Maybe They know something, or someone, is coming. Maybe They know that we will need a reliable space shuttle to do something (like go pick up beacons on each planet). Maybe They know.
I played Fallout-3 and Fallout New Vegas so bugs... yeah. But those games, even if they manage to freeze a Playstation 3 console (!!!), they are so cool that I kept playing, trying to walk around the bugs as much as possible.
New Vegas before the patch was terrible. Once your guy is experienced and is carrying a bunch of stuff, the game keeps locking. But it is still an awesome game, definitely in my top 5 (with GTA and Heavy Rain).
I hope this will work well, this game is already great.
I've played co-op missions with GTA4 and it was completely awesome. Robbing a bank is a different experience when you do it while your 12 y/o nephew is holding back the cops with a stolen garbage truck.
Can't wait to see how this turns out in Mass Effect (but I suspect there won't be bank robberies with garbage trucks).
By saying "poopie head" and "grow up" in the same comment, are you being sarcastic, or is it just another demonstration of your inability to see that you contradict yourself frequently?
> I have more important things to do.
This thread has been going on for a while, so I am pretty sure you don't have more important things to do. Unless you mean starting other endless loops somewhere else.
No, the real questions here are: - Why do you care? It is literally none of your business. - What do you think gives you the right to decide for other people what they may or may not do, based only on your opinion that it is a waste of time?
This brilliant comment could very well be the beginning of a recursive and endless loop.
So tell me: why do *you* care why I care? And what do you think gives *you* the right to decide for other people [etc]
There's no recursion here. You have decided what others should do. The only way in which I have decided [...]
Thanks to confirm that *you* have decided what others should do.
(I would like to point out that I did not "decide" anything in the first place, I just made a comment, but this endless loop has now a life of its own).
Taking a picture used to be a significant moment, and because of the work involved from the pose to the drive to the mall to drop the film to the selection and preparation for the album it meant something. Now there is essentially no work involved so people take pictures all the time, putting everyone in a constant state of staging. It's like everyone is a hollywood star except the paparazzi are themselves, and no one is interested in buying the pictures but everybody keeps uploading.
It's cheap and fake. Broadcasting yourself, as they say.
In many western countries malls are disappearing, they are being replaced by shopping districts where superstores, specialized boutiques, hotels and entertainment complexes are close to each other but are separate buildings. Those shopping districts are still private property, where access is a privilege governed by the owner's rules and enforced by private security. Just as with casinos, taking pictures in those areas is not illegal but if frowned upon and might cause the security to intervene.
Preventing patrons to take pictures is not done by evil corporations wishing to destroy freedom. It is a simple, practical solution to enforce the expectation of privacy of the other guests as well as an easy way to minimize exposure to lawsuits. In many countries the privacy laws are in effect binding a corporation to protect privacy in self-defined boundaries; this means that if the owners of a mall are allowing patrons to take pictures, they must also take measures to protect the privacy of everybody appearing on those pictures, which is unrealistic. By forbidding pictures but not strongly enforcing the rule, corporations are basically shielding themselves from lawsuits, but in situations where there are complaints (such as the posted article where employees found the guy suspect) it is in their best interest to act.
This is the same logic with internet access at the office. Most employers will state that internet access is provided only for official business, which removes the expectation of privacy from employees (and therefore removes ground for most privacy lawsuits), but do not enforce the rule unless some abuse is reported.
> malls aren't the only places that used to be public but now aren't
Do you have a date as to when the malls went from being public to not being public? As far as I remember, they were private property. But maybe I've been brainwashed after watching Mallrats too many times.
Also if you could name one or two of those other places that used to be public but are not anymore, it would be interesting. Unless you talk about those government buildings that were sold to developers who built condos.
> The ideal solution would be to raze the fucking malls
Yes, that sounds like an appropriate solution to protect freedom. After all, it is well-know that malls are a direct threat against freedom and democracy (especially those where the food courts have a 30-minute seating limit to prevent loitering). Also there must be a reason why Jesus went postal when he saw that the temple was becoming a mall.
Just to be sure, we should not only raze the malls but also spread one foot of salt on the grounds where they stood to make sure that nothing ever grows again on such forsaken land.
