In other words, they did nothing that was particularly unethical compared to other financial companies, to say nothing of other gambling organizations.
Doesn't really tell me much aside from they probably should have asked anyone in the financial industry whose palms they needed to grease.
You've successfully done nothing besides shut one site down. Thank god. Nothing will immediately spring up to take it's place. You've successfully prevented society from gambling, which is important because your holy book says so. Kinda. Alternatively, good job Casinos. People desperate for their gambling addiction will now have to leave the house in order to spend their paycheck. You'll be able to slip your local politicians their bribes now.
If neither the bible pounders nor casino semi-organized-crime was involved with intrade being barred from the US and shut down: sorry for maligning you, but fuck you anyway.
"Racism" is the closest in concept to what GP is describing though. The US being much younger than several asian cultures and much more racially diverse, if we hate some group of people based on ancient history, it's races. In Japan, China, or other countries where pretty much everyone is of the same race, their hate isn't along racial lines, it's by lineage.
When I heard that certain family lineages were discriminated against still to this day, because emperor Tokugawa (or some leader long before the US was around) declared them inferior, it didn't make any sense, until I realized it was essentially the same as racism... just without the racial distinction.
Anyway, racist Chinese and North Koreans would probably both maintain that they are different races, and would both state as facts that they were superior genetically to the other "race."
Also because the regime would probably decide to go out in a blaze of glory (or rather bombs and chemical weapons.) Even if they didn't cause major damage in their death throes, North Korea collapsing would mean a flood of North Korean refugees coming into the country, even closer to starving than they are now and not really useful for anything other than worshiping their leader. And NK is a bargaining chip for China anyway.
In science, incremental "results" get rehashed more often than truly new findings for two big reasons.
1. You can't go too long without actually "producing" anything even for tenured professors. If you go 5 years without putting out a paper because you're only focused on a real finding, you tend to not get grants, people working in your lab, or lab space.
2. It's a lot harder to discover something totally new than it is to make incremental small discoveries. You know what you're looking for, you know how other people have found it etc.
Similar principles probably work for the movie industry as well. It's got to keep churning out movies on a regular schedule to stay open. It's probably far easier to make a movie that's similar to another movie since you know what worked and what didn't from that movie. And unless you're emulating a movie that bombed, the rehashed movie probably isn't going to bomb either.
With both, the big names probably get a lot more room to take big chances than those just starting out. It's probably a fine balance in both to build up to that point. You have to take risks, but unless you're really lucky, you're going to have some bad luck. Some big theories and papers aren't going to pan out, or some movies that tried something really fresh are going to totally suck.
I'd love to see your reaction if a driver stopped in the middle of a junction, causing you to have to carefully weave past him.
How is that relevant to what I was saying exactly? Plowing through a light is dangerous. Stopping in a crosswalk or intersection are rude and annoying, but aren't going to kill anyone and shouldn't have the same penalty.
Is it set to go off if you are over the white line at a red? Then if I stopped 3-5ft long at a light, I'm getting a ticket for running it? Seems like a scam to me.
How? The law says don't cross the white line if the light is red.
Just want to point out that something being "the law" doesn't make it not a scam, or at least stupid. Running a red light to me doesn't mean "over the line," it means, to me, driving through the intersection when the light is red. This isn't a sport, there's no reason the line should be regarded as magical just because the law says so. Most motorists stop where they think is reasonable, and that is safe. Accidents usually don't seem to be caused by people stopping three feet into the crosswalk, they're caused by people driving through.
I'm confused, are you saying that's a common response or that you're actually criticizing China in that way. If it's the first, I've never seen that suggested before. If it's the second: the US is a bigger contributor to global warming with less than 5% of the world's population. Which might be why I've never seen anyone suggest that here before.
Indeed. The slashdot crowd is one of the only voices of reason keeping the warmongerers at bay. The CIA would love to stage another coup, but slashdot is always there, with simpsons quotes and star wars references, to shut them down.
You're describing an optimistic plan to safeguard your rights, I'm describing a more realistic (or cynical if you prefer) plan. And they're not mutually exclusive.
The old saying "Hope for the best, prepare for the worst" comes to mind. Yes, we should not need to go to such lengths to prevent cops from stealing and destroying evidence against them. Yes, we should pass laws to enforce that. But, we do, because they do, and reasonable laws governing police misconduct, I'm not going to hold my breath. In the meantime, if I see police behavior that needs to be documented, I'm going to use a method to ensure they can't suppress that evidence and get away with it.
