Bullshit as in 'So the device had a dead battery, but you had both earphones in anyway, for no reason? Bullshit.'
Officer, I can't possibly have been the person to fire an entire magazine of bullets into that man in front of me; as you can plainly see, my handgun is empty!
The opposite if this is something like Shadowrun, which is basically unplayable because it's grown too complex, in terms of both rules and the sheer amount of different systems, all with weird and unforeseeable interactions.
If you're going to ask users about features, do it on the phone and keep it private.
Some people: are blind or poorly sighted, are dyslexic, poor spellers or otherwise typing-impaired, or do not read English, are computer-shy or technophobic, sleep, work or are otherwise unavailable during your chosen hours; do not want a persistent record of their feedback and/or the following discussion.
Taking feedback over the web discriminates against all of the above.
See how easy it is to simply dismiss anything out of hand?
Hmmm. They don't really say anything about warrants; i.e. 'we have received no warrants requiring us to turn over SSL keys,' they talk about actions, i.e. 'To date, we have not turned over any SSL keys.' Maybe that's the difference?
Why was the internet up in arms about ScarJo playing the title character of Ghost in the Shell, but nobody seems to mind Rosa Salazar playing the title character in Alita?
Similarly, I'm curious about why the Internet was up in arms about ScarJo playing the Major in GitS, but nobody is saying a peep about the similarly non-Japanese Rosa Salazar playing Alita.
Also, what performance did the passenger fail to perform? He paid money in exchange for a seat on an airplane. Doesn't sound like he wanted a refund or anything, he paid his money, then chose not to avail himself of the service.
I'm very glad that you understand Google is a search engine. However, Google results aren't consistent between different users. Further, I have no way of knowing if whatever I find is the evidence you're referring to.
Again, I'm not saying you're in possession of evidence. I'm saying you pointed to specific evidence that exists, and that you seem to have knowledge of, as you've positioned it as credible and reasonable. I'd like a reference to that evidence, so that I can read and evaluate it myself.
The anti-vaxxers have plenty of evidence because they have to in order to back their position.
I'm asking you to share what this evidence is. My own views are irrelevant; maybe I'm pro-vaccine and curious to see what this evidence is. Maybe I'm anti-vaccine and hope to vet this evidence myself, and possibly use it when trying to sway others. It's immaterial.
The point here is that you pointed to external evidence, and are now unable to produce, or provide reference, to it.
I dunno, iPhone is pretty good about working with my hearing aids, and has had Live Listen for a while now, which is the 'pipe the iPhone mic through to the hearing aids' thing. The live closed-caption thing sounds cool, though.
Any religion that espouses 'faith' is, by definition, contradictory to science. The moment you take anything on 'faith,' which is to say 'belief without evidence,' you've rejected science.
The real trouble, of course, is that belief without evidence' must inevitably turn to belief despite evidence.'
Slashdot Mirror
Bullshit as in 'So the device had a dead battery, but you had both earphones in anyway, for no reason? Bullshit.'
Officer, I can't possibly have been the person to fire an entire magazine of bullets into that man in front of me; as you can plainly see, my handgun is empty!
The use case for any technology ever is laziness. That's the whole point.
Hot damn, somebody read The Unincorporated Man and thought 'Hmmmmmmâ¦..'
Check out Modiphus' Conan: Adventures In An Age Undreamed Of. The system is really neat, and it nails the aesthetic.
The opposite if this is something like Shadowrun, which is basically unplayable because it's grown too complex, in terms of both rules and the sheer amount of different systems, all with weird and unforeseeable interactions.
Given that the USSR imploded spectacularly after bankrupting themselves accomplishing all that, I don't think the USSR is a good example.
If you're going to ask users about features, do it on the phone and keep it private.
Some people: are blind or poorly sighted, are dyslexic, poor spellers or otherwise typing-impaired, or do not read English, are computer-shy or technophobic, sleep, work or are otherwise unavailable during your chosen hours; do not want a persistent record of their feedback and/or the following discussion.
Taking feedback over the web discriminates against all of the above.
See how easy it is to simply dismiss anything out of hand?
You young whippersnappers, before most of you were born, the online shooter world was divided into LPBs and HPWs.
Hmmm. They don't really say anything about warrants; i.e. 'we have received no warrants requiring us to turn over SSL keys,' they talk about actions, i.e. 'To date, we have not turned over any SSL keys.' Maybe that's the difference?
Why was the internet up in arms about ScarJo playing the title character of Ghost in the Shell, but nobody seems to mind Rosa Salazar playing the title character in Alita?
Similarly, I'm curious about why the Internet was up in arms about ScarJo playing the Major in GitS, but nobody is saying a peep about the similarly non-Japanese Rosa Salazar playing Alita.
So you believe people *should* have the right to shout 'fire' in a crowded theater?
Sure, but what are they going to sue him for? Specific performance? The negative price difference between the direct route and the layover route?
Also, what performance did the passenger fail to perform? He paid money in exchange for a seat on an airplane. Doesn't sound like he wanted a refund or anything, he paid his money, then chose not to avail himself of the service.
I'm very glad that you understand Google is a search engine. However, Google results aren't consistent between different users. Further, I have no way of knowing if whatever I find is the evidence you're referring to.
Again, I'm not saying you're in possession of evidence. I'm saying you pointed to specific evidence that exists, and that you seem to have knowledge of, as you've positioned it as credible and reasonable. I'd like a reference to that evidence, so that I can read and evaluate it myself.
You posted:
I'm asking you to share what this evidence is. My own views are irrelevant; maybe I'm pro-vaccine and curious to see what this evidence is. Maybe I'm anti-vaccine and hope to vet this evidence myself, and possibly use it when trying to sway others. It's immaterial.
The point here is that you pointed to external evidence, and are now unable to produce, or provide reference, to it.
No, I want you to actually produce the evidence you claimed to have. You make the claim, you substantiate it.
I dunno, iPhone is pretty good about working with my hearing aids, and has had Live Listen for a while now, which is the 'pipe the iPhone mic through to the hearing aids' thing. The live closed-caption thing sounds cool, though.
Right, so you have no evidence, but are trying to look like you do. Thanks for being so up-front about that.
Any religion that espouses 'faith' is, by definition, contradictory to science. The moment you take anything on 'faith,' which is to say 'belief without evidence,' you've rejected science.
The real trouble, of course, is that belief without evidence' must inevitably turn to belief despite evidence.'
What evidence would that be?
Hey, it means that just sitting there on your desk, doing very little, the battery now discharges, what, 1/6th slower than otherwise?
I'm confused. How could they have reshot the scene, after Carrie Fisher died, without 'having to deal with doing the CG of a dead actress and voice?'
NdGT has a rant about this in Death by Black Hole. He singles out the term 'baffled' as particularly egregious.