Because they are defrauding Google, Spamming US citizens and generally running a muck. That's what jails for for.
I prefer MUDs too, but I think you're being a bit harsh.
Seriously, I believe you meant "running amok". The reason that these spammers aren't in jail is because they live in another country. Even if what they're doing is illegal there, the people that matter probably don't care.
One of the first things I searched for was "Warlords", a series of games that I used to play. I found a fansite that had recently died.
The administrator of that site had a list of the reasons he decided to close it down.
#2. This site is huge considering most websites only take a few megabytes, this one is over 70MB in size!
At times, I wish that were still the case. Personal websites of that time still had ways to be annoying, though... Embedded music and blink tags.
#3. Warlords III is starting to lose it's appeal to the players *snip* You can now find Warlords III in the discount bins at computer stores.
That's exactly where I found it (as well as a lot of other old gems like Seven Kingdoms). I remember being amazed at the detail the creators had put into the map... Every ruin and city had a human-written story, even the ones in scenarios that weren't part of the main game! I don't think I've seen that in any game I've played since...
I'm missing rate how many famous programmers are/were killers/murderers;-)
Well, at the time of the article's posting, Hans Reiser wasn't on the Wikipedia page that they used as a source. Now he is. Most likely, the article will go back and forth until it gets locked one way or the other.
If you simply must cite a Wikipedia article, especially one that deals with something as relative as "fame", include a timestamp.
No one is waiting around for these clowns to get their act together finally. Given their pathetically incompetent history the fact that they finally managed to not fuck up once again is certainly due to pure dumb luck.
Dream on if you think anyone is going to let these nimrods anywhere near something as valuable as the International Space Station.
Both NASA and its Russian counterpart had several failures, some of which claimed lives. What makes you think these guys are any worse?
I reread the Fourteenth Amendment before I made the post you replied to, and I expected someone to bring it up.
Diet creationism being taught alongside evolution, despite being unscientific, doesn't abridge any privileges or immunities of citizens, though it may annoy or misguide them. If we were talking about a state law that attempted to restrict or impose religion, then yes, the Fourteenth would apply.
What's unconstitutional is putting it into the science curriculum at public schools (violating the establishment clause of the first amendment).
RTFFA.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
"Unconstitutional" isn't just a long word that means "bad idea". Many terrible ideas don't conflict with the Constitution at all.
he envisions a 3-D virtual world populated by virtual presences, using a combination of client and cloud services
So, he's predicting basically the same thing as every post-1985 Cyberpunk author. That's not really a story.
I would have liked to read more about the visual recognition software that the summary mentioned, but the article was (predictably) short on details.
Now, about the voice interaction part of that software... I don't really understand why someone would want to slow themselves down to the speed of speech (unless they're blind). It takes a minute for someone to hear information that they can read in a matter of seconds. I think this is mostly flash.
Any server OS with decent legacy traction can hang on for ages even without exciting benefits, or even parity, compared to its competitors. Any OS can also be opened up, given away, and allowed to limp along for as long as anybody cares to play with it. VAX/VMS is essentially certain not to die.
I can't say I totally agree with your post.
VMS still has a sizable hobbyist community, and you can find the occasional Alpha running it in a server room. I think that's what he meant by "given away, and allowed to limp along for as long as anybody cares to play with it".
Of course, the NYT and (I assume) you are talking about commercial death.
Solaris isn't going to disappear from the business world any time soon, though its marketshare may slowly shrink.
It may be your university (or life) experience that conservatives try to silence but that sure as shit isn't mine. In MY experience it is always a group of liberals (specifically, social progressives, radical environmentalists, pro-choice zealots, and "wymen studies" feminists) that engage in preventing the first amendment rights of others, ALWAYS.
It seems to me that his comments were that children who believed in creationism should be taught the difference in a way that wouldn't raise their defenses.
That's exactly what he was saying.
If you approach someone with a holier-than-thou attitude or mock them, they get pissed off and the discussion becomes a personal conflict. If you insult (not "state something that conflicts with", but actually insult) something that they regard as part of their culture, it becomes a political conflict.
Once that happens, none of the logic you throw at someone is going to make a bit of difference.
If you want to fight someone, insult them. If you want to convince someone, educate them.
anyone who puts religious convictions or beliefs higher than their science, are not worthy of any scientific post.
royal society did the right thing.
Go read the article.
He said his experience had led him to believe it was more effective to include discussion about creationism alongside scientific theories such as the Big Bang and evolution - rather than simply giving the impression that such children were wrong.
