Honestly, a good pair of headphones will remove all the fan noise, and noise in general. My wife and I both play with headphones. If it's the same game we use Teamspeak (yes, with 6 feet between us).
This couldn't be more true. Paris, France threatened to sue me if I didn't turn over my domain to them. Somehow they won the UDRP complaint when the requirements include not having threatened to file suit. Thankfully some rather fantastic lawyers helped me keep my domain. It's a scary world and the people with money don't make it any better.
Don't get stopped by the police in Michigan. If that's not possible, phone out of view. They may be trying to skirt around the 4th Amendment by slurping the phone data, but they can't search your car (for your phone) with PC or a warrant. And I'm sorry, but "most people have a cellphone so I'm going to find yours" is not PC for a search.
I am well aware of this. What I was pointing out was how ludicrous it is for the school to assume that all P2P is illegal when some people pay at least one company to use their fully legitimate and legal BT-based updater. I apologize if you missed that.
Yes... It uses BitTorrent for updates (yes, you can disable this but most don't). Suddenly people who pay month-to-month to play a game are considered criminals by the school. Um, what?
The consent rules only apply for communications where there is an expectation of privacy, like a phone call. In a public place there is no such expectation so the consent rules do not apply.
Aside from this seriously being a sudden outbreak of common sense, it only affects residents of Maryland. In order to affect the whole of the United States this would have to be a decision made by SCOTUS. Should this go to them? It shouldn't have to. Our state and local governments should be bright enough to figure this out on their own.
There's a shortage of donors as it is where too many are dragging their feet when it comes to registering. This new rule seems to make the "game" fairer.
I've never really seen it as a game myself. To me it is just a way to turn your own grief in to someone's joy. Is that really so bad? While I do not possess a donor card, I've made my wishes perfectly clear to those who would be making decisions on my behalf should something happen.
But how I understand it, orthodox who explicitly refuse donating organs apparently want to dictate rules for matches they don't even participate in. What's it then? Do they want be in front of the queue for accepting organs? Play the game or leave the table. Another fine example of religious representatives imposing themselves, interpreting the word of God.
Yes, yes, and yes. You have to remember that the religious leaders in biblical times were the law. Even if how they interpreted the word of God was horribly inaccurate and plainly only for their benefit, people went with it. Even in modern times, these "leaders" still seem to be nothing more than a cleaned up version of a mob boss.
The gun laws for Clark County are a bit odd, but they have provisions that we forced on them by Nevada that allow people to not register their firearms for 60 days IIRC. This keeps people who are visiting from having to jump through hoops.
It is interesting how some airports pay closer attention to luggage than others, isn't it? I've only been to one (PHX if I'm remembering right) that actually has someone verifying the bag you grab is actually your own. At the time I was much younger and thought it a huge waste of my time. Now that I'm older and have better toys (firearms, expensive cameras, computers, etc), I wish more airports would check.
In a crime of passion, you are correct, the assailant will use whatever is at hand. This only proves my point that anything can be a weapon when the intent is to cause harm. After all, a weapon is "any instrument or device for use in attack or defense in combat, fighting, or war..." (dictionary.com)
With the UK basically outlawing firearms, the only two things that could happen, did; for the most part only criminals have guns, and those that don't moved to knives. Now knife crime is up. I don't see that as helping crime at all.
Let's entertain the idea of the UK banning pointed knives. Two things will happen: criminals will file the rounded tip to a point, or they'll replace stabbing with slashing. And since you can't very well outlaw knives (what would cut meat with?), you're stuck. Criminals will always find creative ways of making weapons work better for them.
Yes, modifying something to make it a better weapon gives evidence of premeditation... Or does it? In order to answer that, we must first ask ourselves what the function of the police is. Their job is not the protection of the individual, but the community as a whole. If a crime is committed against you, the police are only there to pick up the pieces. So an otherwise law-abiding citizen may break the law to ensure their safety. Does this mean that when they are forced to defend themselves and they use the illegally modified knife that the were looking for trouble? No, it certainly does not.
Pragmatists don't write laws. Pragmatists don't enforce laws. And pragmatists do not prosecute those who break the laws. Laws are written by people who want to make the worst-case scenario illegal, regardless of how it could affect everyone else. Look no further than New York's or California's firearm laws for proof of this.
I'll be blunt, if I'm a criminal and they outlawed knives, I'd still carry one. Laws only affect those that follow them.
Slashdot Mirror
Honestly, a good pair of headphones will remove all the fan noise, and noise in general. My wife and I both play with headphones. If it's the same game we use Teamspeak (yes, with 6 feet between us).
