You don't need to show that the kid has that motive, because the two individuals in Boston didn't have that motive. The Boston motive was to promote the Aqua Teen Hunger Force movie.
To be fair, his title was "biased reporting". When the research talks about all nations, and the reporting talks only about the US, that legitimately is biased reporting. Especially when the US doesn't look so extreme compared to the other "climate debt" nations on a per capita basis.
This said, that bias isn't necessarily bad when your audience is from the US. And I say this as somebody who is not from the US, and who went directly to the article to find out how other countries did.
You seem very confused. Having a perfect 3D printer in your garage means that you, the producer, already control the means of production, and therefore, you are already in socialism.
I have no idea what you think you mean by "enforce socialism" that somehow contradicts being able to make anything you want in your garage.
This said in reality, a single 3D printer that fits in your garage can't possibly do everything -- it's not an energy source, it needs raw material, and it's not going to construct eg. a giant fully-crewed cruise ship in one go -- but it could do a lot of things. The things it can't do could be done by capitalism (some company owns a distribution network; company might be publically traded), or socialism (the aforementioned company is owned jointly by the delivery drivers). You can discuss that.
Microsoft has hidden its apparent takeover of Mozilla Foundation by pretending that there is a "Yahoo search".
Yahoo search may not use Bing as a back-end, but Yahoo is its own entity. Microsoft is not pretending there is a Yahoo search to "take over". Yahoo is trying to make money by funneling Firefox through their re-branded version of Bing Search.
Microsoft doesn't have to hide or pretend. They could have just paid Mozilla to use Bing Search directly -- they get more money that way because Yahoo isn't a middleman. *Nobody* cares about the distinction except Yahoo and Microsoft.
Yahoo paid Mozilla Foundation to trick users into using Microsoft's Bing search engine.
Ridiculous. Yahoo paid the Mozilla Foundation so that they would get their users (not trick their users, get their users) to use Yahoo Search (which, yes, is a re-branded Bing Search) in order to get advertising money.
So, Microsoft paid Yahoo.
Backwards. Yahoo is leasing Microsoft's technology; Microsoft is not paying for Yahoo to use Microsoft's technology. http://searchengineland.com/mi...
I think you're forgetting that the last time Yahoo was regarded as a decent search engine was before Google was a household name.
This said, Yahoo is displaying at least 51% of their ads as Bing ads, so in that sense Microsoft is paying Yahoo to display their ads (using money Microsoft gets from selling advertising to other companies), and Yahoo wouldn't bother doing this if their ad sales didn't exceed what they're paying Microsoft.
Why else would Mozilla Foundation damage the UI of its own product?
This is so far removed from the rest of your sentence that I don't even know where you went wrong. What does paying to change the search default have to do with the UI of anything other than search? Especially Thunderbird, which you mentioned in your previous sentence.
I thought the borg were actually not representative of a specific country, but of a peculiar ideology surrounding immigration (the melting pot vs. the tossed salad). They stress assimilation at all times, compared to the multicultural Federation that shows, eg., Tellarites having a distinct culture from humans despite hundreds of years in the same interstellar government.
If the borg were any particular country, they were the United States, compared to some other immigrant countries eg. Canada which stresses multiculturalism without assimilation (due in large part due to English/French internal tensions, where the French really do not want to be assimilated). But the metaphor doesn't work cleanly along national boundaries.
They probably don't think in terms like this, but I know a lot of people that don't like to watch a show until it's done (read: cancelled). A similar thing happens in fictional novel series, where you have some people reading each book in a series and some waiting until it's done.
I would also say that a lot of people are essentially committed to eg. Game of Thrones. They like the series and then they want to watch it right when it comes out so they can talk with their friends about it on the Internet/next day at work/not get spoiled/because they just can't wait.
I see that argument a lot, but taken to that extreme, virtually all monetary exchanges are done at gunpoint.
Restaurants extort their fees at gunpoint! Go to restaurants every day and dine and dash, see how far that gets you. Customers extort their services at gunpoint! Accept money for your services and then don't provide the service, see how far that gets you. Contracts are enforced at gunpoint! Breach your contract and fail to make the other party whole, and see what happens. Even escrow happens at gunpoint. Sure, the two parties exchanging money for property have actually arranged something where neither party can breach the contract before its completed, but the escrow company itself is held at gunpoint by both parties.
