If someone "lets" their boyfriend beat them, that normally means that they "let" him because they fear some sort of consequences if they try it.
If they said "I don't care if there are any consequences or not, even if I could avoid getting beaten for no cost whatsoever I would still let him beat me--it's a matter of principle to let people beat me!", I'd put them in the same category as someone who routinely leaves their car door unlocked with expensive jewels inside and comes back one day to find it stolen. Yes, they were robbed and robbery is not permitted just because the door is unlocked, but at some point, failing to take reasonable precautions makes you an idiot.
And if someone says "God demands that I leave jewels in an unlocked car", they're not any less of an idiot just because they got the command from God.
If they had religious objections to the police, and thus refused to use them, would we start seeing stories that they are being robbed and the robbers are getting away?
Of course if they don't use the courts, they don't get the benefit of the courts. If they refuse anything based on religious grounds, they're not going to get it. That's what "refuse" means. If they refuse the process of getting justice, they're not going to get justice, just like if they refuse internet service, they don't get internet service.
What next, articles about the cruel dilemma of Christian Scientists who are dying of disease because their religion discourages them from seeing doctors?
Sweden just went against common sense, against its own body of laws, and against existing precedents to redefine what a "rape" is supposed to be viewed like.
That's not because of the US, that's because of feminists, who got Sweden to pass rape laws with ridiculous definitions.
Things such as stamps, coins, and baseball cards are collected mainly because people want to own them.
Video games have functionality, and a lot of the market for video games is to people who want them mainly to play. While there are people who want the games as collectible items, similar to stamps or coins, this just isn't true of everyone who wants to get an old video game. Emulators, either legal or otherwise, will handle the needs of most people who want to play old games until you get to the era that is impossible to emulate well (PS2/Gamecube/Dreamcast/Xbox emulation is marginal and we're probably never going to be able to emulate anything past that, not counting handhelds.
The market for specifically original copies of old, rare games just isn't all that big, and the market for people who want to play old games is *not* the market for people who want to buy original copies of old games.
Moore's Law says that the constraints will always be overcome.
If they can't, it's by definition a breakdown of Moore's Law. It makes no sense to say that it doesn't count as a violation of Moore's Law because of constraints--constraints are all that it,s about, so you're saying that it doesn't count as a violation of Moore's Law because it's a violation of Moore's Law.
*Are* they less likely to follow treatment plans? It stands to reason that someone who won't do what's necessary for his health in one area might be less likely to do so in another area as well. If the doctors' assumption is accurate, it's not bias in the sense implied.
If they want to use automated tools to find all people in the city with Star Wars posters on the wall since a recent serial killer is known to be a Star Wars fan, they certainly do want to see your boring living room. Alternatively, if they want to get you for some other reason, they can watch your living room as part of a fishing expedition.
It's certainly true that there are so many boring living rooms that they can't watch them all, but the danger is not so much that they can watch you constantly, as it is that they can watch you whenever they choose.
This is untrue. Belize is a former British colony and as such is in some ways a lot more like the ex-British Carribbean islands than it is like Latin America. However,m the population of those islands and Belize is mostly black. You can easily go to Wikipedia and find a picture of the prime minister of Belize. He's black. A white person would certainly be very visible to any local thugs and would not be considered a member of the ruling class.
"Reproductive rights" is code for abortion and contraception--that is, for *not* reproducing--and so the UN is being entirely consistent in pointing out unsustainable population increases and favoring reproductive rights.
If you want to play emulators on your TV, get a Wii and jailbreak it. Given the current speed of android emulators, I really doubt the Ouya is going to give any better performance than that.
That is in fact the main problem. Windows 8 wasn't "rushed".
ME was rushed (or created as a stopgap without spending much effort on it, which amounts to the same thing). So was Vista. Windows 8 wasn't rushed. The things wrong with Windows 8 aren't bugs or areas where Microsoft failed to cut down enough on how many resources it hogged. The things wrong with Windows 8 were all introduced on purpose by the marketing department, unlike those other failures (although integration of IE into Windows is a precedent for marketing screwing with Windows).
As such, any fixes either 1) will intentionally not address the real problems and will be there only as more marketing so that Microsoft can claim they "fixed" Windows 8 and "responded to user concerns", or 2) will result only after an internal turf war which the marketing department loses. I await finding out which one.
