The government spending billions on roads and bridges would be great. The government spending billions to lay out a high speed (i.e. megabit or more) connection to every house would be great. The government spending billions to build hospitals or even more colleges would be great. The government giving a bunch of tax breaks to people who already have a lot of money so they can buy themselves another beach house, that would be a lot of money pissed on things that don't help most people. Hell, I'd rather we pay down the debt before we give people making over a quarter of a million dollars more tax breaks, they've got money to burn.
No copyrights means nothing *but* Free Software. Copyleft only arose as a kind of copyright judo because it was the only workable way to do what was wanted within the system that was there. Don't learn to love the best solution in a bad situation more than the best actual solution.
If Ubisoft can't keep servers up from launch day on which only return a response value, how could they possibly hope to keep up servers that have to actually do any heavy lifting?
I think the point is that having two people work together means that you're less likely to have one guy go off on a random useless tangent due to missing something/thinking they know something they don't/fatigue. Assuming that using two people for a task that's traditionally thought of as needing one person results in twice as many man-hours spent is a big mistake, it could take a quarter to half the time if they cover eachother well or it could take more than twice the man-hours if they bicker or goof off. That said, I tend to do most of my coding by myself and prefer it that way because I get self-conscious when I'm spending time to figure things out.
Censoring yourselves due to fear of violence is a quick way to the bottom. If any nutjobs can threaten you and you'll back down, you might as well just show Teletubbies all day (until someone complains of gay overtones, then you have to stick to static). Your network wants to think it's edgy by airing movies without bleeping a couple swears, but you can't even say one person's name. Just a name. That's it. All because there's some possibility that already unbalanced people (who probably already hate you anyway) will go off the deep end and commit violence? There's always the possibility that someone will commit violence against you, but you can't live in fear because of that. You can't hide your thoughts and hope that crazy people won't act crazy. You can't censor an idea just because someone might not like it. Because if you do, you'll just be giant fucking pussies waiting for the next person trying to fuck you.
Person A takes two test sheets and fills them out the same, one in his name one in Person B's name. Person B takes a test sheet and writes down some random name and scribblings (or just folds it up and sticks it in his pocket).
Movies are vastly overpriced too, and if I eat something at the theater, I sneak it in. Those bastards aren't making me pay $8 for a quarters worth of popcorn and soda.
Last I heard Ashcroft v Free Speech Coalition struck down just that kind of law, precisely because it didn't harm kids to make child drawings and trying to ban it would be harmful to the first amendment.
Trying to poke holes in the Big Bang by saying it doesn't explain T(-1) is like trying to poke holes in evolution by asking what the origins of life were. They're questions worth asking, but the answers to those questions won't disprove their respective theories so much as further refine our understanding of the mountains of already existing evidence.
Given how so many people get riled up over patriotism and the like, why don't we point out that these companies not paying their fair share to help America through what amounts to a shell game undermines all the rest of us. If you've got a group of friends ordering pizza and one guy tells the group that he'd totally be good for it but he doesn't have any money, all his money is being held by an offshore company operated by a wholly owned subsidiary that's completely owned by him, you'd tell him to fuck off and go get his own pizza and stop mooching off everyone else.
3 seconds on google found me this forum post on The Witcher's official forum: http://www.thewitcher.com/forum/index.php?topic=25939.0 . One poster uploaded the uncensored texture files:http://www.mediafire.com/?jyyjnmozmyv . (Disclaimer, I have not downloaded/tested the files, nor do I own or play the game. Use at your own risk, etc, etc.)
Yeah, and fuck those doctors who use laparoscopic robots to do surgery. What happens if they're at a restaurant and someone needs a tracheotomy right there and there's nothing but a semi-clean steak knife and some paper napkins?
Don't deride the use of a tool that solves quite a few problems just because it won't be there all the time. Is it good to know how to read a log or write good test harnesses? Absolutely. Does that mean I won't ever want to get a step-by-step feel for some sections of code? No.
