As the son of a cop, I can assure you that most cops themselves would disagree with you. When the blue-and-whites are not on, it is dangerous to break traffic laws... Period. However, when those lights are on, it is perfectly fine to break traffic laws if done cautiously (don't go flying through a red light, but edge up to it with the siren on, and once all motorists have yielded, go through).
This really shouldn't be a big issue at all. If there is an emergency, then there is NO reason why motorists can't just stop and let the cop (or ambulance) cautiously pass through the light. And if there is not an emergency, the emergency vehicles should be obeying all normal traffic laws like everyone else.
However, one major problem I feel is motorists not yielding to emergency vehicles. I cannot stand fuckers who think it is more important for them to get to work 1 minute sooner than let a possibly dying person get to medical attention, and every time I see it, I hope it is their wife/husband in the ambulance. I feel the penalties for not yielding to emergency vehicles should be similar to passing a school bus when their lights are on ($100-$200 fine) or greater.
What if they had done it to another student? Would you feel the same way? What if the students posted a fake Myspace profile for your child mentioning that he is homosexual and wants to become transgendered, enjoys copious amounts of Heroin and Steroids and frequently has sex with strangers. Is that such a minor act? For me, yes.
As for the employer issue, any employer that uses MySpace profiles to determine the viability of a candidate has a serious issue to be dealt with.
Just Google "browncoats" and you'll see that the Firefly franchise already has an extensive and very very loyal following, and I don't see this fading so quickly.
This is entirely my own opinion, but I feel true sentience is obvious to outside observation when something (machine or otherwise) questions its existence and wonders if it is intelligent without outside intervention.
If we ever created a truly sentient robot, it would have to be given rights. That's not debatable.
What is debatable is, when do we know a robot is sentient? We barely have a definition for sentience, much less a method for identifying it's existence in a machine. Until we figure that out, it will be near impossible to tell if a robot is sentient or just really well programmed.
Seriously. No offense to wherever you go, but I know of no one... Literally, not a single person... who does not have a Gmail account, much less heard of Gmail.
For HL2, the delays were worth it, because you were looking at getting a 40+ hour game with super-cutting edge graphics, and, of course, the innovative and captivating story-telling that Valve is famous for.
While I may not be heart-broken about this delay, it isn't the same as the delay for HL2. Why? Because I am not going to be getting a full game, but an episode, with 4-5 hours of play at the most. The whole reason Valve said they were moving to episodic content was so they could release games very regularly, and while the wait between HL2 and HL2:EP1, and now EP1 to EP2 is not nearly as long as HL1 to HL2, it still is much longer than was expected and announced.
Waiting nearly a year and a half for 4 hours of fun is not the same as waiting several years for 40-50 hours of fun.
Oh, I'm not arguing against lowering the drinking age at all! 21 is a ridiculous age to set the legality of consuming alcohol at, and I didn't wait until then myself (first drink, besides random sips of beer, was 18). I'm just saying you shouldn't HAVE to lower it just so people don't act like jackasses.
But, yes, it should by 18 or younger. 16 even sounds like a good age to start.
That, I believe, is more of an individual action, however. I had never had a drink before age 18, and I have never been truly drunk (personal decision). I am now 23, and still don't drink heavily. I have some wine here and there, some beer, and maybe a shot or two, but never anything heavy. It's called discipline, and it is something you don't have to start drinking at age 12 to learn. It's just unfortunate that most American kids (my generation) have not learned that.
Another interesting problem in the format war could be the name HD-DVD. To many, that sounds too much like their current standard "DVD".
While we may have no problems understanding these naming issues, I've heard many people thinking that HD-DVD is just an upgrade to the DVD format, and some even think that they will work in their current players. If there is no backwards compatibility, a lot of people may be angry when they buy a new player and discover, to their dismay, that their huge DVD collection does not play on their new HD-DVD player.
Years ago, we bought only the tapes of the movies we absolutely wanted. Now, I have nearly 100 DVD's worth nearly $2000 or so.
