The big draw in the NES rereleases is the added content. Yoshi's Island had 5 extra stages. Super Mario World had a new coin you needed to collect in every stage. Metroid Zero Mission was completely overhauled in addition to the original game.
Oh, and they're around 20-30 bucks. How much do PSP games cost?
Your post sheds alot of light on the country. I guess they'd hate that shirt I just saw on some website. Front asks "How much does jesus love you?" Back is a smiling cartoon of him on the cross, arms outstretched. "THIS much!"
I can't, really. Some of my mp3 soundtracks are still 112 or even 96kbps and I still haven't gotten around to redownloading them. I eventually picked the $5 headphones at the store, btw.
Because some programs have a habit of shooting up to 100% (iexplore.exe, explorer.exe). I mean, just completely randomly. You minimize firefox and just see the white void behind it while windows is playing with itself. This is retarded in this day and age.
And whatever you were doing, you can't now, because the system is busy. So even though you know it's wrong, you try surfing the web or opening a file to pass the time, and it actually takes longer than process1+process2 completing by themselves (the medusa effect).
Running people down in the street and taking their wallets would significantly cut the money lost selling the console, but you don't see Sony doing that...
Um, isn't this going to backfire? Spectacularly? I mean, it's a goddamned cord. This isn't like picking out a monitor or a hard drive. "Joe's cord" will likely be just as useful as the "Excelsior(r) brand high-quality director's cut cord". People will get annoyed it doesn't come with the system, go to the store, and pick the cheapest one (sold at a modest profit if they're smart and Sony's trying to cash in on peripherals).
Then again, the demographic they're going for with the PS3 has a habit of spending extra money for name-brand items where it doesn't really count. Some clown just tried to steer me towards $100 headphones at J&R last week.
One of the big problems with portable transportation devices (bikes, pocket motorcycles) is that by their very nature they help thieves get away with the loot all the quicker.
Are you going to have to bring a kryptonite lock to secure your segway every time you go to the grocery store? Is it even designed for that? (having something just as strong as the lock to bolt onto, otherwise locking it would be pointless).
I'd love to know if there's a way to limit ALL processes to a certain percentage of total CPU... say 75%. There's no reason programs should routinely be able to run up every bit of processing power.
People in diferent coutries have different morals, some people believe that the laws should reflect their religions, other takes pride in making their government non-religious. The core of this question is that your morals are different from mine, they may even be similar in some aspects but they are different so you can't judge how good is a legal system for me based on your morals.
That's all well and good, and foreigners setting up shop in another country certainly must "do as the Romans do."
However, the nature of electronic communication means the data needs to be copied physically to the other country to be viewable. The idea of making it suddenly subject to any law in any country is ludicrous.
Lumping your former examples with your latter is a bit unfair. They're not even in the same league. Of course, they do the same thing in America, too.
Racism shouldn't be a crime in and of itself -- freedom of speech is something every country should agree on. The same pithy claim google makes that "we have to abide by their laws!!!oneone" doesn't refuse the fact that they are legitimizing an unjust law.
Do i expect all the employees of Orkut to destroy the data and go to prison for it? No. But it still doesn't make handing over the data justified. What's that cliche about "I vas just following orders..."
Why wouldn't the brazilian agency just say that then, and avoid all the fuss? Incompetence? Or lack of evidence?
Investigating conspiracy-to-commit-murder via Orkut would not generate nearly the same amount of news. Don't places in the US (myspace, etc) roll over with this information all the time?
That is the definition of indefinitely, sorta. There's no hard rule that "excessive vandalism means protection for X days". It's completely on the whim of an administrator to unprotect the page, which takes a non-definite length of time.
That's what's beautiful about this video. If they did a simulation with clipping on, it would be the same old thing. This is a relatively new idea (at least for me), which is why is brightened up the start of my week so effectively.
It'd be interesting to see this in platform games (ex: mario 64), though it'd be a bit cluttered if you tracked each mario AND goomba together. I dunno.
I don't think there's a court in the world that would say "oh, your business shut down? Guess we can't get that info then!"
In all likelyhood, that act would serve to further expedite the siezure of their assets and possibly charges of obstruction of justice against workers. After all, they wouldn't refuse to help the nice policemen unless they had something to hide, right?
Well, you can easily keep yourself safe. Tell your browser to delete all cookies on close, and whitelist the cookies you do need for added safety. Just make sure the places you do use aren't a part of google.