Cases that are not done at gunpoint:
Charitable donations, since nothing is expected in return. Actual cases of illegal activity, in which you are threatened not with bodily harm but with property damage or other consequences. However for significant money, under-the-table loan sharks are not known for this restraint.
That's a ridiculous delay for any sort of vote coercion to occur.
How is that in any way ridiculous? The whole point of coercion is they come back and punish you if they find out later. If they can find out in 3 years and use it against you, you can still be intimidated. If you vote that way anyway, they'll come and break your kid's legs, and next year you'll know to vote with the thugs (the police aren't exactly going to be guarding you 24/7 for 3 years just in case this happens). Therefore the law must protect anonymity in these records a lot longer than 3 years.
I think what's needed is an alternate way to keep these records, which is both anonymous and non-burdensome to reveal in aggregation. If for whatever reason individual votes are needed, then shuffle them in random order or whatever. Surely this is technically possible? Maybe Kansas fucked up the record-keeping in the past but we can always fix the record-keeping now. Maybe there was fraud in the past that is unprovable, but that doesn't mean we can't put into place measures that prevent future fraud.
If they really wanted to commit fraud, what stops them from sending back false records, rather than sending no records?
The employees didn't fire him, so it's just not parallel. It wouldn't be okay if he, as an employee, was fired for a private vote he made, even if it was reprehensible (eg. he was donating to the campaign for the "kill all the 9-year-olds who fail this standardized test" act).
Because marriage was never about the people getting married. It was about the CHILDREN that marriage produced
No, it was usually about the PARENTS of the people getting married. This is also where we get the term elope, by the way.
That is obviously false, since how else do gay "parents" get their children except by divorce, buying them via surrogacy, or adoption?
This is a logical fallacy. Allow me to illustrate. Pretend that search and rescue teams don't exist for a moment.
- People who shipwreck in an ocean usually drown.
Then SUDDENLY ocean search & rescue teams exist, and the people they rescue are no more likely to drown than the general population. This is obviously false, because how else did they get rescued except by shipwreck?
Furthermore, even if true, it's only an argument against surrogacy. You aren't going to reduce divorce or the number of orphans by banning gay marriage. All you're going to reduce is the number of orphans or children with only a single parent. That's *it*.
MANY CHILDREN RAISED BY GAY COUPLES ARE AGAINST GAY MARRIAGE!
This would be more compelling if you had statistics rather than anecdotes.
the LGBT lobby IS "the man" and has been so for quite some time.
WTF? How can you actually believe this?
An entire generation of children bought and sold like cattle via surrogacy, the divorce courts, and adoption.
You are seriously anti-adoption aren't you? What is your recommendation for orphans? And how do you think that gay marriage, abortion, or divorce *in any way* affect adoption rates? Orphans get denied their rights to a mother and father first by *DEATH*.
Denied their right to not be bought and sold like cattle.
What colour is the sky on your planet, where children are "bought and sold like cattle"?
I doubt it. From reading the article, having add-ons able to fuck with Firefox's internal implementation details is exactly the problem they are solving by deprecating the API.
You're giving an explanation of how you don't respect monogamy. Like he said, if you expect it, fine, don't agree to it or negotiate your way out. A unilateral decision is unfair after a bilateral agreement.
Really? I've heard people say literally that. I would say most people don't stick to just one genre but they mostly float in just a few.
Lots of people don't like superhero movies, don't like movies with ambiguous villains and morality, don't like movies with clear villans and black & white morality, don't like arthouse films, don't like mainstream films, don't like character studies, don't like crime dramas...
In books people like romance, or detective, or Science Fiction, or fantasy, or horror, or humour, or comics, or historical fiction, or slice-of-life, or coming-of-age, or a combination of a few of those and others I can't think of at the moment. It always amused me that book genre was frequently defined by setting, whereas setting is considered almost irrelevant to video game genre classification.
Music comes in very clear genres and people very rarely like classical music and hip-hop music and folk music to an equal degree.
I like RPG*, RTS, and Adventure.
