Perhaps it's a bit like the smoking ban in this country - most people don't want to breathe the smoke of others, the majority are happy about the ban, but there's a loud collection of unhappy smokers (obviously).
Despite being against smoking, I do have some sympathy for smokers subjected to high excise duties, import restrictions and especially public smoking bans. Don't get me wrong. I find smoking in a place where people are eating or drinking to be very irritating and offputting. We have to acknowledge, despite smoking industry propaganda, the very real effects on health caused by first and second hand smoke.
On the other hand, there are still a lot of smokers out there. And despite all the evidence, I don't see any good reason why they should not be allowed to smoke if they so choose. It's not my or anyone elses right to tell them what they can and cannot do. Similarly, if pubs and bars wanted to cater to smokers, I think they should have been allowed to. The smoking license could be made substantially high to discourage licening, but I still think there should be a choice.
On the matter of charging smokers, smoking companies, and establishments or the privilage to buy, sell or host smoking. I think it's fine to put hefty excises on this industry and this habit. It's fine because smokers end up costing our health and social system billions in later life, as the effects of their habit finally kick in. They should pay up front for these costs before they happens.
Seriously, what's the obsession with rediculous names for laws? PATRIOT, PRO-IP, CAN SPAM to name a few.
It's because satire is a dead art in America. Only the Onion has any idea how to lampoon the absurdity in American politics, and slowly but surely, the real world is getting ever closer to the Onion's fantastic spoofs. Basically, you have no real media, no actual fourth estate, that is capable of holding your government up to independent scrutiny.
There is the slight question of where and how you store your hydrogen and oxygen in the meantime so, especially for small scale "localized" applications.
You pump water uphill during the day. Then at night, you let it fall downhill and generate electricity from that. We don't need fancy chemical tricks or storage mechanisms to make sporadic energy sources produce constant outputs.
This wouldn't be too bad if potential employers and romantic interests weren't so damn nosey -- imagine kicking ass in a job interview for a good position only to discover that you were turned down because your psychotic, jealous ex with a lot of time on their hands gamed Google(or created a fake MySpace page) and made you out to be a drunk, zoophile, or worse!
I would be delighted to hear of such an occurrence, as I would be saved the bother of working for people who put more stock in rumors, gossip and innuendo than they do in my professional credentials.
That's because ultimately most users had no need for these features and/or found them confusing. In the context of web forums at least. If I remember correctly, fedoraforum.org implemented a new threading system and it ended up just being confusing. Linear discussions are much easier to read and follow, particularly as the thread becomes larger.
As for filters and kill files, I don't think having one half of the people in a discussion ignoring the others is such a good idea. Moderators and temp bans are a proven method for keeping forum discussions across the world civil, productive and on topic.
Usenet's greatest feature is its decentralized nature. I don't think that most people, or even most geeks truly appreciate the genius of Usenet's structure, however unintended that may have been. It took only a sever and a half decent connection to join the Usenet server pool, and it still takes nothing more than dial up and a reader to access a worldwide forum for discussion and debate.
Usenet answered to no government, no corporation, no publishers. In my opinion it is the greatest public forum that has ever existed. If it dies, something important in western society will die with it.
Their actions are like someone jumping up and down saying "Don't look at me, don;t look at me".
Yes but if they succeed then Google will remove the offending images and we will only be able to see their house as it appears from the public street, which is the way things should be.
If Google had their van drive all the way up my drive, take pictures of my house and garden from it, and then post those pictures on a billion user api based internet map interface, I'd be pretty pissed off too.
Maybe a lot of Slashdotters are from suburbia, and don't fully understand what some rural houses are like. Some people build their house at some remove from the highway, with a _long_ drive connecting it to the public road. 50m+. They do this, ironically in this case, because they want some privacy and.or piece and quiet. This drive is theirs, and they have to pay themselves for keeping it graveled or tarmaced, at considerable cost. The difference in road surface is consequently immediately obvious. You know it's not a public highway.
Typically it won't have a gate where it meets the road, unless farmers are driving cattle down the road regularly. Some people would consider such a gate unwelcoming.(Yes, a desire for privacy does not rule out being amiable). But it is private property. I've seen this type of drive lined for tens of meters with magnificent arrays of trees or quite stunning blooms. Some can be slightly overgrown, with bushes bulging out at both sides. Since the public roads have their bushes trimmed, that's another distinguishing sign.
These are the rules where I come from. I'm sure various regions have their own. In short, anyone from a rural area knows when a road is someone's driveway, and when it is a public road. However, I'd suspect that to the young, single 00's suburbanites driving the google vans, one dirt track in the wilderness looks much the same as another. But that isn't really an excuse not to take down the photographs.
