Oh noes, a rich guy just used the system of transplant lists to his advantage while not breaking any rule just for the sake of him not dying or getting better faster! The monster!!
lol, what? That's easily the most antisocial comment I've seen on Slashdot in a while, that's not even funny. Although your signature about death metal on a site named anus.com makes it funny again. Ever considered becoming an hero?
And there we go again, Slashdotters and their utter failure to grasp the most basic and fundamental aspects of economics. He's created jobs, lots of them, both directly by employing people and indirectly by having the employees spend money, by buying from manufacturers and other partners which employ and pay people, by creating value, and so forth. And that's for being a basic big employer, if you look at his influence over the markets his company dabbles in or the influence of his products in other markets then that's even more.
Right, it's called a leader. Go back to 1805, remove Napoleon and see if the rest of French history unfolds the same way. Oh sure, other leaders can lead to, but would there be an iPod or iPhone or iTunes Music Store if it wasn't for Steve Jobs? Saying that Apple without Jobs would do just as fine is assuming that Jobs has run out of such great ideas. Apple would have done fine without Jobs coming back, it would just have stuck to making computers...
That's like saying "see, my car just went on this straight road fine while I had my hands off the wheel for 5 seconds!". That doesn't mean that it'll also work in tight turns.
Yes, car analogies just work for any fucking thing. I wonder how people did before we had cars...
Can't you be both at the same time? Or does it go against your culture of pigeonholing in which you're either a nerd or a jock, or also in Obama's case a black man or a white man (I'm bringing it up because in America Obama is referred to as a black man, whereas in France he's referred to as being mixed race).
Yeah, but you see, that's one of these great solutions that people don't want because "omg we then have to bury a few tons of radioactive material underground". People see what's obvious, even if what they see isn't always such a big problem, but don't see the less obvious, like the ecological and environmental effects of covering the ground with reflective black panels.
This being said, I'm French and in my country most of the electricity is produced from nuclear power and it works just fine (the rest is all geothermal, hydroelectric, with slowly more wind and solar power). I'm ashamed for the USA that you guys are too much of a bunch of pussies to do what we did. Well, you may have the excuse of sitting on a fat stack of coal so it was hardly an incentive to look into anything else, but now, in the days of the ecological fad, you have no excuse for trying to ruin your landscapes with big fans rather than start a serious nuclear program.
Sure, what could possibly go wrong about injecting water into cities' underground and removing the heat from the ground. I for one welcome our colder grounds, flooded subways and mudslides.
Except it all comes from gravity. No gravity, no stars or planets. No stars or planets, no.
That's a stupid thing to say. That's like saying that all the power coming from a coal power plant comes from the builders who built the plant and from the trucks that transported the coal there.
If you pigeon-hole yourself to begin with it's not gonna help the "normal person" advising you. Having a lacklustre social life isn't the exclusive privilege of the so-called nerd, lots of "normal people" are lonely too.
Yes, people who can take all the design risks they want would rather give up that freedom of trying something new to make yet another fucking Quake-clone. I'll blame it on people doing it for the "I did it, and it's free!" factor rather for trying a cool new idea they imagined.
Strangely enough, not so many people have any good new ideas that they want to follow.
All of the weapons take only a few shots to kill someone, at most. Usually just one or two. So, it ends up being a twitch-fest. There's enough twitch games out there already.
That's true that a lot of multiplayer FPSes these days give you less than a second from the time you see your enemy to kill or get killed, but making it so you have to empty a whole clip and a half into your opponent doesn't fix it. The solution isn't necessarily in a trade-off.
Which reminds me of a very fun mod for CoD4 I've played lately. It's a paintball mod, a Simpsons mod (you play in 3D Springfield) and you can jump very high, there are few buildings you can't leap over in one bound. So basically, it's a huge bunny hopping map, but here's the fun thing : if you pick a grenade launcher, you can kill an enemy on the ground easily (takes lots of luck to hit a flying enemy with that), and you have a poor firing rate (one shot every 2-3 seconds).
