Let me try again, this time I ask you to read without preconceptions.
I am not criticizing your religious beliefs. I am criticizing your comparisons. You are comparing racial and genetic factors with a personal choice. To answer your questions; you alluded that you were an outcast. You publicized your 'lack of' religion, and I don't think anyone is wrong for not wanting to get 'picked on.' "Gays, unwed mothers, Jews, and Wickens" shouldn't have to hide... but I leave that to their choice and expect them to live with the effect of that choice.
I never said anything about "straight married Christians" being the only ones living an honest life. Let's be fair with each other, this is a straw man fallacy. (It also leaves out the celibate Pope, which many 'Christians' would think leads an 'honest life')
I fail to see how I could possibly have infringed your rights or why you should want to start yelling about them. Keep in mind, the government DOES NOT guarantee your happiness, nor does it say it is a right; only the pursuit of happiness is mentioned.
I have not 'victimized' anyone. Not once, not twice. This is another straw man, but I will humor you as this is opinion.
If you grab a hot iron, (because you wanted to), and burn yourself, I have not victimized you. If you complain about being burned, I still have not victimized you. Me pointing out that you are burned still has not victimized you, I am only stating the obvious. But if I ridicule you, then I have hurt you. But how you take all this, is still up to you. Same idea applies here. If you 'out' yourself, (whether gay, Jewish, 'Wicken,'or ), you must be willing to deal with the real effects. Are African Americans, blondes, and 'fat people' all in bad conditions worthy of ridicule? I don't think so, nor did I ridicule them. The first group chose their own lifestyle/belief system, I did not choose it for them.
I am assuming you think before committing to action. Reason along the lines of; "If I do , what will happen ? Is what I want? Do I want to do enough to deal with ? If you wish to rebut this assumption I have a little advice for you; start thinking about the consequences of you actions, you'll be happier with your results because you will always get what you most wanted.
I hope you are not upset by this, I am simply pointing out association problems in your argument. Whether I agree with you or not I have not said, nor do I think that it would be worth while seeing from your response that you are not likely willing to listen to anything but support, of which you already have plenty of responses.
As a side note, you have no idea what my religion is, which is fine because religion has nothing to do with this argument.
"Now if only I had the chance of being less of an outcast than blacks in the south, but I'm sure unwed mothers and pickpockets will always beat out the both of us."
What is he doing, walking around with a T-shirt that says 'Atheist!! Ostracize me, I'm unclean!'? I work and study around several atheists, and unlike 'blacks' or 'unwed mothers' or even skinheads for that matter, you can't tell that they're atheists unless they tell you.
He has made himself an outcast, because he wanted to be, (whether it was a consequence of his agenda or not). If his outcast status was so real and bothered him so much, he would stop telling people and it would 'go away' eventually. Obviously he either likes the social exposure of an outcast, or he doesn't care as much about it as he would like to think.
Any time you are sufficiently different from the 'rest of the crowd' you will be an outcast. In our society, as long as you are not too far 'in left field', it gives you a social microphone. But just as soon as your lament becomes reality, ("oh, woe is me, if only everyone were just like me then I would fit in."), you lose your social microphone. That, otherwise known as attention, is usually what people want in the first place. (listen to me, I'm important too!)
This is a bad thing... no matter what the outcome of the elections is, (democrat, Republican, landslide, close...), election fixing is going to be claimed/suspected. Where there are several races which are purported to be very close, this will only fuel internal divisions in the U.S. voter base. (How many documentaries, (propaganda), hacking guides, etc... have/are going to be released slandering Diebold machines before the elections. It also seems like someone wants to keep voter turnout to a minimum.) I know it isn't the best solution, but, after the recounting fiasco of 2000, who could blame government agencies for wanting to make the voting computerized?
You can get updates in Firefox, I don't know how secure the site is, but they are available. My test computer took the updates just fine, and microsoft update showed that they were updated. Haven't had any problems for over 6 mo. Give it a try. http://www.windowsupdate.62nds.com/ I haven't used IE ever since.
