The information is the same, but the process is important. As someone commented above -- the most insightful comment on this whole article, I think -- this means that there is no longer any such thing as a visa waiver. If it looks like a visa, smells like a visa,... etc.
Has to be applied for in advance? Check.
Approval has to be given in advance? Check.
Furthermore, there's a certain question of trust. If a country like Ireland does something like this, you think, "Cool, they're making the process more efficient." If a country like Iran does it, you wonder what the ulterior motive is. The US is firmly in the latter category.
New Zealanders are the only ones that those rules don't apply to. Australia has relatively invasive requirements for every other nationality on the planet.
Oz isn't as bad as the US (in terms of data collection and privacy violation) or the UK (in terms of sheer hostility from immigration officials), but it's still a relatively unpleasant barrier. I'm not sure I'd be wanting to travel to Australia on a non-Australian/NZ passport. Almost any other European country, however, is a real pleasure to visit by comparison with any of the US, UK, or Oz. (I'm sure there are exceptions, but none spring to mind.)
Some other countries have imposing border controls, but generally for comprehensible reasons, unlike the US and Australia. Countries that have unreasonable, incomprehensible barriers are ones that you just don't visit by choice. The US and the UK get away with it because, for reasons that are unclear to me, international airlines insist on making them travel hubs. It's very difficult for me to travel from Australasia to South America, for example, without flying via the US. There are flights between Auckland and Santiago, but they're expensive. Currently, I'm willing to put up with the higher fare to avoid the US.
In what dialect of English does "to beg" literally mean "to raise, imply, point towards, suggest"? Do homeless people who wait around by ATMs "imply" money where you come from? Do victims of violent crimes "suggest" for mercy?
"Beg" means "ask for". You're the one preferring a non-literal meaning.
That's not a bad site, but their explanation isn't as clear as it could be. One of the reasons there's confusion over the phrase is that it's difficult to see how a definition like one given there ("the initial assumption of a statement is treated as already proven without any logic to show why the statement is true in the first place") is literally what the phrase means.
Clarity is the reason why I'm a fan of the OED's definition:
to beg the question: to take for granted the matter in dispute, to assume without proof.
Here it's nice and clear that the meaning is in fact literally what the phrase says. No re-phrasing, no metaphor, no roundabout explanations.
I only meant fair in the sense that there was at one time good reason to be very, very scared of this bill. That time was a year ago.
As for this article's scare-mongering about the bill as enacted, on the whole I agree with you. (At the same time I also agree with the ISPs that the enacted bill is too vague, but that's hardly grounds for panic.)
I take it back, it wasn't debated at all. I should have read more extensively. One of the speakers (Chris Finlayson, National) reports,
The Minister knows, and I certainly know, that we have all had approaches from various commercial entities, as a result of which the Minister has come up with a number of amendments.
In context it's pretty clear that the commercial entities he's referring to are ISPs.
Oh, look, "repeat infringers". Nothing about "guilt on accusation".
To be fair, versions of the bill that were circulating before it was passed did indeed provide for guilt on accusation, absolutely explicitly, and also explicitly without any recourse or appeal process. This was up until it went to committee for the last time. Unfortunately I can no longer find the older version of the text anywhere online, and I deleted a copy I had on HDD when the act was passed.
The relevant section (92) was by far the most heavily debated part of the bill in the last round of committee discussion, and it's a lot better now.
Firstly, this bill is being brought in by the opposition party in parliament (Labour).
You seem to have the chronology a bit mixed up (unless it's just a quirk of tenses). The bill was passed almost a year ago, when Labour was in power, and received assent in April last year.
I'm not sure, but I think the submitter may have the chronology mixed up as well -- viz. "Next month, New Zealand is scheduled to implement Section 92". According to the act itself, the relevant clauses came into force on 31 October 2008, though maybe they're not being enforced yet.
What happened to the great New Zealand from World War II that quite courageously proclaimed after Britain entered the war something along the lines of "Where Britain goes, we stand by them"?
Hey, if someone were to invite us to become a full member of the EU, I'm sure we'd be willing.
I think you missed my point. No matter whose idea it is, his successor will have the same tool. Let me put it this way: supposing Obama were planning to put weapons in space that could strike arbitrary locations, spy on the public, and bring down other nations' satellites at a moment's notice, and also prevent anyone else from putting similar weapons in space.
