They're saying it would be great for merchants to know where you are but I'd actually have to carry it and keep it charged for it to work. So it has to offer me a benefit and instant coupons or getting bombarded by ads isn't a good selling point.
A better application for this would be urban GPS. A big problem with current GPS is that it doesn't work in dense urban cities. Try to use GPS in New York... it's almost useless. First off, you're underground half the time. Second, even when you're above ground you tend to be amongst big buildings that obscure the sky. However, I get great cellphone reception pretty much anywhere in New York and wifi hotspots are pretty ubiquitous even if they're mostly locked. If your mobile navigation could make use of other static radio signals for navigation then GPS would work deep within the urban jungle. And THAT is valuable.
The pitch of "oh merchants can predict your location" is asinine. if you wanted to sell the tracking feature then I suppose this would work for tracking boxes. After all, existing tracking technology that relies on GPS won't work in warehouses, underground, or even inside of industrial shipping containers. But something that could triangulate cell towers should work just about damn near anywhere there is "civilization"...
All and all, a neat little chip and I wish it well. Whoever is coming up with the applications for it needs to be smacked around a little with a frozen trout.
No, the burden is on the people that want it stopped. You can't just make a claim and then shut everything down. You first have to have compelling evidence.
Disagree? Sue them. Ultimately you're just going to have to sue them to stop it. So have your day in court and we'll see what happens.
Try more monkey business with the EPA and that whole branch of the government could get clipped. It's already on thin ice as it is and has recently started loosing major court cases that render many of it's actions illegal.
This will only continue. You can't use environmental policy as a means to shut down all grown and industrial production. That is not why these organizations were set up and such motivations run contrary to the interests of society. It will not be tolerated.
It is critical that we adopt moderate policies that respect valid environmental concerns while also respecting the need to carry out necessary industrial activities.
The causal link between significant earthquakes and fracking remains threadbare at best. By all means, continue the science. No one is suggesting any of this not be studied. However, unless we have an extremely compelling reason to stop... it's going to happen. We're talking about trillions of dollars at stake. The treasure of empires. You're not stopping the extraction on "maybes."
You can say that about people that read long book series and then the last book in the series ends with a bs ending. Or people that put a lot of time into anything.
I get that you're not a gamer. That's fine. But I bet there is something you put time into and it would annoy you if the people responsible for organizing it half assed everything to the point where it ruined the experience for you.
What do you like? Football? Basketball? Enjoy any movies or books? What about music?
I agree with everything you said there, only we are using new technology and methods to extract it. The abundance of natural gas is now well beyond what it was in the past due to this technology.
I hear what you're saying about one person setting off an avalanche. However, the avalanche is poised to collapse at any time. The person that set it off was the feather on the camel's back. That ONE LAST THING that just started a big reaction.
The problem with this notion and why I think your view is naive and possibly ignorant (no offense) is that the earth by and large is not so unstable. If it were then little things would be setting it off all the time.
For your comment to make any sense, the earth would have to be like the room full of explosive vapor with fracking being someone lighting a match.
How likely is that? Look past your opinion of me and rather look at the earth itself. Exactly how likely is it that the earth is so unstable that a relatively tiny force upon it would release a huge amount of energy?
Just about f'ing nil.
I'm open to the science. But I'm contemptuous of anyone that says we should do nothing until it's proven to NOT be dangerous. That's not how science works. Provide empirical evidence that we have a problem sufficient to stop the fracking or all complaints will be filed in the circular filing cabinet.
Yes the system is in equilibrium... but there are different types of equilibrium.
Take a pea and put it on a plate. Does the pea roll to the left or the right? Neither. It's in equilibrium in that spot. The amount of energy required to move the pea is roughly equivalent to the energy released by the pea moving.
Take a pea in the middle of a bowl. The pea is still in equilibrium. To move the pea to the left or the right takes MORE energy then the amount of energy released by the pea moving because the edges of the bowl tend to push the pea back to the middle. And it takes a continuous exertion of force to keep the pea from being in the center.
Take a pea on TOP of an upside down bowl. The pea is still in equilibrium. This is the one situation where it takes LESS energy to move the pea then is released by the pea moving. Because once it starts moving in any direction gravity will pull it in that direction away from the middle.
