They know its not a bomb, so they go for the "might be mistaken for a bomb if placed under a car" angle. Some fictional extra bit, that might turn a non-bomb into something that might be mistaken for a bomb by someone as idiot as themselves.
It does seem a really odd argument. I guess it could be... But then so might a mobile phone it wrapped in wires and connected to some Plasticine. The point is, he didn't do that!
A few quotes from an academic without context may well produce a decent bit of clickbait, but I'd be interested to read the rest of "The Asymmetrical âRelationship: Parallels Between Prostitution and the Development of Sex Robots,".
There doesn't seem to be a lot about this "campaign" apart from a few mentions in the media.
Thing is, it's not just about it being untrue. Perjury is a crime. While that means the penalty can be pretty serious, it also means that it has to be done with intent and you have to prove that beyond reasonable doubt.
A lot of takedown notices are technically not compliant because they don't have this statement, but ISPs tend not err on the side of caution with takedown notices.
I could claim burying an axe in someone's head as performance art. It is requires creativity and technical skill, and creates an emotional reaction in the audience. But I don't think I could claim that this is protected by the First amendment.
A lot of the time, people will get better on their own. But placebos do actually help here. Homeopathy is cheap, and it means that people get the feeling that something is being done, resulting in less hassling of doctors.
That is about as low as an online rental will cost. You'd probably find it hard to get even that low. This is about the price per episode of a season pass for a moderately popular show.
Does rather assume that all pirates would pay for a copy but it is less ridiculous than other estimates.
I sort of agree, but if you accept that we need a deterrent, what other punishment can we impose? A fine, if too small, is not going to deter the behaviour, and if too large is going to be hanging over his head longer than the prison sentence.
I frequently need to print/sign/scan/discard documents, because people want a physical signature. Also, a lot of budget airlines require you to print your own boarding passes and I do still occasionally print pictures.
Sure, USB would have caught on eventually. If nothing else, digital cameras would have made sure of that.
But as quickly? I suspect not.
A lot of USB hardware was released in 1998. Much more than the previous 3 years. What changed? I guess it could be Windows 98 support, but PC users were still used to a bunch of specialised connectors. Mac users didn't have the option.
The iMac designers knew that the people who wanted to use legacy hardware were a tiny niche. And the iMac was a totally new product. They didn't want to faff about with backwards compatibility. Their users were forced to use USB, and they were quite happy to do so because USB worked pretty well.
Losing the floppy disk drive was probably a bit too early a decision, but most users found that they really didn't need it. They did just as well without it, and it meant that Apple didn't have to deal with supporting any more software coming out on floppy.
I agree Apple probably didn't influence anything here. Even with the iMac demonstrating that floppies were not needed - and by 2001 when CD-R and flash drive and broadband really had made them obsolete - most PCs still came with floppy drives for several more years. I wouldn't say they were all that useful to most users. Slashdotters, perhaps, who still used boot floppies for example, but most users were fooling themselves in thinking they needed the drive.
You are using their computers, (servers) and so are obliged to follow their rules.
If you can use technological measures to circumvent their ads, then that's your right, but they have just as strong a right to use technological measures to counter-circumvent. Don't like it? Don't use youTube. It's not like they care that much. They're not profiting from you.
I'd say the original iMac pushed things on. Sure, USB could have taken off, but Apple made sure it was popular. I guess Intel had the power to push it and it would have caught on sooner or later but Apple was using it for everything while PCs were still being sold with PS/2 ports.
Likewise, floppy disks - Apple was willing to ditch that legacy crap (They weren't the first - SGI had abandoned them before CD-ROMs were available). Windows PC manufacturers were very slow to do the same.
It's not as big a step as WIMP, but the same idea. The technology was there but nobody was paying it any attention. Apple was willing to be avant-garde while the rest of the industry was being remarkably conservative.
To be fair, he probably wouldn't have been anywhere near as successful if he hadn't met the asshole. Assholes know how to make money. Many a brilliant engineer has gone broke by thinking the product is all that matters.
Woz probably deserved more but I don't think he's crying too much.
Norwegian do as well. But they and JetBlue are both budget airlines. It's a similar situation with hotels. Expensive business hotels will charge a substantial daily rate for internet access.
In Norwegian's case, it looks like they make up some of the cost on PPV movies. I'm guessing JetBlue does something similar.
But you wouldn't do it that way. It would be like leasing your car to a Taxi company. Taxi companies have their own fleets!
If you had a factory, why would you be hiring robots from the general public? Why not buy your own, or lease (with a maintenance contract) them from a robot leasing company? That way you get use of the robots 24/7, get to take advantage of efficiencies of scale and can be sure of a standard, predictable robot.
Except given that they treated a non-puppy work much more harshly than has ever been the case before. It is much more likely that the new influx of people are harsher judges than the usual voters.
Why was there a sudden influx of particularly harsh judges this year? And was "The Day the World Turned Upside Down" really so much better than the others? The abrupt increase here seems to be more likely caused by political choices than a change in vote attitudes.