"This individual was arguing that we should engage with and address public misconceptions about science - something that the Royal Society should applaud."
Roland Jackson, chief executive of the British Association for the Advancement of Science, said Mr Reiss's departure was a "real loss".
"I was at the actual discussion and what I heard him say , however it has been reported, was essentially the position advocated by the Royal Society," he said.
The original story was based on a misquote. The article that this summary links to says so. Why does the summary imply that the original story valid while linking to one that debunks it!?
coder: We are thinking of adding a mission where you have to beat up a hooker for a pimp. You know be the muscle.
EA: lets send you to our committee
com1: Sounds wicked, but do you have to beat her?
com2: You know figures show that hookers offend some of our market, how would you feel about taking them out?
com3: Do you really NEED to say pimp? Cant he just be a.... mechanic.... that needs his wrench.
com4: Yeah the girl can be a valuable employee and she gives you the wrench, then you bring it to him.
com: Thanks for this great idea put it in right away.
That actually sounds funny to me. I'd play a game for such humor.
The game that you would play wouldn't be the committee meeting. It would be fetching wrenches for mechanics....Unless you want to make a game where you're an employee in a large video game company.
The fact that in the 21st century, some people still think the Earth is only 6,000 years old because they misinterpreted a stupid fable, is funny.
Not when it's the first post on every paleontology story, worded in almost exactly the same way, it isn't. I laughed about it in 2003.
Do you also bitch and whine about the 'Soviet Russia' jokes? Do you rail about the stupidity of people quoting the Simpsons, or making Natalie Portman/Hot Grits comments?
Occasionally, I mod them redundant if they're nonsensical, irrelevant to the article, or lack any sort of originality (quite a few people still seem to find the "6000 years" jokes funny, so I just let them be). Every now and then someone will make a new one, or find a new way to apply one, that's actually amusing.
In Soviet Russia, when you stare into the Abyss, what happens?
This attitude is why your American health care sucks, why your American school system sucks, why your American news media sucks, etc. etc. You have no sense of community, of sharing the burdens of life.
[redneck American voice] "sense of community"? "sharing the burdens of life"? You sound like one 'o them thar' Godless Commernists! We don't want your kind around here! Gawd told us to invade I-Rak and Gawd's a-tellin' me ta shoot ya with my second amendment shawtgun. [/redneck American voice]
"Rednecks" are a hell of a lot more likely to look out for each other than urbanites and the suburbanites who flee them. Seriously, go to Houston, Detroit, or LA and see how much of a "sense of community" there is. Don't forget your second-amendent shotgun; you'll need it more there than you will in Kennesaw, Georgia.
If you go to a Waffle House in the middle of the night, and casually start talking about this with one of the guys you think of as "rednecks", they probably won't support AT&T. There's a reason that political ads use the "family" angle.
Your analogy is false. If you can't see that, you are ignorant or just biased.
I've explained why it is valid, and I've explained precisely in which way it was meant to be interpreted. Explain how it is false, or admit that you can't.
And, yes, you did imply that it was not the family's fault. You even say that it is not their fault in this post. It was all that family's fault.
"Yet another 'We are poor victims' idiot." "I never said or implied this." "And, yes, you did imply that it was not the family's fault. You even say that it is not their fault in this post. It was all that family's fault."
This is where I started to wonder what's wrong with you. It's like you can't parse a sentence without adding things to it, and then attacking the things that you added yourself.
No, it is not all their fault. It is also not all AT&T's fault. That's not the same as saying that everyone is a victim. Only a fool would equate the two.
Similarly, while faulty schooling could be partially responsible for your lack of reading comprehension, you're also responsible because you've failed to improve yourself using publicly available resources. An improvement by either party would help the situation, and an improvement by both would be excellent.
Or...Am I talking with a rather-advanced, yet still flawed, chatbot? Does it search my strings for buzzwords and phrases, match them to the political point of view that most often uses them, and then concoct an argument attacking that viewpoint?
I admit, the developers' creation is admirable, even in this early stage. I look forward to DaveV1.1.
Not reading your contracts? Well, then you deserve to be gouged.
No one's going to expect an email to cost them over a thousand dollars, and no one's going to read and remember every thing in a contract that would take them a week to read.
I try to read every contract and agreement, but I'd be a liar if I said that I understood and remembered everything in them. If you honestly do, I'd like to know what you are.
With that said, I would expect extra charges if I went to another country (still nowhere close to thousands of dollars), but I know a good bit more about how that works than most people do. Just because I can predict something doesn't mean I can expect everyone else to.
