I limit myself to playing for a few hours maybe a couple of times a month, and it never seems to get old. My favorite way to play is on "Hardest" difficulty level, with 3 AI players, one ally and two enemies. It's not easy. I'd say that I win less than 20% of the time with that setup. My nephew looked up a cheat once so that we could spy on other civilizations. We found out that part of the "hardest" setting is that the AI players start off with vastly superior resources. So, they're sometimes throwing bronze age and iron age military units against you when you're still one generation back. I typically use the "Coastal" or "Narrows" terrain because at least there are some natural barriers. With all of the different civlizations, randomly generated landscapes and a setting where you can't always kick ass, it doesn't lose much luster.
"Someone send this man a t-shirt with the key on the front and "It's not over yet!" on the back."
LOL.
I'm going home to make one tonight! Or perhaps a cool variant. How about "It's not over yet!" on the front surrounded by small fonts of the key, and then a nice array with large fonts on the back?
I'll default to a "wait & see" perspective, but this has a firm basis in device physics.
One of the major speed limiting factors in microelectronics is capacitive loading. With the tiny scale of contemporary semiconductors "wire capacitance" has become the dominant delay factor. Since the wires are so close together, adjacent wires produce a parasitic capacitance effect(extra load on the circuits) similar to this.
As you can see, this capacitance varies directly with the size of the wires, is inversely proportional to the distance between them(shrinking all the time with new process technologies), and directly proportional to the "dielectric constant" of the material between them.
Air has a dielectric constant of ~1.00. Silicon Dioxide, the typical insulator in semiconductors is ~3.9.
Other glass-like materials have been experimented with, but I haven't read about many successes.
So, essentially if you could "leave out" the SiO2 insulating material, you could reduce the parasitic capacitance of the wires by a factor of 3.9. Nothing to scoff at if you can actually pull it off.
"Okay, then why are the folks who are so worried about the erosion of the 2nd amendment often the ones who are willing to let the 1st amendment be eroded?"
Interesting. I hadn't thought about that, but I'm sure that such people are out there. In my experience, the type who strongly support the First Amendment, but would willingly give up the Second are MUCH more prevalent.
People who would willingly give up any of their freedoms are fools.
"But the NRA and other gun nuts are too afraid of rational laws."
" . ..making it more difficult to legally get a gun when you are confirmed to be insane shouldn't be something that people are against . .."
You obviously don't have the slightest friggin clue about firearms laws, or the NRA. I tend to question your objectivity when you claim that you are not "anti gun" yet characterize people who support the Right to keep and bear arms as "nuts", and who the hell said "we should remove all gun laws"?
Under Federal law, anyone that has been involuntarily committed to a mental institution is prohibited from purchasing a firearm(FYI, any convicted felon, or person with a restraining order against them is likewise prohibited). The NRA has NO PROBLEM with these laws.
The FBI has something called the "National Instant Checks System"(NICS) which is supposed to screen prospective buyers against these and several other criteria. The buyer must provide ID, fill out a federal form called a '4473' and then undergo this instant background check. The NRA FULLY SUPPORTS this as well.
The problem here is that Cho's record was NEVER entered into the NICS database, so the background check went trough cleanly. He technically committed a crime by obtaining the firearm, but like most criminals he didn't give a damn about a gun law when he intended to commit a serious offense. The problem is that Congress left gaping loopholes in the reporting requirements and funding for NICS when they created the system.
Why don't you go visit the NRA's web site and find out what their positions are before you start posting unsubstantiated bullshit? I'm sure you've got a multitude of false beliefs that might be cleared up with a little open-minded investigation.
" . ..start sending me maps of your schools. I will host them on my german website. Don't forget to let me know where (google maps) exactly the Highschool is . .."
Nice.
I'll check your site very soon. Based on the comments, it seems that there is a pretty good collection already in existence. I hope you get plenty of responses. This could be fun.
"No warrant, no search. You don't consent to police searching your house. That's what search warrants . ..are for."
