[Stormrider] I should bomb something [Stormrider]...and it's off the cuff remarks like that that are the reason I don't log chats [Stormrider] Just in case the FBI ever needs anything on me [Elzie_Ann] I'm sure they can just get it from someone who DOES log chats. *** FBI has joined #gamecubecafe [FBI] We saw it anyway. *** FBI has quit IRC (Quit: )
It's strange -- maybe it's just because I don't like sports computer games -- but when I think of EA, still the first game that comes to my mind is M.U.L.E. How's about that for longevity?
Sometimes those alarm bells ring, sometimes they don't. And I think the margin beyond which they go "I don't unnerstan' it, so it must work eh" is pretty low. Remember the guy in Australia who got the patent office there to grant a patent for a "circular transportation facilitation device"?
Oh, come now sir. Semi-colons have never been compulsory; they are simply an emblem of good taste. Now, think of G.K. Chesterton: there's a man who really knew how to use a semi-colon. On the other hand, I think it was George Orwell (?) who absolutely detested them and never used them. Or maybe it's only one of his books that avoids them altogether, I forget... ok there I go off on a tangent. Damn you! Damn you all!
Of course language changes. That doesn't mean it has to change to become less communicative, less intelligible, more ambiguous, more confusing, and uglier.
Also, a roman once said the same thing or a greek. That the young people of today are a generation that look down on the world and are showing no moral principels or showing problems with language and spelling and all the hoo haa he could drag up.
I'm a classics professor and I can't think of what you might be referring to. Please provide a citation.
In principle it's a nice idea, but I have reservations: maybe, the easier encryption becomes, the quicker it'll be made entirely illegal (rather than just a little bit illegal, like now).
That doesn't mean the Australian Olympic Committee can't ban him.
What gives? Everyone's standing up for the rights of the spammer? I'll happily admit there are even worse crimes in the world, but those have penalties too.
Let me remind folks that it was just this month that the Australian PM wanted to ban a New Zealand athlete from the Commonwealth Games because he had committed manslaughter, and had finished served his sentence nearly ten years ago. He's not a shining example, and manslaughter is more serious than spamming, sure. But where's the dividing line between crimes that are serious enough to warrant bans and crimes that aren'? What about robbery? embezzlement? white-collar crime? Now we're in grey areas. I'd say spammers are fairly high up the list of serious criminals who should be kicked out of an event which ostensibly (though not in actuality) is there to celebrate human dignity.
Why not just fire and ban spammers from all walks of life, jobs, restaurants, movies, etc
Sounds good to me.
oh wait, it's a little something called freedom
There's a little system that pretty much all societies have invented. See, when someone does something really outrageously wrong, something that harms society as a whole, society takes their freedom away from them. It's called "justice". Spamming is something that harms every computer user in the world. Justice is overdue.
Forget Office 2000 -- on my country's equivalent of Ebay, Office 97 still sells for $50 plus.
A non-off-topic question: does anyone know if OpenOffice.org 2.0.2 is still scheduled to come out before the end of the month? It's got a bugfix in it that I badly need (and which has been keeping me on OOo 1.1.5).
Unusual leg length in toads at the front of the wave of advance could be environmental, but I'd say the fact that they spread five times faster now than they did in 1935 (about 50 km/year as opposed to 10 km/year) points to evolution.
Re:Hackers are irrelevant, OS X on a PC a novelty
on
OSx86 Cracked Again
·
· Score: 1
I disagree. Average users can't install Windows either -- even a legal copy. They have to either (a) buy the hardware with the OS pre-installed, or else (b) get someone who is more knowledgeable to come and do it for them.
Option (b) is the interesting one here. See, there's not much difference between getting an MS-geek friend to come and help with installing Windows (whether legal or not) and getting a Mac-geek friend to come and help with installing OSx86. The only real difference is that MS-geek friends are more widely available. But in the long run there are going to be lots of generic x86-geeks floating around who can install whichever OS they prefer -- and it seems likely to me that on the whole geeks are going to be more interested in installing low-maintenance OSs for their friends, so that they don't have to keep on coming around to fix it when it goes wrong.
We have had compulsory ID cards for years and frankly, I find it rather artificial that such a fuss is made about the principle of introduction in the UK. In reality people already need to carry some document that allows them to identify themselves, if only to their banker, even in the UK and USA. The practical difference with having an official "identify card" is minute.
