"Nvidia has an entire line of upgradable mobile videocards"
They have two MXM slot graphics cards at the moment, and the higher end one seems to be very difficult to find. I'd hardly call two dfferent cards "an entire line", but hopefully the situation will improve in the future, as it's definitely a good idea. I have no idea whether the new Mac portables have such a slot, and even less inclination to find out, as my interest in them is purely academic. I have little need for "cutting edge" computers, and will not therefore pay the high prices that are invariably associated with them. Note that this in not a criticism specifically levelled at Apple, as the MacBook Pro is similarly priced to other "name brand" portables with a comparable specification.
"should you be willing to risk the damage to small poorly made case screws, that most PC processors can be upgraded at least within the limitation of the board"
The ones in laptops tend to be soldered rather than socketed for both space and ruggednness reasons. Of course, there are likely to be exceptions to this, but it is by and large the way things are. One could of course de-solder them and solder a new one in, but this is not something that falls into the "knowledgable user" upgrade category.
"And as it's been posted, they could have spent hundreds less, only needed to maintain one computer, and had the option of improving it in the future."
How exactly do they "improve" a laptop? The last time I looked, just about all of them had precisely two methods of "improvement": extra memory, and an external slot for expansion cards (PCMCIA or whatever the modern equivalent to it is called). Well blow me down -- Apple's machines also have these.
"There are three things in life. There is having UNIXy goodness (got that), there is having great applications (iLife, Safari, and the ability to run Office/Photoshop), and there are games"
You must have a very dull life if those are the only three things in it.
Both versions of Dungeon Keeper can cause a lot of problems under Windows XP. Neither were written for it, and (as the old saying goes) your mileage may vary; even if you get for example DK2 to install successfuly (and not everyone does), apply the latest patch (in the sense that it was the last one released, not that it is recent!), and do all the correct compatibility tweaks, it can still cause problems, if indeed it even runs on the system. I would therefore suggest you Google for whatever older games you want to run together with "Windows XP" to avoid disappointment. If nothing else, you'll probably find some useful configuration tips that can save hours of frustration.
I've hunted around for some web resources that give good overviews of the events that took place. Some are biased, but contain good information nonetheless. As with many such things, a balanced overview can only really be obtained from "averaging" several sources.
Obviously biased (considering the source!) but nevertheless interesting is the entry for Galileo in the Catholic Encyclopaedia. One of many links to it is at:
I hope you find these links both useful and interesting. If nothing else, the fact that some of them cite sources means that they can be used as "jump points" for further reading.
"And could you elaborate what his "arrogant" behaviour that justified him getting house arrested for the rest of his life is?"
Most of Galileo's woes were caused by the fact that he had a habit of publically ridiculing and humiliating those who disagreed with him, especially if they were conveniently absent and could not therefore either refute or debate his rhetoric. It was irrelevant whether such people were supporters or even long-time friends -- disagreeing on a single detail (such as his theory of the tides, which was an embarrassment to even his most fervent supporters) could make them the target of Galileo's barbs. He thus managed to accumulate a steadily growing list of important and influencial enemies both inside and outside the Church.
"Free speech? That's not arrogance, it's heroism. "
Galileo behaved in anything but a heroic way. Whenever summoned to Rome (where he was invariably greeted graciously), he grovelled to the Church, and readily caved in to anything they asked of him, eagerly telling them what great ideas they had, how little he would have to alter the works he was preparing to comply, and promising to do so. It was only afterwards that he would ridicule those to whom he had made the the promises, which he obviously had no intention of keeping. An excellent example of a typcial Galilean tactic: behave like an obsequeous slime to their faces, but snipe at them behind their backs.
"I know that people try to argue that he did not get arrested not just for his theory but for trying to ignore the pope's edict and authority"
There was no papal edict for Galileo to contravene, so people who make that argument are also incorrect. Note also that summaries tend to gloss over the fact that Galileo actually fell foul of two popes during his career. The first, Paul V, was a noted anti-intellectual who definitely seems to have had it in for Galileo, but he wasn't the one who imprisoned him. Paul's successor, Urban VIII, was a staunch supporter of both the arts and sciences, and something of a fan of Galileo's prior to being lampooned in "Dialogues". He had in fact defended Galileo against some of the many enemies he'd made in the Church, and it is thus likely that he felt personally betrayed by the fact that the pedantic and stupid Simplicio character was in part based on himself. It would therefore be more correct to say that papal opinion probably had a lot to do with Galileo's ultimate fate, but that this opinion was a personal one rather than an example of Church policy, and was axctually due to Galileo once again managing to turn somebody who had been a friend and supporter into an enemy.