Sorry, I think you're wrong on that point, unless you mean "You don't consent..." as a piece of excellent advice. I can't believe they were dumb enough to allow this. Any evidence found in a search to which the owner has consented is legal and admissable. So are statements you make if you've waived your right to remain silent and agreed to talk to the police without a lawyer present.
That's why you NEVER give the cops permission to search your house. If you're pulled over, NEVER allow them to search your car. Don't answer any of their questions, and don't believe a thing that they tell you. Spend a few monotonous hours learning the laws (Federal and in your state) so that you know how to protect yourself in these situations. That will put you on higher ground than 95% of the stormtrooper wannabes you're likely to encounter.
"If you're ignorant of your rights, then you don't have any" -unknown
" Office 2007 PRO OEM and Vista Home Premium OEM is ~£275 in the UK. That's about $550. Not that Dell are going to pass that saving on to the end user."
The latter part is the critical aspect of this. I hope your speculation is wrong. There are two necessary(but not sufficient) conditions for Linux to be a mass market alternative.
=> PCs with pre-installed Linux are available from vendors with significant PC market share => The purchase price of a machine with pre-installed Linux is "appreciably" lower than the same machine with Windows.
I think it would be an eye-opener for someone customizing their Dell PC and playing with all of the +/- price effects of various options to see
OPERATING SYSTEM:
Microsoft Windows ________ *
Ubuntu Linux(-$120)_______ o
OFFICE SUITE
Microsoft Office ___________ *
Open Office (-$120)________ o
(Pity the person that opts for the the Ubuntu/MS office combo)
"I was technically proficient BEFORE I got those certificates."
"I know many others who also have these certificates. Their capabilities range from extraordinarily adept, to blithering idiot."
So how did you get technically proficient if you weren't a blithering idiot(but willing to learn) at some point? How did you learn without a few stumbles? As you pointed out, the certifications are often your way in the door. I think it's hard to become technically proficient with a large network without experience.
"there is a very wide gulf between [training] and someone who really performs well on the job."
My career has diverged from administrative work, but very early on I was supporting the windows environment of a telemarketing group with ~150 PCs. "Idiot" is an unfair characterization. I'd say "blundering novice". A lot of things went wrong, but can you blame me for taking the job? Unfortunately, companies don't advertise "Wanted: blithering idiot with certifications".
I'm not lumping you into this group, but your tone is eerily similar to a category of "proficient" people who smugly take delight in the ineptitude of others.
I count my blessings for having attended HS prior to Oklahoma City, Columbine and 9/11!
My friends and I never would have graduated if we had been forced to go to school in the current environment of paranoia. I should probably go over to my Mom's house and burn all of my old school essays(full of guns, knives, explosives, chain saws, nuclear weapons and endless amounts of carnage) just in case.
>Also, doesn't the US have a constitution which makes freedom of expression an absolute right? >>Yes, but that does not exempt you from the consequences of exercising that right.
That's ridiculous! It's obviously not a "Right" if the government can throw you in prison for exercising it!
"The people who whine . ..don't understand that it just isn't that big of a deal"
Yeah, one minor law isn't that big of a deal. Then the next little restriction is trivial, and a further one is insignificant . . . etc. We call that frog soup.
"A very small amount of the population stands to lose, while more of the population stands to gain . .."
That's a very dangerous line of thinking. The same philosophy would apply if we murdered the richest 1% of the population, confiscated their wealth, and then divided it up equally among the remaining 99%. Who could possibly object to a policy that affects so few and benefits so many?
I concur, it seems like every law I see passed in Europe OR the U.S. is something I consider bad. I wonder who's representing my interests. Europe is on a bit of a roll lately. A couple of days ago it's a free speech reduction act: http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/04/25/20 40200
Now this anti-fair use law, and the whole 24x7 police monitoring thing in the UK from a few weeks back.
Maybe I'm dwelling on the negative, but when was the last time we saw some legislation(not a court ruling) in Europe or the US which actually strengthened ORO?
