Except for that pesky freedom of association that the Supreme Court has attached to the First Ammendment. Granted, there are limitations on racial discrimination that come from the Civil Rights Act, but it's certainly not illegal to discriminate altogether. I suggest you do some research (and I mean more than RTFA).
California courts have already ruled that an online gamespace is subject to anti-discrimination laws.
Conincidentally, the case you're referencing is still in the federal courts and there's actually a hearing tomorrow on a motion to dismiss it altogther.
Keep in mind that California has also passed legislation allowing medicinal marijuana, despite federal law which outlaws posession for any reason. Californians have already been prosecuted in federal court, despite the state laws. I would hesitate to use any law or court ruling from the state as a yardstick with which you measure the laws or opinions in any other place, including the US as a whole.
Don't get me wrong. I think the decision by the GM in WoW was a mistake and was probably an incorrect interpretation of Blizzard's policy. It is, however, a fantastic publicity piece for Lamda Legal to sink their teeth into. It does leave me wondering, though, if the same organizations would vehemently defend a non-discriminating guild that advertised itself as "white, straight, male friendly" and was asked to stop.
Agnostic, maybe, but how can you make the assumption that an atheist would be any less fundamentalist in his/her beliefs? In my opinion, the trick is not finding someone with or without faith, but finding someone who can recoginize when their faith, or lack thereof, is driving their decisions.
I am trying to figure out how are MMORPGs are still considered "fun".
I enjoy the social aspects because it's a multiplayer game that I can log in and log out of at whim. There are enough people that I interact with in the game that I always have a couple friends on when I do. The "real life" friends who play seem to agree. Personally, I'm thrilled that I have an enjoyable activity to play with my younger brother, whose games have not overlapped with mine since the original Warcraft, ten years ago. Like most players I've met, the game doesn't consume me, but it's good for a few hours, now and then.
I don't think that applies to all the games of that scale. I enjoy a good FPS, but Planetside didn't have anywhere near the depth that WoW has and I lost interest pretty quickly. With WoW, they have done a tremendous job of appealing to all the different playing styles (loner, groups, questing, PvP, etc.) and adding new content across the board.
It may lose the "fun" factor later, but it has held it for far longer than any other game I've played and I'm not really even an RPG person.
I'm sorry, could you speak up a bit? I couldn't hear you all the way up there on that pedestal.
Why is it that anytime a new video game, television show, or geek activity comes along, there are the people who feel compelled to shit on it? Congratulations, you prefer real sports to virtual, don't even own a television, and only interact with friends face-to-face.
Or, they could use it to find out you're in spectacular health and offer you a lower premium. Everyone pays an inflated rate and you can present your privately-obtained biometrics to bargain for a better rate.
I think everyone should have decent healthcare, bad genetics or not, but why ignore that some people spent every summer baking on the beach or a portion of the population is at higher risk for heart disease because they eat tons of fast food and smoke?
It's not going to be the popular opinion around here, but why should the insurance companies get shafted on covering your self-inflicted damage?
One of our labs now has multiple plasmas that were purchased so the operators could "view activity of several machines simultaneously". Nevermind that the resolution of the plasmas allows only for the at-a-glance viewing of three or four machines and have to be zoomed to a specific box for actual study (still, at an unacceptable resolution). More importantly, ignore that the same amount of money burned on the plasmas and switchboxes could have easily purchased 20-30 flat-panel LCD monitors with higher reoslutions for the simultaneous viewing of all their boxes. Last, ignore that the LCD monitors could be replaced, individually, in the event that they fail.
Since the whole "I drive an SUV because it's safer" thing is pretty much just a conscious or subconscious rationalization of some people's desperate need to display their wealth/power/potency, I guess I'm not surprised.
Since the whole "I post sweeping generalizations because it's witty" thing is pretty much just a conscious or subconscious rationalization of some people's desperate need to compensate for their lack of wealth/power/potency, I guess I'm not surprised.
So, honestly, what was your immediate reaction? A: "Hey, this guy might have a strong argument and I would like to discuss this topic with him further" B: "What a dick."
