A drug company could release a new drug at any time, so long as they understood they could get the crap sued out of them like things are now. So as soon as they (and their insurance company) had enough confidence in their new drug that the potential for lawsuits was enough smaller than the likely sales they could start selling.
And if you kill a few thousand people while waiting for all that to shake out, what matter? I guess that's somehow better than killing them by making them wait?
The article excludes embryonic stem cells artificially, probably because the author didn't want to start a fight, even though everything he says applies to embryonic cells too. He's a coward
Under discussion are stem cells which come from the individual needing them - by definition, these can't be embryonic stem cells.
Meh, if you sign a waiver you can pay a doctor to do anything to you.. short of deliberately killing you.. the legality of that varies from state to state.
If the FDA prevents the many variants of "anything" from being available, then this doesn't help much...
If someone loves life (or fears death sufficiently)... that argument isn't any good;) A life of pain is better than death for most of us human animals - I suspect we're just wired that way, for the most part.
Not that I disagree with your overall sentiment - I don't. That choice should not be denied; just saying that you might be surprised at which option many people take.
I'm dubious about allowing ANYONE or ANY organization the right to forbid treatments of any nature. It's reasonable that organizations should own a trademark, and be able to restrict the use of such a trademark to those things that they have approved, but not that they should forbid the sale or use of non-approved items.
The problem is the flip side of this argument. Without such regulation, you'll have every scumbag in the world selling useless snakeoil at a premium price - and people who are desperate will pay that price, no matter that the only thing in its favor is that the scumbag is a convincing salesman.
There needs to be a middle ground that gets the genuine experimental and natural remedies to people who could benefit; while still preventing the situation above.
I think the project you are lookingfor is mAngband (multiplayer Angband). It is an expanded and refined rougelike game that has been extensively rewritten for mutiplayer play. Specifically Angband is based or Moria and uMoria which was based off Rouge. I believe Nethack forked off from Moria as well so it could go a different direction. The official site for vannila Angband is http://rephial.org/play [rephial.org] An out of data page with a number of Angband variant listed is at http://thangorodrim.net/ [thangorodrim.net] and http://www.mangband.org/ [mangband.org] is the homepage for multiplayer Angband
Personally, sign me up for this: RISUG [wikipedia.org]
INteresting but whenever I see something like this:
The effect the chemical has on sperm is not completely understood. Originally it was thought that it lowered the pH of the environment enough to kill the sperm.[1] More recent research claims that this is not enough to explain the effect.
...it gives me a rather squidgy feeling about having something injected into me (or otherwise put into my system). We don't understand how it works, yet we presume to know that there will be no long-term side effects based on a few years of trials?
No insult intended. Just pointing out how your post read - and how it/still/ reads to me, even after going back and checking it again.
Actually, I don't even HAVE a blog--I was merely pointing out that if you personally don't write stuff that would violate this law, then there would be no way for you to be in violation of the law. Disagree with a law all you want, but your only recourse, if this thing were to pass, would be to challenge its constitutionality. You don't get to make the rules about what is constitutional or not, is all I'm saying. Your interpretation of the constitution, surprise, is not the final say, as much as you'd probably like to think it is.
I agree. The important thing, then, is that this bill not pass. And saying that "well, I won't run afoul of this law in MY posts" comes across as taking a very easy way out of getting involved. Easy, but dangerous because of the implications should this law pass - as you say, we have no guarantee that it will be found unconstitutional.
You should have read more than the headline because frankly, the headline sucks. This bill strives to make "severe, repeated, and hostile" speech used in cyberbullying a criminal offense. Since MY blog doesn't have any of that stuff, this bill would not be able to declare my blog a weapon. By no means am I supporting this bill, but also by no means do I consider this alarmist headline to have any validity.
Does someone really have to trot out the tired old "At first they came for..." list for the risks to be evident?
Redirects work in all browsers, and while I can't speak for Firefox, at least MSIE 8 will warn you of a possible cross domain phishing attempt.
Firefox + noscript will block XSS attempts.
It will also conveniently unblock advertisements, overriding adblock plus in order to let you see that advertising content that the developers feel you should see. So much for smug superiority...
There are plenty of reasons why it hasn't happened. For one, it's incredibly drastic. For two, there's no telling how MS would react (a company that size and importance can hurt the EU pretty bad if they were backed into a corner). For three, the US government would be furious. But that doesn't mean to say the EU can't hold that axe over MS's head for as long as like...
But could they enforce it? If MS just closed up any EU offices (bad for economy, probably bad for MS's bottom line) but continued to sell products to the EU member nations...
That actually makes sense - if all you ahve to do is pay a fine, but can continue the same behavior, why not do so?
But how do they "force" MS to do anything? Will they make retailers pull it off the shelves? Pretty unlikely, since that would cause the retailers to lose money - there are no suitable alternatives that people will spend the same kind of money on. Not to mention that people will just pirate it...