"he had irrefutable SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE"
This is a commonly stated myth. As was made clear by a debate with Jesuits during one of Galileo's trials, what he actually had was some observations that led him to _believe_ Copernicus was right, something that many in the Church had in fact suspected was the case since Copernicus published his work (notably including Urban VIII). However, neither he nor anybody else at the time could actually _prove it_, and the fact that Galileo clung to some rather outdated Copernican ideas meant that his assertions were easily refuted by Jesuits who were by then using far better astromical equipment that Galileo. Some facts:
1) Although Galileo's "Dialogues" give the impression that the Church was using a purely Ptolomeic model, this was not in fact the case, and can therefore be regarded as Galileo setting up a straw man. The prevailing opinion of both the Church and the scientific establishment was that the Earth was fixed and immobile, but the other planets revolved around the sun (Tychonian model, named for Tycho Brahe). This fitted in quite happily with all Galileo's observations, including the oft-quoted one of Jupiter's moons.
2) Galileo stubbornly clung to the idea that planets had circular orbits despite the fact that Kepler (with whom Galileo corresponded) had published work 24 years previously showing that eliptical orb
Strange then that this article on the same site (http://news.com.com/PC+market+surged+in+2005,+wil l+settle+in+2006/2100-1003_3-6028454.html) put Apple's market share for 2005 at 3.3%, representing a growth of 35% for a year in which the overall market grew 9%. Note also that this figure included servers, not just notebooks and desktops, meaning that according to these figures, Apple had 3.3% of _world computer sales_, not just world desktop / laptop sales. So which is it: 1.8% or 3.3%?
"Unfortunately, this type of method depends on how the robot is programmed in the first place."
They will be programmed as well as other complex programmable things such as computers, using similar tools and methodoiogies. I therefore hope there's an easy way of turning them off.
Yeah, right, the society that wants our computers and all media playback devices to be DRM shackled is going to let us have a personal robot that does what _we_ want instead of being a cross between an annoying nanny and a cop.
"HappyFunBot thinks you've already had enough to drink, so the refrigerator will not open for 24 hours". "HappyFunBot notes you have gained 1.77Kg. You will eat 800 calories and run for 40 minutes per day until healthy". "You are about to have unprotected sex. Here is a condom which you will wear if you do not wish HappyFunBot to forcibly eject your partner." "HappyFunBot knows that copying content without permission is theft. Dead or alive, you're coming with HappyFunBot". "Attempting to disable or destroy a HappyFunBot is defined by law as a terrorist act, punishable by a visit to a HappyEuthanasiaPalace. You must love your HappyFunBot, just like your HappyFunBot loves you". "It's HappyElectionTime again. Your HappyFunBot has already voted for you so you can lay on your HappyCouch and watch the HappyBox. And remember, HappyFunBot wants you to watch all the HappyFunAds, and then go out and buy things".
I think it's more to do with the fact that (a) nukes have a limited shelf-life, so they eventually have to be replaced; and (b) the various bits of support technology that are necessary for actually targeting and launching the things now look big, clunky, power-hungry, manpower-intensive, and very expensive to maintain. Nuclear proliferation treaties don't prevent countries that already have nukes from building new ones as long as they de-comission an equal amount of existing stuff.
Obviously terrorists who are conducting a complex psychological warfare campaign to convince the world that all American men are morbidly obese with small penises, erectile disfunction, and need low-cost mortgages to by all the low-cost medications that are necessary to keep their flabby, ailing bodies alive.
#12 bulging capacitor problem in rev. 1 iMac G5. Although to be fair to Apple, this particular problem hit a lot of other electronics manufacturers as well, and it wasn't due to saving a few dollars by buying cheap capacitors.
The U2 iPod did not contain any media whatsoever. It came with a coupon giving customers a $50 discount on the "Complete U2" collection from the iTunes store.
"The problem of MMORPGs is not the hoarders, but the fact that the games are designed for them."
This is because most people regard gaming as a competitive passtime, so winning is important, and you do that in online RPGs (and indeed the table-top variety if they are power-gaming oriented) by having a massively powerful character with lots of rare items. It is for this reason the the online games are of no real interest to me, just like the power-gamer RPG groups were of no interest to me in the heyday of pen-and-paper games.
"Let me remind you what table-top role-playing used to mean, at least with a good group and GM. "
There were as many styles of table-top RPG as there were people playing them. Some liked a theatrical style, others a storytelling approach that resembled an interactive novel, still others enjoyed hack-and-slash dungeon crawls, and some groups preferred games that mostly revolved around puzzle-solving. No one style can be considered more "correct" than any other, because RPG gaming was about getting together with others to have _fun_, so the only "correct" way was the one that any particular set of players liked the most.
