But who ever enters a gun shop and says "I need a gun so I can kill somebody"? They just say "I need a gun".
Besides, that's what the purpose of the other half of my post was: to enter a situation where the crackers could somewhat plausibly say that they believed the buyer had a plausible reason that was both legal and ethical, such as the situation a gun shop owner is in when he sells a gun.
Can the owner of a gun shop be charged as an accessory if a gun they sold is used in a murder?
All the cracker has to do is come up with a reasonable way that they could have plausibly sold it without criminal intent (ie they get the actual criminal to agree that the cracker sold it for security testing purposes, not for cracking purposes or something like that).
It sounds like he's looking for something to fill his time, not make more cash. He likes to program, but can't get himself to do any task without a deadline and self-imposed deadlines don't work. So, a side job is the only thing he can think of.
And, please, it's *hobbyist*. The word piece "ist" means "one who" while "est" means the word is a superlative.
Or it starts the game if it's that type of game.
No matter what, the user generally hit start immediately after a (except when they hit select start), so it's usually remembered to be "a start" even if start isn't technically part of it.
I met this guy and talked to him in depth about video games and his ideas for new games and crap like that. I can tell you now: he is a veritable hack.
He was good in his day, but he just doesn't have it any more. His ideas for "innovation" are basically old style adventure games with dialogue trees. I apologize, he did have one idea that was more of the Sims than of an adventure game. At best, his ideas are TES4:Oblivion, but that's pushing it.
He's done, his day is over, but he just doesn't want to admit it.
Hell, I'm 17 and *I* grew up with a NES and SNES. Granted, I was three when the SNES came out, but those were definitely good times. I think my most memorable moments were the days that my brother *finally* let me play his copies of Zelda I & II and Dragon Warrior.... ah, yes.
That's what I'm saying. They only mention the Three Laws except at the end, which kind of makes one wonder where VIKI got this from and how the robots could possibly disregard the first law in order to adhere to (what appears to be to people who don't know about the zeroth) first law. It makes no sense.
Well, technically speaking, there was a later defined zeroeth law is just like the first except that it applies to all of humanity rather than individuals and, as we all know, a lower numbered law supercedes a higher numbered law. The only problem here is that the zeroeth is never mentioned in the movie...
What? Are we showing off how far in pi we have memorized?
3.14159265358979323
Yeah, I had it out to 42 digits once, but I didn't bother trying to keep it memorized longer than a few hours. Even still, I'm sure somebody's gonna come with at least double that... This is/.
Well, I don't know about the school in the OP, but mine certainly required the student AND the parent (in the case of a minor) to sign. Nothing says the OP wasn't the same.
Here's the funny thing: The school system does have the right to punish students for certain things that they do on their own time with their own equipment away from the school campus. The main use for this is if the content seems in anyway threatening (for example, a student at my school last year got a 10-day suspension for having a website with a "bitch list" stating that "these people should be shot". Anybody who knows the student agrees that he was not serious about them being shot or harmed in any way and that he would never commit such an act, etc, etc, but the administration still punished him for it.). I'm not positive what other things fit into this category, but I'm sure something like this (content causes distraction from school) could fit in.
I'll show you that as soon as you show me one done in CSS without hacks or abuses of CSS if you show me one done in HTML without hacks or abuses of HTML. And we'll start with the fact that using for layouts instead of tabular data is an abuse in itself, so no tabled layouts allowed.
I make no dispute about using Hobbiest in the proper context. But to say that it is an appropriate substitute for hobbyist is just as absurd as suggesting that Google is an appropriate substitute for googol or Flickr for flicker. It makes no sense.
Even better, since the OP said "hobbiest sites" and linked to a site that most obviously had nothing to do with Hobbiest.com, it could be falsely assumed that the linked site, in fact, was part of Hobbiest.com, making the error even more egregious.
There are two ways to acceptably use "Google" according to the English language:
1. When referring to the company or any of its services
2. To refer to the function of the company (i.e. to Google something is to search Google for the something).
Technically speaking, the latter one isn't correct, but it is acceptable.
Now, there are two acceptable ways to use "Hobbiest" according to the English language:
1. When referring to the site or any of its services
2. To refer to the function of the site (although there is no real easy way "to hobbiest something" in our langauge).
Now, what would be unacceptable would be to use Google when you mean googol or hobbiest when you mean hobbyist. Since that is what occurred, it is unacceptable.
It's irrelevant because, at this point, hobbiest is a mispelling whilst Google is a name. It would be relevant if somebody was trying to say that they had "a google of ideas" or something like that where it would be a mispelling of googol. Google, being a name, doesn't have to be a real word. Hobbiest, not being a name or a word, is nothing and should not be used. Is it really that difficult to see?
Good, well-thought-out post, I just wanna point out one thing:
I think by "truly competitive", I think he meant "perfectly competitive", a landscape Walmart is not in. In fact, I am fairly certain that perfect competition does not exist except as a theory, though IANAE, so I'm not certain.
