A game were fluffy white bunnies are hidden in a snowy field and you have to quickly click them or otherwise they will run off and you don't get a little kiss and hug.
While I agree that just about nothing on the web should have expected privacy, the statement on third party software is entirely baseless. Almost every corporation on the planet relies on third-party applications in some form, as I'm almost certain that the Mexican food restaurant not far from my house didn't write their own operating system for the computers they use and just did a very very good job at making it look like Windows XP. Rather, that probably is Windows XP, third-party software made by a third-party company related to the Mexican food restaurant only in the form of a software use license.
They have reason to expect their privacy is protected by the writer of the software they use, and could easily raise a legal case in the event that the company, Microsoft, violates it.
A genocide in Darfur does not mean we have a multi-national near or entirely global genocide occurring (as was arguably the case during the Holocaust, but even that wasn't entirely global), which is obviously much worse in terms of scale. The problem is local to Darfur, and thus not global, though you should still care.
If a diploid chromosome number is what determines "fully human" then pretty much all the cells in the human body are "fully human". In fact, even the unfertilized egg is "fully human" (it is after all, diploid - not yet having completed the second cell division of meiosis II). Pretty much only sperm cells are not "fully human".
More reasonable people oppose abortion not on the grounds that they are a fully living human, rather, that they are different fully living human. Even if you consider my spit or some other cells I produce to be "human" that's alright, and furthermore, if you determine them to be alive that's alright too. Once it obtains DNA other than that of my own, I have no right to destroy it, without their permission. A female can take a pill and destroy the egg without harm as it is part of her body. Once it obtains a unique DNA signature of its own, it is no longer her body, it is another human's body and a new set of rules should be applied, notably, you can't kill another human-being unless it is in self-defense (hence why, in some medical situations, abortion is acceptable).
Just as an aside, I look at the world and I see a world where, fundamentally, most people thinks it's OK to kill even living babies as long as you have a sufficiently good reason. In the Iraq war, for example, the USA killed lots of babies but that was OK because "spreading democracy" is a sufficiently good reason for killing babies. Now you'll say "but it wasn't intentional" meaning that killing babies was not the objective of the USA (that if the USA could have spread democracy without killing babies that it would have done so) - but that's exactly my point: it's OK to kill babies if you have a sufficiently good reason (e.g. "spreading democracy").
So, anyway, IMHO this whole debate about what is "alive" and what is "human" is kind of silly because we live in a world where it's perfectly OK to kill living humans (as long as you have a sufficiently good reason).
Um. No. See, you can't just wave a wand and change the world's opinion of the Iraq war from "we don't like how you guys killed the babies in Iraq" to "thank goodness you guys killed the babies in Iraq". The fact that most people disagree with the Iraq war because of the collateral damage, under your logic, is more than enough reason to assume that people disagree with the notion that it is "Ok to kill babies if you have sufficiently good reason".
I should also then mention that self-defense can be considered a "sufficiently good reason" and in this sense, we do live on a world where it is perfectly OK to kill living humans, as long as you have sufficiently good reason. Regardless though, that still doesn't make this debate "silly" because if we don't define what a living human is, there is nothing really stopping me from killing you for no particular reason and just telling your family "Oh, but he wasn't a human, so it's all cool!"
In the game, you witness and take part in evolving your own musical instrument from the small stages of harmonicas all the way to pianos and beyond! During gameplay, you play notes as they come on the screen. Several different difficulty settings.
Except their abortion position actually/violates/ the individual liberty of the human-being being killed for no reason other than being at the wrong place at the wrong time. They pander to certain groups, even if it goes against what their ideology technically stands for, just like everyone else.
Holy crap! You mean I've been living in Nigeria this whole blasted time! I've been had! No more of these free meals for my family every last Thursday in November.
Woah! Hang on a second now. Where did I say I supported Nader as an independent, or the Green Party in general (He's not a green anymore though, is he?)? Nowhere. What I said was that the "Democratic" party intentionally sued Nader for the purposes of running him out of the election, trying to bankrupt the campaign with silly lawsuits, as was the case in 2004, and keep him off the ballot in several states during (both?) election(s). This fits the very definition of voter suppression as candidate suppression == voter suppression as I and someone else illustrated earlier. The Democratic Party by intentionally preventing people from running for President, who have every right to do so regardless of whether their ideas belong "as ballot measures" or the risk that they "may be spoilers" or perhaps whether the left agrees with him or not, are discouraging people from going out to vote for who they want to be president. Same thing as the Republican tactic of playing hide-and-go-seek with voter machines to create large lines, discouraging voters from voting for who they want to be president. If they actually supported Democracy the way they claim, they would have just let the process unfold instead of attempting to suppress candidates that had every right to run.