Personally, my plan is to stay alive until we achieve cybernetic immortality and then just live until the heat death of the universe. But if you want to die, that's your choice I suppose. More energy for me.
Anyway, need to? Of course not. But some people find seeing the deceased one last time comforting. Having it the very next day isn't feasible, and having an obviously rotting corpse is not comforting.
I've never been to a funeral where an open casket did anything besides creep me out. Two of the four elderly relatives, I saw them in the hospital shortly before they died. They weren't in a condition I'd like to remember them in, but at least they were alive, and there was some closure. The other two, the funeral itself provided closure. And I have pictures. The open viewing casket was just disturbing. They looked fake.
A closed casket, natural burial makes a lot more sense to me. Cheaper than cremation, and you end up as normal stuff rather than pollutants. Maybe when I make the jump to robot brain and body, I'll bury it in a thin pine box six feet under and plant a garden above it.
The first part of your post sounds like the naysayers who mocked the Wright Brothers before their designs worked. Nuclear reactors are kind of complicated, and they aren't being really invested in.
The second part: current technology is safer than the current nuclear industry. New nuclear power plants aren't being built. And the effects of coal and global warming are pretty bad as well. There would be significant problems that would be solved.
When I first saw the headline, I assumed it meant the administration was supporting the cops. Is it possible that the Justice Department also misread a line and filed a brief with the wrong side?
Sounds crazy, but elected officials standing up for civilian rights against the police state sounds crazier.
Some of them are flaming morons, but honestly, the problem is more often that they're TOO crafty. At the national level, most political stupidity is intentional. I mean, no one in the house or senate is so DUMB they think that climate change is false, they're at worst fooling themselves into believing that their owners, the Koch Brothers and other fossil fuel entities, are right about climate change. More often, they're simply pandering to a base that, as I said, sees intelligence as "elitist."
Not being familiar with Chinese politics, I don't know whether their political leaders are similarly crafty, but I'm going to assume so. You don't get to lead in a nation of 1.3 billion people by dumb luck. If thorium is judged to be in the interests of the "Communist Party," then I'm sure it will happen. And the fact that they're investing heavily suggests that it is.
When you think of the footprint China will have when it is as industrialized as the USA, any hope of avoiding serious global damage is tiny at this point.
If I were to be wildly optimistic, I'd suggest that there's a non-zero chance the leadership in China will realize that investing in renewables and/or nuclear energy is the smart way to go in the medium and especially long term, and that climate change will threaten their stability.
Realistically, I think if climate change threatens the US and China much, they'll simply inject iron into the ocean without bothering to determine the long-term consequences of that action. Presumably their plan for dealing with those consequences will end with gorillas freezing to death.
Or ammo for medical malpractice torts? Not being a doctor or a lawyer, I'd guess that more information given to the lawyers means more billable hours for the lawyers, and more non-billable hours for the doctors, and more liability insurance premiums for the doctors due to the first.
Like all things the government does, making sure politicians keep to their tax promises requires attention and action from the voters in order to keep from growing. Unfortunately, we ignore it until someone tells us we can slash them. And it just happens to benefit them and not most people. Witness the Norquist/tea party insanity.
I admit, I don't pay attention to the budget until it goes into crisis mode: I find it very boring at most times and I'm easily distracted.
When did it switch from "reservation" to "pre-ordering" anyway? "Pre-ordering" sounds like the product of some idiot consulting group which discovered that people didn't like reservations, and concluded that calling it "pre-ordering" would probably make people forget that they were giving money in exchange for nothing, because it sounds like a good thing.
I'd be surprised if the decision makers at EA were so stupid as to actually think this was because it was on the PC rather than being due to their own incompetence.
Whether they use this as an excuse to put out all their games on consoles only is another question, but that decision would likely have little to do with this incident. It would be because they had decided they decided they could make more on consoles.
Wait for it to actually go forward before you forgive them for other boneheaded regressive things the legislature does. A year or two ago, there was some noise about Texas not tolerating TSA invading our privacy, standing up for citizen's rights. They quickly backed down after predictable "Why do you want terrorists to be able to kill American children nonsense."
There was also some question over whether they had the right to do that, but bottom line, when it comes to defending your rights against the government or coporations, democrats and republicans both wave the white flag as soon as they possibly can.
Slashdot Mirror
In other words, they did nothing that was particularly unethical compared to other financial companies, to say nothing of other gambling organizations.
Doesn't really tell me much aside from they probably should have asked anyone in the financial industry whose palms they needed to grease.
