Perhaps he means that the 'Sands of Time' have destroyed most people's original Apple II floppy disks?
Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time faced no competition from its predecessors
The fuck are you talking about? Prince of Persia and Prince of Persia 2: The Shadow and the Flame were at least as good as SoT--I'd argue dramatically better. Maybe instead of "predecessors" you mean "single, immediate predecessor"?
Actually, the police don't need a search warrant to search your car during routine traffic stops. I would presume any officers at the scene of an accident would have a similar exclusion. It's currently 50 state legal to run an aftermarket ECU (engine control unit), something tells me it won't remain so for long.
If the data in your black box are important, the police will obtain them without your permission in the same way they would obtain the car itself: a search warrant.
I don't recall mentioning subsidies, merely buying the local farmers product at whatever 'market price' equates to. As for IMF restucturing, I'm unaware of any such requirement (on imported produce). Can you provide an example?
Depending on whether the country in question has gone through "debt restructuring" via the IMF, then yes, someone may be forcing them to buy imported produce. Or they might be forced to cease offering subsidies to their own farmers and export their own produce.
I believe the issue is that if it's cheaper to buy corn from overseas than to produce it locally in your african desert region of choice, then there is no money to buy things that cannot be produced by the farmer and are needed for farming (e.g. fertilizer, seed, tools), therefore you have yet another african family of 12 to stare at in the latest Sally Struthers 'save the children' infomercial.
Of course, since no one is forcing said country to buy corn from overseas at the expense of their own people you can just as easily place the blame there.
thats right, because if they could grow corn and sell it they could feed themselves... wait.
Why don't they sell/barter it locally?
They do not need to enter the American market.
I can't see this happening within our lifetimes. Air travel is expensive in terms of fuel, but travel by ship is quite cheap. It's not fast, but when you're shipping non-perishable goods it doesn't have to be. Thanks to climate controlled containers, quite a few perishable goods can now travel by ship as well. Thus, we won't be making low margin things in Toledo anytime soon.
exactly be cut off from the rest of the world like in the 19th century and before... but physical travel may become a luxury. And the global manufacturing economy? Could be strictly a short-term phenomenon, with it eventually becoming cheaper and safer to make things in Toledo rather than ship them in from Thailand. P.S. Be nice to your local farmer; you may end up depending on him to produce food for you.
I heartily agree. This has been reasonably doable for quite some time, and has been exploited in a number of highly fun games. Interstate 76' just wouldn't have been the same with mpeg cutscenes.
Cutscenes? With such a powerful machine, developers should make all cutscenes in real time.
So you're saying that people should (potentially) be killed/blackballed because 'people have rights, even people you don't like'. Sorry, that does not compute. If you'd read those links you might have noticed that one of those blackballing employers is in fact the US government. Thanks for playing, please try our home game.
4) in no circumstance that you provided have you demonstrated that a right to withhold sources exsists or should exsist. You simply say that it is difficult at times but
5) Just because something is difficult for you, doesn't mean you should be able to unilaterally strip away the fundemental right to confront your accusser
Not really, no. Say (purely hypothetically) John Gotti had your mother killed and I knew it. If I testify about it my family will be killed. Should I put your dead mother before my currently alive family? That does not make any sense, ok? I'll take the possible 5 years for perjury in a heartbeat. That may not be justice, but it's certainly common sense.
In the case of a denied witness to a defendant, please remember that it is the responsibility of a prosecutor to prove that the defendant has commited a crime. How can he do this without witnesses or strong evidence?
As for your comments on whistleblowing, if you'd read through the links I posted, you'd note that 'obligation' or not, there are many limitations in current law. Witness tampering does not come into it at all. In most states we have 'at will' employment, which means you can pretty much be fired at any time. If the court decides that you were fired for an illegal reason, you are eligible for reinstatement, but that is a big if, and remember that the majority of these cases aren't even heard for 5+ years. Can you survive for 5+ years without an income (and paying legal fees), even if you meet the rather strict filing requirements? Even if you win, you've probably made yourself unemployable in your chosen field, and your reinstatement is unlikely to be much fun.
If I knew a witness who told me who murdered your mother, wouldn't you andd the accused think you had a right to know who that witness was and question them? What would you think of my claim of being a member of the pressprotecting me from having to testify then?
Apparently my earlier response was too hypothetical for you. Allow me to be a little more blunt.
Say you blow the whistle on immoral or illegal practices within an organization. Publicly doing so can quite easily get you fired , blacklisted or in some cases dead. The only way for the average person to avoid this is by leaking the information through a third party who is both willing and able to preserve your anonymity. Who is truly the one not taking responsibility here?
Correct me and I am wrong, but the witness protection program is for people who stood up and taken responsibility for what they are saying. Those who try to hide from what have done/said don't need the witness protection program, because we don't know who they are.