I think fines are about the limit. And if Microsoft decides not to pay them, there may not a whole lot more that the EU can do*.
*stated with the ignorance of someone who is completely unfamiliar with the actual authority and abilities of the EU, I welcome correction and info.
Why not? What harm to you if they wish to delude themselves? Does their defiance of logic just offend you so much that you have to "correct" them. Or shall I say "convert" them to your logic-based beliefs?
f you'll allow an art analogy (sorry, can't think of one involving cars), take a painting by Jackson Pollock and compare it to accidentally dropping a bucket of paint.
JP may have/thought/ he was making great art, but mostly he helped to ushered in a new age of people slathering paint randomly on canvas and calling it art. Personally, I think he did it for the sheer amusement value involved in watching people trying to figure out what the heck it "meant".
This isn't to say that I disagree with your point on the subject at hand... I don't. Just suggesting that Jackson Pollock may not be the best example to make that point...
Normally these people are supposed to be forced to do without the game, but the Internet effectively breaks the system.
I would argue that it is these individuals' sense of entitlement that breaks the system. Nobody forces them to download the game; they are, in fact, perfectly capable of/not/ doing so. However, they feel they have a "right" to the game, so this option will quite literally never occur to most of them.
Games are no different. If it's not worth $50 for 8 hours of game play, don't play it.
The possibility that these people should do without something they can't afford doesn't occur to them - and indeed as you've seen, they get mighty pissed off at the merest suggestion that this be true.
People will come up with all kinds of justifications for their thievery. If the price were $1, they'd still find an excuse - but even worse are those who don't think about it at all. There's a depressing large number of people to whom it never occurs to pay for something - why would it, when they can just download it for free?
When questioned on it, they'll come up with every excuse in the book to justify their sense of entitlement.
Maybe to them, it's because nobody gets hurt when the only thing taken is the investment of time and money that others have made to provide the game? But no matter what, they'll never, ever admit that if there's something they want, but can't afford - maybe they should just do without it.
And Stardock realizes that. They've made a tough choice by accepting that, and catering to those who are willing to pay for the goods and services they want to use instead of stealing them.
Slashdot Mirror
A drug company could release a new drug at any time, so long as they understood they could get the crap sued out of them like things are now. So as soon as they (and their insurance company) had enough confidence in their new drug that the potential for lawsuits was enough smaller than the likely sales they could start selling.
And if you kill a few thousand people while waiting for all that to shake out, what matter? I guess that's somehow better than killing them by making them wait?
The article excludes embryonic stem cells artificially, probably because the author didn't want to start a fight, even though everything he says applies to embryonic cells too. He's a coward
Under discussion are stem cells which come from the individual needing them - by definition, these can't be embryonic stem cells.
Meh, if you sign a waiver you can pay a doctor to do anything to you.. short of deliberately killing you.. the legality of that varies from state to state.
If the FDA prevents the many variants of "anything" from being available, then this doesn't help much...
If someone loves life (or fears death sufficiently)... that argument isn't any good ;) A life of pain is better than death for most of us human animals - I suspect we're just wired that way, for the most part.
Not that I disagree with your overall sentiment - I don't. That choice should not be denied; just saying that you might be surprised at which option many people take.
I'm dubious about allowing ANYONE or ANY organization the right to forbid treatments of any nature. It's reasonable that organizations should own a trademark, and be able to restrict the use of such a trademark to those things that they have approved, but not that they should forbid the sale or use of non-approved items.
The problem is the flip side of this argument. Without such regulation, you'll have every scumbag in the world selling useless snakeoil at a premium price - and people who are desperate will pay that price, no matter that the only thing in its favor is that the scumbag is a convincing salesman.
There needs to be a middle ground that gets the genuine experimental and natural remedies to people who could benefit; while still preventing the situation above.
Nethack was derived from Rogue.
I think the project you are lookingfor is mAngband (multiplayer Angband). It is an expanded and refined rougelike game that has been extensively rewritten for mutiplayer play. Specifically Angband is based or Moria and uMoria which was based off Rouge. I believe Nethack forked off from Moria as well so it could go a different direction. The official site for vannila Angband is http://rephial.org/play [rephial.org] An out of data page with a number of Angband variant listed is at http://thangorodrim.net/ [thangorodrim.net] and http://www.mangband.org/ [mangband.org] is the homepage for multiplayer Angband
What I saw...
blah blah blah blah ROUGE blah blah blah blah ROUGELIKE blah blah blah blah
ROGUE DAMNIT! ROGUE!
Personally, sign me up for this: RISUG [wikipedia.org]
INteresting but whenever I see something like this:
The effect the chemical has on sperm is not completely understood. Originally it was thought that it lowered the pH of the environment enough to kill the sperm.[1] More recent research claims that this is not enough to explain the effect.
...it gives me a rather squidgy feeling about having something injected into me (or otherwise put into my system). We don't understand how it works, yet we presume to know that there will be no long-term side effects based on a few years of trials?
