Perhaps intentional. The forest service (or whoever is behind this) has to know that the whole concept is unconstitutional and will not survive a day in court. So the draftsman decided to have a little laugh with it, and make sure we all knew it wasn't being taken seriously
Na. Dota is always just a single character per player.
Did you ever play WarCraft 3? Remember the hero units that would level up and progress with you? DOTA is basically *only* those. You pick one hero (the list has expanded to ridiculous levels) and fight in 5v5 with other people, in a top-down isometric view that can be moved independently of your character (exactly like Starcraft or non-MMO Warcraft) instead of the over-the-shoulder camera that moves with you in MMOs
How about this, for an interesting concept... players could control multiple characters to balance it out. Not full sized armies or anything, but small swarms/squads
... just an off-the-cuff example, you could play as: 1 Ultralisk or 3 hydralisks, 4 terrans (Marine/Firebat), 2 Zealots, 1 Siege Tank, 3 Dragoons, or 8 zerglings, etc etc. (tweak as necessary)
The bigger units would play like a traditional MMO character, and the groups would play like a pet-class, with one of the pack designated as the lead (or some newly invented mechanic specifically for them).
At low/mediocre level play, people will make "bad" moves on which a top-tier professional would easily capitalize. Lower skill players don't always know the perfect strategies, so it mixes up the games and keeps things interesting. You can try some bonkers strategy, and if it doesn't quite go to plan, you're not completely hosed
At the top tiers, it's all about sticking to formula crafted by the absolute pinnacle players, and never deviating from those formulas unless you manage to become one of those pinnacle players
While GP is definitely off the mark, it's easy to see how it came to be
There are many women who confuse feminism with misandry, especially in social media.
Combine that with the fact that Anita S. is preaching a very flawed view of feminism, primarily through social media, and it's easy to lump her in with the misandrists.
Personally, I just think she's a poor researcher, and poor orator. Her underlying points have merit, but her methods are flawed, and she lacks a level of eloquence that I'm used to seeing on "professional" internet opinion blogs.
The vast majority of the footage would never actually be seen. Just cataloged and stored for however long the statue of limitations is. The stuff that gets watched will be in the event of an incident or complaint.
I highly doubt many citizens will start complaining: "He let me off with a warning!! HOW DARE HE! Check the tapes, you'll see!"
Because those jackbooted thugs at the energy company... wait, no. They're pretty reasonable.
You were talking about the monopolistic thugs that provide my municipal garbage collection service? No, actually that's pretty cheap too.
Comcast is getting to double-dip from Netflix with the new agreement you mentioned... why not go for the triple dip and charge customers extra on top of the extra they're charging Netflix, on top of the "unlimited" plans they're already selling.
Actually Detroit is a perfect example to bolster my original point.
The auto industry had such deep connections to Capitol Hill that they never had to worry about much competition. German and Japanese automobiles were stymied and lobbied and mudslung at every opportunity. The whole thing was propped up artificially by red tape and legislature. Ultimately, it wasn't sustainable. Detroit was so far behind the times that everything came crashing down around them, and we're left with the wasteland that it is today.
Had the congress critters removed themselves from the equation, and let Detroit suffer earlier, the suffering could have been significantly lower. American cars would have started to lose ground sooner, hopefully before they were completely lost causes, and just maybe caused manufacturers to get with the times and keep themselves competitive. At least they would've had a chance. Yeah, it would still have been painful. But at least the city would've stood a chance.
Now we're starting the same song and dance with Space-X. If Congress puts up the same fight for Boeing, Lockheed and Northrop that they did for GM, Ford and Chrysler, expect similar results (cough*F-35*cough) Space-X will eventually get tired of the BS and pack up. Musk is from South Africa, and he's half Canadian and half Brit... so I think he can find somewhere else to setup shop if the US government gives him enough crap. At which point, he can just sell the rockets to NASA if they're still interested, siphoning American dollars into whichever country he's working from. Oh, and this is the guy trying to revolutionize the auto industry at the same time, AND build that giga-factory which might help create some jobs... but na, lets keep the short sighted approach and make sure the middle managers in these 3 peoples' towns stay well employed, and keep their property values high.
I think you're definitely on the right track: It's much less an opposition to dressing nicely. Rather, engineers tend to oppose things for which the only rationale is "because that's just the way we do it."
Professional business attire is acceptable when dealing with clients/customers. Makes logical sense. No opposition.
Suit and tie, to sit in a cube and churn through code all day... makes no sense. So you'll get push back.
Anecdotally, I've noticed that this tends to be more common back east. DC to Boston, random working stiffs rocking the jacket and tie every day for no adequate reason. I worked for Intuit out in San Diego for a few years though, and engineers would quite often come to work in flip flops and board shorts (we were 10-15 min from the beach, so a long lunch of surfing was fairly common). You might be khakis and a polo shirt for important meetings. Maybe.
At least with term limits, you've a chance to get some honest ones every so often, if only by accident.
