"Even as you read this, you are wishing that you could jam a gun in my face and make me back down."
That's a whole new level of projection, right there.
That Gizmodo article is the worst thing I've ever read a Gawker site, and that's saying something.
67% of studies were retracted because of misconduct! And 43% is because of fraud! We can't even believe scientists anymore! The study of science papers found that those retractions for fraud have increased 10-fold since 1975. We're cheating a hell of a lot more. So yeah, even if something is backed by SCIENCE, it doesn't always mean it's real.
But no mention of how many studies were retracted, the percentage of retracted vs. non-retracted studies, what journals the studies in question appeared in, or that the studies in question were retracted reflects the strength of peer review. "We can't even believe scientists anymore!" Really? Fuck Gawker, and fuck you for linking that.
Except that licensing wouldn't have prevented Newtown either, for the same reason that a background check wouldn't have worked (i.e. the person who used the guns to commit crime was not the person who owned them). That's not to say that background checks aren't a good idea, just that they aren't going to stop Newtown like scenarios unless you also check everyone in the applicant's family and friends. The only proposal I've heard post-Newtown that tries to address that particular issue is the one about making gun owners liable if their guns are stolen and used in crimes and/or mandating insurance against this possibility. But in practice that just seems like an attempt to get a gun ban in through the back door, by making the cost of ownership prohibitive.
You and I came to the same conclusion "Fox tries to pretend its (sic) unbiased", but we clearly have radically different opinions whether that's a good thing. If a TV channel is going to be producing a heavily biased package, I'd prefer that it acknowledges that the content is opinion. Airing talking points as news devalues the work of actual news organizations by casting doubt over all of journalism.
You're comparing apples and oranges. The sport is motorsport, and Nascar is one of the top levels of the sport. Autocross, karting, or track days are more analogous to the "finding a ball and running around" scenario. Not everyone can participate in Nascar, but not everyone can participate in the NFL either.
By that argument it's equally ironic that the paper, which is championing its first amendment rights, is trying to demonize people for exercising their second amendment rights. Different people have different priorities, that's not irony.
Irony would mean that it was contrary to the expected result. A paper that engaged in anti-gun activism using armed guards to defend itself is ironic. A paper doing something that could upset a bunch of people and some of them getting angry and making threats isn't ironic, just sad.
As promising as the one sentence description in the summary sounds, keep in mind that its being directed by Dominic Robilliard, the man behind The Force Unleashed 2. TFU2, you might remember, was a mediocre action game with a story that was ridiculous even by the standards of the Star Wars franchise, which already has more than its fair share of bad writing. It was rightly critically panned, and as far as I know sales weren't that hot either.
If the guy behind a game that Joystiq called "glorified fan fiction" about a character named "Starkiller" is capable of producing a "grounded and gritty fiction", I'll be quite surprised.
The same republicans who've repeatedly and explicitly stated that their number one goal is to make Obama a one term president? Yeah, I wonder why it's been hard to get them to meet in the middle.
I think it was less of a case of trying to dodge a beam that was already on its way to and more a case of trying to orient the helicopter to avoid the beam striking the cockpit before the laser's user was able to get it on target. That was my takeaway from the article, anyway.
That's not what he was saying. He was saying that Google had no role in developing those phones. They still have the Play store; in fact I've seen titles in the store that are restricted to the Xperia, presumably because of the controller.
At least one of them wasn't a takedown, though. The Hugo award thing was an automatic response during a streaming event. It's a thing Ustream does of its own initiative (probably requested/extorted by content holders, but still) to cut down on copyright infringement on its service. It would be hard to argue against it in court as well, considering this automatic filtering only applies to customers using the free version of Ustream's service. The only reasonable solution I see is for people to let Ustream know that this isn't okay and to stop using their service and anyone else who uses Vobile (justin.tv also does).
The poster I was replying to was talking about those PACs "funding" Obama. I took that to mean spending money. If you want to just discuss money raised, that's fine. It's largely the same groups, but actually skewed more towards Republicans when you consider the warchest American Crossroads is sitting on. From the same ProPublica link:
Restore Our Future (supports Mitt Romney) $89,654,176 American Crossroads $40,063,638
Priorities USA Action (supports Barack Obama) $24,739,392 Winning Our Future (supports Newt Gingrich) $23,908,055 Club for Growth Action $13,168,041
Majority PAC $11,648,736
House Majority PAC $9,268,191 Red White and Blue Fund (supports Rick Santorum) $8,388,547
American Bridge 21st Century PAC $7,890,414 Congressional Leadership Fund $6,511,401
So 6/10 are Republican supporting, but the funding breakdown is $181,693,858 for Republicans, $53,546,733 for Democrats.