This is all about symbolic value....
My card carries my family name, first names, gender, nationality, date and place of birth, address, photograph and signature, identity card number and date of expiry. That is really all such a card should be allowed to hold.
The last paragraph quoted provides the answer to the puzzlement you express in the first two. This isn't about symbolic value; it's about centralising every detail about you in a single repository to which every branch of government has instant, full access. The entire aim of the UK ID card system is to make sure that it's not just your name, gender, etc. that are associated with you.
It's about surveillance -- specifically, surveillance for the sake of surveillance. And that's an aim important enough to Blair's regime that the law will be passed, come what may, no matter what the Lords or the public think.
Some people would like the assurance that Google isn't going to tip off the government, and that they won't consequently disappear, if they happen to say anything "subversive" in one of their e-mails. The meaning of "subversive" varies from country to country, and Google's self-censorship practice (whether voluntary or not) is a good indicator of what Google regards as subversive. For example, in the US, being critical of Scientology is "subversive", as many web sites that do so are censored. In China, supporting alternative governmental systems is subversive. Considering that censorship currently exists in several countries that are (or used to be) regarded as the most free countries in the world, it's a safe bet that there's something that your government considers subversive, wherever you live.
Basically privacy is a good idea if there's any issue at all on which you disagree with your country's government, as it may become illegal or at least socially culpable one day; supposing Google (and the internet) had been around at the time of McCarthy in the US, an awful lot of people who had said something in a 15-year-old e-mail that smelled of communist sympathies would have been in a very bad position.
Moreover, even if you think you have nothing to hide, you probably do. And again thinking of McCarthy, you can guarantee that in your future there will be something from your past that you will want to hide then; because social conditions change, and there's no stopping that. Any country can become a police state at any point.
Even apart from that, privacy is a good thing up to a point, because no one really wants to be under surveillance 24/7. And I think that's the point that most people really care about when they protest about censorship and surveillance.
So Yahoo was just obeying orders, right? That's a comforting defence.
As for your last paragraph, there's a little thing I sometimes like to spend time in called the "real world". If consumers were to avoid products from countries who do things they dislike, no product from anywhere would ever be bought. Consumer boycotts can work -- sometimes, under certain special circumstances, in some places. The sheer selling power China has makes it impossible for a boycott to work. Oh, sure you could get a boycott going in your home town; how are you going to get it to work in Scotland, Poland, Malaysia, and Fiji (etc., etc.), who all buy their clothes and computer hardware from China too?
That's not defeatist. It's just that ignoring Realpolitik isn't going to work.
Thanks for that, I was having difficulty finding more info about the content blocker. This -- the equivalent of AdBlock in Firefox -- was the only real reason I was sticking with Firefox. It's true Opera isn't as tweakable as FF, but it's so much faster, lighter, and smoother, that it more than makes up for that. The extra features that I don't need are just icing on the cake. If they do manage to get the content blocker sorted out properly (see the comments on the page linked to by the parent) Opera will be my default browser once 9.0 is out of the preview phase.
I think the video game industry is realizing that they are not making an easy profit anymore, that gamers are becoming more selective about the games they play.
No no no, that's exactly what they don't realise. What they want is to find ways to force customers to play by the old rules -- that's what all this is about. At all costs they want to hinder, and if possible prohibit, a situation where people can make an informed decision before buying a game.
I agree with you, but I think you may have missed drinkypoo's point, which wasn't necessarily that this is a good thing (though s/he may believe that, I don't know) but rather that download-and-validate-online is inevitable -- precisely because companies don't want people buying old stuff. Microsoft saw this coming very clearly, all the way back in 2000/2001; now other companies are finally starting to wake up and smell the blood.
I wonder. If legislation on this comes to pass (as it will, no doubt, if sufficient money is thrown at it) will second-hand bookstores be outlawed in the US? Wouldn't be surprised. (And then, of course, the rest of us living in the still-free world will gradually be forced to adopt US policies, just like always...)
I figure if you take UB313 as having a density of 6 kg/m^3 (very dense) and diameter 340,000 (largest estimate), and take its minimum distance from the sun (37 AU), it exerts roundabout the same gravitational force on the sun as an object of about 7 x 10^14 kg at a distance of 1 AU from the sun.
