Instead of ranting like a 3 year old and ignoring the answers to your unnecessary questions, why not try setting up the example app to see if it has changed, and if it makes sense as a complicated set up example?
I forgot that doctors are people, and that the bottom half are generally worthless, and the average ones are average. Also, diagnosing a rare problem is hard because it is unlikely to be a rare problem.
I also forgot that doctors are the people who didn't tire of medical school shenanigans and change studies.
And I bear a grudge because I didn't find that top notch House like genius who, despite being wrong every show, succeeds in the end.
Finally, I have no idea why and how insurance, both medical and liability, affects what care is given.
Seriously, it is a hard position to be in, but you are angry at the wrong things.
I bought Q3, thinking it would be beautiful. I expressed excitement, and was told what you said.
I immediately decided to never vote with my dollars until I was sure it was deserved.
I have OTA television, and only see well reviewed movies now.
I sure as shit hope that there are lots more people like me. Multiplayer solves the gripes of shitty AI. But it does not solve the problem of a shitty story. And I won't play a shitty story.
I am more likely to see a play-through and decide 10% in that I will either stop watching and buy it, or watch and not buy.
Lesson learned: I am more likely to play Skyrim, Fallout, Portal 1 or 2, or Bioshock, than to pay money for anything - movie or game or cable.
Mastering the mechanics of the game is a function of a well planned game. A failure is playing the entire game, mastering how things work, then having a boss battle that makes no sense.
Mastering the mechanics of people is really complicated. They find ways to dominate, and that's hard.
Portal, I was going to buy regardless of anything else. I bought the box, and got Portal 2, because the gameplay was well planned. Teach and learn.
The whole point of multiplayer seems to be play against shitty players, then get blasted to bits until you learn how to spawn and run, or duck and cover. If you can't practice against people who are *WAY* more bad, you will spend years when you can spend hours instead.
Multiplayer can be a wonderful experience, when people collaborate. And here comes Leroy Jenkins, and fucks everything up. No one likes to play with Leroy Jenkins.
Ergo, fuck your multiplayer.
My hair stands on end when I have to read the subject and piece together what you are talking about.
No one gives a shit about why your hair stands on end.
And "almost universally" means "fuck if I know".
If you can read, come back when you have something to say. I feel like you may have a point, but it's the antithesis of a well articulated statement.
"Would" is a very specific word, and I would put money on the conditional not being satisfied, at least not as completely as expected.
I'm just glad that Slashdot nerds are arguing about this, instead of physicists. That could get ugly.
People with problems like ocd, where things have to be just so, will not appreciate this. Nor will people who like tidy spaces.
It's called clutter, and there is a really good reason why neatly every infomercial uses the word. People get bothered by clutter.
When the perp wins, it is not a moral victory, but a national one.
From the article, I gathered that he was trading known images, not creating new ones. The plea to "protect the children" would be a plea to prevent sharing images that already exist, not preventing further abuse. We can make all kinds of arguments about what he might do, but he is not accused of hypotheticals.
That should make it easier to be okay with this decision, for people who aren't already. Possession of CP and transmission of CP are meant to stop people from producing, and in any way benefiting from producing, such images. And in that sense, we can guarantee that this guy, who is looking at 20 years in jail, is going home and wiping his drive, and will stick to the "barely 18" porn in at least the near future. Therefore, Mission Accomplished.
The perp did not win. Especially given your last sentence.
... he will always be painted with the brush of a 'child abuser'.
That's not winning. He is legally innocent, but factually guilty.
Unless you want to build a time machine, go back to 1775, and tell everyone to hold off and make some changes to the Constitution, this is not tough.
You: "Hey guys, what you're about to write means that some guy trading pictures of what most of you are doing with your slaves in real life is going to be freed because an asshat is going to go all England on him and violate his Constitutional rights."
Them: "Good, now die you redcoat."
The Constitution defines how the country operates. The legal framework for everything that happens. If the evidence was not gathered constitutionally, then it cannot be applied.
If we allow punishments from unconstitutional evidence gathering to stand, then we are basically saying that it's not important. The ends justify the means and all of that. Ignore the Constitution, and all of the reasons that the American colonies told England to fuck off, and all of the people who died, and all of the ideas put into creating a Constitution that made sure people could not be abused in the way the colonies were abused. All of those smart ideas don't mean anything because this one guy should be punished.
That's not how the country works. If you want it to work that way, you are against the American Constitution, against the American people, and therefore a terrorist. You might as well be in the desert chopping journalists' heads off. The ones that reported this story, because obviously it undermines how you feel America should be. Why not, if the ends justify the means?
If the way to a better America is to require Americans to quarter troops at home, and the troops can go through their hosts' belongings looking for any crime at all, it's fine, because the ends justify the means, right?
It is a tragedy that this guy goes free. But it is one tragedy. To think that sidestepping the way things are done here is a good thing is to desire an end to America. This is not hyperbole. That's why you will find Mencken quotes scattered about.
The Troll moderation on parent is not appropriate. This is probably a genuine concern, and deserves to be moderated up. Likewise, I put the time into illustrating just why, even though it sounds good, it cannot be allowed to stand, for the express reason of explaining just how contrary to the foundation of the entire American government this idea is. The idea should not be buried as a troll - it should be shouted widely, and ridiculed all the while.
And the only thing worse than "hang him anyway" would be "lol they are shitting on the Constitution anyway" because, while you aren't calling for the Constitutionally innocent to be punished, you are actively dismissing a chance to rein in bad actors before they spread.
They can search all of Gnutella live for people currently sharing filenames and/or hashes known to be illegal. Just like people and p2p indexers and really the whole goddamned internet.
What does that mean? That Gnutella is operating like it should?
Here's your API - search for anything that ends in jpg or mov or avi or whatever else. With the list of hashes you get back, see if you get any matches. If so, return the result.
Law enforcement has piles of lists of hashes and filenames, and if a new p2p technology came out with a new hash, they wouldn't mind generating new hashes. I think it's the national missing child something project that maintains those, so if you want to argue about law enforcement maintaining a hard drive full of abuse images we've already had that discussion.
How do we identify the correct person to fine or educate? Because this scheme doesn't, and without a solution your statement is no more than rhetoric.
Fining the wrong person will not be effective.
First came speed limits, then bring stuck in our ways, then money making.
Your psychotic revisionist description is a clear case of attribution error.
And given the context of this thread, it looks like a knee jerk pet peeve response instead of part of a discussion. Like you're talking but not listening.
One bad patent has significant financial impact for the country. We will give you a break when you can cover the loss. Each time.
Sure, she is one of the people to blame, if you have a reductionist view that all government members have the same goal and opinions.
And if you have no idea how the supreme court works.
Given that, you're totally correct. How about specific cases?