I wrote three long paragraphs that addressed the points in your post, but decided to keep them to myself. Suffice it to say, if you actually believe your tirade to be true, I suggest you forward it on to your graduate advisor and department head. Perhaps, they can assist both you and a far-less-deserving person to find more appropriate positions.
If, upon further review, you decide that you may actually be in a pretty good spot, I suggest you keep it to yourself.
As for military projects, I know since I work in that sector. Ada is the primary language in these 'hardcore' military projects.
Many of us work in that sector. Around here, Ada is the primary language of outdated projects that are being maintained by people who don't have an alternative. Anyone who has done government work knows that "working" is a relative term and increased efficiency is rarely justification to allocate funds for replacing a "working" system. Maintenance funds are far easier to come by. Those projects will finally be replaced when the last of the high-priced Ada consultants have died. Maybe.
That's not to say Ada wasn't the best choice at the time, but it's certainly not the "go to" language for any new projects I have seen in the last decade.
A guy has information that is new, shocking, and reveals a blatant violation of the constitution, and just because he's also an author of an up-coming book he shouldn't come forward with it?
I think the implication is not that he fabricated the information, but rather that if honesty and integrity in the executive branch was his single motivating factor, he would have yelled it immediately, not sat on it while he wrote a book. Quite obviously, he felt the information was important enough to have some monetary value, but not important enough to require immediate attention from the people.
No matter what your opinion of Bush, the author comes out looking slimy. In my opinion, deservedly so.
Let's say you knew ahead of time that a drunk driver will kill your family. Would you outlaw alcohol? Would you outlaw cars?
We don't outlaw alcohol, but we do restrict its sale and consumption. We also restrict the licensing for cars and revoke that licensing for drunk driving.
We accept risky devices and behaviors that we know will kill people. It's part of being free.
There is an inherent risk in using these things, but we don't accept the behavior you speak of. We give people the opportunity to use these things responsibly and take away those opportunities when they clearly demonstrate that they are incapable of using them responsibly.
Where is the $21B "War on Drunk Driving"? It's not labeled "War on Drunk Driving" but if I had to guess how much money and time was spent on finding, arresting, processing, trying, convicting, and jailing just the drunk drivers in our country, I would not be surprised if we hit that amount every few years. Ask your local police officers how many drunk drivers they pick up every week and then multiply that by every other city, county, and state officer across the country. Factor in the time spent by the clerks, judges, guards, DMV workers, and all the other people that come into contact with these idiots and you're looking at a huge sum of money.
As if the average person wasn't already running under the assumption that they were somehow anonmyous in their electronic communications. Frankly, I wouldn't knowingly buy a phone that implemented this protocol and didn't allow it to be toggled.
It has become quite apparent that you are more interested in winning an argument than you are on educating yourself with the facts. You have provided nothing but claims of what you have heard. I no longer have the time to waste on this.
No, again. The "funds" that was alleged by the ACLU to have been provided was for the use of the grounds at Fort A.P. Hill, for the Army engineers building support structures, and the Signal soldiers establishing communications. The Army views these as training exercises (in lieu of hiring thousands of contractors to be simulated crowds). This is money that would be spent for training, whether they have the opportunity to use the Scouts or not. They don't write some huge check to the BSA.
Both the ACLU and the news channels that covered the allegations of impropriety were wrong. The fact that it was "in the news" does not make your statement factually correct. There have always been laws against federal money supporting private organizations, Boy Scouts or not. If you look at the settlement that resulted from the ACLU's lawsuit, you'll see that nothing has changed. The Jamboree will happen the same way it always has.
They do - because the BSA receives federal funding.
No, they most certainly do not receive federal funding. What you are most likely confused about is the money that they receive from the Combined Federal Campaign. These are not your tax dollars. These are personal donations, received from government employees and handled by the Office of Personnel Management, where the recipients are designated, specifically, by the donating person.