Sounds pretty horrible, right? Well, let's also suppose that we "trust" Obama not to abuse this tool. But then -- contemplate that President Sarah Palin will have control over the same weapons in 2013. (Adjust names to suit personal preference.)
OK, an over-the-top example, but my point is, trust is only relevant for the term of office of the incumbent. In the longer term, I don't care whose idea it is. If it's a tool I'd be horrified to see in the hands of my enemy, I reckon it's a bad idea, whether the incumbent is my enemy or my friend.
Player pianos only signal note on and note off with the paper. So everything is played at one volume level.
As others have pointed out, there's player pianos and there's player pianos. Mechanical ones reproduce (or reproduced) dynamics by means of a pneumatic system. There were Ampico recording pianos in the 1920s that were good enough to record Rachmaninov playing his own and others' works well enough that they compare favourably to many modern recordings -- in terms of not only the quality of the performer, but also the sensitivity of the performance. Really they have to be heard to be believed. Here's a sample -- the only one I can find on Youtube, and unfortunately not the greatest example as it doesn't show off the subtle shading of inner parts that you get in some of his other music.
Here's one CD that I'm probably going to buy soonish. A couple more: one, and two. (I was once comparing a set of about half a dozen performances of a particular Rachmaninov prelude on a road trip, and while Rachmaninov's own on a player piano wasn't the best in every respect, we agreed that it did win overall.)
It's equally "suspicious" -- or non-suspicious -- regardless of who does it. Someday someone you distrust is going to be in power, and they're going to have at their disposal all the tools that are being created now. If you're OK with that, then I guess this is a good move. If you're not, it isn't.
The list fails. Lotus Symphony isn't OSS, though it is based off OpenOffice 1.
Indeed. Seeing Lotus Symphony on the second slide was enough to make me realise that these folks haven't done more than a minute of research, and that it's time to stop reading/., go outside, and make the most of the sunshine...
For FLAC (ca. 500-600 kb/s) you'd be lucky to get a whole minute of audio under 30 Mb (ca. 3.57 MB). For MP3 you'd probably need to use V3 or even V4 to get a whole song onto it.
is there a mod for BG or BG 2 that updates the rules to 3rd ed? I loathe 2nd ed, and there's no way in hell I'll ever play those games with 2nd ed rules. I'd consider playing with 3rd ed rules, though.
Yes, there is: Icewind Gate II converts BG2 to play in the Icewind Dale II engine, which uses 3rd ed. rules. However, It looks like it hasn't been updated since 2003, so I'd expect it to be as buggy as hell.
Takes all kinds, I guess. Whatever the merits of 3rd ed. for P&P, personally I can't stand 3rd ed. rules for CRPGs; they strike me as too strategy-oriented, which I find tedious, whereas I adore the heavier emphasis on tactics in BG/BG2/IWD1. (I can't imagine ever even wanting to try a game based on 4th ed. rules...)
There's also an easter egg in the third game where you can walk into the sea and see the same scene that resulted when you killed him in the first game... the living Guybrush comments that he guesses that guy couldn't hold his breath for ten minutes.
(If you want to track this down, SPOILER ALERT: in chapter 4, go down to the shore where you meet the Flying Welshman and "action" the water 25 times. Video here. The comment as he gets out again is, "I hope that was worth it.")
Rubiks cube is seldom encountered, as to place it in the game would probably result in at least 2 points being knocked off the games score owing to frustration. They are increasingly rare nowadays as no professional development team would seriously contemplate including them, except in an optional "master quest" section or the like.
For some reason I feel an uncontrollable urge to draw attention to the lockpicking puzzle in Still Life.
(No, it wasn't exactly Rubik's Cube hard, but it was certainly a lot harder than "hard".)
Slashdot Mirror
From Hell's heart, I stab at thee. For hate's sake, I spit my last breath at thee.
Very, very apt. Well done.
(Though I have to confess my first thought was not "KHAAAAAN!" but "The plane, boss! The plane!" Does that mean I have to turn in my geek card?)
The information is the same, but the process is important. As someone commented above -- the most insightful comment on this whole article, I think -- this means that there is no longer any such thing as a visa waiver. If it looks like a visa, smells like a visa, ... etc.
Has to be applied for in advance? Check.
Approval has to be given in advance? Check.
