I have to say, I don't care for the 4th Edition of Dungeons and Dragons. My introduction to it included an iron-fisted GM who wanted people in each role and forced us to take on roles we didn't particularly care for. Being from the school where the GM works with what the players show up with, this just stuck in my craw.
I am enjoying the heck out of Pathfinder, though. The game can be played with two books, which lowers the barrier to entry. It's compatible with a system I was already familiar with and generally has a good level of shine and polish. Paizo has definitely grabbed the ball and run with it.
Is this the same UN that wants to take over the Internet to keep 'Muricans from saying all kinds of offensive things about furrin religiosities?
I tend to think the most liberal set of rights should set the standard for Internet rights, rather than the most conservative. But I'm a liberal, so take that for what it's worth.
...seriously. Blizzard did not provide Wine users enough warning to cover their asses under general standards like implied warranty. If they do not unban or provide refunds a small claims or class action suit will be trivial.
Last I checked, Blizzard specifically released and supported software for Windows and Mac, but not for Linux using WINE as a runtime environment. This is pretty clear on their client download page.
I think you'd lose that lawsuit.
Furthermore, the TOS pretty plainly states that they can ban you for almost any reason, so do not get your hopes up.
Given the developments in the HTC vs. Apple case (http://www.techradar.com/news/phone-and-communications/mobile-phones/htc-denied-use-of-google-patents-in-apple-case-1084691), will the Defensive Patent License actually work, since the defendant won't actually *own* the patent?
And then your users will all use 'password1', 'password2', 'password3' or some variant thereof every time they change their password, IF they change their password.
Unfortunately, sometimes that's just what you get stuck with.
Learn the difference between figurative language and literal language.
The British empire handed over the duties of ocean exploration to private companies, who were more interested in making a buck (pound/guinea) than in serving the public interest. That they did serve the public interest was a secondary effect, but not the intended effect.
> What they shouldn't do is say: 'I want to reduce drug use, and sending all users to prison is the most cost-effective way to achieve that.' That's not at moral call, it's a factual statement; as such it should be evidence-based, or else the person making it should shut the hell up."
That is opinion, which can be driven by facts, but the two are never the same.
There will inevitably be that One Guy who wants to bring his gun collection and may [deity] help the people in the cabins next to him because they will never know a peaceful sleep again.
And thousand of fanbois goes "nutso" because Ashton isn't "deep" enough to play first class prima donna Jobs:)
If serious about that (and I don't know if this ain't still April Fools) Ashton have really good look alike similarity to early Jobs, he has good screen energy (yeah, I know it gets wasted on lot of useless things, but still - he has charisma), and I guess he is really aching to prove himself as good actor. And material is interesting - Jobs was complex persona. Maybe it will work, I don't know.
Anyway, as any artistic rendering - you can watch it, you can pirate it, you can ignore it. Your choice.
As a general rule, I try to skim once to find pertinent information and skip over filler content, something that is next-to-impossible with video. Having a transcript makes this much easier (especially in Q&A sessions).
Additionally, I can take in the content as time allows, with minimal backtracking to pick up the context when I have to break away to do something else.
There has to be a line drawn between OMG-FREEDOM-AT-ALL-COSTS and posting sexual pictures of children. Living in a civil society requires some level of protection of the innocent. Reddit should shut the hell up about slippery slopes and do what it should have done six freaking years ago.
And where is that line? Obviously, someone younger than 18 is off-limits, except in countries where they're not... persons 18 or older are legal, even if they appear younger, by US law (you can't make having a certain appearance illegal)... from the age of 15 onwards, it's nearly impossible to judge actual age from appearance because it can vary wildly (the I-thought-she-was-18)...
"Facebook Like" does not mean the same thing as "real Like" or even "give a shit about the future happenings of" (for some things) and there apparently is not a way to rescind a "Facebook Like".
Some things are great in concept, but it doesn't mean I want to hear from them constantly or at all.
..but it's a childish idea that completely ignores the realities that it'd either get fucked up when too many people got involved with it, or it'd be used to commit crimes, or it'd be assumed to be used to commit crimes, so one government or the other would confiscate control of it.
We need to stop indulging in fantasies and accept the reality: We need to save the Internet we have, keep the asshole corporations and the asshole dictators of the world from destroying it. If everyone stopped using the Internet there would be no Internet; the power to shape what the Internet will become is in the hands of the people who use it, not the asshole corporations and dictators of the world. Stand up for it.