So by your definition Phobos and Deimos - at a distance of 1.3 to 1.7 AU from the sun - would both be planets.
In case anyone isn't aware, Phobos and Deimos are really small...
Slashdot Mirror
Sorry to pick nits, but --
-- you mean that time when they made a movie of the second half of the book?
Bash.org #88575 +(5446)- [X]
...and it's off the cuff remarks like that that are the reason I don't log chats
[Stormrider] I should bomb something
[Stormrider]
[Stormrider] Just in case the FBI ever needs anything on me
[Elzie_Ann] I'm sure they can just get it from someone who DOES log chats.
*** FBI has joined #gamecubecafe
[FBI] We saw it anyway.
*** FBI has quit IRC (Quit: )
... which is why I've already created a new Google account whose e-mail address I'm never ever going to check. :-)
Boy, the rhetoric coming out of the US sure has changed in the last 230 years hasn't it?
It's strange -- maybe it's just because I don't like sports computer games -- but when I think of EA, still the first game that comes to my mind is M.U.L.E. How's about that for longevity?
Sometimes those alarm bells ring, sometimes they don't. And I think the margin beyond which they go "I don't unnerstan' it, so it must work eh" is pretty low. Remember the guy in Australia who got the patent office there to grant a patent for a "circular transportation facilitation device"?
Oh, come now sir. Semi-colons have never been compulsory; they are simply an emblem of good taste. Now, think of G.K. Chesterton: there's a man who really knew how to use a semi-colon. On the other hand, I think it was George Orwell (?) who absolutely detested them and never used them. Or maybe it's only one of his books that avoids them altogether, I forget ... ok there I go off on a tangent. Damn you! Damn you all!
Of course language changes. That doesn't mean it has to change to become less communicative, less intelligible, more ambiguous, more confusing, and uglier.
I'm a classics professor and I can't think of what you might be referring to. Please provide a citation.
Forgive me, but I can't detect any irony at all in your post.
In principle it's a nice idea, but I have reservations: maybe, the easier encryption becomes, the quicker it'll be made entirely illegal (rather than just a little bit illegal, like now).
That doesn't mean the Australian Olympic Committee can't ban him.
What gives? Everyone's standing up for the rights of the spammer? I'll happily admit there are even worse crimes in the world, but those have penalties too.
Let me remind folks that it was just this month that the Australian PM wanted to ban a New Zealand athlete from the Commonwealth Games because he had committed manslaughter, and had finished served his sentence nearly ten years ago. He's not a shining example, and manslaughter is more serious than spamming, sure. But where's the dividing line between crimes that are serious enough to warrant bans and crimes that aren'? What about robbery? embezzlement? white-collar crime? Now we're in grey areas. I'd say spammers are fairly high up the list of serious criminals who should be kicked out of an event which ostensibly (though not in actuality) is there to celebrate human dignity.
Sounds good to me.
There's a little system that pretty much all societies have invented. See, when someone does something really outrageously wrong, something that harms society as a whole, society takes their freedom away from them. It's called "justice". Spamming is something that harms every computer user in the world. Justice is overdue.
How do you turn on file extensions in OS X? I don't normally use a Mac, so I don't know this, but obviously it would be useful to know for when I do.
Forget Office 2000 -- on my country's equivalent of Ebay, Office 97 still sells for $50 plus.
A non-off-topic question: does anyone know if OpenOffice.org 2.0.2 is still scheduled to come out before the end of the month? It's got a bugfix in it that I badly need (and which has been keeping me on OOo 1.1.5).
Unusual leg length in toads at the front of the wave of advance could be environmental, but I'd say the fact that they spread five times faster now than they did in 1935 (about 50 km/year as opposed to 10 km/year) points to evolution.
I disagree. Average users can't install Windows either -- even a legal copy. They have to either (a) buy the hardware with the OS pre-installed, or else (b) get someone who is more knowledgeable to come and do it for them.
Option (b) is the interesting one here. See, there's not much difference between getting an MS-geek friend to come and help with installing Windows (whether legal or not) and getting a Mac-geek friend to come and help with installing OSx86. The only real difference is that MS-geek friends are more widely available. But in the long run there are going to be lots of generic x86-geeks floating around who can install whichever OS they prefer -- and it seems likely to me that on the whole geeks are going to be more interested in installing low-maintenance OSs for their friends, so that they don't have to keep on coming around to fix it when it goes wrong.
