Find a good camp. Pull the same mobs in the same sequence as long as you can take it. Certainly not difficult at all.
Why would you do that? Sounds dreadful. Me, I mostly did dungeon crawls with friends the whole way up. There were occasions where I had to hunt a 'camp' (generally for an item I wanted) but I was usually on the move. Granted, I might have leveled faster and died less had I sat at safe camps. But so what? Its not like the end game content wouldn't be there if I took an extra month or two getting there. And as a result I've seen the bottoms of most of the EQ dungeons while the mobs there stilled conned yellow/red.
Why were were you sitting in a camp when you could have been doing something actually more interesting and challenging?
EQ1 was punishing, then got tedious, than got complex. All are valid definitions of 'hard' at least to some people.
As the guy said, for some raid bosses, if one person make a mistake, it will screw it up for everyone.
Same has always been true of EQ. Although, yeah, during the tedious period, most of the raiders just needed to wait until they were told to attack. Nowadays, its similiar to WoW in that players must be actively paying attention the whole fight, and anyone may be called upon to perform the 'correct' action at a given time.
So what are fights like in EQ? I am just curious how far it has come from the game I played many many years ago.
I'd say they aren't quite as scripted as WoW. But they are still as complex, usually involving several phases, and lots of attention paying...
Getting complete walkthrus of the new stuff is hard. But suffice it to say that its easily as complicated as what you've described.
For the record, I Played EQ1 until Dragons of Norrath, played WoW until fairly recently, and am now playing EQ2. I enjoyed WoW but found it easy by comparison to EQ1. The WoW raids are elaborate, but I don't find them difficult.
I think that is the key...the fights aren't just hard, they are actually interesting.
Yeah, I think EQ1 'evolved'. It started out hard by being painful. It evolved to being hard by being tedious. And from there it evolved to being hard by being elaborate. But it was always 'hard'. I find the EQ raids are still more trial and error; and have more room for ingenuity than WoW raids. WoW raids seem to be much more tightly scripted. EQ raids are scripted, but they have more dynamics to them, and you can figure it out and manipulate it your advantage. With WoW, its always felt that you either you do it exactly Blizzard's way or you don't do it.
When you load it into RAM, you have made a copy for purposes of copyright law. When you write it to disk, you have made another copy.
Check section 117 of the copyright act. It explicitly sanctions copies made to and from memory etc that are created 'as an essential step in the utilization'. So no, if you buy a copy of a program, you are sanctioned BY LAW to install it to the hard drive and run it in ram without needing express license from the rights holder. And its not a case of 'fair use' either, its a provision enshrined in the copyright act.
That said, section 117 specifically applies to 'computer programs'. But honestly 'computer program' is a pretty blurry target. After all, suppose I argue that an MP3 isn't a computer program because it must be 'played back' by another piece of software. But then, that is true of a python script or a.net application too.
And conversely the internal structure of an mp3 file is a series of mp3 headers and data blocks, this is analogous to a series of commands and the data they are to be acted on... which is pretty much what a computer program is.
The fact that we typically view pdfs and mp3s as data vs programs is really, at the technical level, pretty arbitrary. Its not hard to imagine that we could build a machine that ran either as "programs".
And I suspect that even without the "mp3s are programs too" argument, that MOST (not all, but most) people including legislators, judges, and juries, would all agree that the spirit of section 117 should apply to all digital media, not just 'computer programs' (whatever exactly that might be limited to).
After all, a modern CPU should be expected to make copies of the media in Level1, 2, 3 cache, and main memory, as well as some of it maybe ending up in swap, or on the disc during sleep/hibernate, or possibly DMA transferring it to buffers on the audio chipset to... and it does all this copying even if you play the song back directly from the CD. (And this series of copies might well occur if you play the disc on your bluray player or car audio deck instead of your PC too.)
And worse, in the process it transforms it from MP3 to WAV, and then applies some algorithm to turn the stereo into 6 channels for your 5.1 speaker setup... in other words it creates an unlicensed derivative work too... oh the horror.:)
In any case, I think we don't have to worry overly much about this.