As it stands now, the big corps just find one guy who's easily purchased and bankroll him until he croaks.
Personally, I think term limits are only half of the solution. The other half is a "none of the above" voting option. In any candidate race, there should be a "None of the above" option. If that option wins, the seat is vacated and a special election is held with new candidates. Repeat as necessary until an actual winner emerges.
I get what you're saying, but I can't buy the "Constituent Services" line, even at it's most cynical.
The only constituents that will feel the pinch here are the upper management of Lockheed/Boeing. The vast majority of workers should have transferable skills. Boeing is bleeding out? Well then, there should be some job openings at Space-X
If these Congress Critters really wanted to help their constituents, they'd be passing legislature that smoothed this transition. Maybe tax breaks for a company that hires local talent, or something like that. Give Space-X some incentives to pick up the slack from Lockheed and Boeing. But those constituents aren't the ones supplying the hookers and blow, so nevermind.
My question was more about distribution of effort. Is it easier to make a decent app, than to make a decent mobile page?
Or, put another way: Do mobile sites suck because they're harder to code? Or because web companies would rather make us install THEIR proprietary software?
As much as I would like to see the entire NSA dismantled, it should primarily be the top-level folks facing jail time.
Sure, Joe Technician knows what he's doing is wrong, but it's very very difficult to blow the whistle on an operation like that. Just look at old Eddie S.
But the top brass, they actually had the clout to stop the insanity, but decided to dig deeper in, instead. They're the ones who straight-up lies to congress, foriegn allies, the American people and everyone else.
Lock them up. Hell, send a few to the Chair. Treason is still punishable by death. Not only is this proper justice for the crimes committed, but will serve as a warning to future generations of TLA folks.
Slashdot Mirror
Perhaps intentional. The forest service (or whoever is behind this) has to know that the whole concept is unconstitutional and will not survive a day in court. So the draftsman decided to have a little laugh with it, and make sure we all knew it wasn't being taken seriously
Na. Dota is always just a single character per player.
Did you ever play WarCraft 3? Remember the hero units that would level up and progress with you? DOTA is basically *only* those. You pick one hero (the list has expanded to ridiculous levels) and fight in 5v5 with other people, in a top-down isometric view that can be moved independently of your character (exactly like Starcraft or non-MMO Warcraft) instead of the over-the-shoulder camera that moves with you in MMOs
How about this, for an interesting concept... players could control multiple characters to balance it out. Not full sized armies or anything, but small swarms/squads
... just an off-the-cuff example, you could play as: 1 Ultralisk or 3 hydralisks, 4 terrans (Marine/Firebat), 2 Zealots, 1 Siege Tank, 3 Dragoons, or 8 zerglings, etc etc. (tweak as necessary)
The bigger units would play like a traditional MMO character, and the groups would play like a pet-class, with one of the pack designated as the lead (or some newly invented mechanic specifically for them).
Kinda reminds me of chess.
At low/mediocre level play, people will make "bad" moves on which a top-tier professional would easily capitalize. Lower skill players don't always know the perfect strategies, so it mixes up the games and keeps things interesting. You can try some bonkers strategy, and if it doesn't quite go to plan, you're not completely hosed
At the top tiers, it's all about sticking to formula crafted by the absolute pinnacle players, and never deviating from those formulas unless you manage to become one of those pinnacle players
Keyboard password with an altered letter... é ò ñ... one of those or something similar.
While GP is definitely off the mark, it's easy to see how it came to be
There are many women who confuse feminism with misandry, especially in social media.
Combine that with the fact that Anita S. is preaching a very flawed view of feminism, primarily through social media, and it's easy to lump her in with the misandrists.
Personally, I just think she's a poor researcher, and poor orator. Her underlying points have merit, but her methods are flawed, and she lacks a level of eloquence that I'm used to seeing on "professional" internet opinion blogs.
Blue... no, wait .. Gree- AHhhhhhhhhh
Doubtful
The vast majority of the footage would never actually be seen. Just cataloged and stored for however long the statue of limitations is. The stuff that gets watched will be in the event of an incident or complaint.
I highly doubt many citizens will start complaining: "He let me off with a warning!! HOW DARE HE! Check the tapes, you'll see!"
So ... do you find your 100 kilosecond work days more convenient?
The problem becomes the sales pitch: "Unlimited Internet, No data caps... $100"
And an extra $20 for going over the unlimited threshold
And another $40 penalty for consecutive over-your-threshold months
Because those jackbooted thugs at the energy company ... wait, no. They're pretty reasonable.
You were talking about the monopolistic thugs that provide my municipal garbage collection service? No, actually that's pretty cheap too.
Comcast is getting to double-dip from Netflix with the new agreement you mentioned... why not go for the triple dip and charge customers extra on top of the extra they're charging Netflix, on top of the "unlimited" plans they're already selling.
Is that quote in TFA somewhere? I'm not seeing it, though I have a lot of their flash blocked.
