The patriot act explicitly allows the government to fuck you over with no warrent or due cause if they can trace your transactions internationally. In otherwords, by hosting internationally, your rights are forfeit.
Yes, it sucks. Yes, it's unconstitutional. But it's a lot like taking a crosswalk in front of a speeding semi: Ok, he is in the wrong. You're still dead.
"This certainly doesn't deserve to get thrown onto the traditional dust heap of educational proposals for a half-baked game that nobody will actually play."
You're right. This will be thrown on the dust heap of educational proposals for a well-cooked game that nobody will actually play. This game is toast before it even gets off the floor.
Being tazed isn't graphic violence -- it's just battery.
Graphic violence is beheadings, disembowelments, people getting hit so hard that their nose crushes and their eyeballs pop out. You know, GRAPHIC violence. When blood starts being shown, it starts getting into graphic territory.
Lets take 100 cases of identity theft from silicone valley. Now lets take 100 cases of identity theft from bucksnort, arkansas. I bet th
You can take smaller samples only from a homogenous larger sample. Fact is that the 3 mil overall represents some extremely different circumstances, and a study would need to take representative samples from each demographic to insure an accurate result. However, we only have samples from the demographic of people who involved the secret service.
Team Leader: Mr. Cheney, please calculate our chances of successfully finding the correct identity theft information from our study of 517 obscure cases of random WMDs in Iraq this time.
Mr. Cheney: 0.0001273% repeating, of course
Mr. Bush: G.DUUUUUUUUUUUUUUB-YAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABUSH!
Because it isn't the parts that cost money, it's the development.
How much $$$ has been spent on development of CD drive technology? It's a very precise laser. That it can be used for this purpose is a lucky side-effect, but it still won't cut it for medical purposes.
The bulk of the car is not what absorbs the explosions in an internal combustion engine. The energy of the explosions is stored by the rotation of the flywheel. This is why people can put a V8 on a (relatively) lightweight motorcycle and it still runs smoothly. The mass of the car has very little to do with it.
Burning Gasoline -> store power in flywheel "kinetic battery" -> distribute energy to driveshaft -> spin tires
The orion concept is based on
Explosion -> move ship forward. There is no flywheel because there would be nothing to apply the flywheel's energy against. The explosion must be directly responsible for moving the ship. So, they have to use what sounds to be a big recoil mechanism that is precision-tuned to release its energy in a completely linear method and over the exact time from when one explosion occurs to the next. Maybe they can do that, maybe they can't. My money is on "nope." Please give me an example where such a system has ever been successfully tested, and I will stand corrected. As you stated before, pulse jets were "incredibly unpleasant to fly," and as such I think you can agree it is not a shining example of our capability in creating a shock system such as this.
An internal combustion engine is storing energy in a spinning flywheel. The spinning flywheel is what provides power to the wheels. This is incredibly important because the flywheel is not going to instantly stop when there is not an explosion taking place - it has stored energy to keep it spinning so that it can drive the wheels.
With the orion drive, when there is no explosion going on, there is no propulsion. The explosion is driving the wheels directly, so to speak. The only way to possibly counteract this, as far as I my admitantly limited knowledge can guess, is to have a perfect-balanced shock system of some sort to absorb and slowly distribute the force of the explosion evenly until the exact moment of the next explosion. I'll play the ignorant guy, though, and say that I do not believe that system is feasible. Please show me an example of a working system. "This would have worked except" examples need not apply, because they didn't work.
If you can't tell the difference between explosions contained in an internal combustion engine to power the drive shaft vs. being moved forward by the actual explosions, then I can't help you.
speeding up via riding the wave of successive explosions is great for an unmanned craft. For a manned craft, though, I have a couple questions:
1. How will people deal with the psychological effect of the never-ending pounding brought by this type of propulsion?
2. Will scientists avoid this issue by instead strapping people into some kind of suspension and using a fewer number of larger explosions to get up-to-speed per day?
3. What effect would that have on a person physically? We know people can take X G's, but what about being subjected to constant hits like that. If they are stronger, it could have some as-yet unforseen effect on our physiology.
I did not say the 7-11 was unimportant to the athiest. I said the crime that has more influence on his life was more important.
Look, if someone is claiming to be an athiest, but then they are ascribing meaning to a completely unrelated person's life beyond what effect it has on their own life, then perhaps they are not an athiest but some other religion. If they "just don't know what to think" about religion, that's agnosticism.
Athiests, by definition, do not believe in anything other than the purely physical. Therefore, they have no connection with a stranger. It doesn't mean they are bad people, or that they wish harm on others, or even that they don't care about the general condition of their society that would create such a crime. It just means that an athiest will care more about events affecting his OWN life than events that do not.
No, I'm saying exactly what I said in my post. The effect of the millions may be felt by the athiest, but the effect of the 7-11 will not. Therefore, lacking any connection to the 7-11, the trickle-down of the millions is more important.
This was in response, mind you, to a post where someone attacked another poster for pointing out that the 7-11 crime would be prosecuted more harshly than the internet "nobody can get hurt" crime.
