On the other hand, sometimes projects use "submit the bug report in the proper format" as a way to filibuster the bug report, giving them an excuse to ignore it "because it's not in the proper format".
And then there are the cases where it's not clear whether something is a bug or poorly documented. I had this happen to me with a font problem on an old version of Openoffice; one setting wasn't affecting one font and I had no idea whether I had missed some obscure setting to change the font in that one place, or if it actually was a bug.
. If the arguments is that it makes it easier for criminals to steal weapons , doesn't that just contradicts the believe that guns are needed for your own protection ?
Do you seriously think it's the gun owner's own choice to leave the gun at home where it can be stolen? Concealed carry permits are notoriously hard to get--New York is actively frustrating the ability of gun owners to use the guns to protect themselves.
Also, stealing weapons is different from protecting lives. It's not contradictory for the gun owner to have a lower chance of being killed by an intruder yet be more likely to be burglarized when he's not home.
What categories of outing would you ban in your nanny state?
Any category of outing where the information is only available because of the nanny state in the first place.
There isn't a database of permit holders because some marketing person decided to figure out who they can best sell gun range memberships to. There's a database because the government--you know, the same nanny state you're talking about--forcibly collected the information in the first place under threat of jail. If the government collects the information against people's will, it's not "nanny state" to prevent them from doing even more harm by releasing it. Anyone who really objects to a nanny state wouldn't want the government collecting the information to begin with, and if they didn't collect the information, nobody would be able to out anyone using it.
It prevents web sites from using this technology to track users... by which they mean that it prevents sites you go to in your browser from using it to track you. It doesn't prevent the people who make the browser, the smartphone OS, or essential programs that run on it from tracking you--which is to say, Google can still track you just fine.
Because hemp is being vastly oversold by people who want to get high on pot and figure that promoting hemp growing is a way to legalization.
Growing hemp is legal pretty much everywhere in Europe. If hemp was as much a wonder material as its promoters claimed it was, Europe would be using it for bio-diesel anyway.
While it's fun to pretend, most of us know that this really isn't an official response from the Empire, since the Empire is a fictional organization. What it is is a single post from a single blogger.
Why is Slashdot running an article which consists of "this one blogger posted a message on a blog about some geeky topic"?
Wait for some people to be killed, then quickly pass a law to get rid of people's Constitutional rights that you wanted to get rid of even before the tragedy. Pay lip service to the tragedy but make sure the reach of the law is much broader since after all you're using the tragedy as an excuse.
It's extremely difficult to go through the tiny print page by page without ordering a $80 copy, but I couldn't find anything in it which said that America still has a high rate of violent death and specifically death by guns after you limit it to rich whites. (In fact, it doesn't seem to contain many real statistics at all.) They use some references which say that America has a higher rate of firearm death, and they use some other references which may survey deaths among rich whites, but they're not combined. Even going by what's in the report, you can't conclude anything about ownership of guns by people who are not poor minorities living in inner cities.
That's really the ultimate answer. Legitimate complaints sound identical to illegitimate complaints when posted as Slashdot articles, but the answer depends on whether the complaints really are legitimate. This is something we are unable to determine, and there's no shortcut to you figuring it out.
The boss is interested in the long term effects of having code that doesn't suck, such as lower maintenance time. If the boss wouldn't care when directly told this, that just shows he has bad management skills.
In other words, you're basically saying "take advantage of the boss's bad management skills to get the employee fired for doing something that would actually benefit the company".
This isn't true. For instance, the Taliban banned the education of women, but education of women was allowed before that. Schools had to close down--why would they have to close down something which according to you never could have existed?
The Taliban were also known for destroying some historical Buddhist statues for religious reasons. If what you were saying is true, and the people of the area have the same beliefs as the Taliban, those statues would have been destroyed already by the locals.
It's true that the people of Afghanistan want what would by Western standards still be a dictatorship, but some dictatorships are bad, and some are really bad.
Something I pointed out the last time this game was covered:
The problem with political games is that... they're still political.
Imagine that instead of making a game about the conflict, the same group had simply put out an editorial saying "Here is what we think about the war in Syria, and exactly what is happening there."