...The U.S.S.R. was only half... or less... of why we were involved in Vietnam. We backed the French effort to re-establish their colonial power in Vietnam directly after WW2, to the tune of millions of dollars... even though 'uncle Ho' was already in power by then, with a U.S. supportive, (though communist, it was originally pro. U.S. - Uncle Ho even quoted the U.S. constitution and declaration of independence in an effort to show the U.S. that he was supportive), stable, and largely accepted native government - which is what FDR wanted in Vietnam anyway. But, pre-WW2 Vietnam was French colonial, and they wanted it back. So to get France 'on board' with the U.N. and in agreement with European trade, (not to mention the acceptance of West Germany into a trade agreement), the U.S. and other allies allowed France to re-enter Vietnam on the caveat that they would leave in a decade. Needless to say, France had to nearly invade Vietnam to enter again, and since they didn't have the economic structure or industrial ability to wage even a small war, the U.S. supplied them with $$ and arms. There is open war between France and 'uncle Ho' by 1947. At the end of 1950 the U.S. is supporting French colonialism to the tune of $33 Million....our international antagonism of the U.S.S.R. (full blown cold war) didn't start until around 1948, when we realized that the soviets were not fulfilling their agreements of the Potsdam conference, (keeping occupying soldiers past removal dates), and we were supporting, as did the UK, French colonialism long before that. It started IN the Potsdam conference... when the cold war was not anticipated by US leaders. Either way you look at it, France pulled the US off 'the fence' on Vietnam... what we did after was worse... but France and European politics pulled us off the fence.
...Let me help you cut your list down a little... Reason why the rest of the world hates the U.S.;
1. They are not the U.S....Everyone outside of Rome hated Rome... but everyone wanted to be Rome, with their power and influence. Let's face it, most of the developed world buys our goods, absorbes our culture, and learns our language. If they were on top, we would feel the same about them.
I don't mean to say that what we do is right... I am simply saying that your 'reasons' are too complex. If we hated those who slaughtered innocents we would all hate the majority of Africa... for starters, and them move on to the rest of the world. No one's record is clean, not the U.S., not anyone's, but as much as you malign the U.S. record, we aren't doing that bad. The number of wars since the U.S. took a center seat in international politics, (as opposed to western European powers), are far fewer and less destructive than the centuries before under european power. (Even some of our 'wars' were a direct result of european influence; ie - Vietnam - a result of our ties to France and their sluggishness to give-up colonialism after WW2.) Again, the U.S. in not perfect... far from it. But we are not horrible compared to the current alternatives. They want to be in power, not the U.S., and that is why they don't like the U.S.
The world is still young and stupid. Everything boils down to the bickering of children over who is in charge. Would you prefer Chavez?
In reading the review, I came to the end and the author stated that the core duo lineup routed the X2 line... But I don't remeber seeing an X2 processor... I glanced back through the linup, but didn't see an X2 listed.
Did they just omit the X2 part of the processor line, or did I miss something, or is the author jumping to conclusions?
Someone correct me, but if they were comparing core 2 duo processors to single core 64's it doesn't seem like a consistent benchmark. Did I fall asleep somewhere between the ads? Or is this a mistake?
...I am not an electrical engineer, but that seems to be exactly the way you would beat this. There will also be at least one manufaturer that decides to cater to hackers and their card's signals will either change "fingerprints" to match another observed signal... or will have a completely erratic, changing print.
This is not the end of spoofing. This COULD be the end of spoofing for those who; a) don't do it anyway, b) do it on a whim, with no real reason, to connect to their friends/their network.
"...driving upside down for about 3 seconds..."
I don't know how doing that is screwing physics. The Saleen, (I think it was '98 or '97, can't remember the year), has enough aerodynamic downforce at 120mph to literally fly. If you had this baby going that fast, you could theoretically drive upside-down, (through a tunnel or something I guess), until you slowed down below 120. I don't know how long the gas in the tank would last, or if it would still feed fuel in that position, but I'm betting it is more than three seconds. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saleen_S7
...why? I thought you would understand his self-defeatism... The GP is obviously a 'wingman'.
You see... one ill turn deserves another. There is obviously only one way to correct an injustice, and that is to inflict another.
I think this is one of the sure-fire ways to start a flame-war on slashdot... and is ridiculous.
Your post may 'expose' the asinine grandparent post, but also doesn't answer the valid point it raises. The question you/ (science) needs to answer is if we (mankind) are to blame for the rise in temperature, or if we can even stop the warming trend. If we are not to blame, what evidence, (moral/ethical/scientific), is there that we should do anything to stop it, assuming we could?