Personally, I want an HD compatible player and an HDTV, but I am not the norm. I am, and always have been, a technophile, so I want all the latest toys. I enjoy setting them up and seeing the new-ness. But most people are more than content with DVD, since the quality is very good already, especially when compared to VHS. And while my $2000 collection may seem like a lot, I personally know many people with collections exceeding $5000, and those people are definately not ready to re-buy.
The one mitigating factor MIGHT be backwards-compatible players. I am not sure about the feasibility of this, but if you could buy a player that played BOTH DVD and HD-DVD/Blu-ray, a LOT more people would be willing to move to HD formats, because that way they wouldn't have to re-buy all their movies or use 2 players and 2 different hook-ups, and can just buy all their NEW movies (and re-buy their favorites) in the HD format.
You are correct, as long as the integration is well done, there will be no problem. And Google DOES have a good track record of integrating free and for-pay content in the same service. It just will be interesting to see how the transition from "100% free content created entirely by end-users" becomes "a mix of commercial generated for-pay videos combined with free user-generated videos".
You missed my point entirely. Yes, the vast majority of YouTube content would still be free, as is Google Video, but as of now everything, without exception, is free on YouTube, whereas commercial content (TV shows, as you say) are for pay on Google Video. Therefore, my curiosity lies in whether or not those shows will be moving to YouTube (if GV becomes search-only), and if so, how will the paying process be integrated into the previously-completely-free YouTube.
I was wondering how the acquisition of YouTube would affect their Google Video service, which was always far behind its competition. However, this also means that some YouTube content will now be sold, which detracts from one of the allures it has always had, which was that all content was free and accessible.
I wonder if Google has plans to Google-fy the YouTube look (they'll likely hold onto the brand name, but the look and feel are very changeable)?
Err... While that code should easily render properly in a browser, that wouldn't validate. The tags should be lowercase, not uppercase, you didn't terminate your tags:
<img src="test.jpg"/>
...and you didn't put the; after your final style in each
While I am no fan of the current administration, I certainly don't see the practices of the MPAA/RIAA changing in any way regardless of the party in power. They're gonna keep doing what they do, and no one is going to stop them, because, despite protests otherwise, it is not just Republicans that are influenced by corporate lobbyists, but Democrats as well, and everyone in between. It's just kind of the nature of politics.
The main problem is our culture: Waivers are so common-place nowadays, that most people don't even consider them as any measure of warning, but rather just "the corporation covering their asses".
A few years back, a local amusement park started having people sign waivers to enter the park. The explanation was that, a few weeks prior, an accident had occurred at an amusement park in another state, and a lawsuit ensued, and the park was just trying to protect itself. Seemed reasonable to me, so I signed, went in, and had a good time.
This kind of business practice of "waiving every activity to prevent lawsuits" has become so ubiquitous, that I wouldn't even think twice if I was asked to sign a liability waiver for entering a library. Don't get me wrong, I'd READ the waiver, of course, to look for anything overly suspicious, but for the most part, these kinds of waivers are no longer a means for considering potential danger.
I have mod points, but sadly I've already posted in this forum. So, instead of modding you up, I'll just say: Bravo! I'm tired of hearing the "sale is evil!" crap that a tremendous number of people perpetrate.
The ultimate point of origin is the dawn of the universe, which expanded and cooled to spawn the various galaxies, then solar systems, one of which eventually contained a planet with sufficient atmospheric composition to spring forth life, which then evolved into semi-intelligent species of creatures, one of which continued to evolve into even more intellectually capable creatures, who then formed complex societies, and even entities called "corporations", one of which came into being in the 1800's (the calendar... another creation with the ultimate origin being the dawn of the universe) called Nintendo which made playing cards, and eventually almost a century later made a game console with "moving pictures" called the NES, which spawned the gaming age where companies competed for the best console available, which continued until the company decided to release a console called the Wii to compete with other companies.
Your analogy doesn't make much sense, however, because smoking literally has no benefits whatsoever, and has very immediate and lasting physical detriments to make it obvious to the user that something is amiss. Water, however, is almost always beneficial and often creates GOOD feelings. Ever been exhausted after some physical activity on a hot day, and guzzled a glass of water? It's refreshing, invigorating and often creates more energy.
Water IS good for you, but just like EVERYTHING that is good for you, too much makes it bad for you. Everything in excess can be dangerous.
