What difference does it make? Measures like these use encryption, that doesn't become easier to break if you lack the decryption equipment. To break the encryption you need to attack it, not just stick your fingers in your ears and go "lalala".
This unjustly discriminates against those at low risk for that disease, by forcing them to subsidize those at increased risk.
As the insurance wants to pay out less than they make the low-risk people will always subsidize the high-risk people unless the payouts are never higher than the fees but in that case you'd be pretty damn stupid to get insurance in first place, no? A perfectly adjusted insurance would charge everyone slightly more than their probability of getting a payout times the value of the payout is, pretty much the same system casinos use for the bet/payout ratio. With perfect adjustment it's stupid for anyone to buy insurance, with less than perfect adjustment buying insurance puts you ahead if you turn out to be one of the higher risk people (even if higher is just a few percent).
Checkups tend to reduce risks by allowing treatment when it's still easy and cheap so it's in the best interest of the insurance to pay for them though. Of course the insurance could say "we won't pay for them but you must take them anyway if you want to keep your protection" but people won't like that (it's a hidden cost). Much better for PR to pay for the checkups and add a small amount to everyone's fees to cover it (or even don't since you save on larger payouts).
The law was most likely not made to protect or hurt profits, it was made to ensure that more people have access to medical insurance instead of being refused or required to pay so mucht aht they cannot afford while at the same time having a high risk of needing expensive medical treatment (IOW they'd be plain screwed).
Not just healthcare, it can also cause a lot of dirt when people toss their cigarette butts on the floor where they stand (obviously that applies mostly to outdoor places), gets even worse when they spit on the floor (some smokers seem to do that a lot).
Why would they flock to the TPM-free company? Lacking a decoder won't mean the copy restriction doesn't apply to you, it just means you can't play it even if you want to.
Meier and Wright are equal (or at least close) IMO but Kojima, Naka and Yokoi are not. Kojima is more of a writer than a game designer and certainly not as influential as Miyamoto, Naka has a fairly spotty record especially with Sonic games getting worse and even Nights falling flat and Yokoi had ideas but was not as good in the implementation, Kid Icarus and Metroid 1 haven't stood the test of time nearly as well as, say, Super Mario Bros. You have to consider that Miyamoto pretty much created some genres (or at least drastically changed them into what is their current form) and has a large number of games while being fairly consistent about quality.
There's not just one better storyteller, there's a whole wagonload. Miyamoto is a game designer, not a writer. The stories in his games are average at best and usually worse (Sorry Mario but our princess is in another castle).
I think Code Geass which ran on TV at the same time as Death Note is comparable though if you like smart and thinking characters I'd go with a good book instead (Asimov's Foundation series is one I liked).
Um, the argument was that copyright infringement is similar to theft in that deprives the rightsholder of the effective ownership of the copyright because he can't exercise his rights as the rightsholder (he cannot prevent others from copying it). You countered that it still belongs to him even if he cannot control it, I said that theft doesn't change legal ownership either so the comparison still holds, neither requires legal recognition of the changed ownership. Sure, he still owns the physical original but that's pretty much worthless if everyone can just get a free copy off the internet (which they wouldn't if he could still make effective use of his right to prevent copying).
Miyamoto's games are unusually advanced for their time, the SMB games introduced air control to jump & runs and as a result play pretty much the same as modern games in the genre. Zelda 1 already had many of the elements the series would get although it had weaknesses (e.g. hard or impossible to find secrets, lots of repetition in the level design). While their contemporaries may fail due to horrible controls or game mechanics the Miyamoto games tend to hold up and still work almost as well as they did when they were first released. Hell, some had modern releases with very few changes and still got reviewed highly.
I think a difference between silent movies and videogames is that videogames were always designed for the masses and simple entertainment, especially the popular early ones are very accessible (who can't figure out how to play Pac-Man or Tetris?). While the average person will be hard pressed to find the "true meaning" of older art games were simply not made as art back then, you just grab a joystick and splode stuff up.
Well, okay, I'm talking about things that are 20 years old, not ten, I guess the N64 isn't as easy on the user as the NES and SNES. But would you really say that games like Super Mario World are no longer playable?
Most japanese games tend to use more creativity, their weakness tends to be in technical problems like pathfinding algorithms, AI, random/procedural content generation, sandbox-style games, etc. Usually the japanese games have better stories and more new ideas but the western games have better technology, more meaningful choices for the player (even the more simplistic RPGs these days seem to have a basic good/evil choice, the jRPGs I see lack even that), etc. Or at least that's the impression I got.
Sudo? You mean there have never been any privilege escalation exploits in Linux? I recall our school server (running Linux and providing terminal services) getting "owned" several times through various exploits.
One of the Quake 3 Arena devs said the reason none of the health orbs are red (there's blue, yellow, orange and green IIRC) is exactly that, they weren't allowed to use the red cross.