A school saying nothing about the existence of any particular god is not the same thing as state sponsored atheism. If schools started to specifically say "there's no such thing as god", then that would be supporting atheism. Can schools walk a fine line and run a comparative religion or even a Bible from a historical perspective class? Sure, provided it's neutral and doesn't proselytize. Then again, it'd get beset on all sides, from fundamentalists who don't want the Bible taught as anything but the absolute immutable word of god, or from hardcore atheists who don't want their kids taught fairy tales. Do I think a class that actually took a fair, open, and honest look at religions might be worthwhile? Sure. Do I think such a class could exist in every school in America without issues? Hell no
Every member of a subversive organization, or an organization subject to foreign control, every foreign agent and every person who advocates, teaches, advises or practices the duty, necessity or propriety of controlling, conducting, seizing or overthrowing the government of the United States, of this State or of any political subdivision thereof by force or violence or other unlawful means, who resides, transacts any business or attempts to influence political action in this State, shall register with the Secretary of State on the forms and at the times prescribed by him.
Any organization or person who violates any of the provisions of this chapter shall, upon conviction thereof, be punished by a fine of not more than twenty-five thousand dollars or imprisonment for not more than ten years, or by both fine and imprisonment.
You don't have to be part of a group, no one has to actually do violence, and you don't even have to live in the state. If you say the wrong things and have any association with South Carolina and don't file the papers, you could go to jail. Of course, it'd never hold up through appeals, but that doesn't mean prosecutors won't use it to scare people.
No. No. A thousand times no. Arresting someone for using their first amendment rights by saying they didn't register with the government before hand is wrong on so many levels.
At the very least, it is an end run around the very idea of protecting free speech. If I and a group of friends one afternoon suddenly decide that we want to discuss overthrowing the government, do you really think that it's ok for the government to arrest us because we didn't file form 82-B and give it 4 to 6 weeks to process? My right to speech does not hinge upon a government bureaucracy, it's specifically protected from such interference by the government.
It's also discriminatory towards one particular viewpoint. We might both agree that it is detestable that people talk about violence to achieve their aims, but let's say that 51% (or 60% or 90%) find it detestable that some groups of people advocate for something like gun rights. Should we be able to force all pro-gun groups to register with the government, and disclose a list of their members? If a group of people gather to support gun rights and that group isn't registered with the government, should we be able to round up everyone there and send them to prison? You may want to object to this, but both this and advocating violence are both perfectly constitutional, and by your own logic this scenario would be a'ok.
Besides that, there is the practical concern of people in those groups being harassed by the government precisely because they registered. It wasn't that long ago that J. Edgar Hoover completely abused his position to run COINTELPRO and harass all sorts of groups including Martin Luther King, Jr's SCLC. As much as we'd all like to believe everyone in government is honest, law abiding, and professional, history tells us that that is very unlikely. That's why any encroachment upon personal freedom, no matter how seemingly benign, should be given the harshest possible examination and in almost all cases should get tossed out.
You can advocate the violent radical overthrow of the government (or any other illegal act) all you want as long as it doesn't cause "imminent lawless action" (Brandenburg v. Ohio).
It is not illegal in the US to advocate violence or the overthrow of the government, other groups, or whatever you want, as long as what you say isn't going to cause a problem more or less that very second. Read up on Brandenburg v. Ohio. Ohio tried to prosecute a KKK member using a statute against advocating "the duty, necessity, or propriety of crime, sabotage, violence, or unlawful methods of terrorism as a means of accomplishing industrial or political reform" or the voluntary assembly of any group supporting such. It got struck down unanimously, and the line where speech can become illegal is at "imminent lawless action" (e.g. stirring up a riot in a crowd).
It's a bit like how some uptight city governments will go out of their way to say that some porn video store violates "community standards", yet then fridge logic pops up and you ask the question "How could a business stay open if people didn't buy from it?"
If you must use a phone, get prepaid phones (and if you're especially paranoid, change it out often). If people are tracking you you'd have to be daft to keep a phone that's billed to your name on your person at all.