As best as I can tell from the article, the entire devious plans boil down to "Book Lyft ride. Preach the gloriousness of Uber to the driver. Repeat"
So you have to wait to make sure you get a different driver. Otherwise you'd be preaching to the same driver.
So, you're telling me that we can get the spammers to program better AI for us?
Well, the government did the same thing with 1984, so ...
Actually Detroit is a perfect example to bolster my original point.
The auto industry had such deep connections to Capitol Hill that they never had to worry about much competition. German and Japanese automobiles were stymied and lobbied and mudslung at every opportunity. The whole thing was propped up artificially by red tape and legislature. Ultimately, it wasn't sustainable. Detroit was so far behind the times that everything came crashing down around them, and we're left with the wasteland that it is today.
Had the congress critters removed themselves from the equation, and let Detroit suffer earlier, the suffering could have been significantly lower. American cars would have started to lose ground sooner, hopefully before they were completely lost causes, and just maybe caused manufacturers to get with the times and keep themselves competitive. At least they would've had a chance. Yeah, it would still have been painful. But at least the city would've stood a chance.
Now we're starting the same song and dance with Space-X. If Congress puts up the same fight for Boeing, Lockheed and Northrop that they did for GM, Ford and Chrysler, expect similar results (cough*F-35*cough) Space-X will eventually get tired of the BS and pack up. Musk is from South Africa, and he's half Canadian and half Brit... so I think he can find somewhere else to setup shop if the US government gives him enough crap. At which point, he can just sell the rockets to NASA if they're still interested, siphoning American dollars into whichever country he's working from. Oh, and this is the guy trying to revolutionize the auto industry at the same time, AND build that giga-factory which might help create some jobs... but na, lets keep the short sighted approach and make sure the middle managers in these 3 peoples' towns stay well employed, and keep their property values high.
I think you're definitely on the right track: It's much less an opposition to dressing nicely. Rather, engineers tend to oppose things for which the only rationale is "because that's just the way we do it."
Professional business attire is acceptable when dealing with clients/customers. Makes logical sense. No opposition. ... makes no sense. So you'll get push back.
Suit and tie, to sit in a cube and churn through code all day
Anecdotally, I've noticed that this tends to be more common back east. DC to Boston, random working stiffs rocking the jacket and tie every day for no adequate reason. I worked for Intuit out in San Diego for a few years though, and engineers would quite often come to work in flip flops and board shorts (we were 10-15 min from the beach, so a long lunch of surfing was fairly common). You might be khakis and a polo shirt for important meetings. Maybe.
Already covered... http://xkcd.com/927/
I think the point was less about the tactics themselves, but rather who is calling such things dirty.
The things these guys are doing barely qualify as minor shenanigans compared to the dirty tricks that big business pull
Glass houses, and all
At least with term limits, you've a chance to get some honest ones every so often, if only by accident.
As it stands now, the big corps just find one guy who's easily purchased and bankroll him until he croaks.
Personally, I think term limits are only half of the solution. The other half is a "none of the above" voting option. In any candidate race, there should be a "None of the above" option. If that option wins, the seat is vacated and a special election is held with new candidates. Repeat as necessary until an actual winner emerges.
I get what you're saying, but I can't buy the "Constituent Services" line, even at it's most cynical.
The only constituents that will feel the pinch here are the upper management of Lockheed/Boeing. The vast majority of workers should have transferable skills. Boeing is bleeding out? Well then, there should be some job openings at Space-X
If these Congress Critters really wanted to help their constituents, they'd be passing legislature that smoothed this transition. Maybe tax breaks for a company that hires local talent, or something like that. Give Space-X some incentives to pick up the slack from Lockheed and Boeing. But those constituents aren't the ones supplying the hookers and blow, so nevermind.
The kicker (for me) is that many websites DON'T allow certain character sets.
I've had websites tell me that I'm not allowed to use special characters. One of which was a financial institution.
Economies of scale would probably drop that significantly.
But even if the $300 B price tag is accurate, you could cover 1/3 of California using the bailout that Morgan Stanley received.
Don't disagree about most mobile sites being junk
My question was more about distribution of effort. Is it easier to make a decent app, than to make a decent mobile page?
Or, put another way: Do mobile sites suck because they're harder to code? Or because web companies would rather make us install THEIR proprietary software?
As much as I would like to see the entire NSA dismantled, it should primarily be the top-level folks facing jail time.
Sure, Joe Technician knows what he's doing is wrong, but it's very very difficult to blow the whistle on an operation like that. Just look at old Eddie S.
But the top brass, they actually had the clout to stop the insanity, but decided to dig deeper in, instead. They're the ones who straight-up lies to congress, foriegn allies, the American people and everyone else.
Lock them up. Hell, send a few to the Chair. Treason is still punishable by death. Not only is this proper justice for the crimes committed, but will serve as a warning to future generations of TLA folks.
Play by the rules, or be held accountable.