Years of my life have been spent dealing with it. I would love to get that time back.
parvi.org. Here are a few stories that made their way online: http://domainnamewire.com/?s=parvi.org
This couldn't be more true. Paris, France threatened to sue me if I didn't turn over my domain to them. Somehow they won the UDRP complaint when the requirements include not having threatened to file suit. Thankfully some rather fantastic lawyers helped me keep my domain. It's a scary world and the people with money don't make it any better.
Completely forgot about that... and yes, yes it :-)
Mmm.... Tasty seakittens! I think I'm suddenly hungry!
PETA used to be run by sane people, but then the crazies came in and scared the sanity away.
Don't get stopped by the police in Michigan. If that's not possible, phone out of view. They may be trying to skirt around the 4th Amendment by slurping the phone data, but they can't search your car (for your phone) with PC or a warrant. And I'm sorry, but "most people have a cellphone so I'm going to find yours" is not PC for a search.
Kill it with fire.
When in doubt, nuke it from orbit.
I am well aware of this. What I was pointing out was how ludicrous it is for the school to assume that all P2P is illegal when some people pay at least one company to use their fully legitimate and legal BT-based updater. I apologize if you missed that.
Yes... It uses BitTorrent for updates (yes, you can disable this but most don't). Suddenly people who pay month-to-month to play a game are considered criminals by the school. Um, what?
I'm coming up short on irony. Where do I submit for my flogging?
"RISC is good."
"...between the first half of the season and the second..."
It could also have to do with HUGE break between the first half of the season and the second... Just sayin'
The consent rules only apply for communications where there is an expectation of privacy, like a phone call. In a public place there is no such expectation so the consent rules do not apply.
Aside from this seriously being a sudden outbreak of common sense, it only affects residents of Maryland. In order to affect the whole of the United States this would have to be a decision made by SCOTUS. Should this go to them? It shouldn't have to. Our state and local governments should be bright enough to figure this out on their own.
So if guns cause crime, do cameras cause child porn?
There's a shortage of donors as it is where too many are dragging their feet when it comes to registering. This new rule seems to make the "game" fairer.
I've never really seen it as a game myself. To me it is just a way to turn your own grief in to someone's joy. Is that really so bad? While I do not possess a donor card, I've made my wishes perfectly clear to those who would be making decisions on my behalf should something happen.
But how I understand it, orthodox who explicitly refuse donating organs apparently want to dictate rules for matches they don't even participate in. What's it then? Do they want be in front of the queue for accepting organs? Play the game or leave the table. Another fine example of religious representatives imposing themselves, interpreting the word of God.
Yes, yes, and yes. You have to remember that the religious leaders in biblical times were the law. Even if how they interpreted the word of God was horribly inaccurate and plainly only for their benefit, people went with it. Even in modern times, these "leaders" still seem to be nothing more than a cleaned up version of a mob boss.
The gun laws for Clark County are a bit odd, but they have provisions that we forced on them by Nevada that allow people to not register their firearms for 60 days IIRC. This keeps people who are visiting from having to jump through hoops.
It is interesting how some airports pay closer attention to luggage than others, isn't it? I've only been to one (PHX if I'm remembering right) that actually has someone verifying the bag you grab is actually your own. At the time I was much younger and thought it a huge waste of my time. Now that I'm older and have better toys (firearms, expensive cameras, computers, etc), I wish more airports would check.
He almost went out with a bang.
Until I see all categories of Japanese animated pr0n on Idle, I'll have to respectfully disagree.
In a crime of passion, you are correct, the assailant will use whatever is at hand. This only proves my point that anything can be a weapon when the intent is to cause harm. After all, a weapon is "any instrument or device for use in attack or defense in combat, fighting, or war..." (dictionary.com)
With the UK basically outlawing firearms, the only two things that could happen, did; for the most part only criminals have guns, and those that don't moved to knives. Now knife crime is up. I don't see that as helping crime at all.
Let's entertain the idea of the UK banning pointed knives. Two things will happen: criminals will file the rounded tip to a point, or they'll replace stabbing with slashing. And since you can't very well outlaw knives (what would cut meat with?), you're stuck. Criminals will always find creative ways of making weapons work better for them.
Yes, modifying something to make it a better weapon gives evidence of premeditation... Or does it? In order to answer that, we must first ask ourselves what the function of the police is. Their job is not the protection of the individual, but the community as a whole. If a crime is committed against you, the police are only there to pick up the pieces. So an otherwise law-abiding citizen may break the law to ensure their safety. Does this mean that when they are forced to defend themselves and they use the illegally modified knife that the were looking for trouble? No, it certainly does not.
Pragmatists don't write laws. Pragmatists don't enforce laws. And pragmatists do not prosecute those who break the laws. Laws are written by people who want to make the worst-case scenario illegal, regardless of how it could affect everyone else. Look no further than New York's or California's firearm laws for proof of this.
I'll be blunt, if I'm a criminal and they outlawed knives, I'd still carry one. Laws only affect those that follow them.