No, the real questions here are: - Why do you care? It is literally none of your business. - What do you think gives you the right to decide for other people what they may or may not do, based only on your opinion that it is a waste of time?
This brilliant comment could very well be the beginning of a recursive and endless loop.
So tell me: why do *you* care why I care? And what do you think gives *you* the right to decide for other people [etc]
This reminds me of Ingrid Betancourt; she was warned not to go in the rebel area because she could get kidnapped. She still went to the rebel area and got kidnapped. And we are supposed to feel sorry for her.
If the money was spent on sports where the people are involved, at least it would lead to a generation of healthy imbeciles. Instead it's all about entertainment - that's what those buildings are, it's not sport when you are seated, drinking a beer, it's entertainment.
> If you read the article, by the time the security guard was involved, the picture was already on Facebook.
Since the police came *after* the guard, then both descriptions are correct.
> I really don't understand why you have such a problem with someone sharing a picture of their own child on Facebook.
Because the culture of uploading pictures to Facebook makes the society fake and shallow, with everything being staged for a good pose. Just walk on the street, it's everywhere - people are even taking picture of themselves when they are alone. Millions and millions of those pictures are uploaded every day - what for?
The other day I saw this student demonstration on the street, thousands of students. And while they were marching, hundreds of them were texting (probably tweeting "I'm in a demonstration") and taking pictures of themselves; they were not *there*, they were staging themselves for pictures and tweets. This is beyond shallow.
> They are perfectly free to do that as soon as it is closed to the public.
Being open for business does not mean that the mall is "public" like the street. A mall is a private property, just like a movie theater or a restaurant or a casino, and as such, any customer walking in is a guest and must comply to the rules established by the rightful owners. Like any commercial building the mall is subject to specific laws, such as complying with the fire department regulations, but this is still a private property.
The title of the article is misleading - "illegal" does not apply here. It's a private matter, and by proposing a ban on this mall the guy who was displeased with the mall rules is doing the right thing since no law was broken.
> why the fuck we are building a society for ourselves that is undoing all the hard-won freedoms we've fought for and earned in the last few hundred years
What freedom exactly is being undone by not allowing pictures to be taken on private property (like a mall)? If people can "tweet and blog" all day, how come the owners of the mall are not allowed to establish rules for their own private building? I think your definition of freedom is selective.
> Cherish it, it clearly isn't going to last.
Yeah, clearly the System is going down the drain, the Evil Shopping Malls Owners are ought to steal our freedom.
The real question here is: why do people need so badly to take pictures and upload them to Facebook all the time? What is the amount of said pictures that are actually looked at by anyone? It's like those thousands of smartphones raised in the air during concerts so people can upload shitty clips to Youtube. Everyone is broadcasting, no one is watching.
People don't have a life anymore. They have pictures and youtube clips.
> HP is also not a computer company then since less than 6% of its profit comes from the Personal Systems Group.
HP also has a strong server business, something between 1/4 and 1/3 of the server market. You can try to tweak the numbers any way you want, but HP is a computer company, while Apple is not.
I don't understand why fanbois need Apple to be everything and anything. If this was a discussion about cars, you probably would find a way to say that Ford sucks and that Apple is the only remaining American car company. I know, your guru is gone and it hurts, but at some point common sense has to prevail.
> They are the only American computer company that is growing right now
Apple is not a computer company. All their profit comes from the Apple Store and from the iPhone, iPad and iPods. Have a look at the numbers for their Mac sales and you will see that they are not a big computer company. Never been.
Without the GPL, a shameless company can base its own Operating System on the work of open-source contributors, lock it down, put a nice logo on it and sell it with its hardware, calling it "innovation" or "vision".
It is even easier if that same company is using generic hardware available to anyone, that way they don't even need to put a lot of work in drivers.
Slashdot Mirror
Maybe They know something, or someone, is coming. Maybe They know that we will need a reliable space shuttle to do something (like go pick up beacons on each planet). Maybe They know.
I sleep better at night know that They know.
I played Fallout-3 and Fallout New Vegas so bugs... yeah. But those games, even if they manage to freeze a Playstation 3 console (!!!), they are so cool that I kept playing, trying to walk around the bugs as much as possible.
