz is IN POLAND.
US didn't care about WWII until Japan bombed Pearl Harbor.
False. You are confusing "care about" with "be at war over". The US began donating war supplies to UK before Pearl Harbor. It never donated supplies to Germany. Also, the attack on Pearl Harbor was directly due to the US's refusal to trade crucial war supplies (especially oil) with Japan unless Japan backed out of China, and Japan's belief that the US's posturing with the pacific fleet (which is WHY it was moved out to Pearl Harbor in the first place instead of its normal home base at San Francisco) was no joke and a threat that needed to be removed. The source for this? Winston Churchil's history of WW2. Winston Chruchil - NOT some US leader, NOT some US fanatic with a reason to distort facts in the US's favor, but a well known British egotist who took many opportunities in that same series of books to brag about how much the UK is responsible for winning that war, and for taking a stand being the member of the allies that was in from the very beginning to the very end. Even HE gave credit to the US for caring about events and taking sides with the UK long before doing so officially.
You don't enact Lend-Lease with someone just to get favorable trade. Just the opposite. It's an economic drain. You do it because you agree with their cause and want to help out a bit.
What with USB working the way it does, where you can chain off as many devices as you feel like, and computers being fast enough to handle all of them at once, it seems to be like it should be possible to do the following:
....hmmm..... I wonder how one goes about learning the X input system....
Three Users, user zero, one, and two, are sitting in a conference room using a giant screen projector as the monitor, attached to a laptop someone brought. There are three different keyboards and three different mice attached to the laptop as USB devices. Some might even be IR so they are being used from across the room.
User zero picks up keyboard 0 and mouse 0, uses mouse zero to click on a terminal window and focus it, then uses keyboard 0 to type into it.
Meanwhile User one sits at keyboard 1 and mouse 1 to demonstrate something on the web using a browser window.
Meanwhile User two, using keyboard 2 and mouse 2, is making a diagram in openoffice.
Essentailly, there are three different "input contexts" each one consisting of one mouse and one keyboard, and each has its own mouse pointer, and it's own keyboard focus, and the X server is interleaving thier input events together and dispatching them to the appropriate applications.
The place where I would have found such a thing useful was a roleplaying game where I had a lot of visual aids on computer, one of which was a map with little tokens players could move to represent themselves on the map (each token was a layer in Gimp) It would have been handy to have public mice for them and my private mouse for me to use on the private GM screen (the laptop's own screen).
But, it doesn't seem to be possible without writing it myself....
civility does not necessarily include honesty
No. Dishonesty is the MOST uncivil thing someone can do. Spreading Lies is more civilly damaging than spreading happy falsehoods. If you don't agree with that, then you're wrong. It's as simple as that. And, no it's not more civil to cover that truth up with some happy sugar-coating like "in my opinion, I think you might be mistaken". No, you're just wrong - as objectively wrong as believing 2+2=3.
I have offered proof for my assertions
Here in the real world where the rest of us live, no you haven't. You did provide some quotes, none of which back you up in the slightest.
Perhaps you simply consider this kind of behavior "civil". Most do not.
Civility includes honesty. When describing your behavoir, I cannot be simultaneously honest and non-insulting.
I'm not spreading bullshit. I'm simply making a valid, backed statement about the motivations of people who incessantly mock us.
If you believe that, then you are an idiot instead of a lair and are beyond help.
You want a concrete suggestion? Become smarter so you make less blatantly false statements. No, I have no idea how you can do that.
The US publishes geographic data in a variety of weird formats (but they are parsable and are documented), and has done so for some time. Parhaps the reason for more US data on mapping services - it's easier to obtain the data fot it.
How do you have a committie quickly judge a video game? They are designed to be hard, and take time to play through. You can't see the whole thing in 2 hours like you can with a movie. What if, for example, there's a particular piece of really "offensive" content in Grand Theft Auto, offensive enough to bump up into the next rating category, but it doesn't occur until, say, the 30th mission into the game? How is the review board going to know about it when they make their judgement after only taken a few days, having watched only the first 20 or so missions into the game.?
This sounds like a futile endevour.
Do I think a wrong is done when someone buys an ad that hijacks a competitors trademark and redirects it to a knockoff business? Yes, of course. But the guilty party is the one who bought the ad, NOT the one whom the ad was bought from (Google). What this ruling says is that it is Google's responsibility to have hordes of people manually checking on every single keyword anyone ever buys to check it for trademark overlap. Yah, that's really fucking fair.
If I take out a classified Ad in the newspaper that makes fradulent claims, then *I* am the one responsible for the fraud, not the newspaper. This should be the same way.
But, of course, that's not the way the bullshit courts in the world work. Instead people attack the richest party that was even slightly involved, because that's where the big payout is, instead of attacking the guiltiest party.