So what happens is you spot an enemy, let's say you're on the ground, not jumping. At first you don't shoot, because grenade launchers don't fire straight, and because you need to make the projectile hit the ground not the enemy to have a chance to kill the enemy on the ground. Your enemy is bunny hopping, all over the place. So what you do is start hopping too, but carefully you only start hopping when your target is about to reach the apex of his jump. Because what you want to do is be at a high point and be relatively stable while your enemy is near the ground to shoot him. So you jump, keep track of your enemy, and hopefully if it worked out well you get him in one shot while you're quite steady in the air by shooting at the point on the ground where you predict he's about to land. Optionally another quite fun option is to stand on land while your target is in the air, run to the point where you think he's going to land, and punch him dead when he lands right next to you.
For short, it's fun because you first have to track down your enemy, you don't have to start aim and shooting mindlessly but rather carefully calculate your time of jumping, your time of shooting and where to shoot (which is not where your enemy appears to be but where you think he'll be, which makes it more fun), and if you're against a skilled bunny-hopper it can lead to an exciting jump-dogfight which outcome can be quite interesting, like for example the two jumping towards each other and punching or shooting each other at close range in mid-air. Alternatively it's also quite fun to pick out guys that are high perched and staying there by jumping high and shooting a paint grenade from a distance straight into them or their immediate surroundings.
A shame these days we're sticking to a guy who runs all over the place and shoots supersonic bullets straight into his enemy when there's much room for trying alternatives that have wildly different gameplay results.
If you give up before even starting, isn't it the definition of a loser? I can't believe there's anyone out there who can seriously believe that they aren't able to get in a relationship with a woman no matter how hard they'd try.
If you're really desperate for anything that's over 18, genetically human and a technically a female, and want to go after easy game because you think you're the worst hunter ever, then go for the women with low self-esteem, the ones who, like you, think they're hardly good enough for a man, any man. Just be a bit interested in them, and actually I'm not sure if it matters whether you treat them good or treat them like shit.
But I'd myself recommend against that, if you think things are really that desperate for you, you're probably delusional, but your delusion works in the favour of the consolidation of your delusion, to the fact your delusion can turn into a well-confirmed observable fact. My advice would be, get to know well lots of women, get to know them as persons, then friends, and eventually when you'll know lots of women very well you'll find that there's one of them that you really like.
What I mean by that is that people either buy the album or not. You don't need a copyright for that. Just an album, for sale, that people can buy, or not. The market here being the whole of the people, who'll buy it, or not.
My point was that recording artists should still make the same money as they do now from their studio work, rather than just give it up for free as it's being suggested in the hope they'll make the money in concerts.
The oil industry have a history of being far more evil bastards than anyone thinks the RIAA are. Using them as an example of why we should have the choice whether to pay people if they cannot set the price is, I would wager, counter-productive.
That's irrelevant. What's relevant is that there are products out there that people will pay for no matter the price, hence proving that "Worth is not determined by the producer" is a bullshit claim. I could have used the example of food too, but that's a crappier example because people can produce their own food.
God damnit you suckers are so full of shit, you can't just take the meaning of a point, you have to take the analogy used in the point (once again) and stretch the fuck out of it to end up talking about shit that has nothing to do with it. Don't be fooled, the only reason why you're being modded up is ideological, no matter how poor and invalid your claims are you're in Slashdot's ideological home turf, and that's all it takes when it comes to the red hot topic of.....copying music for free.
Slashdot Mirror
Oh noes, a rich guy just used the system of transplant lists to his advantage while not breaking any rule just for the sake of him not dying or getting better faster! The monster!!
lol, what? That's easily the most antisocial comment I've seen on Slashdot in a while, that's not even funny. Although your signature about death metal on a site named anus.com makes it funny again. Ever considered becoming an hero?