*Not Elder-Scrolls or similar. Not most JRPGs, although Chrono Trigger was pretty good and hell, early Sega Master system RPGs were good. RPG is a wide genre that also includes Might & Magic, Ultima, Infinity Engine games and similar-style, Fallouts 1 & 2, Wizardly, Shadowrun Returns, "old-school" RPG, Mass Effect 1 and to a lesser extent 3, etc.. -- this is where the article has a point; RPG is too broad and JRPG and Western RPG doesn't really divide the market correctly in my opinion.
The summary doesn't really match the article. I think the summary is neither common sense, nor public knowledge, nor correct. I think the article is mostly common sense and public knowledge though.
The article says that you can't make a game that appeals broadly to "core gamers" or broadly to "female gamers" because those aren't coherent genres, those are demographics. Of course you can't make a game that all female gamers enjoy, because different female gamers tend to enjoy different kinds of games -- kinds that we broadly group into genres.
Then it discusses MOBA and MMORPG. Maybe I'm out of touch or something but I didn't even know what MOBA is. There's so few of them listed on wikipedia that it's easy to imagine it's not a genre.
MMORPG is the one that's kind of interesting. It makes sense that you can basically only play 1 time-consuming MMORPG at a time, but the idea that, if WoW goes away tomorrow, its fans will not even seek a similar replacement is kind of interesting.
But the fact that I like single-player RPGs, mostly-single-player RTS, and Adventure games isn't nonexistent from a marketing standpoint, not like "core gamers" or "female gamers" is. Although at the same time, popular RPGs include Elder Scrolls games and Final Fantasy games, both of which I find terribly boring -- I consider that a problem of that genre label being a little overbroad.
I think when people are talking about corporations being shortsighted, they aren't talking about corporations failing to plan ahead, they are talking about corporations taking actions that clearly damage their own future potential. Linus taking Linux day by day, or in 6-month sprints, or whatever, isn't really the same thing because that doesn't hinder Linux's ability to compete. At worst, it helps it sub-optimally. This as opposed to killing your most profitable product line, or laying off the people who work on your next product instead of the people who sell last year's product, etc..
It would surprise me though if he doesn't have at least some long-term goals that take over 6 months to complete and that he's not focussed on working on right now but has in his back-pocket, but maybe he really doesn't.
I also think the statement about corporate shortsightedness is somewhat overused, although not entirely without merit. When somebody says something like that, I sometimes click on their posting history to see if they also make claims like "big Pharma will never release cures because palliative care is more profitable" and the like to help me determine if they're logically consistent and therefore might be worth paying attention to, or just reflexively take anti-corporate positions (likewise for pro-corporate positions). And yes, I know they could believe that all corporations *except* big Pharma are short-sighted.
One possible mercenary reason: because their consumers will blame them if the Internet fucks up, even if it's not their fault. Therefore it behooves them to ensure that the Internet keeps working without a major incident.
When I said "how is data that is gathered from telescopes on Mars materially more interesting on Mars? "I meant "how is data that is gathered from telescopes on Mars materially more interesting than data gathered on Earth"?
Aside from avoiding interference (which the dark side of the moon does better because the *same half* is always facing away from Earth), and of course looking at Mars itself and maybe its moons, how is data that is gathered from telescopes on Mars materially more interesting on Mars? Slightly better parallax data?
Consider the point you're making. You believe that having a book that explains things using only the 1000 most commonly-used English words causes falsified scientific results and non-entertaining TV debates.
Can the hyperbole. You could make an argument that such negligence justifies expulsion, but you're just embarrassing yourself when you claim "thinks denying the right of teacher to feed her family is funny".
We all know the kid didn't write this tweet thinking "haHA, this will bring my teacher up on sexual harassment charges!", nor was it materially likely to happen. Just like your "Eat Locals!" signature isn't going to get you accused of cannibalism.
Disciplinary action is appropriate. I'd have gone with a short suspension. Expulsion seems very extreme to me, although the teacher herself might be able to bring a minor civil suit depending on the exact circumstances, and I can imagine the parents might have acceded to the transfer in lieu of a lawsuit.
You're better than the guy claiming this was an attempted kidnapping, except I'm pretty sure that guy's a troll and that you're serious.
Slashdot Mirror
He had the number 1 paid app in the app store until he pulled it. Money would be a reason to keep it on the app store.