"The stats were _not_ the whole point of the game"
They were for some people, hence the fact that RPG jargon had a term for them: power gamers. They could be quite disruptive in any group that wasn't into the hack-and-slash sub-genre because they quickly became bored by long interactions with non-player characters, passages of scene-setting narrative, or difficult puzzles that required both group discussion and a lot of hunting around for clues.
It is also interesting to note that, in the early days especially, particular gamers tended to favour specific sets of rules because they were better suited to their favourite style. Power gamers and the hack-and-slash lovers for example were most happy with the original AD&D, which had a highly abstract combat system in which powerful player characters were completely invulnerable to all but the most capable enemies. This was not the case in (for example) RuneQuest, Chivarly & Sorcery, DragonQuest, or Traveller (an early SF RPG), all of which featured highly lethal combat systems where even the most advanced and well-equipped characters could be taken down by the most lowly if they happened to "get lucky", so players tended to look for other solutions to problems, with combat mostly occurring only if all else failed. This of course suited the theatrical or storytelling style of gamer perfectly, because for them, trying or talk one's way out of a fight was a lot more fun than ten minutes spent rolling dice and looking at tables in a book.
"You can feel free to point at Bethesda and Bioware games, but they're not the majority by any kind of counting"
That's because they tend to require a lot of time and effort to finish, and do not therefore appeal to casual gamers. This is no different from table-top RPGs, which also demanded not only time and effort (especially from game masters, who would usually spend several evenings preparing each adventure), but also a lot of imagination, creativity, suspension of disbelief, and commitment from everybody in a group. It is for this reason that they tended to be associated with young, single males of above average intellect, i.e. nerds.
Chances are you'd resent them more if they behaved like that, and then left all their money to a girl with big tits who they married three months before dying.
Sony still made mostly high quality stuff in 1988. What people are saying here is that this is no longer necessarily the case with their consumer electronics division (Sony pro gear is a different matter). This doesn't mean that everything they make is rubbish, but the Sony name on anything used to mean that it would be a bit more expensive, but worth it. Nowadays it's just more expensive.
LOL, I also remember "Not the Nine O'clock News". Sadly, like most "topical" humour, it hasn't aged well because so much of what it references is either unfamilar to many people, irrelevant today, or both. You really had to see it when it first aired to fully appreciate it, or at least be old enough to remember what it is referring to.
Kicking Tony and Co. out will make not one whit or iota of difference once this becomes law, because there isn't a single instance of a UK government repealing a law that gave more control to governments in general, even when it was obviously a stupid law passed as a knee-jerk reaction to something that the press squalled about loudly (e.g. the Dangerous Dogs Act).
Take for example firearms licensing. That was brought in after the Russian Revolution where personally-owned firearms were a notable factor, and the British government of the time thought that the probability of a similar armed revolt was high enough that they had to act. Did it get repealed by subsequent governments when it was obvious the the sheeple of the UK weren't going to storm parliament with guns? No, it got made even stricter thanks to a couple of notable incidents in the last quarter of the 20th century that caused the press to squall for more arms control (cynic that I am, I suspect that much of said squalling was orchestrated, as the loudest voices came from organs that supported the government), and Tory government of the time "reluctantly" passed a draconian law that pretty much removed all firearms from law-abiding citizens. And everybody is of course safer now, because we all know criminals won't do anything that's _really_ illegal, and the fact that gun crime in the UK is much higher than was the case under the old laws is "just a sign of the times" or "because they let all those foreigners in".
What subsequent Tory or LibDem governments will do therefore is blame Blair for the cost overruns, inefficiencies, and technical problems that _will_ plague the ID card scheme. Of course, some MPs will call for the whole thing to be scrapped, but government ministers will respond with smooth answers like "Cancelling the scheme now would be a disservice to tax payers after the previous government spent so much money on it", and "You must consider all of those people who have already paid for ID cards. I don't think they'll be very pleased if we tell them that their money was spent on nothing just because the previous government was too incompetent to implement the system in an efficient way".
Face facts: you live in a country which is willingly handing more and more power over to the government, until a point will soon be reached where everything that isn't compulsory is illegal. You cannot prevent this, because the majority are busily discussing Jordan's tits, and have no interest in anything that does not impinge in their narrow, TV-centric little lives. You can't even resist it, because any means to do so has been taken away, and in any case, resistance would make you a terrorist who must be locked up without trial. Of course, you can mount a demonstration, but not outside pariament, because that has now been made illegal. In any case, we've already seen how much effect even very large demonstrations have on British politicians (i.e. none whatsoever), so why bother? Just sit down like a good British citizen, and talk about wholesome, non-threatening things like Jordan't tits and who in the cast of "Coronation Steet" is sleeping with some other cast member, and leave the complicated, boring job of making laws to the people who were after all entrusted by the great British democratic system to do just that.