And there we go again, Slashdotters and their utter failure to grasp the most basic and fundamental aspects of economics. He's created jobs, lots of them, both directly by employing people and indirectly by having the employees spend money, by buying from manufacturers and other partners which employ and pay people, by creating value, and so forth. And that's for being a basic big employer, if you look at his influence over the markets his company dabbles in or the influence of his products in other markets then that's even more.
So? If your shareholders base decisions on the health of your penis, doesn't make them entitled to be notified when you get a genital wart.
Right, it's called a leader. Go back to 1805, remove Napoleon and see if the rest of French history unfolds the same way. Oh sure, other leaders can lead to, but would there be an iPod or iPhone or iTunes Music Store if it wasn't for Steve Jobs? Saying that Apple without Jobs would do just as fine is assuming that Jobs has run out of such great ideas. Apple would have done fine without Jobs coming back, it would just have stuck to making computers...
Really? Where can I buy a faster GFX card than one that was priced $500 on Christmas day 2008 for much cheaper? Nowhere?
Also, 1999 just called, they want their transient fast moving GFX card market back.
That's like saying "see, my car just went on this straight road fine while I had my hands off the wheel for 5 seconds!". That doesn't mean that it'll also work in tight turns.
Yes, car analogies just work for any fucking thing. I wonder how people did before we had cars...
Can't you be both at the same time? Or does it go against your culture of pigeonholing in which you're either a nerd or a jock, or also in Obama's case a black man or a white man (I'm bringing it up because in America Obama is referred to as a black man, whereas in France he's referred to as being mixed race).
Aside from the finding that circumcising heterosexual men reduces the risk of HIV
In another study (sorry can't find the link) they found that if you remove the entire penis, then risks of HIV infection drop even more dramatically!
I say, let's emasculate babies at birth!
Yeah, but you see, that's one of these great solutions that people don't want because "omg we then have to bury a few tons of radioactive material underground". People see what's obvious, even if what they see isn't always such a big problem, but don't see the less obvious, like the ecological and environmental effects of covering the ground with reflective black panels.
This being said, I'm French and in my country most of the electricity is produced from nuclear power and it works just fine (the rest is all geothermal, hydroelectric, with slowly more wind and solar power). I'm ashamed for the USA that you guys are too much of a bunch of pussies to do what we did. Well, you may have the excuse of sitting on a fat stack of coal so it was hardly an incentive to look into anything else, but now, in the days of the ecological fad, you have no excuse for trying to ruin your landscapes with big fans rather than start a serious nuclear program.
Sure, what could possibly go wrong about injecting water into cities' underground and removing the heat from the ground. I for one welcome our colder grounds, flooded subways and mudslides.
Except it all comes from gravity. No gravity, no stars or planets. No stars or planets, no .
That's a stupid thing to say. That's like saying that all the power coming from a coal power plant comes from the builders who built the plant and from the trucks that transported the coal there.
Bullshit, we can know things with a degree of uncertainty. That's why we're still bothering trying to predict the weather, because we can do it.
That's if he'd post under the nick 'Superman' ;-).
If you pigeon-hole yourself to begin with it's not gonna help the "normal person" advising you. Having a lacklustre social life isn't the exclusive privilege of the so-called nerd, lots of "normal people" are lonely too.
Ars Technica?
But hey, at least it's free!
Yes, people who can take all the design risks they want would rather give up that freedom of trying something new to make yet another fucking Quake-clone. I'll blame it on people doing it for the "I did it, and it's free!" factor rather for trying a cool new idea they imagined.
Strangely enough, not so many people have any good new ideas that they want to follow.
All of the weapons take only a few shots to kill someone, at most. Usually just one or two. So, it ends up being a twitch-fest. There's enough twitch games out there already.
That's true that a lot of multiplayer FPSes these days give you less than a second from the time you see your enemy to kill or get killed, but making it so you have to empty a whole clip and a half into your opponent doesn't fix it. The solution isn't necessarily in a trade-off.