I thought the brits had a reasonable understanding of how the courts in the US work. This moron committed a quite serious crime;
Outside of US jurisdiction. McKinnon accessed the US servers from the UK, from his home in London in fact. I remind everyone that though he was arrested in the UK, to date, no charges have ever been brought against him by the UK government. His own county does not consider his actions criminal, yet he is being extradited to the US for actions committed outside of its borders.
But you're right. This is exactly how US courts work. Underhandedly and extrajudicially. It is no accident that the US set up the camp in Guantanamo, as historically the rule of law does not have a strong foundation in America. Segregation, McCarthyism, Wiretaps, etc. The United States is not known for its strict adherence to enlightenment principles.
America emerged as a result of colonists griping about paying taxes. To their credit, the Founding Fathers did try to legitimize the whole affair by implementing a progressive democratic constitution. And to be fair, this document was hugely influential. But ultimately, America as a country was born from and lives by the Almighty Buck. Your country does have a liberal democratic streak, but the basic principles of western society are not as strong in America as they are in Europe, where events from the French Revolution to World War 2 have really solidified respect for things like the rule of law.
In short, McKinnon's extradition was a bad idea. He is being sent to a country with a poor record of judicial fairness, and for something that was not illegal in his native land. It is a sharp litmus test of the UK's current relationship with the US, which has made clear that the UK is now little more than a vassal state in a larger Anglosphere.
McKinnon had the misfortune of being born and raised in an English speaking country. If he was French, or German, or just about any other western european nationality, this would never have gotten this far. If he takes it to the european court, which probably will refuse to hear the case, I cannot see them allowing his extradition. For reasons mentioned above, these countries do tend to hold truer to more basic principles.
Politicians are powerful, but nowhere near that wealthy. The CEO of even a modestly sized company earns more than a US Senator.
The likelihood is that Tubes was simply far too blatant with his shady deals. So blatant that even the masses began to notice. Once that happened, he became a liability to the people that were once willing to use him and he had to be gotten rid of.
The smart politician is corrupt, but always discrete about it.
One hour. Seriously, that is how long it took me to complete Portal the very first (and only) time I played it.
Wow. That is fast. Really fast in fact, especially considering that the best time on the Speed Demo's archive is 24 minutes 37 seconds. And those guys are fast. Really, really fast. Typically they will play at five to ten times the speed of any "normal" run. Sometimes faster.
First time run through of Portal is going to take about three hours at a minimum, and that is being very, very generous. You have to factor in time to figure out the controls, figure out the puzzles, and reloads due to inevitable deaths. I will admit that the game feels short, but it is not actually something that can be torn through in one hour by anyone not specifically aiming for speed in the run.
In short you are a liar, you are ugly and your smell offends me. Good Day to you Sir!
Dealing with unjust laws is what the courts are for.
The courts are the last line of defense against injustice. People have to stand up for their own rights first, and not expect others to do it for them.
Don't even joke about "no snitching". It's a serious problem because people do not come forward to report crimes or give information.
It depends on the crime. You should only come forward if you personally believe that the law being broken is a just one. Otherwise you are not contributing to justice, merely to order. And yes, your personal opinion is important, no matter how much of a jackass you happen to be.
And billions would die. Because we'd lose medical equipment, refrigeration (think storing vaccines) the ability to transport and store food, pure water, clean sanitation....... the list goes on.
Having lived in a rural area prone to blackouts, sometimes for days at a time, I can assure you that the situation will not be as dire as that.
Dry foods, beans, and a fire for making toast can keep you well fed. You'll find you can eat surprisingly well without a stove. An attic water tank, and slight prudence when it comes to flushing and bathing, will deal with water and hygiene requirements. Supplies of candles or flashlights will deal with light, but overall you'll end up going to bed early. As for entertainment, since books are in fact, delicious, this is not an issue. You can also try the company of friends and family, which can work surprisingly well. There's also radio, which you should be listening to regularly anyway.
Note that this is all possible without any emergency/camping/apocalypse supplies or preparation. Just with regular household items. I would say that with modest preparation, it would be simplicity itself to go for a week without electricity. With more planning, research and supplies, and at an acceptable cost, I think month or even two month stint is well within reach of the average household. After that, society should be well into finding alternatives, or in chaos.
Fallacy of the Irrelevant Conclusion. Neither boys nor girls can ever become pregnant at age 10, but they can have mathematical ability which can be measured. Since these measurements are central to this debate, your analogy is inappropriate and misleading.
Further pregnancy, as a characteristic of the of the sexes, can in fact be said to define what "boy" and "girl" actually stand for, making your statement a tautology.
If you're trying to form a logical argument, they can make something that sounds cool and is easier to register, and people will accept it.
This is in no way restricted to the internet. It's called Rhetoric, and some people are very, very good at it.
A well practiced Rhetorician can hold firm to their position and outright win any debate no matter what that position is. It's a spectacle as breathtaking as it is devastating. You cannot win, not with your training and experience, i.e. which is probably next to none.
