Incorrect. Many prisons are entirely enclosed and are not deemed cruel.
The reason to not impliment it is cost. Many existing prisons have yards and replacing the with large recreation buildings would be expensive. Thus the drone thing will be tolerated at such facilitates.
As to whether obvious answers are considered and rejected... the funny thing is that you're right... but then the other options all fail one after the other until all they have left is the first option. And if the mission is critical... then that's what they go with.
Churchill said "Americans always do the right thing... after trying everything else first"... and that's true of a lot of organizations anywhere in the world.
The obvious and right answer to a problem is often seen immediately but there are costs to that answer that are not appreciated and so people try half assed solutions to avoid it.
Sometimes the half assed solutions work. But more often that not they fail.
And when they fail the question then becomes if you care enough to fix the problem or not?
And there things get split again because a lot of people would prefer to have failing schools or crime ridden inner cities or an exploding prison population or any of a million things that do have obvious solutions but which people don't like because they have price tags associated with them.
But if you actually want whatever it was to actually work... actually... really... then you need to stop half assing the situation and go with something that will ACTUALLY work.
Having prisoners recreate in a large open enclosed recreation building is not cruel. you could give the thing big green house style skylights. Hell, make it a green house. Fill it with plants and grass.
The half assing is how you get these cars that can be hacked wirelessly. Its why stupid websites helping idiots cheat on their spouses get compromised. Its why Hillary is in so much trouble with the FBI etc.
The important thing is to only half ass stuff that isn't important. IF IT IS IMPORTANT... DON"T half ass it. Rocket science? Apparently.
I didn't say it was a burden... I simply reject the notion that I have less a right to an opinion because of such things.
You're basically trying to use a lot of specious crap to suggest some people don't have a right to an opinion.
That's fine. You shut up too then. Everyone shuts up as well.
You all keep your mouths clamped shut and I'll do the same as well. But the first mother fucker that opens his mouth cancels the deal and everyone gets to talk again.
You either have free speech or you don't. I spit in the face of your absurd presumption to shame me into silence. Who made you an authority on anything? And why would you think that my gender or my race or my sexual orientation would make me more or less valuable as a voice for anything?
As to you not reading messages, you contacted me, shithead... not the other way around.
You can't handle people laughing at your comical world view? The future is going to be hard on people like you. This whole pearl clutching political correctness thing is eating itself alive. Its all down hill for this shit going forward. If you can't handle me, then you're going to have to climb pretty damn far up your own ass to escape the rest of society.
The xbox one never actually recovered from that either. If you compare the sales figures with the PS4... the xbox one lost something like half its potential install base because of that fuck up.
I think sales of the xbox one are something like 25 to 33 percent of the PS4 which is a big reversal from the Xbox 360.
There were so many fuck ups with that release. The kinnect or whatever it was called was better evidence for MS having their heads up their asses than I've seen in awhile. And the stupidity just kept coming.
They thought they were going to just remove the used games market and no one would notice? Drop the price in half and you might get away with that. But you want to charge 60 fucking dollars and not have resale? Think again.
And then they put the extra DRM
And then they said "oh yeah you have to be connected to the internet even for single player games"... the comments from active military was pretty funny... they were all saying "I don't have internet in a warzone, shithead"...
So yeah... complete idiocy.
The fun thing with MS is that they have two markets they have to keep happy. The consumer market which MS apparently thinks is populated entirely with retards... and the corporate market that will absolutely unscrew their head and shit down their neck if they don't get what they need.
Which is why I stick to the corporate releases. Not perfect... but less condescendingly shitty.
... you just don't "know" you like it? They did this promotion where they sat old people in front of vista machines asked them to derp around on it and then asked them if they liked it... they all said they did... and MS basically said "everyone saying they don't like vista is wrong/a troll/ignorant/etc"... remember that?
Well... same thing seems to be happening again. Consumers are saying "we have problems with these features and we'd like them fixed"... and MS is again saying "I hear you saying you don't want it but I think you're just saying you want me to tell you about how great they are again until you change your mind.
