Hardly. Risk is a terrible game for friends - with some players being eliminated from the game long before the slow and tedious endgame, it's a bad choice for friendly gaming. There are plenty of far superior boardgames for such an environment - Settlers of Catan, Puerto Rico, Agricola spring to mind as strong choices.
That would make sense, but for 4 dimensions, experience suggests that a four-sided cube works well. It's certainly not trivial.
I believe the term you're looking for is 'centre hand opponent'...
So a poor man's Bridge, then?
3D is for pussies. The only way to play tic tac toe is on a 4x4x4x4 hypercube. A straight line of four in any direction wins.
Seriously, try it.
Yes, it does. Because that's part of the Java Language Specification; any compiler that doesn't give a compile-time error in that situation isn't compliant with the JLS and thus isn't really a Java compiler.
14.21. Unreachable Statements
It is a compile-time error if a statement cannot be executed because it is unreachable.
Open justice means the people can see what the tabloid papers want us to think the people who are supposed to bring justice are doing.
It's disgusting that things like that happen. When I go to the Apple store, they find out what I intend to use my device for and then recommend an Android, iPhone, Windows phone device based on what's best for me.
So, Americans fail at maths and geography.
I'd feel smugly self-satisfied about that if it weren't for the fact that they clearly win in the impending zombie apocalypse.
Or maybe they're smarter than you think:
We don't warp the language the way you British fucks do.
Funny, hopefully intentionally.
You ought to ask the Family D'Alembert...
Well, speaking as the one who can read and knows what a reductio ad absurdum is (as well as what makes a good analogy and what makes a weak and shoddy one) I'll leave you to wallow in your own stupid here. If your view is that a pair of glasses that could also record if it were turned on is entirely analogous to a recording device that has recording as its sole purpose then you're too far gone to help. The mobile phone analogy is a better one - it's a device that can record (and can do from a position of concealment), but has a perfectly reasonable alternative use. It's not one that's required in a cinema, obviously, but it's one that's clearly enough that people aren't stripped of their phones on entering the building and the FBI aren't called if anyone's seen using their phone or with their phone potentially recording from a concealed position in their clothes. With Google Glass in this case the device has a primary use that is required in a cinema - being able to see the screen properly. Your comparison to a video camera that has no need to be in a cinema in the first place and that has no other purpose in being pointed at a screen than to record it is either caused by a complete lack of wits or a complete lack of intellectual integrity. Though I suppose we need to give you credit and assume it might well be both.
My original point was this: vast numbers of people carry high-definition video recording devices into movie theatres every day. The vast majority of these people have those high-definition video recording devices concealed in such a way that they could potentially be recording the screen, or at least have the potential for concealing them in such a way. If we're going to make the assumption that anyone who could potentially be recording the screen is recording it - which is exactly the wrong assumption that was made here by both the theatre owners and the FBI, neither of whom attempted at any point to verify that assumption before things had been escalated to a ridiculous level - then we're going to have to start turning away a lot of people who turn up to watch a movie with a mobile phone and clothes.
There were ways to deal with this situation sensibly. Both parties could have avoided the issue - the customer by wearing standard prescription glasses, the theatre owner and the FBI by not being complete arses and making an assumption of guilt and escalating things way beyond where they needed to be.
There's certainly an aroma of stupid around here.
I understand perfectly what property rights are. The theatre owner has the right to refuse the guy entry. What they did very clearly overstepped their rights, as the story is told here. They made very specific false allegations without evidence. I know that's hard for you to understand, but it's the issue being discussed here, so you really ought to concentrate on catching up rather than being snarky about property rights that aren't in question.
Um. Thanks. I kind of thought it was a pretty good example of a reductio ad absurdum too. One of us certainly doesn't understand the term, though, because it's a perfectly valid form of argument. If you're trying to accuse me of a logical fallacy, you might want to pick something that... well, something that actually is a logical fallacy.
You might want to try 'straw man' or 'slippery slope', though it's not really either.
And 'within reason, of course' doesn't extend to making false accusations of criminal action with no evidence.