If you are an athiest, where life is defined only by what you make of it, the trickle-down effect of millions lost is far more devastating and troubling than some poor replaceable schmuck getting offed for a few hundred bucks from a 7-11 register.
So, to those people, violent crime is a stupid distinction.
There is probably a legal reason that obligates them to warn customers about excessive usage before disconnecting them. If they don't give them a chance, then the customers can sue for reinstatement or reimbursement of damages. However, with the warning letter this allows them to disconnect freely.
Now, the reason they don't specify a number is this: If you get that letter, they have already decided to disconnect you. You are now screwed. However, if they specified a hard condition for you to avoid disconnection, then they would have to comply with that amount. Comcast realizes that in this case, people could behave for awhile, and then go back to offending again. Legally, though, the first letter establishes a precendent that Comcast must warn them before disconnecting. So, in essence, it would make this cycle:
Because Comcast sent the first warning letter, they are now obligated to warn the customer because the customer is expecting a warning due to the precedent already set. Eventually they might build up a case for a flat disconnection, but it will take longer and waste more bandwidth, time, and money.
The interesting thing to see would be this: Has anyone received this letter and *not* been disconnected? If there is a 100% (or close to it) disconnection rate following the warning letter, I think it could be fairly easy to prove that customers were, in fact, being disconnected with no actual warning at all, and the lawyers could have their feast.
/0 does not mess up windows calc. They prepared for the error and it returns "Cannot divide by zero," then lets you continue on your merry way to further calculations.
It is illegal. You just aren't allowed to see the law because the government has classified it "secret." If people were allowed to read the law, the justice department believes it would provide insight to enemies of the state on a possible exploitable vulnerability.
by the way, I'm just making this up, but I bet you believed me. Sad state of affairs we're in.
Their method is viewing fingers as representing perspective, not a physical manipulation. You push your fingers together to focus on a point, ultimately where your fingers meet. You pull them apart to widen your view. It's very intuitive, and I would go so far as to say the standard for this type of interface. Converge to zoom and focus, spread to get the 'big picture'
Slashdot Mirror
Come on . . . you know where this joke is headed.
The patriot act explicitly allows the government to fuck you over with no warrent or due cause if they can trace your transactions internationally. In otherwords, by hosting internationally, your rights are forfeit.
Yes, it sucks. Yes, it's unconstitutional. But it's a lot like taking a crosswalk in front of a speeding semi: Ok, he is in the wrong. You're still dead.
"This certainly doesn't deserve to get thrown onto the traditional dust heap of educational proposals for a half-baked game that nobody will actually play."
You're right. This will be thrown on the dust heap of educational proposals for a well-cooked game that nobody will actually play. This game is toast before it even gets off the floor.
Here's a link:
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/downloads/powertoys/default.mspx
The specific one you want is TweakUI for your OS.
That's why I always put the power tools, available fo-ree from microsoft.com, on any windows computer. I then completely disable autorun.
. . . It just *works*
Being tazed isn't graphic violence -- it's just battery.
Graphic violence is beheadings, disembowelments, people getting hit so hard that their nose crushes and their eyeballs pop out. You know, GRAPHIC violence. When blood starts being shown, it starts getting into graphic territory.
Lets take 100 cases of identity theft from silicone valley. Now lets take 100 cases of identity theft from bucksnort, arkansas. I bet th
You can take smaller samples only from a homogenous larger sample. Fact is that the 3 mil overall represents some extremely different circumstances, and a study would need to take representative samples from each demographic to insure an accurate result. However, we only have samples from the demographic of people who involved the secret service.
Team Leader: Mr. Cheney, please calculate our chances of successfully finding the correct identity theft information from our study of 517 obscure cases of random WMDs in Iraq this time.
Mr. Cheney: 0.0001273% repeating, of course
Mr. Bush: G.DUUUUUUUUUUUUUUB-YAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABUSH!
PEW PEW PEW PEW!
Team Leader: Damnit, G.Dubya!
Mr. Bush: Tacos rule!
And at that point it's better than using a cable because... ?
Because then there are no cables... ?
Because it isn't the parts that cost money, it's the development.
How much $$$ has been spent on development of CD drive technology? It's a very precise laser. That it can be used for this purpose is a lucky side-effect, but it still won't cut it for medical purposes.
The bulk of the car is not what absorbs the explosions in an internal combustion engine. The energy of the explosions is stored by the rotation of the flywheel. This is why people can put a V8 on a (relatively) lightweight motorcycle and it still runs smoothly. The mass of the car has very little to do with it.
Burning Gasoline -> store power in flywheel "kinetic battery" -> distribute energy to driveshaft -> spin tires
The orion concept is based on
Explosion -> move ship forward. There is no flywheel because there would be nothing to apply the flywheel's energy against. The explosion must be directly responsible for moving the ship. So, they have to use what sounds to be a big recoil mechanism that is precision-tuned to release its energy in a completely linear method and over the exact time from when one explosion occurs to the next. Maybe they can do that, maybe they can't. My money is on "nope." Please give me an example where such a system has ever been successfully tested, and I will stand corrected. As you stated before, pulse jets were "incredibly unpleasant to fly," and as such I think you can agree it is not a shining example of our capability in creating a shock system such as this.
