Every review I've read said they've had crashes and issues on the console versions as well that forced them to reload old saves, as well as quests you couldn't finish.
Morrowind, Oblivion, Fallout 3 and Fallout New Vegas all have community patches that literally fix hundreds of bugs that were still left unfixed after the final patch (GOTY editions) from Bethesda.
As much as I love Bethesda games, I won't buy them at launch because they are famous for ridiculous bugs. I also recommend buying them on PC so you can install community bug fixes as well.
That is only if they drop out of the race, or don't run again. So long as they finish their campaign and run for office the entire time, they get to pocket what is left over. That money is used to repay a candidate for any expenses they occured directly. The rest stays in an account for their next campaign bid. Or they donate the remainder to the party and get a tax write-off for the donation.
Campaign donations not spent in a campaign can be pocketed afterwards, so there is a legal way to basically bribe any politician.
I believe Australia makes it illegal to give money to politicians, period. The government gives parties money to run the elections. Politicians are well paid, so you don't get all the private-sector failures. But they can't be bribed.
Dedicated to Dennis Ritchie
on
Fedora 16 Released
·
· Score: 4, Informative
In the first pass, you can see the reporter with the camera in question. And he isn't at the front of the group. They pass around a building and you lose sight of the group for a moment. But before then, you can see it is someone else who reaches the corner of the building first. He is the one who points the object at the helicopter. And what he points is considerably larger than the camera that you see seconds before.
There was only one reporter on the scene. Everyone else in the group was carrying weapons. When the group is shot, the reporter is in the back (not in the front where this object in question was being pointed at the helicopter). No one else was carrying a camera.
When Assange himself was questioned on the matter, he said the object could have in fact been an RPG. Even he didn't dispute that point. His argument was more that the American troops didn't have the right to fire on the van. And while I would agree that is questionable, I don't know you can easily chalk that up to outright murder. The troops didn't open fire without permission. They didn't randomly fire on just anyone. There were armed troops that pointed a weapon at them. If you're seen as aiding the enemy, then you're placing yourselves in danger. It isn't unreasonable for troops to react that way. This is a questionable decision that I'm not sure I'm qualified to judge. But I certainly wouldn't call it murder.
I haven't served in combat. I don't claim to know what it is like. I was in the Marine Corps though. During boot camp they ran us through a fake drill where we were issued orders and told we were shipping off for war. An entire company of Marines (6 platoons of 60-70) sat in a room. Every single one was saying that they didn't want to go to combat. I didn't hear a single voice saying, "man, I just want to kill people!"
Is it possible that individuals sign up during wartime because they do want to shoot people? Certainly. But I don't assume all soldiers are evil, nor that they want to kill people. But I have been told several times over again that all US soldiers are blood-thirsty killers. And I give these guys a little leeway because I don't think most people are asking themselves what they'd really do in a combat situation. Most people here have never had to lay their life on the line for others and don't know what it is to make such decisions.
Amnesty International went after Assange in 2010, a year after that award when they learned how he put civilians in danger. And yet in every interview on the matter, Assange insists he did nothing wrong. In this article, he blasts others for being lazy, when he was the lazy one who didn't bother redacting names. And if you bother taking two seconds to Google such matters, you'll find several quotes where he says he won't redact civilian names unless people give him $200,000.
Out of curiosity, what is your signature referring to?
And I'm curious how I never once before heard that the cables have evidence of murdering civilians? All the previous reports I've seen state that the big evidence was the "collateral murder" video. I've watched that repeatedly, and don't see any evidence of "murder".
A reporter is seen walking with an armed group in a DMZ. Carrying weapons in there is illegal, and asking to be shot. You see the reporter with a camera. Later someone points an RPG at the helicopter. Some claim this is the camera that is seen earlier, except the reporter wasn't the one standing there, and the RPG is much larger than the camera seen earlier.
The troops in the helicopter call and ask permission to engage before engaging. A van comes onto the scene and tries to take people away. If you drive into a situation where people are being shot and aid them, you are placing yourself in the line of fire. And while the whole incident was covered by several reporters (who love reporting on deaths of reporters), none mentioned kids being in the van, which Wikileaks claims. In fact, there is zero evidence anywhere that children were in the van. And if there were, there deaths would at the very least partially be responsible for the driver who put them in harm.