Aside from that point, I think most people, as I surely do, that you have a right to stand up to accuser. Those that hide behind reporters deny the accussed that fundemental right.
Fascinating, so if someone has something to say that could easily get them fired or killed they should stand right up and say it? Are you against the witness protection program as well?
Freedom of the Press is not the right to withold vital information from a criminal/civil case. It is the right to talk about what is going on by publishing information. Reporters have no more right to withold information than me or you -- They are not "Super Citizens" or a superior class with "Special Rights". I personal think its a pretty sh*tty thing that someone can use a reporter to slander or defame someone (and that is what is going on in the vast majority of cases of "undisclosed sources") and use reporters as thier proxies. If someone has something to say, they should stand up and say it and take responsibility for what they say
You do realize that racism is not the sole priviledge of the 'white' man, right? I mean, we may prosecute it like it is, but that is far from the truth. If you were truly blind to race, you'd be shaming Chris Rock for using the word "nigger". Asian American club? OK, African American club? OK, European American club? KKK
By the time your conditions are met, it would be too late. If I knew a guy who used the word "nigger," and talked a lot about "state's rights" and "people not knowing their place," I'd publicly shame him and make every effort to call him out. What I wouldn't do is blow him off just because I haven't seen him lynch anyone. I know what the code words are, what the core ideas are for that worldview, and they aren't that hard to spot. Similarly, we know what the core structures of totalitarianism are: imprisonment without trial, torture, secret prisons, and so on. Just as I know someone's a racist even if they haven't lynched anyone, I know the roots of totalitarianism, even if we don't live in the society you describe in your post.
Fascinating, so your solution involves some sort of time travel device? Plx to page Steven Hawking, I think we have a live one here.
For the record, nobody but the Sudanese government has been involved in Sudan since the 1950's, other than one missle attack on al'queda weapon factories in '98. That country was not 'sucked dry by rich nations', it's just that sticks, rocks, and illiterate tribesman are just not really hot commodities on the global market.
I'm not talking about aid but about not sucking those countries dry in the first place.
I believe that they in fact do that now. If you've been following the funtastic genocide project going on in Darfur, without U.N. food aid all of those people would have been dead ages ago. Of course, if there were less of them in the first place, the Sudanese government would probably think twice about purposely killing them to oust a few guerillas.
Well of course that would mean the rich nations would have give up some of their booty. Do you tell me it's impossible?
Enough what exactly? Enough CO2 to melt the ice caps? We're getting close, and don't worry, distribution isn't a problem. If you're talking say, food, I would argue that people who can't manage to feed themselves should perhaps think twice about having 12 kids. Then they might you know, have enough to eat.
The world's biggest problems stem from too many humans
Oh my, that's so wrong. There is enough for everyone, the world's biggest problem is unfair distribution.
I don't recall making that argument. I made a statement that magical R&D fairies won't allow the world to support an infinite number of people. If you disagree, perhaps you could make some sort of relevant argument?
If we're talking about spending money to reduce the number of humans and therefore improve their general quality of life, perhaps some form of enforced birth control would be more to the point?
R&D will only take you so far, especially when your neighbor countries use their R&D budgets to build pointier, sharper sticks/bombs/etc.
So.. your argument is that spending more money on reducing the number of humans (a.k.a. military spending) is the way to go?
stirt var honum norroent mál, ok kylfdi mjk til orðanna, ok hfðu margir menn at mjk at spotti?
Had they sailed straight across to Newfoundland, logistics would have been much easier, and their North American colony might have survived. We'd all be speaking a Scandinavian language, and having lots of sex with blonde haired blue eyed women.
Fair enough, just remember that 'far' has a lot more to do with contitions than mileage. Traveling across the Cape of Good Hope isn't that far, but it isn't that easy either. Likewise, north atlantic sea journeys and expeditions to micronesia are apples and oranges, just like balsa boats + prevailing currents and glorified canoes - prevailing currents are.
The Vikings would have gotten to New England by travelling down along the coast of Nova Scotia. After all, the
oldest European settlement in North America is L'Anse aux Meadows. The distance between Greenland and the Atlantic coast isn't that far. It's certainly not Polynesia far.
Don't forget the SPF3000 sunblock you'd need in the case of any solar flare activity. Mars may be the second most habitable planet in the solar system, but that ain't saying much.
It was obvious a person could walk around in that landscape, with enough warm clothing.
Technically, they probably could not. The air pressure is less than 1 percent that of Earth. Even with oxegen masks, the pressure is far too light. People would burst, making blood spray all over turning the planet red......red? Hmmmmm....
Riight, because there are just so many islands between Greenland and what was to become New England. Polynesian sailors, while quite impressive in their own right, have yet to pillage, burn and/or explore half the stuff the Vikings did. Way to endure those harsh tropical waters and find an island to deforest though.