Critics received Ender's Game well. The novel won the Nebula Award for best novel in 1985,[10] and the Hugo Award for best novel in 1986,[11] considered the two most prestigious awards in science fiction.[12][13] Ender's Game was also nominated for a Locus Award in 1986.[6] In 1999, it placed No. 59 on the reader's list of Modern Library 100 Best Novels. It was also honored with a spot on American Library Association's "100 Best Books for Teens." In 2008, the novel, along with Ender's Shadow, won the Margaret A. Edwards Award, which honors an author and specific works by that author for lifetime contribution to young adult literature.[14] Ender's Game was included in Damien Broderick's book Science Fiction: The 101 Best Novels 1985â"2010.[15]New York Times writer Gerald Jonas asserts that the novel's plot summary resembles a "grade Z, made-for-television, science-fiction rip-off movie", but says that Card develops the elements well despite this "unpromising material". Jonas further praises the development of the character Ender Wiggin: "Alternately likable and insufferable, he is a convincing little Napoleon in short pants."[16]
The novel has received negative criticism for violence and its justification. Elaine Radford's review, "Ender and Hitler: Sympathy for the Superman", posits that Ender Wiggin is an intentional reference by Card to Adolf Hitler and criticizes the violence in the novel, particularly at the hands of the protagonist.[2] Card responded to Radford's criticisms in Fantasy Review, the same publication. Radford's criticisms are echoed in John Kessel's essay "Creating the Innocent Killer: Ender's Game, Intention, and Morality", wherein Kessel states: "Ender gets to strike out at his enemies and still remain morally clean. Nothing is his fault."[3] Noah Berlatsky makes similar claims in his analysis of the relationship between colonization and science fiction, where he describes how Ender's Game is in part a justification of "Western expansion and genocide."[17]
The U.S. Marine Corps Professional Reading List makes the novel recommended reading at several lower ranks, and again at Officer Candidate/Midshipman.[18] The book was placed on the reading list by Captain John F. Schmitt, author of FMFM-1 (Fleet Marine Fighting Manual, on maneuver doctrine) for "provid[ing] useful allegories to explain why militaries do what they do in a particularly effective shorthand way."[19] In introducing the novel for use in leadership training, Marine Corps University's Lejeune program opines that it offers "lessons in training methodology, leadership, and ethics as well [....] Ender's Game has been a stalwart item on the Marine Corps Reading List since its inception."[19] Accolades Publication Country Accolade Year Rank Amazon.com United States Best of the Century: Best Books of the Millennium Poll[20] 1999 32 Locus United States Best 20th Century Science Fiction Novels: Reader's Poll[21] 2012 2 Modern Library United States Modern Library 100 Best Novels: Reader's List[22] 1999 59 NPR United States Top 100 Science Fiction, Fantasy Books: Readers' Poll[23] 2011 3 Publishers Weekly United States Bestselling Science Fiction Novels of 2012[24] 2012 1 Science Channel United States Top 10 Sci-fi Books of All Time[25] 2013 5
The weeks ending June 9, August 18, September 8, September 15, November 3, November 10, November 17, and November 24, 2013, the novel was No. 1 on the New York Times' Best Sellers List of Paperback Mass-Market Fiction.[26][27][28][29][30][31][32][33] ""
Don't respond. Just sit there with that red mark on the side of your face and your shame.
1. Yes, people do answer to that. I think I quoted some tweets from one of the organizers of the opposition to the sad puppies self identifying as such. I believe his tweet after the vote was "SJWs burned the village down to save it." What is more, my understanding is that the term was actually what some activists were calling themselves initially. It just got co-opted by their detractors. Wouldn't be the first time. I'm further going to point out that playing word games is a trope of both progressives and SJWs... so... arguing they don't exist with semantics might turn out to be a somewhat self defeating argument.
2. As to the "they're not a group they're all different groups" argument. Lets not pretend that there aren't clouds of association here.
3. As to whether there is or isn't a progressive slate... as I said... it doesn't matter anymore. Does it? See... once you've validated that there is a brigading issue... That the sad puppies even got all those names on the list frankly proves the rules need to be changed. And from what I hear, they are changing the rules... tightening it down so brigading is harder. And if you pass rules against it... that undermines a progressive or SJW slate as much as it undermines the sad puppies or whatever else you want to talk about. You can't pass a bill of attainder against the sad puppies. You either change the rules making it harder to brigade or you accept the practice and normalize it. Choose. It doesn't matter what you do or how you justify it or what you argue... checkmate. You either update the rules... which is happening... or you accept the sad puppies as the new normal. And if the rules get updated... and they are... then that undermines any other brigading action by any other group... whether they exist or not. It doesn't matter. Its over.
4. As to Vox Day, I think I said previously that he appeared to be a racist asshole... so... fuck him. But that doesn't really change anything.
Whatever you find reasonable, the reality is that you won't be able to shut just one group out. You'll have to tighten the rules to make it harder for ANY group of that nature to operate.
And assuming the sad puppies were honest about their goals... they win if you do that.
Which means you can either maintain the status quo and deal with them coming at you every year doing the same thing over and over again.
OR... you tighten the rules making it harder for groups to brigade and they obtain their stated goals.
Its a no-win scenario for the SJWs. They can't win. That's checkmate.
As to sexuality, then I got you confused with someone else in this thread that said she was a bisexual woman. Sorry.
As to my explaination of to non-straight people... its actually a more expansive point about how unproductive it is to blacklist anyone that doesn't check all your boxes.
I went into some depth to explain that there are more boxes that can be checked besides "your thoughts on homosexuality" etc. And if I blacklisted everyone that didn't ascribe to my own personal beliefs there would be very few people in the world that I found acceptable to conduct business or associate with.
I have friends, family, business associates, etc that don't share my values. I don't hold it against them.
I also don't appreciate your attempt to suggest that my opinions or honest and heartfelt attempts to explain myself are unwelcome because of my gender or sexual orrentation. This is a new phenomon which frankly should be labeled as trending towards bigotry.
There is this notion these days that you can't be racist against white people, you can't be sexist against men, and you can't be sexually intolerant of heterosexual people.
That's logically impossible for that to be impossible. Discriminating against any group is discrimination on that basis. So I frankly don't appreciate you saying this:
"I am impressed, however, that you are willing to helpfully explain to non-straight people that bigots exist and are plentiful"
Either we have a dialog or we do not. You want to tell me your opinions? You get mine in return. Attempts to make it only flow one way will be rejected.
As to saying "i'm not a bigot" meaning that I am a bigot... only for those that like to speciously label people bigots.
If your great goal in any discussion is to try and find out how to label the other side in the discussion a bigot and then claim victory on that basis... then sure. However, you are increasingly seeing that rhetorical technique fail. So i would suggest diversifying into rhetorical arguments and strategies that have a longer shelf life. Just a word of advice.;-)
yes yes... the judge shut it down... but lets be real, the judges are generally pretty good about that. The nonsense in teh north east about "its illegal to film police officers" got shut down by the courts as well... repeatedly. That didn't stop the police and the mayors from trying to enforce it anyway.
