Is this the best thing to do? Obviously not, however don't be shocked when it does happen. Unless you control your own email completely (from the ISP right down to the server) you are relying on someone else. And that someone else ultimately has their interests in mind before yours.
I don't trust them to act out of the goodmess of their hearts. I trust them because I'm paying them, we have a contract. If AOL isn't giving their customers the working inboxes email they are paying them for, surely there's a simple solution called a class action lawsuit?
Not so long ago, in the upper crust it was considered bad form to drink and behave badly when you were drunk. Given those social constraints, people behaved differently. Also, I think there was a study of college students who got "drunk" when told they were drinking alcoholic beverages but the drinks really were not.
Oh yes, I think part of the disinhibition stems from the fact that such behaviour is expected. But by no means all - even if you're doing your best to avoid it, the effect happens anyway, and tales of drunken behaviour exist from before it was expected.
So the question is.. how would people behave if they were drunk but didn't know they were drunk?
I predict the effect would be weaker but still there.
Unless I'm not understanding some weird UK-style legal mumbo jumbo that doesn't allow you to make copies for private use. God knows you guys have totally screwed up what was once a beautiful language (English).
I'm pretty sure there's no entitlement to do this. There are a few general copyright exceptions - "copies necessary for the intended use of the work" and "transitory copies the sole purpose of which is an otherwise legal use of the work" are those which spring to mind - but nothing like as extensive as "fair use" in the US
I am equal opertunity when it comes to inapropriate topics intruding in my game... someone starts running around saying "I am hetro, I am hetro" I will tell them to stuff it just as fast.
Really? Because I see people asking each other out in such games all the time, and nothing like this kind of reaction.
Unless of course you think all drugs reveal the "true" inner person. So someone taking PCP was always secretly angry, but if they took ecstasy instead they were secretly in love with EVERYBODY, etc.
No, but a major effect of alcohol is disinhibition. That's what it does, heck, that's a major reason for drinking it ("dutch courage" and all that"). So it makes people more prone to say what they think.
So, does that mean I can get the local DA go to your place of business/employer and impound all computers, papers, products, etc... without charge and without having to ever give the items back in a reasonable time?
No, because a corporation would have no way of owning property in the first place. If we allow them to hold property, we define some sensible terms under which they do so.
No freedom of speech so no advertising,
Sounds good to me. Of course there are instances in which it makes sense to permit advertising, but there is no entitlement, no right to advertise.
no talking about the product and they can't say anything at all.
No, just no protected right to say things.
No 3rd amendment, soldiers can be quartered in said place of business without recompence. (sic)
It makes more sense to interpret that as no ability to consent to quater soldiers - and this is only relevant if we allow corporations to own houses.
The DA (or any law enforcement officer) can search and seize anything in said business indefinetly without due process. (This would open things up to a whole host of corruption possibilities, say seizing a grocers produce for a month)
Again, we decide what it means for a corporation to hold property.
No 5th amendment, so double jeaprody is allowed for repeatedly suing any business into the ground.
This is just exposing an existing problem - the innocent should have nothing to fear or lose from a trial. And see the next.
No 6th, so you can skip Jury Trials and just find a judge that you can bribe to rule your way. Also, no right to counsel either and they can be tried in CA for something they supposedly did in CT.
No 7th, so no protection against "cruel and unusual" so fining a business $1 Trillion would be allowed for anything.
I'm trying hard to think how a corporation could break the law. If someone breaks the law while working for a corporation, it's surely still the person who's broken the law - compare it to organised crime. And trying a corporation in the same way as a person is blatantly ridiculous - what would it mean for them to question a witness, or even more, be questioned? What is a jury of their peers, other corporations? And how the hell do you send a corporation to jail?
If we decide it makes sense for a corporation to break the law, we decide how to try them. Trying to try them as people is stupid.
My guild consists of men and women of differing ages, races, nationalities, and sexual orientations (really - I'm not joking), and we all have fun and just play the damn game. We don't care if one of our members is gay because IT DOESN'T MATTER. It doesn't give you a stat bonus, it doesn't make you a better player, so who cares?
I'm a programmer. As such, I like to spend time with other programmers - I tend to get on better with them, if only because I have more in common with them. I don't play MMOGs, but if I did, I might well want to join a programmer's guild, and I know these exist. Why shouldn't it be the same for gay people?
At the same time, it is absolutely retarded that PDAs are commonly USB clients, but not USB hosts. There are existing silicon solutions that let a device be both, and if a PDA is supposed to be a computer, it should be a USB host. My PDA, which was $200 as a refurb, is a 400MHz ARM (xscale) with 64MB RAM. That's more powerful than the first three computers I had with USB (though not all of them put together.)
Agreed. The Zaurus SL_-6000 (?) does this if you can a) find and b) afford one, but I'm amazed more devices don't do it, especially now USB-OTG exists
Right now I play alot of CSCZ with my fiance, and usally on a friends server (I have issues finding servers I like, and Im quite picky w/lag times, drives me insane). I think there are about 10-12 servers besides the friends I game on, I would say maybe on friends server about 5 differant females I have seen, I think 2 might be in the clam, from the other servers, again a handful of females, but in the past few months I think I have only seen about 3 that are clam members.
Hmm. Do you think females are reluctant to join clans? Or do clans resist female membership?
And most of the servers I end up playing on, pending the time of course (gotta remember bedtimes lol) are young people, however most of the females I end up running into, like self, are 20+ in age groups. Most guys however, daylight hous are 13+ and after about 10pm are 20+. Kinda odd
Stereotypically, that might make sense in terms of work patterns. I'm surprised by the complete absence of young females though.
lol That was mostly a question without needing an answer, just sarcasm this morning is all.