The anti-neutrality folks are apparently trying to explain away that as well. There's an editorial in my newspaper today from some lawyer about how people have on average six different ISPs available to them, including multiple cable companies, fiber and DSL from the phone company, and 4G wireless. I'd like to know where the guy lives, considering around here the two options are the one cable monopoly (which does a pretty decent job, actually) and the phone company's DSL that is half as fast and costs twice as much.
Not sure where you got that from, but it's almost literally the opposite of what's true. From ProPublica:
Restore Our Future (supports Mitt Romney) $82,224,493
Priorities USA Action (supports Barack Obama) $21,933,068 Winning Our Future (supports Newt Gingrich) $17,003,035 American Crossroads $12,078,463 Club for Growth Action $11,959,430
Majority PAC $10,459,928 Red White and Blue Fund (supports Rick Santorum) $7,529,620 Make Us Great Again (supports Rick Perry) $3,959,824
House Majority PAC $3,668,363 Endorse Liberty (supports Ron Paul) $3,579,627
Those are the top 10 PACs by spending. The Republican/conservative organizations are in bold. Note that the spending of all the Democrat supporting PACs comes to less than half what Restore Our Future alone has spent. Sorting PACs by contributions is similar. Obama has a lot of money behind him, but it's nothing like what Romney's got.
I'm satisfied with mine. Since you were going to buy it already, presumably you've researched the competition enough to decide that it's the phone for you. I'd say go for it. The same reasons that made it a good option are still there, and it's not like Google will stop supporting the thing because Samsung is barred from selling it in the US.
And there are a myriad of ways to do that. If you have one computer, there are tons of software options available. If you want to provide coverage for all devices on your network, you can set up OpenDNS on your router.
I'm sympathetic to the needs of parents to protect their children from unwanted online content, but a legislative solution is absolutely the wrong way to go about it.
Those things can cause hardware failure, but they generally don't cause recalls. Remember that we're talking about device recalls, here. The hardware failures are also likely to "be present in every single instance of the device" if they need to fix all of them.
Slashdot Mirror
"Even as you read this, you are wishing that you could jam a gun in my face and make me back down." That's a whole new level of projection, right there.
67% of studies were retracted because of misconduct! And 43% is because of fraud! We can't even believe scientists anymore! The study of science papers found that those retractions for fraud have increased 10-fold since 1975. We're cheating a hell of a lot more. So yeah, even if something is backed by SCIENCE, it doesn't always mean it's real.
But no mention of how many studies were retracted, the percentage of retracted vs. non-retracted studies, what journals the studies in question appeared in, or that the studies in question were retracted reflects the strength of peer review. "We can't even believe scientists anymore!" Really? Fuck Gawker, and fuck you for linking that.
What gun control laws?
"Gun deaths", 2/3 of which were suicides. Conflating suicide and homicide is misleading given that they're significantly different problems.
Except that licensing wouldn't have prevented Newtown either, for the same reason that a background check wouldn't have worked (i.e. the person who used the guns to commit crime was not the person who owned them). That's not to say that background checks aren't a good idea, just that they aren't going to stop Newtown like scenarios unless you also check everyone in the applicant's family and friends. The only proposal I've heard post-Newtown that tries to address that particular issue is the one about making gun owners liable if their guns are stolen and used in crimes and/or mandating insurance against this possibility. But in practice that just seems like an attempt to get a gun ban in through the back door, by making the cost of ownership prohibitive.
Replace "the left" with "Democrats" and yes.
and the unceasing claims that being white men makes them automatically evil
No one says that, you are being intellectually dishonest.
You and I came to the same conclusion "Fox tries to pretend its (sic) unbiased", but we clearly have radically different opinions whether that's a good thing. If a TV channel is going to be producing a heavily biased package, I'd prefer that it acknowledges that the content is opinion. Airing talking points as news devalues the work of actual news organizations by casting doubt over all of journalism.
You're comparing apples and oranges. The sport is motorsport, and Nascar is one of the top levels of the sport. Autocross, karting, or track days are more analogous to the "finding a ball and running around" scenario. Not everyone can participate in Nascar, but not everyone can participate in the NFL either.
Fucked up my mod. Apparently I'm bad at dropdowns.
By that argument it's equally ironic that the paper, which is championing its first amendment rights, is trying to demonize people for exercising their second amendment rights. Different people have different priorities, that's not irony.