So... in nature which of the above is the most common type of equilibrium? The second situation is most common and the third is the least common. Equilibrium in nature tends to occupy some stable valley where it takes significantly more energy to change the situation then is released. And further, if left alone nature tends to push things back to the old equilibrium point. Why is this? Time. Over time, things happen. And that means the pea rolls all over the place until it finds a little rut and then the pea stays in that rut. It's very hard to get the pea out of that rut and if you move it... it tends to just roll right back into it.
I regards to earthquakes... yes, the earth's crust is in equilibrium. But I suspect that it will take either equal or greater force upon it to generate an equal or LESSER response. Equilibrium in this case should act AGAINST change. It is extremely unlikely that a small action will cause a big reaction. You get that when you have a room full of explosive gas and someone lights a match. The earth's crust is unlikely to be like that. It is far more likely to be like the pea on the flat plate or the pea inside the bowl where equilibrium either respond proportionately or disportionately with a less powerful response.
I'm not a geologist but what understanding I have of science and geology leads me to believe the earth is very stable and that injecting a relatively small amount of water into the crust is unlikely to generate a disproportionately large response.
If you injected an amount of water into the earth with force equal to the your doomsday earthquake prediction then I'd agree it is a problem. However, the pressures involved in fracking while extreme to the local rock formations are irrelevant when compared to the megatons of rock in all directions.
The math argue against a big earthquake unless the volume and pressures of the water are comparable to the volume and pressures of the whole rock formation.
Scientifically, something has to happen for there to be evidence. It's called empericism of which science is an outgrowth.
So yes, we need an earthquake. And not some sissy "a large truck just passed my house" earth quake within 1000 feet of the drill site.
Remember an earthquake can vary from something so minor not even dogs can detect it to being something so big huge rips form in the earth and cities fall.
It's the difference between a ripple in the water and a tidal wave. And the term "earthquake" is way too vague to be relevant here. We need to have some manitude projections here for it to be useful. If fracking causes rippples... no one cares because no one will even notice. Your dog MIGHT notice... but who cares. If cities will fall over, THEN we'll care.
By all means, continue the science... just keep it scientific. If I see a bunch of documentarians following around from New York with a history having an axe to grind that will be indicative of what is really going on.
You're still talking about an absurd amount of mass that is supposedly being moved by a relatively tiny amount of water. It would be like saying you could destabilize a boulder with a child's water pistol. Only even then the ratio is wrong. The masses we're talking about are vastly larger in ratio then that.
I mean lets just do a simple mas relationship. How many megatons is all the earth involved in one of these supposed quakes? Okay, and how many tons of water is pumped into the ground during one of these operations.
I'd be shocked if it were within ten million to ONE.
I'm not a geologist. I just don't see how such a relatively tiny amount of mass can effect a relatively huge mass unless the huge mass ALREADY unstable. And if it's already unstable then the fracking isn't causing the quake so much as triggering something now that would have happened later.
Furthermore, what sort of damage have we suffered so far from fracking related quakes? Any cities leveled? Seriously, can we show any damage what so ever from it? Or are people saying that it shook their house for a couple seconds once when the pump across the street turned on. Because I can believe that. Of course, a large truck driving by will have a similar effect.
Look, the people bitching about fracking are looking for a problem. They want a problem. They don't care if there is a problem in fact, they just don't like fracking because this has gotten political. The Michael Moore people got all hot and bothered about it and now swarms of idiots are attacking it despite the fact that it's doing great things for the US energy market.
Right now natural gas prices are dirt cheap because of fracking. People are heating their homes and paying their utilities less because of fracking. Fracking is killing the coal industry because natural gas is now cheaper then coal. And do you know how much natural gas we have? So much that we can keep burning it without moderation for hundreds if not thousands of years.
So if you have an argument against fracking... make it good. Because it needs to be REALLY good to matter at all.
That's true for almost anyone. So by your argument we're not allowed to have opinions on these matters.
Right?
You're wielding a doubled edged sword there, pal. Unless you want to claim elitism you'll find it destroys your position as it destroys mine. And the elitism claim comes with other problems you probably aren't fully aware of...
I'm not an expert in everything. But don't make the mistake of thinking I'm stupid.
Every rigorous study of fracking has found it to be safe.
And honestly the notion of fracking causing earth quakes is absurd. Just think of the mass we're talking about here. How exactly is a relatively small amount of water being pumped into the ground supposed to destabilize TECTONIC PLATES... It's like suggesting peeing into a hurricane is going to divert the storm.