An analogy for the comprehension-deficient...
on
Google Fixes IE Bug
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
Dick drives Jane's car. Jane's car has a faulty parking brake. Dick parks, engages the brake, but the car rolls away. Dick stops parking on hills.
Important Points Jane did not fix the parking brake Dick did not fix the parking brake, but he no longer uses it. Other drivers may or may not be aware of the broken parking brake. The potential is still there for the car to roll away.
Consider that the 25% that he owns was also affected by his own insider trading and dropped in value, effectively negating the "increase" you're concerned about.
I know credit card charges can be a drain on small businesses, expecially for small transactions, but I was pissed. The local pizza place's minimum order requirement, despite being in direct conflict with their merchant agreement, wasn't displayed anywhere but the register (pay after you eat) and they tack on a $2 surcharge. On top of that, the guy wouldn't refund my buddy his cash, so we could combine the orders and meet the minimum. I told him to charge the card, but it would be more trouble than it was worth. I took a picture of his sign with my phone and sent the pictures and a receipts to Visa. They cancelled the charges outright and his account got yanked immediately.
The next time I went by, he actually ran out to his doorway and yelled about how I was ruining in his business and taking food out of his kids mouths. I told him I would buy lunch there more often, but he doesn't take Visa anymore.
Buy any Sony DVD after Jan 1 2005 and you can't play it without using their player (or DVD Decryptor)....Why? They deliberately put bad sectors on the disk.
I buy tons of DVDs and I have never encountered this problem. Not just in my Sony DVD player, mind you, but in my computer, my Xbox, my Pioneer DVD player, or my car's player. Not to mention, the first reaction of a consumer will be to exchange the disc, not buy a new DVD player, let alone a Sony model.
I will admit, though, that it's the Sony DVD player that is the most likely to have problems reading a disc. I do attribute that problem to them.
Slashdot Mirror
It is illegal to discriminate
Except for that pesky freedom of association that the Supreme Court has attached to the First Ammendment. Granted, there are limitations on racial discrimination that come from the Civil Rights Act, but it's certainly not illegal to discriminate altogether. I suggest you do some research (and I mean more than RTFA).
California courts have already ruled that an online gamespace is subject to anti-discrimination laws.
Conincidentally, the case you're referencing is still in the federal courts and there's actually a hearing tomorrow on a motion to dismiss it altogther.
Keep in mind that California has also passed legislation allowing medicinal marijuana, despite federal law which outlaws posession for any reason. Californians have already been prosecuted in federal court, despite the state laws. I would hesitate to use any law or court ruling from the state as a yardstick with which you measure the laws or opinions in any other place, including the US as a whole.
Don't get me wrong. I think the decision by the GM in WoW was a mistake and was probably an incorrect interpretation of Blizzard's policy. It is, however, a fantastic publicity piece for Lamda Legal to sink their teeth into. It does leave me wondering, though, if the same organizations would vehemently defend a non-discriminating guild that advertised itself as "white, straight, male friendly" and was asked to stop.
Agnostic, maybe, but how can you make the assumption that an atheist would be any less fundamentalist in his/her beliefs? In my opinion, the trick is not finding someone with or without faith, but finding someone who can recoginize when their faith, or lack thereof, is driving their decisions.
I am trying to figure out how are MMORPGs are still considered "fun".
I enjoy the social aspects because it's a multiplayer game that I can log in and log out of at whim. There are enough people that I interact with in the game that I always have a couple friends on when I do. The "real life" friends who play seem to agree. Personally, I'm thrilled that I have an enjoyable activity to play with my younger brother, whose games have not overlapped with mine since the original Warcraft, ten years ago. Like most players I've met, the game doesn't consume me, but it's good for a few hours, now and then.
I don't think that applies to all the games of that scale. I enjoy a good FPS, but Planetside didn't have anywhere near the depth that WoW has and I lost interest pretty quickly. With WoW, they have done a tremendous job of appealing to all the different playing styles (loner, groups, questing, PvP, etc.) and adding new content across the board.
It may lose the "fun" factor later, but it has held it for far longer than any other game I've played and I'm not really even an RPG person.