When looking at temperature models, it is important to take TIME in to consideration. Yes, we are probably the warmest we have been in 400 years... possibly in over 100,000 years. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/warming/etc/graphs.html [pbs.org] (NOVA) - Note that the pictures don't overlay the correlation, (let me say that word again; CORRELATION), between the two. Take a look at these others; http://cdiac.esd.ornl.gov/trends/co2/graphics/vost ok.co2.gif [ornl.gov] http://www.brighton73.freeserve.co.uk/gw/paleo/400 000yrfig.htm [freeserve.co.uk] - (This is also a good read)
As you can see, we are on a warming trend, and are not yet as warm as it has reached in the non-industrialized past. Either way, there seems to be a strong force in the earth to bring this heating cycle back down, and though there is a correlation in carbon and temperature, though it is debatable that.0055% (ppm difernce taken from NOAA site, increase of 55ppm - if you count since the industrial revolution, it might be around.01%) change in the atmosphere is going to cause a huge warming trend. It is more possible that the carbon levels are an indication of another cause, which would be a good reason why they are correlated. (If that is the case, we have contaminated our "warning sign," or indicator with the industrial revolution.) If we act before we know if these two evidences are directly related and not just correlated, we could end-up damaging the cycle/environment even further. Regardless of which camp you reside in, these questions need to be answered. (In my mind, especially the part where less than a tenth of a percent increase could trap enough energy to raise the global temperature several degrees.)
I am curious who really started this disturbing trend? I agree with earlier posts that this is damaging to game-play, it kills fantasy realism. (Yes I did just say that.) Can you imagine buing an axe in WOW that happens to be formed from a pepsi symbol? How long until the character models and costumes in games look more like stock-racing drivers or their cars?
How long has this been happening though? How many games does this really affect? Does this go all the way back to Quake with Nine-Inch-Nails, or was 'advertising' done earlier?
Assuming that everyone we place in our jails is an American citizen is naïve at best. Assuming further that everyone in the world is covered under the US constitution is imperialism. Go ahead, try and enforce the constitutional rights you claim this man, or anyone in Guantanamo has, in their own country. After all, you can't simply say they are entitled to due process, but not freedom of speech or any of the other 'rights' guaranteed to American citizens.
The founding fathers were wise not to try and enforce these rights on everyone in the world.
Don't get me wrong, I believe everyone is entitled to these rights, but where do we draw the line and where do we tell the rest of the world to draw the line? Is America imperialistic? You bet. But most of the world wants us to be when it comes to our courts and the 'rights' of their citizens on our soil.
I honestly don't know what the issue is. If I had done what he did, I wouldn't assume to tell them that they couldn't put me where they want. If I had further allowed others to gain access to the information (which it could be argued he did) I could easily be tried for treason, and executed as a spy.
I agree, we should enforce our imperialistic constitutional rights on this potential 'spy' in our midst!...ah, in the UK's midst!
...the only agenda that ultimately matters is Blizzard's.
Don't fool yourself with this circular logic, the majority rules in economy and if people start to get 'turned off' WoW for some reason, Blizzard will try to eliminate it.
I, personally, game to escape the 'real world' and I don't like mixing the two. Why would I want to have the socio-political agenda of other players invade my gaming sphere? If this becomes too much of a hassle for other gamers, (ie. can't use normal/preferred expressions), it too will die.
I find it hard to believe that you honestly believe that the media has a conservative bias. I have a name for you; Dan Rather. He was praised by executives of all media corps. as being 'fair and balanced' in his reporting, and you think they are conservative?
granted there is corruption everywhere and conservative bias does exist, but I have yet to see any mainstream news corporation that suffers so.
I thought it would be obvious what we would lose; the Wild West.
No honestly, right now it is fairly hard to censor the internet, to squash voices, or to enforce any national law. If the internet was fragmented it would allow nations much more ability to mandate what is and isn't allowed in their country, (and possibly in and out of the country as well).
Isn't that what everyone is upset about with Google, Yahoo, and China? I'm not intending to sell tin-foil hats, but this seems to be a bureaucratic wet-dream when it comes to cover-ups or media control.
I believe people would discover a way to circumvent any censorship is imposed on the internet, but let's not make it easy to censor in the first place.
...are they wrong? Depends on whether you are a "Big-Ender" or a "Small-Ender" when it comes to your eggs.
Everything that 'statement' is based on is relative. Right now, depending on what poll you believe, about 40% of America disagrees with you. You also have other countries, the ones who want ours destroyed, who agree and disagree with you at the same time... the issue I have with it is, if they want us destroyed and Bush is bad for us, why don't they like him?
I agree with just about everyone, but the real cause behind the reason why politicians see this legislation as necessary is being completely ignored.
