If you think kids, or anyone, should be jailed for causing a couple of idiots to lose a few hours work or have to pay to have someone fix their computer after doing something stupid.
If an individual intentionally vandalizes something, then he should face penalties for it. 'I was just having some fun' is not an excuse. If someone gets their jollies off of making themselves a nuisance then they deserve a criminal record that makes it tough for them to find a job.
Actually, I hurt my hand recently and was using my PC one-handed. The solution I found I preferred is to go 100% mouse and use the virtual keyboard in Win 2k - it's actually pretty good! Surprised me. I play FPS games and even the odd ported lightgun game (House of the Dead etc) with a mouse, so I'm probably a lot better than average at hitting lots of small targets fast, but I think anyone who's familiar with a mouse could get to an adequate 20 words-per-minute with a day of practice. I'd be tiring to write an essay like that but it's fine for email.
The other odd thing is that Ubuntu and Fedora both apparently lack a virtual keyboard... I hate to see my favourite OS pwned by MS, particularly since Ubuntu is supposed to be the accessible one.
I clearly demonstrated why your senses cannot be assumed to represent reality. You have claimed they do, and the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate this no matter how you try to turn it around.
The reason you're dancing around the subject is because you cannot prove this. Your side of the argument is illogical and invalid. There is no way to deductively prove that anything exists beyond what you perceive, and there is no way to deductively prove that what you perceive represents reality. Descartes tried and the best he could come up with was the ontological argument, which has been debunked a great many times. As a result you have fallen back to childish insults and laughably transparent attempts to spin things around. Not going to happen. So, lets see you succeed where one of the greatest minds of his time failed.
No, I'm just taking the same stance that basic common sense takes.
Common sense is not evidence.
Let's consider things right from the root. You know you exist. This is self evident. You know you perceive things. This is self evident. Now, how do you know those things you perceive are correct? The default state of affairs is that you cannot assume your perceptions are correct, since there is no evidence demonstrating that what you perceive is a representation of reality. You are claiming that your perceptions are reliable and correct, and that they represent a reality separate from your own thoughts and perceptions. You are making a claim. Despite your opinion to the contrary, the burden of proof is on you here. Now do your job and prove your position.
Don't ask me to justify my laughing at your claims; I really don't care if you believe me when I think you're a transparent moron.
Childish name calling doesn't support your position. It just shows that you don't have any argument to speak of.
It isn't. This is easily demonstrated by beating a coma victim to death. They won't perceive your actions, but they'll still die.
No, you'll perceive them as dying. Beyond the evidence provided by your perceptions you still have no idea as to whether or not they exist. Your mind experiment doesn't demonstrate anything.
Guess you've never heard of server-based authentication
Servers can't magically authenticate clients without the assistance of the client. For this to happen some code must be placed on the client. This can be directly modified or sandboxed. Anything that can detect these modifications must also be stored on the client, where they can again be directly modified or sandboxed.
You can divide a traditional multiplayer game into three parts - the client, the protocol, and the server. So long as the client follows the protocol the server cannot tell if anything is amiss. The server must trust the client at some point. You cannot protect the client from itself.
Changing the server won't fix this, changing the client won't fix this, and changing the protocol won't fix this.
You do not know what you are talking about. Stick to subjects where you do.
yor answer is CRC hash checking between client and server files. Guess you don't play much Q3 or UT to know this. Also, simpler multiplayer games (Like worms or scorch3d, etc. have no issues with cheating in multiplayer, because of the crc checking in config files. wallhax are flaws of the engine and map construction, not server/client communication.
The code for checking the CRC of the files on the client must be stored on the client, where it can me modified. Both Quake 3 and UT can both be cheated in. Your client must be able to know where your enemy is at least a few moments before you can actually see him because of latency issues, making wallhacks possible. It is entirely possible to write a bot for plasma pong. The code that shuts the client down must be stored on the client, where it can be circumvented. You have absolutely no clue what you are talking about. Stop spreading misinformation.
Yes, but what the RIAA wants to do is stop Prince from doing what he wishes with his business.
Freedom to make decisions is not freedom from consequences for those decisions. Prince is entirely within his rights to do what he did, and music industry is entirely within its rights to stop distributing and advertising his music.
Dude. I mean, DUDE. "We could do it without a calculator. We were still fucked without our slide rules and log tables, though." That's all I have to say about that.
