Which begs the question, does it really matter what I do? This sort of theory, whilst understandable, seems to indicate that existance is moot. I could sit here and not go to uni, fail my exams, and become a bum, because I know full-well that in one of my timelines I went to uni, studied hard, and became a software engineer for Microsoft. So the only thing we get to choose is which of these timelines we get to follow... like those 'make-your-own story' books.
You don't seem to realise the owners of the buildings damaged in the 9/11 attacks recieved more money, through certain deals performed just beforehand, than the cost of the damage itself. You are, however, correct in the tone of your post: it's costing the government (the organisation, not the people at the top of it) a hell of a lot to sort it out, and they don't see a pinch of the private profit that certain people made from 9/11.
The problem with McCarthy was that anyone who didn't praise the flag and the American Dream at every given opportunity was immediately a 'Communist' and black-listed. Relatives in the Eastern Bloc? Communist! Last name ending in '-ev' or '-ov'? Communist! Written a play, book, or film unfavourable to the U.S. Government? Communist!
It was a socio-political pogrom perpertrated in the interests of scaring the nation into anti-Communist sentiment.
I watched this live on the net hoping to catch a glimpse of some revolutionary stuff. Something to redeem the message that Sony has been sending out these past few years about the PS3: "We don't know what we're doing. We hate you, we hate games, we hate gamers, and we hate gimmicks. We might just top ourselves instead of bringing out this console."
What did I catch a glimpse of instead? Pre-render after pre-render after pre-render. They were so ridiculously worried about making sure we thought they were running live PS3 demos it was almost embarrasing. To paraphrase: "Hi. Live on PS3 we've got some live on PS3 games to show you live on the PS3. Live on the PS3 we'll be showing you live on the PS3 some demonstrations live on the PS3 of blah blah 3, live on the PS3. Also, live on the PS3 we've got a live on the PS3 trailer from Hideo 'Live on the PS3' Kojima for MGS4, live on the PS3. Take a look at our new controller, which we'll be demonstrating live on the PS3 in a moment, where you can see we've got the original PS2 controller, minus the parts we got su-- I mean the part that interfered with the operation of the controller-- and we've added a nice litte Xbox Guide button for you, some triggers, and a piss-poor rendition of the thing Nintendo are doing that we called a gimmick so recently. That's right folks, we've got tilt-sensors in the controller. Allow me to plug this into the PS3, live of course, and demonstrate it live on the PS3. s you see, live on the PS3 we can use this controller to play a flight sim live on the PS3. We can controll yaw, roll, etc. live on the PS3 using the 6-way (trust me it's awesome) tilt sensor."
If I was Kutaragi today, I would have been embarrased to have to walk out on stage and show that controller off. It basically said "We know you think we're evil after all the other shit we pulled. What the fuck difference is this gonna make? Here's your fucking controller you zealots. Eat it."
Looks like I'm going to be abandoning those plans to get a PS3 then. PC upgrades, here we go.
'Take your pony to the next watering station.'...
'Brush her hair'..... okayyy...
'Your pony died because it wasn't pretty enough'..... *screams with distress*
I love this name. Revolution was cool, and this isn't quite as cool, but you look at what it means and it's a fine name. It says everything Nintendo are aiming for. They're not blindly going for powerhouse names for powerhouse consoles, because we all know that's not what Nintendo are trying to do.
One thing I also love about this name is the puns that idiots are coming out with. "wanna come back to mine, play with my wii?" is the funniest I've seen so far, and yet somehow the same people argue that Nintendo are childish..............
I consider myself a hardcore gamer, and I love the name, as do all my mates, so the assertion that hardcore gamers will all hate it is a bit off. Of course most games magazines consider hardcore gamers to be those willing to kill to get [i]x new console[/i] first.
Are you suggesting that LG is going to do something [i]without[/i] Samsung having already done it? Five years of copying Samsung designs and hardware and they're just going to throw that lucrative business practice out the window. Shocking.
