another use actually, that you led me to. Using it as a legitimate building block. If you want to say that it is common wisdom that blah blah, age correlates to, blah blah. You won't get very far, if you can cite this paper, you have a starting point. If one were to say, attempt to explore the reasons behind this phenomenon, it's good to have something that establishes that the phenomenon exists... you know in a rigorous way.
most of the time "every body knows" isn't really that great of a starting point.
i'm just saying, you're assuming your definition of a valid criticism should be correct. If someone's idea of AA options being a deal breaker are what they base their review on, that's one point of view. If some people think they can review a game before playing it, that's their prerogative. But, that is generally going to be true across the board too. Unless you're telling me, you believe people are reviewing this especially negatively because of the property, because they're being paid to bash it, or because people think bethesda sucks... I'm really not seeing your point.
premature reviewers bring down the average... but they bring down the average for all games
that may be another issue entirely, but, is it really too early?
must you play all the content to know how you feel about something?:) let me kick you in the balls for 40 hours... wait what do you mean you feel you hate this experience after an hour, you haven't experienced my game fully.
you're forgetting that it tells you the ratio of lovers and haters. If the user review is really 5.5, and we go with your conceit that people either gave it a 1 or a 10... then that's a lot of haters. more so than a lot of other games it seems.
the new bond film is fine. the critics have been spoiled by daniel craig's stint as bond and expected terrific. This one doesn't hit the mark of skyfall, nor does it have the freshness of casino royale. So yes, the critics panned it for not measuring up... lets just never speak of quantum.
Anyway, the moviegoers enjoyed it. So they gave it 5 stars, or whatever you give offhandedly when you've enjoyed something but don't want to bother with actually filling out a survey. But it was just fine.
a single score doesn't capture how bad the bugs can be, and we know, we ALL know bethesda makes good games, they just need a good bit of maturation after release.
so, do the reviewers let you know what they think of the "beta" or what they imagine the final state will be?
You gotta get into dosages and stuff with that methinks. At a molecular level we're all just heaps of congealed particles rubbing against each other. You touch something, some of you clings to it, some of it clings to you. I wouldn't lick my finger even if its dry at the touch is what I'm saying
people study fruit flies to better understand the mechanisms of human development. if it ain't broke don't fix it, etc. etc.
what messes with zebra-fish embryos may very well mess with a human embryos. things that have to happen during development regardless of the species, like axonal guidance, body orientaton, segmentation of different areas, differentiation signals. fruit flies need them, zebrafish need them, and we need them, and some are so fundamental that they haven't changed between the sea and us.
that's why it's worrying. a mature human isn't susceptible to a crap ton of stuff that would kill off a zebrafish, but a human embryo isn't so different from a zebrafish one.
human embryos have gill slits... cuz if it ain't broke, don't fix it. If it's wholly unnecessary but ain't hurting nothing, don't fix it either.
developmental pathways are highly conserved. I'd be fairly alarmed/concerned about this messing with pregnancies. definitely warrants further study, and highly publicized warnings for pregnant women.
bernie sanders actually seems like he's got a privacy streak to him. So I actually think he'd not push for more federal/executive power. He seems more, morally grounded than Hillary.
republican field, forget about it. It's not expected. on the other hand, i'm bothered by it more intellectually than actually. Realistically, it has a vanishingly small chance of impacting me. Out of sight out of mind.
That's where it gets tricky, and people a lot more qualified about it have to think deep thoughts on those fringes.
hiring and firing. When does a employer's right to do with his money what he wants, trump vs get trumped by a employee's right to a livelihood? How do you enforce the equal opportunity employment of minorities? even bad people have rights,
i hate the power of the twitter mob, on things like donald sterling and brendan eich. but i don't know if governmental protection is the answer to each individual user exercising his or her right of association and speech. when do the rights of the oppressed trump those of the oppressor. when does good taste and the moral majority, become oppressive with their good intent?
donald sterling lost half a billion in the forced sale of his team, due solely to an illegally recorded private conversation.
