Agree that it's not good, and I think there's little that can be done about it. Society moves in cycles and waves that are slow with heavy momentum and this is one that may not be pretty. A parallel with booms and busts of the economy comes to mind. Best we can do is uphold the basic structures and principles in place and wait it out. Good times will come again.
That's their right. Luckey's right is to speak against Hillary, VR devs' right is to be intolerant to Luckey, a consumer's right is to boycott those VR devs because of their siding with Hillary and so on.
As long as we all have those rights and are exercising them legally it works itself out. It's sad that so much hate is going on but you can't blame Trump or Hillary for that -- it's the state of the world at the moment that created the conditions for it. In a wiser world such conditions would be prevented before Trump or Hillary would rise to prominence, but it is what it is.
That's ignorance talking, making a leap from Trump is loud and obnoxious to he would fire nukes. Trump is a nationalist and doesn't want to be engaged outside of what directly confronts US interests. In that he's like Obama, who was extremely cautions about intervening for humanitarian or idealistic reasons. Hillary on the other side is an old-school interventionist.
Want more confirmation besides her track record? She pressured Obama into intervening in Libya. She even prevented the US' military from negotiating peace with Gaddhafi through the channel they established in secrecy from her. Check it out on Washington Times, all the records are there. Libya for all practical purposes doesn't exist anymore. When Obama saw how it turned out he refused to go into Syria. And then 51 neocon "diplomats" in a leaked cable urged Obama to strike at Assad, who is a Russian ally. Almost all of them support Hillary.
So what is your point? The news reports all over are saying German exports are down, things are not looking good, "economic data that paintes a gloomy picture for German manufacturing" (http://www.2bbc.com/news/business-37316827)
What I'm saying is that Germany is so dependent on their exports that at the moment when the reports are negative they are not going to "punish" the UK or do anything that would endanger their economy further, Brexit or no Brexit. What are you saying?
Not gonna happen, for the reason of Germany alone. 50% of their Germany's GDP comes from exports in general and the UK is Germany's largest export market after the US. Germany is the core of EU and they will be desperate not to impact exporting to the UK and will be accepting of any treaties with the UK to keep the market.
In fact about a month ago, Germany’s Minister of European Affairs said "Given Britain’s size, significance, and its long membership of the European Union, there will probably be a special status which only bears limited comparison to that of countries that have never belonged to the European Union." So there you go.
Let me guess: the author thinks readers would be pleased to hear that not even coders are immune to losing their high paying jobs so she comes up with a speculation about the future of software development based on minor blips on the tech landscape in very nichy areas, historical patterns be damned.
I think they knew with Jennifer Lawrence they couldn't get away with it, but with Hogan they miscalculated. Or they came to think they are invincible, or needed a financial boost.
Or, and I'm going out on a limb here, maybe Gawker staff and Denton felt particular hatred towards what Hulk Hogan represents: a primitive masculine character of the old world that they wanted to dismantle.
They didn't know they couldn't *get away with it*. They surely knew what they did was morally wrong, and many pointed that out. Well guess what -- we live in a society whose moral and legal rules keep it from falling apart. Break them and be punished by the society, especially if you profited from that same society.
The difference is dumb locks you have to access physically to break them open and while doing so you may look suspicious -- there is a time pressure that raises the barrier. With smart locks, you can take your time working the lock at a distance, and once it is unlocked you can casually access the protected item as if it were yours.
My two cents -- the amount of "creation" (art, originality, ideas coming from another human mind) in the game is the same whether there are 100 or 100 quintillion planets. Imagine an artist making a fine house music song and then have the computer generate 1000 different remixes of it. The sum of those 1000 is not much more than the single original song.
The second part, exploration and gameplay, changes the state of the game, but the new states are apparently not significantly different. It's like changing the filter slightly for one of the effects in one of the 1000 remixes.
Those are my preconceptions about NMS, but it would be great if the game turns out to be much more than that.
That's a great point. Gravity however doesn't seem to have a particle yet, and we know and measure it and use it comfortably anyway. "Dark Matter" force seems to be a closer cousin to gravity than some other forces.
It sounds like dark matter is thought to be made of particles of some sort. Could it instead be a force field of uneven density in space that interacts with the gravitational field in some way? Though the question then would be what causes the field I guess. But maybe that's an easier task.
Not much. Obama has good speaking skills but that's not something that can be emulated easily nor does it seem to go particularly far. As for Bush, I bought his autobiography thinking there may be some nugget of insight here and there but after about a fifth of the book I found none and gave up. The stories were empty and entirely predictable from his profile. The amount of trust I have in either is not very high, I see them roughly as barely competent to run a country that is generally doing well and has a lot of room for error.
From my perspective -- he is childish, energetic and entertaining. Even his enemies often profit from crossing paths with him. Downside is he can say things that incite some of his supporters to say or do ugly things. Another is he's not much of a leader you can trust. The main upside is you can learn something from him -- how to convince people to accept your point of view using emotions. By contrast, I feel I have nothing valuable to learn from Hillary, and she's not a leader I can trust. Hillary brings nothing to the table.
