Feel free to pull open the referenced entry in the DSM in a research library.

It's 2016, it's time to realize that wikipedia is a great starting place to gather sources at the very least. And it's also time to grow up and do your own research if you don't agree with mine.

As it is, I don't have the copy of the DSM-IV TR that I usually defer to, and I don't even think I have a copy of the DSM V within my reach anywhere nearby. So I'm sorry I can't wrap it in a nice and neat package.

Riiiiiiight, but the law isn't about those people. It's about transgenders. Don't move the goalposts.

Things that humans are generally born as:
- Male
- Female
- Intersex/Hermaphrodite
- "Null"

Things that no human has ever - on record - been born as:
- Attack helicopter

I hope you understand why your argument is bullshit.

That's not quite true.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

It's neither the same thing (precisely) nor is it a disorder (inherently) so much as a condition.

This quickly becomes a question of cynicism versus faith in humanity. And in this corner we have the "oh poor me everything is ultimately meaningless" flavor of Nihilists and in that corner some variation on the Marxists. And we're off to the races folks - look at them go! It's a battle as old as politics and yet somehow they still go head and head every week for your amusement!

I have a very elegant solution to this problem. As there is no tangible irrefutable evidence of likely failure that either side seems capable of producing under this time, why not simply try it? For better or for worse, at least then the data will be present for future endeavors.

Is it really that hard to participate in absurdly rudimentary science? We need evidence based reasoning and lack the necessary evidence; therefore one option is to take motions which would generate the necessary evidence to reason upon in the future.

It must be able to solve for any program body input whether or not the program will eventually halt. You fail to even parse input here and determine it.

We can sidestep some of the ramifications of the Halting Problem by saying "it won't halt within x amount of (real) time" or "it won't halt within x iterations of the core loop we're concerned about". I can't swear to it, but I'd think a good process manager would use some system based on these ways of looking at it to tell if a process is hung. (Yet somehow Windows often catches processes that aren't hung at all and tries to tell me they're "not responding".)

In the real world, these solutions - that we can guarantee if it should halt or not within some span of realtime - are often "enough", even if they're not "technically a solution to the halting problem". This is because most tasks in the real world are deadline oriented anyway in some fashion (and when they're not, they're often "limits of human patience" oriented).

List of things Nintendo has accomplished:

- Reviving consumer faith and interest in home game consoles post-Atari Shock

- Providing definitive games for genres that are now "commonplace" and "relatively set in stone" - Platformers (Mario), Metroid half of Metroidvania, etc

- Always adding experimental features that often become de-facto standards: XABY controls, multi-screen interactions, casually approachable motion controls

- Daring to experiment with gaming hardware in an effort to move things forwards (goes with the previous.) A control stick in the middle of a controller? Okay, whatever. A pair of screens on a portable where one is a touch screen? Hey, if you say so. A game console that lets you waggle the controller with a point and click interface as easy as using a TV remote? Mmmkay. A game console with 3D graphics - the interfering "paralax" 3DS and the Virtualboy both here? Gimmicky, but a experimental move nonetheless. A game console that ships with a tablet as more-or-less part of the console, allowing you to treat the TV as "less relevant"? Brilliant, if a bit poorly executed. [...] While some of these are astounding failures and some are astounding successes to the point that it blindsided the industry, the bigger point is that Nintendo's experimentation serves as a source of disruption and innovation in the industry which is otherwise saturated with a LOT of the same stuff and little willingness to experiment with the medium itself. otherwise. (Remember that this point is about hardware, not software; indie studios are doing a lot to help disrupt things again on the software front. See also: "AAA Rut")

- Becoming an emblem not of "outstanding" or "hardcore" quality but of *consistent* quality. This is very important; I would rather have a game studio be consistent than release 5 lemons and one great game. (I'm looking at yooooou, Yuji Naka and Sonic Team, as well as whoever decided that the end of Halo 4 should be a poorly coded Starfox-esque flight sim.)

- Lest we forget, it was Nintendo's fault that Sony become a serious game hardware company. The PS2, if memory serves, has the highest number of games made for it and is quite possibly the most successful game platform to date (barring general home computers, of course). Yes, a lot of those games are weird or suck, but most people think of RPGs and a handful of unique shooters when they think PS2 anyway.

Lessig's point isn't moot.

Democracies don't work because the masses tend to be undereducated in ways that matter to make policy decisions. So you set things up as representative systems - which we have in our republic.

But what if someone found some way to buy the favor of every single person that matter at the level of representatives? And which levels of such in a stratified system matter?

My home county has 3 people in the state congress to represent us (two of which represent a district made up of several counties). If you wanted to buy the local politics, it's probably pretty cheap - two out of three is easy enough, after all. You could cut off every person who voted for those three by giving them some incentive to do things your way instead of everyone else's way. So that's a great way to silence the voices of some, I don't know, let's just give a generous estimate at 20,000 people? (It's rural here.) 20,000 people silenced so that one person can have their way.

And, yes, I'm well aware that those still have to vote in the state senate and there's all these other elected officials they're voting alongside, but what matters is *those people would only actually be voting on behalf of one person instead of all the people they were elected to represent*. And more likely the stuff that doesn't matter to the one person... don't matter. It's where it's down to who paid the piper that they'll sing his tune, so to speak. ...

Now, scale out to something national and ask yourself this: The state of West Virginia has "only" 2 Senators and "only" 3 Representatives in the national Congress. That's only one more you need than at the local level to functionally silence all of the state of West Virginia, and maybe the numbers are larger but the point remains that - if you could find the right incentive - you only need to tempt three or four people enough to get your way and functionally silence ~1.85 million people when it comes to getting your way. ...

We would hope such people would be incorruptible. And certainly Manchin has always been a good man in person and seemed to have his head on straight so far as what West Virginia needs (no, I'm not proud of coal, but it drives our economy) since before he was a Congresscritter. But the reality is that they're only human and could be tempted, and our system is set up in such a way right now that offering temptation isn't only legal - it's *trivial*.

I'm not a very wealthy man. I can't just have my way.

But I'd like to think that my vote is 1/1.85 millionth of what ultimately goes into my representative's considerations. Wouldn't you, if you hailed from West Virginia? And if something prevented that from being the case, wouldn't you be quite angry? And that's where Lessig's come from consistently with his MayDay PAC and his movements related to it. It would appear that they vote in line with where the bribes are at, and we need to make it at least less trivial to make such offers. Bribes aren't unexpected, but they need to be less easy to make.

This comment's a novel. My head is never quite clear, but I think the point is graspable.

Where are mod points when you need them. How much you want to bet they aren't even regular viewers of /. ?

Blasphemy!

Two things -

• * First, (as you already know) your numbers checked out. I evidently suffer from an off by one error in my head here, which I find fascinating because this isn't zero-indexed.
• * Second, I'm all for a system that would charge 33 554 431 for 25 years of copyright. The system is only supposed to work so long as a work is profitable enough to merit it, and such a system would force copyright holders to actual make risk//reward assessments in real time instead of taking it for granted that they can beat the horse for money forever.

You may find the code used to check prices here; it is only known to work for the first 31 years (the limits of a signed long on my architecture).