Slashdot Mirror
In what way are they *not* full games? Just because they aren't HD or current gen? They are full games, even if they are small.
Interesting. I know not a single gamer (IRL, at any rate) who doesn't use a laptop as a primary device. Does that make us even?
Repeat after me: vandal. Vandal. That is all.
Besides, that's what the purpose of the other half of my post was: to enter a situation where the crackers could somewhat plausibly say that they believed the buyer had a plausible reason that was both legal and ethical, such as the situation a gun shop owner is in when he sells a gun.
All the cracker has to do is come up with a reasonable way that they could have plausibly sold it without criminal intent (ie they get the actual criminal to agree that the cracker sold it for security testing purposes, not for cracking purposes or something like that).
It sounds like he's looking for something to fill his time, not make more cash. He likes to program, but can't get himself to do any task without a deadline and self-imposed deadlines don't work. So, a side job is the only thing he can think of. And, please, it's *hobbyist*. The word piece "ist" means "one who" while "est" means the word is a superlative.
Do OSS projects enforce deadlines? Because he stated that as a requirement in the OP.
What part of "I think" says "I'm sure"?
Or it starts the game if it's that type of game. No matter what, the user generally hit start immediately after a (except when they hit select start), so it's usually remembered to be "a start" even if start isn't technically part of it.
He was good in his day, but he just doesn't have it any more. His ideas for "innovation" are basically old style adventure games with dialogue trees. I apologize, he did have one idea that was more of the Sims than of an adventure game. At best, his ideas are TES4:Oblivion, but that's pushing it.
He's done, his day is over, but he just doesn't want to admit it.
Diplomacy is the art of saying "Nice doggie" until you can find a rock.
Hell, I'm 17 and *I* grew up with a NES and SNES. Granted, I was three when the SNES came out, but those were definitely good times. I think my most memorable moments were the days that my brother *finally* let me play his copies of Zelda I & II and Dragon Warrior.... ah, yes.
It still does it matter. It is still pitch black. You are still likely to be eaten by a grue.
That's what I'm saying. They only mention the Three Laws except at the end, which kind of makes one wonder where VIKI got this from and how the robots could possibly disregard the first law in order to adhere to (what appears to be to people who don't know about the zeroth) first law. It makes no sense.
Well, technically speaking, there was a later defined zeroeth law is just like the first except that it applies to all of humanity rather than individuals and, as we all know, a lower numbered law supercedes a higher numbered law. The only problem here is that the zeroeth is never mentioned in the movie...
I've got a feeling that wasn't supposed to be replying to me specifically...
3.14159265358979323
Yeah, I had it out to 42 digits once, but I didn't bother trying to keep it memorized longer than a few hours. Even still, I'm sure somebody's gonna come with at least double that... This is /.
Well, I don't know about the school in the OP, but mine certainly required the student AND the parent (in the case of a minor) to sign. Nothing says the OP wasn't the same.
Here's the funny thing: The school system does have the right to punish students for certain things that they do on their own time with their own equipment away from the school campus. The main use for this is if the content seems in anyway threatening (for example, a student at my school last year got a 10-day suspension for having a website with a "bitch list" stating that "these people should be shot". Anybody who knows the student agrees that he was not serious about them being shot or harmed in any way and that he would never commit such an act, etc, etc, but the administration still punished him for it.). I'm not positive what other things fit into this category, but I'm sure something like this (content causes distraction from school) could fit in.
I'll show you that as soon as you show me one done in CSS without hacks or abuses of CSS if you show me one done in HTML without hacks or abuses of HTML. And we'll start with the fact that using for layouts instead of tabular data is an abuse in itself, so no tabled layouts allowed.
Even better, since the OP said "hobbiest sites" and linked to a site that most obviously had nothing to do with Hobbiest.com, it could be falsely assumed that the linked site, in fact, was part of Hobbiest.com, making the error even more egregious.
1. When referring to the company or any of its services
2. To refer to the function of the company (i.e. to Google something is to search Google for the something).
Technically speaking, the latter one isn't correct, but it is acceptable.
Now, there are two acceptable ways to use "Hobbiest" according to the English language:
1. When referring to the site or any of its services
2. To refer to the function of the site (although there is no real easy way "to hobbiest something" in our langauge).
Now, what would be unacceptable would be to use Google when you mean googol or hobbiest when you mean hobbyist. Since that is what occurred, it is unacceptable.
It's irrelevant because, at this point, hobbiest is a mispelling whilst Google is a name. It would be relevant if somebody was trying to say that they had "a google of ideas" or something like that where it would be a mispelling of googol. Google, being a name, doesn't have to be a real word. Hobbiest, not being a name or a word, is nothing and should not be used. Is it really that difficult to see?
What does *that* have to do with anything? Besides being irrelevant in every way, Google is a name, anyway, and therefore doesn't have to be a word!
I think by "truly competitive", I think he meant "perfectly competitive", a landscape Walmart is not in. In fact, I am fairly certain that perfect competition does not exist except as a theory, though IANAE, so I'm not certain.