So why don't they create another category for "best score on MAME"? If he didn't try and conceal this (I don't know either way) -- then why should it be considered cheating?

A guy gets a good score on a system they don't authorize -- fine. They invalidate that score. But a lifetime ban? Pretty harsh and it calls into question their integrity of scores.

I keep hearing about the wonders of Nuclear power. Seems to me, that we can meet our growing energy demand by implementing Green Tech -- we can keep what is working now humming along and replace as needed.

If Nuclear power were super cost effective like proponents tell us -- then private industry would be building them and making a profit. I'm not an expert, but it seems they aren't doing this. You start building a Nuke plant and we can put in more wind and solar for less money for that output before you can finish building it in 10 years -- because that seems to be what it takes now.

I'm not against Nuclear -- I just don't think it's practical. It has had many years to mature and lots of subsidies and solar will be kicking it's ass in a few short years.

The Democrats are talking to scientists and economists to help them firm up their plans. Bernie's plan in particular is ambitious and will cost a lot but he also shows how he will pay for it and why doing nothing will cost more. And of course, it's going to stimulate the hell out of the economy to do public works projects again.

You mean the people are going to forget in just a year that Republicans were hindering all action on Climate Change and activity denying its existence and somehow their track record of bad planning, bad economics and animosity towards science is going to win the day? It's possible; the voters have made some bad decisions before.

You are linking to a panel of some group named ACT! hosted by the Heritage Foundation -- I don't see how that represents Democrats at all. If you are trying to say that I should "behold their wisdom", well I'm kind of concerned at their logic that of the 1.2 Billion Muslims and concluding that 25% are radical -- fine, if you define them as having very fundamentalist theocracy and draconian punishments. But does this translate into "scary terrorist bent on destruction?" Because of there were about 300 million people dedicated to that purpose, I think I must have slept through WW III.

What we KNOW is, there are far more acts of terrorism by home-grown non Muslims in the US. And I'm more worried about paying bills or getting hit by a car. I don't watch some News Channels so maybe I'm not properly frightened by this looming threat. Can SOMEONE cause major destruction at some point? Of course. Does treating all people of a certain persuasion as a threat and being on a war footing deter that? No. Making friends with Muslims and treating them as good neighbors when they are in our country is the best protection. They will be the best source of turning in radicals. Alienate them and those calls to the FBI will end.

So I don't get how this all leads to the conclusion that Democrats are going to get us into a war -- unless you think that by not being mean and scary to the "terrorist people" invites war. Seems that Republicans have a track record for starting more wars, though the Dems are more like the Republicans of 30 years ago now, so it's hard to split hairs -- that's why I'm a Progressive.

The purpose of think tanks like Heritage Foundation is to create papers and expert opinions that support what corporations want people to believe -- not to figure out solutions to problems. The Bush administration had these Heritage experts telling the Iraqis how to do their stock market and public support operations and they screwed that up big time. Just like they do to our economy and make the rich richer and the poor poorer they just had more access and power to implement their brilliant supply-side plans.

It's scary propaganda I'm witnessing. This video is from 3 years ago -- when is the Jihad happening?

While I know Apple did copy a few apps -- I can't remember them right now. If your example of iTunes is your concept of "stealing other's ideas", well, it's not a good one. An app for playing downloaded music and grabbing it off CDs? Seems like that is obvious and there were already more than a few in the marketplace when iTunes came out. So if more than one company releases a music playing app -- then who is the one in a succession of developers who is ripping off someone's "invention?"

Strategically, you don't want to step on the toes of developers. But as an OS developer, a company has to constantly add functionality to stay competitive and relevant. This isn't anti-competitive to provide an application that does a similar function -- you just can't copy the interface, design style, interaction, code or IP.

App that plays music, app that monitors a body function, utility that shows the last few folders you visited in the OS -- these are all obvious and providing a functionality is fair game.