*everything* scores well on good reads. 50 shades of bad writing got a nice big 3.7 out of 5. Good reads is not a good indication of quality.
Fan awards are not about quality! NHave you read some of the winners?
If there was a fan award aimed at the demographic that tends to like bad Twilight fanfic, you can be sure 50 Shades would be nominated.
Many voters, perhaps treated them equally, but "The Day the World Turned Upside Down" did get a lot more votes than any of the puppies. The high number of "no awards" could be put down to lazy protestors.
The Novellas seem to have scored pretty well on goodreads - broadly as well as the non-puppy entries that didn't make it - yet the Hugo voters clobbered them. Even tripe like "Opera Vita Aeterna" managed to beat "no award" in 2014. I can't believe they were all worse than that this year.
Of course, goodreads isn't an objective measure of quality but one would expect that it would be broadly similar to that of Worldcon membership.
Last year's puppy slate tended towards pulpy action adventure rather than more philosophical works. So better is subjective - some people like action. Personally I didn't care for them too much but then I found the best Novel winner didn't thrill me either.
The corruption is not from who can vote but who nominates and how organised they are.
Only people who read a lot will nominate. You need to have read a lot of works to have a good indication. The argument is that there's an informal clique that nominates the same work. This gets strawmanned as some sort of conspiracy.
I have no idea if such a clique exists. What I can say is that the Dramatic presentation (short form) seems to get a lot of nominations for Doctor Who. It's unlikely that these are coming from different people. More likely that the same set of fans are picking the same episodes. Do you think there may be a Doctor Who clique?
Sad puppies was a conspiracy. Intentionally so. Part of the aim was to demonstrate how broken the nominations system is. I'd say it did that job well.
As for the voting - 2015 statistics compared with 2014 stats. Take for example best Novella. Voting numbers up by 2638. All entries except "no award" seem to have comparable number of votes to the previous year. No award gets more than half the votes. Were the entries *really* that bad?
There's nothing wrong with campaigning, but the suggestion that there wasn't a concerted campaign to prevent people who have the wrong politics from winning an award stretches credibility.
Slashdot Mirror
It does seem a really odd argument. I guess it could be... But then so might a mobile phone it wrapped in wires and connected to some Plasticine. The point is, he didn't do that!
A few quotes from an academic without context may well produce a decent bit of clickbait, but I'd be interested to read the rest of "The Asymmetrical âRelationship: Parallels Between Prostitution and the Development of Sex Robots,".
There doesn't seem to be a lot about this "campaign" apart from a few mentions in the media.
This is actually unusual (the court even said as much). Normally it's up to the defendant to assert fair use.
I suspect if the copyright cartels hadn't been throwing their weight around quite so much the court would have ruled differently.
Thing is, it's not just about it being untrue. Perjury is a crime. While that means the penalty can be pretty serious, it also means that it has to be done with intent and you have to prove that beyond reasonable doubt.
A lot of takedown notices are technically not compliant because they don't have this statement, but ISPs tend not err on the side of caution with takedown notices.
I could claim burying an axe in someone's head as performance art. It is requires creativity and technical skill, and creates an emotional reaction in the audience. But I don't think I could claim that this is protected by the First amendment.
A lot of the time, people will get better on their own. But placebos do actually help here. Homeopathy is cheap, and it means that people get the feeling that something is being done, resulting in less hassling of doctors.
1985 was when the frequencies were made available (or when the vote was taken). 1990 is when people decided to do something with it.
That is about as low as an online rental will cost. You'd probably find it hard to get even that low. This is about the price per episode of a season pass for a moderately popular show.
Does rather assume that all pirates would pay for a copy but it is less ridiculous than other estimates.
I sort of agree, but if you accept that we need a deterrent, what other punishment can we impose? A fine, if too small, is not going to deter the behaviour, and if too large is going to be hanging over his head longer than the prison sentence.
I frequently need to print/sign/scan/discard documents, because people want a physical signature. Also, a lot of budget airlines require you to print your own boarding passes and I do still occasionally print pictures.
They have their uses.
Sure, USB would have caught on eventually. If nothing else, digital cameras would have made sure of that.
But as quickly? I suspect not.
A lot of USB hardware was released in 1998. Much more than the previous 3 years. What changed? I guess it could be Windows 98 support, but PC users were still used to a bunch of specialised connectors. Mac users didn't have the option.
The iMac designers knew that the people who wanted to use legacy hardware were a tiny niche. And the iMac was a totally new product. They didn't want to faff about with backwards compatibility. Their users were forced to use USB, and they were quite happy to do so because USB worked pretty well.
Losing the floppy disk drive was probably a bit too early a decision, but most users found that they really didn't need it. They did just as well without it, and it meant that Apple didn't have to deal with supporting any more software coming out on floppy.