Well, I see two unexplained accusations, and one irrelevant statement.
Oh, nice false analogy.
It's not a false analogy unless you try to apply it further than I did. In both situations you're ostensibly "agreeing" to pay a certain amount, but the important terms are obfuscated. You make a reasonable assumption, and get charged exorbitant amounts. If you're going to complain about "reasonable assumptions", I'm going to put my palm on my face and sigh, because you make dozens of them every day, no matter who you are.
Yet another "We are poor victims" idiot.
I never said or implied this. For one, "we" aren't even involved in this story. Secondly, the family involved is already settling it with AT&T. I made it a point to say this so I would not be accusing AT&T of anything more than, at most, a minor oversight. Seriously, did you manage to not read the article OR my post?
Third, we aren't talking about someone who screwed themselves over when they should have realized they were doing so (eg, failing to save money, committing a crime, coming to a country without speaking the language). This was over a technicality in a telecommunications contract, that the company itself is probably not going to enforce.
If you're looking for idiot-enablers and socialists to argue with, you're barking up the wrong tree.
You can call your provider and tell them you want a limit. Give it a try, dumbass.
Is there a paragraph in my post that this is relevant to, which is completely invisible to me?
Sure its insanely excessive, but they did use the service fair and square. I also would be wiling to bet if they called ATT and rationally talked to them, the bill would go away.
If you RTFA, it looks like that's exactly what's happening.
There isn't really anyone to get pissed off at, here. No one's going to expect an email to cost them over a thousand dollars, and no one's going to read and remember every thing in a contract that would take them a week to read.
AT&T either realizes that and sympathizes, or they realize that going after the family for the money would be PR death.
Yes, because everyone needs to be treated like a two year-old. No, we can't expect people to act like adults and be responsible for their own actions.
I don't think giving someone notice once their monthly phone bill is approaching $1000 due to a handful of glorified roaming charges is "treating them like a two-year old".
Rational people aren't going to think that sending an email is going to cost them thousands of dollar just because they're out of the country. It's email, for crying out loud.
Imagine getting a receipt at a restaurant for thousands of dollars due to a few tea refills. If you're ordering some sort of special tea that costs that much, you'd expect someone to tell you, right? Would you accept it if they pointed to some fine print at the bottom of the back of the menu?
Now, from the article:
An AT&T representative said they're treating the matter seriously and looking into it. According to the company, they hope to have an answer for the family in the next few days.
It looks like AT&T is going to be sensible about this. That's a good thing. Remember how people kill people, and sometimes themselves? Getting fine-printed into thousands of dollars of debt is one of the things that can cause that. They'll probably kick it down to something the family is actually able to pay without selling their house or draining their kids' college funds.
Cheers +1. Yep, not only on that level. What if you love a woman who isn't able to have children? If you want to stay monogamous and not pay a surrogate, should you get a divorce just because she can't get pregnant?!?
"Try not to die childless" doesn't mean "Avoid dying childless at all costs". Don't twist words just so you can have goblins to attack.
I don't know what the hell the guy who said the statement was homophobic was thinking.
Oh, she tried to kill him first? Otherwise, her behavior is irrelevant.
No, it isn't irrelevant, not even in the courts.
This was the original statement the GP post made:
Remember kids, murdering the woman you promised to love and cherish and who gave you two children is EVIL.
She was going to take the kids, and she'd already gotten them Russian citizenship. He probably wasn't going to see them again until they were grown. People have breaking points. If someone pushes the right buttons enough times, they can generally be driven to kill regardless of whether their lives are threatened. The legal system takes this into account when deciding how to charge someone, and how to sentence them if they are convicted.
If he had killed her for no reason, he would be facing life in prison right now. If he hadn't rejected the initial manslaughter offer, he'd only be facing three years, because he was provoked, enraged, and did not premeditate the murder. Seriously.
Slashdot Mirror
Ah, Dwarf Fortress... The text-art game that can make a Pentium 4 cry.
Because they are defrauding Google, Spamming US citizens and generally running a muck. That's what jails for for.
I prefer MUDs too, but I think you're being a bit harsh.
Seriously, I believe you meant "running amok". The reason that these spammers aren't in jail is because they live in another country. Even if what they're doing is illegal there, the people that matter probably don't care.
The Otherland books predate the .Hack series by quite a bit.
And I don't think there was ever a .Hack MMO... I played the PS2 games, and saw part of the anime, but I never heard of an MMO.