Slashdot Mirror
The government spending billions on roads and bridges would be great. The government spending billions to lay out a high speed (i.e. megabit or more) connection to every house would be great. The government spending billions to build hospitals or even more colleges would be great. The government giving a bunch of tax breaks to people who already have a lot of money so they can buy themselves another beach house, that would be a lot of money pissed on things that don't help most people. Hell, I'd rather we pay down the debt before we give people making over a quarter of a million dollars more tax breaks, they've got money to burn.
http://portableapps.com/apps/internet/firefox_portable Portable Firefox has been around for years. I used it at least 6 years ago to bypass my high school's insistence on Internet explorer.
No copyrights means nothing *but* Free Software. Copyleft only arose as a kind of copyright judo because it was the only workable way to do what was wanted within the system that was there. Don't learn to love the best solution in a bad situation more than the best actual solution.
So Twitter is the Facebook of 5 years ago?
If Ubisoft can't keep servers up from launch day on which only return a response value, how could they possibly hope to keep up servers that have to actually do any heavy lifting?
I think the point is that having two people work together means that you're less likely to have one guy go off on a random useless tangent due to missing something/thinking they know something they don't/fatigue. Assuming that using two people for a task that's traditionally thought of as needing one person results in twice as many man-hours spent is a big mistake, it could take a quarter to half the time if they cover eachother well or it could take more than twice the man-hours if they bicker or goof off. That said, I tend to do most of my coding by myself and prefer it that way because I get self-conscious when I'm spending time to figure things out.
Censoring yourselves due to fear of violence is a quick way to the bottom. If any nutjobs can threaten you and you'll back down, you might as well just show Teletubbies all day (until someone complains of gay overtones, then you have to stick to static). Your network wants to think it's edgy by airing movies without bleeping a couple swears, but you can't even say one person's name. Just a name. That's it. All because there's some possibility that already unbalanced people (who probably already hate you anyway) will go off the deep end and commit violence? There's always the possibility that someone will commit violence against you, but you can't live in fear because of that. You can't hide your thoughts and hope that crazy people won't act crazy. You can't censor an idea just because someone might not like it. Because if you do, you'll just be giant fucking pussies waiting for the next person trying to fuck you.
Person A takes two test sheets and fills them out the same, one in his name one in Person B's name. Person B takes a test sheet and writes down some random name and scribblings (or just folds it up and sticks it in his pocket).
Movies are vastly overpriced too, and if I eat something at the theater, I sneak it in. Those bastards aren't making me pay $8 for a quarters worth of popcorn and soda.
If they'll be looking at Twitter I don't think I want future historians to understand us.
Toyota already tried that. It didn't go well.
Last I heard Ashcroft v Free Speech Coalition struck down just that kind of law, precisely because it didn't harm kids to make child drawings and trying to ban it would be harmful to the first amendment.
Trying to poke holes in the Big Bang by saying it doesn't explain T(-1) is like trying to poke holes in evolution by asking what the origins of life were. They're questions worth asking, but the answers to those questions won't disprove their respective theories so much as further refine our understanding of the mountains of already existing evidence.
Given how so many people get riled up over patriotism and the like, why don't we point out that these companies not paying their fair share to help America through what amounts to a shell game undermines all the rest of us. If you've got a group of friends ordering pizza and one guy tells the group that he'd totally be good for it but he doesn't have any money, all his money is being held by an offshore company operated by a wholly owned subsidiary that's completely owned by him, you'd tell him to fuck off and go get his own pizza and stop mooching off everyone else.
3 seconds on google found me this forum post on The Witcher's official forum: http://www.thewitcher.com/forum/index.php?topic=25939.0 . One poster uploaded the uncensored texture files:http://www.mediafire.com/?jyyjnmozmyv . (Disclaimer, I have not downloaded/tested the files, nor do I own or play the game. Use at your own risk, etc, etc.)
Don't forget:
In a talent contest: Super-ventriloquism your way out.