brendan eich lost his job due to a political opinion.
because these fringe cases are... difficult. I tend to err on the side of more freedom. I don't like it, but those organizing a digital lynch mob against sterling and eich, were well within their rights.
and hate speech must be protected, unless they're actively calling for someone's head.
nah, i pretty much agree with the supreme court on this one.
intent, imminence and likelihood.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/we... The standard developed determined that speech advocating the use of force or crime could only be proscribed where two conditions were satisfied: (1) the advocacy is “directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action,” and (2) the advocacy is also “likely to incite or produce such action.”
it's got power. but at a certain point, you're robbing the actual perpetrator of their responsibility too.
If i say black people should die and 3 years later one of the listeners killed a black person? does that mean that I am guilty of inciting the listener to violence?
yes, but now you're making a judgement call based on your own moral grounding. Who's to say that 50 years from now, you won't be in the moral minority?
the rightness of an act is not predicated on who it happens to. Does me murdering a baby differ from me murdering someone on death row? Regardless i'm still guilty of killing someone.
The majority of these people are most likely all talk. Judge them by their associations? judge them by who they're seen with? Let me never live in an america like that. Guilt by association.
Slashdot Mirror
mother fucker.
well, that is stupidly low.
another use actually, that you led me to. Using it as a legitimate building block. If you want to say that it is common wisdom that blah blah, age correlates to, blah blah. You won't get very far, if you can cite this paper, you have a starting point. If one were to say, attempt to explore the reasons behind this phenomenon, it's good to have something that establishes that the phenomenon exists... you know in a rigorous way.
most of the time "every body knows" isn't really that great of a starting point.
but you did interpret "far more worth" to be multiplicative rather than additive.
congratulations, you have officially the lowest UID i've ever seen.
... set up cameras on the island first... get yourself a good editor, and you've got yourself a good battle royale going.
i'm just saying, you're assuming your definition of a valid criticism should be correct. If someone's idea of AA options being a deal breaker are what they base their review on, that's one point of view. If some people think they can review a game before playing it, that's their prerogative. But, that is generally going to be true across the board too. Unless you're telling me, you believe people are reviewing this especially negatively because of the property, because they're being paid to bash it, or because people think bethesda sucks... I'm really not seeing your point.
premature reviewers bring down the average... but they bring down the average for all games
that may be another issue entirely, but, is it really too early?
must you play all the content to know how you feel about something? :) let me kick you in the balls for 40 hours... wait what do you mean you feel you hate this experience after an hour, you haven't experienced my game fully.
you're forgetting that it tells you the ratio of lovers and haters. If the user review is really 5.5, and we go with your conceit that people either gave it a 1 or a 10... then that's a lot of haters. more so than a lot of other games it seems.
the new bond film is fine. the critics have been spoiled by daniel craig's stint as bond and expected terrific. This one doesn't hit the mark of skyfall, nor does it have the freshness of casino royale. So yes, the critics panned it for not measuring up... lets just never speak of quantum.
Anyway, the moviegoers enjoyed it. So they gave it 5 stars, or whatever you give offhandedly when you've enjoyed something but don't want to bother with actually filling out a survey. But it was just fine.
part of the facts is that bethesda games are eventually fully playable, it just takes time getting there.
:) yeah, i've got enough distractions, may just wait for goty. I don't need this fix that badly.
a single score doesn't capture how bad the bugs can be, and we know, we ALL know bethesda makes good games, they just need a good bit of maturation after release.
so, do the reviewers let you know what they think of the "beta" or what they imagine the final state will be?
they should probably make two different review scores.
what they rate it now, and what they'd rate it in a years time...
you know, when presumably it's
A) running stably
B) all the content has been included
C) no performance issues
D) no showstopping bugs
E) less irritating bugs
you know... what they used to call gold.
i'm going to wait a while to get it, maybe for the GOTY edition, you know the one when i actually get to buy a finished product.