And the simple fact that they'd try to do such a thing is despicable. The inglewood government is clearly corrupt.
I think something needs to be done to increase public participation in local government. Make it clear for example that any idiot can take a leadership role. I think that might help keep the whole thing from turning into a good old boys club.
Don't boil everything down to whether or not Card personally gets a Hugo... no one gives a shit about that. Its rather an impression that there are cliches in the awards and only people inside the cliques get them.
What we saw from this rivalry is that there are AT LEAST two powerful cliques operating in the Hugos and that is something the Hugos need to take into consideration in future awards.
Whatever you think about the sad puppies or the SJWs... it doesn't matter.
No no... it doesn't matter. Actually. Because either way... this situation PROVES there are cliques.
So... you need deal with that.
By all means... set up rules to make it harder for the sad puppy people to fill a docket with people they like. That's reasonable.
But you're going to have to make it harder for other cliques to operate in the same way as well. You can't just have a rule that says "if sad puppy, then no vote" So your rules have to be blind to which clique is pushing whatever. And simply by doing that you're going to reduce the power of all the cliques.
This is another of those weird situations where drama happens and then both sides declare victory.
The reality is that both sides probably lost here.
The Sad puppies failed to get anyone they wanted on the list of winners.
And the SJW clique lost because the only way to deal with the situation is to change the rules that will ultimately make it harder for the SJWs to operate in the future as well.
You can accept whatever you want. Stick a purple dildo up your ass with or without the lube. I really don't care.
What is obvious is that you're going to cite anything you can think of to argue against nuclear power in any capacity under any circomstances.
And that's fine. My issue with you is that you misrepresented yourself as open to nuclear power if safety concerns were met. However, you merely used such concerns as a pretext to disallow any use of nuclear power. What is clear is that you don't think nuclear power can be safe at all. Thus you saying you'd accept it if safety concerns were met is identical to saying you'd not accept it under any circomstances.
Tell me... where would you sequester nuclear waste if not Yucca Mountain?
Name a place we can put it. And you say you're okay with nuclear power? Okay... cite a reactor design you find acceptable.
All you do is gainsay everything which is easy to do. I can do that with ANY other energy source. I can sit here and talk about how wind or solar or anything else is shitty by citing problems with it. But unlike you "I actually have constructive solutions" for all these things. I'm fine with any energy source so long as it is done reasonably. And unlike your statements, that isn't merely a lying shithead pretext to disallow stuff I don't like.
Not voting for them because their writing is shitty is one thing. In Card's case, I'd agree... he hasn't written anything worth reading in a long time.
My point is that there is clearly politics operating in the awards and that is something the system has to take into consideration.
Its not going away. The politics were there before and they'll be there in the future... you just need to appreciate that going forward.
The whole rivalry between the SJW and sad puppy people makes it clear that this is the new normal.
So just adapt. That's all. Just adapt.
As to where we get our pulp... that's fine. I'm the last person to tell anyone where they should get it. I'm just saying... keep an open mind.
If I were bisexual as you said you were... I'd have to be very tolerant of people that didn't understand or accept that. There are too many of them. Much of the world doesn't understand or accept bisexuality or homosexuality.
And however you might feel about that, consider that I personally hold a lot of views that I believe are moral imperitives that many other people don't ascribe to. You don't have to be homosexual or of some given race that has had discrimination issues to feel persecuted on occasion.
We all have to live with each other. I don't blacklist people for not ascribing to my views about everything. If I did that, I'd black list most people because my views are not especially common. I have to be tolerant with people and I don't hold their not sharing my views against them personally or professionally.
I don't think it is practical for bisexuals or homosexuals to do that either. We have a big wide world with a lot of interesting, clever, and wonderful people in it. We just need to get along.
The sad puppy thing was bigger than card in any case... I think there was soemthing in Science fiction where people were saying "Science fiction needs to grow up" or break old patterns. And the problem with that attitude is that its often an outside element trying to impose a narrative on a subculture.
We saw this recently with the whole drama over gaming and sexism. Where an outside group was trying to turn video games into casual narratives about sex issues or lesbianism when the existing market was more interested in space marines, shooting hookers, or quietly building cities by yourself.
And we've seen this in other subcultures. We've seen in comics where every depiction of women in a skin tight outfit is decried as sexism despite the fact that the male characters are similarly clad.
We even saw some of this hit the table top gaming world.
Its a thing. There's this weird culture war going through geekdom and you're seeing push back in certain segments. That's it.
Now if people want to hold view X or Y that is fine. Believe whatever you want and consume whatever you want. But don't try to take it over and tell everyone that enjoys something else that they're bad people for it.
Just leave people be. Maybe we should split the hugos?... have it be the SJW hugos versus the puppy hugos... I don't know. If people can't tolerate each other and coexist then we have to separate and that would be sad.
You see these signs all over the place about coexist... get along... but they seem to only mean that when it comes to the middle east or something. That sort of thing starts at home. It starts HERE. If you can't coexist with some guy because he has views on homosexuality that you don't like... then how can you coexist with anyone that isn't in lock step with you? That's a very common view... right or wrong... its common.
We have to get along. No?