For all his faults, Newt accepts climate change and calls for "green conservativism", has good attitudes on minorities and women's rights (defended those and a potential woman president in an Ali G interview), and supports a base on the moon and a flight to Mars. What more can one ask for.
I actually don't see it that way and I'm as much against Hillary as anyone (I'll vote for Trump or maybe for a 3d party candidate since I'm in CA that goes to a Democrat anyway). I think he means while she may have been negligent enough to be fired from the job -- or not hired for a new one -- she didn't conspire to break the law. She was arrogant and incompetent but not criminal. The story of her life.
I am actually glad she didn't get indicted as I want to see her lose in the voting contest, so the people send a clear message they don't like her kind, even in the face of alternatives as they are.
That's a good example. In general having more rules than necessary to protect the weak (poor, children, the sick, animals etc.) only makes the system less stable.
But to turn things around -- if you were asked to defend the UK's EU membership, are there things you would list as positive? Just curious, don't know most of the details. Thanks
One of the New Year's resolution he listed was, "Do not read the latest breakthrough experiment in psychology about, say, the effect of taking cold showers on grammatical ability. Better even read nothing about these 'experiments.'"
...in-house, hiring a mock jury of people from the street to sit and listen, with a good defense lawyer to mock-represent the Google side.
Then repeating over and over until juries are more often than not swayed in Oracle's favor, then with such sharpened arguments going for the real thing.
Kind of like how NASA went to the moon, except without any nobility in the endeavor.
I love Pornhub-folks' sense of humour: they often have hilarious and creative ad-campaigns
This reminds me of a newspaper article complaining about erotic movies on a public TV channel's unlisted programming every night at 2AM back in the far more modest mid-80s in a country in the Eastern block. The author went on to say how pornography is bad and damaging for the morals etc. and then he said that at least one positive thing about the channel is they never show hard stuff like multiple men with one woman. The obvious question was, wait a minute, how do you know what they *never* show unless you're up every night at 2AM watching their porn?
Slashdot Mirror
Agree that it's not good, and I think there's little that can be done about it. Society moves in cycles and waves that are slow with heavy momentum and this is one that may not be pretty. A parallel with booms and busts of the economy comes to mind. Best we can do is uphold the basic structures and principles in place and wait it out. Good times will come again.
That's their right. Luckey's right is to speak against Hillary, VR devs' right is to be intolerant to Luckey, a consumer's right is to boycott those VR devs because of their siding with Hillary and so on.
As long as we all have those rights and are exercising them legally it works itself out. It's sad that so much hate is going on but you can't blame Trump or Hillary for that -- it's the state of the world at the moment that created the conditions for it. In a wiser world such conditions would be prevented before Trump or Hillary would rise to prominence, but it is what it is.
That's ignorance talking, making a leap from Trump is loud and obnoxious to he would fire nukes. Trump is a nationalist and doesn't want to be engaged outside of what directly confronts US interests. In that he's like Obama, who was extremely cautions about intervening for humanitarian or idealistic reasons. Hillary on the other side is an old-school interventionist.
Want more confirmation besides her track record? She pressured Obama into intervening in Libya. She even prevented the US' military from negotiating peace with Gaddhafi through the channel they established in secrecy from her. Check it out on Washington Times, all the records are there. Libya for all practical purposes doesn't exist anymore. When Obama saw how it turned out he refused to go into Syria. And then 51 neocon "diplomats" in a leaked cable urged Obama to strike at Assad, who is a Russian ally. Almost all of them support Hillary.
So who's more likely to start a nuclear war?
Corrected link: http://www.bbc.com/news/busine...
So what is your point? The news reports all over are saying German exports are down, things are not looking good, "economic data that paintes a gloomy picture for German manufacturing" (http://www.2bbc.com/news/business-37316827)
What I'm saying is that Germany is so dependent on their exports that at the moment when the reports are negative they are not going to "punish" the UK or do anything that would endanger their economy further, Brexit or no Brexit. What are you saying?
"In unadjusted terms, exports were down 10 percent over July 2015."
https://www.yahoo.com/news/ger...
"Compared with July 2015, exports were down a startling 10 percent."
http://www.econotimes.com/Germ...
That's true, I mixed it up. UK is Germany's #3. Still critical at the time when Germany's export are down 10% year over year.
Not gonna happen, for the reason of Germany alone. 50% of their Germany's GDP comes from exports in general and the UK is Germany's largest export market after the US. Germany is the core of EU and they will be desperate not to impact exporting to the UK and will be accepting of any treaties with the UK to keep the market.
In fact about a month ago, Germany’s Minister of European Affairs said "Given Britain’s size, significance, and its long membership of the European Union, there will probably be a special status which only bears limited comparison to that of countries that have never belonged to the European Union." So there you go.
