And, of course, the place where they competition was held was a "gun free zone". As is standard with mass shootings (all but 1?). So, guns were already illegal where the shooting happened.
The Stargate movie was so bad that I ignored the series when it came out. Since I was binge-watching season 1, I don't have the same perspective, but the first couple of episodes were pretty bland (episode 2 in particular was bad), and I thought it took a while for any chemistry to emerge from the team (who started as very bland stereotypes).
I gave up on both The Expanse and BSG during the first half of the first season, though I hear they were good. Perhaps nostalgia colors your memory there. I also gave up on Bab5 on episode 2, only to come back later and discover it was my favorite SF TV (and the second episode was the worst of 5 seasons).
And to make it even worse, people are building on flood plains, having their homes flood, and blaming it on "climate change".
For one BinaryTroll has a point. Much of the flooding around Houston during the recent hurricane was subdivisions build in areas purpose designed to flood in order to keep other areas from flooding. None of that was secret either - it's clearly shown on flood maps. I guess people don't understand that "100 year flood zone" means "this house will probably be lost to flooding during its expected life". But humans are bad at low-probability risks.
There'a a lot of writing talent in the world, but Hollywood stays far from it. Every mid-tier professional author out there ( and there are a lot of them, and they're cheap) writes better stuff than 99% of Hollywood drivel.
I don't think there's even by a TV SciFi series where the first half of season 1 was any good. It always takes a while for the writers and cast to find the characters.
A tort is not a criminal punishment - you can be sued for things you say, and that's not the government restricting speed. Fraud is, though, and should be. Also, all absolutists beliefs are wrong.:)
Sorry, in the military you can go to jail for all sorts of speech, starting with telling your boss what your really think of him. And keeping secrets is always going to be a requirement for working in intelligence. Neither of those is problematic unless you're conscripted.
You know mini-mills that are primary steel producers are a thing, right? They typically use an arc furnace. They will never be as efficient as a blast furnace, but it turns out that power efficiency is not the only criteria for the success of a mill.
Nuclear power is the only alternative that has all the qualities you need to power civilization
Fusion power is the only thing that scales, and solar is our only access to fusion power. Solar won't really work for industrial power, though, so fission may be a stopgap if we get really obsessive about carbon emission.
Mini plants like these, even if less cost effective than huge plants, might well make sense one day for industrial sites that generate their own power today (which is quite common for heavy industry). They'd need a track record of being idiot proof, but since we'll have the same problem in 20 years, now is a good time to start demonstrating whether they can be made idiot proof.
Or is it a private service offered voluntarily to members of the public so long as they follow the service provider's terms, with the freedom to kick people out (or not) at their own discretion for violating those terms and no undue liability for what other people may choose to say?
Newpapers are liable for what they choose to print, even they parts not written by newspaper employees (which is most of the paper, these days).
There's only one carve-out in the law for not being liable for content you distribute, and it's not at all clear it should apply to Facebook the way it does to an ISP.
To begin with, no one should be legally liable for anything that is said
I OTOH credit Trump because the economy is forward-looking, and companies switched from survival to growth in November. But, hey, whoever's right will have better investment success.
An astonishing percentage of people will work far harder to keep their life the same than they will to leave their comfort zone to make things better. It's irrational, but that's humans for you. Jobs especially are "sticky", and people stay with them for years even when there are better alternatives, because of fear of change. And of course employers exploit that. It's why you can usually get a raise when you change jobs.
Trump's policies (or the policies instituted while he's been in office) aren't terrible, he just needs to shut his mouth.
Does he though? Or do you just want him to be one more non-conservative, non-populist, Establishment Republican who doesn't rock the boat, and doesn't challenge the establishment politicians and the big donors who puppet them?
The status quo frankly sucked unless you were part of the 0.1%. Past time to shake things up, even if it takes (gasp!) mean tweets to do so.
You're citing political sources for economic data? WTF? It's like you're deliberately seeking out propaganda to believe. Just look at the raw data in any of dozens of places.
The economy started turning around in 2013 (or late 2012), but was coming from a very bad place, and took a few years to grow back to "normal". Things really started to be net positive again in around in late 2016, with steady consistent growth, with no dips into the negative live we had in early 2014, and nearly had in late 2015. People's feeling of economic security come from the absence of dips in the GDP growth rate.
Similarly, it was late 2015 when unemployment finally got back to where it was in 2008, and late 2016 when it got notably better.
Late 2016 is the point when the US economy went from "recovering but shaky" to "doing great". Credit whoever make you feel better for that.
None of this is any of our business. Whether those people are happy or unhappy working there, the only things that might legitimately concern those of us without AMZN-stock, is: "are they there voluntarily?"