You don't need to show that the kid has that motive, because the two individuals in Boston didn't have that motive. The Boston motive was to promote the Aqua Teen Hunger Force movie.
Your death or injury means you will lose control of your vehicle.
You don't have a signature on your driver's license?
To be fair, his title was "biased reporting". When the research talks about all nations, and the reporting talks only about the US, that legitimately is biased reporting. Especially when the US doesn't look so extreme compared to the other "climate debt" nations on a per capita basis.
This said, that bias isn't necessarily bad when your audience is from the US. And I say this as somebody who is not from the US, and who went directly to the article to find out how other countries did.
You seem very confused. Having a perfect 3D printer in your garage means that you, the producer, already control the means of production, and therefore, you are already in socialism.
I have no idea what you think you mean by "enforce socialism" that somehow contradicts being able to make anything you want in your garage.
This said in reality, a single 3D printer that fits in your garage can't possibly do everything -- it's not an energy source, it needs raw material, and it's not going to construct eg. a giant fully-crewed cruise ship in one go -- but it could do a lot of things. The things it can't do could be done by capitalism (some company owns a distribution network; company might be publically traded), or socialism (the aforementioned company is owned jointly by the delivery drivers). You can discuss that.
Microsoft has hidden its apparent takeover of Mozilla Foundation by pretending that there is a "Yahoo search".
Yahoo search may not use Bing as a back-end, but Yahoo is its own entity. Microsoft is not pretending there is a Yahoo search to "take over". Yahoo is trying to make money by funneling Firefox through their re-branded version of Bing Search.
Microsoft doesn't have to hide or pretend. They could have just paid Mozilla to use Bing Search directly -- they get more money that way because Yahoo isn't a middleman. *Nobody* cares about the distinction except Yahoo and Microsoft.
Yahoo paid Mozilla Foundation to trick users into using Microsoft's Bing search engine.
Ridiculous. Yahoo paid the Mozilla Foundation so that they would get their users (not trick their users, get their users) to use Yahoo Search (which, yes, is a re-branded Bing Search) in order to get advertising money.
So, Microsoft paid Yahoo.
Backwards. Yahoo is leasing Microsoft's technology; Microsoft is not paying for Yahoo to use Microsoft's technology. http://searchengineland.com/mi...
I think you're forgetting that the last time Yahoo was regarded as a decent search engine was before Google was a household name.
This said, Yahoo is displaying at least 51% of their ads as Bing ads, so in that sense Microsoft is paying Yahoo to display their ads (using money Microsoft gets from selling advertising to other companies), and Yahoo wouldn't bother doing this if their ad sales didn't exceed what they're paying Microsoft.
Why else would Mozilla Foundation damage the UI of its own product?
This is so far removed from the rest of your sentence that I don't even know where you went wrong. What does paying to change the search default have to do with the UI of anything other than search? Especially Thunderbird, which you mentioned in your previous sentence.
I thought the borg were actually not representative of a specific country, but of a peculiar ideology surrounding immigration (the melting pot vs. the tossed salad). They stress assimilation at all times, compared to the multicultural Federation that shows, eg., Tellarites having a distinct culture from humans despite hundreds of years in the same interstellar government.
If the borg were any particular country, they were the United States, compared to some other immigrant countries eg. Canada which stresses multiculturalism without assimilation (due in large part due to English/French internal tensions, where the French really do not want to be assimilated). But the metaphor doesn't work cleanly along national boundaries.
They probably don't think in terms like this, but I know a lot of people that don't like to watch a show until it's done (read: cancelled). A similar thing happens in fictional novel series, where you have some people reading each book in a series and some waiting until it's done.
I would also say that a lot of people are essentially committed to eg. Game of Thrones. They like the series and then they want to watch it right when it comes out so they can talk with their friends about it on the Internet/next day at work/not get spoiled/because they just can't wait.
I see that argument a lot, but taken to that extreme, virtually all monetary exchanges are done at gunpoint.
Restaurants extort their fees at gunpoint! Go to restaurants every day and dine and dash, see how far that gets you.
Customers extort their services at gunpoint! Accept money for your services and then don't provide the service, see how far that gets you.
Contracts are enforced at gunpoint! Breach your contract and fail to make the other party whole, and see what happens.