If they did that, and it was promoted as much as a game was, and it was typical media quality, everyone here would jump on it in a minute, pointing out that the editorial oversimplifies the war, and that most editorials are made by people with strong opinions on the subject who may be biased. Or the writer of the editorial may have based it on news reports but been a bit too trusting of them. Perhaps the editorial, while supposedly summarizing the war, leaves out important events. (And that's assuming all the facts in it are literally true.)
But package your editorial as a game, and everyone eats it up, as a "unique gamification approach" which "reports the news in the most entertaining fashion possible". As if a contentious subject suddenly turns into a completely objective analysis just because it was put in something that has cards and a score. Please.
The reason that taxes are high in other nations is that there's a ratchet effect where it's easy for the government to raise taxes and increase spending, but forces within the government will fight against any attempt to reduce either of them, or to keep them low. So in the long run, taxes (and spending) just keep going up and up and up. The fact that Europe has high taxes doesn't mean that high taxes are good, it means that runaway increases have run away farther in Europe than in the US.
Pretty much every country has increased the surveillance state in recent years, too, and for similar reasons: it's easy to increase, but few governments would willingly decrease it, so it keeps ratcheting up and up. But nobody would ever use "other countries are becoming more Big Brother-ish" for doing the same to their own country.
"C programming" 11800000 "objective c programming" 21100000 (note: greater than for "C programming", I think because Google accepts a hyphen before the C here) "c programming" -"objective c programming" 2010000 (less than a fifth the size of "C programming" without the exclusion)
While these results are decidedly odd, it's clear that C is nowhere near on top (Java produces around 8 million hits which C is much less than) if you actually exclude objective C from the search.
It's also got an opinion column titled "Israel's Gaza Bantustan" linked on the front page. Of course conservatives in the US are favorable towards Israel, so that's not "conservative" either.
It's definitely showing a hefty pro-third-world, pro-Muslim, and anti-Israel spin. Notice that even though your first example seems to be in favor of homosexuality, it also serves the purpose of deflecting blame for anti-gay activity away from Muslims.
He didn't say he was concerned with his mental health and stability. The Slashdot summary is inaccurate (gosh, how could that happen?)
From TFA:
His statements there â" and others, such as his reference, seemingly in half-jest, to having his firearm ready after I mentioned (I think) that I'd been away from the keyboard for a phone call, and his anecdote about striking a fellow soldier â" did seem to indicate personal issues which might be coming to a head. But however I personally felt about his issues, his motives, and his state of mind didn't matter, and could not factor into what I did.
This says almost the opposite of what Slashdot's poorly written summary did--he felt that the damage that Assange could cause was more important than concern for Assange's mental health.
What happens if the organization doesn't follow those guidelines? Is the hacker then permitted to disclose (in which case the Slashdot summary is inaccurate) or is the hacker still required to stay quiet?
It's true that that proposal would make people liable for billions of dollars. But that proposal makes people liable for billions of dollars because bad patents can cause damages of billions of dollars.
If bad patents can cause billions of dollars in damages, then *someone* ought to be held responsible for that. The only question is who. Currently it's the company who "infringes" on the bad patent that faces the damages. That's no better than making someone else pay, and in some ways is worse because the company didn't even make a bad decision--they were just screwed over by someone else.
Gay people are proud of themselves too, but you don't see gay pride parades being used as an excuse to publish a list of the names and addresses of every known gay person in the neighborhood.
Suicide bombing usually requires having the suicide bomber disguised as a civilian. Being disguised as a civilian is a variety of using civilians as shields.
A way to define Qi would be 'the thing that makes acupuncture work'.
This is nonsense. By this definition, if it turned out that acupuncture worked because of fraud, then you would say that qi actually exists (and that it consists of fraud).
If Bigfoot turns out to be a guy in a costume, does that mean Bigfoot exists? It does if you define Bigfoot as the creature that appears in Bigfoot photos.
Common sense says that "qi exists" means that 1) something makes acupuncture work, and 2) it's at least somewhat like what you thought it is. Therefore, things like fraud or the placebo effect, even though they make acupuncture work, would not count as qi.