New Vegas before the patch was terrible. Once your guy is experienced and is carrying a bunch of stuff, the game keeps locking. But it is still an awesome game, definitely in my top 5 (with GTA and Heavy Rain).
I hope this will work well, this game is already great.
I've played co-op missions with GTA4 and it was completely awesome. Robbing a bank is a different experience when you do it while your 12 y/o nephew is holding back the cops with a stolen garbage truck.
Can't wait to see how this turns out in Mass Effect (but I suspect there won't be bank robberies with garbage trucks).
> You forgot to call me a poopie head. Grow up.
By saying "poopie head" and "grow up" in the same comment, are you being sarcastic, or is it just another demonstration of your inability to see that you contradict yourself frequently?
> I have more important things to do.
This thread has been going on for a while, so I am pretty sure you don't have more important things to do. Unless you mean starting other endless loops somewhere else.
> As I suspect, you're a child
Obviously. You can decide what other people can or cannot do, so you also can decide who is a child and who is not.
> one that doesn't understand a terminating case in recursion to boot
You started an "endless" recursion loop and now you are mad that I won't "terminate" it. If someone does not understand something, it's you.
At least that way they won't need "heroic support"
No, the real questions here are:
- Why do you care? It is literally none of your business.
- What do you think gives you the right to decide for other people what they may or may not do, based only on your opinion that it is a waste of time?
This brilliant comment could very well be the beginning of a recursive and endless loop.
So tell me: why do *you* care why I care? And what do you think gives *you* the right to decide for other people [etc]
There's no recursion here. You have decided what others should do. The only way in which I have decided [...]
Thanks to confirm that *you* have decided what others should do.
(I would like to point out that I did not "decide" anything in the first place, I just made a comment, but this endless loop has now a life of its own).
Taking a picture used to be a significant moment, and because of the work involved from the pose to the drive to the mall to drop the film to the selection and preparation for the album it meant something. Now there is essentially no work involved so people take pictures all the time, putting everyone in a constant state of staging. It's like everyone is a hollywood star except the paparazzi are themselves, and no one is interested in buying the pictures but everybody keeps uploading.
It's cheap and fake. Broadcasting yourself, as they say.
> Going out of your house increases the chance of getting hit by a car on the streets
No it does not.
In many western countries malls are disappearing, they are being replaced by shopping districts where superstores, specialized boutiques, hotels and entertainment complexes are close to each other but are separate buildings. Those shopping districts are still private property, where access is a privilege governed by the owner's rules and enforced by private security. Just as with casinos, taking pictures in those areas is not illegal but if frowned upon and might cause the security to intervene.
Preventing patrons to take pictures is not done by evil corporations wishing to destroy freedom. It is a simple, practical solution to enforce the expectation of privacy of the other guests as well as an easy way to minimize exposure to lawsuits. In many countries the privacy laws are in effect binding a corporation to protect privacy in self-defined boundaries; this means that if the owners of a mall are allowing patrons to take pictures, they must also take measures to protect the privacy of everybody appearing on those pictures, which is unrealistic. By forbidding pictures but not strongly enforcing the rule, corporations are basically shielding themselves from lawsuits, but in situations where there are complaints (such as the posted article where employees found the guy suspect) it is in their best interest to act.
This is the same logic with internet access at the office. Most employers will state that internet access is provided only for official business, which removes the expectation of privacy from employees (and therefore removes ground for most privacy lawsuits), but do not enforce the rule unless some abuse is reported.
> malls aren't the only places that used to be public but now aren't
Do you have a date as to when the malls went from being public to not being public? As far as I remember, they were private property. But maybe I've been brainwashed after watching Mallrats too many times.
Also if you could name one or two of those other places that used to be public but are not anymore, it would be interesting. Unless you talk about those government buildings that were sold to developers who built condos.
> The ideal solution would be to raze the fucking malls
Yes, that sounds like an appropriate solution to protect freedom. After all, it is well-know that malls are a direct threat against freedom and democracy (especially those where the food courts have a 30-minute seating limit to prevent loitering). Also there must be a reason why Jesus went postal when he saw that the temple was becoming a mall.
Just to be sure, we should not only raze the malls but also spread one foot of salt on the grounds where they stood to make sure that nothing ever grows again on such forsaken land.
