Citing anonymous sources and keeping them confidental has been a pillar of the free press for a long time. I think it wasn't until recently that the govt started forcing journalists to disclose their sources in the interest of "national security".
It's outsourcing, yes. There are companies to outsource game development to in the US, too, though they rarely get contracted to make a full game, usually they just add to the dev team.
Don't think of it as a treaty, think of it as a declaration of their nuclear first-strike rules. If a country starts deploying ABMs you have to nuke them now because later they could be immune and start the war.
Unfortunately with ABMs the threat of MAD might get nullified for one country and it would be critical for other countries to obliterate that country before its ABMs are operational.
That depends on whether these things won't disturb each other. Most likely they'd mistake each other for the target or damage ach other with their explosions/debries.
A fraudulent bidder would try not to win a bid and if he did the good would get relisted later on (or the sale handed off to the second highest bidder).
Tax breaks for having children don't need to be tied to unions, we have a 100% accurate indicator on whether someone has a child and that's the presence of the child itself. Give tax breaks only to those who have a child, perhaps with a better break if they are registered as a civil union.
However not all morals should be projected into law, only those parts of morality that would directly influence people who hold that morality. Take e.g. consensual sex or masturbation, it doesn't affect anyone who isn't directly involved yet we see (often sucessful) attempts to limit it by law. Why is gay marriage an issue? The people that object to it aren't going to marry homosexually. An exception here is murder because it's not possible to check if the dead person consented (and due to its gravity it is quite thinkable that someone would buy enough "witnesses" to make a claim of consent hold up in court).
Not projecting morals into law whose trespassings wouldn't affect those who hold the morals is a big part of freedom, preserving rights whose removal isn't beneficial to anybody is important.
Affect here excludes offense if the action was not done only to offend someone. E.g. not hiding every last part of your body if you're female and some moslem happens to be on the street wouldn'T qualify but flipping someone off would.
Re:The right to privacy is underrated
on
The Privacy Candidate
·
· Score: 1, Insightful
No government can exist without the consent of the governed (however that may have been archieved). Even a dictator wouldn't keep his place if the populace rebelled against him because the governed are what gives strength to the government, without them a dictator is just an old man sitting in a hole somewhere. Fear is a legitimate way of archieving this because ALL governments exist because of fear, if there was no fear of consequences noone would obey the law where it inconveniences them. To make a human obey he has to think he would be worse off not obeying than he is obeying.
A nation has every right they can take themself. There is no right or wrong in politics, there's only better off or worse off if you do something. A country that cannot enforce its will may just as well have no rights, a country that can enforce its will on others can do what it likes. Of course an action has both external and internal consequences so starting wars your populace doesn't agree with can anger them and result in a rebellion. That's what propaganda is for, to make your populace be more afraid of not going to war than going to war.
Naturally, the common people don't want war... but after all it is the leaders of a country who determine the policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in every country. -- Hermann Goering
Of course if a lot of businesses do that the govt will try a few more tricks (making the spider report itself as IE7, make an agreement with AOL and a few other ISPs to use IPs from their block, etc).
Mods use overrated to mod according to their agenda because it doesn't get metamoderated. IMO the overrated mod should result in negative karma immediately (but silently) and be completely abolished some time later (perhaps replaced with "not [insightful/funny/etc]" antimods that undo the respective upmods but can't be applied to posts that haven't been modded that way so downmods would still have to justify themselves with flamebait or troll and get metamodded).
However, it's like trading "property" in any other game, the actual tokens still belong to the host of course but more importantly the other players will be angry. If there was, say, a monopoly tournament and one player offered another real money in exchange for some game asset (estate, game money, whathaveyou) he'd get thrown out. Same here, the game happens in a privately owned venue (Blizzard's server) and they have the house rule that you get thrown out if you use real money to influence other players.
Slashdot Mirror
I bet you these same politicians would have lauded these companies as model citizens if they blocked/turned over Al Qaida sympathizers.
Citing anonymous sources and keeping them confidental has been a pillar of the free press for a long time. I think it wasn't until recently that the govt started forcing journalists to disclose their sources in the interest of "national security".
Games are a significant reason many desktop users keep buying Windows. Any OS can do web browsing and writing text.
Any country with less crappy cellphone providers? Try a random European one.