"Namely that gun control and prohibition DOES work."
It depends how you define something as "working". When you're focusing ONLY on crimes committed by people using firearms, sure, banning guns "works". When you focus on the overall amount of VIOLENT crime, gun control has the opposite effect. These statistics that gun control advocates always cite are misleading for multiple reasons.
"Gun deaths" include suicides, accidents, cases of self defense, "gang warfare" and police shootings.
Furthermore, looking only at "gun crime" completely ignores the well documented deterrent effect of lawful firearms ownership! How many stabbings, bludgeonings, rapes and home invasions are you willing to tolerate in order to prevent one firearms-related death?
I completely disagree with your description of USA-UK-Canada as "similar". Why not compare the VIOLENT CRIME rates in Washington D.C. and the States of MA and NJ(near total gun prohibition) with the States of VT and NH (very little gun prohibition)?
It will probably terrify the quivering anti-gun cowards in Europe and certain areas of the U.S. but where I live, ANY law abiding adult citizen can carry a concealed weapon with no special "permit". Guess what? Our crime rate is among the lowest in the nation. A mugging is a risky business when you look around the streets and realize that anyone might be carrying a firearm, and a home invasion (when the owner is around) is tantamount to suicide!
Thank you very much for making a point that I always try to get across when I talk to people who are vigorous defenders of the First Amendment but are willing to sacrifice the Second: The people that want to ban firearms are the SAME PEOPLE who want to ban Free Speech as well!
You've concisely highlighted the fundamental problem with idiotic laws that ban Free Speech. Once it is banned, the people that can define "hate" can RE-define it and ban speech that had previously been "legal". Major slippery slope!
". ..history books trying to explain the motivations of the Nazis . .."
Yes. There is a disturbing example of this. An author named David Irving (who's British) was arrested in Canada, extradited to Austria and and thrown in a PRISON for writing books and making statements questioning the holocaust. The SCARY thing is that under the current laws, TRUE statements, when formulated in specific ways can constitute "hate speech". IANAL, and have no clue about European law and the rights of the accused, but Irving was prohibited from calling witnesses who could verify the factual basis of certain things he wrote/said because "The truth is no defense".
FTA: "The preamble to the declaration mentions anti-Semitism . .."
Former President Jimmy Carter recently wrote a book drawing a parallel between the Israeli treatment of Palestinians in the occupied territories and the Apartheid system in South Africa. He has faced widespread criticism about it and his book has been labeled as "anti-Semitism" multiple times. Does this law mean that Google, etc. need to filter out web pages(like amazon?) that might possibly show excerpts from the book? Sounds more like China to me.
"Networking is a vital skill for any and all jobs, if you're incapable of it then maybe you should spend some time learning it instead of playing video games."
Huh? Why the hell would you need to learn networking if you didn't have a job that was at least somewhat IT-related? Do you think a doctor or lawyer gives a damn about how their Linux machines are hooked up and how their packets are being routed? Most people just want the network up and running and otherwise don't give it a second thought.
I wouldn't consider myself a Linux neophyte, but parts of that procedure flew over my head. Can you provide some details? I assume you ARE talking about Linux.
How do you "match each and every file on the hard drive to the package that it should have come"? What exactly are you comparing? How/where do you accumulate and store the checksum data? How often do you do this? After installing a new application and working for a week, it seems like individual evaluation of each file that was "unaccounted for" would be a collosal headache. Not doubting the effectiveness of your method, but I'd like to understand the details so I could try it. I might even attempt something similar for the drive containing my Windows install.
"There are literally thousands of nuclear 'accidents', ranging from thousands of tonnes of highly radioactive water . . . transport accidents, to thefts, to black market transactions by power plant workers."
Thousands? Don't you think that's exaggerating a bit? In addition, the term "nuclear accident" conjures up images of Chernobyl, by far the worst and unrepresentative "accident". Wikipedia lists maybe "dozens" with a continuum of severity stretching almost to the realm of insignificance. The paranoia about such things is probably justifiable, but classifying the following as a "nuclear accident" seems like quite a stretch.