That has to be the most retarded comment I've ever heard. No one should be limited to rights just because of how "Big" they are.
So what you are saying is that a monopoly shouldn't be regulated? Maybe you should rethink your position.
The poster is asserting that what should be in-alienable rights for an individual at the individual level do not implicitly work at massive scales. The meaning of those rights transform as they scale up.
I should be allowed to exhale carbon dioxide; nobody would ever dispute this. But it doesn't scale up. It doesn't implicitly give me blanket protection of a right to pump as much carbon dioxide into the atmosphere as I can manufacture.
Similiarly, with respect to google, we absolutely should be allowed to take pictures of something we see while out and about. That shouldn't scale up to a right to deploy a world wide surveillance network.
I played EQ1 for years, and in terms of actual skill, WoW requires way more skill than EQ1.
roflmao... gets back on chair...
roflmao
The more serious boss encounters in WoW require that everyone in the raid know what to do, when to do it, how to move, and if just ONE person screws up, it's a wipe.
"A wipe"? roflmao
When did you start EQ? And when did you quit?
The more serious boss encounters in EQ1 "back in the day" required everyone in the raid know what to do, when to do it, how to do it, and if just ONE person screws up,... they better have an entire backup guild willing to rescue them or everybody permanently loses their gear.
Ok, sure, as it evolved, the level cap was raised, and those original raids got easier, meanwhile, they added features to eliminate the risk of gear loss, etc. And yes, the majority of the subsequent raids... Velious, Luclin, Planes of Power...those weren't generally terribly complicated, and I'm guessing that's when you played EQ1. But around the time WoW launched, EQ was launching expansions like Gates of Discord, and the raid complexity was definitely scaling up, and that was YEARS ago.
And EQ1 today... well... it hasn't gotten simpler.
Comparing WoW today to EQ1 Planes of Power is just wrong.
And the non-raid game? EQ1 has always been more difficult than WoW.
As far as I can tell now it's a cross-over between wikipedia and google at best
Yep. Google is already a 2ndary source for a lot of search types for me.
There are TONS of topics where wikipedia will either have the answer directly or reference it directly. If I want to know when the Vic20 was released... wikipedia. If I want to know the lifecyle of a silverfish... wikipedia... if I want to know how to write code to read the TIFF format, or find a library to do it for me... wikipedia.
I still use google, and expect to do so for a while yet. But a while ago I realized a big chunk of my google queries were resulting in links to wikipedia... at which point I realized I might as well skip google for that type of query.
However, free speech is one of the many things these real men and women died to defend (to take the WWII example so oft cited), and so no 'war' or war should be off-limits, IMHO.
Its not off limits. But if you make one in perceived 'poor taste' people will make a big fuss about it, and stand on their soap boxes and shout about how awful it is. The poorer the taste the bigger the uproar.
There is no shame in this. That's part of the "free speech these real men and women died to defend" too.
They have the right to make their poor taste game. I have the right to put ads in the paper explaining why I think your an insensitive ass. Walmart has the right to refuse to carry it. Etc, etc, etc. As long as the government doesn't get involved and start passing any laws or arrest anyone over it, we have the freedom we fought so hard for.
My point is there is just as much freedom of speech exercised with protesting a game you don't like, as there is in making one.
1) How about a calibrated sample of 'air' containing known quantities of alcohol? If the breathlyzer reports the same level of alchol that we put in the sample, we're good.
2) How about taking simulteous breathlyzer and blood samples. If the breathlyzer reports the the same (within a given error tolerance) alochol level as the blood test, its good.
All things whose risk goes down with continued good diet and exercise.
'Lowered risk' relative to unhealthy people.
But odds are MUCH higher than not, that you are going to develop something before you make it to the end. And the healthier you are to start, the longer you'll fight it.
To contrast with your mother-in law my grandfather was the healthiest octogenarian I've ever known, worked hard, hiked, skied, spent time outside, cooked all his meals from fresh ingredients, was well read, used a computer,... didn't stop him developing Alzheimer's. Saddest part is he's otherwise in great health... doctor's say he'll live until Alzheimer's runs its course and shuts him down... could be years. Its a devastating disease.