Slashdot Mirror
What the shitting shit? Do you KNOW that person? Because if so, you have to kill them... For the good of all mankind!
As the son of a cop, I can assure you that most cops themselves would disagree with you. When the blue-and-whites are not on, it is dangerous to break traffic laws... Period. However, when those lights are on, it is perfectly fine to break traffic laws if done cautiously (don't go flying through a red light, but edge up to it with the siren on, and once all motorists have yielded, go through). This really shouldn't be a big issue at all. If there is an emergency, then there is NO reason why motorists can't just stop and let the cop (or ambulance) cautiously pass through the light. And if there is not an emergency, the emergency vehicles should be obeying all normal traffic laws like everyone else. However, one major problem I feel is motorists not yielding to emergency vehicles. I cannot stand fuckers who think it is more important for them to get to work 1 minute sooner than let a possibly dying person get to medical attention, and every time I see it, I hope it is their wife/husband in the ambulance. I feel the penalties for not yielding to emergency vehicles should be similar to passing a school bus when their lights are on ($100-$200 fine) or greater.
Just Google "browncoats" and you'll see that the Firefly franchise already has an extensive and very very loyal following, and I don't see this fading so quickly.
That's just pure opinion. Where do you people get the nuts to propagate your opinions as fact all the time?
This is entirely my own opinion, but I feel true sentience is obvious to outside observation when something (machine or otherwise) questions its existence and wonders if it is intelligent without outside intervention.
If we ever created a truly sentient robot, it would have to be given rights. That's not debatable.
What is debatable is, when do we know a robot is sentient? We barely have a definition for sentience, much less a method for identifying it's existence in a machine. Until we figure that out, it will be near impossible to tell if a robot is sentient or just really well programmed.
I sure hope so, so that way he can directly voice his opposition to the movie I, Robot.
I... I have no words. None. Poor woman. I hope this man spends a great deal longer in jail than he can stand.
Seriously. No offense to wherever you go, but I know of no one... Literally, not a single person... who does not have a Gmail account, much less heard of Gmail.
For HL2, the delays were worth it, because you were looking at getting a 40+ hour game with super-cutting edge graphics, and, of course, the innovative and captivating story-telling that Valve is famous for.
While I may not be heart-broken about this delay, it isn't the same as the delay for HL2. Why? Because I am not going to be getting a full game, but an episode, with 4-5 hours of play at the most. The whole reason Valve said they were moving to episodic content was so they could release games very regularly, and while the wait between HL2 and HL2:EP1, and now EP1 to EP2 is not nearly as long as HL1 to HL2, it still is much longer than was expected and announced.
Waiting nearly a year and a half for 4 hours of fun is not the same as waiting several years for 40-50 hours of fun.
Oh, I'm not arguing against lowering the drinking age at all! 21 is a ridiculous age to set the legality of consuming alcohol at, and I didn't wait until then myself (first drink, besides random sips of beer, was 18). I'm just saying you shouldn't HAVE to lower it just so people don't act like jackasses.
But, yes, it should by 18 or younger. 16 even sounds like a good age to start.
That, I believe, is more of an individual action, however. I had never had a drink before age 18, and I have never been truly drunk (personal decision). I am now 23, and still don't drink heavily. I have some wine here and there, some beer, and maybe a shot or two, but never anything heavy. It's called discipline, and it is something you don't have to start drinking at age 12 to learn. It's just unfortunate that most American kids (my generation) have not learned that.
You buy brand new Special Edition DVD sets for $4? Where the hell do you shop??
Another interesting problem in the format war could be the name HD-DVD. To many, that sounds too much like their current standard "DVD".
While we may have no problems understanding these naming issues, I've heard many people thinking that HD-DVD is just an upgrade to the DVD format, and some even think that they will work in their current players. If there is no backwards compatibility, a lot of people may be angry when they buy a new player and discover, to their dismay, that their huge DVD collection does not play on their new HD-DVD player.
This is absolutely true.
Years ago, we bought only the tapes of the movies we absolutely wanted. Now, I have nearly 100 DVD's worth nearly $2000 or so.