"He was probably arrested for some charge or other."
Yes, for a crime such as wearing a suspicious hat with intent; crossing a road at night in skin too dark to be seen by motorists; using apostrophes in a public place; being in possession of a substance that should be illegal; being drunk in charge of a house; etc.
OK, so the above aren't actually arrestable offences (yet!). But in a country where you can be arrested for standing in the street (loitering with intent) or "acting suspiciously", the fact of the matter is that you can end up in the DNA database for what amounts to doing something or being someone a policemen decides he doesn't like.
"Now say I'm a terrorist- I hack into the ID system to look for alternate identities"
Or simply hack the system and insert some new records containing whatever you want, or alter the biometric data and photos in existing records. Terrorist groups _will_ get access to equipment that is capable of generating the correct biometric data, and they _will_ have people with IT skills several orders of magnitude higher than the bozos who are tasked with implementing the database, and they _will_ be able to manufacture fake ID cards complete with holograms, etc. All the above will also be true of organised criminal gangs who spot a golden opportunity to make money by charging other criminals, illegal immigrants, etc, a large amount of dosh for a fake ID that is indistinguishable from the real thing.
Make no mistake: this system is going to be a massive national embarrassment that will end up facilitating identity fraud instead of preventing it. Even if it is properly implemented from an IT perspective (which of course it won't be), the fact that there will be both idiots and just plain dishonest people in every link of the chain means that ordinary citizens will end up being massively inconvenienced, while crooks and terrorists actually have an easier time of things because a "valid" ID card will allow them to bypass any checks that those without one would be subject to.
Prediction: the process of applying for these things will be slow and long-winded because (a) the biometric scanning equipment will be finicky, so people will have to spend ages messing around; and (b) the computer systems that said data resides on will not be capable of handling the load in real-time. Of course, once you get your new ID card, you will discover that the person who typed in the accompanying text spelt your surname wrong, and mistook your age of 19 for 90 because of all the noise of those shouting about resenting having spent 9 hours standing in the pissing rain to do something that used to involve grabbing a form from the Post Office. As all Brits know, this wil be _your fault_, so you will have to go through the whole process again, after which the National Database will contain both sets of records, and stubbornly cough up the wrong one ever time you need to be "validated".
Prediction: there will be countless false positives that result in innocent people being mistaken for "undesirables" until they can prove who they actually are. This will, in typical British fashion, involve navigating through a hierarchy of "jobsworths", all of whom believe you are a crook, terrorist, or both.
Prediction: identity theft by people changing the biometric data associated with other ID information (e.g. names and addresses) will result in lots of people being told that they are not themselves, and therefore being denied access to bank accounts, credit cards, etc., all of which will be open to crooks because "biometric data removes the need for passwords and other traditional security measures". ("Yes, I know you claim to be Alice Higgins of 19 The Cuttings, Eastleigh, and a widow whose husband won a VC in "the war", but according to the photo in our database, you should be a swarthy gentleman with a Kalashnikov in one hand and an American's head in the other. Please madam, there's no need to shout. Our detention ship at an undisclosed location in the Pacific is both spacious and comfortable, and you'll only have to wait there until this mess is cleared up. Yes, I'm afraid the handcuffs are necessary, but only until you reach the ship").
Prediction: large amounts of unencrypted personal data will find its way onto expensive, high-end laptops that get stolen due to being left in cars in full view of any passing tealeaf.
Prediction: massive chaos will regularly be caused due to the database being offline because of system crashes, data lines being down, equipment failures in the biometric scanners and ID card readers, etc. This will mean that airports, banks, and similar will have to either close for business, or let
Slashdot Mirror
"I wasn't discussing laptops"
But the parent post was, hence my reply.
"Nvidia has an entire line of upgradable mobile videocards"
They have two MXM slot graphics cards at the moment, and the higher end one seems to be very difficult to find. I'd hardly call two dfferent cards "an entire line", but hopefully the situation will improve in the future, as it's definitely a good idea. I have no idea whether the new Mac portables have such a slot, and even less inclination to find out, as my interest in them is purely academic. I have little need for "cutting edge" computers, and will not therefore pay the high prices that are invariably associated with them. Note that this in not a criticism specifically levelled at Apple, as the MacBook Pro is similarly priced to other "name brand" portables with a comparable specification.