They eat crap, get overweight, next thing they are in for knee surgeries and lifelong diabetes management.
Ok. So... If we don't eat crap and get fat, we'll all live to 95 and die peacefully in our sleep causing no burden to the medical/care infrastructure?
That's a pretty fantasy.
The reality is much uglier. Osteoporosis, hearing loss, all kinds of age linked vision degeneration/loss, arthritis, all kinds of cancers, heat attacks, strokes, Alzheimer's...
Already a couple studies have suggested that on average covering the care of the lazy fat alcoholic smokers who die at 67 of complications related to their 'unhealthy lifestyle' might actually be a whole lot cheaper than managing the long term care, on average, of people with 'healthy life styles'.
If you want to tax "crap" to encourage people to live healthier lifestyles based on some theory that this will improve their "quality of life", that's one thing, but its a premature to conclude this will somehow actually save us money. It might actually cost us more in the long run.
The problem is that the SSD wears out with each write, and this happens much faster than with HHD.
Between wear leveling and other life extending techniques, the modern quality SSD will outlive an HDD by a long time for nearly all usage cases.
And even the most perverse usage cases you can imagine (continuously streaming random data to random locations on a completely full disk...), the modern SSD will still last longer than the warranty coverage on good hard drives.
I realize I'm being pedantic here and that it makes little difference in practice, but....
And after all that, you misunderstood what I meant.
I was really referring to online quizzes in general, not just fb. And by 'your profile' I simply meant 'their profile on you'. I suppose I could have been clearer... but as you said "it makes little difference".
I don't know what it is about finding your IQ, or which Star Wars character you are, or whatever. It obviously gives people some kind of fulfillment that makes it worth surrendering so much personal info. I don't get it.
Its because they don't view it as =SUBMITTING= personal info. They view it as a completely local phenomena... like taking a quiz in a magazine. But with the bonus that it tallies up the result for you and clears the form afterward.
They never connect with the fact that the answers are recorded and stored and attached to their online profile... even if you tell them outright. It just doesn't penetrate.
I thought McDonald's food was unhealthy, but damn Panera Bread's stuff is even worse!
At McD's virtually everyone orders a 'meal' vs a 'sandwich'. So you can tack on a Medium or Large fries to virtually every order... and a soft drink. That will bump your average McEncounter up a couple notches.
I've never been to a Panera Bread, but the various sandwich cafe's around here do a lot of sandwich-only orders; or sandwich + coffee or sandwich + bottled water / juice.
In fact, if you go to McD's and order just a water, its not good for you; but all things considered, its not all that bad either compared to anywhere else.
Secretly chalking your tires to see if you've been parked there for over X minutes? Isn't that the same as secretly attaching a monitoring device (albeit crude) to your property?
Firstly, they aren't secretly chalking your tires. They are chalking them in plain sight. And the meter maid is doing it to every car on the street so she can quickly assess which are still there when he does his rounds again. Its hardly 'secret'.
Secondly, she could just as easily make note of your license plate & model number instead, or just take pictures... (well ok these would be slightly more effort and expense, which is why they prefer the chalk), but this would create a record of you having been parked there at a particular time... so the chalk is actually MORE ANONYMOUS. Drive away and they aren't monitoring you anymore, and they lose all track that they ever were.
Thirdly, they are simply tracking how long your car was parked in that particular spot. In my opinion the vehicle owner is implicitly authorizing them to do this by parking in that space. After all, it would be pointless to have "2 hour parking" restrictions if they weren't authorized to monitor how long you parked there. This is quite different from tracking your movements by monitoring everywhere your vehicle goes; there is no implicit acceptance by the vehicle owner of this.
Do we really allow everybody to take of in a 'commodity' car and cause uncontrolled damage?
Not a car, no. But jetskis, snowmobiles, dirtbikes, gokarts, riding lawnmowers, farm tractors... all those, a resounding "Yes".
Or do we demand proof of a minimal level of control of the vehicle, and a good insurance if things go wrong?