Cool. I think I can write a program to pass Fizzbizz or to sort a file of numbers. If what you're saying is correct, I would be in a category that includes very few applicants. Where do I send my application?
(You're probably sincere, but so am I.)
Also, if you are willing to hire someone who has never used C# before, and presumably are expecting him to code in C#, you're already ahead of 99% of recruiters. Job descriptions almost always require X years of experience. The concept that someone who knows how to program can pick up another programming language (even one that resembles ones they've already used) is nearly nonexistent.
The problem is that Microsoft introduced the UI specifically to force users to have the same UI they have on Windows-based tablets, in an effort to corner the tablet market.
Say what you wish about ME or Vista, Microsoft didn't *deliberately* put bugs or inefficiencies in those products. Those products were bad because Microsoft was sloppy or ran out of time, not because the very features that make them bad were made bad on purpose.
On the other hand, for Windows 8, the UI is a major component in Microsoft's marketing strategy. Yeah, they could fix it by changing the UI, but they can't change the UI unless they want to give up their marketing strategy. And the chances of that happening aren't too great unless Microsoft gives up on tablets.
"Saying something that really does sound like a threat" is doing something stupid, not saying something stupid. The only clue that you even have that the threat is fake is if you know that there are such things as fake rapper personas, and even then, it's easy for someone making a real threat to add a sentence "oh, by the way, the threat is fake, so don't arrest me".
Making a game out of fake bomb threats is like making a game of going into the bank with an object in your jacket and handing the bank teller a note which says "Give me a million dollars or I'll blow your head off. PS: This threat is a fake." Call it performance art as much as you want, but you'll get arrested for that.
There are light-skinned blacks and tanned whites--at least as many as transsexuals who can have babies--but basing benefits on skin color would still be racist and I'm pretty sure a court would rule that way. Courts aren't stupid.
It's worse than that. Race was probably involved... in the other direction. It was excessive fighting against racism that led to this.
The reason? The article doesn't use those explicit words, but the way they described it it sounds like the girl was the victim of a zero tolerance policy--she violated the rule as written, so she had to be punished.
And one of the reasons that zero tolerance policies are created is that if school officials are allowed to use discretion, and it turns out that more people of one race are punished than another, they will be accused of abusing their discretion to discriminate. Under a zero tolerance policy, if you punish everyone and it still turns out that more minorities get punished, you never have to face questioning over why you let off some white kid and didn't let off some black kid. Zero tolerance policies are CYA against being accused of discrimination.
Of course, that doesn't mean the zero tolerance policies are good for the black kids (or the white kids), just for the school officials.
It is a game. Not the real world. In this pretend world they have in the game if your games get pirated you lose income. Whether that is the case in the real world or not is irrelevant.
It's obviously there to make a statement about the real world. That's why they put that in the pirated version--they wanted to tell real-world pirates how damaging piracy is by introducing bad effects within the game from game-world pirates. If game-world piracy is not representative of real-world piracy, this message is inaccurate and can be criticized for being inaccurate.
The first sale of extraterrestrial asteroid bits will go for a lot. But the market for those is smaller than for gold or platinum and will quickly be saturated. Even the twentieth bit probably won't go for more than gold.
Furthermore, many space enthusiasts would want such a sample for what it symbolizes. So a collectible sample that is a gimmick rather than the start of a sustained exercise in space exploration that produces things other than just collectible samples may not sell for as much.
A policy "we'll check all the emails of people coming from Israel" would not be a reciprocal policy. A reciprocal policy would be "we'll check the emails of a few foreigners who we're really suspicious of and who we might otherwise not let in at all." The left would hate this because the US would then be doing profiling, but it would not exactly be the equivalent of the USSR.
The alternative to asking to read your email is just not letting you in, email or not. If you can ask "how do you know you're not in an exceptional case where they read your email?", you can equally well ask "how do you know you're not in an exceptional case where they just don't let you in?" I hope you don't think that means they are obligated to let everyone in.
They didn't close their borders to all US citizens, they closed their borders to people who they ask for email access and who won't give it. They only ask for email access if they're already suspicious of someone. So this amounts to closing the borders for people they are suspicious of, which is probably the right way to go.
Yeah, that means you lose the money you paid for the flight. If they didn't ask for email and just refused you admission period, you'd still lose the money you paid for the flight, but I hope you're not going to argue that it would be wrong of them to refuse people admission.