Actually, I don't even HAVE a blog--I was merely pointing out that if you personally don't write stuff that would violate this law, then there would be no way for you to be in violation of the law. Disagree with a law all you want, but your only recourse, if this thing were to pass, would be to challenge its constitutionality. You don't get to make the rules about what is constitutional or not, is all I'm saying. Your interpretation of the constitution, surprise, is not the final say, as much as you'd probably like to think it is.
I agree. The important thing, then, is that this bill not pass. And saying that "well, I won't run afoul of this law in MY posts" comes across as taking a very easy way out of getting involved. Easy, but dangerous because of the implications should this law pass - as you say, we have no guarantee that it will be found unconstitutional.
Thanks for the info. Sigh. We will now be returning you to your regularly scheduled smug superiority.
You should have read more than the headline because frankly, the headline sucks. This bill strives to make "severe, repeated, and hostile" speech used in cyberbullying a criminal offense. Since MY blog doesn't have any of that stuff, this bill would not be able to declare my blog a weapon. By no means am I supporting this bill, but also by no means do I consider this alarmist headline to have any validity.
Does someone really have to trot out the tired old "At first they came for..." list for the risks to be evident?
Redirects work in all browsers, and while I can't speak for Firefox, at least MSIE 8 will warn you of a possible cross domain phishing attempt.
Firefox + noscript will block XSS attempts.
It will also conveniently unblock advertisements, overriding adblock plus in order to let you see that advertising content that the developers feel you should see. So much for smug superiority...
I looked around for this, but couldn't find any reference to prison/jail time - do you have any links?
There are plenty of reasons why it hasn't happened. For one, it's incredibly drastic. For two, there's no telling how MS would react (a company that size and importance can hurt the EU pretty bad if they were backed into a corner). For three, the US government would be furious. But that doesn't mean to say the EU can't hold that axe over MS's head for as long as like...
But could they enforce it? If MS just closed up any EU offices (bad for economy, probably bad for MS's bottom line) but continued to sell products to the EU member nations...
That's well within the authority of any country which MS operates in.
I'd actually hazard a guess that this would be quite illegal in most countries that they operate in.
That actually makes sense - if all you ahve to do is pay a fine, but can continue the same behavior, why not do so?
But how do they "force" MS to do anything? Will they make retailers pull it off the shelves? Pretty unlikely, since that would cause the retailers to lose money - there are no suitable alternatives that people will spend the same kind of money on. Not to mention that people will just pirate it...
I think fines are about the limit. And if Microsoft decides not to pay them, there may not a whole lot more that the EU can do*.
*stated with the ignorance of someone who is completely unfamiliar with the actual authority and abilities of the EU, I welcome correction and info.
Why not? What harm to you if they wish to delude themselves? Does their defiance of logic just offend you so much that you have to "correct" them. Or shall I say "convert" them to your logic-based beliefs?
f you'll allow an art analogy (sorry, can't think of one involving cars), take a painting by Jackson Pollock and compare it to accidentally dropping a bucket of paint.
Actually, I did and fail to see the difference.
JP may have /thought/ he was making great art, but mostly he helped to ushered in a new age of people slathering paint randomly on canvas and calling it art. Personally, I think he did it for the sheer amusement value involved in watching people trying to figure out what the heck it "meant".
This isn't to say that I disagree with your point on the subject at hand... I don't. Just suggesting that Jackson Pollock may not be the best example to make that point...
Seems to be more true than not -- I was giving what benefit of the doubt I could manage.
first post
I think someone should explain to you how this works.
A news article published by the People's Daily is proof?
And conveniently, this belief allows you to download whatever you want without paying for it. Isn't it great how that works out for you?
Normally these people are supposed to be forced to do without the game, but the Internet effectively breaks the system.
I would argue that it is these individuals' sense of entitlement that breaks the system. Nobody forces them to download the game; they are, in fact, perfectly capable of /not/ doing so. However, they feel they have a "right" to the game, so this option will quite literally never occur to most of them.
Well said.
Games are no different. If it's not worth $50 for 8 hours of game play, don't play it.
The possibility that these people should do without something they can't afford doesn't occur to them - and indeed as you've seen, they get mighty pissed off at the merest suggestion that this be true.
People will come up with all kinds of justifications for their thievery. If the price were $1, they'd still find an excuse - but even worse are those who don't think about it at all. There's a depressing large number of people to whom it never occurs to pay for something - why would it, when they can just download it for free?
When questioned on it, they'll come up with every excuse in the book to justify their sense of entitlement.
Maybe to them, it's because nobody gets hurt when the only thing taken is the investment of time and money that others have made to provide the game? But no matter what, they'll never, ever admit that if there's something they want, but can't afford - maybe they should just do without it.
And Stardock realizes that. They've made a tough choice by accepting that, and catering to those who are willing to pay for the goods and services they want to use instead of stealing them.