You must be one fat bastard to be showing up on a 12 meter pixel pitch image. I'm really curious as to how you get around if you're being covered by multiple pixels.
Yes, but if the AG takes it off the table, then the jurors don't even have the option. Plus there's a tendency for the prosecuting attorney to stack the deck massively in favor of jurors that are likely to choose the death penalty. It's more than a little naive to assume that it isn't being set up by the state even if from time to time the jury thinks otherwise.
Actually, the firing squad approach is completely different. I mean for one thing they attach a target to him. And the gurney is total vertical.
If you really want, quick, clean and humane, the only choice is death by asphyxiation. Basically you put them in the gas chamber and flood it with carbon dioxide. It kills them quickly with no pain or suffering. The body is in perfect condition afterward and it's basically impossible to screw up. And you can also go with Nitrogen asphyxiation if you really want to be humane.
How many executions prior to this had the AG of the state announce it as it happened to people outside the facility? The only one that I can think of off the top of my head is Ted Bundy. Back when he was executed there were parties going on all over the country.
Which really backs up the point that until the man is actually executed there's no reason to announce that he's about to be executed. It's in poor taste and encourages a barbaric savagery that tends to surround these sorts of cases. But, tweeting the press conference afterward is a completely different matter. That's legitimate if it informs people that the press conference is going to happen.
I noticed in the article that they're not specifying what it is that they'd be monitoring. Which quite frankly frightens me more than a little. Depending upon what they're monitoring it could be a reasonable and necessary step or it could be bat shit insane like a lot of the DHS initiatives have been. Monitoring hate speech website is more or less obligatory, I'd assume that somebody's already doing that, tracking people that routinely go to them is probably a reasonable trade off. But tracking everybody that comes across a site like that is almost certainly ridiculous.
For better or for worse it's hardly unheard of for supremacist groups to order hits via postings on the internet. Not specifically aimed at one person, but at anybody interested in carrying out their agenda. Which is what probably spurred this interest in monitoring the threats online. But without knowing what exactly she meant, it's really hard to know whether it's a good idea or terribly frightening.
But OTOH this isn't a bad way of unknowns to get some recognition and footage for when they audition. A lot of them tend to work in smaller community productions as is for practically nothing. It's really not that uncommon for an actor to be sleeping in his car while trying to make it big. Something of this sort isn't really that much worse than the status quo. You do also have people that enjoy cinematography and other trades on a hobby basis who'd be more than happy to get a slice of whatever comes of it.
But, this definitely isn't ever going to be the main way that it's done. I just can't imagine there being enough consistency to make it a workable model. But OTOOH, Fox still makes shows, and this is a tad bit less completely insane than letting them make TV shows.
And the job I just quit was being managed by a jack ass with neither managerial nor industry experience. He was literally hired so that his boss wouldn't have to worry about competing with him for his job in the future. It's something which is richly rewarded in the US. Screw things up via incompetence and you'll almost certainly get bought up. With all the executives getting a golden parachute while massive layoffs for redundancy affect the people actually doing the work.
Sucks, but that's what you get for working in a nation with one of the least free markets in the free world.
They do work for Verizon, however, who do you think is more likely to get laid off in event of a massive exodus from Verizon? The CSRs? Or the corporate execs?
Simply put, I'm glad that I opted to go with a different carrier when I read about things like this. Sure my carrier isn't any better, but at least being on GSM allows me to choose my carrier without having to buy a new phone.
You've just described why it will never happen in the US. We used to do something similar to that for the Senate seats. Up until, I think 1913, when we passed a constitutional amendment requiring Senators to be elected. I'm not sure it was a wise idea, but there you go. And it was never the party that was doing the choosing, it was the particular representatives that were. It had it's advantages, but wasn't seen to be adequately democratic.
Around here a large part of the problem is that the political parties have too much power as it is. One of the reason why WA state is out of the dark ages whilst most of the rest of the states are still mired in them politically is that we've gone a long way towards defanging them. We've got a Louisiana style primary combined with a bipartisan redistricting system. In a situation like that you're not going to get a lot of benefit out of letting the parties submit lists or even voting on lists. We've spent a lot of time and money fighting both our parties to keep some semblance of representation in the state. It's not going to be very popular to then go back and give the parties more. It doesn't matter which party you're from around here, it was extremely unpopular with both voters of all parties to have to declare a party in the primary.