"February 15, 2000 - The Indian Point nuclear power plant's reactor 2 in Buchanan, New York, vented a small amount of radioactive steam when a steam generator tube failed. No detectable radioactivity was observed offsite."
You're talking about "thousands of tons of water", these guys are talking about a "small amount of steam", and the article is talking about some training software. I think we're letting political FUD and media hype obscure rational thinking. Mention "nucular" and "Iran" and you've got the story for the day.
You're not the only one. I found many of the comments surprisingly Trollish as well.
I think this was actually a clever thing to do, and I'm glad that there are people going after spammers while simultaneously exposing lazy-assed judges and a malfunctioning judicial system.
Even if this effort might be scorned as a "hobby" or "waste of time", I think it's more noble and worthwhile than the efforts of the average open-source contributor.
"I filed an official complaint with the Commission on Judicial Conduct saying that my motion had been rejected with the pages still stuck together, indicating the judge didn't read it. A little over a year later, I got a letter saying the complaint had been rejected."
No surprise there. Now you have to stick the pages of the official complaint together, and file a new complaint about your orignal complaint not being read.
I don't see what either of these incidents has to do with the proposed "cyber-bullying" law.
" . ..embarrassing video clips of young people getting changed after school PE sessions."
In this case, I believe that the school SHOULD have the authority to take action. This is clear evidence of inappropriate behavior by students on school property. I would expect that the school has rules prohibiting this sort of thing. If they don't then they should strongly consider it!
". . . posting led to two youths, aged 14 and 16, being arrested yesterday and charged with assault."
Perfect! I love it when criminals record their crimes for the authorities. It seems that no "cyber-bullying" legislation was required in this case.
I think that malicious online attacks, especially targeted at children are a problem, but I perceive it as an issue of society at large. There are just too many problems with the idea of empowering schools to monitor the online behavior of their students and take selective disciplinary action.
I'll be scouring the Internet later today to make sure I get my copy. Anything else on the "to ban" list that I should order? Every time some pseudo-democracy (typically Europe or the U.S. but add Australia too) decides they need to censor a book, film or web site, it immediately gets added to my list of things I need to buy/watch/read.
How can a list of "most annoying tech products" NOT INCLUDE THE CELL PHONE? #1 by far!!!
With the exception of the AOL CD, how many people have ever been "annoyed" by one of the products on this list? It can't possibly compare to the number of people who have been annoyed by a F#*&^%$ cell phone going off in the middle of a class, meeting, or performance event. Not to mention the annoyance of having to listen to 1/2 of an angry or animated conversation. At least the AOL CDs made good coasters, or could be tossed in seconds.
If the "boom box" counts as a tech product, that has to be a "top ten" as well.
"The number of credit card offers you get in the mail your first year at college are ridiculous. At least, they were when I went . .."
Indeed. Same here.
My favorite solution was to tear them to shreds, put the scraps in the pre-paid return envelope and mail it. I also had a 2-sided form letter FULL of fine-print telling them why I didn't want their card, what the weather was doing in my part of the country, and describing my super-hero-like powers.
"Can you name the resolution, which condemns our war on Iraq as illegal? No, you can't... Oops. US is innocent."
I'm not sure if you're agreeing or dis-agreeing with what I wrote. ? My point is that The United States has a process (read "law") governing how we enter into international agreements. The process was followed when we joined the UN and signed the UN charter. Are you contending that we aren't "legally" bound to the terms of the international agreement even though it went through this formal approval process? It doesn't take a UN resolution condemning the war in Iraq, when the war has already violated the terms of the UN charter.
Even if you don't consider violating an international agreement to be "illegal", I think the war can be defined as such by the fact that The Constitution is the supreme law of our nation, and it explicitly grants the power to declare war to the Congress.
Slashdot Mirror
No doubt.