The first mistake is to be calm and reasonable. You have lost at this point. They will berate, accuse and generally inflame the entire discussion until you lose your composure in some small way, at which point they will accuse you of flying off the handle or being unreasonable/oppressive.
The second mistake is expecting them to be logical about things. It's not about logic. It's about sounding like you're in the right. They will spout utter flasehoods and stand firmly by them as long as there is a morsel of plausibility or deniablity. Simultaneously they will select minor problems with your opinion and declare them to be gaping holes or fundamental errors. You're wasting your time trying to point out their lies/errors, as they will easily counterpoint with another one or else move onto a completely new fantasy. All of this puts you on the back foot.
The third mistake and worst mistake is thinking that the purpose of your debate is for one to persuade or win over the other. Never going to happen. You're not going to listen to this polemicist, and they most certainly have no interest in winning over you. The purpose of the debate is to win over the crowd/audience. To win over the undecided, unsure and uneducated.
By engaging fruitlessly in such a debate, by being on the receiving end of one explosive reply after another, you are feeding the crowds doubt about your opinion. Each illogical and emotional reply to you seems ridiculous, but the crowd listens because they generally have no way of telling truths from falsehoods. They see two talking heads, and one of them is fiery indeed, and using language and appealing to emotions they easily understand. What are you going to respond with? Facts!? You're wasting your time, unless your position is a rock hard science, and even then, you could be up against a creationists/crank.
The only way to win, is not to play. Do not feed these trolls. Simply saying "You're arguments are flawed/irrational, and I won't grace them with a response", is vastly more effective than fueling their tirades. The longer you fail to do so, the more impossible it will be to exit the debate without having "lost" (the crowd).
If you absolutely must engage with such a debater, and I counsel strongly against it, then you might benefit from studying logical fallacies, which your opponent is employing in spades. Being able to point out not only his errors, but what type of error it actually is, is a very powerful countermeasure. Just don't rely on it. These guys can be extremely competent, and the best ones have studied most of those already.
You are not trained in Rhetoric, and they are. I repeat, the only way to win, is not to play. Give them no oxygen, because they'll just burn brighter.
Why is it that the entertainment industry must chew the cud of its past successes over and over. Why is it seen as acceptable, and even desirable, that a work be "brought to the big screen". Frankly it's obscene.
Watchmen was a great comic. A fantastic graphic novel. No one "Should make a movie of this". Or a game. Or a TV show. Great works do not need to be paraded before the masses in order to be vindicated in some ridiculous fashion. Fans do a disservice to their favorite work by suggesting this.
Famous works that go to Hollywood are essentially just like the actors that go there. A minute few make it big, regardless of talent. Most end up washed out with their dreams; waiting tables, mailing second rate scripts or working in the adult industry. Is that what you want to happen to Watchmen? I don't.
Watchmen will not work on the big screen. They will defile it. Expect the Happy-Meal version, with Dr. Manhattan in a leotard throughout, A cigar-less Comedian, and a kung-fu fighting Rorschach who find happiness in the end. Silhouette will make an appearance, and you know in exactly what context. Ozymandias will probably die a brutal death after his plot is foiled at 6 seconds to midnight. It will be a gruesome spectacle, like watching a car hit a truck in slow motion. Why would anyone want this?
ISPs have detected a massive spike in encrypted activity on the internet. Indecipherable "SSL" packets have increased in volume massively in recent months. This trend is seen as "disturbing" in the words of one child protection group.
"There could be anything being sent in these encrypted streams. Anything at all, and we have no way of knowing it", said Angela Termagantine, spokesperson for Protecting the Innocent. "There's little doubt that lurid, disgusting and atrocious images of naked children are being transmitted in these clandestine packets of information. Something Must Be Done."
Police spokesman Robert Peeler warned the public that very sinister developments have given us cause to believe that a vast network of Terrorists are transmitting plans to bring terror and mayhem to Britain's streets. "It is likely that this flood of inscruitible data is the precursor to an outright Terrorist assault, if not an invasion , on British citizens." Police believe that ssl may be a code word for terrorist cells, possibly referring to a passage, or passages from the Koran. Peeler added, "We are working with leaders in the Muslim community to reach young people and other members of the community in an effort to identify the sources of these sinister "ssl" packets."
When news broke of the recent surge and its potentially sinister meaning, traffic at Tabloid News and Gossip sites spiked as millions of Britons swarmed to read titillating speculation about what may be concealed in the encrypted traffic. "People love this stuff, right." said editor of the Scandal on Sunday Andy Tartuffe. "I mean, you throw in a bit of nookie, bit of scandel, bit of how's your father, people go right for it, know wha' I mean? " When it was suggested his publication by be sensationalizing the potential content of the traffic surge he retorted, " Look, it's all porn right! There's dirty buggers out there doing dirty deeds and my readers what to hear all about it." "Especially the kiddie stuff, right. Get's 'em right rilled up! Big seller." he added as he drove away in his BMW with an unidentified young woman.