Personally, I want an HD compatible player and an HDTV, but I am not the norm. I am, and always have been, a technophile, so I want all the latest toys. I enjoy setting them up and seeing the new-ness. But most people are more than content with DVD, since the quality is very good already, especially when compared to VHS. And while my $2000 collection may seem like a lot, I personally know many people with collections exceeding $5000, and those people are definately not ready to re-buy.
The one mitigating factor MIGHT be backwards-compatible players. I am not sure about the feasibility of this, but if you could buy a player that played BOTH DVD and HD-DVD/Blu-ray, a LOT more people would be willing to move to HD formats, because that way they wouldn't have to re-buy all their movies or use 2 players and 2 different hook-ups, and can just buy all their NEW movies (and re-buy their favorites) in the HD format.
You are correct, as long as the integration is well done, there will be no problem. And Google DOES have a good track record of integrating free and for-pay content in the same service. It just will be interesting to see how the transition from "100% free content created entirely by end-users" becomes "a mix of commercial generated for-pay videos combined with free user-generated videos".
You missed my point entirely. Yes, the vast majority of YouTube content would still be free, as is Google Video, but as of now everything, without exception, is free on YouTube, whereas commercial content (TV shows, as you say) are for pay on Google Video. Therefore, my curiosity lies in whether or not those shows will be moving to YouTube (if GV becomes search-only), and if so, how will the paying process be integrated into the previously-completely-free YouTube.
I was wondering how the acquisition of YouTube would affect their Google Video service, which was always far behind its competition. However, this also means that some YouTube content will now be sold, which detracts from one of the allures it has always had, which was that all content was free and accessible.
I wonder if Google has plans to Google-fy the YouTube look (they'll likely hold onto the brand name, but the look and feel are very changeable)?
While I am no fan of the current administration, I certainly don't see the practices of the MPAA/RIAA changing in any way regardless of the party in power. They're gonna keep doing what they do, and no one is going to stop them, because, despite protests otherwise, it is not just Republicans that are influenced by corporate lobbyists, but Democrats as well, and everyone in between. It's just kind of the nature of politics.
The main problem is our culture: Waivers are so common-place nowadays, that most people don't even consider them as any measure of warning, but rather just "the corporation covering their asses".
A few years back, a local amusement park started having people sign waivers to enter the park. The explanation was that, a few weeks prior, an accident had occurred at an amusement park in another state, and a lawsuit ensued, and the park was just trying to protect itself. Seemed reasonable to me, so I signed, went in, and had a good time.
This kind of business practice of "waiving every activity to prevent lawsuits" has become so ubiquitous, that I wouldn't even think twice if I was asked to sign a liability waiver for entering a library. Don't get me wrong, I'd READ the waiver, of course, to look for anything overly suspicious, but for the most part, these kinds of waivers are no longer a means for considering potential danger.
I have mod points, but sadly I've already posted in this forum. So, instead of modding you up, I'll just say: Bravo! I'm tired of hearing the "sale is evil!" crap that a tremendous number of people perpetrate.
The ultimate point of origin is the dawn of the universe, which expanded and cooled to spawn the various galaxies, then solar systems, one of which eventually contained a planet with sufficient atmospheric composition to spring forth life, which then evolved into semi-intelligent species of creatures, one of which continued to evolve into even more intellectually capable creatures, who then formed complex societies, and even entities called "corporations", one of which came into being in the 1800's (the calendar... another creation with the ultimate origin being the dawn of the universe) called Nintendo which made playing cards, and eventually almost a century later made a game console with "moving pictures" called the NES, which spawned the gaming age where companies competed for the best console available, which continued until the company decided to release a console called the Wii to compete with other companies.
Your analogy doesn't make much sense, however, because smoking literally has no benefits whatsoever, and has very immediate and lasting physical detriments to make it obvious to the user that something is amiss. Water, however, is almost always beneficial and often creates GOOD feelings. Ever been exhausted after some physical activity on a hot day, and guzzled a glass of water? It's refreshing, invigorating and often creates more energy.
Water IS good for you, but just like EVERYTHING that is good for you, too much makes it bad for you. Everything in excess can be dangerous.