Slashdot Mirror
On the other hand, sometimes projects use "submit the bug report in the proper format" as a way to filibuster the bug report, giving them an excuse to ignore it "because it's not in the proper format".
And then there are the cases where it's not clear whether something is a bug or poorly documented. I had this happen to me with a font problem on an old version of Openoffice; one setting wasn't affecting one font and I had no idea whether I had missed some obscure setting to change the font in that one place, or if it actually was a bug.
Do you seriously think it's the gun owner's own choice to leave the gun at home where it can be stolen? Concealed carry permits are notoriously hard to get--New York is actively frustrating the ability of gun owners to use the guns to protect themselves.
Also, stealing weapons is different from protecting lives. It's not contradictory for the gun owner to have a lower chance of being killed by an intruder yet be more likely to be burglarized when he's not home.
Any category of outing where the information is only available because of the nanny state in the first place.
There isn't a database of permit holders because some marketing person decided to figure out who they can best sell gun range memberships to. There's a database because the government--you know, the same nanny state you're talking about--forcibly collected the information in the first place under threat of jail. If the government collects the information against people's will, it's not "nanny state" to prevent them from doing even more harm by releasing it. Anyone who really objects to a nanny state wouldn't want the government collecting the information to begin with, and if they didn't collect the information, nobody would be able to out anyone using it.
It prevents web sites from using this technology to track users... by which they mean that it prevents sites you go to in your browser from using it to track you. It doesn't prevent the people who make the browser, the smartphone OS, or essential programs that run on it from tracking you--which is to say, Google can still track you just fine.
Because hemp is being vastly oversold by people who want to get high on pot and figure that promoting hemp growing is a way to legalization.
Growing hemp is legal pretty much everywhere in Europe. If hemp was as much a wonder material as its promoters claimed it was, Europe would be using it for bio-diesel anyway.
While it's fun to pretend, most of us know that this really isn't an official response from the Empire, since the Empire is a fictional organization. What it is is a single post from a single blogger.
Why is Slashdot running an article which consists of "this one blogger posted a message on a blog about some geeky topic"?
Wait for some people to be killed, then quickly pass a law to get rid of people's Constitutional rights that you wanted to get rid of even before the tragedy. Pay lip service to the tragedy but make sure the reach of the law is much broader since after all you're using the tragedy as an excuse.
It's extremely difficult to go through the tiny print page by page without ordering a $80 copy, but I couldn't find anything in it which said that America still has a high rate of violent death and specifically death by guns after you limit it to rich whites. (In fact, it doesn't seem to contain many real statistics at all.) They use some references which say that America has a higher rate of firearm death, and they use some other references which may survey deaths among rich whites, but they're not combined. Even going by what's in the report, you can't conclude anything about ownership of guns by people who are not poor minorities living in inner cities.
That's really the ultimate answer. Legitimate complaints sound identical to illegitimate complaints when posted as Slashdot articles, but the answer depends on whether the complaints really are legitimate. This is something we are unable to determine, and there's no shortcut to you figuring it out.
The boss is interested in the long term effects of having code that doesn't suck, such as lower maintenance time. If the boss wouldn't care when directly told this, that just shows he has bad management skills.
In other words, you're basically saying "take advantage of the boss's bad management skills to get the employee fired for doing something that would actually benefit the company".
This isn't true. For instance, the Taliban banned the education of women, but education of women was allowed before that. Schools had to close down--why would they have to close down something which according to you never could have existed?
The Taliban were also known for destroying some historical Buddhist statues for religious reasons. If what you were saying is true, and the people of the area have the same beliefs as the Taliban, those statues would have been destroyed already by the locals.
It's true that the people of Afghanistan want what would by Western standards still be a dictatorship, but some dictatorships are bad, and some are really bad.
Something I pointed out the last time this game was covered:
The problem with political games is that... they're still political.
Imagine that instead of making a game about the conflict, the same group had simply put out an editorial saying "Here is what we think about the war in Syria, and exactly what is happening there."