"should you be willing to risk the damage to small poorly made case screws, that most PC processors can be upgraded at least within the limitation of the board"
The ones in laptops tend to be soldered rather than socketed for both space and ruggednness reasons. Of course, there are likely to be exceptions to this, but it is by and large the way things are. One could of course de-solder them and solder a new one in, but this is not something that falls into the "knowledgable user" upgrade category.
"And as it's been posted, they could have spent hundreds less, only needed to maintain one computer, and had the option of improving it in the future."
How exactly do they "improve" a laptop? The last time I looked, just about all of them had precisely two methods of "improvement": extra memory, and an external slot for expansion cards (PCMCIA or whatever the modern equivalent to it is called). Well blow me down -- Apple's machines also have these.
"There are three things in life. There is having UNIXy goodness (got that), there is having great applications (iLife, Safari, and the ability to run Office/Photoshop), and there are games"
You must have a very dull life if those are the only three things in it.
Both versions of Dungeon Keeper can cause a lot of problems under Windows XP. Neither were written for it, and (as the old saying goes) your mileage may vary; even if you get for example DK2 to install successfuly (and not everyone does), apply the latest patch (in the sense that it was the last one released, not that it is recent!), and do all the correct compatibility tweaks, it can still cause problems, if indeed it even runs on the system. I would therefore suggest you Google for whatever older games you want to run together with "Windows XP" to avoid disappointment. If nothing else, you'll probably find some useful configuration tips that can save hours of frustration.
"Windows also lacks free dev tools"
http://msdn.microsoft.com/vstudio/express/
I've hunted around for some web resources that give good overviews of the events that took place. Some are biased, but contain good information nonetheless. As with many such things, a balanced overview can only really be obtained from "averaging" several sources.
h tm
g alileo/galileo.html. Again, somewhat biased, but it includes some interesting translations of original trial documents, including the inquisition's verdict.
i ewTypeDetail/assetid/49581;jsessionid=baaesdBdzFeP Uj
e ntrism.
A rather good (if biased) article with an extensive list of references can be found at http://www.adam.com.au/bstett/ReligGalileoMyth95.
There is another good resource at http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/
A link to a book review which nevertheless contains some key points such as the fact that Galileo had no actual proof for his heliocentric beliefs:
http://www.americanscientist.org/template/BookRev
A quick overview of the history of heliocentricism (including some good links) is here:
http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/reference/helioc
Obviously biased (considering the source!) but nevertheless interesting is the entry for Galileo in the Catholic Encyclopaedia. One of many links to it is at:
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06342b.htm
I hope you find these links both useful and interesting. If nothing else, the fact that some of them cite sources means that they can be used as "jump points" for further reading.
Which is little different than living off his parents.
"And could you elaborate what his "arrogant" behaviour that justified him getting house arrested for the rest of his life is?"
Most of Galileo's woes were caused by the fact that he had a habit of publically ridiculing and humiliating those who disagreed with him, especially if they were conveniently absent and could not therefore either refute or debate his rhetoric. It was irrelevant whether such people were supporters or even long-time friends -- disagreeing on a single detail (such as his theory of the tides, which was an embarrassment to even his most fervent supporters) could make them the target of Galileo's barbs. He thus managed to accumulate a steadily growing list of important and influencial enemies both inside and outside the Church.
"Free speech? That's not arrogance, it's heroism. "
Galileo behaved in anything but a heroic way. Whenever summoned to Rome (where he was invariably greeted graciously), he grovelled to the Church, and readily caved in to anything they asked of him, eagerly telling them what great ideas they had, how little he would have to alter the works he was preparing to comply, and promising to do so. It was only afterwards that he would ridicule those to whom he had made the the promises, which he obviously had no intention of keeping. An excellent example of a typcial Galilean tactic: behave like an obsequeous slime to their faces, but snipe at them behind their backs.
"I know that people try to argue that he did not get arrested not just for his theory but for trying to ignore the pope's edict and authority"
There was no papal edict for Galileo to contravene, so people who make that argument are also incorrect. Note also that summaries tend to gloss over the fact that Galileo actually fell foul of two popes during his career. The first, Paul V, was a noted anti-intellectual who definitely seems to have had it in for Galileo, but he wasn't the one who imprisoned him. Paul's successor, Urban VIII, was a staunch supporter of both the arts and sciences, and something of a fan of Galileo's prior to being lampooned in "Dialogues". He had in fact defended Galileo against some of the many enemies he'd made in the Church, and it is thus likely that he felt personally betrayed by the fact that the pedantic and stupid Simplicio character was in part based on himself. It would therefore be more correct to say that papal opinion probably had a lot to do with Galileo's ultimate fate, but that this opinion was a personal one rather than an example of Church policy, and was axctually due to Galileo once again managing to turn somebody who had been a friend and supporter into an enemy.