The slant in the northern schools (and I'm not saying I agree with it, in fact I don't) is that had the south not done a grab for the military forts in their borders, they might have been let go. The idea is that the "cause" of the war was not the succession, but that the north felt that most of the war materiel and real estate in the south that was being taken over was not theirs to take because it had been funded, maintained, and created as a federal effort, and so all that stuff belonged to the federal Union government as a whole.
I don't believe that, but then again I also don't believe the politically correct revisionism that slavery had nothing to do with it. Slavery was one of several topics that had something to do with it, and it was a lot more signifigant than people are giving it credit for. Reading his letters, it's clear that abolitionism was a major motivation of Lincoln in his whole life up to that point, and I have to believe that had a major influence on his decision to not just let the south go its own seperate way. He got so obsessed that he started doing some really nasty things to his own citizens up north during the war, in sort of a "ends justifies the means" mentality that doesn't fit if his only motivation was just "keep the union together" like he publicly said it was.
And, yeah, the emancipation proclamation only freed slaves in areas controlled by the union, and only in areas that were taken over from the south (not the few northern states that had slaves), but given that he's the head of the executive branch, not the legislative branch, thats all he had the authority to pull off. He could do it in military occupied territory and therefore claim that it's a military order given in his capacity as Commander-in-Chief, rather than a law that has to pass through congress first.
Did most people involved in the war think slavery was a relevant issue? No. Did the man at the top who is singlehandedly responsible for making the succession into a war think it was? Yes. Absolutely. He couldn't say it publicly, but his actions after becoming president, and his private letters penned before becoming president, support this claim.
I was talking about the Jamacian term, not the Indian one.
When you say things that only an idiot would believe to be true, then the only alternative to calling you a liar is to call you an idiot. I actually WAS being civil by assuming you weren't stupid enough to believe what you claimed. I now see that I made a mistake.
I could refraing from name-calling
Could you? You haven't.
That's another falsehood. I just haven't with YOU and you make the assumption then that I am this way all the time. When talking to people who, unlike you, aren't hateful assholes who spread bullshit about others in order to support a claim, I can be very civil. I doubt you'll ever see that side of me, though, since a spreader of bullshit like you doesn't deserve to be treated respectfully. You deserve nothing but scorn for attempting to damage people's reputations with falsehoods, and you will receive nothing but scorn from me for doing it.
I am standing up for the people you are slandering and you call it childish. Even though I don't agree with them, and agree with you more, on the "is the US in the wrong" stance, being someone who respects honesty, I can't condone your tactic of spreading bullshit about your oppononents' motivations. (Which you are doing again now, with me as the target instead of Canadians.)
You mistake unwillingness with incapability. I could refraing from name-calling. But that would be lying on my part. You lie. I honestly point this out.
Pardon me if I don't believe your lies.
It's just like the crap that comes from Microsoft shills who say the Linux fans dislike Windows simply because they are jealous. It's just as full of shit as you are, and for the same reason.
Yeah, I know I called you full of shit. No I'm not trolling. I'm being honest.
Executive (drafted the bill): motivation = power grab.
Legistlative (ratified it): motivation = paranoia and stupidity.
Both are responsible and I never said otherwise like you are implying.
invading a country by boat takes a hell of a lot of build-up and effort - it's many times harder than doing it by land, because people typically don't have enough boats around to carry whole armies at once. It took years of buildup to create the armada of D-Day, and the problem wasn't numbers of troops. It was numbers of boats.
He didn't say it had any legal meaning.
When he called it a founding document of the United States, he indirectly did. It is not a founding document of the United States - it's a founding document of the thirteen colonies fighting independantly. Until the Constitution, we really weren't a country. We were more of a confederated group of countries, akin to, say, the British Commonwealth.
This is a hotbutton issue for me, since fundamentalist nutcases like to use the "by our creator" line of the Declaration as a reason to claim that God is the foundation of everything in this country - a statement that is very disrespectful to the founding fathers who explicitly defined that they wanted a secular country in which, while religion may be important in people's private lives, it has no place in the government.
large red letters "NOT TO BE USED FOR ID PURPOSES".
Well, if that's the case then I agree with you. All your first post said was that the license looked different in some way - which is perfectly reasonable since it is a different sort of license. I was thinking something like "has a different color background" or "says 'temp' on it" or something like that. In fact, I'd been thinking the only reason you had been issued one was that everyone expects it for the purposes of ID.
I did not lie.
These were your exact words:
Nothing about him makes his opinion special or important, except to fanboys.
And if you're about to post a snide rebuttal, then YOU are one of those fanboys
This is exactly what I accused you of. This is the "if you deny it it must be true" argument.