For a car yes, for the above list alternative vehicles... no. And you can certainly get into all kinds of horrible accidents including collisions while legally operating them.
Do you have reading comprehension problems? I said nothing about touch. And disabling ctime is trivial in Linux.
So to paraphrase... The OP says "I would use touch..." I say "Touch wouldn't work because..." You say "My answer to that would be..." I say, "But that doesn't address the issue with touch..." You say "I never said anything about touch..."
So your answer to my refutation about why the OPs touch wouldn't work is that you didn't say anything about touch? And I'm the one with a reading comprehension problem? Gotcha.
Yeah, cause my camera is a junky consumer model that resets time and date back to whatever defaults it uses.
And that would explain the file stamps being wrong while the EXIF data is right how, exactly?
Oh, and here's the camera and batteries. I took the batts out so you can show the jury. Moron
So your position for the jury is that your camera resets the date/time when you take the batteries out. That you did in fact take the batteries out between taking each picture at the parade, explaining why the file times are wrong, while the EXIF data is still right.
Bloody hell, where do you live that insurance is $450 per MONTH
A new driver in Vancouver, BC with 1 accident claim (even just a fender bender) will EASILY pay $400+ per month for insurance.
Or perhaps you owned some crazy car, considering $650/mo payments..
Go buy a new Volkswagon Jetta with $5k cash in hand, add a little factory spoiler, factory 17" rims, ipod adapter, floor mats, and go for a tiptronic transmission... then taxes, you'll easily have a 21k car loan. Assuming 7.5% interest, 3 years to pay it off... and you are sitting with a ~650$ payment.
Or buy a new honda Civic Si with that same 5k and a few upgrades? Probably end up close to the same situation.
Those are real CRAAAZY cars huh.
Hell, my brother in law was paying $400/mo in loan payments on a $13k loan for a 5 year old Hyundai Tiburon.
You want crazy cars? Loan payments on a new-ish Porsche 911? $3500-4500+/month, assuming you had the same 5k down.
I dont bother with creation or access time so I disabled it. It gives me 1MB/s faster access on my files (or whatever). And it's a 'feature' I dont need.
1) Assuming you just ran touch like you said, and you didn't actually think ahead to disable those features (since you didn't say anything about that), they'll be able to trivially disprove this.
2) How are you doing this? Disabling 'last access time' is pretty straight forward in many file systems, disabling 'creation date' not so much.
Now the original timestamps are probably created with that blasted camera. It's always screwing up one way or another cause it never keeps time/date right.
Yeah that'll fly. Care to explain why the EXIF meta data in the actual file put there by the camera shows the correct date? Now we've got you outright lying... again. Oh, and Judge,... we'd like a warrant for this camera to prove it...
Digging the hole deeper is not the best way out of a hole.
Most people don't pay $5,400/year on insurance for one vehicle. Are you sure that wasn't $450/6mo?
He's probably sure.
Insurance really depends on the city.
I was quoted $8800/yr for insurance in Toronto, Canada when I was a university student (I'd had a couple speeding tickets, was young, didn't have years of 'safe driving' to qualify for discounts, drove a 'sports car', etc). It was beyond ridiculous. I ended up going to school in BC instead. Insurance was under $2500 for the same car/driver.
And the car was just a Toyota MR2 (the older boxy style); and at the time the car was only worth maybe $4-5k.
A lot of my Toronto friends just drove without insurance.
Agreed. But if they embed the word icon, and its clearly called partyinvite.doc.exe, people will click on it anyway. So really, what difference does it make? The people who are going to be fooled are STILL going to be fooled.
Slashdot Mirror
Find a good camp. Pull the same mobs in the same sequence as long as you can take it. Certainly not difficult at all.
Why would you do that? Sounds dreadful. Me, I mostly did dungeon crawls with friends the whole way up.
There were occasions where I had to hunt a 'camp' (generally for an item I wanted) but I was usually on the move. Granted, I might have leveled faster and died less had I sat at safe camps. But so what? Its not like the end game content wouldn't be there if I took an extra month or two getting there. And as a result I've seen the bottoms of most of the EQ dungeons while the mobs there stilled conned yellow/red.