It has been said before that if a 12 year old is playing GTA 3, the game is the least of their worries... it is still true. The game industry already is rating itself, stores are already selling accordingly.
The problem is the lack of accountability. As was stated before, we sell alcohol even though it is proven to impair abilities and even kill people. Even if these games prove to kill brain cells, the most we could reasonably do is limit the "legal gaming age" - but we all know it will not stop "game-aholics" who must have their fix. We prosecute those who sell alcohol to minors, but what about the soccer-mom who buys GTA 3 for her Junior High School student?
The honest reason why alcohol is allowed is because the (older - mom and dad) voting masses wouldn't give it up. By voting masses, I mean the consumer. No I don't see violent game bootleggers springing up in the future, but I do see pressure from businesses and law enforcement, (lets face it, a ban would be impossible to implement regardless of need, because of the nature of the internet), to drop this ban.
I can see this being popular among the AARP generation, but to be honest, a political stunt is the length of this movement. (Unless when "we" become the AARP rank and file we decide that the ban is a good idea.)
The question of whether games affect our minds is not at debate here, they do. The practicality of a ban is. I would simply wait and see on this 'ban,' it is simply impossible to enforce without stepping on all sorts of civil rights and privacy. It won't hold up in any court. My advice to everyone is; be honest with yourself. I won't use the 'slippery slope' argument to hide that I like violent games. I know I do. That's why I keep playing them. Arguing against this ban for moral reasons or the merits of freedom is a farce when you realize that our desires drive economy and the government. Is it a 'slippery slope?' sure. Does it matter if that is where the vast majority of people want to go? Only if you're in the minority. Regardless, anyone who has studied political structure knows that the founding fathers put restraints on this kind of thing because they realized what it really is: Tyranny.
I couldn't stop staring at the screen when I read this string and I have to ask a simple question; are you (all of you) still determined to fight the first crusade/jihad?
Both arguments don't hold water, and yet they are both right in a way. What frustrates many 'westerners' is the lack of understanding in the Muslim world for how many western-style governments work. For example= Thousands of Muslims have demonstrated, peacefully and not, that the Danish government apologize for something they didn't do. Yes, that is right, the Danish Govt. does not control, fund, or dictate what is printed in the papers. Just as the average Afghani is not responsible for the Taliban's destruction of the Hindu monuments, the Danish Gov. it not responsible for the action of a private buisness, especially because the Newspaper did not break any laws in Denmark. (Also, your lack of acknowledgment that critical caricatures of other religions, especially christian, have been and continue to be printed often is disturbing. If you dare ask what the Christian response is to negative representations of Christ are, the answer is; they tolerate it.)
In response to the parent post... yes. The Jews have received, and in many cases continue to receive, the brunt of religious persecution in the world today, but NO RELIGION'S HISTORY IS PERFECT, because people are not perfect. In the same breath it is presumptuous to claim that the 'European' doesn't know his own history. Perhaps he simply is ignoring it. (You fail to mention that the Jews own recorded biblical history contains accounts of genocide and your assertion that it is unfortunate that 'people like him' exist smaks of the same hate you denounce.)
You must take people one at a time. I should not be liable for my grandparents or fathers actions and neither should you. Apologize for your own mistakes and I will apologize for mine. Expressing compassion and regret for whatever offense or negative incident has happened should be a human action, not a religion-specific trait. (If I remember correctly, the Danish Gov. did so.)
I don't condone offending anyone and I am sorry (any of) you were offended. That aside, I had no involvement in the cartoons or the Taliban destroying monuments or the holocaust or the crusades or slavery or Micro$oft or $CO or the Siberian Gulags, or Hiroshima/Nagasaki or 9/11 or Katrina or my sister-in-law's wedding - all of which are disasters. I like-wise don't hold you responsible for any of them.
The point is to learn from past mistakes and try not to compound them by over-reaction or repetition. Otherwise we will be fighting the crusades/jihad or world war (WW2 included some (not all) Muslims allied with Hitler along with Christians, WW2 was not a religious war).
...wow. I can't believe it. For the first time in months someone actually used their head. I agree with you 100% and that is not because I am a computer gaming fan-boy. Like you, I just can see past the marketing with my own two eyes.
If better resolution and graphics + ability to mod are as important as Micro$oft and $ony say they are, why are they not making games for the pc?
Slashdot Mirror
Let me try again, this time I ask you to read without preconceptions.