You've successfully done nothing besides shut one site down. Thank god. Nothing will immediately spring up to take it's place. You've successfully prevented society from gambling, which is important because your holy book says so. Kinda. Alternatively, good job Casinos. People desperate for their gambling addiction will now have to leave the house in order to spend their paycheck. You'll be able to slip your local politicians their bribes now.
If neither the bible pounders nor casino semi-organized-crime was involved with intrade being barred from the US and shut down: sorry for maligning you, but fuck you anyway.
But... I DID point that out! It has done been already pointed out!
Also, I've been shaving since 2004.
This is not the first time I've seen you admit that you are no longer bearded. If I knew that, surely google knows that.
"Racism" is the closest in concept to what GP is describing though. The US being much younger than several asian cultures and much more racially diverse, if we hate some group of people based on ancient history, it's races. In Japan, China, or other countries where pretty much everyone is of the same race, their hate isn't along racial lines, it's by lineage.
When I heard that certain family lineages were discriminated against still to this day, because emperor Tokugawa (or some leader long before the US was around) declared them inferior, it didn't make any sense, until I realized it was essentially the same as racism... just without the racial distinction.
Anyway, racist Chinese and North Koreans would probably both maintain that they are different races, and would both state as facts that they were superior genetically to the other "race."
Also because the regime would probably decide to go out in a blaze of glory (or rather bombs and chemical weapons.) Even if they didn't cause major damage in their death throes, North Korea collapsing would mean a flood of North Korean refugees coming into the country, even closer to starving than they are now and not really useful for anything other than worshiping their leader. And NK is a bargaining chip for China anyway.
In science, incremental "results" get rehashed more often than truly new findings for two big reasons.
1. You can't go too long without actually "producing" anything even for tenured professors. If you go 5 years without putting out a paper because you're only focused on a real finding, you tend to not get grants, people working in your lab, or lab space.
2. It's a lot harder to discover something totally new than it is to make incremental small discoveries. You know what you're looking for, you know how other people have found it etc.
Similar principles probably work for the movie industry as well. It's got to keep churning out movies on a regular schedule to stay open. It's probably far easier to make a movie that's similar to another movie since you know what worked and what didn't from that movie. And unless you're emulating a movie that bombed, the rehashed movie probably isn't going to bomb either.
With both, the big names probably get a lot more room to take big chances than those just starting out. It's probably a fine balance in both to build up to that point. You have to take risks, but unless you're really lucky, you're going to have some bad luck. Some big theories and papers aren't going to pan out, or some movies that tried something really fresh are going to totally suck.
I'd love to see your reaction if a driver stopped in the middle of a junction, causing you to have to carefully weave past him.
How is that relevant to what I was saying exactly? Plowing through a light is dangerous. Stopping in a crosswalk or intersection are rude and annoying, but aren't going to kill anyone and shouldn't have the same penalty.
Is it set to go off if you are over the white line at a red? Then if I stopped 3-5ft long at a light, I'm getting a ticket for running it? Seems like a scam to me.
How? The law says don't cross the white line if the light is red.
Just want to point out that something being "the law" doesn't make it not a scam, or at least stupid. Running a red light to me doesn't mean "over the line," it means, to me, driving through the intersection when the light is red. This isn't a sport, there's no reason the line should be regarded as magical just because the law says so. Most motorists stop where they think is reasonable, and that is safe. Accidents usually don't seem to be caused by people stopping three feet into the crosswalk, they're caused by people driving through.
I'm confused, are you saying that's a common response or that you're actually criticizing China in that way. If it's the first, I've never seen that suggested before. If it's the second: the US is a bigger contributor to global warming with less than 5% of the world's population. Which might be why I've never seen anyone suggest that here before.
Indeed. The slashdot crowd is one of the only voices of reason keeping the warmongerers at bay. The CIA would love to stage another coup, but slashdot is always there, with simpsons quotes and star wars references, to shut them down.
You're describing an optimistic plan to safeguard your rights, I'm describing a more realistic (or cynical if you prefer) plan. And they're not mutually exclusive.
The old saying "Hope for the best, prepare for the worst" comes to mind. Yes, we should not need to go to such lengths to prevent cops from stealing and destroying evidence against them. Yes, we should pass laws to enforce that. But, we do, because they do, and reasonable laws governing police misconduct, I'm not going to hold my breath. In the meantime, if I see police behavior that needs to be documented, I'm going to use a method to ensure they can't suppress that evidence and get away with it.
Personally, my plan is to stay alive until we achieve cybernetic immortality and then just live until the heat death of the universe. But if you want to die, that's your choice I suppose. More energy for me.