Seriously.
If the governing body attaches no name to a piece of legislation, assume that they all wanted it.
Yeah, and fuck those doctors who use laparoscopic robots to do surgery. What happens if they're at a restaurant and someone needs a tracheotomy right there and there's nothing but a semi-clean steak knife and some paper napkins?
Don't deride the use of a tool that solves quite a few problems just because it won't be there all the time. Is it good to know how to read a log or write good test harnesses? Absolutely. Does that mean I won't ever want to get a step-by-step feel for some sections of code? No.
A school saying nothing about the existence of any particular god is not the same thing as state sponsored atheism. If schools started to specifically say "there's no such thing as god", then that would be supporting atheism. Can schools walk a fine line and run a comparative religion or even a Bible from a historical perspective class? Sure, provided it's neutral and doesn't proselytize. Then again, it'd get beset on all sides, from fundamentalists who don't want the Bible taught as anything but the absolute immutable word of god, or from hardcore atheists who don't want their kids taught fairy tales. Do I think a class that actually took a fair, open, and honest look at religions might be worthwhile? Sure. Do I think such a class could exist in every school in America without issues? Hell no
You don't have to be part of a group, no one has to actually do violence, and you don't even have to live in the state. If you say the wrong things and have any association with South Carolina and don't file the papers, you could go to jail. Of course, it'd never hold up through appeals, but that doesn't mean prosecutors won't use it to scare people.
No. No. A thousand times no. Arresting someone for using their first amendment rights by saying they didn't register with the government before hand is wrong on so many levels.
At the very least, it is an end run around the very idea of protecting free speech. If I and a group of friends one afternoon suddenly decide that we want to discuss overthrowing the government, do you really think that it's ok for the government to arrest us because we didn't file form 82-B and give it 4 to 6 weeks to process? My right to speech does not hinge upon a government bureaucracy, it's specifically protected from such interference by the government.
It's also discriminatory towards one particular viewpoint. We might both agree that it is detestable that people talk about violence to achieve their aims, but let's say that 51% (or 60% or 90%) find it detestable that some groups of people advocate for something like gun rights. Should we be able to force all pro-gun groups to register with the government, and disclose a list of their members? If a group of people gather to support gun rights and that group isn't registered with the government, should we be able to round up everyone there and send them to prison? You may want to object to this, but both this and advocating violence are both perfectly constitutional, and by your own logic this scenario would be a'ok.
Besides that, there is the practical concern of people in those groups being harassed by the government precisely because they registered. It wasn't that long ago that J. Edgar Hoover completely abused his position to run COINTELPRO and harass all sorts of groups including Martin Luther King, Jr's SCLC. As much as we'd all like to believe everyone in government is honest, law abiding, and professional, history tells us that that is very unlikely. That's why any encroachment upon personal freedom, no matter how seemingly benign, should be given the harshest possible examination and in almost all cases should get tossed out.
You can advocate the violent radical overthrow of the government (or any other illegal act) all you want as long as it doesn't cause "imminent lawless action" (Brandenburg v. Ohio).
It is not illegal in the US to advocate violence or the overthrow of the government, other groups, or whatever you want, as long as what you say isn't going to cause a problem more or less that very second. Read up on Brandenburg v. Ohio. Ohio tried to prosecute a KKK member using a statute against advocating "the duty, necessity, or propriety of crime, sabotage, violence, or unlawful methods of terrorism as a means of accomplishing industrial or political reform" or the voluntary assembly of any group supporting such. It got struck down unanimously, and the line where speech can become illegal is at "imminent lawless action" (e.g. stirring up a riot in a crowd).
It's a bit like how some uptight city governments will go out of their way to say that some porn video store violates "community standards", yet then fridge logic pops up and you ask the question "How could a business stay open if people didn't buy from it?"
If you must use a phone, get prepaid phones (and if you're especially paranoid, change it out often). If people are tracking you you'd have to be daft to keep a phone that's billed to your name on your person at all.