One of the first things I searched for was "Warlords", a series of games that I used to play. I found a fansite that had recently died.
The administrator of that site had a list of the reasons he decided to close it down.
At times, I wish that were still the case. Personal websites of that time still had ways to be annoying, though... Embedded music and blink tags.
That's exactly where I found it (as well as a lot of other old gems like Seven Kingdoms). I remember being amazed at the detail the creators had put into the map... Every ruin and city had a human-written story, even the ones in scenarios that weren't part of the main game! I don't think I've seen that in any game I've played since...
Well, at the time of the article's posting, Hans Reiser wasn't on the Wikipedia page that they used as a source. Now he is. Most likely, the article will go back and forth until it gets locked one way or the other.
If you simply must cite a Wikipedia article, especially one that deals with something as relative as "fame", include a timestamp.
No one is waiting around for these clowns to get their act together finally. Given their pathetically incompetent history the fact that they finally managed to not fuck up once again is certainly due to pure dumb luck.
Dream on if you think anyone is going to let these nimrods anywhere near something as valuable as the International Space Station.
Both NASA and its Russian counterpart had several failures, some of which claimed lives. What makes you think these guys are any worse?
I reread the Fourteenth Amendment before I made the post you replied to, and I expected someone to bring it up.
Diet creationism being taught alongside evolution, despite being unscientific, doesn't abridge any privileges or immunities of citizens, though it may annoy or misguide them. If we were talking about a state law that attempted to restrict or impose religion, then yes, the Fourteenth would apply.
RTFFA.
"Unconstitutional" isn't just a long word that means "bad idea". Many terrible ideas don't conflict with the Constitution at all.
So, he's predicting basically the same thing as every post-1985 Cyberpunk author. That's not really a story.
I would have liked to read more about the visual recognition software that the summary mentioned, but the article was (predictably) short on details.
Now, about the voice interaction part of that software... I don't really understand why someone would want to slow themselves down to the speed of speech (unless they're blind). It takes a minute for someone to hear information that they can read in a matter of seconds. I think this is mostly flash.
http://lwn.net/Articles/272048/
I'm pretty sure he's referring to this. It was a Linux kernel vulnerability that GCC exposed, not a bug in GCC.
Of course, that alone is hardly enough to warrant his first two statements: "With all the GCC bugs Linux has? With the poor track record on security?"
If he has something else in mind, he'll have to bring it up himself.
I can't say I totally agree with your post.
VMS still has a sizable hobbyist community, and you can find the occasional Alpha running it in a server room. I think that's what he meant by "given away, and allowed to limp along for as long as anybody cares to play with it".
Of course, the NYT and (I assume) you are talking about commercial death.
Solaris isn't going to disappear from the business world any time soon, though its marketshare may slowly shrink.
The Internet is a parody of itself, sometimes.
You thought wrong.
Evidence seized illegally by law enforcement is inadmissible, unless it can be proven that they certainly would have come across it anyhow.
That's exactly what he was saying.
If you approach someone with a holier-than-thou attitude or mock them, they get pissed off and the discussion becomes a personal conflict. If you insult (not "state something that conflicts with", but actually insult) something that they regard as part of their culture, it becomes a political conflict.
Once that happens, none of the logic you throw at someone is going to make a bit of difference.
If you want to fight someone, insult them. If you want to convince someone, educate them.
Go read the article.
The original story was based on a misquote. The article that this summary links to says so. Why does the summary imply that the original story valid while linking to one that debunks it!?
That actually sounds funny to me. I'd play a game for such humor.
The game that you would play wouldn't be the committee meeting. It would be fetching wrenches for mechanics. ...Unless you want to make a game where you're an employee in a large video game company.
Not when it's the first post on every paleontology story, worded in almost exactly the same way, it isn't. I laughed about it in 2003.
Occasionally, I mod them redundant if they're nonsensical, irrelevant to the article, or lack any sort of originality (quite a few people still seem to find the "6000 years" jokes funny, so I just let them be). Every now and then someone will make a new one, or find a new way to apply one, that's actually amusing.
In Soviet Russia, when you stare into the Abyss, what happens?
"Rednecks" are a hell of a lot more likely to look out for each other than urbanites and the suburbanites who flee them. Seriously, go to Houston, Detroit, or LA and see how much of a "sense of community" there is. Don't forget your second-amendent shotgun; you'll need it more there than you will in Kennesaw, Georgia.