And just because it has to be said, you know that anti fracking documentary where they show the guy lighting his well water on fire. Well, they were able to do that before the fracking. Look it up. It's been an issue in that area for a long time. They even have special well valves just to avoid the issue. So like most of the michael moore type documentaries... it's crap.
Yeah, they didn't explain anything. The whole "we kill everyone and jam their mutilated corpses into a tube where it is sucked like a milkshake into some groteseque genocidal machine... to SAVE YOU!"...
Really really dumb. Apparently they switched writers at some point which is always a really bad sign.
I don't know... I think these projects should start with an ACTUAL author that actually writes for the subject. And then just have him bust out an outline for the whole series. Ideally, have him write the dialog, sub quests, etc.
Bioware is solid in a lot of places. They're falling down on the story telling. HIRE a storyteller. And as part of the deal let him sell some books or other assorted fiction for the series.
Don't just get your creative director and say "okay, you're an author now"... cus' he's not. It's the difference between being a screen writer and a producer or a director. Not the same thing.
The best ending mechanic for RPGs is the fallout method.
They had single image and short voice over for EVERY major quest. How hard is it to knock out 40 or 20-30 second voice overs along with maybe 15 still images? Easy. Do that.
Mass Effect players tweaked their games endlessly to get a perfect ending across THREE games one into the next all culminating at that final point.
And after all that it turns out that all that tweaks was totally wasted. Why import the ME2 game into ME3 if ME3 won't do anything cool with it? It was bullcrap.
And the three endings were pathetic. The whole Red/Green/Blue thing was just insultingly lazy. Maybe they ran out of money... Fine. Do voice overs and stills instead of animations then. We just wanted closure. You play an RPG mostly for the immersion and the story. Just tell us what happened to our characters.
We'll see what this DLC look like but I'm assuming they're not going to change the stupid ending. So I've made up my own ending. I seriously just stared at the screen, invented a new ending, and then believed it instead.
I do that with lots of books that end poorly so why not for a game with a rip off ending.
Sorry if this harsh Bioware, but I was with you guys through three titles and you screwed me on the ending so I'm not feeling terribly charitable. I'm not blacklisting or boycotting you. You still make good games. Just don't screw the gamers again like that. It really makes us very unhappy.
It legitimizes further crack downs and more control.
Look at what terrorists did to the US FBI, CIA, etc? It justified just about anything. And the chinese need that justification because their security ambitions are always about 1000 times more involved.
All the people that complained about special interest groups... well, this is what they're good for... EFF has been pretty good about fighting this stuff off in the past. And as time goes on this will be a bigger struggle.
You can't ban special interests. You can only counter special interests with special interests. The abortion people fight each other. The gun people fight each other. And now we're going to have a war between the MPAA etc and the EFF etc.
They've collapsed more often then not due to political problems, corruption, or military conquest.
Some civilizations have fallen due to environmental problems such as... I think the Mayans?... Didn't they fall because of a really long drought? I forget. Anyway, most civilizations don't fall due to "sustainability" unless you mean the unsustainability of corruption... or the unsustainability of living after you've been stabbed repeatedly.
As to this notion that because every past civilization has fallen so must we... Sure... everything has a life. But that doesn't mean you can predict when something is going to die.
Civilizations can last for thousands of years or they can last for a year. But that doesn't mean you can predict our system is going to fall in 20 years.
You know what... I bet my whole career as a predictor that in 30 years the world will be overrun with unicorns and dragons. BELIEVE ME! It will happen. Everyone should start unicorn and dragon proofing their homes now. And by the way, just to make things easier, I've set up my own unicorn and dragon proofing company to help people out. Don't trust anyone else to unicorn or dragon proof your homes. Because in 30 years they're COMING!
really, it's just a question of how gullible you are...
How many of these stupid predictions are published over the years. And do they say "doom in five years"? No. They say doom in 30 years or doom in a 100 years... long after being embarrassed by being wrong would matter.
I'm not even going to get into the economics of the repeatedly proven wrong Malthusian theory. These predictions of doom are stupid.
You read too many comic books and this guy while a former judge was never that big a cheese to merit that sort of treatment.
If your comic view version of the world existed then this would have been hushed up BEFORE it was even reported. The son would have had a magical phone number he could call that would summon mysterious men in black SUVs that would have disappeared this body. Or better yet, a fake ambulance would have arrived to claim the body, told everyone at the scene the kid was alive, and then disappeared the corpse into the Florida everglades... without identification. Or better yet, they would have used one of their corrupt mortician contacts to burn the body at midnight and then mix his ashes in with other people. Either way. this kid would be a face on a milk carton.