I'm sure if the government cuts a missile from its annual defence budget it will more than cover the cost of the research. NASA isn't where budget cuts need to come from.
The registrars would be lucky to find even one of those 526,000+ Michael Smiths who are willing to shell out a subscription for an obscure contact card.
I was intentionally misquoting, but I was accidentally quoting, if you get my meaning. I didn't actually mean to enquote the phrase, just to put it in italics... I meant that just because people refuse to believe it, (i.e. they aren't paranoid/concerned about it) does mean that it is not happening.
What it tells me is that they could give a shit about terrorism. The important thing to them is achieving the mass mindrape. Watch everyone, exploit everyone, fear no one.
That quote is so over used it's pathetic. It's also totally incorrect..
Lets say a rapist gets into your house and you have your daughter with you. You can lock yourself in a room (hence safety, but can't go any where yet freedom), to protect her. You only have to give it up untill he's gone, now it may just be me but I think I know what I'd do. Do I suddenly not deserve freedom any more?
Please don't use bullshit quotes, every parrot can repeat them and they never mean anything the parrot thinks.
Do you actually understand what you're talking about? Scratch that, do you actually understand anything?
Bingo. Most sensical post I've seen so far in a/. comments dominated by politics. Bravo, sir, for having the guts say those facts despite the slanging match that may result from the right-of-field.
Remember, folks, "Just 'cause you're not paranoid, don't mean they're not after you."
Despite the U.K.'s constitution being uncodified and distributed amongst centuries of common law and precedent, it is remarkably strong for a constitution that is not present as a document that can be referred to. You are partly correct, however, in saying that it is up to Parliament to decide what the constitution is, as the House of Lords would take this matter into hand as it is not just the upper legislative body, but also the highest court in the Land, such as the U.S. Supreme Court is over on that side of the pond.
Unfortunately, since the abolition of hereditary peers, the vacuum has been filled with the highest bidders for the seats, and these tend to be Labour Party people since the Prime Minister appoints them.
We tried to change too much too quickly, as is the way with Labour's 'modernisation' that it has been chasing for a decade now. I feel it will not be long (compared to the length of our nation's history) before this system we cobbled together in the first place, and are now remove the bricks from piece by piece, will crumble down. Either that, or the citizens will be forced to carry it on their backs as the government whips and shouts at the slaves that we become.
Indeed so. Also, it is illegal for the Commons to discuss the abolition of the Monarchy... so if we wanted to replace it with something that worked a bit better, we'd have two options:
No, it would be like the House passing a law that would make it possible for the White House to sign in its own legislation without the House or the Senate being able to vote on the legislation.
What I don't get about all the brou-ha-ha that this Bill is kicking up is the section on negative, affirmative, and super-affirmative resolution. To my reading, it basically states that should a minister (member of the executive in the Commons) wish to use this Bill to 'amend, repeal, or replace' legislation, they submit it to Parliament just so Parliament at least knows what's going on (happens a lot in U.K. politics, e.g. our Prime Minister can go to war, only having to inform Parliament that he is doing so). When the Minister submits this notification to Parliement, they submit it in one of three resolutions: negative, affirmative, or super-affirmative. Negative resolution means orders provided by the legislation may immediately be issued, so long as Parliament does not vote and say "No, we're not so sure about that one - we want it to be affirmative or super-affirmative" and have the minister resubmit it in which ever of the other two resolutions they demand. Affirmative resolution means it must first pass through both houses of Parliament (Commons, then Tony's Cronies [the Lords]) before orders provided by the legislation can be issued. Super-affirmative resolution is even stricter, and although I cannot remember the details, if I recall correctly the minister must bear regard to affected parties and notify them, along with some other stuff. There are deadlines attached, and if I'm reading the jumbled speel that is the language of legislation, if these deadlines are overrun, then the submitted action fails.
However, political correspondents for major U.K. newspapers seem to disagree, and chances are they know more than I, who only studied U.K. politics a year and a half ago.