I am not criticizing your religious beliefs. I am criticizing your comparisons. You are comparing racial and genetic factors with a personal choice.
To answer your questions; you alluded that you were an outcast. You publicized your 'lack of' religion, and I don't think anyone is wrong for not wanting to get 'picked on.' "Gays, unwed mothers, Jews, and Wickens" shouldn't have to hide... but I leave that to their choice and expect them to live with the effect of that choice.
I never said anything about "straight married Christians" being the only ones living an honest life. Let's be fair with each other, this is a straw man fallacy. (It also leaves out the celibate Pope, which many 'Christians' would think leads an 'honest life')
I fail to see how I could possibly have infringed your rights or why you should want to start yelling about them. Keep in mind, the government DOES NOT guarantee your happiness, nor does it say it is a right; only the pursuit of happiness is mentioned.
I have not 'victimized' anyone. Not once, not twice. This is another straw man, but I will humor you as this is opinion.
If you grab a hot iron, (because you wanted to), and burn yourself, I have not victimized you. If you complain about being burned, I still have not victimized you. Me pointing out that you are burned still has not victimized you, I am only stating the obvious. But if I ridicule you, then I have hurt you. But how you take all this, is still up to you.
Same idea applies here. If you 'out' yourself, (whether gay, Jewish, 'Wicken,'or ), you must be willing to deal with the real effects. Are African Americans, blondes, and 'fat people' all in bad conditions worthy of ridicule? I don't think so, nor did I ridicule them. The first group chose their own lifestyle/belief system, I did not choose it for them.
I am assuming you think before committing to action. Reason along the lines of; "If I do , what will happen ? Is what I want? Do I want to do enough to deal with ? If you wish to rebut this assumption I have a little advice for you; start thinking about the consequences of you actions, you'll be happier with your results because you will always get what you most wanted.
I hope you are not upset by this, I am simply pointing out association problems in your argument. Whether I agree with you or not I have not said, nor do I think that it would be worth while seeing from your response that you are not likely willing to listen to anything but support, of which you already have plenty of responses.
As a side note, you have no idea what my religion is, which is fine because religion has nothing to do with this argument.
"Now if only I had the chance of being less of an outcast than blacks in the south, but I'm sure unwed mothers and pickpockets will always beat out the both of us."
What is he doing, walking around with a T-shirt that says 'Atheist!! Ostracize me, I'm unclean!'? I work and study around several atheists, and unlike 'blacks' or 'unwed mothers' or even skinheads for that matter, you can't tell that they're atheists unless they tell you.
He has made himself an outcast, because he wanted to be, (whether it was a consequence of his agenda or not). If his outcast status was so real and bothered him so much, he would stop telling people and it would 'go away' eventually. Obviously he either likes the social exposure of an outcast, or he doesn't care as much about it as he would like to think.
Any time you are sufficiently different from the 'rest of the crowd' you will be an outcast. In our society, as long as you are not too far 'in left field', it gives you a social microphone. But just as soon as your lament becomes reality, ("oh, woe is me, if only everyone were just like me then I would fit in."), you lose your social microphone. That, otherwise known as attention, is usually what people want in the first place. (listen to me, I'm important too!)
This is a bad thing... no matter what the outcome of the elections is, (democrat, Republican, landslide, close...), election fixing is going to be claimed/suspected. Where there are several races which are purported to be very close, this will only fuel internal divisions in the U.S. voter base. (How many documentaries, (propaganda), hacking guides, etc... have/are going to be released slandering Diebold machines before the elections. It also seems like someone wants to keep voter turnout to a minimum.)
I know it isn't the best solution, but, after the recounting fiasco of 2000, who could blame government agencies for wanting to make the voting computerized?
I don't mean to double-post myself, but here is the wikipedia like on windiz
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WindizUpdate
You can get updates in Firefox, I don't know how secure the site is, but they are available. My test computer took the updates just fine, and microsoft update showed that they were updated. Haven't had any problems for over 6 mo.
Give it a try.
http://www.windowsupdate.62nds.com/
I haven't used IE ever since.