And just in case you're curious, I have no problem with homosexuality what so ever. Be as gay as you want. It doesn't matter to me. Get married, divorced, adopt a kid, whatever. I don't care. The only time I have trouble with homosexuality is when people play the gay card to get favoritism. I had a coworker that sexually harassed another coworker. Other guy was married... to a lady. A
Maybe not... but maybe the conflict will make it clear that politics are operating in the awards.
The opinion of the Puppies remember was that politics was playing a part in who won or not. And the SJW thing rather proved they were right.
Now was the sad puppy campaign the best way to go about it? I don't know. Vox Day for example appears to be a racist asshole. But there is clearly some politics going on in the Hugos and the Hugos need to understand that they're having their votes manipulated.
You don't even need to use the API. That just makes things easier. You can write a program that represents itself to twitter as a normal web user and queries a list of pages at set intervals and copies whatever is there into a database. Then whenever something is removed... a separate subroutine flags the message.
But even that isn't required. You could register the the API under name X and then post everything under name Y. Have no license under name Y... suspending name Y's API license won't do anything because name Y won't even have one.
This will require Twitter to find out who Name X is when they only know who name Y is... and that's likely too complicated for them to bother with it.
And if they do... you can still go with the first concept of just writing a program yourself.
I'm not misquoting you. I'm updating you. My citation was more recent. It was killed recently under the Obama administration for political reasons and not safety reasons.
My citation made that clear.
We're done. You're clearly an anti nuclear zealot and I frankly don't have the patience to go back and forth with you on this issue.
Think whatever you want. I am not a nuclear at any price person. That's just strawman bullshit. I am not however a blind anti nuclear activist. Sorry. I don't agree.
I'll advocate for reasonable applications of nuclear power. Until we get a better method of sinking/storing renewable power we'll need nuclear or we're going to keep burning coal, gas, and natural gas.
Choose.
Fossil fuels or Nuclear? Because until we have a way of storing the power... those are our options.
How was a tank captured with grenades? Did they not lock the top hatch? Did dudes climb on top and put a grenade into it? Well, not only should the top have been locked down but how the fuck did the tank get so close to infantry that that even became possible? A tank should be killing stuff long before it gets that close. WW1 tanks were more about their machine guns than anything. The point was to be a mobile armored machine gun nest. The main gun was mostly used to blow through sand bags. And the machine guns were for suppressing infantry or outright gunning them down.
Now in a trench warfare situation... and especially in WW1, OF COURSE you're going to have infantry back up. The idea will be to have the infantry hiding behind the tank as it advances and then they occupy the trenches as the tank advances.
THIS SAID... my argument... which is not something you can argue against because its fucking obvious... is that there are many situations where tanks can operate alone. We have many instances of them doing this and doing it effectively. So long as tanks restrict themselves to those situations where they can maneuver and keep the range in their favor... the tanks can operate alone just fine. Infantry by the SAME token operates very well ALONE in specific circumstances. If you wanted to hold a fixed defense with lots of earth works or other barriers than the infantry probably is pretty good. But that's more defensive. Offensive infantry actions are harder. You have to expose yourself when you move. And in modern warfare that tends to mean you take causalities unless you have something to hide behind... which... if your target is smart... they will have decided to defend a location that has no place to hide anywhere near it. Look at old castle designs. You have a very well fortified position and around it nothing is especially defensible. This means that attacks on the castle are very hard and counter attacks are very easy.
And of course anti infantry grenades will not penetrate tank armor.
As to all the sand that apparently got jammed right in your vagina over me saying "your move"... I can only giggle at you for that.
Dude, get over yourself. If one person says something and another person rebuts a point and then says "your move" that isn't license for you to whine about it for... DAYS... I mean, how long have you been whining about that? And whining about it at all doesn't make any sense. Even for a second. But you've been doing it for DAYS.
Seriously. Shut the fuck up about it. You're just making me feel bad now because I feel like I accidentally picked a fight with a retard.
Actually that lie fell apart already. You're not keeping up to date. Many of the emails were classifed.
She then changed her story to "they weren't marked classified"
That fell apart after that because classified material is not marketed "classified" anywhere on it. Several former state department people, CIA people etc have all stepped in to clarify how that works.
She did put classified material into that email server in Colorado.
And whatever you might think about it... the FBI and Justice department is taking it seriously.
if it were just political bullshit, then why would Obama's white house be permitting that?
Sorry, chum... she's in ACTUAL trouble here. Whether anything comes of it is another matter. But she's in actual trouble. You might want to consider throwing your support behind someone else. She might not make it to nomination.
... all the sites have to do is collect information under a different name then copy paste the info to the new site.
What is twitter going to do.
And even if they suspend API access entirely... all someone has to do is write a program that checks the twitter accounts. download everything, and then notes whenever a tweet disappears.
I don't know what twitter is thinking.
Censorship... which is what they're attempting to do... is generally a losing proposition on the internet.
Slashdot Mirror
define what you're talking about? You mean as opposed to metro?
Because that's not a giant vote of confidence.
Have fun getting the FCC to approve that idea.
Incorrect. Many prisons are entirely enclosed and are not deemed cruel.
The reason to not impliment it is cost. Many existing prisons have yards and replacing the with large recreation buildings would be expensive. Thus the drone thing will be tolerated at such facilitates.
As to whether obvious answers are considered and rejected... the funny thing is that you're right... but then the other options all fail one after the other until all they have left is the first option. And if the mission is critical... then that's what they go with.
Churchill said "Americans always do the right thing... after trying everything else first"... and that's true of a lot of organizations anywhere in the world.