Log tables can be produced with nothing save a writing utensil, something to write on, and a great deal of patience. Slide rules and nomographs require the same plus a measuring device. Calculators and other electronic devices require a great deal of supporting infrastructure to produce - you need electricity, metal, and a host of other things which are very difficult for an individual to create by himself.
While electronics are nice, we should not be entirely dependent on them. The same goes for tools that are helpful but not necessary. As an example in a different area: while IDEs and high level languages are great and should be used wherever reasonable, programmers should still have some idea as to how the architecture they are programming on works. They should be able to develop software in assembler with a text editor + compiler, or in machine code with a hex editor or a front panel (with the machine code only being reasonable on a very simple operating system like you may find on slower embedded machines).
This is all besides the fact that there is something fascinating about being able to do fairly complex calculations with nothing but two bits of wood and an index (slide rule), or a piece of paper and a straightedge (nomograph), and that learning how to use them is something that would be educational for children even if they never make use of them throughout their life.
Anyone with any real-life experience with Windows has suffered plenty of problems with 2K/XP's bad behaviour. There's an illusion of stability because by default, XP'll reboot instead of bluescreen, but that's just spin control.
I've had XP on my desktop for years, and 2000 before that. I've had roughly three bugchecks in all that time.
Vista came with a laptop I recently purchased and I hold a similar opinion. As far as I can tell Vista doesn't offer any groundbreaking advances from the average user's point of view, but it does offer a number of small niceties. The OS doesn't seem too resource hungry with all the fancy visuals disabled. The Allow / Cancel dialogs are infrequent enough that they aren't a hassle.
The biggest problems involve application compatibility. I noted two issues myself: AutoCAD needs to be run with administrator privileges, and several of the postinstall scripts for Cygwin fail. In the case of AutoCAD it's due to terrible practices on the part of AutoDesk. I'm not sure what the issue with Cygwin is, but I'm sure the Cygwin devs will eventually sort things out (and it still installs / runs if you kill the sh processes that lock up on install). Firefox seems to run just great.
Now if I could only fix this horrific keyboard layout then I'd be golden.
The lack of flying was due to the larger cities being so complex that they had to be divided into separate cells for performance reasons. This required that they be surrounded with walls, and that the player be prevented from seeing over them (so flying was right out).
If you decided to go any way other than pure ranged combat
Both melee and hand to hand were perfectly viable builds all the way through the game. 10 luck jinxed hand to hand characters were particularly hilarious to play.
because the human being might think murder is wrong. if he thinks it is wrong everywhere, it is universal
No, if he thinks it is wrong then it is wrong for him. If lots of people think it is wrong then it is wrong for those people. If somebody doesn't think it is wrong, then it isn't wrong for him.
if enough people believe it, it becomes reality
Reality doesn't depend on consensus.
you understand that inquiring into WHAT SHOULD HAPPEN TO MURDERERS is different than a static inquiry into field dynamics, right?
We put murderers in jail one because the people who feel they should go to jail are more numerous and powerful than the people who feel they should not. Were the situations reversed, then murderers would not go to jail. It has nothing to do with 'universal rights' or 'universal morality'.
not reality in the realm of subatomic physics you asperger's dweeb, reality in the realm of HUMAN SOCIETY
Again, logic and reasoning are not science. They are the basis for rational argument, something you seem to be incapable of engaging in.
And yet again you have failed to bring reasoning to your side of the argument. Your position is still invalid.
Logic and reasoning are not science. Science requires them, they do not require science. Logic and reasoning are the basis for any coherent argument, irrespective of whether the subject of the argument is philosophy, science, or what have you.
you can't take a supercomputer, model every single subatomic particle in someone's brain, and arrive at "thou shalt not kill"
Which is an argument against your position that universal morality exists. All you have done is state 'it exists!' without reasoning. There is no logic or reasoning that shows that something 'should happen' in the universe. The universe doesn't prefer one set of outcomes over another.
emergence
look it up
Emergent behaviour is not an argument against logic and reasoning. Now you're trying to pull in things you don't understand to facilitate your argument.
let's put it this way: are you familiar with chaos theory? emergent phenomenon?