Um, around here we just vote for each candidate individually. Why on Earth would one vote on a list? This strikes me as a bit of a false dilemma in that you're ignoring the middle ground where rather than voting on a list, you vote on each candidate individually. I wasn't aware that any part of the world was so backwards as to ask voters to vote on a list of candidates in such an absurd fashion.
Also, it's borderline asinine to suggest that a system that works well under a Parliamentary system would translate well to the Bicameral system we've got. One of the main reasons why we have a two party system is because of things like the Electoral college and the many places where individuals don't get to cross party lines during the primaries. And this form of voting doesn't address that at all.
Some parts of the state here have introduce instant run off elections. But it's hardly worthwhile to even consider it. For instance for it to be of any value you need to have more than two candidates running. The vast majority of races around here have two parties running and many have one. Secondly, the whole premise of instant runoff voting is flawed in the sense that your candidate still didn't win, the only people that are going to like it are the anybody but X crowed, and I'm really not convinced it's a good idea to encourage that sort of thinking.
A better solution is to take away the districting from the winners of the election, either make it bipartisan or nonpartisan and go to a method of election like WA's top two primary where the two top vote getters of any party get to run in the final election. You do that and the point of an instant runoff is pretty much moot.
It's necessary to spend a significant amount of time to be hardcore, but it's not sufficient. It's perfectly adequate as a rule out, but insufficient as a means of determining that somebody is in fact a hardcore gamer.
That Google wrote it and not Adobe. Adobe either doesn't hire qualified programmers or somehow manages to thwart any from getting work done properly. I'm not sure what exactly the problem is, whether there's too much interference from people without foundation or perhaps they just don't provide the resources to do it correctly in the first place.
The problems with PDF started for the same reasons that DOC problems started. The party responsible for the format decided that hey, wouldn't it be cool if... And after that you got document formats with embedded programming features. No good will ever come of doing such a thing. If you need to do more than just display, then there are ways of handling that. Allowing such things to be embedded in every document without providing a sane way of determining which do and which don't prior to opening causes tons of trouble.
That's what I hated about Halo, unless you own the console or live with somebody that does, the controls alone are formidable. Good luck trying to have an enjoyable experience without spending a lot of time on it.
One of the things I like about Wolfenstein 3d, the Catacombs Abyss and Doom was that the game play was simplified. Admittedly that was a decision driven entirely by technological restraints, but not having to use a mouse, and only having to worry about 3 buttons, plus the movement and weapon change made things a lot more fun. Sure it wasn't technically accurate, however it did simplify getting into it and make it a lot less daunting to get involved with things like deathmatches.
But he's definitely not a hardcore gamer for the same reason that I'm not one. You're not particularly hard core if you can only play for a few minutes here and there and aren't rearranging things to play more. Nor are you a hardcore gamer just by virtue of being interested in more complexity harder game play.
Perhaps I'm old fashioned, but if you're average period of play is under a half hour and you're not doing multiple sessions per day, it's a pretty good guess that you're not hardcore. Not that that's bad, but it's just a fact of life that if you aren't willing/able to make sacrifices to play the games, then you're not hardcore by any reasonable definition.
Are you sure about that? 3D TV may very well come along, but it's hardly an assumption that people should be making. 3D has been available to film makers for a half century and it still hasn't really taken off. From time to time there's a story which works better in 3D, but the reality is that most movies are already 3D in the mind of the viewer, We know what's close and what's far and adding 3D to that doesn't contribute a whole lot.
Likewise videophones were first demonstrated many decades ago and they still haven't taken off. The main reason being that except in extremely long distance communications like in and out of a war zone, people just don't want to have to put on pants and a shirt to take a telephone call.
I don't think Kinect will catch on to the extent that you do. It's cool, but I'm not sure that it'll truly overcome the problem of games being about escape. Nintendo had a controller back in the 80s which has been emulated a few times in games like DDR, but even that hasn't particularly caught on. The Wiimote has really come the closest, but I'm not sure if it's truly here to stay or not, it depends solely upon how much it adds to the game.
There's no meaningful correlation between doing homework and learning things. In fact it's counterproductive after a certain point. If you're having to do more than an hour of homework a night total for school (Not counting college) you're wasting your time. There's no compelling reason to suggest that doing anymore than that is actually helpful. In fact doing too much of it causes problems because people need to rest and they need to have time to decompress. They also need time to learn about other things outside of school time, and making a kid spend that much time is not helpful in the long run.
It's also a poor assumption to assume that the kids that do the homework need to. Some genuinely do, but you're arbitrarily cutting off the people that would struggle whether they did the homework or not. As it's much more likely for people to do the homework if they find it to be a breeze.