Furthermore, there's a certain question of trust. If a country like Ireland does something like this, you think, "Cool, they're making the process more efficient." If a country like Iran does it, you wonder what the ulterior motive is. The US is firmly in the latter category.
New Zealanders are the only ones that those rules don't apply to. Australia has relatively invasive requirements for every other nationality on the planet.
Oz isn't as bad as the US (in terms of data collection and privacy violation) or the UK (in terms of sheer hostility from immigration officials), but it's still a relatively unpleasant barrier. I'm not sure I'd be wanting to travel to Australia on a non-Australian/NZ passport. Almost any other European country, however, is a real pleasure to visit by comparison with any of the US, UK, or Oz. (I'm sure there are exceptions, but none spring to mind.)
Some other countries have imposing border controls, but generally for comprehensible reasons, unlike the US and Australia. Countries that have unreasonable, incomprehensible barriers are ones that you just don't visit by choice. The US and the UK get away with it because, for reasons that are unclear to me, international airlines insist on making them travel hubs. It's very difficult for me to travel from Australasia to South America, for example, without flying via the US. There are flights between Auckland and Santiago, but they're expensive. Currently, I'm willing to put up with the higher fare to avoid the US.
contrary to the literal meaning of the words
In what dialect of English does "to beg" literally mean "to raise, imply, point towards, suggest"? Do homeless people who wait around by ATMs "imply" money where you come from? Do victims of violent crimes "suggest" for mercy?
"Beg" means "ask for". You're the one preferring a non-literal meaning.
http://begthequestion.info/
That's not a bad site, but their explanation isn't as clear as it could be. One of the reasons there's confusion over the phrase is that it's difficult to see how a definition like one given there ("the initial assumption of a statement is treated as already proven without any logic to show why the statement is true in the first place") is literally what the phrase means.
Clarity is the reason why I'm a fan of the OED's definition:
Here it's nice and clear that the meaning is in fact literally what the phrase says. No re-phrasing, no metaphor, no roundabout explanations.
For those with a large monitor, the GP was doing us all a favor.
No, there's this marvellous new invention called "resizeable windows" that takes care of the issue you mention.
In effect, the GGP was overriding user settings and imposing his/her own settings on all browsers. It's about as polite as using a <font> tag in html.
So they have some kid of new money that removes all references to God and the All-Seeing Eye? Hmmm.
Umm ... yes. You sound like you think that's something unusual.
I only meant fair in the sense that there was at one time good reason to be very, very scared of this bill. That time was a year ago.
As for this article's scare-mongering about the bill as enacted, on the whole I agree with you. (At the same time I also agree with the ISPs that the enacted bill is too vague, but that's hardly grounds for panic.)
I guess there are always going to be delays with unenforceable laws :-)
I take it back, it wasn't debated at all. I should have read more extensively. One of the speakers (Chris Finlayson, National) reports,
The Minister knows, and I certainly know, that we have all had approaches from various commercial entities, as a result of which the Minister has come up with a number of amendments.
In context it's pretty clear that the commercial entities he's referring to are ISPs.
Oh, look, "repeat infringers". Nothing about "guilt on accusation".
To be fair, versions of the bill that were circulating before it was passed did indeed provide for guilt on accusation, absolutely explicitly, and also explicitly without any recourse or appeal process. This was up until it went to committee for the last time. Unfortunately I can no longer find the older version of the text anywhere online, and I deleted a copy I had on HDD when the act was passed.
The relevant section (92) was by far the most heavily debated part of the bill in the last round of committee discussion, and it's a lot better now.
Firstly, this bill is being brought in by the opposition party in parliament (Labour).
You seem to have the chronology a bit mixed up (unless it's just a quirk of tenses). The bill was passed almost a year ago, when Labour was in power, and received assent in April last year.
I'm not sure, but I think the submitter may have the chronology mixed up as well -- viz. "Next month, New Zealand is scheduled to implement Section 92". According to the act itself, the relevant clauses came into force on 31 October 2008, though maybe they're not being enforced yet.
What happened to the great New Zealand from World War II that quite courageously proclaimed after Britain entered the war something along the lines of "Where Britain goes, we stand by them"?
Hey, if someone were to invite us to become a full member of the EU, I'm sure we'd be willing.
I think you missed my point. No matter whose idea it is, his successor will have the same tool. Let me put it this way: supposing Obama were planning to put weapons in space that could strike arbitrary locations, spy on the public, and bring down other nations' satellites at a moment's notice, and also prevent anyone else from putting similar weapons in space.