You gotta get into dosages and stuff with that methinks. At a molecular level we're all just heaps of congealed particles rubbing against each other. You touch something, some of you clings to it, some of it clings to you. I wouldn't lick my finger even if its dry at the touch is what I'm saying
that community name is just cruel then
people study fruit flies to better understand the mechanisms of human development. if it ain't broke don't fix it, etc. etc.
what messes with zebra-fish embryos may very well mess with a human embryos. things that have to happen during development regardless of the species, like axonal guidance, body orientaton, segmentation of different areas, differentiation signals. fruit flies need them, zebrafish need them, and we need them, and some are so fundamental that they haven't changed between the sea and us.
that's why it's worrying. a mature human isn't susceptible to a crap ton of stuff that would kill off a zebrafish, but a human embryo isn't so different from a zebrafish one.
human embryos have gill slits... cuz if it ain't broke, don't fix it. If it's wholly unnecessary but ain't hurting nothing, don't fix it either.
i'd say go full quarantine on that for the remaining 2 months regardless. If it's a hobby.
if you're not able to put it on ice for a couple of months, leave it at work, and go full hazmat. gloves, mask, shower, the works.
brain development continues for like half a decade too. but that should be less risky.
developmental pathways are highly conserved. I'd be fairly alarmed/concerned about this messing with pregnancies. definitely warrants further study, and highly publicized warnings for pregnant women.
developmental mechanisms and pathways are highly conserved.
we don't want a repeat of thalidomide
i'm just going to assume yes since some of them hatched.
I'd also like a citation, but don't think he really needs a citation to warn caution.
development is super finicky and super-conserved evolutionarily.
I would imagine it would be the best course for any pregnant women to take extreme care until they do more studying.
if animal trials are good enough for us to label things carginogens, a 100 percent developmental disability rate should be warning sign enough.
bernie sanders actually seems like he's got a privacy streak to him. So I actually think he'd not push for more federal/executive power. He seems more, morally grounded than Hillary.
republican field, forget about it. It's not expected. on the other hand, i'm bothered by it more intellectually than actually. Realistically, it has a vanishingly small chance of impacting me. Out of sight out of mind.
That's where it gets tricky, and people a lot more qualified about it have to think deep thoughts on those fringes.
hiring and firing. When does a employer's right to do with his money what he wants, trump vs get trumped by a employee's right to a livelihood? How do you enforce the equal opportunity employment of minorities? even bad people have rights,
i hate the power of the twitter mob, on things like donald sterling and brendan eich. but i don't know if governmental protection is the answer to each individual user exercising his or her right of association and speech. when do the rights of the oppressed trump those of the oppressor. when does good taste and the moral majority, become oppressive with their good intent?
donald sterling lost half a billion in the forced sale of his team, due solely to an illegally recorded private conversation.
brendan eich lost his job due to a political opinion.
because these fringe cases are... difficult. I tend to err on the side of more freedom. I don't like it, but those organizing a digital lynch mob against sterling and eich, were well within their rights.
and hate speech must be protected, unless they're actively calling for someone's head.
nah, i pretty much agree with the supreme court on this one.
intent, imminence and likelihood.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/we...
The standard developed determined that speech advocating the use of force or crime could only be proscribed where two conditions were satisfied: (1) the advocacy is “directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action,” and (2) the advocacy is also “likely to incite or produce such action.”
it's got power. but at a certain point, you're robbing the actual perpetrator of their responsibility too.
If i say black people should die and 3 years later one of the listeners killed a black person? does that mean that I am guilty of inciting the listener to violence?
yes, but now you're making a judgement call based on your own moral grounding. Who's to say that 50 years from now, you won't be in the moral minority?
the rightness of an act is not predicated on who it happens to. Does me murdering a baby differ from me murdering someone on death row? Regardless i'm still guilty of killing someone.
The majority of these people are most likely all talk. Judge them by their associations? judge them by who they're seen with? Let me never live in an america like that. Guilt by association.