The Home Office has dismissed protests from network and computer professionals that SSL is a much used and needed protocol on the internet, and has moved ahead with plans to outlaw encrypted data on British networks. "We have to stop this sort of thing", said the Home Office Minister, "Saying that it has legitimate uses, or that only a small fraction of the transmitted material may be illegal is frankly a load of rubbish. If you have nothing to hide, you have no reason to be using these services. Any sensible person can see that."
In addition to banning SSL traffic and previous legislation mandating the handover of encryption keys, the government plans to have monitoring software installed on all internet connected devices in the country. "When you think about it, it's a small price to pay for the safety of you and your children." said the Prime Minister this afternoon. "We have overwhelming public support on this", he added, citing private party telephone polls.
Protests from expats living in Russia, China and Iran is more muted relative to earlier episodes. One comment received from an expat in Iran states "We used to get bothered by all this, but frankly, it's so much better over here that we really don't care anymore."
A Friend of mine recently tried Ubuntu Hardy. He wasn't too fond of Vista, and couldn't get his hands on a copy of XP. He's quite familiar with computers, but I would not describe him as technically minded. Expecting a short and brutal install process followed by a hasty retreat back to Windows, I was frankly blown away by what followed.
Firstly, he installed it, via the Windows installer, without undue hassle and was initially very impressed. He ended up having problems with wireless network card drivers, but before then he discovered the compiz window/eye-candy manager and the whole cube desktop thing, as well as dual monitor and window tiling features. He even ended up compiling an add on for compiz from source, and this someone who to my knowledge has never even written a Hello World program (though he has edited game ini files and the like).
He has seen Macs, and though he's impressed, the price is off putting. Anyway he is now using Vista, and has found its visual effects fairly pleasing. But, he still wants to go back to Ubuntu, due in no small part to the compiz cube, which he considers superior. In fact, even his girlfriend actually prefers Ubuntu. This last remark, while somewhat sexist, is in this particular case a justified testament to the wide appeal of Hardy.
In short, I remain shocked, bewildered and pleasantly bemused by this state of affairs. Desktop Linux is here right now. No actually, it's over here. It is not an exaggeration to state that Aunt Tillie can use and actually enjoy Ubuntu Hardy, as though as it might be for us to accept it.
I personally thought that with Microsoft's Vista difficulties, Apple and OSX would be in the ascendant. Right now however, I foresee the migration of a sizeable fraction of home desktop users to Ubuntu in the short term. You would be surprised just how fast Ubuntu can spread once people see those wobbling windows and desktop cubes.
Remember how you though that Bittorrent would be too complicated from the average desktop user? Yeah.
Now some of you are saying "Whoa, Mr. Anarchy says it's OK for States to regulate speech!" According to the U.S. Constitution, they can.
Some libertarian you turned out to be. Your 14th amendment specifically prohibits individual states from curtailing or regulating fundamental freedoms. This was created with the most basic freedom, i.e. from slavery, in mind, but applies to the myriad of other fundamental freedoms. Freedom of speech, voting rights, abortion, etc.
This law is an abridgment of freedom of speech. The fact that technical details of computer systems are involved should not be allowed to cloud your judgment. This law is equivalent to requiring newspapers and magazines to come in sealed plastic cases which can only be opened by an "adult passcard". Should states be allowed to implement that? Why is it that once computers become involved, people just ride roughshod over decisions and laws that have already been decided. I think it's because of how easy and invisible censorship actually is in the digital age.
You're not a libertarian. And without belief in fundamental rights, you're a terrible excuse for an anarcho-capitalist. Save yourself the trouble of keeping up the facade, and just register Republican already.
Nintendo is a Japanese company every one of whose controllers purchased in the US leads to a net export of dollars to that country.
Anascape Ltd is an American company, with an American patent, in an American court, with an American judge presiding, and every penny paid by Nintendo or Sony to such companies leads to a net influx of Yen to the US.
The only remaining question here is were you people born this morning?!
Sidewalks, or pavements as they are sometimes known, cost money. Billions of people walk to and fro across and over sidewalks every hour of every day. Every six seconds, 5.72 meters of sidewalk are worn down by human traffic and need to be replaced. People seem to think that sidewalks spring forth from the ground. They don't. They cost money.
And who is going to pay this money? Who is going to finance the millions of kilometers of much needed sidewalks? Who is doing it at the moment? Why _you_ are. You the humble taxpayer is being forced to hand over your hard earned wages to pay for concrete that will be worn down by other people's shoes! It's ludacrious! Does anyone pay you to tile your kitchen? Do you get free funding, materials and labor when you have to repave your drive. No. Why should sidewalks be any different!?