I limit myself to playing for a few hours maybe a couple of times a month, and it never seems to get old. My favorite way to play is on "Hardest" difficulty level, with 3 AI players, one ally and two enemies. It's not easy. I'd say that I win less than 20% of the time with that setup. My nephew looked up a cheat once so that we could spy on other civilizations. We found out that part of the "hardest" setting is that the AI players start off with vastly superior resources. So, they're sometimes throwing bronze age and iron age military units against you when you're still one generation back. I typically use the "Coastal" or "Narrows" terrain because at least there are some natural barriers. With all of the different civlizations, randomly generated landscapes and a setting where you can't always kick ass, it doesn't lose much luster.
"Someone send this man a t-shirt with the key on the front and "It's not over yet!" on the back."
LOL.
I'm going home to make one tonight! Or perhaps a cool variant. How about "It's not over yet!" on the front surrounded by small fonts of the key, and then a nice array with large fonts on the back?
This is great.
Now I am the Master!(EE)
i tor
I'll default to a "wait & see" perspective, but this has a firm basis in device physics.
One of the major speed limiting factors in microelectronics is capacitive loading. With the tiny scale of contemporary semiconductors "wire capacitance" has become the dominant delay factor. Since the wires are so close together, adjacent wires produce a parasitic capacitance effect(extra load on the circuits) similar to this.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallel_plate_capac
(The article on parasitic cap didn't say much)
As you can see, this capacitance varies directly with the size of the wires, is inversely proportional to the distance between them(shrinking all the time with new process technologies), and directly proportional to the "dielectric constant" of the material between them.
Air has a dielectric constant of ~1.00. Silicon Dioxide, the typical insulator in semiconductors is ~3.9.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Low-k
Other glass-like materials have been experimented with, but I haven't read about many successes.
So, essentially if you could "leave out" the SiO2 insulating material, you could reduce the parasitic capacitance of the wires by a factor of 3.9. Nothing to scoff at if you can actually pull it off.
"Okay, then why are the folks who are so worried about the erosion of the 2nd amendment often the ones who are willing to let the 1st amendment be eroded?"
Interesting. I hadn't thought about that, but I'm sure that such people are out there. In my experience, the type who strongly support the First Amendment, but would willingly give up the Second are MUCH more prevalent.
People who would willingly give up any of their freedoms are fools.
"But the NRA and other gun nuts are too afraid of rational laws."
.making it more difficult to legally get a gun when you are confirmed to be insane shouldn't be something that people are against . . ."
" . .
You obviously don't have the slightest friggin clue about firearms laws, or the NRA. I tend to question your objectivity when you claim that you are not "anti gun" yet characterize people who support the Right to keep and bear arms as "nuts", and who the hell said "we should remove all gun laws"?
Under Federal law, anyone that has been involuntarily committed to a mental institution is prohibited from purchasing a firearm(FYI, any convicted felon, or person with a restraining order against them is likewise prohibited). The NRA has NO PROBLEM with these laws.
The FBI has something called the "National Instant Checks System"(NICS) which is supposed to screen prospective buyers against these and several other criteria. The buyer must provide ID, fill out a federal form called a '4473' and then undergo this instant background check. The NRA FULLY SUPPORTS this as well.
The problem here is that Cho's record was NEVER entered into the NICS database, so the background check went trough cleanly. He technically committed a crime by obtaining the firearm, but like most criminals he didn't give a damn about a gun law when he intended to commit a serious offense. The problem is that Congress left gaping loopholes in the reporting requirements and funding for NICS when they created the system.
Why don't you go visit the NRA's web site and find out what their positions are before you start posting unsubstantiated bullshit? I'm sure you've got a multitude of false beliefs that might be cleared up with a little open-minded investigation.
" . . .start sending me maps of your schools. I will host them on my german website. Don't forget to let me know where (google maps) exactly the Highschool is . . ."
Nice.
I'll check your site very soon. Based on the comments, it seems that there is a pretty good collection already in existence. I hope you get plenty of responses. This could be fun.
"No warrant, no search. You don't consent to police searching your house. That's what search warrants . . .are for."