The obvious and right answer to a problem is often seen immediately but there are costs to that answer that are not appreciated and so people try half assed solutions to avoid it.
Sometimes the half assed solutions work. But more often that not they fail.
And when they fail the question then becomes if you care enough to fix the problem or not?
And there things get split again because a lot of people would prefer to have failing schools or crime ridden inner cities or an exploding prison population or any of a million things that do have obvious solutions but which people don't like because they have price tags associated with them.
But if you actually want whatever it was to actually work... actually... really... then you need to stop half assing the situation and go with something that will ACTUALLY work.
Having prisoners recreate in a large open enclosed recreation building is not cruel. you could give the thing big green house style skylights. Hell, make it a green house. Fill it with plants and grass.
The half assing is how you get these cars that can be hacked wirelessly. Its why stupid websites helping idiots cheat on their spouses get compromised. Its why Hillary is in so much trouble with the FBI etc.
The important thing is to only half ass stuff that isn't important. IF IT IS IMPORTANT... DON"T half ass it. Rocket science? Apparently.
I didn't say it was a burden... I simply reject the notion that I have less a right to an opinion because of such things.
You're basically trying to use a lot of specious crap to suggest some people don't have a right to an opinion.
That's fine. You shut up too then. Everyone shuts up as well.
You all keep your mouths clamped shut and I'll do the same as well. But the first mother fucker that opens his mouth cancels the deal and everyone gets to talk again.
You either have free speech or you don't. I spit in the face of your absurd presumption to shame me into silence. Who made you an authority on anything? And why would you think that my gender or my race or my sexual orientation would make me more or less valuable as a voice for anything?
As to you not reading messages, you contacted me, shithead... not the other way around.
You can't handle people laughing at your comical world view? The future is going to be hard on people like you. This whole pearl clutching political correctness thing is eating itself alive. Its all down hill for this shit going forward. If you can't handle me, then you're going to have to climb pretty damn far up your own ass to escape the rest of society.
Enjoy the future. I know I will.
Not hard.
No yard. They see the outside through glass or not at all until their term ends.
The threat with the drones is that someone drops something in a fenced off area that prisoners are allowed to walk around in...
Okay... so... don't have those areas.
Another problem solved by answering simple questions with obvious answers.
Accept me as Pope of the solar system and behold my many following decrees!
The xbox one never actually recovered from that either. If you compare the sales figures with the PS4... the xbox one lost something like half its potential install base because of that fuck up.
I think sales of the xbox one are something like 25 to 33 percent of the PS4 which is a big reversal from the Xbox 360.
There were so many fuck ups with that release. The kinnect or whatever it was called was better evidence for MS having their heads up their asses than I've seen in awhile. And the stupidity just kept coming.
They thought they were going to just remove the used games market and no one would notice? Drop the price in half and you might get away with that. But you want to charge 60 fucking dollars and not have resale? Think again.
And then they put the extra DRM
And then they said "oh yeah you have to be connected to the internet even for single player games"... the comments from active military was pretty funny... they were all saying "I don't have internet in a warzone, shithead"...
So yeah... complete idiocy.
The fun thing with MS is that they have two markets they have to keep happy. The consumer market which MS apparently thinks is populated entirely with retards... and the corporate market that will absolutely unscrew their head and shit down their neck if they don't get what they need.
Which is why I stick to the corporate releases. Not perfect... but less condescendingly shitty.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Why would I need to do that? MS knows they shit the bed on that product.
Vista is largely regarded as being shitty. You think this is up to some citation on a forum?
The case is already closed on this one, chum. The gavel dropped and the judge went home. Its over.
The market disagreed.
Apparently you're beneath shame... I thought scum could at least feel shame...
https://youtu.be/_TxnL5VYgoY?t...
... you just don't "know" you like it? They did this promotion where they sat old people in front of vista machines asked them to derp around on it and then asked them if they liked it... they all said they did... and MS basically said "everyone saying they don't like vista is wrong/a troll/ignorant/etc"... remember that?
Well... same thing seems to be happening again. Consumers are saying "we have problems with these features and we'd like them fixed"... and MS is again saying "I hear you saying you don't want it but I think you're just saying you want me to tell you about how great they are again until you change your mind.
No.
https://youtu.be/dROwEc4VyJA?t...