When you're in warfare in which the enemy doesn't wear a uniform, and can attack from anywhere, it is hard to determine who is the enemy. But you had armed people who pointed an RPG at the helicopter, and then a group aiding them. That supposedly was definitive proof of murder. I'm just not seeing it.
If the leak had other definitive proof of murder, I'd be curious to see it.
It was so accidental that Assange said in an interview that if people wanted names redacted, then they needed to give him more money. And it was so accidental that Amnesty International blasted Assange for repeated leaks where he didn't redact civilian volunteer names, leading to civilian volunteers coming under death threats.
Amnesty International calls out government corruption and human rights violations. They don't demand money from people. They act with good conscience. Assange operates with zero transparency. He has been saying for at least a year that he is sitting on tons of documents tied to Bank of America and the financial collapse, but won't release them unless you give him more money.
Let's stop treating Assange like a hero. If you just want to support the ideals of calling out government abuse, then support institutions like Amnesty International.
I'm assuming you're trolling as an AC, but the amount of mercury is less than what you get from eating fish.
One guy did one study trying to link rising autism rates to vaccines, but he was getting paid to fake his research, which he has since admitted. There has never once been any evidence this is true. But sadly, since people listen to this BS, small pox, polio and other diseases are starting to come back. So maybe you think you're having a laugh. But if contributing to spread such obvious lies leads to one more kid getting polio, then I fucking hope you get crotch rot.
The difference is that they do this on their own dime, and get money from YouTube after the fact with revenue sharing. I guess this new model would be YouTube sponsoring the production of video to begin with. But YouTube does actually have tons of original content for all kinds of tastes. But I wouldn't say any of it has the production values of what you see on major networks.
These two are not as linked as everyone wants to report. I believe Lotus Symphony was developed from OpenOffice 1.0, before the license changed. The code base has changed greatly since. Lotus Symphony is closed source, and can't take anything from the existing OpenOffice unless IBM owned the copyright to all the code completely and had the right to change the license. And even then, the two code bases are far enough apart that it probably won't be that worth while.
The existing Lotus Symphony would likely have to get thrown out the window, and they'd have to port their UI and file formats to the existing OpenOffice codebase.
I think it would be better for IBM to embrace LibreOffice, but offer a cloud interface. Imagine if they served it up in a Citrix style from the web. Google Docs doesn't cut it beyond basic tasks.
Their material is 100% submitted by others, and they have a submissions page where they tell you how to give them stolen data. But they're not encouraging people to steal data? It is the entire purpose of their site. You can't be serious.
And perhaps you missed the first 10 times I said this, but the law mandates that you take action if you have any reason to be suspicious. And failing to report is a crime itself.
In Okinawa a few Marines raped a 14 year old girl which sparked controversy that all Marines were rapists. The base in Okinawa was almost closed permanently. As a Marine, I assure you I don't rape 14 year old girls, and the actions of some don't reflect the actions of everyone.
There are over 800,000 full-time law enforcement officers in the United States. I've never suggested there aren't corrupt cops. But that doesn't make every cop corrupt. And the fact that cops can be found accountable and charged means it isn't a police state.
How do you know about the offenses of the police department? People are free to criticize the police department, and report corruption. The current debate about is an important one. Refusing to allow people to take pictures or video of police officers could help lead to a police state. But that is why these laws are being challenged. I don't imagine they will remain very much longer.
Slashdot Mirror
Every review I've read said they've had crashes and issues on the console versions as well that forced them to reload old saves, as well as quests you couldn't finish.
Morrowind, Oblivion, Fallout 3 and Fallout New Vegas all have community patches that literally fix hundreds of bugs that were still left unfixed after the final patch (GOTY editions) from Bethesda.
http://www.uesp.net/wiki/Tes3Mod:UMP
http://www.uesp.net/wiki/Tes4Mod:Unofficial_Oblivion_Patch
http://www.fallout3nexus.com/downloads/file.php?id=3808
http://www.thenexusforums.com/index.php?/topic/268603-unofficial-new-vegas-patch/
Mouse lag is apparently bad in the PC version as well. Where you click doesn't match where the cursor is showing on the screen.
The question is whether or not I watch 1 month for a decent patch or hold out a year for a GOTY edition.
As much as I love Bethesda games, I won't buy them at launch because they are famous for ridiculous bugs. I also recommend buying them on PC so you can install community bug fixes as well.