Why were were you sitting in a camp when you could have been doing something actually more interesting and challenging?
.then make excuses a mile a minute for EQ.
What excuses?
EQ1 was punishing, then got tedious, than got complex. All are valid definitions of 'hard' at least to some people.
As the guy said, for some raid bosses, if one person make a mistake, it will screw it up for everyone.
Same has always been true of EQ. Although, yeah, during the tedious period, most of the raiders just needed to wait until they were told to attack. Nowadays, its similiar to WoW in that players must be actively paying attention the whole fight, and anyone may be called upon to perform the 'correct' action at a given time.
So what are fights like in EQ? I am just curious how far it has come from the game I played many many years ago.
I'd say they aren't quite as scripted as WoW. But they are still as complex, usually involving several phases, and lots of attention paying...
Here is an "old raid" from gates of discord:
http://everquest.allakhazam.com/db/quest.html?quest=4479
Getting complete walkthrus of the new stuff is hard. But suffice it to say that its easily as complicated as what you've described.
For the record, I Played EQ1 until Dragons of Norrath, played WoW until fairly recently, and am now playing EQ2. I enjoyed WoW but found it easy by comparison to EQ1. The WoW raids are elaborate, but I don't find them difficult.
I think that is the key...the fights aren't just hard, they are actually interesting.
Yeah, I think EQ1 'evolved'. It started out hard by being painful. It evolved to being hard by being tedious. And from there it evolved to being hard by being elaborate. But it was always 'hard'. I find the EQ raids are still more trial and error; and have more room for ingenuity than WoW raids. WoW raids seem to be much more tightly scripted. EQ raids are scripted, but they have more dynamics to them, and you can figure it out and manipulate it your advantage. With WoW, its always felt that you either you do it exactly Blizzard's way or you don't do it.
When you load it into RAM, you have made a copy for purposes of copyright law. When you write it to disk, you have made another copy.
Check section 117 of the copyright act. It explicitly sanctions copies made to and from memory etc that are created 'as an essential step in the utilization'. So no, if you buy a copy of a program, you are sanctioned BY LAW to install it to the hard drive and run it in ram without needing express license from the rights holder. And its not a case of 'fair use' either, its a provision enshrined in the copyright act.
That said, section 117 specifically applies to 'computer programs'. But honestly 'computer program' is a pretty blurry target. After all, suppose I argue that an MP3 isn't a computer program because it must be 'played back' by another piece of software. But then, that is true of a python script or a .net application too.
And conversely the internal structure of an mp3 file is a series of mp3 headers and data blocks, this is analogous to a series of commands and the data they are to be acted on... which is pretty much what a computer program is.
The fact that we typically view pdfs and mp3s as data vs programs is really, at the technical level, pretty arbitrary. Its not hard to imagine that we could build a machine that ran either as "programs".
And I suspect that even without the "mp3s are programs too" argument, that MOST (not all, but most) people including legislators, judges, and juries, would all agree that the spirit of section 117 should apply to all digital media, not just 'computer programs' (whatever exactly that might be limited to).
After all, a modern CPU should be expected to make copies of the media in Level1, 2, 3 cache, and main memory, as well as some of it maybe ending up in swap, or on the disc during sleep/hibernate, or possibly DMA transferring it to buffers on the audio chipset to... and it does all this copying even if you play the song back directly from the CD. (And this series of copies might well occur if you play the disc on your bluray player or car audio deck instead of your PC too.)
And worse, in the process it transforms it from MP3 to WAV, and then applies some algorithm to turn the stereo into 6 channels for your 5.1 speaker setup... in other words it creates an unlicensed derivative work too... oh the horror. :)
In any case, I think we don't have to worry overly much about this.
That has to be the most retarded comment I've ever heard. No one should be limited to rights just because of how "Big" they are.
So what you are saying is that a monopoly shouldn't be regulated?
Maybe you should rethink your position.
The poster is asserting that what should be in-alienable rights for an individual at the individual level do not implicitly work at massive scales. The meaning of those rights transform as they scale up.