*bitch slaps fucktard AC Troll with reality*
""
Critical response
Critics received Ender's Game well. The novel won the Nebula Award for best novel in 1985,[10] and the Hugo Award for best novel in 1986,[11] considered the two most prestigious awards in science fiction.[12][13] Ender's Game was also nominated for a Locus Award in 1986.[6] In 1999, it placed No. 59 on the reader's list of Modern Library 100 Best Novels. It was also honored with a spot on American Library Association's "100 Best Books for Teens." In 2008, the novel, along with Ender's Shadow, won the Margaret A. Edwards Award, which honors an author and specific works by that author for lifetime contribution to young adult literature.[14] Ender's Game was included in Damien Broderick's book Science Fiction: The 101 Best Novels 1985â"2010.[15]New York Times writer Gerald Jonas asserts that the novel's plot summary resembles a "grade Z, made-for-television, science-fiction rip-off movie", but says that Card develops the elements well despite this "unpromising material". Jonas further praises the development of the character Ender Wiggin: "Alternately likable and insufferable, he is a convincing little Napoleon in short pants."[16]
The novel has received negative criticism for violence and its justification. Elaine Radford's review, "Ender and Hitler: Sympathy for the Superman", posits that Ender Wiggin is an intentional reference by Card to Adolf Hitler and criticizes the violence in the novel, particularly at the hands of the protagonist.[2] Card responded to Radford's criticisms in Fantasy Review, the same publication. Radford's criticisms are echoed in John Kessel's essay "Creating the Innocent Killer: Ender's Game, Intention, and Morality", wherein Kessel states: "Ender gets to strike out at his enemies and still remain morally clean. Nothing is his fault."[3] Noah Berlatsky makes similar claims in his analysis of the relationship between colonization and science fiction, where he describes how Ender's Game is in part a justification of "Western expansion and genocide."[17]
The U.S. Marine Corps Professional Reading List makes the novel recommended reading at several lower ranks, and again at Officer Candidate/Midshipman.[18] The book was placed on the reading list by Captain John F. Schmitt, author of FMFM-1 (Fleet Marine Fighting Manual, on maneuver doctrine) for "provid[ing] useful allegories to explain why militaries do what they do in a particularly effective shorthand way."[19] In introducing the novel for use in leadership training, Marine Corps University's Lejeune program opines that it offers "lessons in training methodology, leadership, and ethics as well [....] Ender's Game has been a stalwart item on the Marine Corps Reading List since its inception."[19]
Accolades
Publication Country Accolade Year Rank
Amazon.com United States Best of the Century: Best Books of the Millennium Poll[20] 1999
32
Locus United States Best 20th Century Science Fiction Novels: Reader's Poll[21] 2012
2
Modern Library United States Modern Library 100 Best Novels: Reader's List[22] 1999
59
NPR United States Top 100 Science Fiction, Fantasy Books: Readers' Poll[23] 2011
3
Publishers Weekly United States Bestselling Science Fiction Novels of 2012[24] 2012
1
Science Channel United States Top 10 Sci-fi Books of All Time[25] 2013
5
The weeks ending June 9, August 18, September 8, September 15, November 3, November 10, November 17, and November 24, 2013, the novel was No. 1 on the New York Times' Best Sellers List of Paperback Mass-Market Fiction.[26][27][28][29][30][31][32][33]
""
Don't respond. Just sit there with that red mark on the side of your face and your shame.
1. Yes, people do answer to that. I think I quoted some tweets from one of the organizers of the opposition to the sad puppies self identifying as such. I believe his tweet after the vote was "SJWs burned the village down to save it." What is more, my understanding is that the term was actually what some activists were calling themselves initially. It just got co-opted by their detractors. Wouldn't be the first time. I'm further going to point out that playing word games is a trope of both progressives and SJWs... so... arguing they don't exist with semantics might turn out to be a somewhat self defeating argument.
2. As to the "they're not a group they're all different groups" argument. Lets not pretend that there aren't clouds of association here.
3. As to whether there is or isn't a progressive slate... as I said... it doesn't matter anymore. Does it? See... once you've validated that there is a brigading issue... That the sad puppies even got all those names on the list frankly proves the rules need to be changed. And from what I hear, they are changing the rules... tightening it down so brigading is harder. And if you pass rules against it... that undermines a progressive or SJW slate as much as it undermines the sad puppies or whatever else you want to talk about. You can't pass a bill of attainder against the sad puppies. You either change the rules making it harder to brigade or you accept the practice and normalize it. Choose. It doesn't matter what you do or how you justify it or what you argue... checkmate. You either update the rules... which is happening... or you accept the sad puppies as the new normal. And if the rules get updated... and they are... then that undermines any other brigading action by any other group... whether they exist or not. It doesn't matter. Its over.
4. As to Vox Day, I think I said previously that he appeared to be a racist asshole... so... fuck him. But that doesn't really change anything.
Whatever you find reasonable, the reality is that you won't be able to shut just one group out. You'll have to tighten the rules to make it harder for ANY group of that nature to operate.
And assuming the sad puppies were honest about their goals... they win if you do that.
Which means you can either maintain the status quo and deal with them coming at you every year doing the same thing over and over again.
OR... you tighten the rules making it harder for groups to brigade and they obtain their stated goals.
Its a no-win scenario for the SJWs. They can't win. That's checkmate.
As to sexuality, then I got you confused with someone else in this thread that said she was a bisexual woman. Sorry.
As to my explaination of to non-straight people... its actually a more expansive point about how unproductive it is to blacklist anyone that doesn't check all your boxes.
I went into some depth to explain that there are more boxes that can be checked besides "your thoughts on homosexuality" etc. And if I blacklisted everyone that didn't ascribe to my own personal beliefs there would be very few people in the world that I found acceptable to conduct business or associate with.
I have friends, family, business associates, etc that don't share my values. I don't hold it against them.
I also don't appreciate your attempt to suggest that my opinions or honest and heartfelt attempts to explain myself are unwelcome because of my gender or sexual orrentation. This is a new phenomon which frankly should be labeled as trending towards bigotry.
There is this notion these days that you can't be racist against white people, you can't be sexist against men, and you can't be sexually intolerant of heterosexual people.
That's logically impossible for that to be impossible. Discriminating against any group is discrimination on that basis. So I frankly don't appreciate you saying this:
"I am impressed, however, that you are willing to helpfully explain to non-straight people that bigots exist and are plentiful"
Either we have a dialog or we do not. You want to tell me your opinions? You get mine in return. Attempts to make it only flow one way will be rejected.
As to saying "i'm not a bigot" meaning that I am a bigot... only for those that like to speciously label people bigots.