I don't care about the political positions of Nader, you, the Greens, the Democrats, the Republicans, the Neo-Nazis or whatever it was you were talking about from that point on, as that wasn't my point at all. I don't care that you aren't interested in "his mantra" as that is also not related to the fact that a lot of other voters are still interested, and they have the right to vote for him, be them zealots or not. As far as providing a source, I don't entirely need to as what was done in 2004 was well known, and the fact that Democrats think he will be a spoiler proves he has enough supports to impact the election, so clearly he belongs in it based on that fact alone. Hell, they sued him to keep him off. There's no way they would have wasted that money if it was only a few hundred votes. You have google and there are sources out there. This has nothing to do with support or lack of support for Nader or his ideas. I didn't vote for Nader even though he was on the ballot in my state. My position on him doesn't suddenly change the suppression from "wrong" to "justified".
The whole idea of getting Nader off the ballot is to get those people to vote Dem, not to get them not to vote.
By the candidate people wanted not being on the ballot at all due to Democrat lawsuits, many don't go vote at all == Voter suppression. Some don't want to pick a lesser evil, the want to pick the person they think is right for the job. And even then, by forcing them to not vote for the person they want, even if they did vote is voter suppression.
Just because Democrats run around saying "Vote or Die!" doesn't make them innocent of voter suppression. They are in the same boat. Those lawsuits did voter suppression: discourage voters from voting, exactly what artificially making large lines does. Democrats just have a better propaganda wing when it comes to looking cuddly and innocent.
Again, no. Democrats even did it this election. How many states have they sued Nader in because they were afraid of there being an alternative to vote for? The only difference was the strategy employed. Republicans tend to do voter suppression in the form of intentionally making lines longer by removing machines from certain areas that lean to the Democrats, and giving the machines to areas that tend to lean Republican. Democrats outright prevent people from running for office so they can present themselves as the "lesser of two evils" to unconvinced moderates for the purpose of getting votes. Both are forms of voter suppression and both very actively deploy the tactics in every election.
As far as I can tell, that's darn near the same thing as Spore on PC. Limited installs = bad. If it's my account and my software that I bought, I should have the ability to install it as many times as I wish.
Slashdot Mirror
A game were fluffy white bunnies are hidden in a snowy field and you have to quickly click them or otherwise they will run off and you don't get a little kiss and hug.
While I agree that just about nothing on the web should have expected privacy, the statement on third party software is entirely baseless. Almost every corporation on the planet relies on third-party applications in some form, as I'm almost certain that the Mexican food restaurant not far from my house didn't write their own operating system for the computers they use and just did a very very good job at making it look like Windows XP. Rather, that probably is Windows XP, third-party software made by a third-party company related to the Mexican food restaurant only in the form of a software use license.
They have reason to expect their privacy is protected by the writer of the software they use, and could easily raise a legal case in the event that the company, Microsoft, violates it.
Even that is a far cry from a "Global Problem"
A genocide in Darfur does not mean we have a multi-national near or entirely global genocide occurring (as was arguably the case during the Holocaust, but even that wasn't entirely global), which is obviously much worse in terms of scale. The problem is local to Darfur, and thus not global, though you should still care.
Or banning black painted cars.
Shh! Darn it! We don't want /them/ to know it is a fake blueprint!
Uh, boss. We accidentally put two screens on this laptop. What should we do?
Hm... Charge people twice the price and call it a feature!
I don't know about you, but for me, it's quite hard to wave my money in someone's face when I am busy shoving it down my gas tank. =(
More reasonable people oppose abortion not on the grounds that they are a fully living human, rather, that they are different fully living human. Even if you consider my spit or some other cells I produce to be "human" that's alright, and furthermore, if you determine them to be alive that's alright too. Once it obtains DNA other than that of my own, I have no right to destroy it, without their permission. A female can take a pill and destroy the egg without harm as it is part of her body. Once it obtains a unique DNA signature of its own, it is no longer her body, it is another human's body and a new set of rules should be applied, notably, you can't kill another human-being unless it is in self-defense (hence why, in some medical situations, abortion is acceptable).
Um. No. See, you can't just wave a wand and change the world's opinion of the Iraq war from "we don't like how you guys killed the babies in Iraq" to "thank goodness you guys killed the babies in Iraq". The fact that most people disagree with the Iraq war because of the collateral damage, under your logic, is more than enough reason to assume that people disagree with the notion that it is "Ok to kill babies if you have sufficiently good reason".