...The U.S.S.R. was only half... or less... of why we were involved in Vietnam. We backed the French effort to re-establish their colonial power in Vietnam directly after WW2, to the tune of millions of dollars... even though 'uncle Ho' was already in power by then, with a U.S. supportive, (though communist, it was originally pro. U.S. - Uncle Ho even quoted the U.S. constitution and declaration of independence in an effort to show the U.S. that he was supportive), stable, and largely accepted native government - which is what FDR wanted in Vietnam anyway. But, pre-WW2 Vietnam was French colonial, and they wanted it back. So to get France 'on board' with the U.N. and in agreement with European trade, (not to mention the acceptance of West Germany into a trade agreement), the U.S. and other allies allowed France to re-enter Vietnam on the caveat that they would leave in a decade. Needless to say, France had to nearly invade Vietnam to enter again, and since they didn't have the economic structure or industrial ability to wage even a small war, the U.S. supplied them with $$ and arms. There is open war between France and 'uncle Ho' by 1947. At the end of 1950 the U.S. is supporting French colonialism to the tune of $33 Million. ...our international antagonism of the U.S.S.R. (full blown cold war) didn't start until around 1948, when we realized that the soviets were not fulfilling their agreements of the Potsdam conference, (keeping occupying soldiers past removal dates), and we were supporting, as did the UK, French colonialism long before that. It started IN the Potsdam conference... when the cold war was not anticipated by US leaders. Either way you look at it, France pulled the US off 'the fence' on Vietnam... what we did after was worse... but France and European politics pulled us off the fence.
...Let me help you cut your list down a little... ...Everyone outside of Rome hated Rome... but everyone wanted to be Rome, with their power and influence. Let's face it, most of the developed world buys our goods, absorbes our culture, and learns our language. If they were on top, we would feel the same about them.
Reason why the rest of the world hates the U.S.;
1. They are not the U.S.
I don't mean to say that what we do is right... I am simply saying that your 'reasons' are too complex. If we hated those who slaughtered innocents we would all hate the majority of Africa... for starters, and them move on to the rest of the world. No one's record is clean, not the U.S., not anyone's, but as much as you malign the U.S. record, we aren't doing that bad. The number of wars since the U.S. took a center seat in international politics, (as opposed to western European powers), are far fewer and less destructive than the centuries before under european power. (Even some of our 'wars' were a direct result of european influence; ie - Vietnam - a result of our ties to France and their sluggishness to give-up colonialism after WW2.)
Again, the U.S. in not perfect... far from it. But we are not horrible compared to the current alternatives. They want to be in power, not the U.S., and that is why they don't like the U.S.
The world is still young and stupid. Everything boils down to the bickering of children over who is in charge. Would you prefer Chavez?
...um... if that is the case, how do you explain these?e gory=34&N=2010340343+50001028+1051720996+130282027 6&Submit=ENE&Manufactory=1028&SubCategory=3432 E16819103631 ...so which ones were they using? I can accept that they were beat, I just think it was kinda muddled... did they ever say that they were using X2's? Like I said, I think I missed it.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductList.asp?Cat
You will see the listing of "single core" under each of the Athlon processors, along with the sempron,(which I know were not tested).
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N8
Here you see an athlon AM2 3800+ that is single core.
In reading the review, I came to the end and the author stated that the core duo lineup routed the X2 line... But I don't remeber seeing an X2 processor... I glanced back through the linup, but didn't see an X2 listed.
Did they just omit the X2 part of the processor line, or did I miss something, or is the author jumping to conclusions?
Someone correct me, but if they were comparing core 2 duo processors to single core 64's it doesn't seem like a consistent benchmark.
Did I fall asleep somewhere between the ads? Or is this a mistake?
...I am not an electrical engineer, but that seems to be exactly the way you would beat this. There will also be at least one manufaturer that decides to cater to hackers and their card's signals will either change "fingerprints" to match another observed signal... or will have a completely erratic, changing print.
This is not the end of spoofing. This COULD be the end of spoofing for those who; a) don't do it anyway, b) do it on a whim, with no real reason, to connect to their friends/their network.
"...driving upside down for about 3 seconds..."
I don't know how doing that is screwing physics. The Saleen, (I think it was '98 or '97, can't remember the year), has enough aerodynamic downforce at 120mph to literally fly. If you had this baby going that fast, you could theoretically drive upside-down, (through a tunnel or something I guess), until you slowed down below 120. I don't know how long the gas in the tank would last, or if it would still feed fuel in that position, but I'm betting it is more than three seconds.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saleen_S7
...why? I thought you would understand his self-defeatism... The GP is obviously a 'wingman'.
You see... one ill turn deserves another. There is obviously only one way to correct an injustice, and that is to inflict another.