Did any of that happen? Guess comic books aren't real.
I'll say further that you're making the cardinal mistake of ascribing to corruption what could more easily be ascribed to incompetence.
In any situation where a given bad thing could have been caused by either malicious intent or stupidity... you'll find it was stupidity about 99.99 times out of 100.00.
That's possible when the story is small. But that judge doesn't have enough friends to swing something like this, sport.
The very fact that we're talking about this makes it impossible for that judge to pull anything like that. Do you think Governors are going to bow down to a retired judge? I assure you, if the governor orders it... that kid will be tried for murder. I say tried... not convicted. Getting false convictions in the US is of course also possible but it either requires an incompetent defense, a stupid jury, or a corrupt prosecution. And even then the system is weighted specially in capital crimes to find people not guilty unless the case is especially compelling. Yes, there are terrible miscarriages of justice. But if they were the norm the whole justice system would be a waste of time and we would be better served just lynching people.
While you're accusing me of racism... tell me how much you approve of lynching... it will make the irony a little sweeter.
Really? So your contention is that they're letting a Hispanic (democrat - cited for political irony) male go after murdering a black man because they're corrupt? Explain how this benefits the police? Do you think they were bribed to release him? And why would the State's Attorney General not overrule them? Oh he's corrupt too? So what you're then arguing is that there is a big conspiracy with thousands of people in it all trying to let this one Hispanic man off for murdering a black person?
WHY? Why would anyone care enough to go to that much trouble?
There will be no resolution in any case. The people that are upset don't really care about this specific case. They're using it as an excuse to vent about other unrelated issues. And until they feel they've resolved that there will be no resolution.
As what they want is both impossible and frequently unjustified they'll never get it which means they'll either get over it or we'll be dealing with their ire for the next 10,000 years.
For example, many black americans want massive wealth redistribution. That is the wealth of millions would be arbitarilly ceased and given to black people merely because they're black. You can say that's an extreme view but with the radicals in the streets these are the views those people are upset about.
There is also the question of profiling. Well, the basis of the profiling complaint is the statistical fact that blacks commit a disproportionate amount of crime. I don't know why that is and can only speculate there are cultural issues. But that is a reality and many black people have jumped to the wrong conclusion that they are merely caught at crime more then white people rather then disproportionately committing the crimes. What are we supposed to do with that? Arbitrarily forgive black criminals and release them back into the community? Arbitrarily find random white people guilty of various crimes and lock them up?
We're never going to resolve these issues because the complaints and requests are irrational. I wish there was something we could give these people that they would accept and be happy. But going through their list of demands, I can't find anything they're either not already getting to the best of our ability or something which they have no right to get under any circumstance.
Thus we're in this position where they're upset and there isn't really anything we can do about it. We'd love to make restitution and make black people feel "whole." But they have to ask for something we can give them AND once they have it the matter has to be closed forever. You can't come back 10 or 20 years later and demand more. This would be a one time deal. White people in the US would be willing to do that if they had some assurance that after that the race card was burned.
I can kick your door down as a police office and claim I heard someone screaming inside or search your car because I smelled marijuana. You can prove that there was no woman in the house or that there was no marijuana in your car but you can't prove I didn't hear or smell that. And all I need to do is say that and I have probable cause.
Probable cause is one of the many loopholes we give the executive that allows them to do pretty much whatever they want so long as they're willing to follow procedure. So you can try someone for just about anything of you can make a case for it. If those person was shot in cold blood then there's a case. If the police believe he was just defending himself then you can probably still make a case it will just be a waste of time because he will be acquitted.
If the police don't think there is a case that means either there is more to this story then you believe and it's all but certain he was defending himself. Or they're wildly corrupt/incompetent. Yes, Florida does have unusually strong self defense laws. However, murder is not legal either. The contention of the "hoodie" movement is that Mr Martin was murdered. That's illegal and you can form a case around that. If half of what the media believes is true then there is a case. If there isn't case it means the media is more then half wrong... possibly completely wrong.
Slashdot Mirror
They're saying it would be great for merchants to know where you are but I'd actually have to carry it and keep it charged for it to work. So it has to offer me a benefit and instant coupons or getting bombarded by ads isn't a good selling point.