Whoops, I missed this. Emergent phenomenons deals with how simple rules can lead to complex results (such as in Langton's Ant, which is what made me interested enough to read a little on the subject). Chaos theory (or the bit I am familiar with) deals with how very tiny changes can lead to very significant changes later on in a complex iterative system. Neither of these are arguments against logic.
but as it is, you don't have anything valid to say yourself, and you can't hear anything i am saying, simply because you want to talk about humanity in terms of math equations
The human brain isn't magic. The (logical!) laws of physics that dictate everything else in the universe also dictate what happens in our brain, and as a result our behaviour. You are trying to create excuses to circumvent the fact that you simply do not have an argument in your favour. In reality all you are doing is ranting and raving.
He asked for something very simple - a logical argument with evidence that shows that human rights are universal. In your entire rant here you have failed to provide that. If you can't provide a logical argument then your position is invalid, any ranting you may provide to the contrary notwithstanding.
when all humanity is is about redefining what is real
Reality is what it is, irrespective of what we think of it.
you're talking about human beings, who in a few scant centuries, a hiccup in time in this planet's existence, went from sharpening bones to walking on the moon. a creature that can do that, what will it do in centuries coming?
This is nothing more than luck when it comes to natural selection. The laws of physics bind us just as much as anything. Beyond our intelligence we are not special or magical in any way.
Slashdot Mirror
I clearly demonstrated why your senses cannot be assumed to represent reality. You have claimed they do, and the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate this no matter how you try to turn it around.
The reason you're dancing around the subject is because you cannot prove this. Your side of the argument is illogical and invalid. There is no way to deductively prove that anything exists beyond what you perceive, and there is no way to deductively prove that what you perceive represents reality. Descartes tried and the best he could come up with was the ontological argument, which has been debunked a great many times. As a result you have fallen back to childish insults and laughably transparent attempts to spin things around. Not going to happen. So, lets see you succeed where one of the greatest minds of his time failed.
Childish name calling doesn't support your position. It just shows that you don't have any argument to speak of.
You are claiming that things happen without us perceiving them. You are making a claim. Now prove it.That's correct. As a result, reality is very much dependent on perception. Congratulations.
Again, prove it.
You can't, because you'll have to depend on your senses at some point. This has nothing to do with quantum mechanics.
You can divide a traditional multiplayer game into three parts - the client, the protocol, and the server. So long as the client follows the protocol the server cannot tell if anything is amiss. The server must trust the client at some point. You cannot protect the client from itself.
Changing the server won't fix this, changing the client won't fix this, and changing the protocol won't fix this.
You do not know what you are talking about. Stick to subjects where you do.
While electronics are nice, we should not be entirely dependent on them. The same goes for tools that are helpful but not necessary. As an example in a different area: while IDEs and high level languages are great and should be used wherever reasonable, programmers should still have some idea as to how the architecture they are programming on works. They should be able to develop software in assembler with a text editor + compiler, or in machine code with a hex editor or a front panel (with the machine code only being reasonable on a very simple operating system like you may find on slower embedded machines).
This is all besides the fact that there is something fascinating about being able to do fairly complex calculations with nothing but two bits of wood and an index (slide rule), or a piece of paper and a straightedge (nomograph), and that learning how to use them is something that would be educational for children even if they never make use of them throughout their life.
Vista came with a laptop I recently purchased and I hold a similar opinion. As far as I can tell Vista doesn't offer any groundbreaking advances from the average user's point of view, but it does offer a number of small niceties. The OS doesn't seem too resource hungry with all the fancy visuals disabled. The Allow / Cancel dialogs are infrequent enough that they aren't a hassle.
The biggest problems involve application compatibility. I noted two issues myself: AutoCAD needs to be run with administrator privileges, and several of the postinstall scripts for Cygwin fail. In the case of AutoCAD it's due to terrible practices on the part of AutoDesk. I'm not sure what the issue with Cygwin is, but I'm sure the Cygwin devs will eventually sort things out (and it still installs / runs if you kill the sh processes that lock up on install). Firefox seems to run just great.
Now if I could only fix this horrific keyboard layout then I'd be golden.
Oh good, more incoherent ranting. Try again, this time with an argument.
Again, logic and reasoning are not science. They are the basis for rational argument, something you seem to be incapable of engaging in.
And yet again you have failed to bring reasoning to your side of the argument. Your position is still invalid.
Logic and reasoning are not science. Science requires them, they do not require science. Logic and reasoning are the basis for any coherent argument, irrespective of whether the subject of the argument is philosophy, science, or what have you.
Emergent behaviour is not an argument against logic and reasoning. Now you're trying to pull in things you don't understand to facilitate your argument.
More incoherent ranting. If you can't find any logic to support your position, then your position is invalid.