I think this is one of the sure-fire ways to start a flame-war on slashdot... and is ridiculous.
t ok.co2.gif [ornl.gov]0 000yrfig.htm [freeserve.co.uk] - (This is also a good read) .0055% (ppm difernce taken from NOAA site, increase of 55ppm - if you count since the industrial revolution, it might be around .01%) change in the atmosphere is going to cause a huge warming trend. It is more possible that the carbon levels are an indication of another cause, which would be a good reason why they are correlated. (If that is the case, we have contaminated our "warning sign," or indicator with the industrial revolution.) If we act before we know if these two evidences are directly related and not just correlated, we could end-up damaging the cycle/environment even further. Regardless of which camp you reside in, these questions need to be answered. (In my mind, especially the part where less than a tenth of a percent increase could trap enough energy to raise the global temperature several degrees.)
Your post may 'expose' the asinine grandparent post, but also doesn't answer the valid point it raises. The question you/ (science) needs to answer is if we (mankind) are to blame for the rise in temperature, or if we can even stop the warming trend. If we are not to blame, what evidence, (moral/ethical/scientific), is there that we should do anything to stop it, assuming we could?
When looking at temperature models, it is important to take TIME in to consideration. Yes, we are probably the warmest we have been in 400 years... possibly in over 100,000 years.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/warming/etc/graphs.html [pbs.org] (NOVA) - Note that the pictures don't overlay the correlation, (let me say that word again; CORRELATION), between the two. Take a look at these others;
http://cdiac.esd.ornl.gov/trends/co2/graphics/vos
http://www.brighton73.freeserve.co.uk/gw/paleo/40
As you can see, we are on a warming trend, and are not yet as warm as it has reached in the non-industrialized past. Either way, there seems to be a strong force in the earth to bring this heating cycle back down, and though there is a correlation in carbon and temperature, though it is debatable that
I am curious who really started this disturbing trend? I agree with earlier posts that this is damaging to game-play, it kills fantasy realism. (Yes I did just say that.) Can you imagine buing an axe in WOW that happens to be formed from a pepsi symbol? How long until the character models and costumes in games look more like stock-racing drivers or their cars?
How long has this been happening though? How many games does this really affect? Does this go all the way back to Quake with Nine-Inch-Nails, or was 'advertising' done earlier?
W-O-W. Telling scientists, programmers, etc... that they can't use current advancements that are avaialble hinders innovation! Oh my.
The founding fathers were wise not to try and enforce these rights on everyone in the world.
Don't get me wrong, I believe everyone is entitled to these rights, but where do we draw the line and where do we tell the rest of the world to draw the line? Is America imperialistic? You bet. But most of the world wants us to be when it comes to our courts and the 'rights' of their citizens on our soil.
I honestly don't know what the issue is. If I had done what he did, I wouldn't assume to tell them that they couldn't put me where they want. If I had further allowed others to gain access to the information (which it could be argued he did) I could easily be tried for treason, and executed as a spy.
I agree, we should enforce our imperialistic constitutional rights on this potential 'spy' in our midst! ...ah, in the UK's midst!
Don't fool yourself with this circular logic, the majority rules in economy and if people start to get 'turned off' WoW for some reason, Blizzard will try to eliminate it.
I, personally, game to escape the 'real world' and I don't like mixing the two. Why would I want to have the socio-political agenda of other players invade my gaming sphere? If this becomes too much of a hassle for other gamers, (ie. can't use normal/preferred expressions), it too will die.
GLBT ... it shouldn't be a guild... unless they have good sandwiches. Guacamole-lettuce-bacon-tomato...
I've go to go, the fridge is calling.
I find it hard to believe that you honestly believe that the media has a conservative bias. I have a name for you; Dan Rather. He was praised by executives of all media corps. as being 'fair and balanced' in his reporting, and you think they are conservative?
granted there is corruption everywhere and conservative bias does exist, but I have yet to see any mainstream news corporation that suffers so.
No honestly, right now it is fairly hard to censor the internet, to squash voices, or to enforce any national law. If the internet was fragmented it would allow nations much more ability to mandate what is and isn't allowed in their country, (and possibly in and out of the country as well).
Isn't that what everyone is upset about with Google, Yahoo, and China? I'm not intending to sell tin-foil hats, but this seems to be a bureaucratic wet-dream when it comes to cover-ups or media control.
I believe people would discover a way to circumvent any censorship is imposed on the internet, but let's not make it easy to censor in the first place.
...and if it happens to be California, you have to do much worse than that. Worst case senario = Move to UAE.