A better application for this would be urban GPS. A big problem with current GPS is that it doesn't work in dense urban cities. Try to use GPS in New York... it's almost useless. First off, you're underground half the time. Second, even when you're above ground you tend to be amongst big buildings that obscure the sky. However, I get great cellphone reception pretty much anywhere in New York and wifi hotspots are pretty ubiquitous even if they're mostly locked. If your mobile navigation could make use of other static radio signals for navigation then GPS would work deep within the urban jungle. And THAT is valuable.
The pitch of "oh merchants can predict your location" is asinine. if you wanted to sell the tracking feature then I suppose this would work for tracking boxes. After all, existing tracking technology that relies on GPS won't work in warehouses, underground, or even inside of industrial shipping containers. But something that could triangulate cell towers should work just about damn near anywhere there is "civilization"...
All and all, a neat little chip and I wish it well. Whoever is coming up with the applications for it needs to be smacked around a little with a frozen trout.
exactly how do the economics make sense in the third world if you can't even do this in the first world?
Think it through, twits.
No, the burden is on the people that want it stopped. You can't just make a claim and then shut everything down. You first have to have compelling evidence.
Disagree? Sue them. Ultimately you're just going to have to sue them to stop it. So have your day in court and we'll see what happens.
Try more monkey business with the EPA and that whole branch of the government could get clipped. It's already on thin ice as it is and has recently started loosing major court cases that render many of it's actions illegal.
This will only continue. You can't use environmental policy as a means to shut down all grown and industrial production. That is not why these organizations were set up and such motivations run contrary to the interests of society. It will not be tolerated.
It is critical that we adopt moderate policies that respect valid environmental concerns while also respecting the need to carry out necessary industrial activities.
The causal link between significant earthquakes and fracking remains threadbare at best. By all means, continue the science. No one is suggesting any of this not be studied. However, unless we have an extremely compelling reason to stop... it's going to happen. We're talking about trillions of dollars at stake. The treasure of empires. You're not stopping the extraction on "maybes."
You can say that about people that read long book series and then the last book in the series ends with a bs ending. Or people that put a lot of time into anything.
I get that you're not a gamer. That's fine. But I bet there is something you put time into and it would annoy you if the people responsible for organizing it half assed everything to the point where it ruined the experience for you.
What do you like? Football? Basketball? Enjoy any movies or books? What about music?
There has to be something.
I agree with everything you said there, only we are using new technology and methods to extract it. The abundance of natural gas is now well beyond what it was in the past due to this technology.
I hear what you're saying about one person setting off an avalanche. However, the avalanche is poised to collapse at any time. The person that set it off was the feather on the camel's back. That ONE LAST THING that just started a big reaction.
The problem with this notion and why I think your view is naive and possibly ignorant (no offense) is that the earth by and large is not so unstable. If it were then little things would be setting it off all the time.
For your comment to make any sense, the earth would have to be like the room full of explosive vapor with fracking being someone lighting a match.
How likely is that? Look past your opinion of me and rather look at the earth itself. Exactly how likely is it that the earth is so unstable that a relatively tiny force upon it would release a huge amount of energy?
Just about f'ing nil.
I'm open to the science. But I'm contemptuous of anyone that says we should do nothing until it's proven to NOT be dangerous. That's not how science works. Provide empirical evidence that we have a problem sufficient to stop the fracking or all complaints will be filed in the circular filing cabinet.
Yes the system is in equilibrium... but there are different types of equilibrium.
Take a pea and put it on a plate. Does the pea roll to the left or the right? Neither. It's in equilibrium in that spot. The amount of energy required to move the pea is roughly equivalent to the energy released by the pea moving.
Take a pea in the middle of a bowl. The pea is still in equilibrium. To move the pea to the left or the right takes MORE energy then the amount of energy released by the pea moving because the edges of the bowl tend to push the pea back to the middle. And it takes a continuous exertion of force to keep the pea from being in the center.
Take a pea on TOP of an upside down bowl. The pea is still in equilibrium. This is the one situation where it takes LESS energy to move the pea then is released by the pea moving. Because once it starts moving in any direction gravity will pull it in that direction away from the middle.
So... in nature which of the above is the most common type of equilibrium? The second situation is most common and the third is the least common. Equilibrium in nature tends to occupy some stable valley where it takes significantly more energy to change the situation then is released. And further, if left alone nature tends to push things back to the old equilibrium point. Why is this? Time. Over time, things happen. And that means the pea rolls all over the place until it finds a little rut and then the pea stays in that rut. It's very hard to get the pea out of that rut and if you move it... it tends to just roll right back into it.