I should also then mention that self-defense can be considered a "sufficiently good reason" and in this sense, we do live on a world where it is perfectly OK to kill living humans, as long as you have sufficiently good reason. Regardless though, that still doesn't make this debate "silly" because if we don't define what a living human is, there is nothing really stopping me from killing you for no particular reason and just telling your family "Oh, but he wasn't a human, so it's all cool!"
In the game, you witness and take part in evolving your own musical instrument from the small stages of harmonicas all the way to pianos and beyond! During gameplay, you play notes as they come on the screen. Several different difficulty settings.
Except their abortion position actually /violates/ the individual liberty of the human-being being killed for no reason other than being at the wrong place at the wrong time. They pander to certain groups, even if it goes against what their ideology technically stands for, just like everyone else.
Um, yeah?
As you are a slashdotter, are you certain that wasn't First-Life that you tried?
Problem is that when he bought a new server for his site, he tore it to pieces because he wanted something more portable.
No, that's not the reason. The reason is that their afraid of getting shot!
Watch out! Keep your head down! The joke may hit you!
I'm not worried. My ISP provides me with a dynamic one anyway. I'll just end up getting a new one.
Each game could come with a masked guy holding a whip.
Plus it makes the pirated version much less exciting.
Holy crap! You mean I've been living in Nigeria this whole blasted time! I've been had! No more of these free meals for my family every last Thursday in November.
Their government did a good job dealing with that whole freedom of speech outbreak a while back too. Our government should learn from th
Woah! Hang on a second now. Where did I say I supported Nader as an independent, or the Green Party in general (He's not a green anymore though, is he?)? Nowhere. What I said was that the "Democratic" party intentionally sued Nader for the purposes of running him out of the election, trying to bankrupt the campaign with silly lawsuits, as was the case in 2004, and keep him off the ballot in several states during (both?) election(s). This fits the very definition of voter suppression as candidate suppression == voter suppression as I and someone else illustrated earlier. The Democratic Party by intentionally preventing people from running for President, who have every right to do so regardless of whether their ideas belong "as ballot measures" or the risk that they "may be spoilers" or perhaps whether the left agrees with him or not, are discouraging people from going out to vote for who they want to be president. Same thing as the Republican tactic of playing hide-and-go-seek with voter machines to create large lines, discouraging voters from voting for who they want to be president. If they actually supported Democracy the way they claim, they would have just let the process unfold instead of attempting to suppress candidates that had every right to run.
I don't care about the political positions of Nader, you, the Greens, the Democrats, the Republicans, the Neo-Nazis or whatever it was you were talking about from that point on, as that wasn't my point at all. I don't care that you aren't interested in "his mantra" as that is also not related to the fact that a lot of other voters are still interested, and they have the right to vote for him, be them zealots or not. As far as providing a source, I don't entirely need to as what was done in 2004 was well known, and the fact that Democrats think he will be a spoiler proves he has enough supports to impact the election, so clearly he belongs in it based on that fact alone. Hell, they sued him to keep him off. There's no way they would have wasted that money if it was only a few hundred votes. You have google and there are sources out there. This has nothing to do with support or lack of support for Nader or his ideas. I didn't vote for Nader even though he was on the ballot in my state. My position on him doesn't suddenly change the suppression from "wrong" to "justified".
By the candidate people wanted not being on the ballot at all due to Democrat lawsuits, many don't go vote at all == Voter suppression. Some don't want to pick a lesser evil, the want to pick the person they think is right for the job. And even then, by forcing them to not vote for the person they want, even if they did vote is voter suppression.
Just because Democrats run around saying "Vote or Die!" doesn't make them innocent of voter suppression. They are in the same boat. Those lawsuits did voter suppression: discourage voters from voting, exactly what artificially making large lines does. Democrats just have a better propaganda wing when it comes to looking cuddly and innocent.
Again, no. Democrats even did it this election. How many states have they sued Nader in because they were afraid of there being an alternative to vote for? The only difference was the strategy employed. Republicans tend to do voter suppression in the form of intentionally making lines longer by removing machines from certain areas that lean to the Democrats, and giving the machines to areas that tend to lean Republican. Democrats outright prevent people from running for office so they can present themselves as the "lesser of two evils" to unconvinced moderates for the purpose of getting votes. Both are forms of voter suppression and both very actively deploy the tactics in every election.
Nonsense. They are only in it for the cake at the end.
Won't happen. He got the high bandwidth plan.
As far as I can tell, that's darn near the same thing as Spore on PC. Limited installs = bad. If it's my account and my software that I bought, I should have the ability to install it as many times as I wish.