That is only if they drop out of the race, or don't run again. So long as they finish their campaign and run for office the entire time, they get to pocket what is left over. That money is used to repay a candidate for any expenses they occured directly. The rest stays in an account for their next campaign bid. Or they donate the remainder to the party and get a tax write-off for the donation.
http://blogs.wsj.com/wallet/2008/11/04/what-happens-to-leftover-campaign-money/
Dennis Richie co-invented the C programing language and Unix. He also wrote the definitive C programing book of its time.
Campaign donations not spent in a campaign can be pocketed afterwards, so there is a legal way to basically bribe any politician.
I believe Australia makes it illegal to give money to politicians, period. The government gives parties money to run the elections. Politicians are well paid, so you don't get all the private-sector failures. But they can't be bribed.
It should be noted in the article.
Thanks. That is a good read.
In the first pass, you can see the reporter with the camera in question. And he isn't at the front of the group. They pass around a building and you lose sight of the group for a moment. But before then, you can see it is someone else who reaches the corner of the building first. He is the one who points the object at the helicopter. And what he points is considerably larger than the camera that you see seconds before.
There was only one reporter on the scene. Everyone else in the group was carrying weapons. When the group is shot, the reporter is in the back (not in the front where this object in question was being pointed at the helicopter). No one else was carrying a camera.
When Assange himself was questioned on the matter, he said the object could have in fact been an RPG. Even he didn't dispute that point. His argument was more that the American troops didn't have the right to fire on the van. And while I would agree that is questionable, I don't know you can easily chalk that up to outright murder. The troops didn't open fire without permission. They didn't randomly fire on just anyone. There were armed troops that pointed a weapon at them. If you're seen as aiding the enemy, then you're placing yourselves in danger. It isn't unreasonable for troops to react that way. This is a questionable decision that I'm not sure I'm qualified to judge. But I certainly wouldn't call it murder.
I haven't served in combat. I don't claim to know what it is like. I was in the Marine Corps though. During boot camp they ran us through a fake drill where we were issued orders and told we were shipping off for war. An entire company of Marines (6 platoons of 60-70) sat in a room. Every single one was saying that they didn't want to go to combat. I didn't hear a single voice saying, "man, I just want to kill people!"
Is it possible that individuals sign up during wartime because they do want to shoot people? Certainly. But I don't assume all soldiers are evil, nor that they want to kill people. But I have been told several times over again that all US soldiers are blood-thirsty killers. And I give these guys a little leeway because I don't think most people are asking themselves what they'd really do in a combat situation. Most people here have never had to lay their life on the line for others and don't know what it is to make such decisions.
Can you provide a link to the soldier carrying kids away? Because all the news stories when the incident occurred said there were no kids.
And as a parent, I wouldn't endanger the lives of my kids to aid a stranger.
Except it did.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703428604575419580947722558.html?KEYWORDS=julian+assange+rights+groups
Amnesty International went after Assange in 2010, a year after that award when they learned how he put civilians in danger. And yet in every interview on the matter, Assange insists he did nothing wrong. In this article, he blasts others for being lazy, when he was the lazy one who didn't bother redacting names. And if you bother taking two seconds to Google such matters, you'll find several quotes where he says he won't redact civilian names unless people give him $200,000.
Out of curiosity, what is your signature referring to?
And I'm curious how I never once before heard that the cables have evidence of murdering civilians? All the previous reports I've seen state that the big evidence was the "collateral murder" video. I've watched that repeatedly, and don't see any evidence of "murder".
A reporter is seen walking with an armed group in a DMZ. Carrying weapons in there is illegal, and asking to be shot. You see the reporter with a camera. Later someone points an RPG at the helicopter. Some claim this is the camera that is seen earlier, except the reporter wasn't the one standing there, and the RPG is much larger than the camera seen earlier.
The troops in the helicopter call and ask permission to engage before engaging. A van comes onto the scene and tries to take people away. If you drive into a situation where people are being shot and aid them, you are placing yourself in the line of fire. And while the whole incident was covered by several reporters (who love reporting on deaths of reporters), none mentioned kids being in the van, which Wikileaks claims. In fact, there is zero evidence anywhere that children were in the van. And if there were, there deaths would at the very least partially be responsible for the driver who put them in harm.
When you're in warfare in which the enemy doesn't wear a uniform, and can attack from anywhere, it is hard to determine who is the enemy. But you had armed people who pointed an RPG at the helicopter, and then a group aiding them. That supposedly was definitive proof of murder. I'm just not seeing it.