Which reminds me of a very fun mod for CoD4 I've played lately. It's a paintball mod, a Simpsons mod (you play in 3D Springfield) and you can jump very high, there are few buildings you can't leap over in one bound. So basically, it's a huge bunny hopping map, but here's the fun thing : if you pick a grenade launcher, you can kill an enemy on the ground easily (takes lots of luck to hit a flying enemy with that), and you have a poor firing rate (one shot every 2-3 seconds).
So what happens is you spot an enemy, let's say you're on the ground, not jumping. At first you don't shoot, because grenade launchers don't fire straight, and because you need to make the projectile hit the ground not the enemy to have a chance to kill the enemy on the ground. Your enemy is bunny hopping, all over the place. So what you do is start hopping too, but carefully you only start hopping when your target is about to reach the apex of his jump. Because what you want to do is be at a high point and be relatively stable while your enemy is near the ground to shoot him. So you jump, keep track of your enemy, and hopefully if it worked out well you get him in one shot while you're quite steady in the air by shooting at the point on the ground where you predict he's about to land. Optionally another quite fun option is to stand on land while your target is in the air, run to the point where you think he's going to land, and punch him dead when he lands right next to you.
For short, it's fun because you first have to track down your enemy, you don't have to start aim and shooting mindlessly but rather carefully calculate your time of jumping, your time of shooting and where to shoot (which is not where your enemy appears to be but where you think he'll be, which makes it more fun), and if you're against a skilled bunny-hopper it can lead to an exciting jump-dogfight which outcome can be quite interesting, like for example the two jumping towards each other and punching or shooting each other at close range in mid-air. Alternatively it's also quite fun to pick out guys that are high perched and staying there by jumping high and shooting a paint grenade from a distance straight into them or their immediate surroundings.
A shame these days we're sticking to a guy who runs all over the place and shoots supersonic bullets straight into his enemy when there's much room for trying alternatives that have wildly different gameplay results.
If you give up before even starting, isn't it the definition of a loser? I can't believe there's anyone out there who can seriously believe that they aren't able to get in a relationship with a woman no matter how hard they'd try.
If you're really desperate for anything that's over 18, genetically human and a technically a female, and want to go after easy game because you think you're the worst hunter ever, then go for the women with low self-esteem, the ones who, like you, think they're hardly good enough for a man, any man. Just be a bit interested in them, and actually I'm not sure if it matters whether you treat them good or treat them like shit.
But I'd myself recommend against that, if you think things are really that desperate for you, you're probably delusional, but your delusion works in the favour of the consolidation of your delusion, to the fact your delusion can turn into a well-confirmed observable fact. My advice would be, get to know well lots of women, get to know them as persons, then friends, and eventually when you'll know lots of women very well you'll find that there's one of them that you really like.
Are you trying to say that you wouldn't have been bothered by watching your parents fuck before your eyes?
the market is rapidly moving toward a state of being completely flooded with music, much of it quite good
lol wtf.. What kind of utter crap can you possibly like to think something like that?
What I mean by that is that people either buy the album or not. You don't need a copyright for that. Just an album, for sale, that people can buy, or not. The market here being the whole of the people, who'll buy it, or not.
Your point being? That record sales don't make much money? So what?
My point was that recording artists should still make the same money as they do now from their studio work, rather than just give it up for free as it's being suggested in the hope they'll make the money in concerts.
The oil industry have a history of being far more evil bastards than anyone thinks the RIAA are. Using them as an example of why we should have the choice whether to pay people if they cannot set the price is, I would wager, counter-productive.
That's irrelevant. What's relevant is that there are products out there that people will pay for no matter the price, hence proving that "Worth is not determined by the producer" is a bullshit claim. I could have used the example of food too, but that's a crappier example because people can produce their own food.
God damnit you suckers are so full of shit, you can't just take the meaning of a point, you have to take the analogy used in the point (once again) and stretch the fuck out of it to end up talking about shit that has nothing to do with it. Don't be fooled, the only reason why you're being modded up is ideological, no matter how poor and invalid your claims are you're in Slashdot's ideological home turf, and that's all it takes when it comes to the red hot topic of... ..copying music for free.