I should be allowed to exhale carbon dioxide; nobody would ever dispute this. But it doesn't scale up. It doesn't implicitly give me blanket protection of a right to pump as much carbon dioxide into the atmosphere as I can manufacture.
Similiarly, with respect to google, we absolutely should be allowed to take pictures of something we see while out and about. That shouldn't scale up to a right to deploy a world wide surveillance network.
I fully agree with him.
Let us not forget; they are: ...ubiquitous bipedal vertebrate sexually compatible aliens...
I played EQ1 for years, and in terms of actual skill, WoW requires way more skill than EQ1.
roflmao ... gets back on chair...
roflmao
The more serious boss encounters in WoW require that everyone in the raid know what to do, when to do it, how to move, and if just ONE person screws up, it's a wipe.
"A wipe"? roflmao
When did you start EQ? And when did you quit?
The more serious boss encounters in EQ1 "back in the day" required everyone in the raid know what to do, when to do it, how to do it, and if just ONE person screws up, ... they better have an entire backup guild willing to rescue them or everybody permanently loses their gear.
Ok, sure, as it evolved, the level cap was raised, and those original raids got easier, meanwhile, they added features to eliminate the risk of gear loss, etc. And yes, the majority of the subsequent raids... Velious, Luclin, Planes of Power...those weren't generally terribly complicated, and I'm guessing that's when you played EQ1. But around the time WoW launched, EQ was launching expansions like Gates of Discord, and the raid complexity was definitely scaling up, and that was YEARS ago.
And EQ1 today... well... it hasn't gotten simpler.
Comparing WoW today to EQ1 Planes of Power is just wrong.
And the non-raid game? EQ1 has always been more difficult than WoW.
As far as I can tell now it's a cross-over between wikipedia and google at best
Yep. Google is already a 2ndary source for a lot of search types for me.
There are TONS of topics where wikipedia will either have the answer directly or reference it directly. If I want to know when the Vic20 was released... wikipedia. If I want to know the lifecyle of a silverfish... wikipedia... if I want to know how to write code to read the TIFF format, or find a library to do it for me... wikipedia.
I still use google, and expect to do so for a while yet. But a while ago I realized a big chunk of my google queries were resulting in links to wikipedia... at which point I realized I might as well skip google for that type of query.
However, free speech is one of the many things these real men and women died to defend (to take the WWII example so oft cited), and so no 'war' or war should be off-limits, IMHO.
Its not off limits. But if you make one in perceived 'poor taste' people will make a big fuss about it, and stand on their soap boxes and shout about how awful it is. The poorer the taste the bigger the uproar.
There is no shame in this. That's part of the "free speech these real men and women died to defend" too.
They have the right to make their poor taste game. I have the right to put ads in the paper explaining why I think your an insensitive ass. Walmart has the right to refuse to carry it. Etc, etc, etc. As long as the government doesn't get involved and start passing any laws or arrest anyone over it, we have the freedom we fought so hard for.
My point is there is just as much freedom of speech exercised with protesting a game you don't like, as there is in making one.
This, at best, conceals the bug by truncating the copy - leading to unpredictable issues later in execution instead.
No, at best, it throws an exception, leading to an immediate fail the moment its attempted. Resulting in an relatively easy problem to fix.
What is there to compare the tests with?
1) How about a calibrated sample of 'air' containing known quantities of alcohol? If the breathlyzer reports the same level of alchol that we put in the sample, we're good.
2) How about taking simulteous breathlyzer and blood samples. If the breathlyzer reports the the same (within a given error tolerance) alochol level as the blood test, its good.
That wasn't hard.
All things whose risk goes down with continued good diet and exercise.
'Lowered risk' relative to unhealthy people.
But odds are MUCH higher than not, that you are going to develop something before you make it to the end. And the healthier you are to start, the longer you'll fight it.
To contrast with your mother-in law my grandfather was the healthiest octogenarian I've ever known, worked hard, hiked, skied, spent time outside, cooked all his meals from fresh ingredients, was well read, used a computer, ... didn't stop him developing Alzheimer's. Saddest part is he's otherwise in great health... doctor's say he'll live until Alzheimer's runs its course and shuts him down... could be years. Its a devastating disease.
