Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:3/5ths compromise (Score 1) 676

by hansede (#32541202) Attached to: Publishing Company Puts Warning Label on Constitution

Too bad anyone who understands US political history understands that the Democratic Party of Jackson's time is irrelevant to the Democratic party of today -- and if anything, is equivalent to the Republican Party of today.

Or, perhaps, like trying to compare monetary values of the past to today's currency, comparing parties of the past to today's parties is comparing apples to oranges. However, I agree that the "(D)" was unnecessary.

Comment: Re:welp. (Score 1) 911

by hansede (#32114088) Attached to: iPad Is Destroying Netbook Sales

Hmm, I don't know much about hand held gaming devices since I havn't had one since the original gameboy. However intuitively I'd guess you're talking about it being a more casual gaming platform? Isn't it then rather counter-intuitive that it doesn't support flash, the medium which most commonly used timewasting games are made for?

That doesn't change the fact that it is the -ONLY- casual hand-held gaming device in its class. Flash or no Flash, it's catering to a huge audience and filling their needs better than any similar device. If another similar device comes along that does implement Flash, the iPad will have a contender, but since that is not yet the case . . .

Comment: Re:Because of libraries and external dependencies (Score 1) 179

by hansede (#32060904) Attached to: Man Spends 2,200 Hours Defeating <em>Bejeweled 2</em>
I think you're all overly-complicating things. I would guess that the authors just didn't care because they figured that 99.99999% of players would never reach the limits of a signed int, so what difference would it make? For the incredibly small minority of people who do hit the limit, they just saved them 3 years of their life by not making it unsigned. Having just finished writing a commercial game, I can tell you that I didn't care whether my ints for keeping track of score were signed or unsigned because the people who will hit that limit represent, for all intents and purposes, none of my potential customers. Anyone who is that serious about playing my game probably needs to chill once they hit 2^31-1 points (although I actually used 64-bit ints, so good luck with that).

Comment: Re:They Suck (Score 1) 949

by hansede (#31686930) Attached to: New Litigation Targets 20,000 BitTorrent-Using Downloaders

This Slashdot-promoted definition is wrong, and out of control. The counterexample is theft of labor, or in other words the service industry. If someone charges money to provide a service, say, mowing your lawn, and then you don't pay them for that service, that is theft, as defined by law. Here is your citation. When committing the crime of theft of labor, you have not deprived anyone of physical property, yet you have committed theft.

Wrong. You have deprived them of time (definitely physical) and energy used in doing the labor (also definitely physical). So you have taken something physical away from them that they now no longer have, hence theft.

How is that so much different from the time spent by actors, directors, artists, etc.? I'm asking this honestly, not rhetorically.

Comment: Re:i believe i can resist gravity at will (Score 1) 173

by hansede (#31510106) Attached to: Facebook Attracting More Visitors Than Google.com
Facebook is for keeping clued in on the lives of people who you can't be around all the time, that way when you finally get to see them again, you have something to talk about. In other words, it prevents long-distance relations from becoming complete strangers. It's not likely that you'll have a meaningful relationship if you never see that person in real life, but it is also untrue to say that Facebook can't aid in strengthening/maintaining an existing relationship.

Comment: Re:Idiocy (Score 1) 676

by hansede (#28137543) Attached to: Homeland Security To Scan Citizens Exiting US

Some Americans are not cowards and are not willing to sacrifice the very living ideals that make the country special for the petty illusion of 'being safe.' 0.001% of the US population were killed when the towers fell.

You're absolutely right that there is no reason to be afraid of dying in a terrorist attack. The chances are astronomically low that you will. Yet I contend that the additional security measures taken to "stop" terrorism are actually a good thing. Do you really think for a minute that security experts don't know the same statistics that you do? The point of additional security after 9-11 is not to ACTUALLY protect anyone, the point is to make the American public feel like they're being protected. Just as terrorism itself is theater, so must your response to terrorism be theater. It's a psychological battle. You're right that there is no reason to be afraid, but it's a moot point. After 9-11 there were 300M people who needed convincing, and simply telling them "the odds are 0.001%" is not going to quell panic on that scale. You and I know the additional security is just theater, but in this case theater is the correct response.

"Kill the Wabbit, Kill the Wabbit, Kill the Wabbit!" -- Looney Tunes, "What's Opera Doc?" (1957, Chuck Jones)

Working...