You give the impression that you believe your own personal politics are somehow above partisanship. I think it is linked with your inability to see your own thinking as subjective. I believe Ayn Rand had the same problem when she titled her movement 'objectivism'.

As far as 'liberty' goes, haven't we discussed this ad nauseum? You believe in 'free market' liberty. I believe in 'democracy' liberty. I see the free market as intrusive on the liberty of the working class, the poor, the sick, the handicapped, the elderly, minority ethnic groups, women, etc. You see democracy as intrusive on the liberty of business and 'the individual'. I'm not trying to convince you that you are wrong - because that is a lost cause - just that your concept of liberty is limited and subjective.

....and it's not just you, this is a common problem among American-style free market libertarians. They see the 'libert' in the title as objective moral authority and see anyone who opposes them as opponents of freedom. That's how it appears to me, anyway, in my own completely subjective mind. I could be wrong.

>> ^gwiz665:

I would like to see some of those smaller too - I loathe the popdownbar below the menu. It trolls me.
I would add though, that it stands out much more on the black/night theme - in the white/day theme it's more diffuse and doesn't feel nearly as intrusive. On the black it's like having your eyeballs raped.


Adblock Plus Element Hiding Helper has helped me never see that goddamn bar again.

On a lighter note, I refuse to link my social networking profile to anything in the internet. That profile is mine to keep private as I wish, but I appreciate all the offers, websites of the world!

I would like to see some of those smaller too - I loathe the popdownbar below the menu. It trolls me.

I would add though, that it stands out much more on the black/night theme - in the white/day theme it's more diffuse and doesn't feel nearly as intrusive. On the black it's like having your eyeballs raped.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:

Bingo Milk. You could easily cut 50% from government spending without really touching the important things governemnt does. The formula is lower taxes AND cutting spending. Doing only half of the formula can help, but in order for the miracle that is capitalism and free enterprise to work its wonders, the government has to stop being such a horrible anchor. Cut taxes (yes - for the rich too) and lower spending combined with freedom. This is the solution - not higher taxes, higher spending, and an all-intrusive nanny state.


lol

Bingo Milk. You could easily cut 50% from government spending without really touching the important things governemnt does. The formula is lower taxes AND cutting spending. Doing only half of the formula can help, but in order for the miracle that is capitalism and free enterprise to work its wonders, the government has to stop being such a horrible anchor. Cut taxes (yes - for the rich too) and lower spending combined with freedom. This is the solution - not higher taxes, higher spending, and an all-intrusive nanny state.

>> ^Ryjkyj:

Right exactly.
When the public decodes the signal, it's "highjacking", but when the cops decode the signal, it's called "listening".
Just like when a cop is sitting in a red zone in his car it's called "observing". And when a citizen does it, it's called "illegally parking".
I can't believe you thought you just won that argument. I'm not a troll just because I have what I feel is a legitimate point to make.


The officer has to have legal authority (Warrant) to decode the secure traffic because of the many number of laws which calls lawful authority to decode encrypted traffic. The 4th ammendment, and the Computer Intrusion acts, wiretapping laws, even postal laws. An officer simply cannot make that decision it warrants a Judge take a look and be sure that the act is lawful.

I assumed you were trolling, based on this comment "C'mon, let's hear it...?".

I can't believe you actually think that an officer of the law has the legal right to decode anyone's encrypted traffic without sufficient evidence of wrong doing.

You can believe they would notice all you want - but when it comes to the difference between $1 billion in profits and $999,500,000 in profits I think most rational people would suggest it's a negligible amount. Obviously you are not among those people.

I will defend that the tax is nothing to those who pay it, and that it's billions for those that will benefit. It's no different form the tax I pay on the cup of coffee I buy - that is used to build roads and schools. In fact, the tax I pay on a cup of coffee is magnitudes bigger than this Robin Hood Tax. Some folks here in Canada scream 'Tyranny' and 'Big Government' at those taxes - and most people correctly identify those kooks for who they really are - zealots.

In reply to this comment by bcglorf:
Actually, I believe very strongly that they really would notice.

And don't tell me I'm the one playing semantics when the video goes on about how the tax is both virtually nothing and worth billions. The game is semantics, but I'm the one that's calling it out for that.