Alas, it is those selfsame asshole corporations and governments that created and funded it in the first place. They hired geeks who thought they could change the world, but forgot about human nature, which is to be greedy, grabby and generally as grubby as possible.
This is a sociological problem being band-aided with technological solutions and ultimately the bandaid is going to have to be removed.
1) You can pay me to give a shit about you. 2) If I don't seem to give a shit about you, see rule 1. 3) Any unpaid shit-giving is purely voluntary on my part
a) and may be terminated at any time, without reason or prior warning
b) or if someone pays me not to.
That third one may or may not be in the book in some form. I felt it was implied.
All those poor subsistence farmers 200 years ago... all that capitalism and industrialization and automation of farming, it was a total waste of time. Everybody died.
We all die eventually. But in rebuttal to your snark, the subsistence farmers of 200 years ago did not live in urban societies without access to the land to grow what they needed. A lot of those people in between then and now died because they lacked access to medical care and a host of other conveniences we take for granted, because they could not afford them.
In order for a few people to live a life of leisure these days, other people have to work very hard indeed. Sure, some of that work can be automated, but then the people being replaced are surplus to requirements and simply aren't needed, so there there is no need to provide support for them.
> The best thing that this society can achieve is to automate every single job that we do today, so that people can be freed up to do something else altogether.
These days, "something else altogether" means "starving". They want to automate your job so they don't have to pay you, not to give you ample free time so you can do something more fun.
If you do manage to find something more fun, they want a piece of the revenue from that, as well.
Sure, but the important thing is: how much do I score for taking out a village of unarmed peasants who are so poor that dirt farming is a step up and what can I get at the DARPA online auction house for it?
Slashdot Mirror
in the original Klingon.
Actually, he has a minor acting career. It's nothing to get hugely excited about yet, but he's young.
Wikipedia link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ben_Curtis_(actor)
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1120236/
So, yeah, you can dream of crack-addicted homeless people all you want, but apparently, that ain't him.
I have to say, I don't care for the 4th Edition of Dungeons and Dragons. My introduction to it included an iron-fisted GM who wanted people in each role and forced us to take on roles we didn't particularly care for. Being from the school where the GM works with what the players show up with, this just stuck in my craw.
I am enjoying the heck out of Pathfinder, though. The game can be played with two books, which lowers the barrier to entry. It's compatible with a system I was already familiar with and generally has a good level of shine and polish. Paizo has definitely grabbed the ball and run with it.
Is this the same UN that wants to take over the Internet to keep 'Muricans from saying all kinds of offensive things about furrin religiosities?
I tend to think the most liberal set of rights should set the standard for Internet rights, rather than the most conservative. But I'm a liberal, so take that for what it's worth.
...seriously. Blizzard did not provide Wine users enough warning to cover their asses under general standards like implied warranty. If they do not unban or provide refunds a small claims or class action suit will be trivial.
Last I checked, Blizzard specifically released and supported software for Windows and Mac, but not for Linux using WINE as a runtime environment. This is pretty clear on their client download page.
I think you'd lose that lawsuit.
Furthermore, the TOS pretty plainly states that they can ban you for almost any reason, so do not get your hopes up.
Type 2 can typically be cured by weight loss, so scientists tend not to focus on curing the already curable.
Really? I guess at 6'5 and 195 lbs, I could stand to lose some weight to cure my Type II diabetes.
From what little I've seen, it's not so much "vivid" and it's more like "shot-for-TV".
Given the developments in the HTC vs. Apple case (http://www.techradar.com/news/phone-and-communications/mobile-phones/htc-denied-use-of-google-patents-in-apple-case-1084691), will the Defensive Patent License actually work, since the defendant won't actually *own* the patent?
And then your users will all use 'password1', 'password2', 'password3' or some variant thereof every time they change their password, IF they change their password.
Unfortunately, sometimes that's just what you get stuck with.
I just use the dead corpses of non-technical people to shim up server racks ... is that wrong?
A little Febreze always helps with the smell.
Learn the difference between figurative language and literal language.
The British empire handed over the duties of ocean exploration to private companies, who were more interested in making a buck (pound/guinea) than in serving the public interest. That they did serve the public interest was a secondary effect, but not the intended effect.
I will be mourning the death of publicly-funded space travel. Now, we hand it over to the pirates, slave-traders and privateers of our own era.
The only time you need factories like this is n preparation for a global conflict.
Is the DoD expecting WWIII?
That's kind of their job. Expect the worst, hope for the best.
These are the guys who make contingency plans for just about everything, so on some level, yes, they probably are expecting WWIII.