Sorry, I think you're wrong on that point, unless you mean "You don't consent..." as a piece of excellent advice. I can't believe they were dumb enough to allow this. Any evidence found in a search to which the owner has consented is legal and admissable. So are statements you make if you've waived your right to remain silent and agreed to talk to the police without a lawyer present.
That's why you NEVER give the cops permission to search your house. If you're pulled over, NEVER allow them to search your car. Don't answer any of their questions, and don't believe a thing that they tell you. Spend a few monotonous hours learning the laws (Federal and in your state) so that you know how to protect yourself in these situations. That will put you on higher ground than 95% of the stormtrooper wannabes you're likely to encounter.
"If you're ignorant of your rights, then you don't have any"
-unknown
" Office 2007 PRO OEM and Vista Home Premium OEM is ~£275 in the UK. That's about $550. Not that Dell are going to pass that saving on to the end user."
The latter part is the critical aspect of this. I hope your speculation is wrong. There are two necessary(but not sufficient) conditions for Linux to be a mass market alternative.
=> PCs with pre-installed Linux are available from vendors with significant PC market share
=> The purchase price of a machine with pre-installed Linux is "appreciably" lower than the same machine with Windows.
I think it would be an eye-opener for someone customizing their Dell PC and playing with all of the +/- price effects of various options to see
OPERATING SYSTEM:
Microsoft Windows ________ *
Ubuntu Linux(-$120)_______ o
OFFICE SUITE
Microsoft Office ___________ *
Open Office (-$120)________ o
(Pity the person that opts for the the Ubuntu/MS office combo)
"I was technically proficient BEFORE I got those certificates."
"I know many others who also have these certificates. Their capabilities range from extraordinarily adept, to blithering idiot."
So how did you get technically proficient if you weren't a blithering idiot(but willing to learn) at some point? How did you learn without a few stumbles? As you pointed out, the certifications are often your way in the door. I think it's hard to become technically proficient with a large network without experience.
"there is a very wide gulf between [training] and someone who really performs well on the job."
My career has diverged from administrative work, but very early on I was supporting the windows environment of a telemarketing group with ~150 PCs. "Idiot" is an unfair characterization. I'd say "blundering novice". A lot of things went wrong, but can you blame me for taking the job? Unfortunately, companies don't advertise "Wanted: blithering idiot with certifications".
I'm not lumping you into this group, but your tone is eerily similar to a category of "proficient" people who smugly take delight in the ineptitude of others.
Yes indeed.
I count my blessings for having attended HS prior to Oklahoma City, Columbine and 9/11!
My friends and I never would have graduated if we had been forced to go to school in the current environment of paranoia. I should probably go over to my Mom's house and burn all of my old school essays(full of guns, knives, explosives, chain saws, nuclear weapons and endless amounts of carnage) just in case.
>Also, doesn't the US have a constitution which makes freedom of expression an absolute right?
>>Yes, but that does not exempt you from the consequences of exercising that right.
That's ridiculous! It's obviously not a "Right" if the government can throw you in prison for exercising it!
Black spots on your Insightful++
.don't understand that it just isn't that big of a deal"
."
"The people who whine . .
Yeah, one minor law isn't that big of a deal. Then the next little restriction is trivial, and a further one is insignificant . . . etc. We call that frog soup.
"A very small amount of the population stands to lose, while more of the population stands to gain . .
That's a very dangerous line of thinking. The same philosophy would apply if we murdered the richest 1% of the population, confiscated their wealth, and then divided it up equally among the remaining 99%. Who could possibly object to a policy that affects so few and benefits so many?
I concur, it seems like every law I see passed in Europe OR the U.S. is something I consider bad. I wonder who's representing my interests. Europe is on a bit of a roll lately. A couple of days ago it's a free speech reduction act: http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/04/25/20 40200
Now this anti-fair use law, and the whole 24x7 police monitoring thing in the UK from a few weeks back.