Actually Communism was really just a perverse form of capitalism. It's more or less exactly what Adam Smith warned about. Rather than one company owning everything, one entity did. The entity was generally the Communist party, and the results were indistinguishable from what the fascists in America are pushing for. Either the government controls the entire economy or a single corporate entity controls the government. Without appropriate regulation those are pretty much the only options which don't involve the entire country exploding.
Yes, and he's correct. Bandwidth lasts infinitely if nobody uses it. I say bravo on the courage to piss off your customers and chase them to the competitors. It takes real guts to preserve bandwidth in such a courageous way.
Ouch, that must hurt. I'm paying roughly half that for a 6mbps connection. I've personally had a lot of good luck with DirecTV and Qwest. Earthlink wasn't too bad for DSL, but whatever route you take, you're pretty much guaranteed to give money to either the cable company or the telephone company for internet. There's just no meaningful competition.
Around here, you drive around and you see a huge number of satellite dishes popping up. I guess it turns out that people were sick of paying for channels that didn't come in properly on Comcrap. It might be a bit better if you're getting cable through a bulk package as a part of a condo association or similar, but the cable company just doesn't care enough to provide the service that it promises.
Same really goes for cell service. Since for the most part they all suck, there's basically no motivation by any of them to actually improve.
You're correct, although that doesn't mean that there won't be an investigation. If it turns out that there's any contact between the companies on the issue then that's a completely different matter. This is also coincidentally why service tends to suck so bad in the US. None of the providers have any incentive to compete over things like pricing of text messages. They all know that a price war would screw them all over.
I think most people assume that unlimited means that it's as much as the device can use. I don't think anybody seriously believes that they're entitled to more than the full capacity of bandwidth use constantly over the month. That would be stupid. But, any constraints that the carrier places beyond what the device can handle is fraudulent in my view. If they want to call it unlimited, then they damn well better not be putting in any limits that the device itself doesn't require.
I'd like to see a citation as well. Considering the way that the iPhone and iPad function, I can't imagine him being opposed to anything other than the term. As those products use an excessive amount of bandwidth. If you're going to use those devices as intended, you're going to burn through a huge amount of bandwidth, that's just the reality of it.
Slashdot Mirror
You must be one fat bastard to be showing up on a 12 meter pixel pitch image. I'm really curious as to how you get around if you're being covered by multiple pixels.
Yes, but if the AG takes it off the table, then the jurors don't even have the option. Plus there's a tendency for the prosecuting attorney to stack the deck massively in favor of jurors that are likely to choose the death penalty. It's more than a little naive to assume that it isn't being set up by the state even if from time to time the jury thinks otherwise.
Actually, the firing squad approach is completely different. I mean for one thing they attach a target to him. And the gurney is total vertical.
If you really want, quick, clean and humane, the only choice is death by asphyxiation. Basically you put them in the gas chamber and flood it with carbon dioxide. It kills them quickly with no pain or suffering. The body is in perfect condition afterward and it's basically impossible to screw up. And you can also go with Nitrogen asphyxiation if you really want to be humane.
How many executions prior to this had the AG of the state announce it as it happened to people outside the facility? The only one that I can think of off the top of my head is Ted Bundy. Back when he was executed there were parties going on all over the country.
Which really backs up the point that until the man is actually executed there's no reason to announce that he's about to be executed. It's in poor taste and encourages a barbaric savagery that tends to surround these sorts of cases. But, tweeting the press conference afterward is a completely different matter. That's legitimate if it informs people that the press conference is going to happen.
I noticed in the article that they're not specifying what it is that they'd be monitoring. Which quite frankly frightens me more than a little. Depending upon what they're monitoring it could be a reasonable and necessary step or it could be bat shit insane like a lot of the DHS initiatives have been. Monitoring hate speech website is more or less obligatory, I'd assume that somebody's already doing that, tracking people that routinely go to them is probably a reasonable trade off. But tracking everybody that comes across a site like that is almost certainly ridiculous.
For better or for worse it's hardly unheard of for supremacist groups to order hits via postings on the internet. Not specifically aimed at one person, but at anybody interested in carrying out their agenda. Which is what probably spurred this interest in monitoring the threats online. But without knowing what exactly she meant, it's really hard to know whether it's a good idea or terribly frightening.
But OTOH this isn't a bad way of unknowns to get some recognition and footage for when they audition. A lot of them tend to work in smaller community productions as is for practically nothing. It's really not that uncommon for an actor to be sleeping in his car while trying to make it big. Something of this sort isn't really that much worse than the status quo. You do also have people that enjoy cinematography and other trades on a hobby basis who'd be more than happy to get a slice of whatever comes of it.