I know that this is a joke, but the fact is that the sailing achievements of the historical Vikings across the Atlantic were not especially unusual. They simply knew how to make short hops from island to island.
Probably season 2-3 were the best of the series. Joel was still running the show and thanks to Comedy Central he finally had a real budget. I found all of it very watchable, but basically the whole original cast is gone (Joel,Dr. Forester,original bot voices) in the later seasons. Even the Comedy Central episodes are missing the original sidekick (replaced by TV's Frank)
I've only seen the MST3K the movie, having suffered the misfortune of living in a country where the series never aired:)
If I was to watch this, where would you suggest starting? As early as possible? Or in the later seasons?
Indeed, no oil = no plastic. But that's totally manageable, especially considering we are unlikely to ever 'run out' of oil, it will just become scarce enough that it's not cost effective to run cars with it. Think back to the 1950's, been there, done that. In many respects it would be an improvement, since things would need to be engineered to last instead of being engineered to break and end up in a landfill inside of 2 years.
As for the utopian society comment, I find that very questionable. The world's biggest problems stem from too many humans, not enough space/food/stuff. R&D will only take you so far, especially when your neighbor countries use their R&D budgets to build pointier,sharper sticks/bombs/etc.
Given that oil is a raw material for building just about anything besides gas, and coal and natural gas can only go so far to replace oil.
But on the plus side, when the oil runs out we can stop worrying about which muslim countries want to kill each other this week. Anyway, we're unlikely to run out of coal/methane so we can always take a page out of Brazil's handbook and use alcohol. Sure it's not the best thing for the environment, but I hardly think that will matter in 50 years.
And that is why the entire way american culture works will have to change when the oil runs out in the next 50 years or so. There is quite simply no way to carry on when we have to start generating the energy to drive around hugely innefficient SUV's (or any car for single person transportation).
Good thing we bribed Pakistan with all of those F-16's. The arabs have wanted Isreal gone since the 1940's. The only reason they are still around is because of the USA. Now that the arabs have nukes things are likely to get really interesting.
The worry comes from how the rest of the world reacts to this (and of course the worry in the effected area is very real and worth noting!). If Syria, and Iran, and Afghanistan can coerce Pakistan (or some other sizable ally) then World War is not far away.
That's the funny thing actually. My 400ci firebird got between 8-10mpg, but it didn't matter how I drove it. Conversely my C4(previous gen corvette) with the L98/350ci got close to 30mpg on longer trips.
So listen up eco-freaks, big engines != environmental nightmares. You don't have to drive that Prius/Civic in order to get reasonable mileage.
Depends on what and how you drive. A 60's muscle car with a 400ci engine wont get poo for mileage, and any car will have bad mileage if you floor it all the time.
Slashdot Mirror
Of course, since no one is forcing said country to buy corn from overseas at the expense of their own people you can just as easily place the blame there.
In the case of a denied witness to a defendant, please remember that it is the responsibility of a prosecutor to prove that the defendant has commited a crime. How can he do this without witnesses or strong evidence?
As for your comments on whistleblowing, if you'd read through the links I posted, you'd note that 'obligation' or not, there are many limitations in current law. Witness tampering does not come into it at all. In most states we have 'at will' employment, which means you can pretty much be fired at any time. If the court decides that you were fired for an illegal reason, you are eligible for reinstatement, but that is a big if, and remember that the majority of these cases aren't even heard for 5+ years. Can you survive for 5+ years without an income (and paying legal fees), even if you meet the rather strict filing requirements? Even if you win, you've probably made yourself unemployable in your chosen field, and your reinstatement is unlikely to be much fun.
Say you blow the whistle on immoral or illegal practices within an organization. Publicly doing so can quite easily get you fired , blacklisted or in some cases dead. The only way for the average person to avoid this is by leaking the information through a third party who is both willing and able to preserve your anonymity. Who is truly the one not taking responsibility here?
http://www.statesman.com/news/content/news/storie
http://pwp.lincs.net/sanjour/Endangered.htm
http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKgiancana.
For the record, nobody but the Sudanese government has been involved in Sudan since the 1950's, other than one missle attack on al'queda weapon factories in '98. That country was not 'sucked dry by rich nations', it's just that sticks, rocks, and illiterate tribesman are just not really hot commodities on the global market.
If we're talking about spending money to reduce the number of humans and therefore improve their general quality of life, perhaps some form of enforced birth control would be more to the point?
As for the utopian society comment, I find that very questionable. The world's biggest problems stem from too many humans, not enough space/food/stuff. R&D will only take you so far, especially when your neighbor countries use their R&D budgets to build pointier,sharper sticks/bombs/etc.
So listen up eco-freaks, big engines != environmental nightmares. You don't have to drive that Prius/Civic in order to get reasonable mileage.