Maybe I'm dwelling on the negative, but when was the last time we saw some legislation(not a court ruling) in Europe or the US which actually strengthened ORO?
"Namely that gun control and prohibition DOES work."
It depends how you define something as "working". When you're focusing ONLY on crimes committed by people using firearms, sure, banning guns "works". When you focus on the overall amount of VIOLENT crime, gun control has the opposite effect. These statistics that gun control advocates always cite are misleading for multiple reasons.
"Gun deaths" include suicides, accidents, cases of self defense, "gang warfare" and police shootings.
Furthermore, looking only at "gun crime" completely ignores the well documented deterrent effect of lawful firearms ownership! How many stabbings, bludgeonings, rapes and home invasions are you willing to tolerate in order to prevent one firearms-related death?
I completely disagree with your description of USA-UK-Canada as "similar". Why not compare the VIOLENT CRIME rates in Washington D.C. and the States of MA and NJ(near total gun prohibition) with the States of VT and NH (very little gun prohibition)?
It will probably terrify the quivering anti-gun cowards in Europe and certain areas of the U.S. but where I live, ANY law abiding adult citizen can carry a concealed weapon with no special "permit". Guess what? Our crime rate is among the lowest in the nation. A mugging is a risky business when you look around the streets and realize that anyone might be carrying a firearm, and a home invasion (when the owner is around) is tantamount to suicide!
Thank you very much for making a point that I always try to get across when I talk to people who are vigorous defenders of the First Amendment but are willing to sacrifice the Second: The people that want to ban firearms are the SAME PEOPLE who want to ban Free Speech as well!
"Define Hate"
.history books trying to explain the motivations of the Nazis . . ."
."
You've concisely highlighted the fundamental problem with idiotic laws that ban Free Speech. Once it is banned, the people that can define "hate" can RE-define it and ban speech that had previously been "legal". Major slippery slope!
". .
Yes. There is a disturbing example of this. An author named David Irving (who's British) was arrested in Canada, extradited to Austria and and thrown in a PRISON for writing books and making statements questioning the holocaust. The SCARY thing is that under the current laws, TRUE statements, when formulated in specific ways can constitute "hate speech". IANAL, and have no clue about European law and the rights of the accused, but Irving was prohibited from calling witnesses who could verify the factual basis of certain things he wrote/said because "The truth is no defense".
FTA: "The preamble to the declaration mentions anti-Semitism . .
Former President Jimmy Carter recently wrote a book drawing a parallel between the Israeli treatment of Palestinians in the occupied territories and the Apartheid system in South Africa. He has faced widespread criticism about it and his book has been labeled as "anti-Semitism" multiple times. Does this law mean that Google, etc. need to filter out web pages(like amazon?) that might possibly show excerpts from the book? Sounds more like China to me.
"Networking is a vital skill for any and all jobs, if you're incapable of it then maybe you should spend some time learning it instead of playing video games."
Huh? Why the hell would you need to learn networking if you didn't have a job that was at least somewhat IT-related? Do you think a doctor or lawyer gives a damn about how their Linux machines are hooked up and how their packets are being routed? Most people just want the network up and running and otherwise don't give it a second thought.
I wouldn't consider myself a Linux neophyte, but parts of that procedure flew over my head. Can you provide some details? I assume you ARE talking about Linux.
How do you "match each and every file on the hard drive to the package that it should have come"? What exactly are you comparing? How/where do you accumulate and store the checksum data? How often do you do this? After installing a new application and working for a week, it seems like individual evaluation of each file that was "unaccounted for" would be a collosal headache. Not doubting the effectiveness of your method, but I'd like to understand the details so I could try it. I might even attempt something similar for the drive containing my Windows install.
"There are literally thousands of nuclear 'accidents', ranging from thousands of tonnes of highly radioactive water . . . transport accidents, to thefts, to black market transactions by power plant workers."