I regards to earthquakes... yes, the earth's crust is in equilibrium. But I suspect that it will take either equal or greater force upon it to generate an equal or LESSER response. Equilibrium in this case should act AGAINST change. It is extremely unlikely that a small action will cause a big reaction. You get that when you have a room full of explosive gas and someone lights a match. The earth's crust is unlikely to be like that. It is far more likely to be like the pea on the flat plate or the pea inside the bowl where equilibrium either respond proportionately or disportionately with a less powerful response.
I'm not a geologist but what understanding I have of science and geology leads me to believe the earth is very stable and that injecting a relatively small amount of water into the crust is unlikely to generate a disproportionately large response.
If you injected an amount of water into the earth with force equal to the your doomsday earthquake prediction then I'd agree it is a problem. However, the pressures involved in fracking while extreme to the local rock formations are irrelevant when compared to the megatons of rock in all directions.
The math argue against a big earthquake unless the volume and pressures of the water are comparable to the volume and pressures of the whole rock formation.
Scientifically, something has to happen for there to be evidence. It's called empericism of which science is an outgrowth.
So yes, we need an earthquake. And not some sissy "a large truck just passed my house" earth quake within 1000 feet of the drill site.
Remember an earthquake can vary from something so minor not even dogs can detect it to being something so big huge rips form in the earth and cities fall.
It's the difference between a ripple in the water and a tidal wave. And the term "earthquake" is way too vague to be relevant here. We need to have some manitude projections here for it to be useful. If fracking causes rippples... no one cares because no one will even notice. Your dog MIGHT notice... but who cares. If cities will fall over, THEN we'll care.
By all means, continue the science... just keep it scientific. If I see a bunch of documentarians following around from New York with a history having an axe to grind that will be indicative of what is really going on.
You're still talking about an absurd amount of mass that is supposedly being moved by a relatively tiny amount of water. It would be like saying you could destabilize a boulder with a child's water pistol. Only even then the ratio is wrong. The masses we're talking about are vastly larger in ratio then that.
I mean lets just do a simple mas relationship. How many megatons is all the earth involved in one of these supposed quakes? Okay, and how many tons of water is pumped into the ground during one of these operations.
I'd be shocked if it were within ten million to ONE.
I'm not a geologist. I just don't see how such a relatively tiny amount of mass can effect a relatively huge mass unless the huge mass ALREADY unstable. And if it's already unstable then the fracking isn't causing the quake so much as triggering something now that would have happened later.
Furthermore, what sort of damage have we suffered so far from fracking related quakes? Any cities leveled? Seriously, can we show any damage what so ever from it? Or are people saying that it shook their house for a couple seconds once when the pump across the street turned on. Because I can believe that. Of course, a large truck driving by will have a similar effect.
Look, the people bitching about fracking are looking for a problem. They want a problem. They don't care if there is a problem in fact, they just don't like fracking because this has gotten political. The Michael Moore people got all hot and bothered about it and now swarms of idiots are attacking it despite the fact that it's doing great things for the US energy market.
Right now natural gas prices are dirt cheap because of fracking. People are heating their homes and paying their utilities less because of fracking. Fracking is killing the coal industry because natural gas is now cheaper then coal. And do you know how much natural gas we have? So much that we can keep burning it without moderation for hundreds if not thousands of years.
So if you have an argument against fracking... make it good. Because it needs to be REALLY good to matter at all.
That's true for almost anyone. So by your argument we're not allowed to have opinions on these matters.
Right?
You're wielding a doubled edged sword there, pal. Unless you want to claim elitism you'll find it destroys your position as it destroys mine. And the elitism claim comes with other problems you probably aren't fully aware of...
I'm not an expert in everything. But don't make the mistake of thinking I'm stupid.
Every rigorous study of fracking has found it to be safe.
And honestly the notion of fracking causing earth quakes is absurd. Just think of the mass we're talking about here. How exactly is a relatively small amount of water being pumped into the ground supposed to destabilize TECTONIC PLATES... It's like suggesting peeing into a hurricane is going to divert the storm.
And just because it has to be said, you know that anti fracking documentary where they show the guy lighting his well water on fire. Well, they were able to do that before the fracking. Look it up. It's been an issue in that area for a long time. They even have special well valves just to avoid the issue. So like most of the michael moore type documentaries... it's crap.