They eat crap, get overweight, next thing they are in for knee surgeries and lifelong diabetes management.
Ok. So... If we don't eat crap and get fat, we'll all live to 95 and die peacefully in our sleep causing no burden to the medical/care infrastructure?
That's a pretty fantasy.
The reality is much uglier. Osteoporosis, hearing loss, all kinds of age linked vision degeneration/loss, arthritis, all kinds of cancers, heat attacks, strokes, Alzheimer's...
Already a couple studies have suggested that on average covering the care of the lazy fat alcoholic smokers who die at 67 of complications related to their 'unhealthy lifestyle' might actually be a whole lot cheaper than managing the long term care, on average, of people with 'healthy life styles'.
If you want to tax "crap" to encourage people to live healthier lifestyles based on some theory that this will improve their "quality of life", that's one thing, but its a premature to conclude this will somehow actually save us money. It might actually cost us more in the long run.
The problem is that the SSD wears out with each write, and this happens much faster than with HHD.
Between wear leveling and other life extending techniques, the modern quality SSD will outlive an HDD by a long time for nearly all usage cases.
And even the most perverse usage cases you can imagine (continuously streaming random data to random locations on a completely full disk...), the modern SSD will still last longer than the warranty coverage on good hard drives.
I realize I'm being pedantic here and that it makes little difference in practice, but....
And after all that, you misunderstood what I meant.
I was really referring to online quizzes in general, not just fb. And by 'your profile' I simply meant 'their profile on you'. I suppose I could have been clearer... but as you said "it makes little difference".
I do NOT recommend gluing your O-ring.
Words to live by.
I don't know what it is about finding your IQ, or which Star Wars character you are, or whatever. It obviously gives people some kind of fulfillment that makes it worth surrendering so much personal info. I don't get it.
Its because they don't view it as =SUBMITTING= personal info. They view it as a completely local phenomena... like taking a quiz in a magazine. But with the bonus that it tallies up the result for you and clears the form afterward.
They never connect with the fact that the answers are recorded and stored and attached to their online profile... even if you tell them outright. It just doesn't penetrate.
I thought McDonald's food was unhealthy, but damn Panera Bread's stuff is even worse!
At McD's virtually everyone orders a 'meal' vs a 'sandwich'. So you can tack on a Medium or Large fries to virtually every order... and a soft drink. That will bump your average McEncounter up a couple notches.
I've never been to a Panera Bread, but the various sandwich cafe's around here do a lot of sandwich-only orders; or sandwich + coffee or sandwich + bottled water / juice.
In fact, if you go to McD's and order just a water, its not good for you; but all things considered, its not all that bad either compared to anywhere else.
I remember it being defective, but not solar powered.
It was solar powered. They couldn't cut its power because 'it was solar powered'.
"Solar Power!? When will people learn!?"
Ironically, the out of control monorail stopped briefly because Springfield had a solar eclipse, and then sped off again when the eclipse ended.
Secretly chalking your tires to see if you've been parked there for over X minutes? Isn't that the same as secretly attaching a monitoring device (albeit crude) to your property?
Firstly, they aren't secretly chalking your tires. They are chalking them in plain sight. And the meter maid is doing it to every car on the street so she can quickly assess which are still there when he does his rounds again. Its hardly 'secret'.
Secondly, she could just as easily make note of your license plate & model number instead, or just take pictures... (well ok these would be slightly more effort and expense, which is why they prefer the chalk), but this would create a record of you having been parked there at a particular time... so the chalk is actually MORE ANONYMOUS. Drive away and they aren't monitoring you anymore, and they lose all track that they ever were.
Thirdly, they are simply tracking how long your car was parked in that particular spot. In my opinion the vehicle owner is implicitly authorizing them to do this by parking in that space. After all, it would be pointless to have "2 hour parking" restrictions if they weren't authorized to monitor how long you parked there. This is quite different from tracking your movements by monitoring everywhere your vehicle goes; there is no implicit acceptance by the vehicle owner of this.