An internal combustion engine is storing energy in a spinning flywheel. The spinning flywheel is what provides power to the wheels. This is incredibly important because the flywheel is not going to instantly stop when there is not an explosion taking place - it has stored energy to keep it spinning so that it can drive the wheels.
With the orion drive, when there is no explosion going on, there is no propulsion. The explosion is driving the wheels directly, so to speak. The only way to possibly counteract this, as far as I my admitantly limited knowledge can guess, is to have a perfect-balanced shock system of some sort to absorb and slowly distribute the force of the explosion evenly until the exact moment of the next explosion. I'll play the ignorant guy, though, and say that I do not believe that system is feasible. Please show me an example of a working system. "This would have worked except" examples need not apply, because they didn't work.
If you can't tell the difference between explosions contained in an internal combustion engine to power the drive shaft vs. being moved forward by the actual explosions, then I can't help you.
speeding up via riding the wave of successive explosions is great for an unmanned craft. For a manned craft, though, I have a couple questions:
1. How will people deal with the psychological effect of the never-ending pounding brought by this type of propulsion?
2. Will scientists avoid this issue by instead strapping people into some kind of suspension and using a fewer number of larger explosions to get up-to-speed per day?
3. What effect would that have on a person physically? We know people can take X G's, but what about being subjected to constant hits like that. If they are stronger, it could have some as-yet unforseen effect on our physiology.
I did not say the 7-11 was unimportant to the athiest. I said the crime that has more influence on his life was more important.
Look, if someone is claiming to be an athiest, but then they are ascribing meaning to a completely unrelated person's life beyond what effect it has on their own life, then perhaps they are not an athiest but some other religion. If they "just don't know what to think" about religion, that's agnosticism.
Athiests, by definition, do not believe in anything other than the purely physical. Therefore, they have no connection with a stranger. It doesn't mean they are bad people, or that they wish harm on others, or even that they don't care about the general condition of their society that would create such a crime. It just means that an athiest will care more about events affecting his OWN life than events that do not.
No, I'm saying exactly what I said in my post. The effect of the millions may be felt by the athiest, but the effect of the 7-11 will not. Therefore, lacking any connection to the 7-11, the trickle-down of the millions is more important.
This was in response, mind you, to a post where someone attacked another poster for pointing out that the 7-11 crime would be prosecuted more harshly than the internet "nobody can get hurt" crime.
If you are an athiest, where life is defined only by what you make of it, the trickle-down effect of millions lost is far more devastating and troubling than some poor replaceable schmuck getting offed for a few hundred bucks from a 7-11 register.
So, to those people, violent crime is a stupid distinction.
There is probably a legal reason that obligates them to warn customers about excessive usage before disconnecting them. If they don't give them a chance, then the customers can sue for reinstatement or reimbursement of damages. However, with the warning letter this allows them to disconnect freely.
Now, the reason they don't specify a number is this: If you get that letter, they have already decided to disconnect you. You are now screwed. However, if they specified a hard condition for you to avoid disconnection, then they would have to comply with that amount. Comcast realizes that in this case, people could behave for awhile, and then go back to offending again. Legally, though, the first letter establishes a precendent that Comcast must warn them before disconnecting. So, in essence, it would make this cycle:
Month 1: Abuse, Receive warning
Month 2: Behave
Month 3: Abuse, Receive warning
Month 4: Behave
etc.
Because Comcast sent the first warning letter, they are now obligated to warn the customer because the customer is expecting a warning due to the precedent already set. Eventually they might build up a case for a flat disconnection, but it will take longer and waste more bandwidth, time, and money.
The interesting thing to see would be this: Has anyone received this letter and *not* been disconnected? If there is a 100% (or close to it) disconnection rate following the warning letter, I think it could be fairly easy to prove that customers were, in fact, being disconnected with no actual warning at all, and the lawyers could have their feast.
/0 does not mess up windows calc. They prepared for the error and it returns "Cannot divide by zero," then lets you continue on your merry way to further calculations.
3D Studio/Character Studio
Maya
Autocad
Combustion
All are industry standards.
So, tell me again, what law is it that requires you to show your ID to board an airplane? Can you show it to me, please?
Ohhhhhh . . .
It is illegal. You just aren't allowed to see the law because the government has classified it "secret." If people were allowed to read the law, the justice department believes it would provide insight to enemies of the state on a possible exploitable vulnerability.
by the way, I'm just making this up, but I bet you believed me. Sad state of affairs we're in.
Their method is viewing fingers as representing perspective, not a physical manipulation. You push your fingers together to focus on a point, ultimately where your fingers meet. You pull them apart to widen your view. It's very intuitive, and I would go so far as to say the standard for this type of interface. Converge to zoom and focus, spread to get the 'big picture'
He just sits back and his brain feeds him the answer without any conscious sort of calculation.
Not a run-on?
He just sits back. There is sentence 1.
His brain feeds him the answer without any conscious sort of calculation. There is sentence 2.
And -- There is your conjunction. No comma, though, and that makes it a run-on.
Oh, and to the other poster -- spelling is seperate from grammar. I'm a terrible speller, but I know that is a run-on sentence.