I agree Apple probably didn't influence anything here. Even with the iMac demonstrating that floppies were not needed - and by 2001 when CD-R and flash drive and broadband really had made them obsolete - most PCs still came with floppy drives for several more years. I wouldn't say they were all that useful to most users. Slashdotters, perhaps, who still used boot floppies for example, but most users were fooling themselves in thinking they needed the drive.
You are using their computers, (servers) and so are obliged to follow their rules.
If you can use technological measures to circumvent their ads, then that's your right, but they have just as strong a right to use technological measures to counter-circumvent. Don't like it? Don't use youTube. It's not like they care that much. They're not profiting from you.
I'd say the original iMac pushed things on. Sure, USB could have taken off, but Apple made sure it was popular. I guess Intel had the power to push it and it would have caught on sooner or later but Apple was using it for everything while PCs were still being sold with PS/2 ports.
Likewise, floppy disks - Apple was willing to ditch that legacy crap (They weren't the first - SGI had abandoned them before CD-ROMs were available). Windows PC manufacturers were very slow to do the same.
It's not as big a step as WIMP, but the same idea. The technology was there but nobody was paying it any attention. Apple was willing to be avant-garde while the rest of the industry was being remarkably conservative.
To be fair, he probably wouldn't have been anywhere near as successful if he hadn't met the asshole. Assholes know how to make money. Many a brilliant engineer has gone broke by thinking the product is all that matters.
Woz probably deserved more but I don't think he's crying too much.
Norwegian do as well. But they and JetBlue are both budget airlines. It's a similar situation with hotels. Expensive business hotels will charge a substantial daily rate for internet access.
In Norwegian's case, it looks like they make up some of the cost on PPV movies. I'm guessing JetBlue does something similar.
But you wouldn't do it that way. It would be like leasing your car to a Taxi company. Taxi companies have their own fleets!
If you had a factory, why would you be hiring robots from the general public? Why not buy your own, or lease (with a maintenance contract) them from a robot leasing company? That way you get use of the robots 24/7, get to take advantage of efficiencies of scale and can be sure of a standard, predictable robot.
It's a website, and you shouldn't.
Not all news items will be of interest to you. That's fine. I'd encourage you to ignore them and look at the next one.
Why was there a sudden influx of particularly harsh judges this year? And was "The Day the World Turned Upside Down" really so much better than the others? The abrupt increase here seems to be more likely caused by political choices than a change in vote attitudes.
Fan awards are not about quality! NHave you read some of the winners?
If there was a fan award aimed at the demographic that tends to like bad Twilight fanfic, you can be sure 50 Shades would be nominated.
Many voters, perhaps treated them equally, but "The Day the World Turned Upside Down" did get a lot more votes than any of the puppies. The high number of "no awards" could be put down to lazy protestors.
The Novellas seem to have scored pretty well on goodreads - broadly as well as the non-puppy entries that didn't make it - yet the Hugo voters clobbered them. Even tripe like "Opera Vita Aeterna" managed to beat "no award" in 2014. I can't believe they were all worse than that this year.
Of course, goodreads isn't an objective measure of quality but one would expect that it would be broadly similar to that of Worldcon membership.
Last year's puppy slate was utter shit as well. None of them lost out to "No Award".
So are you suggesting that this years are several times worse?
I'm genuinely confused as to who "they" are in this instance. Your comment could apply to the "SJW"s or the puppies.
And in both cases I'd agree that you have a point.
Not read this year's
Last year's puppy slate tended towards pulpy action adventure rather than more philosophical works. So better is subjective - some people like action. Personally I didn't care for them too much but then I found the best Novel winner didn't thrill me either.
The corruption is not from who can vote but who nominates and how organised they are.
Only people who read a lot will nominate. You need to have read a lot of works to have a good indication. The argument is that there's an informal clique that nominates the same work. This gets strawmanned as some sort of conspiracy.
I have no idea if such a clique exists. What I can say is that the Dramatic presentation (short form) seems to get a lot of nominations for Doctor Who. It's unlikely that these are coming from different people. More likely that the same set of fans are picking the same episodes. Do you think there may be a Doctor Who clique?
Sad puppies was a conspiracy. Intentionally so. Part of the aim was to demonstrate how broken the nominations system is. I'd say it did that job well.
As for the voting - 2015 statistics compared with 2014 stats. Take for example best Novella. Voting numbers up by 2638. All entries except "no award" seem to have comparable number of votes to the previous year. No award gets more than half the votes. Were the entries *really* that bad?
There's nothing wrong with campaigning, but the suggestion that there wasn't a concerted campaign to prevent people who have the wrong politics from winning an award stretches credibility.
It's a fan vote though. The popular books do win!
Last year, the puppies had quite a few nominations from their slate. I think none of them ranked below "no award".
This year the puppies had several nomination in each category. Most of them were ranked below "no award".
The number of voters increased dramatically.
Did the quality suddenly take a dive this year? Or did a lot of people vote entirely to make a point?