> In terms of infrastructure, HP is definitely a computing company
Someone recently lost his job contradicting this statement...
No, the real questions here are:
- Why do you care? It is literally none of your business.
- What do you think gives you the right to decide for other people what they may or may not do, based only on your opinion that it is a waste of time?
This brilliant comment could very well be the beginning of a recursive and endless loop.
So tell me: why do *you* care why I care? And what do you think gives *you* the right to decide for other people [etc]
This reminds me of Ingrid Betancourt; she was warned not to go in the rebel area because she could get kidnapped. She still went to the rebel area and got kidnapped. And we are supposed to feel sorry for her.
If the money was spent on sports where the people are involved, at least it would lead to a generation of healthy imbeciles. Instead it's all about entertainment - that's what those buildings are, it's not sport when you are seated, drinking a beer, it's entertainment.
> If you read the article, by the time the security guard was involved, the picture was already on Facebook.
Since the police came *after* the guard, then both descriptions are correct.
> I really don't understand why you have such a problem with someone sharing a picture of their own child on Facebook.
Because the culture of uploading pictures to Facebook makes the society fake and shallow, with everything being staged for a good pose. Just walk on the street, it's everywhere - people are even taking picture of themselves when they are alone. Millions and millions of those pictures are uploaded every day - what for?
The other day I saw this student demonstration on the street, thousands of students. And while they were marching, hundreds of them were texting (probably tweeting "I'm in a demonstration") and taking pictures of themselves; they were not *there*, they were staging themselves for pictures and tweets. This is beyond shallow.
> They are perfectly free to do that as soon as it is closed to the public.
Being open for business does not mean that the mall is "public" like the street. A mall is a private property, just like a movie theater or a restaurant or a casino, and as such, any customer walking in is a guest and must comply to the rules established by the rightful owners. Like any commercial building the mall is subject to specific laws, such as complying with the fire department regulations, but this is still a private property.
The title of the article is misleading - "illegal" does not apply here. It's a private matter, and by proposing a ban on this mall the guy who was displeased with the mall rules is doing the right thing since no law was broken.
> why the fuck we are building a society for ourselves that is undoing all the hard-won freedoms we've fought for and earned in the last few hundred years
What freedom exactly is being undone by not allowing pictures to be taken on private property (like a mall)? If people can "tweet and blog" all day, how come the owners of the mall are not allowed to establish rules for their own private building? I think your definition of freedom is selective.
> Cherish it, it clearly isn't going to last.
Yeah, clearly the System is going down the drain, the Evil Shopping Malls Owners are ought to steal our freedom.
If you read the article, by the time the police was involved the picture was already on Facebook. This goes beyond taking pictures of your own kid.
The real question here is: why do people need so badly to take pictures and upload them to Facebook all the time? What is the amount of said pictures that are actually looked at by anyone? It's like those thousands of smartphones raised in the air during concerts so people can upload shitty clips to Youtube. Everyone is broadcasting, no one is watching.
People don't have a life anymore. They have pictures and youtube clips.
> HP is also not a computer company then since less than 6% of its profit comes from the Personal Systems Group.
HP also has a strong server business, something between 1/4 and 1/3 of the server market. You can try to tweak the numbers any way you want, but HP is a computer company, while Apple is not.
I don't understand why fanbois need Apple to be everything and anything. If this was a discussion about cars, you probably would find a way to say that Ford sucks and that Apple is the only remaining American car company. I know, your guru is gone and it hurts, but at some point common sense has to prevail.
Apple is making a lot of money. The point is: it's not a computer company.
> Apple will probably have $100 billion in revenues
More confusion. Revenue != profit. If revenue was all that important, Groupon would be a catch.
Need more? Ask anyone who used to own Nortel or Enron stock.
> They are the only American computer company that is growing right now
Apple is not a computer company. All their profit comes from the Apple Store and from the iPhone, iPad and iPods. Have a look at the numbers for their Mac sales and you will see that they are not a big computer company. Never been.
Without the GPL, a shameless company can base its own Operating System on the work of open-source contributors, lock it down, put a nice logo on it and sell it with its hardware, calling it "innovation" or "vision".
It is even easier if that same company is using generic hardware available to anyone, that way they don't even need to put a lot of work in drivers.