Slashdot Mirror
That has many versions missing, even contemporary ones such as Pac-Land for the TG-16, Outrun for the Megadrive/Genesis, and Donkey Kong for the NES.
If someone "lets" their boyfriend beat them, that normally means that they "let" him because they fear some sort of consequences if they try it.
If they said "I don't care if there are any consequences or not, even if I could avoid getting beaten for no cost whatsoever I would still let him beat me--it's a matter of principle to let people beat me!", I'd put them in the same category as someone who routinely leaves their car door unlocked with expensive jewels inside and comes back one day to find it stolen. Yes, they were robbed and robbery is not permitted just because the door is unlocked, but at some point, failing to take reasonable precautions makes you an idiot.
And if someone says "God demands that I leave jewels in an unlocked car", they're not any less of an idiot just because they got the command from God.
If they had religious objections to the police, and thus refused to use them, would we start seeing stories that they are being robbed and the robbers are getting away?
Of course if they don't use the courts, they don't get the benefit of the courts. If they refuse anything based on religious grounds, they're not going to get it. That's what "refuse" means. If they refuse the process of getting justice, they're not going to get justice, just like if they refuse internet service, they don't get internet service.
What next, articles about the cruel dilemma of Christian Scientists who are dying of disease because their religion discourages them from seeing doctors?
That's not because of the US, that's because of feminists, who got Sweden to pass rape laws with ridiculous definitions.
Things such as stamps, coins, and baseball cards are collected mainly because people want to own them.
Video games have functionality, and a lot of the market for video games is to people who want them mainly to play. While there are people who want the games as collectible items, similar to stamps or coins, this just isn't true of everyone who wants to get an old video game. Emulators, either legal or otherwise, will handle the needs of most people who want to play old games until you get to the era that is impossible to emulate well (PS2/Gamecube/Dreamcast/Xbox emulation is marginal and we're probably never going to be able to emulate anything past that, not counting handhelds.
The market for specifically original copies of old, rare games just isn't all that big, and the market for people who want to play old games is *not* the market for people who want to buy original copies of old games.
Moore's Law says that the constraints will always be overcome.
If they can't, it's by definition a breakdown of Moore's Law. It makes no sense to say that it doesn't count as a violation of Moore's Law because of constraints--constraints are all that it,s about, so you're saying that it doesn't count as a violation of Moore's Law because it's a violation of Moore's Law.
*Are* they less likely to follow treatment plans? It stands to reason that someone who won't do what's necessary for his health in one area might be less likely to do so in another area as well. If the doctors' assumption is accurate, it's not bias in the sense implied.
If they want to use automated tools to find all people in the city with Star Wars posters on the wall since a recent serial killer is known to be a Star Wars fan, they certainly do want to see your boring living room. Alternatively, if they want to get you for some other reason, they can watch your living room as part of a fishing expedition.
It's certainly true that there are so many boring living rooms that they can't watch them all, but the danger is not so much that they can watch you constantly, as it is that they can watch you whenever they choose.
This is untrue. Belize is a former British colony and as such is in some ways a lot more like the ex-British Carribbean islands than it is like Latin America. However,m the population of those islands and Belize is mostly black. You can easily go to Wikipedia and find a picture of the prime minister of Belize. He's black. A white person would certainly be very visible to any local thugs and would not be considered a member of the ruling class.
"Reproductive rights" is code for abortion and contraception--that is, for *not* reproducing--and so the UN is being entirely consistent in pointing out unsustainable population increases and favoring reproductive rights.
If you want to play emulators on your TV, get a Wii and jailbreak it. Given the current speed of android emulators, I really doubt the Ouya is going to give any better performance than that.
That is in fact the main problem. Windows 8 wasn't "rushed".
ME was rushed (or created as a stopgap without spending much effort on it, which amounts to the same thing). So was Vista. Windows 8 wasn't rushed. The things wrong with Windows 8 aren't bugs or areas where Microsoft failed to cut down enough on how many resources it hogged. The things wrong with Windows 8 were all introduced on purpose by the marketing department, unlike those other failures (although integration of IE into Windows is a precedent for marketing screwing with Windows).
As such, any fixes either
1) will intentionally not address the real problems and will be there only as more marketing so that Microsoft can claim they "fixed" Windows 8 and "responded to user concerns", or
2) will result only after an internal turf war which the marketing department loses.
I await finding out which one.