It's very legitimate to ensure there aren't physical dangers there, especially hidden ones. Any place there are conveyor belts, there need to be safety regulations (and an Amazon warehouse is like some intentional conveyor belt convention). And no saving money by insulating your building with asbestos and not telling your employees (of course, the idea that Amazon would insulate a warehouse is a joke, but you get my point I hope).
Beyond OSHA stuff, though, I tend to agree with you.
The problem Amazon is having is that conditions are sufficiently dystopian that people are leaving voluntarily, and it's getting hard to overcome their reputation. And I think they know that they're "over-managing" people in their warehouses, but big companies have a lot of inertia. I don't think a bunch of astroturfing will help for long.
Actually, it's not the same principle at all. Company towns are de-facto monopolies* so have special restricted placed upon them. Twitter, Youtube, etc are not de-facto monopolies because there do exist other platforms.
YouTube is a de-facto monopoly. They have a much bigger market share than Microsoft ever did. And, again, my entire point is that yes, if you're a monopoly, maybe you should be forced to be a microphone for other people's free speech, just as you can be in equivalent circumstances in the real world.
but in every other walk of life where a lot of people all decide to shun someone we don't break out the pitchforks to defend them.
We do when they shun all blacks. We do when they shun all gays. It's just as important to have a diveristy of views in the marketplace of ideas. Especially ideas you think are obviously stupid and wrong, because you are stupidly wrong about at least one of your ideas, and you deserve the chance to grow (doubly so ideas that everyone dislikes).
Most conservatives (like most liberals) don't support free speech. They support speech they don't personally find too objectionable.
Perhaps so. But most progressives violently oppose free speech. That's a real problem.
The real question is, where do you draw the line? Slashdot engages in editorial discretion--shock videos aren't merely modded down but are at times removed.
They claim this is not the case - they they've only ever removed content when legally required to do so. One of the janitors told me this directly when I confronted him about it. Nor does an ISP block content unless legally required, for just this reason. Either be a common carrier, or be a publisher.
Slashdot Mirror
And, of course, the place where they competition was held was a "gun free zone". As is standard with mass shootings (all but 1?). So, guns were already illegal where the shooting happened.
The Stargate movie was so bad that I ignored the series when it came out. Since I was binge-watching season 1, I don't have the same perspective, but the first couple of episodes were pretty bland (episode 2 in particular was bad), and I thought it took a while for any chemistry to emerge from the team (who started as very bland stereotypes).
There's no arguing with browncoats, but "meh".
I gave up on both The Expanse and BSG during the first half of the first season, though I hear they were good. Perhaps nostalgia colors your memory there. I also gave up on Bab5 on episode 2, only to come back later and discover it was my favorite SF TV (and the second episode was the worst of 5 seasons).
And to make it even worse, people are building on flood plains, having their homes flood, and blaming it on "climate change".
For one BinaryTroll has a point. Much of the flooding around Houston during the recent hurricane was subdivisions build in areas purpose designed to flood in order to keep other areas from flooding. None of that was secret either - it's clearly shown on flood maps. I guess people don't understand that "100 year flood zone" means "this house will probably be lost to flooding during its expected life". But humans are bad at low-probability risks.
You're missing the point: all land in the world was acquired that way. All of it. There is no land that wasn't "stolen". The world's an old place.
Except their own people. A totalitarian dystopia that oppresses a billion people is fine by you?
I've never looked at the IMDB (or Rotten Tomatoes) score for any Movie or TV show. There's no useful information there.
There'a a lot of writing talent in the world, but Hollywood stays far from it. Every mid-tier professional author out there ( and there are a lot of them, and they're cheap) writes better stuff than 99% of Hollywood drivel.
I don't think there's even by a TV SciFi series where the first half of season 1 was any good. It always takes a while for the writers and cast to find the characters.
A tort is not a criminal punishment - you can be sued for things you say, and that's not the government restricting speed. Fraud is, though, and should be. Also, all absolutists beliefs are wrong. :)
Sorry, in the military you can go to jail for all sorts of speech, starting with telling your boss what your really think of him. And keeping secrets is always going to be a requirement for working in intelligence. Neither of those is problematic unless you're conscripted.
Seriously, America.
What the fuck is wrong with you people?
Videogame-related killings? This is a first for Amercia, I think, but it's not so rare in Korea.
You know mini-mills that are primary steel producers are a thing, right? They typically use an arc furnace. They will never be as efficient as a blast furnace, but it turns out that power efficiency is not the only criteria for the success of a mill.
Nuclear power is the only alternative that has all the qualities you need to power civilization
Fusion power is the only thing that scales, and solar is our only access to fusion power. Solar won't really work for industrial power, though, so fission may be a stopgap if we get really obsessive about carbon emission.