Do we really allow everybody to take of in a 'commodity' car and cause uncontrolled damage?
Not a car, no. But jetskis, snowmobiles, dirtbikes, gokarts, riding lawnmowers, farm tractors... all those, a resounding "Yes".
Or do we demand proof of a minimal level of control of the vehicle, and a good insurance if things go wrong?
For a car yes, for the above list alternative vehicles... no. And you can certainly get into all kinds of horrible accidents including collisions while legally operating them.
Do you have reading comprehension problems? I said nothing about touch. And disabling ctime is trivial in Linux.
So to paraphrase...
The OP says "I would use touch..."
I say "Touch wouldn't work because..."
You say "My answer to that would be..."
I say, "But that doesn't address the issue with touch..."
You say "I never said anything about touch..."
So your answer to my refutation about why the OPs touch wouldn't work is that you didn't say anything about touch? And I'm the one with a reading comprehension problem? Gotcha.
Yeah, cause my camera is a junky consumer model that resets time and date back to whatever defaults it uses.
And that would explain the file stamps being wrong while the EXIF data is right how, exactly?
Oh, and here's the camera and batteries. I took the batts out so you can show the jury. Moron
So your position for the jury is that your camera resets the date/time when you take the batteries out. That you did in fact take the batteries out between taking each picture at the parade, explaining why the file times are wrong, while the EXIF data is still right.
Bloody hell, where do you live that insurance is $450 per MONTH
A new driver in Vancouver, BC with 1 accident claim (even just a fender bender) will EASILY pay $400+ per month for insurance.
Or perhaps you owned some crazy car, considering $650/mo payments..
Go buy a new Volkswagon Jetta with $5k cash in hand, add a little factory spoiler, factory 17" rims, ipod adapter, floor mats, and go for a tiptronic transmission ... then taxes, you'll easily have a 21k car loan. Assuming 7.5% interest, 3 years to pay it off... and you are sitting with a ~650$ payment.
Or buy a new honda Civic Si with that same 5k and a few upgrades? Probably end up close to the same situation.
Those are real CRAAAZY cars huh.
Hell, my brother in law was paying $400/mo in loan payments on a $13k loan for a 5 year old Hyundai Tiburon.
You want crazy cars? Loan payments on a new-ish Porsche 911? $3500-4500+/month, assuming you had the same 5k down.
There's a reason so many people lease their cars.
I dont bother with creation or access time so I disabled it. It gives me 1MB/s faster access on my files (or whatever). And it's a 'feature' I dont need. 1) Assuming you just ran touch like you said, and you didn't actually think ahead to disable those features (since you didn't say anything about that), they'll be able to trivially disprove this. 2) How are you doing this? Disabling 'last access time' is pretty straight forward in many file systems, disabling 'creation date' not so much. Now the original timestamps are probably created with that blasted camera. It's always screwing up one way or another cause it never keeps time/date right. Yeah that'll fly. Care to explain why the EXIF meta data in the actual file put there by the camera shows the correct date? Now we've got you outright lying... again. Oh, and Judge,... we'd like a warrant for this camera to prove it... Digging the hole deeper is not the best way out of a hole.
Most people don't pay $5,400/year on insurance for one vehicle. Are you sure that wasn't $450/6mo?
He's probably sure.
Insurance really depends on the city.
I was quoted $8800/yr for insurance in Toronto, Canada when I was a university student (I'd had a couple speeding tickets, was young, didn't have years of 'safe driving' to qualify for discounts, drove a 'sports car', etc). It was beyond ridiculous. I ended up going to school in BC instead. Insurance was under $2500 for the same car/driver.
And the car was just a Toyota MR2 (the older boxy style); and at the time the car was only worth maybe $4-5k.
A lot of my Toronto friends just drove without insurance.
Never hide the file extension.
Agreed. But if they embed the word icon, and its clearly called partyinvite.doc.exe, people will click on it anyway. So really, what difference does it make? The people who are going to be fooled are STILL going to be fooled.