Yeah, they didn't explain anything. The whole "we kill everyone and jam their mutilated corpses into a tube where it is sucked like a milkshake into some groteseque genocidal machine... to SAVE YOU!"...
Really really dumb. Apparently they switched writers at some point which is always a really bad sign.
I don't know... I think these projects should start with an ACTUAL author that actually writes for the subject. And then just have him bust out an outline for the whole series. Ideally, have him write the dialog, sub quests, etc.
Bioware is solid in a lot of places. They're falling down on the story telling. HIRE a storyteller. And as part of the deal let him sell some books or other assorted fiction for the series.
Don't just get your creative director and say "okay, you're an author now"... cus' he's not. It's the difference between being a screen writer and a producer or a director. Not the same thing.
The best ending mechanic for RPGs is the fallout method.
They had single image and short voice over for EVERY major quest. How hard is it to knock out 40 or 20-30 second voice overs along with maybe 15 still images? Easy. Do that.
Mass Effect players tweaked their games endlessly to get a perfect ending across THREE games one into the next all culminating at that final point.
And after all that it turns out that all that tweaks was totally wasted. Why import the ME2 game into ME3 if ME3 won't do anything cool with it? It was bullcrap.
And the three endings were pathetic. The whole Red/Green/Blue thing was just insultingly lazy. Maybe they ran out of money... Fine. Do voice overs and stills instead of animations then. We just wanted closure. You play an RPG mostly for the immersion and the story. Just tell us what happened to our characters.
We'll see what this DLC look like but I'm assuming they're not going to change the stupid ending. So I've made up my own ending. I seriously just stared at the screen, invented a new ending, and then believed it instead.
I do that with lots of books that end poorly so why not for a game with a rip off ending.
Sorry if this harsh Bioware, but I was with you guys through three titles and you screwed me on the ending so I'm not feeling terribly charitable. I'm not blacklisting or boycotting you. You still make good games. Just don't screw the gamers again like that. It really makes us very unhappy.
It legitimizes further crack downs and more control.
Look at what terrorists did to the US FBI, CIA, etc? It justified just about anything. And the chinese need that justification because their security ambitions are always about 1000 times more involved.
All the people that complained about special interest groups... well, this is what they're good for... EFF has been pretty good about fighting this stuff off in the past. And as time goes on this will be a bigger struggle.
You can't ban special interests. You can only counter special interests with special interests. The abortion people fight each other. The gun people fight each other. And now we're going to have a war between the MPAA etc and the EFF etc.
Bring it.
... No they haven't.
They've collapsed more often then not due to political problems, corruption, or military conquest.
Some civilizations have fallen due to environmental problems such as... I think the Mayans?... Didn't they fall because of a really long drought? I forget. Anyway, most civilizations don't fall due to "sustainability" unless you mean the unsustainability of corruption... or the unsustainability of living after you've been stabbed repeatedly.
As to this notion that because every past civilization has fallen so must we... Sure... everything has a life. But that doesn't mean you can predict when something is going to die.
Civilizations can last for thousands of years or they can last for a year. But that doesn't mean you can predict our system is going to fall in 20 years.
You know what... I bet my whole career as a predictor that in 30 years the world will be overrun with unicorns and dragons. BELIEVE ME! It will happen. Everyone should start unicorn and dragon proofing their homes now. And by the way, just to make things easier, I've set up my own unicorn and dragon proofing company to help people out. Don't trust anyone else to unicorn or dragon proof your homes. Because in 30 years they're COMING!
really, it's just a question of how gullible you are...
How many of these stupid predictions are published over the years. And do they say "doom in five years"? No. They say doom in 30 years or doom in a 100 years... long after being embarrassed by being wrong would matter.
I'm not even going to get into the economics of the repeatedly proven wrong Malthusian theory. These predictions of doom are stupid.
You read too many comic books and this guy while a former judge was never that big a cheese to merit that sort of treatment.
If your comic view version of the world existed then this would have been hushed up BEFORE it was even reported. The son would have had a magical phone number he could call that would summon mysterious men in black SUVs that would have disappeared this body. Or better yet, a fake ambulance would have arrived to claim the body, told everyone at the scene the kid was alive, and then disappeared the corpse into the Florida everglades... without identification. Or better yet, they would have used one of their corrupt mortician contacts to burn the body at midnight and then mix his ashes in with other people. Either way. this kid would be a face on a milk carton.