Thousands? Don't you think that's exaggerating a bit? In addition, the term "nuclear accident" conjures up images of Chernobyl, by far the worst and unrepresentative "accident". Wikipedia lists maybe "dozens" with a continuum of severity stretching almost to the realm of insignificance. The paranoia about such things is probably justifiable, but classifying the following as a "nuclear accident" seems like quite a stretch.
"February 15, 2000 - The Indian Point nuclear power plant's reactor 2 in Buchanan, New York, vented a small amount of radioactive steam when a steam generator tube failed. No detectable radioactivity was observed offsite."
You're talking about "thousands of tons of water", these guys are talking about a "small amount of steam", and the article is talking about some training software. I think we're letting political FUD and media hype obscure rational thinking. Mention "nucular" and "Iran" and you've got the story for the day.
You're not the only one. I found many of the comments surprisingly Trollish as well.
I think this was actually a clever thing to do, and I'm glad that there are people going after spammers while simultaneously exposing lazy-assed judges and a malfunctioning judicial system.
Even if this effort might be scorned as a "hobby" or "waste of time", I think it's more noble and worthwhile than the efforts of the average open-source contributor.
"I filed an official complaint with the Commission on Judicial Conduct saying that my motion had been rejected with the pages still stuck together, indicating the judge didn't read it. A little over a year later, I got a letter saying the complaint had been rejected."
No surprise there. Now you have to stick the pages of the official complaint together, and file a new complaint about your orignal complaint not being read.
I don't see what either of these incidents has to do with the proposed "cyber-bullying" law.
.embarrassing video clips of young people getting changed after school PE sessions."
" . .
In this case, I believe that the school SHOULD have the authority to take action. This is clear evidence of inappropriate behavior by students on school property. I would expect that the school has rules prohibiting this sort of thing. If they don't then they should strongly consider it!
". . . posting led to two youths, aged 14 and 16, being arrested yesterday and charged with assault."
Perfect! I love it when criminals record their crimes for the authorities. It seems that no "cyber-bullying" legislation was required in this case.
I think that malicious online attacks, especially targeted at children are a problem, but I perceive it as an issue of society at large. There are just too many problems with the idea of empowering schools to monitor the online behavior of their students and take selective disciplinary action.
Exactly.
I'll be scouring the Internet later today to make sure I get my copy. Anything else on the "to ban" list that I should order? Every time some pseudo-democracy (typically Europe or the U.S. but add Australia too) decides they need to censor a book, film or web site, it immediately gets added to my list of things I need to buy/watch/read.
How can a list of "most annoying tech products" NOT INCLUDE THE CELL PHONE? #1 by far!!!
With the exception of the AOL CD, how many people have ever been "annoyed" by one of the products on this list? It can't possibly compare to the number of people who have been annoyed by a F#*&^%$ cell phone going off in the middle of a class, meeting, or performance event. Not to mention the annoyance of having to listen to 1/2 of an angry or animated conversation. At least the AOL CDs made good coasters, or could be tossed in seconds.
If the "boom box" counts as a tech product, that has to be a "top ten" as well.
"The number of credit card offers you get in the mail your first year at college are ridiculous. At least, they were when I went . . ."
Indeed. Same here.
My favorite solution was to tear them to shreds, put the scraps in the pre-paid return envelope and mail it. I also had a 2-sided form letter FULL of fine-print telling them why I didn't want their card, what the weather was doing in my part of the country, and describing my super-hero-like powers.
"Can you name the resolution, which condemns our war on Iraq as illegal? No, you can't... Oops. US is innocent."
I'm not sure if you're agreeing or dis-agreeing with what I wrote. ? My point is that The United States has a process (read "law") governing how we enter into international agreements. The process was followed when we joined the UN and signed the UN charter. Are you contending that we aren't "legally" bound to the terms of the international agreement even though it went through this formal approval process? It doesn't take a UN resolution condemning the war in Iraq, when the war has already violated the terms of the UN charter.
Even if you don't consider violating an international agreement to be "illegal", I think the war can be defined as such by the fact that The Constitution is the supreme law of our nation, and it explicitly grants the power to declare war to the Congress.