What we propose, is a better way, and a better future for you and your children. By forming strategic Public Private Partnerships, we can finance the creation and maintenance of sidewalks everywhere by privatizing them. Businesses can finance construction of sidewalks by modestly tolling the people who use them, passing the costs on to those actually wearing down the paths, and not onto you, the innocent taxpayer.
Through the Magic of the Free Market private enterprise will deliver better, cheaper and cleaner sidewalks to the general public with no government participation! Businesses will prosper, providing employment for millions and the savings earned in the government budget can be passed on to you through a cut in the top rate of tax. It's a win/win situation for everyone involved!
Vote yes on Proposition 22. You owe it to your Family.
Slashdot Mirror
They can beat them!
Despite being against smoking, I do have some sympathy for smokers subjected to high excise duties, import restrictions and especially public smoking bans. Don't get me wrong. I find smoking in a place where people are eating or drinking to be very irritating and offputting. We have to acknowledge, despite smoking industry propaganda, the very real effects on health caused by first and second hand smoke.
On the other hand, there are still a lot of smokers out there. And despite all the evidence, I don't see any good reason why they should not be allowed to smoke if they so choose. It's not my or anyone elses right to tell them what they can and cannot do. Similarly, if pubs and bars wanted to cater to smokers, I think they should have been allowed to. The smoking license could be made substantially high to discourage licening, but I still think there should be a choice.
On the matter of charging smokers, smoking companies, and establishments or the privilage to buy, sell or host smoking. I think it's fine to put hefty excises on this industry and this habit. It's fine because smokers end up costing our health and social system billions in later life, as the effects of their habit finally kick in. They should pay up front for these costs before they happens.
It's because satire is a dead art in America. Only the Onion has any idea how to lampoon the absurdity in American politics, and slowly but surely, the real world is getting ever closer to the Onion's fantastic spoofs. Basically, you have no real media, no actual fourth estate, that is capable of holding your government up to independent scrutiny.
You pump water uphill during the day. Then at night, you let it fall downhill and generate electricity from that. We don't need fancy chemical tricks or storage mechanisms to make sporadic energy sources produce constant outputs.
I would be delighted to hear of such an occurrence, as I would be saved the bother of working for people who put more stock in rumors, gossip and innuendo than they do in my professional credentials.
That's because ultimately most users had no need for these features and/or found them confusing. In the context of web forums at least. If I remember correctly, fedoraforum.org implemented a new threading system and it ended up just being confusing. Linear discussions are much easier to read and follow, particularly as the thread becomes larger.
As for filters and kill files, I don't think having one half of the people in a discussion ignoring the others is such a good idea. Moderators and temp bans are a proven method for keeping forum discussions across the world civil, productive and on topic.
Usenet's greatest feature is its decentralized nature. I don't think that most people, or even most geeks truly appreciate the genius of Usenet's structure, however unintended that may have been. It took only a sever and a half decent connection to join the Usenet server pool, and it still takes nothing more than dial up and a reader to access a worldwide forum for discussion and debate.
Usenet answered to no government, no corporation, no publishers. In my opinion it is the greatest public forum that has ever existed. If it dies, something important in western society will die with it.
Yes but if they succeed then Google will remove the offending images and we will only be able to see their house as it appears from the public street, which is the way things should be.
If Google had their van drive all the way up my drive, take pictures of my house and garden from it, and then post those pictures on a billion user api based internet map interface, I'd be pretty pissed off too.
Maybe a lot of Slashdotters are from suburbia, and don't fully understand what some rural houses are like. Some people build their house at some remove from the highway, with a _long_ drive connecting it to the public road. 50m+. They do this, ironically in this case, because they want some privacy and.or piece and quiet. This drive is theirs, and they have to pay themselves for keeping it graveled or tarmaced, at considerable cost. The difference in road surface is consequently immediately obvious. You know it's not a public highway.
Typically it won't have a gate where it meets the road, unless farmers are driving cattle down the road regularly. Some people would consider such a gate unwelcoming.(Yes, a desire for privacy does not rule out being amiable). But it is private property. I've seen this type of drive lined for tens of meters with magnificent arrays of trees or quite stunning blooms. Some can be slightly overgrown, with bushes bulging out at both sides. Since the public roads have their bushes trimmed, that's another distinguishing sign.
These are the rules where I come from. I'm sure various regions have their own. In short, anyone from a rural area knows when a road is someone's driveway, and when it is a public road. However, I'd suspect that to the young, single 00's suburbanites driving the google vans, one dirt track in the wilderness looks much the same as another. But that isn't really an excuse not to take down the photographs.
Outside of US jurisdiction. McKinnon accessed the US servers from the UK, from his home in London in fact. I remind everyone that though he was arrested in the UK, to date, no charges have ever been brought against him by the UK government. His own county does not consider his actions criminal, yet he is being extradited to the US for actions committed outside of its borders.