Even escrow happens at gunpoint. Sure, the two parties exchanging money for property have actually arranged something where neither party can breach the contract before its completed, but the escrow company itself is held at gunpoint by both parties.
Cases that are not done at gunpoint:
Charitable donations, since nothing is expected in return.
Actual cases of illegal activity, in which you are threatened not with bodily harm but with property damage or other consequences. However for significant money, under-the-table loan sharks are not known for this restraint.
That may be, but it's not a trivial app.
That's a ridiculous delay for any sort of vote coercion to occur.
How is that in any way ridiculous? The whole point of coercion is they come back and punish you if they find out later. If they can find out in 3 years and use it against you, you can still be intimidated. If you vote that way anyway, they'll come and break your kid's legs, and next year you'll know to vote with the thugs (the police aren't exactly going to be guarding you 24/7 for 3 years just in case this happens). Therefore the law must protect anonymity in these records a lot longer than 3 years.
I think what's needed is an alternate way to keep these records, which is both anonymous and non-burdensome to reveal in aggregation. If for whatever reason individual votes are needed, then shuffle them in random order or whatever. Surely this is technically possible? Maybe Kansas fucked up the record-keeping in the past but we can always fix the record-keeping now. Maybe there was fraud in the past that is unprovable, but that doesn't mean we can't put into place measures that prevent future fraud.
If they really wanted to commit fraud, what stops them from sending back false records, rather than sending no records?
Is that actually the case? I thought a big purpose was to avoid voter intimidation by non-governmental vigilantes who oppose a particular candidate.
The employees didn't fire him, so it's just not parallel. It wouldn't be okay if he, as an employee, was fired for a private vote he made, even if it was reprehensible (eg. he was donating to the campaign for the "kill all the 9-year-olds who fail this standardized test" act).
Because marriage was never about the people getting married. It was about the CHILDREN that marriage produced
No, it was usually about the PARENTS of the people getting married. This is also where we get the term elope, by the way.
That is obviously false, since how else do gay "parents" get their children except by divorce, buying them via surrogacy, or adoption?
This is a logical fallacy. Allow me to illustrate. Pretend that search and rescue teams don't exist for a moment.
- People who shipwreck in an ocean usually drown.
Then SUDDENLY ocean search & rescue teams exist, and the people they rescue are no more likely to drown than the general population. This is obviously false, because how else did they get rescued except by shipwreck?
Furthermore, even if true, it's only an argument against surrogacy. You aren't going to reduce divorce or the number of orphans by banning gay marriage. All you're going to reduce is the number of orphans or children with only a single parent. That's *it*.
MANY CHILDREN RAISED BY GAY COUPLES ARE AGAINST GAY MARRIAGE!
This would be more compelling if you had statistics rather than anecdotes.
the LGBT lobby IS "the man" and has been so for quite some time.
WTF? How can you actually believe this?
An entire generation of children bought and sold like cattle via surrogacy, the divorce courts, and adoption.
You are seriously anti-adoption aren't you? What is your recommendation for orphans? And how do you think that gay marriage, abortion, or divorce *in any way* affect adoption rates? Orphans get denied their rights to a mother and father first by *DEATH*.
Denied their right to not be bought and sold like cattle.
What colour is the sky on your planet, where children are "bought and sold like cattle"?
I doubt it. From reading the article, having add-ons able to fuck with Firefox's internal implementation details is exactly the problem they are solving by deprecating the API.
You're giving an explanation of how you don't respect monogamy. Like he said, if you expect it, fine, don't agree to it or negotiate your way out. A unilateral decision is unfair after a bilateral agreement.
Really? I've heard people say literally that. I would say most people don't stick to just one genre but they mostly float in just a few.
Lots of people don't like superhero movies, don't like movies with ambiguous villains and morality, don't like movies with clear villans and black & white morality, don't like arthouse films, don't like mainstream films, don't like character studies, don't like crime dramas...
In books people like romance, or detective, or Science Fiction, or fantasy, or horror, or humour, or comics, or historical fiction, or slice-of-life, or coming-of-age, or a combination of a few of those and others I can't think of at the moment. It always amused me that book genre was frequently defined by setting, whereas setting is considered almost irrelevant to video game genre classification.
Music comes in very clear genres and people very rarely like classical music and hip-hop music and folk music to an equal degree.