Slashdot Mirror
Which begs the question, does it really matter what I do? This sort of theory, whilst understandable, seems to indicate that existance is moot. I could sit here and not go to uni, fail my exams, and become a bum, because I know full-well that in one of my timelines I went to uni, studied hard, and became a software engineer for Microsoft. So the only thing we get to choose is which of these timelines we get to follow... like those 'make-your-own story' books.
You don't seem to realise the owners of the buildings damaged in the 9/11 attacks recieved more money, through certain deals performed just beforehand, than the cost of the damage itself. You are, however, correct in the tone of your post: it's costing the government (the organisation, not the people at the top of it) a hell of a lot to sort it out, and they don't see a pinch of the private profit that certain people made from 9/11.
Mod parent up, informative.
The problem with McCarthy was that anyone who didn't praise the flag and the American Dream at every given opportunity was immediately a 'Communist' and black-listed. Relatives in the Eastern Bloc? Communist! Last name ending in '-ev' or '-ov'? Communist! Written a play, book, or film unfavourable to the U.S. Government? Communist!
It was a socio-political pogrom perpertrated in the interests of scaring the nation into anti-Communist sentiment.
I watched this live on the net hoping to catch a glimpse of some revolutionary stuff. Something to redeem the message that Sony has been sending out these past few years about the PS3: "We don't know what we're doing. We hate you, we hate games, we hate gamers, and we hate gimmicks. We might just top ourselves instead of bringing out this console."
What did I catch a glimpse of instead? Pre-render after pre-render after pre-render. They were so ridiculously worried about making sure we thought they were running live PS3 demos it was almost embarrasing. To paraphrase: "Hi. Live on PS3 we've got some live on PS3 games to show you live on the PS3. Live on the PS3 we'll be showing you live on the PS3 some demonstrations live on the PS3 of blah blah 3, live on the PS3. Also, live on the PS3 we've got a live on the PS3 trailer from Hideo 'Live on the PS3' Kojima for MGS4, live on the PS3. Take a look at our new controller, which we'll be demonstrating live on the PS3 in a moment, where you can see we've got the original PS2 controller, minus the parts we got su-- I mean the part that interfered with the operation of the controller-- and we've added a nice litte Xbox Guide button for you, some triggers, and a piss-poor rendition of the thing Nintendo are doing that we called a gimmick so recently. That's right folks, we've got tilt-sensors in the controller. Allow me to plug this into the PS3, live of course, and demonstrate it live on the PS3. s you see, live on the PS3 we can use this controller to play a flight sim live on the PS3. We can controll yaw, roll, etc. live on the PS3 using the 6-way (trust me it's awesome) tilt sensor."
If I was Kutaragi today, I would have been embarrased to have to walk out on stage and show that controller off. It basically said "We know you think we're evil after all the other shit we pulled. What the fuck difference is this gonna make? Here's your fucking controller you zealots. Eat it."
Looks like I'm going to be abandoning those plans to get a PS3 then. PC upgrades, here we go.
'Take your pony to the next watering station.' ... ..... okayyy... ..... *screams with distress*
'Brush her hair'
'Your pony died because it wasn't pretty enough'
The U.S. Congress supported American corporations over public interest?
You just blew my mind.
I love this name. Revolution was cool, and this isn't quite as cool, but you look at what it means and it's a fine name. It says everything Nintendo are aiming for. They're not blindly going for powerhouse names for powerhouse consoles, because we all know that's not what Nintendo are trying to do.
One thing I also love about this name is the puns that idiots are coming out with. "wanna come back to mine, play with my wii?" is the funniest I've seen so far, and yet somehow the same people argue that Nintendo are childish.............. I consider myself a hardcore gamer, and I love the name, as do all my mates, so the assertion that hardcore gamers will all hate it is a bit off. Of course most games magazines consider hardcore gamers to be those willing to kill to get [i]x new console[/i] first.
Are you suggesting that LG is going to do something [i]without[/i] Samsung having already done it? Five years of copying Samsung designs and hardware and they're just going to throw that lucrative business practice out the window. Shocking.
... that was... surreal.