In reply to this comment by Throbbin:
I thought that aspect of it came through pretty clear. 0.05% in taxes is effectively nothing - it's harder to get less intrusive than that.

You play semantics when you know damn well the bankers would hardly notice.

In reply to this comment by bcglorf:
I'd prefer some honesty. You can't defend the tax on BOTH the fact it costs nothing AND that it will raise billions. Be honest and say it will take billions from the rich to give to the poor.


In reply to this comment by Throbbin:
Yes....hence the 'Robin Hood" theme. Robbing from the rich to give to the poor. Sounds like a completely legit idea to me.

Or would you prefer the poor rely on voluntary charity, seeing as how it has worked so well to date?

In reply to this comment by bcglorf:
It costs nothing and it will raise billions!

Don't question it or think about it, just say it fast enough and it'll be true. Or, at least it will be true if the billions raised come out of somebody else's pockets, but truth like that doesn't sound as reasonable.

Actually, I believe very strongly that they really would notice.

And don't tell me I'm the one playing semantics when the video goes on about how the tax is both virtually nothing and worth billions. The game is semantics, but I'm the one that's calling it out for that.

In reply to this comment by Throbbin:
I thought that aspect of it came through pretty clear. 0.05% in taxes is effectively nothing - it's harder to get less intrusive than that.

You play semantics when you know damn well the bankers would hardly notice.

In reply to this comment by bcglorf:
I'd prefer some honesty. You can't defend the tax on BOTH the fact it costs nothing AND that it will raise billions. Be honest and say it will take billions from the rich to give to the poor.


In reply to this comment by Throbbin:
Yes....hence the 'Robin Hood" theme. Robbing from the rich to give to the poor. Sounds like a completely legit idea to me.

Or would you prefer the poor rely on voluntary charity, seeing as how it has worked so well to date?

In reply to this comment by bcglorf:
It costs nothing and it will raise billions!

Don't question it or think about it, just say it fast enough and it'll be true. Or, at least it will be true if the billions raised come out of somebody else's pockets, but truth like that doesn't sound as reasonable.

I thought that aspect of it came through pretty clear. 0.05% in taxes is effectively nothing - it's harder to get less intrusive than that.

You play semantics when you know damn well the bankers would hardly notice.

In reply to this comment by bcglorf:
I'd prefer some honesty. You can't defend the tax on BOTH the fact it costs nothing AND that it will raise billions. Be honest and say it will take billions from the rich to give to the poor.


In reply to this comment by Throbbin:
Yes....hence the 'Robin Hood" theme. Robbing from the rich to give to the poor. Sounds like a completely legit idea to me.

Or would you prefer the poor rely on voluntary charity, seeing as how it has worked so well to date?

In reply to this comment by bcglorf:
It costs nothing and it will raise billions!

Don't question it or think about it, just say it fast enough and it'll be true. Or, at least it will be true if the billions raised come out of somebody else's pockets, but truth like that doesn't sound as reasonable.

>> ^xxovercastxx:
Generally, I refuse to buy games with DRM that requires any sort of installation on my computer or refuses to run if I have certain other software on my computer (SecuROM, SafeDisc, TAGES, StarForce, Steam). I won't accept anything more intrusive than CD keys or disc checks. Luckily for me, there aren't a lot of games that interest me anymore. I'm not above pirating a game that has no legal DRM-free acquisition option, though. After all, if they think I'm a potential criminal, I don't want to let them down.



When Steam came out I had that opinion.

But you build up a sufficiently large collection of CDs... and start losing them... and Steam ends up being more attractive than a CD check, IMHO.

Steam is only reasonable when compared to most other forms of DRM out there. It still treats you like a potential criminal instead of a customer. I'm philosophically opposed to that.

Impulse is friendlier than Steam, and I did actually use it to buy Sins of a Solar Empire, but I won't make a habit of it. It's still DRM but at least I can play SOASE without Impulse in the future.