I like RPG*, RTS, and Adventure.
*Not Elder-Scrolls or similar. Not most JRPGs, although Chrono Trigger was pretty good and hell, early Sega Master system RPGs were good. RPG is a wide genre that also includes Might & Magic, Ultima, Infinity Engine games and similar-style, Fallouts 1 & 2, Wizardly, Shadowrun Returns, "old-school" RPG, Mass Effect 1 and to a lesser extent 3, etc.. -- this is where the article has a point; RPG is too broad and JRPG and Western RPG doesn't really divide the market correctly in my opinion.
The summary doesn't really match the article. I think the summary is neither common sense, nor public knowledge, nor correct. I think the article is mostly common sense and public knowledge though.
The article says that you can't make a game that appeals broadly to "core gamers" or broadly to "female gamers" because those aren't coherent genres, those are demographics. Of course you can't make a game that all female gamers enjoy, because different female gamers tend to enjoy different kinds of games -- kinds that we broadly group into genres.
Then it discusses MOBA and MMORPG. Maybe I'm out of touch or something but I didn't even know what MOBA is. There's so few of them listed on wikipedia that it's easy to imagine it's not a genre.
MMORPG is the one that's kind of interesting. It makes sense that you can basically only play 1 time-consuming MMORPG at a time, but the idea that, if WoW goes away tomorrow, its fans will not even seek a similar replacement is kind of interesting.
But the fact that I like single-player RPGs, mostly-single-player RTS, and Adventure games isn't nonexistent from a marketing standpoint, not like "core gamers" or "female gamers" is. Although at the same time, popular RPGs include Elder Scrolls games and Final Fantasy games, both of which I find terribly boring -- I consider that a problem of that genre label being a little overbroad.
I think when people are talking about corporations being shortsighted, they aren't talking about corporations failing to plan ahead, they are talking about corporations taking actions that clearly damage their own future potential. Linus taking Linux day by day, or in 6-month sprints, or whatever, isn't really the same thing because that doesn't hinder Linux's ability to compete. At worst, it helps it sub-optimally. This as opposed to killing your most profitable product line, or laying off the people who work on your next product instead of the people who sell last year's product, etc..
It would surprise me though if he doesn't have at least some long-term goals that take over 6 months to complete and that he's not focussed on working on right now but has in his back-pocket, but maybe he really doesn't.
I also think the statement about corporate shortsightedness is somewhat overused, although not entirely without merit. When somebody says something like that, I sometimes click on their posting history to see if they also make claims like "big Pharma will never release cures because palliative care is more profitable" and the like to help me determine if they're logically consistent and therefore might be worth paying attention to, or just reflexively take anti-corporate positions (likewise for pro-corporate positions). And yes, I know they could believe that all corporations *except* big Pharma are short-sighted.
One possible mercenary reason: because their consumers will blame them if the Internet fucks up, even if it's not their fault. Therefore it behooves them to ensure that the Internet keeps working without a major incident.
When I said "how is data that is gathered from telescopes on Mars materially more interesting on Mars? "I meant "how is data that is gathered from telescopes on Mars materially more interesting than data gathered on Earth"?
Aside from avoiding interference (which the dark side of the moon does better because the *same half* is always facing away from Earth), and of course looking at Mars itself and maybe its moons, how is data that is gathered from telescopes on Mars materially more interesting on Mars? Slightly better parallax data?
Consider the point you're making. You believe that having a book that explains things using only the 1000 most commonly-used English words causes falsified scientific results and non-entertaining TV debates.
Really?
Can the hyperbole. You could make an argument that such negligence justifies expulsion, but you're just embarrassing yourself when you claim "thinks denying the right of teacher to feed her family is funny".
We all know the kid didn't write this tweet thinking "haHA, this will bring my teacher up on sexual harassment charges!", nor was it materially likely to happen. Just like your "Eat Locals!" signature isn't going to get you accused of cannibalism.
Disciplinary action is appropriate. I'd have gone with a short suspension. Expulsion seems very extreme to me, although the teacher herself might be able to bring a minor civil suit depending on the exact circumstances, and I can imagine the parents might have acceded to the transfer in lieu of a lawsuit.
You're better than the guy claiming this was an attempted kidnapping, except I'm pretty sure that guy's a troll and that you're serious.