Anyway, need to? Of course not. But some people find seeing the deceased one last time comforting. Having it the very next day isn't feasible, and having an obviously rotting corpse is not comforting.
I've never been to a funeral where an open casket did anything besides creep me out. Two of the four elderly relatives, I saw them in the hospital shortly before they died. They weren't in a condition I'd like to remember them in, but at least they were alive, and there was some closure. The other two, the funeral itself provided closure. And I have pictures. The open viewing casket was just disturbing. They looked fake.
A closed casket, natural burial makes a lot more sense to me. Cheaper than cremation, and you end up as normal stuff rather than pollutants. Maybe when I make the jump to robot brain and body, I'll bury it in a thin pine box six feet under and plant a garden above it.
I don't know, but I think education is the solution to the problems with Singapore you mentioned.
The first part of your post sounds like the naysayers who mocked the Wright Brothers before their designs worked. Nuclear reactors are kind of complicated, and they aren't being really invested in.
The second part: current technology is safer than the current nuclear industry. New nuclear power plants aren't being built. And the effects of coal and global warming are pretty bad as well. There would be significant problems that would be solved.
Which is why if you are going to record the police, make sure it's uploading live or will e-mail the pictures away from the clumsy hands of the law
There's this app for New Yorkers evidently. Any suggestions from anyone for those of us who don't live in NY?
When I first saw the headline, I assumed it meant the administration was supporting the cops. Is it possible that the Justice Department also misread a line and filed a brief with the wrong side?
Sounds crazy, but elected officials standing up for civilian rights against the police state sounds crazier.
It's probably because they only get allocated one soul per genome or something, couldn't make any less sense than the answers usually provided....
Hmm... that neatly explains the "evil twin" trope...
Some of them are flaming morons, but honestly, the problem is more often that they're TOO crafty. At the national level, most political stupidity is intentional. I mean, no one in the house or senate is so DUMB they think that climate change is false, they're at worst fooling themselves into believing that their owners, the Koch Brothers and other fossil fuel entities, are right about climate change. More often, they're simply pandering to a base that, as I said, sees intelligence as "elitist."
Not being familiar with Chinese politics, I don't know whether their political leaders are similarly crafty, but I'm going to assume so. You don't get to lead in a nation of 1.3 billion people by dumb luck. If thorium is judged to be in the interests of the "Communist Party," then I'm sure it will happen. And the fact that they're investing heavily suggests that it is.
When you think of the footprint China will have when it is as industrialized as the USA, any hope of avoiding serious global damage is tiny at this point.
If I were to be wildly optimistic, I'd suggest that there's a non-zero chance the leadership in China will realize that investing in renewables and/or nuclear energy is the smart way to go in the medium and especially long term, and that climate change will threaten their stability.
Realistically, I think if climate change threatens the US and China much, they'll simply inject iron into the ocean without bothering to determine the long-term consequences of that action. Presumably their plan for dealing with those consequences will end with gorillas freezing to death.
Or ammo for medical malpractice torts? Not being a doctor or a lawyer, I'd guess that more information given to the lawyers means more billable hours for the lawyers, and more non-billable hours for the doctors, and more liability insurance premiums for the doctors due to the first.
It might not be a conspiracy
No tax ever stays in the advertised form.
Like all things the government does, making sure politicians keep to their tax promises requires attention and action from the voters in order to keep from growing. Unfortunately, we ignore it until someone tells us we can slash them. And it just happens to benefit them and not most people. Witness the Norquist/tea party insanity.
I admit, I don't pay attention to the budget until it goes into crisis mode: I find it very boring at most times and I'm easily distracted.
When did it switch from "reservation" to "pre-ordering" anyway? "Pre-ordering" sounds like the product of some idiot consulting group which discovered that people didn't like reservations, and concluded that calling it "pre-ordering" would probably make people forget that they were giving money in exchange for nothing, because it sounds like a good thing.
I'd be surprised if the decision makers at EA were so stupid as to actually think this was because it was on the PC rather than being due to their own incompetence.
Whether they use this as an excuse to put out all their games on consoles only is another question, but that decision would likely have little to do with this incident. It would be because they had decided they decided they could make more on consoles.
Wait for it to actually go forward before you forgive them for other boneheaded regressive things the legislature does. A year or two ago, there was some noise about Texas not tolerating TSA invading our privacy, standing up for citizen's rights. They quickly backed down after predictable "Why do you want terrorists to be able to kill American children nonsense."
There was also some question over whether they had the right to do that, but bottom line, when it comes to defending your rights against the government or coporations, democrats and republicans both wave the white flag as soon as they possibly can.