"he had irrefutable SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE"
This is a commonly stated myth. As was made clear by a debate with Jesuits during one of Galileo's trials, what he actually had was some observations that led him to _believe_ Copernicus was right, something that many in the Church had in fact suspected was the case since Copernicus published his work (notably including Urban VIII). However, neither he nor anybody else at the time could actually _prove it_, and the fact that Galileo clung to some rather outdated Copernican ideas meant that his assertions were easily refuted by Jesuits who were by then using far better astromical equipment that Galileo. Some facts:
1) Although Galileo's "Dialogues" give the impression that the Church was using a purely Ptolomeic model, this was not in fact the case, and can therefore be regarded as Galileo setting up a straw man. The prevailing opinion of both the Church and the scientific establishment was that the Earth was fixed and immobile, but the other planets revolved around the sun (Tychonian model, named for Tycho Brahe). This fitted in quite happily with all Galileo's observations, including the oft-quoted one of Jupiter's moons.
2) Galileo stubbornly clung to the idea that planets had circular orbits despite the fact that Kepler (with whom Galileo corresponded) had published work 24 years previously showing that eliptical orb
Strange then that this article on the same site (http://news.com.com/PC+market+surged+in+2005,+wil l+settle+in+2006/2100-1003_3-6028454.html) put Apple's market share for 2005 at 3.3%, representing a growth of 35% for a year in which the overall market grew 9%. Note also that this figure included servers, not just notebooks and desktops, meaning that according to these figures, Apple had 3.3% of _world computer sales_, not just world desktop / laptop sales. So which is it: 1.8% or 3.3%?
"Unfortunately, this type of method depends on how the robot is programmed in the first place."
They will be programmed as well as other complex programmable things such as computers, using similar tools and methodoiogies. I therefore hope there's an easy way of turning them off.
Yeah, right, the society that wants our computers and all media playback devices to be DRM shackled is going to let us have a personal robot that does what _we_ want instead of being a cross between an annoying nanny and a cop.
"HappyFunBot thinks you've already had enough to drink, so the refrigerator will not open for 24 hours".
"HappyFunBot notes you have gained 1.77Kg. You will eat 800 calories and run for 40 minutes per day until healthy".
"You are about to have unprotected sex. Here is a condom which you will wear if you do not wish HappyFunBot to forcibly eject your partner."
"HappyFunBot knows that copying content without permission is theft. Dead or alive, you're coming with HappyFunBot".
"Attempting to disable or destroy a HappyFunBot is defined by law as a terrorist act, punishable by a visit to a HappyEuthanasiaPalace. You must love your HappyFunBot, just like your HappyFunBot loves you".
"It's HappyElectionTime again. Your HappyFunBot has already voted for you so you can lay on your HappyCouch and watch the HappyBox. And remember, HappyFunBot wants you to watch all the HappyFunAds, and then go out and buy things".
Galileo is a bad example, because it wasn't his ideas that got him into trouble, but the fact that he behaved like a complete arsehole.
I think it's more to do with the fact that (a) nukes have a limited shelf-life, so they eventually have to be replaced; and (b) the various bits of support technology that are necessary for actually targeting and launching the things now look big, clunky, power-hungry, manpower-intensive, and very expensive to maintain. Nuclear proliferation treaties don't prevent countries that already have nukes from building new ones as long as they de-comission an equal amount of existing stuff.
Obviously terrorists who are conducting a complex psychological warfare campaign to convince the world that all American men are morbidly obese with small penises, erectile disfunction, and need low-cost mortgages to by all the low-cost medications that are necessary to keep their flabby, ailing bodies alive.
#12 bulging capacitor problem in rev. 1 iMac G5. Although to be fair to Apple, this particular problem hit a lot of other electronics manufacturers as well, and it wasn't due to saving a few dollars by buying cheap capacitors.
The U2 iPod did not contain any media whatsoever. It came with a coupon giving customers a $50 discount on the "Complete U2" collection from the iTunes store.
. html
http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2004/oct/26u2ipod
"The problem of MMORPGs is not the hoarders, but the fact that the games are designed for them."
This is because most people regard gaming as a competitive passtime, so winning is important, and you do that in online RPGs (and indeed the table-top variety if they are power-gaming oriented) by having a massively powerful character with lots of rare items. It is for this reason the the online games are of no real interest to me, just like the power-gamer RPG groups were of no interest to me in the heyday of pen-and-paper games.