But you're right. This is exactly how US courts work. Underhandedly and extrajudicially. It is no accident that the US set up the camp in Guantanamo, as historically the rule of law does not have a strong foundation in America. Segregation, McCarthyism, Wiretaps, etc. The United States is not known for its strict adherence to enlightenment principles.
America emerged as a result of colonists griping about paying taxes. To their credit, the Founding Fathers did try to legitimize the whole affair by implementing a progressive democratic constitution. And to be fair, this document was hugely influential. But ultimately, America as a country was born from and lives by the Almighty Buck. Your country does have a liberal democratic streak, but the basic principles of western society are not as strong in America as they are in Europe, where events from the French Revolution to World War 2 have really solidified respect for things like the rule of law.
In short, McKinnon's extradition was a bad idea. He is being sent to a country with a poor record of judicial fairness, and for something that was not illegal in his native land. It is a sharp litmus test of the UK's current relationship with the US, which has made clear that the UK is now little more than a vassal state in a larger Anglosphere.
McKinnon had the misfortune of being born and raised in an English speaking country. If he was French, or German, or just about any other western european nationality, this would never have gotten this far. If he takes it to the european court, which probably will refuse to hear the case, I cannot see them allowing his extradition. For reasons mentioned above, these countries do tend to hold truer to more basic principles.
Politicians are powerful, but nowhere near that wealthy. The CEO of even a modestly sized company earns more than a US Senator.
The likelihood is that Tubes was simply far too blatant with his shady deals. So blatant that even the masses began to notice. Once that happened, he became a liability to the people that were once willing to use him and he had to be gotten rid of.
The smart politician is corrupt, but always discrete about it.
Translation costs.
Wow. That is fast. Really fast in fact, especially considering that the best time on the Speed Demo's archive is 24 minutes 37 seconds. And those guys are fast. Really, really fast. Typically they will play at five to ten times the speed of any "normal" run. Sometimes faster.
First time run through of Portal is going to take about three hours at a minimum, and that is being very, very generous. You have to factor in time to figure out the controls, figure out the puzzles, and reloads due to inevitable deaths. I will admit that the game feels short, but it is not actually something that can be torn through in one hour by anyone not specifically aiming for speed in the run.
In short you are a liar, you are ugly and your smell offends me. Good Day to you Sir!
The courts are the last line of defense against injustice. People have to stand up for their own rights first, and not expect others to do it for them.
It depends on the crime. You should only come forward if you personally believe that the law being broken is a just one. Otherwise you are not contributing to justice, merely to order. And yes, your personal opinion is important, no matter how much of a jackass you happen to be.
Having lived in a rural area prone to blackouts, sometimes for days at a time, I can assure you that the situation will not be as dire as that.
Dry foods, beans, and a fire for making toast can keep you well fed. You'll find you can eat surprisingly well without a stove. An attic water tank, and slight prudence when it comes to flushing and bathing, will deal with water and hygiene requirements. Supplies of candles or flashlights will deal with light, but overall you'll end up going to bed early. As for entertainment, since books are in fact, delicious, this is not an issue. You can also try the company of friends and family, which can work surprisingly well. There's also radio, which you should be listening to regularly anyway.
Note that this is all possible without any emergency/camping/apocalypse supplies or preparation. Just with regular household items. I would say that with modest preparation, it would be simplicity itself to go for a week without electricity. With more planning, research and supplies, and at an acceptable cost, I think month or even two month stint is well within reach of the average household. After that, society should be well into finding alternatives, or in chaos.
Fallacy of the Irrelevant Conclusion. Neither boys nor girls can ever become pregnant at age 10, but they can have mathematical ability which can be measured. Since these measurements are central to this debate, your analogy is inappropriate and misleading.
Further pregnancy, as a characteristic of the of the sexes, can in fact be said to define what "boy" and "girl" actually stand for, making your statement a tautology.
Though droll, your argument is invalid.
Some people just won't let go.
This is in no way restricted to the internet. It's called Rhetoric, and some people are very, very good at it.
A well practiced Rhetorician can hold firm to their position and outright win any debate no matter what that position is. It's a spectacle as breathtaking as it is devastating. You cannot win, not with your training and experience, i.e. which is probably next to none.
The first mistake is to be calm and reasonable. You have lost at this point. They will berate, accuse and generally inflame the entire discussion until you lose your composure in some small way, at which point they will accuse you of flying off the handle or being unreasonable/oppressive.
The second mistake is expecting them to be logical about things. It's not about logic. It's about sounding like you're in the right. They will spout utter flasehoods and stand firmly by them as long as there is a morsel of plausibility or deniablity. Simultaneously they will select minor problems with your opinion and declare them to be gaping holes or fundamental errors. You're wasting your time trying to point out their lies/errors, as they will easily counterpoint with another one or else move onto a completely new fantasy. All of this puts you on the back foot.