If your great goal in any discussion is to try and find out how to label the other side in the discussion a bigot and then claim victory on that basis... then sure. However, you are increasingly seeing that rhetorical technique fail. So i would suggest diversifying into rhetorical arguments and strategies that have a longer shelf life. Just a word of advice. ;-)
yes yes... the judge shut it down... but lets be real, the judges are generally pretty good about that. The nonsense in teh north east about "its illegal to film police officers" got shut down by the courts as well... repeatedly. That didn't stop the police and the mayors from trying to enforce it anyway.
And the simple fact that they'd try to do such a thing is despicable. The inglewood government is clearly corrupt.
I think something needs to be done to increase public participation in local government. Make it clear for example that any idiot can take a leadership role. I think that might help keep the whole thing from turning into a good old boys club.
Don't boil everything down to whether or not Card personally gets a Hugo... no one gives a shit about that. Its rather an impression that there are cliches in the awards and only people inside the cliques get them.
What we saw from this rivalry is that there are AT LEAST two powerful cliques operating in the Hugos and that is something the Hugos need to take into consideration in future awards.
Whatever you think about the sad puppies or the SJWs... it doesn't matter.
No no... it doesn't matter. Actually. Because either way... this situation PROVES there are cliques.
So... you need deal with that.
By all means... set up rules to make it harder for the sad puppy people to fill a docket with people they like. That's reasonable.
But you're going to have to make it harder for other cliques to operate in the same way as well. You can't just have a rule that says "if sad puppy, then no vote" So your rules have to be blind to which clique is pushing whatever. And simply by doing that you're going to reduce the power of all the cliques.
This is another of those weird situations where drama happens and then both sides declare victory.
The reality is that both sides probably lost here.
The Sad puppies failed to get anyone they wanted on the list of winners.
And the SJW clique lost because the only way to deal with the situation is to change the rules that will ultimately make it harder for the SJWs to operate in the future as well.
So it was WW3.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
You can accept whatever you want. Stick a purple dildo up your ass with or without the lube. I really don't care.
What is obvious is that you're going to cite anything you can think of to argue against nuclear power in any capacity under any circomstances.
And that's fine. My issue with you is that you misrepresented yourself as open to nuclear power if safety concerns were met. However, you merely used such concerns as a pretext to disallow any use of nuclear power. What is clear is that you don't think nuclear power can be safe at all. Thus you saying you'd accept it if safety concerns were met is identical to saying you'd not accept it under any circomstances.
Tell me... where would you sequester nuclear waste if not Yucca Mountain?
Name a place we can put it. And you say you're okay with nuclear power? Okay... cite a reactor design you find acceptable.
All you do is gainsay everything which is easy to do. I can do that with ANY other energy source. I can sit here and talk about how wind or solar or anything else is shitty by citing problems with it. But unlike you "I actually have constructive solutions" for all these things. I'm fine with any energy source so long as it is done reasonably. And unlike your statements, that isn't merely a lying shithead pretext to disallow stuff I don't like.
So... I don't concede the fucking point.
I said, GOOD DAY, sir.
*slams door*
Not voting for them because their writing is shitty is one thing. In Card's case, I'd agree... he hasn't written anything worth reading in a long time.
My point is that there is clearly politics operating in the awards and that is something the system has to take into consideration.
Its not going away. The politics were there before and they'll be there in the future... you just need to appreciate that going forward.
The whole rivalry between the SJW and sad puppy people makes it clear that this is the new normal.
So just adapt. That's all. Just adapt.
As to where we get our pulp... that's fine. I'm the last person to tell anyone where they should get it. I'm just saying... keep an open mind.
If I were bisexual as you said you were... I'd have to be very tolerant of people that didn't understand or accept that. There are too many of them. Much of the world doesn't understand or accept bisexuality or homosexuality.
And however you might feel about that, consider that I personally hold a lot of views that I believe are moral imperitives that many other people don't ascribe to. You don't have to be homosexual or of some given race that has had discrimination issues to feel persecuted on occasion.
We all have to live with each other. I don't blacklist people for not ascribing to my views about everything. If I did that, I'd black list most people because my views are not especially common. I have to be tolerant with people and I don't hold their not sharing my views against them personally or professionally.
I don't think it is practical for bisexuals or homosexuals to do that either. We have a big wide world with a lot of interesting, clever, and wonderful people in it. We just need to get along.
The sad puppy thing was bigger than card in any case... I think there was soemthing in Science fiction where people were saying "Science fiction needs to grow up" or break old patterns. And the problem with that attitude is that its often an outside element trying to impose a narrative on a subculture.
We saw this recently with the whole drama over gaming and sexism. Where an outside group was trying to turn video games into casual narratives about sex issues or lesbianism when the existing market was more interested in space marines, shooting hookers, or quietly building cities by yourself.
And we've seen this in other subcultures. We've seen in comics where every depiction of women in a skin tight outfit is decried as sexism despite the fact that the male characters are similarly clad.
We even saw some of this hit the table top gaming world.
Its a thing. There's this weird culture war going through geekdom and you're seeing push back in certain segments. That's it.
Now if people want to hold view X or Y that is fine. Believe whatever you want and consume whatever you want. But don't try to take it over and tell everyone that enjoys something else that they're bad people for it.
Just leave people be. Maybe we should split the hugos?... have it be the SJW hugos versus the puppy hugos... I don't know. If people can't tolerate each other and coexist then we have to separate and that would be sad.