I guessed as much, just wanted to keep talking - stereotypical slashdotter and all that.
And yes, but I dont go around and be all 'O Im a girl and I game', I try not to, and usally when in game, I dont speak with people for anything, unless its the random 'gg', 'ns', etc.
I wonder if that isn't part of it - the only girls who would make a fuss are the type the first participant is decrying. But that doesn't explain the complete absence of mixed clans.
Once a patch is out, every script kiddie on the planet can see what it fixes and exploit it. Until then you're only vulnerable to the moderately skilled.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't trust them to act out of the goodmess of their hearts. I trust them because I'm paying them, we have a contract. If AOL isn't giving their customers the working inboxes email they are paying them for, surely there's a simple solution called a class action lawsuit?
Hmm. I'm not sure I've ever experienced that. Can you give an example of what you mean?
Oh yes, I think part of the disinhibition stems from the fact that such behaviour is expected. But by no means all - even if you're doing your best to avoid it, the effect happens anyway, and tales of drunken behaviour exist from before it was expected.
So the question is.. how would people behave if they were drunk but didn't know they were drunk?
I predict the effect would be weaker but still there.
"Going Dutch" as well. England was at war with the Dutch for a while, so early propaganda accounts for a lot of it.
I'm pretty sure there's no entitlement to do this. There are a few general copyright exceptions - "copies necessary for the intended use of the work" and "transitory copies the sole purpose of which is an otherwise legal use of the work" are those which spring to mind - but nothing like as extensive as "fair use" in the US
Yes
Does that mean that if it says you can't install the software multiply that you may indeed install it as many times as you want?
No, because copyright law prevents that.
Does it mean that licenses are completely worthless to the licensor?
Licenses are useful for one thing only - making exceptions to your copyright. Any other terms are meaningless.
Are you a lawyer?Not yet
True, but we would still see them when they got as far as tournaments.
Really? Because I see people asking each other out in such games all the time, and nothing like this kind of reaction.
Your gender preference is a preference about more than just sex.
No, but a major effect of alcohol is disinhibition. That's what it does, heck, that's a major reason for drinking it ("dutch courage" and all that"). So it makes people more prone to say what they think.
No, because a corporation would have no way of owning property in the first place. If we allow them to hold property, we define some sensible terms under which they do so.
No freedom of speech so no advertising,
Sounds good to me. Of course there are instances in which it makes sense to permit advertising, but there is no entitlement, no right to advertise.
no talking about the product and they can't say anything at all.
No, just no protected right to say things.
No 3rd amendment, soldiers can be quartered in said place of business without recompence. (sic)
It makes more sense to interpret that as no ability to consent to quater soldiers - and this is only relevant if we allow corporations to own houses.
The DA (or any law enforcement officer) can search and seize anything in said business indefinetly without due process. (This would open things up to a whole host of corruption possibilities, say seizing a grocers produce for a month)
Again, we decide what it means for a corporation to hold property.
No 5th amendment, so double jeaprody is allowed for repeatedly suing any business into the ground.
This is just exposing an existing problem - the innocent should have nothing to fear or lose from a trial. And see the next.
No 6th, so you can skip Jury Trials and just find a judge that you can bribe to rule your way. Also, no right to counsel either and they can be tried in CA for something they supposedly did in CT. No 7th, so no protection against "cruel and unusual" so fining a business $1 Trillion would be allowed for anything.
I'm trying hard to think how a corporation could break the law. If someone breaks the law while working for a corporation, it's surely still the person who's broken the law - compare it to organised crime. And trying a corporation in the same way as a person is blatantly ridiculous - what would it mean for them to question a witness, or even more, be questioned? What is a jury of their peers, other corporations? And how the hell do you send a corporation to jail?
If we decide it makes sense for a corporation to break the law, we decide how to try them. Trying to try them as people is stupid.
It's not intrinsically sexual, any more than, say, marriage, which is seen as a perfect topic for family-friendly stuff.
I'm a programmer. As such, I like to spend time with other programmers - I tend to get on better with them, if only because I have more in common with them. I don't play MMOGs, but if I did, I might well want to join a programmer's guild, and I know these exist. Why shouldn't it be the same for gay people?
YES! People have rights - they're people. Corporations have no entitlement to the same rights.
The DVD consortium has got away with it.
Until now I didn't believe it was possible for someone to be that wrong.
Agreed. The Zaurus SL_-6000 (?) does this if you can a) find and b) afford one, but I'm amazed more devices don't do it, especially now USB-OTG exists
Hmm. Do you think females are reluctant to join clans? Or do clans resist female membership?
And most of the servers I end up playing on, pending the time of course (gotta remember bedtimes lol) are young people, however most of the females I end up running into, like self, are 20+ in age groups. Most guys however, daylight hous are 13+ and after about 10pm are 20+. Kinda odd
Stereotypically, that might make sense in terms of work patterns. I'm surprised by the complete absence of young females though.
No. But it's unlikely enough that preparing for it doesn't qualify as useful in my book. It's not saving any lives.
And ensure the poor pay not just most but all tax.
I guessed as much, just wanted to keep talking - stereotypical slashdotter and all that.
And yes, but I dont go around and be all 'O Im a girl and I game', I try not to, and usally when in game, I dont speak with people for anything, unless its the random 'gg', 'ns', etc.
I wonder if that isn't part of it - the only girls who would make a fuss are the type the first participant is decrying. But that doesn't explain the complete absence of mixed clans.
Once a patch is out, every script kiddie on the planet can see what it fixes and exploit it. Until then you're only vulnerable to the moderately skilled.
And Opera users laugh at both...
Well, to be honest, yeah, though not a girl. Are you?
What, but ugly ones don't?