The third mistake and worst mistake is thinking that the purpose of your debate is for one to persuade or win over the other. Never going to happen. You're not going to listen to this polemicist, and they most certainly have no interest in winning over you. The purpose of the debate is to win over the crowd/audience. To win over the undecided, unsure and uneducated.
By engaging fruitlessly in such a debate, by being on the receiving end of one explosive reply after another, you are feeding the crowds doubt about your opinion. Each illogical and emotional reply to you seems ridiculous, but the crowd listens because they generally have no way of telling truths from falsehoods. They see two talking heads, and one of them is fiery indeed, and using language and appealing to emotions they easily understand. What are you going to respond with? Facts!? You're wasting your time, unless your position is a rock hard science, and even then, you could be up against a creationists/crank.
The only way to win, is not to play. Do not feed these trolls. Simply saying "You're arguments are flawed/irrational, and I won't grace them with a response", is vastly more effective than fueling their tirades. The longer you fail to do so, the more impossible it will be to exit the debate without having "lost" (the crowd).
If you absolutely must engage with such a debater, and I counsel strongly against it, then you might benefit from studying logical fallacies, which your opponent is employing in spades. Being able to point out not only his errors, but what type of error it actually is, is a very powerful countermeasure. Just don't rely on it. These guys can be extremely competent, and the best ones have studied most of those already.
You are not trained in Rhetoric, and they are. I repeat, the only way to win, is not to play. Give them no oxygen, because they'll just burn brighter.
Why is it that the entertainment industry must chew the cud of its past successes over and over. Why is it seen as acceptable, and even desirable, that a work be "brought to the big screen". Frankly it's obscene.
Watchmen was a great comic. A fantastic graphic novel. No one "Should make a movie of this". Or a game. Or a TV show. Great works do not need to be paraded before the masses in order to be vindicated in some ridiculous fashion. Fans do a disservice to their favorite work by suggesting this.
Famous works that go to Hollywood are essentially just like the actors that go there. A minute few make it big, regardless of talent. Most end up washed out with their dreams; waiting tables, mailing second rate scripts or working in the adult industry. Is that what you want to happen to Watchmen? I don't.
Watchmen will not work on the big screen. They will defile it. Expect the Happy-Meal version, with Dr. Manhattan in a leotard throughout, A cigar-less Comedian, and a kung-fu fighting Rorschach who find happiness in the end. Silhouette will make an appearance, and you know in exactly what context. Ozymandias will probably die a brutal death after his plot is foiled at 6 seconds to midnight. It will be a gruesome spectacle, like watching a car hit a truck in slow motion. Why would anyone want this?
Albeit in a very unprofessional manner.
BBC News April 2nd 2010
ISPs have detected a massive spike in encrypted activity on the internet. Indecipherable "SSL" packets have increased in volume massively in recent months. This trend is seen as "disturbing" in the words of one child protection group.
"There could be anything being sent in these encrypted streams. Anything at all, and we have no way of knowing it", said Angela Termagantine, spokesperson for Protecting the Innocent. "There's little doubt that lurid, disgusting and atrocious images of naked children are being transmitted in these clandestine packets of information. Something Must Be Done."
Police spokesman Robert Peeler warned the public that very sinister developments have given us cause to believe that a vast network of Terrorists are transmitting plans to bring terror and mayhem to Britain's streets. "It is likely that this flood of inscruitible data is the precursor to an outright Terrorist assault, if not an invasion , on British citizens." Police believe that ssl may be a code word for terrorist cells, possibly referring to a passage, or passages from the Koran. Peeler added, "We are working with leaders in the Muslim community to reach young people and other members of the community in an effort to identify the sources of these sinister "ssl" packets."
When news broke of the recent surge and its potentially sinister meaning, traffic at Tabloid News and Gossip sites spiked as millions of Britons swarmed to read titillating speculation about what may be concealed in the encrypted traffic. "People love this stuff, right." said editor of the Scandal on Sunday Andy Tartuffe. "I mean, you throw in a bit of nookie, bit of scandel, bit of how's your father, people go right for it, know wha' I mean? " When it was suggested his publication by be sensationalizing the potential content of the traffic surge he retorted, " Look, it's all porn right! There's dirty buggers out there doing dirty deeds and my readers what to hear all about it." "Especially the kiddie stuff, right. Get's 'em right rilled up! Big seller." he added as he drove away in his BMW with an unidentified young woman.
The Home Office has dismissed protests from network and computer professionals that SSL is a much used and needed protocol on the internet, and has moved ahead with plans to outlaw encrypted data on British networks. "We have to stop this sort of thing", said the Home Office Minister, "Saying that it has legitimate uses, or that only a small fraction of the transmitted material may be illegal is frankly a load of rubbish. If you have nothing to hide, you have no reason to be using these services. Any sensible person can see that."