The problem arises (no pun) if watching a lot of porn makes a man prefer a real, super hot, young, extremely sexual woman.
Let me guess: the author thinks readers would be pleased to hear that not even coders are immune to losing their high paying jobs so she comes up with a speculation about the future of software development based on minor blips on the tech landscape in very nichy areas, historical patterns be damned.
I think they knew with Jennifer Lawrence they couldn't get away with it, but with Hogan they miscalculated. Or they came to think they are invincible, or needed a financial boost.
Or, and I'm going out on a limb here, maybe Gawker staff and Denton felt particular hatred towards what Hulk Hogan represents: a primitive masculine character of the old world that they wanted to dismantle.
They didn't know they couldn't *get away with it*. They surely knew what they did was morally wrong, and many pointed that out. Well guess what -- we live in a society whose moral and legal rules keep it from falling apart. Break them and be punished by the society, especially if you profited from that same society.
The difference is dumb locks you have to access physically to break them open and while doing so you may look suspicious -- there is a time pressure that raises the barrier. With smart locks, you can take your time working the lock at a distance, and once it is unlocked you can casually access the protected item as if it were yours.
My two cents -- the amount of "creation" (art, originality, ideas coming from another human mind) in the game is the same whether there are 100 or 100 quintillion planets. Imagine an artist making a fine house music song and then have the computer generate 1000 different remixes of it. The sum of those 1000 is not much more than the single original song.
The second part, exploration and gameplay, changes the state of the game, but the new states are apparently not significantly different. It's like changing the filter slightly for one of the effects in one of the 1000 remixes.
Those are my preconceptions about NMS, but it would be great if the game turns out to be much more than that.
That's a great point. Gravity however doesn't seem to have a particle yet, and we know and measure it and use it comfortably anyway. "Dark Matter" force seems to be a closer cousin to gravity than some other forces.
It sounds like dark matter is thought to be made of particles of some sort. Could it instead be a force field of uneven density in space that interacts with the gravitational field in some way? Though the question then would be what causes the field I guess. But maybe that's an easier task.
Not much. Obama has good speaking skills but that's not something that can be emulated easily nor does it seem to go particularly far. As for Bush, I bought his autobiography thinking there may be some nugget of insight here and there but after about a fifth of the book I found none and gave up. The stories were empty and entirely predictable from his profile. The amount of trust I have in either is not very high, I see them roughly as barely competent to run a country that is generally doing well and has a lot of room for error.
> Just out of curiosity, why?
From my perspective -- he is childish, energetic and entertaining. Even his enemies often profit from crossing paths with him. Downside is he can say things that incite some of his supporters to say or do ugly things. Another is he's not much of a leader you can trust. The main upside is you can learn something from him -- how to convince people to accept your point of view using emotions. By contrast, I feel I have nothing valuable to learn from Hillary, and she's not a leader I can trust. Hillary brings nothing to the table.
For all his faults, Newt accepts climate change and calls for "green conservativism", has good attitudes on minorities and women's rights (defended those and a potential woman president in an Ali G interview), and supports a base on the moon and a flight to Mars. What more can one ask for.
I actually don't see it that way and I'm as much against Hillary as anyone (I'll vote for Trump or maybe for a 3d party candidate since I'm in CA that goes to a Democrat anyway). I think he means while she may have been negligent enough to be fired from the job -- or not hired for a new one -- she didn't conspire to break the law. She was arrogant and incompetent but not criminal. The story of her life.
I am actually glad she didn't get indicted as I want to see her lose in the voting contest, so the people send a clear message they don't like her kind, even in the face of alternatives as they are.
... For A Second, I Believe Exactly What You Believe:
http://www.theonion.com/blogpo...
That's a good example. In general having more rules than necessary to protect the weak (poor, children, the sick, animals etc.) only makes the system less stable.
But to turn things around -- if you were asked to defend the UK's EU membership, are there things you would list as positive? Just curious, don't know most of the details. Thanks
One of the New Year's resolution he listed was, "Do not read the latest breakthrough experiment in psychology about, say, the effect of taking cold showers on grammatical ability. Better even read nothing about these 'experiments.'"
...in-house, hiring a mock jury of people from the street to sit and listen, with a good defense lawyer to mock-represent the Google side.
Then repeating over and over until juries are more often than not swayed in Oracle's favor, then with such sharpened arguments going for the real thing.
Kind of like how NASA went to the moon, except without any nobility in the endeavor.
I have no need for Pornhub's content myself
I love Pornhub-folks' sense of humour: they often have hilarious and creative ad-campaigns
This reminds me of a newspaper article complaining about erotic movies on a public TV channel's unlisted programming every night at 2AM back in the far more modest mid-80s in a country in the Eastern block. The author went on to say how pornography is bad and damaging for the morals etc. and then he said that at least one positive thing about the channel is they never show hard stuff like multiple men with one woman. The obvious question was, wait a minute, how do you know what they *never* show unless you're up every night at 2AM watching their porn?