Complete freedom for everyone means everyone is free to fuck the other over, the rich have more ways to do so than the poor. It may not be intended as right wing but it is in effect. E.g. the job market usually has a scarcity of jobs compared to the number of workers and the workers need the job more than the employers need the job filled (because the worker will starve, the employer will just have a bit less income), this lets the employer pretty much dictate the terms of the employment. I really don't believe that the "they can just get a different job" claim that always comes up works, for one thing being inhuman to your employees is more profitable so it should be done to maximize profits and for another there's simply not enough jobs with better conditions going around and people just cannot wait indefinitely until a job with conditions they like becomes available, they must get a job to survive so there's a steady supply of people who will take the worst jobs. I for one think that's one of the areas where the government has to step in because it'll not get better by itself.
The rich and the poor are unequal no matter what the law says. Your guy with the two chickens won't be able to make much money because the guy with 20000 chickens will be able to make them cheaper (less profit needed to feed himself, economy of scale makes many things cheaper for him) and use some of his money to buy advertising. Libertarianism these days seems to be founded in a strong belief in the American Dream and the belief that class mobility is restricted by laws, I really don't think that's the case. Class mobility is simply low no matter what, it requires performing way above or below average as you have to grow or shrink your money by several orders of magnitude. I also don't see how the law restricts that, what I do see as restrictions is that bigger businesses are more capable of doing what the market wants than small businesses and can often use their weight to crush smaller opposition (take e.g. Wal-Mart's dumping when they're new in an area until everyone else is dead, not a whole lot the small businesses can do there because they cannot survive on those prices and don't have the money reserves to just sit them out until Wal-Mart stops using them).
I don't think having a few big guys own most of the land and the others working as peasants on it requires skewed legislation, it just requires a rich guy deciding that buying up land for farming is profitable (which I doubt it is) and then hiring workers to do the actual farming (you can be pretty damn sure the workers will get paid less than they could make were they the owners of the land). After all, you've got most other sectors tied up by large corporations, especially ones with high entry barriers.
The establishment clause means that the government is not permitted to declare a state religion. This implies that the government cannot favour one religion over another, especially by teaching one religion in school or forcing children to adhere to its practices, otherwise the clause is useless as a religion could be made the state religion in all but name. Forcing children to perform the acts of one religion does restrict the free exercise of religions that do not include those acts or even prohibit them. Teaching children the teachings of one religion conflicts with the parents' desire to make their child a follower of another religion. The separation of church and state is required to guarantee the free exercise of religion.
Slashdot Mirror
What difference does it make? Measures like these use encryption, that doesn't become easier to break if you lack the decryption equipment. To break the encryption you need to attack it, not just stick your fingers in your ears and go "lalala".
This unjustly discriminates against those at low risk for that disease, by forcing them to subsidize those at increased risk.
As the insurance wants to pay out less than they make the low-risk people will always subsidize the high-risk people unless the payouts are never higher than the fees but in that case you'd be pretty damn stupid to get insurance in first place, no? A perfectly adjusted insurance would charge everyone slightly more than their probability of getting a payout times the value of the payout is, pretty much the same system casinos use for the bet/payout ratio. With perfect adjustment it's stupid for anyone to buy insurance, with less than perfect adjustment buying insurance puts you ahead if you turn out to be one of the higher risk people (even if higher is just a few percent).
Checkups tend to reduce risks by allowing treatment when it's still easy and cheap so it's in the best interest of the insurance to pay for them though. Of course the insurance could say "we won't pay for them but you must take them anyway if you want to keep your protection" but people won't like that (it's a hidden cost). Much better for PR to pay for the checkups and add a small amount to everyone's fees to cover it (or even don't since you save on larger payouts).
The law was most likely not made to protect or hurt profits, it was made to ensure that more people have access to medical insurance instead of being refused or required to pay so mucht aht they cannot afford while at the same time having a high risk of needing expensive medical treatment (IOW they'd be plain screwed).
I think his point was that the law does not authorize that but Bush acts as if it did.
Would you say alcoholism or drug addiction is not a reason to reject an applicant?
Not just healthcare, it can also cause a lot of dirt when people toss their cigarette butts on the floor where they stand (obviously that applies mostly to outdoor places), gets even worse when they spit on the floor (some smokers seem to do that a lot).
Why would they flock to the TPM-free company? Lacking a decoder won't mean the copy restriction doesn't apply to you, it just means you can't play it even if you want to.
Meier and Wright are equal (or at least close) IMO but Kojima, Naka and Yokoi are not. Kojima is more of a writer than a game designer and certainly not as influential as Miyamoto, Naka has a fairly spotty record especially with Sonic games getting worse and even Nights falling flat and Yokoi had ideas but was not as good in the implementation, Kid Icarus and Metroid 1 haven't stood the test of time nearly as well as, say, Super Mario Bros. You have to consider that Miyamoto pretty much created some genres (or at least drastically changed them into what is their current form) and has a large number of games while being fairly consistent about quality.
There's not just one better storyteller, there's a whole wagonload. Miyamoto is a game designer, not a writer. The stories in his games are average at best and usually worse (Sorry Mario but our princess is in another castle).
I think Code Geass which ran on TV at the same time as Death Note is comparable though if you like smart and thinking characters I'd go with a good book instead (Asimov's Foundation series is one I liked).