Well, maybe Apple is the 800 lb gorilla in the app store, but a lot of these inclusions into the standard phone are inevitable. Apple created a health monitoring app. Stands to reason it's going to add more and more human body functions as time goes by. Does an app that monitors periods get an exclusive monopoly of that function? The app developer might have exclusive use of the look and feel of the app and any proprietary technology -- but displaying a biorhythm chart and recording dates and times of a common body function in women -- seems like there is prior art. The "idea" or problem and app solves is not protected by patent or copyright AFAIK.

I'm sure developers are always going to be put out when someone comes out with a free app that they are getting revenue from. I just don't think preventing that unless there is real IP or specific functionality involved is a healthy path either.

No, Apple got many many pages of documents from a third party interface developer where they went screen by screen to see how they could make their phone more like the iPhone. Not better, not "as good" -- just like.

The rounded corners thing sounds nice to try and minimize what Samsung did. But you know, there were a million ways to create an interface for a fun -- funny that everything looks pretty much like an iPhone and you interact with it that way. This isn't just about grid icons and corners. And Samsung was found guilty. The penalty was a pittance to what they made in the market by incorporating Apple's design patents and human interface methods.

Some Democrats might have some war hawks but not Progressives -- are you sure you've actually read what THEY say and not what Breitbart says they say?

The massive human culling I can't rule out though -- but I'm pretty sure the winning company that gets the bid will immediately outsource the job and undocumented workers will finally get their revenge.

All sorts of regulatory agencies are getting budgets cut. It makes sense that the FAA would offload as much oversight as they can. And the "pro business" politicians who have infiltrated both parties think that "self regulation" is great -- of course, they probably KNOW it will be abused, as it has in the past.

The IRS has a smaller budget and fewer agents and are not able to afford the expert accountants they need for complex auditing. The result; there's a big shift to auditing people making less than $50,000 a year -- because their taxes are easy. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/1...

Does this make financial sense? No, they are projected to lose $458 billion in revenue in 2018 https://www.businessinsider.co... . I presume that will be more this year.

With the withering EPA; the cost shifting of lax regulation on polluters means the dollars saved by industry, multiply in costs for health expenses by the public and impact the quality of life.

What is happening at the FAA seems more of a pattern that saves a few dollars to make government oversight toothless and costs a lot more as a result. But some are happy to see this as the scourge of "big government" is finally dealt with. I'm pretty sure that Boeing is losing a lot more in sales to Europe than it saved by getting the FAA off its back. Seems as shortsighted as moving airplane manufacturing to China and being surprised when they just duplicate these operations and our aerospace industries will be out of business -- just like with color TVs, solar panels and eventually cell phones. Executive functions in business are much easier to replace than engineering.

Seems like some enterprising capitalist can find even cheaper sources of pilots than a call center. China has a whole bunch of prisoners who can be put to the task, for instance. Human brains for a while will be much cheaper and effective than expert systems and AI. The undeveloped countries are developing and their wages are rising. Do you know that China rents North Korean workers for food? So multinational corporations need to find new markets and cheaper labor so next year's ROI improves on this year's ROI. Remote workers can be even cheaper as we outsource shovel-ready jobs that can't be exported.

Meanwhile automated trucks, automated factories and automated drive-throughs are all in the works. Even using giant 3D printers to put together small homes are a thing. If you were a super wealthy person trying to obsolete the masses of plebes who are suddenly without gainful employment -- a good stop-gap to having a full automated paradise you can trust to never rebel would be to have people with no freedom at all piloting service robots. They can't escape from oversight and the robots can be deactivated in a few seconds.

Where might this be going? A good article in the Guardian that I think was lifted from Medium talks about a discussion a Futurist had with a small gathering of billionaires. Instead of talking about how they could mitigate future problems, they talked about how THEY ALONE could survive it. https://onezero.medium.com/sur...

Here's a chilling excerpt that shows the zero-sum thinking of the cream of our crop; "Or making guards wear disciplinary collars of some kind in return for their survival."

We will be giving up jobs and privacy with these remote android-like devices.

I can just see my Ring: Chime Pro observing the robot remotely piloted from India throwing a fit and running over the shrubs with a law mower. It's red eye gleaming, it calmly says; "What are you doing Dinesh?"