Sounds pretty horrible, right? Well, let's also suppose that we "trust" Obama not to abuse this tool. But then -- contemplate that President Sarah Palin will have control over the same weapons in 2013. (Adjust names to suit personal preference.)
OK, an over-the-top example, but my point is, trust is only relevant for the term of office of the incumbent. In the longer term, I don't care whose idea it is. If it's a tool I'd be horrified to see in the hands of my enemy, I reckon it's a bad idea, whether the incumbent is my enemy or my friend.
Player pianos only signal note on and note off with the paper. So everything is played at one volume level.
As others have pointed out, there's player pianos and there's player pianos. Mechanical ones reproduce (or reproduced) dynamics by means of a pneumatic system. There were Ampico recording pianos in the 1920s that were good enough to record Rachmaninov playing his own and others' works well enough that they compare favourably to many modern recordings -- in terms of not only the quality of the performer, but also the sensitivity of the performance. Really they have to be heard to be believed. Here's a sample -- the only one I can find on Youtube, and unfortunately not the greatest example as it doesn't show off the subtle shading of inner parts that you get in some of his other music.
Here's one CD that I'm probably going to buy soonish. A couple more: one, and two. (I was once comparing a set of about half a dozen performances of a particular Rachmaninov prelude on a road trip, and while Rachmaninov's own on a player piano wasn't the best in every respect, we agreed that it did win overall.)
It's equally "suspicious" -- or non-suspicious -- regardless of who does it. Someday someone you distrust is going to be in power, and they're going to have at their disposal all the tools that are being created now. If you're OK with that, then I guess this is a good move. If you're not, it isn't.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Office#History_of_Microsoft_Office_for_Macintosh
The list fails. Lotus Symphony isn't OSS, though it is based off OpenOffice 1.
Indeed. Seeing Lotus Symphony on the second slide was enough to make me realise that these folks haven't done more than a minute of research, and that it's time to stop reading /., go outside, and make the most of the sunshine ...
For FLAC (ca. 500-600 kb/s) you'd be lucky to get a whole minute of audio under 30 Mb (ca. 3.57 MB). For MP3 you'd probably need to use V3 or even V4 to get a whole song onto it.
is there a mod for BG or BG 2 that updates the rules to 3rd ed? I loathe 2nd ed, and there's no way in hell I'll ever play those games with 2nd ed rules. I'd consider playing with 3rd ed rules, though.
Yes, there is: Icewind Gate II converts BG2 to play in the Icewind Dale II engine, which uses 3rd ed. rules. However, It looks like it hasn't been updated since 2003, so I'd expect it to be as buggy as hell.
Takes all kinds, I guess. Whatever the merits of 3rd ed. for P&P, personally I can't stand 3rd ed. rules for CRPGs; they strike me as too strategy-oriented, which I find tedious, whereas I adore the heavier emphasis on tactics in BG/BG2/IWD1. (I can't imagine ever even wanting to try a game based on 4th ed. rules ...)
Well, you're partially in luck. ScummVM appears to work on the iPhone, and ScummVM supports Leisure Suit Larry according to their compatibility list.
There's also an easter egg in the third game where you can walk into the sea and see the same scene that resulted when you killed him in the first game ... the living Guybrush comments that he guesses that guy couldn't hold his breath for ten minutes.
(If you want to track this down, SPOILER ALERT: in chapter 4, go down to the shore where you meet the Flying Welshman and "action" the water 25 times. Video here. The comment as he gets out again is, "I hope that was worth it.")
I kind of like these ones. Shame they're not in my price range ...
Rubiks cube is seldom encountered, as to place it in the game would probably result in at least 2 points being knocked off the games score owing to frustration. They are increasingly rare nowadays as no professional development team would seriously contemplate including them, except in an optional "master quest" section or the like.
For some reason I feel an uncontrollable urge to draw attention to the lockpicking puzzle in Still Life.
(No, it wasn't exactly Rubik's Cube hard, but it was certainly a lot harder than "hard".)
Indeed they don't. This is what they do sing:
Britannia then shall surely know,
Beyond wide ocean's roll,
Her sons in fair Australia's land
Still keep a British soul.
— Advance, Australia Fair (5th verse)
Actually there is something about freedom in the 1st verse, but I thought this was more interesting.