If a court has jurisdiction over a company, it doesn't matter where the information is -- the company has to obey that order or face the consequences (or try to convince the court the order is invalid somehow).
And if the court's shouldn't have jurisdiction because their legal system is -- for lack of a better word -- inferior? This is not conductive to companies expanding their operation into developing countries (the ones who need investment most).
"The vandal hordes" knocking at the gates is a self-sustained myth. Take a look at the history for Steve Irwin's page and see how many of the good-natured edits revolving his death were reverted. First blatantly as "vandalism" then repeatedly as "unsourced" by every article provided until it showed up on an american news portal (cnn or abc). Even harmless edits like tributes ("you will be missed, steve"), while really not helpful, are classified as "vandalism" when people who don't understand Wikipedia keep putting them back in.
Not only that, but it appears in this case they are asking for data concerning "person X", which they apparently have the equivalent of probable cause to obtain.
Of course, this is ignoring the fact that "promoting hate" should not be a crime in the country Google hails from.
From the law enforcement perspective, if the records are in the possession of the business, the business can be compelled to produce them
Now, I may be a little lacking in the intricacies of where exactly large company data is stored on these interwebs, but just to throw out a crazy example: some Google executive visiting brazil transfers some very sensitive information from the company mainframe to do work on his vacation. Now since the information has been copied physically to brazil, it's fair game?
Wouldn't this also be a de facto legitimization of hacking in some countries? Give 'em a token punishment sure, but still use the information they obtained since precedent has already been set?
You're correct, I should've checked it out first. It was only unprotected yesterday, and had been uneditable since July 1st previously.
As for the select few vulnerable pages, they're protected when it's most important -- when the event is current. After the news has moved on, you won't get the same number of people visiting the article that might decide to edit, and by that time it's already "consensus."
Any article that sees heavy editing, or is in any way involved in a current event, gets immediately locked except for these privledged users. They even go against their own policy (lauded so forcefully at all other times) when it suits them regarding protecting the day's featured page or protecting articles indefinitely (for example, Jews).
Slashdot Mirror
The big draw in the NES rereleases is the added content. Yoshi's Island had 5 extra stages. Super Mario World had a new coin you needed to collect in every stage. Metroid Zero Mission was completely overhauled in addition to the original game. Oh, and they're around 20-30 bucks. How much do PSP games cost?
Your post sheds alot of light on the country. I guess they'd hate that shirt I just saw on some website. Front asks "How much does jesus love you?" Back is a smiling cartoon of him on the cross, arms outstretched. "THIS much!"
And the triple-breasted hookers are just icing on the cake!
And I bet no one would even bat an eye if you did this at a park or in a parking lot. Just smile sheepishly and say "It ran out of batteries..."
I can't, really. Some of my mp3 soundtracks are still 112 or even 96kbps and I still haven't gotten around to redownloading them. I eventually picked the $5 headphones at the store, btw.
Because some programs have a habit of shooting up to 100% (iexplore.exe, explorer.exe). I mean, just completely randomly. You minimize firefox and just see the white void behind it while windows is playing with itself. This is retarded in this day and age.
And whatever you were doing, you can't now, because the system is busy. So even though you know it's wrong, you try surfing the web or opening a file to pass the time, and it actually takes longer than process1+process2 completing by themselves (the medusa effect).
Just got back from a week of vacation. Still chargin' mah lazer :)
Running people down in the street and taking their wallets would significantly cut the money lost selling the console, but you don't see Sony doing that...
Um, isn't this going to backfire? Spectacularly? I mean, it's a goddamned cord. This isn't like picking out a monitor or a hard drive. "Joe's cord" will likely be just as useful as the "Excelsior(r) brand high-quality director's cut cord". People will get annoyed it doesn't come with the system, go to the store, and pick the cheapest one (sold at a modest profit if they're smart and Sony's trying to cash in on peripherals).
Then again, the demographic they're going for with the PS3 has a habit of spending extra money for name-brand items where it doesn't really count. Some clown just tried to steer me towards $100 headphones at J&R last week.
One of the big problems with portable transportation devices (bikes, pocket motorcycles) is that by their very nature they help thieves get away with the loot all the quicker.
Are you going to have to bring a kryptonite lock to secure your segway every time you go to the grocery store? Is it even designed for that? (having something just as strong as the lock to bolt onto, otherwise locking it would be pointless).
Segway is the airplane's canoe.