I'm sure if the government cuts a missile from its annual defence budget it will more than cover the cost of the research. NASA isn't where budget cuts need to come from.
It's a virus when it is a malicious program than also self-replicates and spreads to other hosts, not when it does something 'viral' to your system.
The registrars would be lucky to find even one of those 526,000+ Michael Smiths who are willing to shell out a subscription for an obscure contact card.
Oh deary me.
*does not mean that it is now happening
Apologies.I was intentionally misquoting, but I was accidentally quoting, if you get my meaning. I didn't actually mean to enquote the phrase, just to put it in italics... I meant that just because people refuse to believe it, (i.e. they aren't paranoid/concerned about it) does mean that it is not happening.
... do you people not have a Monopolies Commission like we do in Britain to stop this sort of thing?
What it tells me is that they could give a shit about terrorism. The important thing to them is achieving the mass mindrape. Watch everyone, exploit everyone, fear no one.
Bingo. Most sensical post I've seen so far in a /. comments dominated by politics. Bravo, sir, for having the guts say those facts despite the slanging match that may result from the right-of-field.
Remember, folks, "Just 'cause you're not paranoid, don't mean they're not after you."
oh. dear. lord.
Verb isn't a verb, silly! :D
(mod parent up funny, btw)
Despite the U.K.'s constitution being uncodified and distributed amongst centuries of common law and precedent, it is remarkably strong for a constitution that is not present as a document that can be referred to. You are partly correct, however, in saying that it is up to Parliament to decide what the constitution is, as the House of Lords would take this matter into hand as it is not just the upper legislative body, but also the highest court in the Land, such as the U.S. Supreme Court is over on that side of the pond.
Unfortunately, since the abolition of hereditary peers, the vacuum has been filled with the highest bidders for the seats, and these tend to be Labour Party people since the Prime Minister appoints them.
We tried to change too much too quickly, as is the way with Labour's 'modernisation' that it has been chasing for a decade now. I feel it will not be long (compared to the length of our nation's history) before this system we cobbled together in the first place, and are now remove the bricks from piece by piece, will crumble down. Either that, or the citizens will be forced to carry it on their backs as the government whips and shouts at the slaves that we become.
Indeed so. Also, it is illegal for the Commons to discuss the abolition of the Monarchy... so if we wanted to replace it with something that worked a bit better, we'd have two options:
I believe we call this a quagmire (giggidy).
No, it would be like the House passing a law that would make it possible for the White House to sign in its own legislation without the House or the Senate being able to vote on the legislation.
What I don't get about all the brou-ha-ha that this Bill is kicking up is the section on negative, affirmative, and super-affirmative resolution. To my reading, it basically states that should a minister (member of the executive in the Commons) wish to use this Bill to 'amend, repeal, or replace' legislation, they submit it to Parliament just so Parliament at least knows what's going on (happens a lot in U.K. politics, e.g. our Prime Minister can go to war, only having to inform Parliament that he is doing so). When the Minister submits this notification to Parliement, they submit it in one of three resolutions: negative, affirmative, or super-affirmative. Negative resolution means orders provided by the legislation may immediately be issued, so long as Parliament does not vote and say "No, we're not so sure about that one - we want it to be affirmative or super-affirmative" and have the minister resubmit it in which ever of the other two resolutions they demand. Affirmative resolution means it must first pass through both houses of Parliament (Commons, then Tony's Cronies [the Lords]) before orders provided by the legislation can be issued. Super-affirmative resolution is even stricter, and although I cannot remember the details, if I recall correctly the minister must bear regard to affected parties and notify them, along with some other stuff. There are deadlines attached, and if I'm reading the jumbled speel that is the language of legislation, if these deadlines are overrun, then the submitted action fails.
However, political correspondents for major U.K. newspapers seem to disagree, and chances are they know more than I, who only studied U.K. politics a year and a half ago.
God damn these terrorist-lovers making fun of our necessary, liberty-protecting, brilliant legislation.
[thought]Ought to keep me safe for at least a weak.[/thought]