But, this definitely isn't ever going to be the main way that it's done. I just can't imagine there being enough consistency to make it a workable model. But OTOOH, Fox still makes shows, and this is a tad bit less completely insane than letting them make TV shows.
And the job I just quit was being managed by a jack ass with neither managerial nor industry experience. He was literally hired so that his boss wouldn't have to worry about competing with him for his job in the future. It's something which is richly rewarded in the US. Screw things up via incompetence and you'll almost certainly get bought up. With all the executives getting a golden parachute while massive layoffs for redundancy affect the people actually doing the work.
Sucks, but that's what you get for working in a nation with one of the least free markets in the free world.
They do work for Verizon, however, who do you think is more likely to get laid off in event of a massive exodus from Verizon? The CSRs? Or the corporate execs?
Simply put, I'm glad that I opted to go with a different carrier when I read about things like this. Sure my carrier isn't any better, but at least being on GSM allows me to choose my carrier without having to buy a new phone.
You've just described why it will never happen in the US. We used to do something similar to that for the Senate seats. Up until, I think 1913, when we passed a constitutional amendment requiring Senators to be elected. I'm not sure it was a wise idea, but there you go. And it was never the party that was doing the choosing, it was the particular representatives that were. It had it's advantages, but wasn't seen to be adequately democratic.
Around here a large part of the problem is that the political parties have too much power as it is. One of the reason why WA state is out of the dark ages whilst most of the rest of the states are still mired in them politically is that we've gone a long way towards defanging them. We've got a Louisiana style primary combined with a bipartisan redistricting system. In a situation like that you're not going to get a lot of benefit out of letting the parties submit lists or even voting on lists. We've spent a lot of time and money fighting both our parties to keep some semblance of representation in the state. It's not going to be very popular to then go back and give the parties more. It doesn't matter which party you're from around here, it was extremely unpopular with both voters of all parties to have to declare a party in the primary.
Um, around here we just vote for each candidate individually. Why on Earth would one vote on a list? This strikes me as a bit of a false dilemma in that you're ignoring the middle ground where rather than voting on a list, you vote on each candidate individually. I wasn't aware that any part of the world was so backwards as to ask voters to vote on a list of candidates in such an absurd fashion.
Also, it's borderline asinine to suggest that a system that works well under a Parliamentary system would translate well to the Bicameral system we've got. One of the main reasons why we have a two party system is because of things like the Electoral college and the many places where individuals don't get to cross party lines during the primaries. And this form of voting doesn't address that at all.
Some parts of the state here have introduce instant run off elections. But it's hardly worthwhile to even consider it. For instance for it to be of any value you need to have more than two candidates running. The vast majority of races around here have two parties running and many have one. Secondly, the whole premise of instant runoff voting is flawed in the sense that your candidate still didn't win, the only people that are going to like it are the anybody but X crowed, and I'm really not convinced it's a good idea to encourage that sort of thinking.
A better solution is to take away the districting from the winners of the election, either make it bipartisan or nonpartisan and go to a method of election like WA's top two primary where the two top vote getters of any party get to run in the final election. You do that and the point of an instant runoff is pretty much moot.
It's necessary to spend a significant amount of time to be hardcore, but it's not sufficient. It's perfectly adequate as a rule out, but insufficient as a means of determining that somebody is in fact a hardcore gamer.
That Google wrote it and not Adobe. Adobe either doesn't hire qualified programmers or somehow manages to thwart any from getting work done properly. I'm not sure what exactly the problem is, whether there's too much interference from people without foundation or perhaps they just don't provide the resources to do it correctly in the first place.
The problems with PDF started for the same reasons that DOC problems started. The party responsible for the format decided that hey, wouldn't it be cool if... And after that you got document formats with embedded programming features. No good will ever come of doing such a thing. If you need to do more than just display, then there are ways of handling that. Allowing such things to be embedded in every document without providing a sane way of determining which do and which don't prior to opening causes tons of trouble.
That's what I hated about Halo, unless you own the console or live with somebody that does, the controls alone are formidable. Good luck trying to have an enjoyable experience without spending a lot of time on it.
One of the things I like about Wolfenstein 3d, the Catacombs Abyss and Doom was that the game play was simplified. Admittedly that was a decision driven entirely by technological restraints, but not having to use a mouse, and only having to worry about 3 buttons, plus the movement and weapon change made things a lot more fun. Sure it wasn't technically accurate, however it did simplify getting into it and make it a lot less daunting to get involved with things like deathmatches.