If you go to a Waffle House in the middle of the night, and casually start talking about this with one of the guys you think of as "rednecks", they probably won't support AT&T. There's a reason that political ads use the "family" angle.
I've explained why it is valid, and I've explained precisely in which way it was meant to be interpreted. Explain how it is false, or admit that you can't.
"Yet another 'We are poor victims' idiot."
"I never said or implied this."
"And, yes, you did imply that it was not the family's fault. You even say that it is not their fault in this post. It was all that family's fault."
This is where I started to wonder what's wrong with you. It's like you can't parse a sentence without adding things to it, and then attacking the things that you added yourself.
No, it is not all their fault. It is also not all AT&T's fault. That's not the same as saying that everyone is a victim. Only a fool would equate the two.
Similarly, while faulty schooling could be partially responsible for your lack of reading comprehension, you're also responsible because you've failed to improve yourself using publicly available resources. An improvement by either party would help the situation, and an improvement by both would be excellent.
Or...Am I talking with a rather-advanced, yet still flawed, chatbot? Does it search my strings for buzzwords and phrases, match them to the political point of view that most often uses them, and then concoct an argument attacking that viewpoint?
I admit, the developers' creation is admirable, even in this early stage. I look forward to DaveV1.1.
I try to read every contract and agreement, but I'd be a liar if I said that I understood and remembered everything in them. If you honestly do, I'd like to know what you are.
With that said, I would expect extra charges if I went to another country (still nowhere close to thousands of dollars), but I know a good bit more about how that works than most people do. Just because I can predict something doesn't mean I can expect everyone else to.
Well, I see two unexplained accusations, and one irrelevant statement.
It's not a false analogy unless you try to apply it further than I did. In both situations you're ostensibly "agreeing" to pay a certain amount, but the important terms are obfuscated. You make a reasonable assumption, and get charged exorbitant amounts. If you're going to complain about "reasonable assumptions", I'm going to put my palm on my face and sigh, because you make dozens of them every day, no matter who you are.
I never said or implied this. For one, "we" aren't even involved in this story. Secondly, the family involved is already settling it with AT&T. I made it a point to say this so I would not be accusing AT&T of anything more than, at most, a minor oversight. Seriously, did you manage to not read the article OR my post?
Third, we aren't talking about someone who screwed themselves over when they should have realized they were doing so (eg, failing to save money, committing a crime, coming to a country without speaking the language). This was over a technicality in a telecommunications contract, that the company itself is probably not going to enforce.
If you're looking for idiot-enablers and socialists to argue with, you're barking up the wrong tree.
Is there a paragraph in my post that this is relevant to, which is completely invisible to me?
If you RTFA, it looks like that's exactly what's happening.
There isn't really anyone to get pissed off at, here. No one's going to expect an email to cost them over a thousand dollars, and no one's going to read and remember every thing in a contract that would take them a week to read.
AT&T either realizes that and sympathizes, or they realize that going after the family for the money would be PR death.
I don't think giving someone notice once their monthly phone bill is approaching $1000 due to a handful of glorified roaming charges is "treating them like a two-year old".
Rational people aren't going to think that sending an email is going to cost them thousands of dollar just because they're out of the country. It's email, for crying out loud.
Imagine getting a receipt at a restaurant for thousands of dollars due to a few tea refills. If you're ordering some sort of special tea that costs that much, you'd expect someone to tell you, right? Would you accept it if they pointed to some fine print at the bottom of the back of the menu?
Now, from the article:
It looks like AT&T is going to be sensible about this. That's a good thing. Remember how people kill people, and sometimes themselves? Getting fine-printed into thousands of dollars of debt is one of the things that can cause that. They'll probably kick it down to something the family is actually able to pay without selling their house or draining their kids' college funds.
"Try not to die childless" doesn't mean "Avoid dying childless at all costs". Don't twist words just so you can have goblins to attack.
I don't know what the hell the guy who said the statement was homophobic was thinking.
No, it isn't irrelevant, not even in the courts.
This was the original statement the GP post made:
She was going to take the kids, and she'd already gotten them Russian citizenship. He probably wasn't going to see them again until they were grown. People have breaking points. If someone pushes the right buttons enough times, they can generally be driven to kill regardless of whether their lives are threatened. The legal system takes this into account when deciding how to charge someone, and how to sentence them if they are convicted.
If he had killed her for no reason, he would be facing life in prison right now. If he hadn't rejected the initial manslaughter offer, he'd only be facing three years, because he was provoked, enraged, and did not premeditate the murder. Seriously.