I'm sorry, could you speak up a bit? I couldn't hear you all the way up there on that pedestal.
Why is it that anytime a new video game, television show, or geek activity comes along, there are the people who feel compelled to shit on it? Congratulations, you prefer real sports to virtual, don't even own a television, and only interact with friends face-to-face.
Know your audience.
Or, they could use it to find out you're in spectacular health and offer you a lower premium. Everyone pays an inflated rate and you can present your privately-obtained biometrics to bargain for a better rate.
I think everyone should have decent healthcare, bad genetics or not, but why ignore that some people spent every summer baking on the beach or a portion of the population is at higher risk for heart disease because they eat tons of fast food and smoke?
It's not going to be the popular opinion around here, but why should the insurance companies get shafted on covering your self-inflicted damage?
UV damage pictures have been around for a long time. I remember watching a short piece on the news at least a decade ago.
Some UV damage examples
Did you mean: eye strain exercises
Yes, that your research tools and techniques are inadequite
Please, tell me that's a joke.
I mean, atleast, if its anything like TV
Sadly, it's not just television.
One of our labs now has multiple plasmas that were purchased so the operators could "view activity of several machines simultaneously". Nevermind that the resolution of the plasmas allows only for the at-a-glance viewing of three or four machines and have to be zoomed to a specific box for actual study (still, at an unacceptable resolution). More importantly, ignore that the same amount of money burned on the plasmas and switchboxes could have easily purchased 20-30 flat-panel LCD monitors with higher reoslutions for the simultaneous viewing of all their boxes. Last, ignore that the LCD monitors could be replaced, individually, in the event that they fail.
Good home theater purchase. Shitty IT purchase.
Since the whole "I drive an SUV because it's safer" thing is pretty much just a conscious or subconscious rationalization of some people's desperate need to display their wealth/power/potency, I guess I'm not surprised.
Since the whole "I post sweeping generalizations because it's witty" thing is pretty much just a conscious or subconscious rationalization of some people's desperate need to compensate for their lack of wealth/power/potency, I guess I'm not surprised.
So, honestly, what was your immediate reaction?
A: "Hey, this guy might have a strong argument and I would like to discuss this topic with him further"
B: "What a dick."
but i will give a fuck if you sit there and waste my gas
Yours?
I wrote three long paragraphs that addressed the points in your post, but decided to keep them to myself. Suffice it to say, if you actually believe your tirade to be true, I suggest you forward it on to your graduate advisor and department head. Perhaps, they can assist both you and a far-less-deserving person to find more appropriate positions.
If, upon further review, you decide that you may actually be in a pretty good spot, I suggest you keep it to yourself.
As for military projects, I know since I work in that sector. Ada is the primary language in these 'hardcore' military projects.
Many of us work in that sector. Around here, Ada is the primary language of outdated projects that are being maintained by people who don't have an alternative. Anyone who has done government work knows that "working" is a relative term and increased efficiency is rarely justification to allocate funds for replacing a "working" system. Maintenance funds are far easier to come by. Those projects will finally be replaced when the last of the high-priced Ada consultants have died. Maybe.
That's not to say Ada wasn't the best choice at the time, but it's certainly not the "go to" language for any new projects I have seen in the last decade.
A guy has information that is new, shocking, and reveals a blatant violation of the constitution, and just because he's also an author of an up-coming book he shouldn't come forward with it?
I think the implication is not that he fabricated the information, but rather that if honesty and integrity in the executive branch was his single motivating factor, he would have yelled it immediately, not sat on it while he wrote a book. Quite obviously, he felt the information was important enough to have some monetary value, but not important enough to require immediate attention from the people.
No matter what your opinion of Bush, the author comes out looking slimy. In my opinion, deservedly so.
Let's say you knew ahead of time that a drunk driver will kill your family. Would you outlaw alcohol? Would you outlaw cars?
We don't outlaw alcohol, but we do restrict its sale and consumption. We also restrict the licensing for cars and revoke that licensing for drunk driving.
We accept risky devices and behaviors that we know will kill people. It's part of being free.