At least we'll create some jobs where you buy devices to keep track of what your devices are doing -- in the cloud, of course. Has to have a "cloud" component.

Who's upvoting this crap? He didn't watch the debates. Eating hamburgers has led to the deforestation in Amazon and it's very water and energy intensive -- so, why wouldn't you talk about it? Why is it going to "bite them" if they are trying to deal with an actual problem that we all face? As opposed to the Republican plan of "pretend it's not there"? Warren said the "plastic straws pollution" is a distraction and most of the candidates have pragmatic and researched plans. Bernie for instance explains where he will get the trillions he is demanding for a massive effort (here; https://berniesanders.com/issu...) and how much more it will cost to do nothing.

"What does science tell us on how to get the most electricity with the least CO2 emissions." Yes, let's put on our little lab coats and say firmly "science" and then some ill thought out talking points with no supporting evidence. By saying "science" we are now ready for Slashdot. WTF is happening here? It's like 4Chan escaped or something. My kid is seeing these videos of people screeching about "feminazis" ... I'm sure he's going to come to me and tell me that there are now people suggesting we eat people to solve Global Warming any day now. Yes, let's get distracted by what delusional people think and shit-posted videos on Youtube as if this is representative of what the adults want to accomplish.

World famous, award winning economist Thomas Piketty who is a prefessor at EHESS, the Paris School of Economics, the London School of Economics and served as Associate Professor in the Department of Economics at MIT endorses Bernie Sanders' policies - the math adds up. His economic advisor is Stephanie Kelton who explains Modern Economic Theory; https://www.cnbc.com/2019/03/0... . These aren't people shooting from the hip. They have plans even BEFORE they are in office. Imagine people who are seeking the advice of scientists and experts. Seems very Slashdotty. It makes me feel like a return to professionalism is at hand.

But hey, let's roll the dice just put our confidence in ideas from the very same people who were wrong about Global Warming one more time -- the people who troll the web and pay for FUD to stall us for a little bit more -- I'm sure building a storm surge barrier around the Eastern seabord is going to be cheap, and we'll get Atlantis to pay for it.

Just in time to save someone from that Pee tape.

Imagine someone respecting an agreement from a Chinese software company claiming ownership of derivative products. Not only do they feel entitled to other nation's IP, but now they want to own the user? It's as if Adobe started asking for payments on work created in Photoshop.

This technology as bread from the efforts of China to do facial recognition and oppress its people. They weed out dissent and non-compliance.

Imagine respecting an agreement like this -- where a company expects to own you because you received a product from them.

The poster above as talking about Macs as a "vanity purchase." They've said the same about iPhones as well. I've used Macs and PCs since the days when they argued how nobody needed a GUI. I've been on both platforms for a long time. I get annoyed by Macs on occasion and I think the non-upgradability is a real sore point and "right to repair" should be codified into law. I don't have much money but I do shell out for the MacBook Pro. And explaining how the subtle differences combine together is like explaining to people who are tone deaf and play the kazoo why you shelled out for a violin. Look, if you like fat-fingering a damn kazoo for a little less money, have at it. What do I care?

This "orange man bad" thing reminds me of the George Bush era. Every time you'd bring up a new crime, a new lie, a new thing they were doing that was wrong -- the "oh, blame Bush" would come up. As if, mentioning the 2002nd malfeasance was proof that you'd gone to far, so we can now ignore the prior 2001 complaints.

Cancelling the agreement with Iran and then stabbing them in the back really destroys credibility of the US with treaties. It doesn't matter if you think they were breaking the agreement (everyone else including the CIA thinks different) -- you would want to prove that before you did such a thing. This looks petulant and without planning.

The same thing happened with the tariffs. We can argue whether or not we should have a trade war with China (I actually think it was about time), but it was implemented so hamfistedly and without building a coalition of countries that would join us. This served to isolate the US and punish countries that had not abused trade and IP. Now, even though I think that tariffs are a tool and can actually do some good -- this ruins this for future leaders as they will be forever compared to Donald Trump.

We already use comparisons to Trump as an insult that means someone is egotistical and a fool. Not a good brand to wear.