Everything that 'statement' is based on is relative. Right now, depending on what poll you believe, about 40% of America disagrees with you. You also have other countries, the ones who want ours destroyed, who agree and disagree with you at the same time... the issue I have with it is, if they want us destroyed and Bush is bad for us, why don't they like him?
I agree with just about everyone, but the real cause behind the reason why politicians see this legislation as necessary is being completely ignored.
It has been said before that if a 12 year old is playing GTA 3, the game is the least of their worries... it is still true. The game industry already is rating itself, stores are already selling accordingly.
The problem is the lack of accountability. As was stated before, we sell alcohol even though it is proven to impair abilities and even kill people. Even if these games prove to kill brain cells, the most we could reasonably do is limit the "legal gaming age" - but we all know it will not stop "game-aholics" who must have their fix. We prosecute those who sell alcohol to minors, but what about the soccer-mom who buys GTA 3 for her Junior High School student?
The honest reason why alcohol is allowed is because the (older - mom and dad) voting masses wouldn't give it up. By voting masses, I mean the consumer. No I don't see violent game bootleggers springing up in the future, but I do see pressure from businesses and law enforcement, (lets face it, a ban would be impossible to implement regardless of need, because of the nature of the internet), to drop this ban.
I can see this being popular among the AARP generation, but to be honest, a political stunt is the length of this movement. (Unless when "we" become the AARP rank and file we decide that the ban is a good idea.)
The question of whether games affect our minds is not at debate here, they do. The practicality of a ban is. I would simply wait and see on this 'ban,' it is simply impossible to enforce without stepping on all sorts of civil rights and privacy. It won't hold up in any court. My advice to everyone is; be honest with yourself. I won't use the 'slippery slope' argument to hide that I like violent games. I know I do. That's why I keep playing them. Arguing against this ban for moral reasons or the merits of freedom is a farce when you realize that our desires drive economy and the government. Is it a 'slippery slope?' sure. Does it matter if that is where the vast majority of people want to go? Only if you're in the minority. Regardless, anyone who has studied political structure knows that the founding fathers put restraints on this kind of thing because they realized what it really is: Tyranny.
I couldn't stop staring at the screen when I read this string and I have to ask a simple question; are you (all of you) still determined to fight the first crusade/jihad?
Both arguments don't hold water, and yet they are both right in a way. What frustrates many 'westerners' is the lack of understanding in the Muslim world for how many western-style governments work. For example= Thousands of Muslims have demonstrated, peacefully and not, that the Danish government apologize for something they didn't do. Yes, that is right, the Danish Govt. does not control, fund, or dictate what is printed in the papers. Just as the average Afghani is not responsible for the Taliban's destruction of the Hindu monuments, the Danish Gov. it not responsible for the action of a private buisness, especially because the Newspaper did not break any laws in Denmark. (Also, your lack of acknowledgment that critical caricatures of other religions, especially christian, have been and continue to be printed often is disturbing. If you dare ask what the Christian response is to negative representations of Christ are, the answer is; they tolerate it.)
In response to the parent post... yes. The Jews have received, and in many cases continue to receive, the brunt of religious persecution in the world today, but NO RELIGION'S HISTORY IS PERFECT, because people are not perfect. In the same breath it is presumptuous to claim that the 'European' doesn't know his own history. Perhaps he simply is ignoring it. (You fail to mention that the Jews own recorded biblical history contains accounts of genocide and your assertion that it is unfortunate that 'people like him' exist smaks of the same hate you denounce.)
You must take people one at a time. I should not be liable for my grandparents or fathers actions and neither should you. Apologize for your own mistakes and I will apologize for mine. Expressing compassion and regret for whatever offense or negative incident has happened should be a human action, not a religion-specific trait. (If I remember correctly, the Danish Gov. did so.)
I don't condone offending anyone and I am sorry (any of) you were offended. That aside, I had no involvement in the cartoons or the Taliban destroying monuments or the holocaust or the crusades or slavery or Micro$oft or $CO or the Siberian Gulags, or Hiroshima/Nagasaki or 9/11 or Katrina or my sister-in-law's wedding - all of which are disasters. I like-wise don't hold you responsible for any of them.
The point is to learn from past mistakes and try not to compound them by over-reaction or repetition. Otherwise we will be fighting the crusades/jihad or world war (WW2 included some (not all) Muslims allied with Hitler along with Christians, WW2 was not a religious war).
If better resolution and graphics + ability to mod are as important as Micro$oft and $ony say they are, why are they not making games for the pc?