It's outsourcing, yes. There are companies to outsource game development to in the US, too, though they rarely get contracted to make a full game, usually they just add to the dev team.
But we still have to deal with desert dwellers declaring jihad on us.
Don't think of it as a treaty, think of it as a declaration of their nuclear first-strike rules. If a country starts deploying ABMs you have to nuke them now because later they could be immune and start the war.
Unfortunately with ABMs the threat of MAD might get nullified for one country and it would be critical for other countries to obliterate that country before its ABMs are operational.
That depends on whether these things won't disturb each other. Most likely they'd mistake each other for the target or damage ach other with their explosions/debries.
OS/2 has been out for ages.
A fraudulent bidder would try not to win a bid and if he did the good would get relisted later on (or the sale handed off to the second highest bidder).
Make the voting machine report that 60% of the votes are write ins for Richard Stallman.
Tax breaks for having children don't need to be tied to unions, we have a 100% accurate indicator on whether someone has a child and that's the presence of the child itself. Give tax breaks only to those who have a child, perhaps with a better break if they are registered as a civil union.
If you are going to allow gay marriages, why not polygamous (or polyadrus) ones?
Because we aren't perfect and let some of our traditions influence us. Why don't you propose that?
However not all morals should be projected into law, only those parts of morality that would directly influence people who hold that morality. Take e.g. consensual sex or masturbation, it doesn't affect anyone who isn't directly involved yet we see (often sucessful) attempts to limit it by law. Why is gay marriage an issue? The people that object to it aren't going to marry homosexually. An exception here is murder because it's not possible to check if the dead person consented (and due to its gravity it is quite thinkable that someone would buy enough "witnesses" to make a claim of consent hold up in court).
Not projecting morals into law whose trespassings wouldn't affect those who hold the morals is a big part of freedom, preserving rights whose removal isn't beneficial to anybody is important.
Affect here excludes offense if the action was not done only to offend someone. E.g. not hiding every last part of your body if you're female and some moslem happens to be on the street wouldn'T qualify but flipping someone off would.
No government can exist without the consent of the governed (however that may have been archieved). Even a dictator wouldn't keep his place if the populace rebelled against him because the governed are what gives strength to the government, without them a dictator is just an old man sitting in a hole somewhere. Fear is a legitimate way of archieving this because ALL governments exist because of fear, if there was no fear of consequences noone would obey the law where it inconveniences them. To make a human obey he has to think he would be worse off not obeying than he is obeying.
... but after all it is the leaders of a country who determine the policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in every country. -- Hermann Goering
A nation has every right they can take themself. There is no right or wrong in politics, there's only better off or worse off if you do something. A country that cannot enforce its will may just as well have no rights, a country that can enforce its will on others can do what it likes. Of course an action has both external and internal consequences so starting wars your populace doesn't agree with can anger them and result in a rebellion. That's what propaganda is for, to make your populace be more afraid of not going to war than going to war.
Naturally, the common people don't want war
Or, you know, just reclaiming the money from their allowance?
i.e., the cartoon show with one girl and so many guys
You didn't watch the later episodes, did you? They added an underage girl to the Smurf village.
Considering the number of adult magazines sold at the average truckstop I don't think availability on cellphones is a critical factor here.
Of course if a lot of businesses do that the govt will try a few more tricks (making the spider report itself as IE7, make an agreement with AOL and a few other ISPs to use IPs from their block, etc).
I thought the value is what you can buy with it? Or is that gold useless because noone's selling the stuff you'd really want to spend it on?
Mods use overrated to mod according to their agenda because it doesn't get metamoderated. IMO the overrated mod should result in negative karma immediately (but silently) and be completely abolished some time later (perhaps replaced with "not [insightful/funny/etc]" antimods that undo the respective upmods but can't be applied to posts that haven't been modded that way so downmods would still have to justify themselves with flamebait or troll and get metamodded).
However, it's like trading "property" in any other game, the actual tokens still belong to the host of course but more importantly the other players will be angry. If there was, say, a monopoly tournament and one player offered another real money in exchange for some game asset (estate, game money, whathaveyou) he'd get thrown out. Same here, the game happens in a privately owned venue (Blizzard's server) and they have the house rule that you get thrown out if you use real money to influence other players.
Last I checked eBay does not allow selling services.
I suggest "newspeak".