Um, the argument was that copyright infringement is similar to theft in that deprives the rightsholder of the effective ownership of the copyright because he can't exercise his rights as the rightsholder (he cannot prevent others from copying it). You countered that it still belongs to him even if he cannot control it, I said that theft doesn't change legal ownership either so the comparison still holds, neither requires legal recognition of the changed ownership. Sure, he still owns the physical original but that's pretty much worthless if everyone can just get a free copy off the internet (which they wouldn't if he could still make effective use of his right to prevent copying).
There may be 20 successful designers but can you name even three that are on par with Miyamoto?
Miyamoto's games are unusually advanced for their time, the SMB games introduced air control to jump & runs and as a result play pretty much the same as modern games in the genre. Zelda 1 already had many of the elements the series would get although it had weaknesses (e.g. hard or impossible to find secrets, lots of repetition in the level design). While their contemporaries may fail due to horrible controls or game mechanics the Miyamoto games tend to hold up and still work almost as well as they did when they were first released. Hell, some had modern releases with very few changes and still got reviewed highly.
I think a difference between silent movies and videogames is that videogames were always designed for the masses and simple entertainment, especially the popular early ones are very accessible (who can't figure out how to play Pac-Man or Tetris?). While the average person will be hard pressed to find the "true meaning" of older art games were simply not made as art back then, you just grab a joystick and splode stuff up.
Well, okay, I'm talking about things that are 20 years old, not ten, I guess the N64 isn't as easy on the user as the NES and SNES. But would you really say that games like Super Mario World are no longer playable?
Once you get over the novelty of the cultural difference most anime tends to be even less creative than your average sitcom.
Most japanese games tend to use more creativity, their weakness tends to be in technical problems like pathfinding algorithms, AI, random/procedural content generation, sandbox-style games, etc. Usually the japanese games have better stories and more new ideas but the western games have better technology, more meaningful choices for the player (even the more simplistic RPGs these days seem to have a basic good/evil choice, the jRPGs I see lack even that), etc. Or at least that's the impression I got.
Sudo? You mean there have never been any privilege escalation exploits in Linux? I recall our school server (running Linux and providing terminal services) getting "owned" several times through various exploits.
One of the Quake 3 Arena devs said the reason none of the health orbs are red (there's blue, yellow, orange and green IIRC) is exactly that, they weren't allowed to use the red cross.
You're saying that the original copyright holder no longer holds the copyright?
Maybe not legally but in effect, yes. Theft does not legally constitute a change of ownership either.
Would America get the Red Crescent? Or maybe the Red Star?
Complete freedom for everyone means everyone is free to fuck the other over, the rich have more ways to do so than the poor. It may not be intended as right wing but it is in effect. E.g. the job market usually has a scarcity of jobs compared to the number of workers and the workers need the job more than the employers need the job filled (because the worker will starve, the employer will just have a bit less income), this lets the employer pretty much dictate the terms of the employment. I really don't believe that the "they can just get a different job" claim that always comes up works, for one thing being inhuman to your employees is more profitable so it should be done to maximize profits and for another there's simply not enough jobs with better conditions going around and people just cannot wait indefinitely until a job with conditions they like becomes available, they must get a job to survive so there's a steady supply of people who will take the worst jobs. I for one think that's one of the areas where the government has to step in because it'll not get better by itself.
The rich and the poor are unequal no matter what the law says. Your guy with the two chickens won't be able to make much money because the guy with 20000 chickens will be able to make them cheaper (less profit needed to feed himself, economy of scale makes many things cheaper for him) and use some of his money to buy advertising. Libertarianism these days seems to be founded in a strong belief in the American Dream and the belief that class mobility is restricted by laws, I really don't think that's the case. Class mobility is simply low no matter what, it requires performing way above or below average as you have to grow or shrink your money by several orders of magnitude. I also don't see how the law restricts that, what I do see as restrictions is that bigger businesses are more capable of doing what the market wants than small businesses and can often use their weight to crush smaller opposition (take e.g. Wal-Mart's dumping when they're new in an area until everyone else is dead, not a whole lot the small businesses can do there because they cannot survive on those prices and don't have the money reserves to just sit them out until Wal-Mart stops using them).
I don't think having a few big guys own most of the land and the others working as peasants on it requires skewed legislation, it just requires a rich guy deciding that buying up land for farming is profitable (which I doubt it is) and then hiring workers to do the actual farming (you can be pretty damn sure the workers will get paid less than they could make were they the owners of the land). After all, you've got most other sectors tied up by large corporations, especially ones with high entry barriers.
I blame the Thnikkaman for that!
You forgot the third option: There is a third factor that causes a person to be both violent and play violent videogames.
The establishment clause means that the government is not permitted to declare a state religion. This implies that the government cannot favour one religion over another, especially by teaching one religion in school or forcing children to adhere to its practices, otherwise the clause is useless as a religion could be made the state religion in all but name. Forcing children to perform the acts of one religion does restrict the free exercise of religions that do not include those acts or even prohibit them. Teaching children the teachings of one religion conflicts with the parents' desire to make their child a follower of another religion. The separation of church and state is required to guarantee the free exercise of religion.
Liberalism IS a right-wing ideology.