Irony would mean that it was contrary to the expected result. A paper that engaged in anti-gun activism using armed guards to defend itself is ironic. A paper doing something that could upset a bunch of people and some of them getting angry and making threats isn't ironic, just sad.
As promising as the one sentence description in the summary sounds, keep in mind that its being directed by Dominic Robilliard, the man behind The Force Unleashed 2. TFU2, you might remember, was a mediocre action game with a story that was ridiculous even by the standards of the Star Wars franchise, which already has more than its fair share of bad writing. It was rightly critically panned, and as far as I know sales weren't that hot either.
If the guy behind a game that Joystiq called "glorified fan fiction" about a character named "Starkiller" is capable of producing a "grounded and gritty fiction", I'll be quite surprised.
The same republicans who've repeatedly and explicitly stated that their number one goal is to make Obama a one term president? Yeah, I wonder why it's been hard to get them to meet in the middle.
I think it was less of a case of trying to dodge a beam that was already on its way to and more a case of trying to orient the helicopter to avoid the beam striking the cockpit before the laser's user was able to get it on target. That was my takeaway from the article, anyway.
Not all elections are presidential.
That's not what he was saying. He was saying that Google had no role in developing those phones. They still have the Play store; in fact I've seen titles in the store that are restricted to the Xperia, presumably because of the controller.
At least one of them wasn't a takedown, though. The Hugo award thing was an automatic response during a streaming event. It's a thing Ustream does of its own initiative (probably requested/extorted by content holders, but still) to cut down on copyright infringement on its service. It would be hard to argue against it in court as well, considering this automatic filtering only applies to customers using the free version of Ustream's service. The only reasonable solution I see is for people to let Ustream know that this isn't okay and to stop using their service and anyone else who uses Vobile (justin.tv also does).
Restore Our Future (supports Mitt Romney) $89,654,176
American Crossroads $40,063,638
Priorities USA Action (supports Barack Obama) $24,739,392
Winning Our Future (supports Newt Gingrich) $23,908,055
Club for Growth Action $13,168,041
Majority PAC $11,648,736
House Majority PAC $9,268,191
Red White and Blue Fund (supports Rick Santorum) $8,388,547
American Bridge 21st Century PAC $7,890,414
Congressional Leadership Fund $6,511,401
So 6/10 are Republican supporting, but the funding breakdown is $181,693,858 for Republicans, $53,546,733 for Democrats.
The anti-neutrality folks are apparently trying to explain away that as well. There's an editorial in my newspaper today from some lawyer about how people have on average six different ISPs available to them, including multiple cable companies, fiber and DSL from the phone company, and 4G wireless. I'd like to know where the guy lives, considering around here the two options are the one cable monopoly (which does a pretty decent job, actually) and the phone company's DSL that is half as fast and costs twice as much.
8 out of the top 10 largest PAC's fund Obama
Not sure where you got that from, but it's almost literally the opposite of what's true. From ProPublica:
Restore Our Future (supports Mitt Romney) $82,224,493
Priorities USA Action (supports Barack Obama) $21,933,068
Winning Our Future (supports Newt Gingrich) $17,003,035
American Crossroads $12,078,463
Club for Growth Action $11,959,430
Majority PAC $10,459,928
Red White and Blue Fund (supports Rick Santorum) $7,529,620
Make Us Great Again (supports Rick Perry) $3,959,824
House Majority PAC $3,668,363
Endorse Liberty (supports Ron Paul) $3,579,627
Those are the top 10 PACs by spending. The Republican/conservative organizations are in bold. Note that the spending of all the Democrat supporting PACs comes to less than half what Restore Our Future alone has spent. Sorting PACs by contributions is similar. Obama has a lot of money behind him, but it's nothing like what Romney's got.
I'm satisfied with mine. Since you were going to buy it already, presumably you've researched the competition enough to decide that it's the phone for you. I'd say go for it. The same reasons that made it a good option are still there, and it's not like Google will stop supporting the thing because Samsung is barred from selling it in the US.
Yes, because there's no way the the US could have extradited him straight from the UK. Nope, that would be ridiculous.
Be careful, your tinfoil hat is showing.
i do need a way to manage what he is seeing.
And there are a myriad of ways to do that. If you have one computer, there are tons of software options available. If you want to provide coverage for all devices on your network, you can set up OpenDNS on your router.
I'm sympathetic to the needs of parents to protect their children from unwanted online content, but a legislative solution is absolutely the wrong way to go about it.
Those things can cause hardware failure, but they generally don't cause recalls. Remember that we're talking about device recalls, here. The hardware failures are also likely to "be present in every single instance of the device" if they need to fix all of them.