Cool. I think I can write a program to pass Fizzbizz or to sort a file of numbers. If what you're saying is correct, I would be in a category that includes very few applicants. Where do I send my application?
(You're probably sincere, but so am I.)
Also, if you are willing to hire someone who has never used C# before, and presumably are expecting him to code in C#, you're already ahead of 99% of recruiters. Job descriptions almost always require X years of experience. The concept that someone who knows how to program can pick up another programming language (even one that resembles ones they've already used) is nearly nonexistent.
The problem is that Microsoft introduced the UI specifically to force users to have the same UI they have on Windows-based tablets, in an effort to corner the tablet market.
Say what you wish about ME or Vista, Microsoft didn't *deliberately* put bugs or inefficiencies in those products. Those products were bad because Microsoft was sloppy or ran out of time, not because the very features that make them bad were made bad on purpose.
On the other hand, for Windows 8, the UI is a major component in Microsoft's marketing strategy. Yeah, they could fix it by changing the UI, but they can't change the UI unless they want to give up their marketing strategy. And the chances of that happening aren't too great unless Microsoft gives up on tablets.
"Terroristic threat" is a technical term which existed long before the current anti-terrorism craze.
"Saying something that really does sound like a threat" is doing something stupid, not saying something stupid. The only clue that you even have that the threat is fake is if you know that there are such things as fake rapper personas, and even then, it's easy for someone making a real threat to add a sentence "oh, by the way, the threat is fake, so don't arrest me".
Making a game out of fake bomb threats is like making a game of going into the bank with an object in your jacket and handing the bank teller a note which says "Give me a million dollars or I'll blow your head off. PS: This threat is a fake." Call it performance art as much as you want, but you'll get arrested for that.
There are light-skinned blacks and tanned whites--at least as many as transsexuals who can have babies--but basing benefits on skin color would still be racist and I'm pretty sure a court would rule that way. Courts aren't stupid.
It's worse than that. Race was probably involved... in the other direction. It was excessive fighting against racism that led to this.
The reason? The article doesn't use those explicit words, but the way they described it it sounds like the girl was the victim of a zero tolerance policy--she violated the rule as written, so she had to be punished.
And one of the reasons that zero tolerance policies are created is that if school officials are allowed to use discretion, and it turns out that more people of one race are punished than another, they will be accused of abusing their discretion to discriminate. Under a zero tolerance policy, if you punish everyone and it still turns out that more minorities get punished, you never have to face questioning over why you let off some white kid and didn't let off some black kid. Zero tolerance policies are CYA against being accused of discrimination.
Of course, that doesn't mean the zero tolerance policies are good for the black kids (or the white kids), just for the school officials.
It's obviously there to make a statement about the real world. That's why they put that in the pirated version--they wanted to tell real-world pirates how damaging piracy is by introducing bad effects within the game from game-world pirates. If game-world piracy is not representative of real-world piracy, this message is inaccurate and can be criticized for being inaccurate.
The first sale of extraterrestrial asteroid bits will go for a lot. But the market for those is smaller than for gold or platinum and will quickly be saturated. Even the twentieth bit probably won't go for more than gold.
Furthermore, many space enthusiasts would want such a sample for what it symbolizes. So a collectible sample that is a gimmick rather than the start of a sustained exercise in space exploration that produces things other than just collectible samples may not sell for as much.
A policy "we'll check all the emails of people coming from Israel" would not be a reciprocal policy. A reciprocal policy would be "we'll check the emails of a few foreigners who we're really suspicious of and who we might otherwise not let in at all." The left would hate this because the US would then be doing profiling, but it would not exactly be the equivalent of the USSR.
... and if they did this because lots of non-Catholics were entering and killing people.
The alternative to asking to read your email is just not letting you in, email or not. If you can ask "how do you know you're not in an exceptional case where they read your email?", you can equally well ask "how do you know you're not in an exceptional case where they just don't let you in?" I hope you don't think that means they are obligated to let everyone in.
They didn't close their borders to all US citizens, they closed their borders to people who they ask for email access and who won't give it. They only ask for email access if they're already suspicious of someone. So this amounts to closing the borders for people they are suspicious of, which is probably the right way to go.
Yeah, that means you lose the money you paid for the flight. If they didn't ask for email and just refused you admission period, you'd still lose the money you paid for the flight, but I hope you're not going to argue that it would be wrong of them to refuse people admission.
Lying to media isn't the same as lying to investors.