Did any of that happen? Guess comic books aren't real.
I'll say further that you're making the cardinal mistake of ascribing to corruption what could more easily be ascribed to incompetence.
In any situation where a given bad thing could have been caused by either malicious intent or stupidity... you'll find it was stupidity about 99.99 times out of 100.00.
That's possible when the story is small. But that judge doesn't have enough friends to swing something like this, sport.
The very fact that we're talking about this makes it impossible for that judge to pull anything like that. Do you think Governors are going to bow down to a retired judge? I assure you, if the governor orders it... that kid will be tried for murder. I say tried... not convicted. Getting false convictions in the US is of course also possible but it either requires an incompetent defense, a stupid jury, or a corrupt prosecution. And even then the system is weighted specially in capital crimes to find people not guilty unless the case is especially compelling. Yes, there are terrible miscarriages of justice. But if they were the norm the whole justice system would be a waste of time and we would be better served just lynching people.
While you're accusing me of racism... tell me how much you approve of lynching... it will make the irony a little sweeter.
Your prejudice is noted.
Really? So your contention is that they're letting a Hispanic (democrat - cited for political irony) male go after murdering a black man because they're corrupt? Explain how this benefits the police? Do you think they were bribed to release him? And why would the State's Attorney General not overrule them? Oh he's corrupt too? So what you're then arguing is that there is a big conspiracy with thousands of people in it all trying to let this one Hispanic man off for murdering a black person?
WHY? Why would anyone care enough to go to that much trouble?
Make sense.
There will be no resolution in any case. The people that are upset don't really care about this specific case. They're using it as an excuse to vent about other unrelated issues. And until they feel they've resolved that there will be no resolution.
As what they want is both impossible and frequently unjustified they'll never get it which means they'll either get over it or we'll be dealing with their ire for the next 10,000 years.
For example, many black americans want massive wealth redistribution. That is the wealth of millions would be arbitarilly ceased and given to black people merely because they're black. You can say that's an extreme view but with the radicals in the streets these are the views those people are upset about.
There is also the question of profiling. Well, the basis of the profiling complaint is the statistical fact that blacks commit a disproportionate amount of crime. I don't know why that is and can only speculate there are cultural issues. But that is a reality and many black people have jumped to the wrong conclusion that they are merely caught at crime more then white people rather then disproportionately committing the crimes. What are we supposed to do with that? Arbitrarily forgive black criminals and release them back into the community? Arbitrarily find random white people guilty of various crimes and lock them up?
We're never going to resolve these issues because the complaints and requests are irrational. I wish there was something we could give these people that they would accept and be happy. But going through their list of demands, I can't find anything they're either not already getting to the best of our ability or something which they have no right to get under any circumstance.
Thus we're in this position where they're upset and there isn't really anything we can do about it. We'd love to make restitution and make black people feel "whole." But they have to ask for something we can give them AND once they have it the matter has to be closed forever. You can't come back 10 or 20 years later and demand more. This would be a one time deal. White people in the US would be willing to do that if they had some assurance that after that the race card was burned.
probable cause is incredibly flexible.
I can kick your door down as a police office and claim I heard someone screaming inside or search your car because I smelled marijuana. You can prove that there was no woman in the house or that there was no marijuana in your car but you can't prove I didn't hear or smell that. And all I need to do is say that and I have probable cause.
Probable cause is one of the many loopholes we give the executive that allows them to do pretty much whatever they want so long as they're willing to follow procedure. So you can try someone for just about anything of you can make a case for it. If those person was shot in cold blood then there's a case. If the police believe he was just defending himself then you can probably still make a case it will just be a waste of time because he will be acquitted.
If the police don't think there is a case that means either there is more to this story then you believe and it's all but certain he was defending himself. Or they're wildly corrupt/incompetent. Yes, Florida does have unusually strong self defense laws. However, murder is not legal either. The contention of the "hoodie" movement is that Mr Martin was murdered. That's illegal and you can form a case around that. If half of what the media believes is true then there is a case. If there isn't case it means the media is more then half wrong... possibly completely wrong.
Then the evidence should be released. If he isn't being tried that must mean the evidence strongly suggests he did no wrong.
Or the police are corrupt... either way, release all the facts if there is to be no trial.
I think a trial would be cathartic even if the kid isn't guilty.