Yes, that is precisely the reason.
The last paragraph quoted provides the answer to the puzzlement you express in the first two. This isn't about symbolic value; it's about centralising every detail about you in a single repository to which every branch of government has instant, full access. The entire aim of the UK ID card system is to make sure that it's not just your name, gender, etc. that are associated with you.
It's about surveillance -- specifically, surveillance for the sake of surveillance. And that's an aim important enough to Blair's regime that the law will be passed, come what may, no matter what the Lords or the public think.
Some people would like the assurance that Google isn't going to tip off the government, and that they won't consequently disappear, if they happen to say anything "subversive" in one of their e-mails. The meaning of "subversive" varies from country to country, and Google's self-censorship practice (whether voluntary or not) is a good indicator of what Google regards as subversive. For example, in the US, being critical of Scientology is "subversive", as many web sites that do so are censored. In China, supporting alternative governmental systems is subversive. Considering that censorship currently exists in several countries that are (or used to be) regarded as the most free countries in the world, it's a safe bet that there's something that your government considers subversive, wherever you live.
Basically privacy is a good idea if there's any issue at all on which you disagree with your country's government, as it may become illegal or at least socially culpable one day; supposing Google (and the internet) had been around at the time of McCarthy in the US, an awful lot of people who had said something in a 15-year-old e-mail that smelled of communist sympathies would have been in a very bad position.
Moreover, even if you think you have nothing to hide, you probably do. And again thinking of McCarthy, you can guarantee that in your future there will be something from your past that you will want to hide then; because social conditions change, and there's no stopping that. Any country can become a police state at any point.
Even apart from that, privacy is a good thing up to a point, because no one really wants to be under surveillance 24/7. And I think that's the point that most people really care about when they protest about censorship and surveillance.
So Yahoo was just obeying orders, right? That's a comforting defence.
As for your last paragraph, there's a little thing I sometimes like to spend time in called the "real world". If consumers were to avoid products from countries who do things they dislike, no product from anywhere would ever be bought. Consumer boycotts can work -- sometimes, under certain special circumstances, in some places. The sheer selling power China has makes it impossible for a boycott to work. Oh, sure you could get a boycott going in your home town; how are you going to get it to work in Scotland, Poland, Malaysia, and Fiji (etc., etc.), who all buy their clothes and computer hardware from China too?
That's not defeatist. It's just that ignoring Realpolitik isn't going to work.
Just wait - the 1980s versions of them will pop up again in 9 years' time. That'll show you.
Thanks for that, I was having difficulty finding more info about the content blocker. This -- the equivalent of AdBlock in Firefox -- was the only real reason I was sticking with Firefox. It's true Opera isn't as tweakable as FF, but it's so much faster, lighter, and smoother, that it more than makes up for that. The extra features that I don't need are just icing on the cake. If they do manage to get the content blocker sorted out properly (see the comments on the page linked to by the parent) Opera will be my default browser once 9.0 is out of the preview phase.
No no no, that's exactly what they don't realise. What they want is to find ways to force customers to play by the old rules -- that's what all this is about. At all costs they want to hinder, and if possible prohibit, a situation where people can make an informed decision before buying a game.
I agree with you, but I think you may have missed drinkypoo's point, which wasn't necessarily that this is a good thing (though s/he may believe that, I don't know) but rather that download-and-validate-online is inevitable -- precisely because companies don't want people buying old stuff. Microsoft saw this coming very clearly, all the way back in 2000/2001; now other companies are finally starting to wake up and smell the blood.
I wonder. If legislation on this comes to pass (as it will, no doubt, if sufficient money is thrown at it) will second-hand bookstores be outlawed in the US? Wouldn't be surprised. (And then, of course, the rest of us living in the still-free world will gradually be forced to adopt US policies, just like always ...)
I figure if you take UB313 as having a density of 6 kg/m^3 (very dense) and diameter 340,000 (largest estimate), and take its minimum distance from the sun (37 AU), it exerts roundabout the same gravitational force on the sun as an object of about 7 x 10^14 kg at a distance of 1 AU from the sun.
So by your definition Phobos and Deimos - at a distance of 1.3 to 1.7 AU from the sun - would both be planets.
In case anyone isn't aware, Phobos and Deimos are really small ...