"Let me remind you what table-top role-playing used to mean, at least with a good group and GM. "
There were as many styles of table-top RPG as there were people playing them. Some liked a theatrical style, others a storytelling approach that resembled an interactive novel, still others enjoyed hack-and-slash dungeon crawls, and some groups preferred games that mostly revolved around puzzle-solving. No one style can be considered more "correct" than any other, because RPG gaming was about getting together with others to have _fun_, so the only "correct" way was the one that any particular set of players liked the most.
"The stats were _not_ the whole point of the game"
They were for some people, hence the fact that RPG jargon had a term for them: power gamers. They could be quite disruptive in any group that wasn't into the hack-and-slash sub-genre because they quickly became bored by long interactions with non-player characters, passages of scene-setting narrative, or difficult puzzles that required both group discussion and a lot of hunting around for clues.
It is also interesting to note that, in the early days especially, particular gamers tended to favour specific sets of rules because they were better suited to their favourite style. Power gamers and the hack-and-slash lovers for example were most happy with the original AD&D, which had a highly abstract combat system in which powerful player characters were completely invulnerable to all but the most capable enemies. This was not the case in (for example) RuneQuest, Chivarly & Sorcery, DragonQuest, or Traveller (an early SF RPG), all of which featured highly lethal combat systems where even the most advanced and well-equipped characters could be taken down by the most lowly if they happened to "get lucky", so players tended to look for other solutions to problems, with combat mostly occurring only if all else failed. This of course suited the theatrical or storytelling style of gamer perfectly, because for them, trying or talk one's way out of a fight was a lot more fun than ten minutes spent rolling dice and looking at tables in a book.
"You can feel free to point at Bethesda and Bioware games, but they're not the majority by any kind of counting"
That's because they tend to require a lot of time and effort to finish, and do not therefore appeal to casual gamers. This is no different from table-top RPGs, which also demanded not only time and effort (especially from game masters, who would usually spend several evenings preparing each adventure), but also a lot of imagination, creativity, suspension of disbelief, and commitment from everybody in a group. It is for this reason that they tended to be associated with young, single males of above average intellect, i.e. nerds.
Chances are you'd resent them more if they behaved like that, and then left all their money to a girl with big tits who they married three months before dying.
Sony still made mostly high quality stuff in 1988. What people are saying here is that this is no longer necessarily the case with their consumer electronics division (Sony pro gear is a different matter). This doesn't mean that everything they make is rubbish, but the Sony name on anything used to mean that it would be a bit more expensive, but worth it. Nowadays it's just more expensive.
LOL, I also remember "Not the Nine O'clock News". Sadly, like most "topical" humour, it hasn't aged well because so much of what it references is either unfamilar to many people, irrelevant today, or both. You really had to see it when it first aired to fully appreciate it, or at least be old enough to remember what it is referring to.
Kicking Tony and Co. out will make not one whit or iota of difference once this becomes law, because there isn't a single instance of a UK government repealing a law that gave more control to governments in general, even when it was obviously a stupid law passed as a knee-jerk reaction to something that the press squalled about loudly (e.g. the Dangerous Dogs Act).
Take for example firearms licensing. That was brought in after the Russian Revolution where personally-owned firearms were a notable factor, and the British government of the time thought that the probability of a similar armed revolt was high enough that they had to act. Did it get repealed by subsequent governments when it was obvious the the sheeple of the UK weren't going to storm parliament with guns? No, it got made even stricter thanks to a couple of notable incidents in the last quarter of the 20th century that caused the press to squall for more arms control (cynic that I am, I suspect that much of said squalling was orchestrated, as the loudest voices came from organs that supported the government), and Tory government of the time "reluctantly" passed a draconian law that pretty much removed all firearms from law-abiding citizens. And everybody is of course safer now, because we all know criminals won't do anything that's _really_ illegal, and the fact that gun crime in the UK is much higher than was the case under the old laws is "just a sign of the times" or "because they let all those foreigners in".
What subsequent Tory or LibDem governments will do therefore is blame Blair for the cost overruns, inefficiencies, and technical problems that _will_ plague the ID card scheme. Of course, some MPs will call for the whole thing to be scrapped, but government ministers will respond with smooth answers like "Cancelling the scheme now would be a disservice to tax payers after the previous government spent so much money on it", and "You must consider all of those people who have already paid for ID cards. I don't think they'll be very pleased if we tell them that their money was spent on nothing just because the previous government was too incompetent to implement the system in an efficient way".