Generally, I refuse to buy games with DRM that requires any sort of installation on my computer or refuses to run if I have certain other software on my computer (SecuROM, SafeDisc, TAGES, StarForce, Steam). I won't accept anything more intrusive than CD keys or disc checks. Luckily for me, there aren't a lot of games that interest me anymore. I'm not above pirating a game that has no legal DRM-free acquisition option, though. After all, if they think I'm a potential criminal, I don't want to let them down.

Yup, 3x2x22 inch (assuming 1680x1200 odd rez) = 5040x2400 resolution

Bump that up to 1920x1200 (some 22's and all 24's) and you get 5760x2400 resolution.

Pretty useless for FPS with the bezel's covering the reticle but for racing games/3rd person (where the bezel is less intrusive, as seen above) it's pretty solid.

The current highest hi def tv runs at 1920x1200 rez (16:10 ratio, full HD) iirc. Most people wouldn't tell the difference of course but theoretically, as long as the display has displayport to input and the card could drive it, you could have 6x60 inch big screens... =)

HardOCP has some good video reviews of an early build showing how you can wrap the monitors slightly (for in car games) to give a proper peripheral view. Similarly you can change the FOV on FPS to show more area to the sides and angle in the side monitors to give you a better peripheral vision.

Why do you vaccinate? Why use a condom? Why carry a tazer, or gun? Why walk in well lit very populated areas?

Once when I was younger I took a flu shot, and then a while later I got sick; you guessed it with the flu. I don't like the idea that "you where probably going to get sick anyway" because it is a stupid argument thrown out there with little explanation. I was already sick with flu before I had gotten the shot; but not showing symptoms. Which means that my getting sick was a coincidence but when I was younger I fell for the logical fallacy. At the time in my mind it was the vaccine that caused sickness.

Do I expect the vaccination to protect me 100%? Do I expect my house Alarm to keep me from being robbed or protect me from home invasion? No, but it can help protect me.

I deal with this stuff at work in a different sort of system. How do you protect your network from intrusion? By running a firewall, using a NIDS (Like snort), logging at the gateway, and running up to date anti-virus.

Does that save you from attack? No, which I frustratingly know. Even with all of the protections in the world it can't guarantee safety. It only lessens the likelihood of attack or infection.

The best method of security is prevention. Get Vaccinated.

http://coldflu.about.com/od/fluvaccinequestions/f/illafterflushot.htm

>> ^NetRunner:

>> ^LarsaruS:
I rather be a bit annoyed and a bit late than dead.

I agree with the overall thrust of your comment (racial profiling is not just immoral, but it also presents a weakness to be exploited), but I should mention that I don't think current airline security policy is really saving lives, nor do I think its only cost is inconvenience.
We're skirting along the lines of surrendering our 4th amendment rights with what we're doing now. Just imagine if there's some big attack on malls, and the reaction is to have the TSA do security for every shopping mall in the country.
I feel like the right answer is for us to deal with terrorism like any other murder -- don't start infringing the freedom of everyone in the name of security, just go after the people who pose the threat, and let people live their lives without having intrusive security measures inflicted on them.


Point taken. You are correct and I agree with you to some extent, the not saving lives bit, as it is impossible to stop a truly dedicated attack on anything really. I haven't flown in the US, only in Europe, so I don't know how bad/intrusive the checks are over there therefore I can't agree or disagree about that point, I have no data to support either view. However over here it has mostly been a bit of an inconvenience: take of your shoes, in England, and not being allowed to bring any fluids aboard, everywhere I have been (like I am going to hijack a plane with a bottle of coke, I mean seriously WTF!, My house keys are a better weapon than that and they suck as a weapon.)

>> ^LarsaruS:
I rather be a bit annoyed and a bit late than dead.


I agree with the overall thrust of your comment (racial profiling is not just immoral, but it also presents a weakness to be exploited), but I should mention that I don't think current airline security policy is really saving lives, nor do I think its only cost is inconvenience.

We're skirting along the lines of surrendering our 4th amendment rights with what we're doing now. Just imagine if there's some big attack on malls, and the reaction is to have the TSA do security for every shopping mall in the country.

I feel like the right answer is for us to deal with terrorism like any other murder -- don't start infringing the freedom of everyone in the name of security, just go after the people who pose the threat, and let people live their lives without having intrusive security measures inflicted on them.