I'd love to know if there's a way to limit ALL processes to a certain percentage of total CPU... say 75%. There's no reason programs should routinely be able to run up every bit of processing power.
People in diferent coutries have different morals, some people believe that the laws should reflect their religions, other takes pride in making their government non-religious. The core of this question is that your morals are different from mine, they may even be similar in some aspects but they are different so you can't judge how good is a legal system for me based on your morals.
That's all well and good, and foreigners setting up shop in another country certainly must "do as the Romans do."
However, the nature of electronic communication means the data needs to be copied physically to the other country to be viewable. The idea of making it suddenly subject to any law in any country is ludicrous.
Lumping your former examples with your latter is a bit unfair. They're not even in the same league. Of course, they do the same thing in America, too.
Racism shouldn't be a crime in and of itself -- freedom of speech is something every country should agree on. The same pithy claim google makes that "we have to abide by their laws!!!oneone" doesn't refuse the fact that they are legitimizing an unjust law.
Do i expect all the employees of Orkut to destroy the data and go to prison for it? No. But it still doesn't make handing over the data justified. What's that cliche about "I vas just following orders..."
Why wouldn't the brazilian agency just say that then, and avoid all the fuss? Incompetence? Or lack of evidence?
Investigating conspiracy-to-commit-murder via Orkut would not generate nearly the same amount of news. Don't places in the US (myspace, etc) roll over with this information all the time?
That is the definition of indefinitely, sorta. There's no hard rule that "excessive vandalism means protection for X days". It's completely on the whim of an administrator to unprotect the page, which takes a non-definite length of time.
That's what's beautiful about this video. If they did a simulation with clipping on, it would be the same old thing. This is a relatively new idea (at least for me), which is why is brightened up the start of my week so effectively.
It'd be interesting to see this in platform games (ex: mario 64), though it'd be a bit cluttered if you tracked each mario AND goomba together. I dunno.
I don't think there's a court in the world that would say "oh, your business shut down? Guess we can't get that info then!"
In all likelyhood, that act would serve to further expedite the siezure of their assets and possibly charges of obstruction of justice against workers. After all, they wouldn't refuse to help the nice policemen unless they had something to hide, right?
Well, you can easily keep yourself safe. Tell your browser to delete all cookies on close, and whitelist the cookies you do need for added safety. Just make sure the places you do use aren't a part of google.
If a court has jurisdiction over a company, it doesn't matter where the information is -- the company has to obey that order or face the consequences (or try to convince the court the order is invalid somehow).
And if the court's shouldn't have jurisdiction because their legal system is -- for lack of a better word -- inferior? This is not conductive to companies expanding their operation into developing countries (the ones who need investment most).
"The vandal hordes" knocking at the gates is a self-sustained myth. Take a look at the history for Steve Irwin's page and see how many of the good-natured edits revolving his death were reverted. First blatantly as "vandalism" then repeatedly as "unsourced" by every article provided until it showed up on an american news portal (cnn or abc). Even harmless edits like tributes ("you will be missed, steve"), while really not helpful, are classified as "vandalism" when people who don't understand Wikipedia keep putting them back in.
Not only that, but it appears in this case they are asking for data concerning "person X", which they apparently have the equivalent of probable cause to obtain.
Of course, this is ignoring the fact that "promoting hate" should not be a crime in the country Google hails from.
From the law enforcement perspective, if the records are in the possession of the business, the business can be compelled to produce them
Now, I may be a little lacking in the intricacies of where exactly large company data is stored on these interwebs, but just to throw out a crazy example: some Google executive visiting brazil transfers some very sensitive information from the company mainframe to do work on his vacation. Now since the information has been copied physically to brazil, it's fair game?
Wouldn't this also be a de facto legitimization of hacking in some countries? Give 'em a token punishment sure, but still use the information they obtained since precedent has already been set?
You're correct, I should've checked it out first. It was only unprotected yesterday, and had been uneditable since July 1st previously.
As for the select few vulnerable pages, they're protected when it's most important -- when the event is current. After the news has moved on, you won't get the same number of people visiting the article that might decide to edit, and by that time it's already "consensus."
It was thoroughly impressive.
Any article that sees heavy editing, or is in any way involved in a current event, gets immediately locked except for these privledged users. They even go against their own policy (lauded so forcefully at all other times) when it suits them regarding protecting the day's featured page or protecting articles indefinitely (for example, Jews).