If the leak had other definitive proof of murder, I'd be curious to see it.
It was so accidental that Assange said in an interview that if people wanted names redacted, then they needed to give him more money. And it was so accidental that Amnesty International blasted Assange for repeated leaks where he didn't redact civilian volunteer names, leading to civilian volunteers coming under death threats.
Amnesty International calls out government corruption and human rights violations. They don't demand money from people. They act with good conscience. Assange operates with zero transparency. He has been saying for at least a year that he is sitting on tons of documents tied to Bank of America and the financial collapse, but won't release them unless you give him more money.
Let's stop treating Assange like a hero. If you just want to support the ideals of calling out government abuse, then support institutions like Amnesty International.
I am mistaken from time to time. I'm probably mixing up articles with another disease.
I'm assuming you're trolling as an AC, but the amount of mercury is less than what you get from eating fish.
One guy did one study trying to link rising autism rates to vaccines, but he was getting paid to fake his research, which he has since admitted. There has never once been any evidence this is true. But sadly, since people listen to this BS, small pox, polio and other diseases are starting to come back. So maybe you think you're having a laugh. But if contributing to spread such obvious lies leads to one more kid getting polio, then I fucking hope you get crotch rot.
Slowing to a halt? Each successive release of FF since 3 has been faster than its predecessor.
YouTube already has tons of existing channels of original content. I'm particularly fond o:
http://www.youtube.com/user/Blendtec
http://www.youtube.com/user/MyHarto
http://www.youtube.com/user/EpicMealTime
The difference is that they do this on their own dime, and get money from YouTube after the fact with revenue sharing. I guess this new model would be YouTube sponsoring the production of video to begin with. But YouTube does actually have tons of original content for all kinds of tastes. But I wouldn't say any of it has the production values of what you see on major networks.
These two are not as linked as everyone wants to report. I believe Lotus Symphony was developed from OpenOffice 1.0, before the license changed. The code base has changed greatly since. Lotus Symphony is closed source, and can't take anything from the existing OpenOffice unless IBM owned the copyright to all the code completely and had the right to change the license. And even then, the two code bases are far enough apart that it probably won't be that worth while.
The existing Lotus Symphony would likely have to get thrown out the window, and they'd have to port their UI and file formats to the existing OpenOffice codebase.
I think it would be better for IBM to embrace LibreOffice, but offer a cloud interface. Imagine if they served it up in a Citrix style from the web. Google Docs doesn't cut it beyond basic tasks.
The Apple retail stores themselves will likely be the only location that has any stock beyond pre-orders. And those will be gone quick.
Leaked confidential data is inherently stolen. It is a crime to release government confidential data, and private data is protected by law as well.
Their material is 100% submitted by others, and they have a submissions page where they tell you how to give them stolen data. But they're not encouraging people to steal data? It is the entire purpose of their site. You can't be serious.
And perhaps you missed the first 10 times I said this, but the law mandates that you take action if you have any reason to be suspicious. And failing to report is a crime itself.
I doubt it takes an entire police department to handle a single case.
That being said, I think laws forbidding citizens from videotaping cops make zero sense. Thankfully those laws are being challenged.
You still haven't shown how every cop in the world is this evil thug you make them out to be.
They've been known to open source a project and hand it out when they shut it down.
If you don't like that Wave was shut down, you can run your own Wave instance for example.
That is nothing like DRM. Your analogy is made of failure.
Systemic?
What percentage of the 800,000 full time law enforcement agents would have to be participating in such offenses to be considered systemic?
And can you demonstrate it is actually happening on that scale?
In Okinawa a few Marines raped a 14 year old girl which sparked controversy that all Marines were rapists. The base in Okinawa was almost closed permanently. As a Marine, I assure you I don't rape 14 year old girls, and the actions of some don't reflect the actions of everyone.
There are over 800,000 full-time law enforcement officers in the United States. I've never suggested there aren't corrupt cops. But that doesn't make every cop corrupt. And the fact that cops can be found accountable and charged means it isn't a police state.
How do you know about the offenses of the police department? People are free to criticize the police department, and report corruption. The current debate about is an important one. Refusing to allow people to take pictures or video of police officers could help lead to a police state. But that is why these laws are being challenged. I don't imagine they will remain very much longer.