> What they shouldn't do is say: 'I want to reduce drug use, and sending all users to prison is the most cost-effective way to achieve that.' That's not at moral call, it's a factual statement; as such it should be evidence-based, or else the person making it should shut the hell up."
That is opinion, which can be driven by facts, but the two are never the same.
There will inevitably be that One Guy who wants to bring his gun collection and may [deity] help the people in the cabins next to him because they will never know a peaceful sleep again.
You know, if you have a CIO with business sense and tech sense, why do you need the CEO?
And thousand of fanbois goes "nutso" because Ashton isn't "deep" enough to play first class prima donna Jobs :)
If serious about that (and I don't know if this ain't still April Fools) Ashton have really good look alike similarity to early Jobs, he has good screen energy (yeah, I know it gets wasted on lot of useless things, but still - he has charisma), and I guess he is really aching to prove himself as good actor. And material is interesting - Jobs was complex persona. Maybe it will work, I don't know.
Anyway, as any artistic rendering - you can watch it, you can pirate it, you can ignore it. Your choice.
It isn't because he's not deep.
It's because Ashton Kutcher is a bad actor.
I second this comment.
As a general rule, I try to skim once to find pertinent information and skip over filler content, something that is next-to-impossible with video. Having a transcript makes this much easier (especially in Q&A sessions).
Additionally, I can take in the content as time allows, with minimal backtracking to pick up the context when I have to break away to do something else.
There has to be a line drawn between OMG-FREEDOM-AT-ALL-COSTS and posting sexual pictures of children. Living in a civil society requires some level of protection of the innocent. Reddit should shut the hell up about slippery slopes and do what it should have done six freaking years ago.
And where is that line? Obviously, someone younger than 18 is off-limits, except in countries where they're not ... persons 18 or older are legal, even if they appear younger, by US law (you can't make having a certain appearance illegal) ... from the age of 15 onwards, it's nearly impossible to judge actual age from appearance because it can vary wildly (the I-thought-she-was-18) ...
I'm not seeing any bright lines in there.
"Facebook Like" does not mean the same thing as "real Like" or even "give a shit about the future happenings of" (for some things) and there apparently is not a way to rescind a "Facebook Like".
Some things are great in concept, but it doesn't mean I want to hear from them constantly or at all.
..but it's a childish idea that completely ignores the realities that it'd either get fucked up when too many people got involved with it, or it'd be used to commit crimes, or it'd be assumed to be used to commit crimes, so one government or the other would confiscate control of it.
We need to stop indulging in fantasies and accept the reality: We need to save the Internet we have, keep the asshole corporations and the asshole dictators of the world from destroying it. If everyone stopped using the Internet there would be no Internet; the power to shape what the Internet will become is in the hands of the people who use it, not the asshole corporations and dictators of the world. Stand up for it.
Alas, it is those selfsame asshole corporations and governments that created and funded it in the first place. They hired geeks who thought they could change the world, but forgot about human nature, which is to be greedy, grabby and generally as grubby as possible.
This is a sociological problem being band-aided with technological solutions and ultimately the bandaid is going to have to be removed.
My main takeaway from Atlas Shrugged was this:
1) You can pay me to give a shit about you.
2) If I don't seem to give a shit about you, see rule 1.
3) Any unpaid shit-giving is purely voluntary on my part
a) and may be terminated at any time, without reason or prior warning
b) or if someone pays me not to.
That third one may or may not be in the book in some form. I felt it was implied.
All those poor subsistence farmers 200 years ago... all that capitalism and industrialization and automation of farming, it was a total waste of time. Everybody died.
We all die eventually. But in rebuttal to your snark, the subsistence farmers of 200 years ago did not live in urban societies without access to the land to grow what they needed. A lot of those people in between then and now died because they lacked access to medical care and a host of other conveniences we take for granted, because they could not afford them.
In order for a few people to live a life of leisure these days, other people have to work very hard indeed. Sure, some of that work can be automated, but then the people being replaced are surplus to requirements and simply aren't needed, so there there is no need to provide support for them.
This is the modern mentality.
> The best thing that this society can achieve is to automate every single job that we do today, so that people can be freed up to do something else altogether.
These days, "something else altogether" means "starving". They want to automate your job so they don't have to pay you, not to give you ample free time so you can do something more fun.
If you do manage to find something more fun, they want a piece of the revenue from that, as well.
Sure, but the important thing is: how much do I score for taking out a village of unarmed peasants who are so poor that dirt farming is a step up and what can I get at the DARPA online auction house for it?