You see these signs all over the place about coexist... get along... but they seem to only mean that when it comes to the middle east or something. That sort of thing starts at home. It starts HERE. If you can't coexist with some guy because he has views on homosexuality that you don't like... then how can you coexist with anyone that isn't in lock step with you? That's a very common view... right or wrong... its common.
We have to get along. No?
And just in case you're curious, I have no problem with homosexuality what so ever. Be as gay as you want. It doesn't matter to me. Get married, divorced, adopt a kid, whatever. I don't care. The only time I have trouble with homosexuality is when people play the gay card to get favoritism. I had a coworker that sexually harassed another coworker. Other guy was married... to a lady. A
Maybe not... but maybe the conflict will make it clear that politics are operating in the awards.
The opinion of the Puppies remember was that politics was playing a part in who won or not. And the SJW thing rather proved they were right.
Now was the sad puppy campaign the best way to go about it? I don't know. Vox Day for example appears to be a racist asshole. But there is clearly some politics going on in the Hugos and the Hugos need to understand that they're having their votes manipulated.
You don't even need to use the API. That just makes things easier. You can write a program that represents itself to twitter as a normal web user and queries a list of pages at set intervals and copies whatever is there into a database. Then whenever something is removed... a separate subroutine flags the message.
But even that isn't required. You could register the the API under name X and then post everything under name Y. Have no license under name Y... suspending name Y's API license won't do anything because name Y won't even have one.
This will require Twitter to find out who Name X is when they only know who name Y is... and that's likely too complicated for them to bother with it.
And if they do... you can still go with the first concept of just writing a program yourself.
You said I didn't address your bullshit... then you cited something that I had addressed... thus your demand that I address you was retarded.
Make sense.
I'm not misquoting you. I'm updating you. My citation was more recent. It was killed recently under the Obama administration for political reasons and not safety reasons.
My citation made that clear.
We're done. You're clearly an anti nuclear zealot and I frankly don't have the patience to go back and forth with you on this issue.
Think whatever you want. I am not a nuclear at any price person. That's just strawman bullshit. I am not however a blind anti nuclear activist. Sorry. I don't agree.
I'll advocate for reasonable applications of nuclear power. Until we get a better method of sinking/storing renewable power we'll need nuclear or we're going to keep burning coal, gas, and natural gas.
Choose.
Fossil fuels or Nuclear? Because until we have a way of storing the power... those are our options.
This will be my last post to you in this thread.
Good day, sir.
*tips hat*
How was a tank captured with grenades? Did they not lock the top hatch? Did dudes climb on top and put a grenade into it? Well, not only should the top have been locked down but how the fuck did the tank get so close to infantry that that even became possible? A tank should be killing stuff long before it gets that close. WW1 tanks were more about their machine guns than anything. The point was to be a mobile armored machine gun nest. The main gun was mostly used to blow through sand bags. And the machine guns were for suppressing infantry or outright gunning them down.
Now in a trench warfare situation... and especially in WW1, OF COURSE you're going to have infantry back up. The idea will be to have the infantry hiding behind the tank as it advances and then they occupy the trenches as the tank advances.
THIS SAID... my argument... which is not something you can argue against because its fucking obvious... is that there are many situations where tanks can operate alone. We have many instances of them doing this and doing it effectively. So long as tanks restrict themselves to those situations where they can maneuver and keep the range in their favor... the tanks can operate alone just fine. Infantry by the SAME token operates very well ALONE in specific circumstances. If you wanted to hold a fixed defense with lots of earth works or other barriers than the infantry probably is pretty good. But that's more defensive. Offensive infantry actions are harder. You have to expose yourself when you move. And in modern warfare that tends to mean you take causalities unless you have something to hide behind... which... if your target is smart... they will have decided to defend a location that has no place to hide anywhere near it. Look at old castle designs. You have a very well fortified position and around it nothing is especially defensible. This means that attacks on the castle are very hard and counter attacks are very easy.
And of course anti infantry grenades will not penetrate tank armor.
As to all the sand that apparently got jammed right in your vagina over me saying "your move"... I can only giggle at you for that.
Dude, get over yourself. If one person says something and another person rebuts a point and then says "your move" that isn't license for you to whine about it for... DAYS... I mean, how long have you been whining about that? And whining about it at all doesn't make any sense. Even for a second. But you've been doing it for DAYS.
Seriously. Shut the fuck up about it. You're just making me feel bad now because I feel like I accidentally picked a fight with a retard.
Actually that lie fell apart already. You're not keeping up to date. Many of the emails were classifed.
She then changed her story to "they weren't marked classified"
That fell apart after that because classified material is not marketed "classified" anywhere on it. Several former state department people, CIA people etc have all stepped in to clarify how that works.
She did put classified material into that email server in Colorado.
And whatever you might think about it... the FBI and Justice department is taking it seriously.
if it were just political bullshit, then why would Obama's white house be permitting that?
Sorry, chum... she's in ACTUAL trouble here. Whether anything comes of it is another matter. But she's in actual trouble. You might want to consider throwing your support behind someone else. She might not make it to nomination.
... all the sites have to do is collect information under a different name then copy paste the info to the new site.
What is twitter going to do.
And even if they suspend API access entirely... all someone has to do is write a program that checks the twitter accounts. download everything, and then notes whenever a tweet disappears.
I don't know what twitter is thinking.
Censorship... which is what they're attempting to do... is generally a losing proposition on the internet.