If they did that, and it was promoted as much as a game was, and it was typical media quality, everyone here would jump on it in a minute, pointing out that the editorial oversimplifies the war, and that most editorials are made by people with strong opinions on the subject who may be biased. Or the writer of the editorial may have based it on news reports but been a bit too trusting of them. Perhaps the editorial, while supposedly summarizing the war, leaves out important events. (And that's assuming all the facts in it are literally true.)
But package your editorial as a game, and everyone eats it up, as a "unique gamification approach" which "reports the news in the most entertaining fashion possible". As if a contentious subject suddenly turns into a completely objective analysis just because it was put in something that has cards and a score. Please.
The reason that taxes are high in other nations is that there's a ratchet effect where it's easy for the government to raise taxes and increase spending, but forces within the government will fight against any attempt to reduce either of them, or to keep them low. So in the long run, taxes (and spending) just keep going up and up and up. The fact that Europe has high taxes doesn't mean that high taxes are good, it means that runaway increases have run away farther in Europe than in the US.
Pretty much every country has increased the surveillance state in recent years, too, and for similar reasons: it's easy to increase, but few governments would willingly decrease it, so it keeps ratcheting up and up. But nobody would ever use "other countries are becoming more Big Brother-ish" for doing the same to their own country.
Googling gives me the following results:
"C programming" 11800000
"objective c programming" 21100000 (note: greater than for "C programming", I think because Google accepts a hyphen before the C here)
"c programming" -"objective c programming" 2010000 (less than a fifth the size of "C programming" without the exclusion)
While these results are decidedly odd, it's clear that C is nowhere near on top (Java produces around 8 million hits which C is much less than) if you actually exclude objective C from the search.
It's also got an opinion column titled "Israel's Gaza Bantustan" linked on the front page. Of course conservatives in the US are favorable towards Israel, so that's not "conservative" either.
It's definitely showing a hefty pro-third-world, pro-Muslim, and anti-Israel spin. Notice that even though your first example seems to be in favor of homosexuality, it also serves the purpose of deflecting blame for anti-gay activity away from Muslims.
He didn't say he was concerned with his mental health and stability. The Slashdot summary is inaccurate (gosh, how could that happen?)
From TFA:
This says almost the opposite of what Slashdot's poorly written summary did--he felt that the damage that Assange could cause was more important than concern for Assange's mental health.
What happens if the organization doesn't follow those guidelines? Is the hacker then permitted to disclose (in which case the Slashdot summary is inaccurate) or is the hacker still required to stay quiet?
It's true that that proposal would make people liable for billions of dollars. But that proposal makes people liable for billions of dollars because bad patents can cause damages of billions of dollars.
If bad patents can cause billions of dollars in damages, then *someone* ought to be held responsible for that. The only question is who. Currently it's the company who "infringes" on the bad patent that faces the damages. That's no better than making someone else pay, and in some ways is worse because the company didn't even make a bad decision--they were just screwed over by someone else.
If it says you may not take any actions, doesn't that also include actions that don't involve the SDK?
Gay people are proud of themselves too, but you don't see gay pride parades being used as an excuse to publish a list of the names and addresses of every known gay person in the neighborhood.
But you'll be able to eat and pay rent. For some people, that's actually more important than frustration.
Suicide bombing usually requires having the suicide bomber disguised as a civilian. Being disguised as a civilian is a variety of using civilians as shields.
Any reasonable definition is going to include terrorists primarily targeting civilians or using civilians for shields. The founders didn't do that.
This is nonsense. By this definition, if it turned out that acupuncture worked because of fraud, then you would say that qi actually exists (and that it consists of fraud).
If Bigfoot turns out to be a guy in a costume, does that mean Bigfoot exists? It does if you define Bigfoot as the creature that appears in Bigfoot photos.
Common sense says that "qi exists" means that 1) something makes acupuncture work, and 2) it's at least somewhat like what you thought it is. Therefore, things like fraud or the placebo effect, even though they make acupuncture work, would not count as qi.
As gas been posted above, the "Nobel prize in economics" is not really a Nobel prize.