But he's definitely not a hardcore gamer for the same reason that I'm not one. You're not particularly hard core if you can only play for a few minutes here and there and aren't rearranging things to play more. Nor are you a hardcore gamer just by virtue of being interested in more complexity harder game play.
Perhaps I'm old fashioned, but if you're average period of play is under a half hour and you're not doing multiple sessions per day, it's a pretty good guess that you're not hardcore. Not that that's bad, but it's just a fact of life that if you aren't willing/able to make sacrifices to play the games, then you're not hardcore by any reasonable definition.
Are you sure about that? 3D TV may very well come along, but it's hardly an assumption that people should be making. 3D has been available to film makers for a half century and it still hasn't really taken off. From time to time there's a story which works better in 3D, but the reality is that most movies are already 3D in the mind of the viewer, We know what's close and what's far and adding 3D to that doesn't contribute a whole lot.
Likewise videophones were first demonstrated many decades ago and they still haven't taken off. The main reason being that except in extremely long distance communications like in and out of a war zone, people just don't want to have to put on pants and a shirt to take a telephone call.
I don't think Kinect will catch on to the extent that you do. It's cool, but I'm not sure that it'll truly overcome the problem of games being about escape. Nintendo had a controller back in the 80s which has been emulated a few times in games like DDR, but even that hasn't particularly caught on. The Wiimote has really come the closest, but I'm not sure if it's truly here to stay or not, it depends solely upon how much it adds to the game.
There's no meaningful correlation between doing homework and learning things. In fact it's counterproductive after a certain point. If you're having to do more than an hour of homework a night total for school (Not counting college) you're wasting your time. There's no compelling reason to suggest that doing anymore than that is actually helpful. In fact doing too much of it causes problems because people need to rest and they need to have time to decompress. They also need time to learn about other things outside of school time, and making a kid spend that much time is not helpful in the long run.
It's also a poor assumption to assume that the kids that do the homework need to. Some genuinely do, but you're arbitrarily cutting off the people that would struggle whether they did the homework or not. As it's much more likely for people to do the homework if they find it to be a breeze.
Actually Communism was really just a perverse form of capitalism. It's more or less exactly what Adam Smith warned about. Rather than one company owning everything, one entity did. The entity was generally the Communist party, and the results were indistinguishable from what the fascists in America are pushing for. Either the government controls the entire economy or a single corporate entity controls the government. Without appropriate regulation those are pretty much the only options which don't involve the entire country exploding.
Yes, and he's correct. Bandwidth lasts infinitely if nobody uses it. I say bravo on the courage to piss off your customers and chase them to the competitors. It takes real guts to preserve bandwidth in such a courageous way.
Ouch, that must hurt. I'm paying roughly half that for a 6mbps connection. I've personally had a lot of good luck with DirecTV and Qwest. Earthlink wasn't too bad for DSL, but whatever route you take, you're pretty much guaranteed to give money to either the cable company or the telephone company for internet. There's just no meaningful competition.
Around here, you drive around and you see a huge number of satellite dishes popping up. I guess it turns out that people were sick of paying for channels that didn't come in properly on Comcrap. It might be a bit better if you're getting cable through a bulk package as a part of a condo association or similar, but the cable company just doesn't care enough to provide the service that it promises.
Same really goes for cell service. Since for the most part they all suck, there's basically no motivation by any of them to actually improve.
You're correct, although that doesn't mean that there won't be an investigation. If it turns out that there's any contact between the companies on the issue then that's a completely different matter. This is also coincidentally why service tends to suck so bad in the US. None of the providers have any incentive to compete over things like pricing of text messages. They all know that a price war would screw them all over.
I think most people assume that unlimited means that it's as much as the device can use. I don't think anybody seriously believes that they're entitled to more than the full capacity of bandwidth use constantly over the month. That would be stupid. But, any constraints that the carrier places beyond what the device can handle is fraudulent in my view. If they want to call it unlimited, then they damn well better not be putting in any limits that the device itself doesn't require.
I'd like to see a citation as well. Considering the way that the iPhone and iPad function, I can't imagine him being opposed to anything other than the term. As those products use an excessive amount of bandwidth. If you're going to use those devices as intended, you're going to burn through a huge amount of bandwidth, that's just the reality of it.
Sigh, Saudi Arabia is the Saudi Arabia of geothermal. What do they teach kids today.