In addition to banning SSL traffic and previous legislation mandating the handover of encryption keys, the government plans to have monitoring software installed on all internet connected devices in the country. "When you think about it, it's a small price to pay for the safety of you and your children." said the Prime Minister this afternoon. "We have overwhelming public support on this", he added, citing private party telephone polls.
Protests from expats living in Russia, China and Iran is more muted relative to earlier episodes. One comment received from an expat in Iran states "We used to get bothered by all this, but frankly, it's so much better over here that we really don't care anymore."
A Friend of mine recently tried Ubuntu Hardy. He wasn't too fond of Vista, and couldn't get his hands on a copy of XP. He's quite familiar with computers, but I would not describe him as technically minded. Expecting a short and brutal install process followed by a hasty retreat back to Windows, I was frankly blown away by what followed.
Firstly, he installed it, via the Windows installer, without undue hassle and was initially very impressed. He ended up having problems with wireless network card drivers, but before then he discovered the compiz window/eye-candy manager and the whole cube desktop thing, as well as dual monitor and window tiling features. He even ended up compiling an add on for compiz from source, and this someone who to my knowledge has never even written a Hello World program (though he has edited game ini files and the like).
He has seen Macs, and though he's impressed, the price is off putting. Anyway he is now using Vista, and has found its visual effects fairly pleasing. But, he still wants to go back to Ubuntu, due in no small part to the compiz cube, which he considers superior. In fact, even his girlfriend actually prefers Ubuntu. This last remark, while somewhat sexist, is in this particular case a justified testament to the wide appeal of Hardy.
In short, I remain shocked, bewildered and pleasantly bemused by this state of affairs. Desktop Linux is here right now. No actually, it's over here. It is not an exaggeration to state that Aunt Tillie can use and actually enjoy Ubuntu Hardy, as though as it might be for us to accept it.
I personally thought that with Microsoft's Vista difficulties, Apple and OSX would be in the ascendant. Right now however, I foresee the migration of a sizeable fraction of home desktop users to Ubuntu in the short term. You would be surprised just how fast Ubuntu can spread once people see those wobbling windows and desktop cubes.
Remember how you though that Bittorrent would be too complicated from the average desktop user? Yeah.
Yes! I see it! They're like a pack of wolves! No, Wild Horses! Wait no, Camels. Ahhh! It's an avalanche! Run!
Some libertarian you turned out to be. Your 14th amendment specifically prohibits individual states from curtailing or regulating fundamental freedoms. This was created with the most basic freedom, i.e. from slavery, in mind, but applies to the myriad of other fundamental freedoms. Freedom of speech, voting rights, abortion, etc.
This law is an abridgment of freedom of speech. The fact that technical details of computer systems are involved should not be allowed to cloud your judgment. This law is equivalent to requiring newspapers and magazines to come in sealed plastic cases which can only be opened by an "adult passcard". Should states be allowed to implement that? Why is it that once computers become involved, people just ride roughshod over decisions and laws that have already been decided. I think it's because of how easy and invisible censorship actually is in the digital age.
You're not a libertarian. And without belief in fundamental rights, you're a terrible excuse for an anarcho-capitalist. Save yourself the trouble of keeping up the facade, and just register Republican already.
Nintendo is a Japanese company every one of whose controllers purchased in the US leads to a net export of dollars to that country.
Anascape Ltd is an American company, with an American patent, in an American court, with an American judge presiding, and every penny paid by Nintendo or Sony to such companies leads to a net influx of Yen to the US.
The only remaining question here is were you people born this morning?!
Sidewalks, or pavements as they are sometimes known, cost money. Billions of people walk to and fro across and over sidewalks every hour of every day. Every six seconds, 5.72 meters of sidewalk are worn down by human traffic and need to be replaced. People seem to think that sidewalks spring forth from the ground. They don't. They cost money.
And who is going to pay this money? Who is going to finance the millions of kilometers of much needed sidewalks? Who is doing it at the moment? Why _you_ are. You the humble taxpayer is being forced to hand over your hard earned wages to pay for concrete that will be worn down by other people's shoes! It's ludacrious! Does anyone pay you to tile your kitchen? Do you get free funding, materials and labor when you have to repave your drive. No. Why should sidewalks be any different!?
What we propose, is a better way, and a better future for you and your children. By forming strategic Public Private Partnerships, we can finance the creation and maintenance of sidewalks everywhere by privatizing them. Businesses can finance construction of sidewalks by modestly tolling the people who use them, passing the costs on to those actually wearing down the paths, and not onto you, the innocent taxpayer.
Through the Magic of the Free Market private enterprise will deliver better, cheaper and cleaner sidewalks to the general public with no government participation! Businesses will prosper, providing employment for millions and the savings earned in the government budget can be passed on to you through a cut in the top rate of tax. It's a win/win situation for everyone involved!
Vote yes on Proposition 22. You owe it to your Family.