There is an inherent risk in using these things, but we don't accept the behavior you speak of. We give people the opportunity to use these things responsibly and take away those opportunities when they clearly demonstrate that they are incapable of using them responsibly.
Where is the $21B "War on Drunk Driving"?
It's not labeled "War on Drunk Driving" but if I had to guess how much money and time was spent on finding, arresting, processing, trying, convicting, and jailing just the drunk drivers in our country, I would not be surprised if we hit that amount every few years. Ask your local police officers how many drunk drivers they pick up every week and then multiply that by every other city, county, and state officer across the country. Factor in the time spent by the clerks, judges, guards, DMV workers, and all the other people that come into contact with these idiots and you're looking at a huge sum of money.
As if the average person wasn't already running under the assumption that they were somehow anonmyous in their electronic communications. Frankly, I wouldn't knowingly buy a phone that implemented this protocol and didn't allow it to be toggled.
The Internet, itself, is opt-in.
Info from the DoJ
Info from the DoD
It has become quite apparent that you are more interested in winning an argument than you are on educating yourself with the facts. You have provided nothing but claims of what you have heard. I no longer have the time to waste on this.
No, again. The "funds" that was alleged by the ACLU to have been provided was for the use of the grounds at Fort A.P. Hill, for the Army engineers building support structures, and the Signal soldiers establishing communications. The Army views these as training exercises (in lieu of hiring thousands of contractors to be simulated crowds). This is money that would be spent for training, whether they have the opportunity to use the Scouts or not. They don't write some huge check to the BSA.
Both the ACLU and the news channels that covered the allegations of impropriety were wrong. The fact that it was "in the news" does not make your statement factually correct. There have always been laws against federal money supporting private organizations, Boy Scouts or not. If you look at the settlement that resulted from the ACLU's lawsuit, you'll see that nothing has changed. The Jamboree will happen the same way it always has.
They do - because the BSA receives federal funding.
No, they most certainly do not receive federal funding. What you are most likely confused about is the money that they receive from the Combined Federal Campaign. These are not your tax dollars. These are personal donations, received from government employees and handled by the Office of Personnel Management, where the recipients are designated, specifically, by the donating person.
Dick drives Jane's car.
Jane's car has a faulty parking brake.
Dick parks, engages the brake, but the car rolls away.
Dick stops parking on hills.
Important Points
Jane did not fix the parking brake
Dick did not fix the parking brake, but he no longer uses it.
Other drivers may or may not be aware of the broken parking brake.
The potential is still there for the car to roll away.
If I remember correctly, he was far more concerned with EI than IE.
Consider that the 25% that he owns was also affected by his own insider trading and dropped in value, effectively negating the "increase" you're concerned about.
I know credit card charges can be a drain on small businesses, expecially for small transactions, but I was pissed. The local pizza place's minimum order requirement, despite being in direct conflict with their merchant agreement, wasn't displayed anywhere but the register (pay after you eat) and they tack on a $2 surcharge. On top of that, the guy wouldn't refund my buddy his cash, so we could combine the orders and meet the minimum. I told him to charge the card, but it would be more trouble than it was worth. I took a picture of his sign with my phone and sent the pictures and a receipts to Visa. They cancelled the charges outright and his account got yanked immediately.
The next time I went by, he actually ran out to his doorway and yelled about how I was ruining in his business and taking food out of his kids mouths. I told him I would buy lunch there more often, but he doesn't take Visa anymore.
Buy any Sony DVD after Jan 1 2005 and you can't play it without using their player (or DVD Decryptor)....Why? They deliberately put bad sectors on the disk.
I buy tons of DVDs and I have never encountered this problem. Not just in my Sony DVD player, mind you, but in my computer, my Xbox, my Pioneer DVD player, or my car's player. Not to mention, the first reaction of a consumer will be to exchange the disc, not buy a new DVD player, let alone a Sony model.
I will admit, though, that it's the Sony DVD player that is the most likely to have problems reading a disc. I do attribute that problem to them.