Face facts: you live in a country which is willingly handing more and more power over to the government, until a point will soon be reached where everything that isn't compulsory is illegal. You cannot prevent this, because the majority are busily discussing Jordan's tits, and have no interest in anything that does not impinge in their narrow, TV-centric little lives. You can't even resist it, because any means to do so has been taken away, and in any case, resistance would make you a terrorist who must be locked up without trial. Of course, you can mount a demonstration, but not outside pariament, because that has now been made illegal. In any case, we've already seen how much effect even very large demonstrations have on British politicians (i.e. none whatsoever), so why bother? Just sit down like a good British citizen, and talk about wholesome, non-threatening things like Jordan't tits and who in the cast of "Coronation Steet" is sleeping with some other cast member, and leave the complicated, boring job of making laws to the people who were after all entrusted by the great British democratic system to do just that.
"He was probably arrested for some charge or other."
Yes, for a crime such as wearing a suspicious hat with intent; crossing a road at night in skin too dark to be seen by motorists; using apostrophes in a public place; being in possession of a substance that should be illegal; being drunk in charge of a house; etc.
OK, so the above aren't actually arrestable offences (yet!). But in a country where you can be arrested for standing in the street (loitering with intent) or "acting suspiciously", the fact of the matter is that you can end up in the DNA database for what amounts to doing something or being someone a policemen decides he doesn't like.
What "own government" would that be? Maybe I'm mistaken, but I don't think British citizens were allowed to vote either for or against George W Bush.
"Now say I'm a terrorist- I hack into the ID system to look for alternate identities"
Or simply hack the system and insert some new records containing whatever you want, or alter the biometric data and photos in existing records. Terrorist groups _will_ get access to equipment that is capable of generating the correct biometric data, and they _will_ have people with IT skills several orders of magnitude higher than the bozos who are tasked with implementing the database, and they _will_ be able to manufacture fake ID cards complete with holograms, etc. All the above will also be true of organised criminal gangs who spot a golden opportunity to make money by charging other criminals, illegal immigrants, etc, a large amount of dosh for a fake ID that is indistinguishable from the real thing.
Make no mistake: this system is going to be a massive national embarrassment that will end up facilitating identity fraud instead of preventing it. Even if it is properly implemented from an IT perspective (which of course it won't be), the fact that there will be both idiots and just plain dishonest people in every link of the chain means that ordinary citizens will end up being massively inconvenienced, while crooks and terrorists actually have an easier time of things because a "valid" ID card will allow them to bypass any checks that those without one would be subject to.
Prediction: the process of applying for these things will be slow and long-winded because (a) the biometric scanning equipment will be finicky, so people will have to spend ages messing around; and (b) the computer systems that said data resides on will not be capable of handling the load in real-time. Of course, once you get your new ID card, you will discover that the person who typed in the accompanying text spelt your surname wrong, and mistook your age of 19 for 90 because of all the noise of those shouting about resenting having spent 9 hours standing in the pissing rain to do something that used to involve grabbing a form from the Post Office. As all Brits know, this wil be _your fault_, so you will have to go through the whole process again, after which the National Database will contain both sets of records, and stubbornly cough up the wrong one ever time you need to be "validated".
Prediction: there will be countless false positives that result in innocent people being mistaken for "undesirables" until they can prove who they actually are. This will, in typical British fashion, involve navigating through a hierarchy of "jobsworths", all of whom believe you are a crook, terrorist, or both.
Prediction: identity theft by people changing the biometric data associated with other ID information (e.g. names and addresses) will result in lots of people being told that they are not themselves, and therefore being denied access to bank accounts, credit cards, etc., all of which will be open to crooks because "biometric data removes the need for passwords and other traditional security measures". ("Yes, I know you claim to be Alice Higgins of 19 The Cuttings, Eastleigh, and a widow whose husband won a VC in "the war", but according to the photo in our database, you should be a swarthy gentleman with a Kalashnikov in one hand and an American's head in the other. Please madam, there's no need to shout. Our detention ship at an undisclosed location in the Pacific is both spacious and comfortable, and you'll only have to wait there until this mess is cleared up. Yes, I'm afraid the handcuffs are necessary, but only until you reach the ship").
Prediction: large amounts of unencrypted personal data will find its way onto expensive, high-end laptops that get stolen due to being left in cars in full view of any passing tealeaf.
Prediction: massive chaos will regularly be caused due to the database being offline because of system crashes, data lines being down, equipment failures in the biometric scanners and ID card readers, etc. This will mean that airports, banks, and similar will have to either close for business, or let