Mini plants like these, even if less cost effective than huge plants, might well make sense one day for industrial sites that generate their own power today (which is quite common for heavy industry). They'd need a track record of being idiot proof, but since we'll have the same problem in 20 years, now is a good time to start demonstrating whether they can be made idiot proof.
fixed costs of operating any type of reactor that produces enough power to be useful ... mean that a somewhat larger plant is much more efficient
Maybe so, but the same used to be true of steel mills, yet now steel "mini-mills" have replaced old-school steel mills
Or is it a private service offered voluntarily to members of the public so long as they follow the service provider's terms, with the freedom to kick people out (or not) at their own discretion for violating those terms and no undue liability for what other people may choose to say?
Newpapers are liable for what they choose to print, even they parts not written by newspaper employees (which is most of the paper, these days).
There's only one carve-out in the law for not being liable for content you distribute, and it's not at all clear it should apply to Facebook the way it does to an ISP.
To begin with, no one should be legally liable for anything that is said
Oh, you're a nut job. Nevermind.
Shitty jobs are the easiest to find, and most people who need to actually live on the job work 2 of them. Been there, done that.
It's why Basic Income is widely hated - because it gives these people power to actually choose
Your insights into the psychology of strawmen is amazing.
I OTOH credit Trump because the economy is forward-looking, and companies switched from survival to growth in November. But, hey, whoever's right will have better investment success.
An astonishing percentage of people will work far harder to keep their life the same than they will to leave their comfort zone to make things better. It's irrational, but that's humans for you. Jobs especially are "sticky", and people stay with them for years even when there are better alternatives, because of fear of change. And of course employers exploit that. It's why you can usually get a raise when you change jobs.
Trump's policies (or the policies instituted while he's been in office) aren't terrible, he just needs to shut his mouth.
Does he though? Or do you just want him to be one more non-conservative, non-populist, Establishment Republican who doesn't rock the boat, and doesn't challenge the establishment politicians and the big donors who puppet them?
The status quo frankly sucked unless you were part of the 0.1%. Past time to shake things up, even if it takes (gasp!) mean tweets to do so.
You're citing political sources for economic data? WTF? It's like you're deliberately seeking out propaganda to believe. Just look at the raw data in any of dozens of places.
The economy started turning around in 2013 (or late 2012), but was coming from a very bad place, and took a few years to grow back to "normal". Things really started to be net positive again in around in late 2016, with steady consistent growth, with no dips into the negative live we had in early 2014, and nearly had in late 2015. People's feeling of economic security come from the absence of dips in the GDP growth rate.
Similarly, it was late 2015 when unemployment finally got back to where it was in 2008, and late 2016 when it got notably better.
Late 2016 is the point when the US economy went from "recovering but shaky" to "doing great". Credit whoever make you feel better for that.
None of this is any of our business. Whether those people are happy or unhappy working there, the only things that might legitimately concern those of us without AMZN-stock, is: "are they there voluntarily?"
It's very legitimate to ensure there aren't physical dangers there, especially hidden ones. Any place there are conveyor belts, there need to be safety regulations (and an Amazon warehouse is like some intentional conveyor belt convention). And no saving money by insulating your building with asbestos and not telling your employees (of course, the idea that Amazon would insulate a warehouse is a joke, but you get my point I hope).
Beyond OSHA stuff, though, I tend to agree with you.
The problem Amazon is having is that conditions are sufficiently dystopian that people are leaving voluntarily, and it's getting hard to overcome their reputation. And I think they know that they're "over-managing" people in their warehouses, but big companies have a lot of inertia. I don't think a bunch of astroturfing will help for long.
We have the strngest economy in 20 years. How you doin?
Actually, it's not the same principle at all. Company towns are de-facto monopolies* so have special restricted placed upon them. Twitter, Youtube, etc are not de-facto monopolies because there do exist other platforms.
YouTube is a de-facto monopoly. They have a much bigger market share than Microsoft ever did. And, again, my entire point is that yes, if you're a monopoly, maybe you should be forced to be a microphone for other people's free speech, just as you can be in equivalent circumstances in the real world.
but in every other walk of life where a lot of people all decide to shun someone we don't break out the pitchforks to defend them.
We do when they shun all blacks. We do when they shun all gays. It's just as important to have a diveristy of views in the marketplace of ideas. Especially ideas you think are obviously stupid and wrong, because you are stupidly wrong about at least one of your ideas, and you deserve the chance to grow (doubly so ideas that everyone dislikes).
Most conservatives (like most liberals) don't support free speech. They support speech they don't personally find too objectionable.
Perhaps so. But most progressives violently oppose free speech. That's a real problem.
The real question is, where do you draw the line? Slashdot engages in editorial discretion--shock videos aren't merely modded down but are at times removed.
They claim this is not the case - they they've only ever removed content when legally required to do so. One of the janitors told me this directly when I confronted him about it. Nor does an ISP block content unless legally required, for just this reason. Either be a common carrier, or be a publisher.
It's a bright line.