What? SC2's Battle.net interface is fucking terrible. You can't even resize chat boxes or move them outside of the window. It's slow as hell to respond and and on a widescreen format it doesn't even make use of the extra horizontal space.
In steam I can run my friend's list in a separate window, organize and rearrange chat windows in and out of any game I want, and simultaneously access them from the overlay. I can remotely download new games and access my steam chat from my god damn phone. I can even add non steam apps to my steam folder and benefit from the same connectedness I get in steam bought games besides automatic updates and server browsing.
What does Battle.net 2.0 get you? Chat with D3 and WoW players and only regional multiplayer support. SC2's battle.net interface has been ridiculed by the SC2 community at large as being the shoddiest of any community interface in existence and rightly so.
And you're addressing the relevant point that the book was fundamentally about choice and ignorance how? The whole point of the book is that the main character was selected to be the Receiver, the bearer of all unpleasant truths so that he could advise the community elders without them or anyone else having to know of those experiences. So that everyone could live in blissful ignorance while he bore that toll for them. It has nothing to do with violence, the whole point of killing off the elderly was that everyone knew of it as "Releasing" and didn't really know what it entailed, similar to Logan's Run. It was simply another uncomfortable truth that was decided that nobody needed to know about, that's the significance of it. There is no resolution through violence, the protagonist's solution is to run away and force the community to accept and deal with all of the bad memories and experiences he was meant to bear for them. You missed the point of the book entirely.
You need to read that book if that what you took away from it. The Giver was about a community that had given up all fear and knowledge to lead boring but safe lives. The question the book posed was whether or not knowledge and freedom were worth the pain and suffering that came with it and if one person had the right to choose for everyone who were too ignorant to choose for themselves. It has fuck all to do with pacifism as main theme, it only applies in that knowledge and freedom were given up for safety. How you equate that to pacifism and non violent conflict resolution is a huge reach.
I was youtube surfing and I can across a video called "iMac Unboxing". Not knowing what it was I clicked on thinking "Ok, it'll be cool to see what's in an iMac and how they put them together." I sat and watched the video as the guy showed the computer in its box and started opening it describing all the packaging and over the first 2 minutes of this 8 minute video it slowly dawned on me that all this fucker was doing was taking the god damn computer out of its fucking box and recording every moment of it like anyone else should give a shit. I had never felt such pity for a human being in my life until that moment.
An important part of the legislation that went into effect earlier this year is that insurers are required by law to spend 80% of revenue collected through premiums on healthcare, meaning they can only make a maximum or 25% percent profit if their administrative costs were zero. This means that it is no longer worthwhile to deny claims to policy holders because they still have to spend the 80% one way or another. Instead they are better off spending less money on administrative efforts to deny people's claims and more on being a leaner organisation and selling as many policies as possible.
Combine this with the individual mandate, and you'll see the size of the risk pool explode and it's why you can bank on premiums going down.
It's another excuse to not fix our failed education system, with dismal results for k-12 and crushing debt for college graduates. When we artificially inflate the skill worker pool with skilled foreign workers with temporary visas. We are accruing a massive educational debt in this country and as soon as the foreign workers find better opportunities eslewhere, that bubble is going to burst and we're going to have a serious problem.
We need to stop and recognize that fucking over our own citizens and take workers that other countries spent the time and resources to train and educate, is not sustainable. We need to invest in our own citizen's education and this bill is a measure to put that off and make the problem worse.
But hey, who cares that some studies even showed a person to be more safe after one drink. This isn't about safety, its about the perception of safety.
"Some Studies"
I call bullshit.
How many studies, what kind of peer review, how many dissenting studies? You don't get to cite "some studies" without so much as a fucking link as license to push any opinion you like. Let me guess, one time you came across a link stating that one drink make drivers safer, you didn't read the study and you made no effort to be skeptical because you liked the conclusion. At least have the honesty to say you really don't give a fuck that you drink and drive and that evidence isn't important, only the perception of evidence.
There is more than one way to make a profit off of a piece of work. The pirate bay's approach of torrenting all content might not be moral or the correct approach, however Hollywood is still making their money and challenging the legitimacy of and practicality of current copyright law is a worthwhile cause. If it wasn't these guys it would be someone else and at some point governments, content publishers and Internet users are going to have to reconcile that an open and free internet is not compatible with draconian copyright law and the current business model most content publishers employ.
Even if publishers have a valid case against piracy and will actually fail as a result of it, I still choose a free Internet over the publishers. As it stands no data indicates that they do and even if they did it is not our obligation to change the world and restrict technology for the benefit of their outdated business model at the cost of progress.
You know I think you're right. I don't think I can recall any occurrences of people enacting socail change by breaking the law~. You might be on to something here. ~~
Your incorrect use of Occam's razor makes me a sad panda.
Occam's Razor does not state that the simplest solution is usually the correct one, it states that in the absence of complete knowledge the conclusion that is required to make the least assumptions about unknowns in order to be true has the highest probability of being correct.
A government IT and infrastructure project went over budget? What a shock. This article would be post-worthy if it was a government contract coming in UNDER budget, this is the norm not the exception.
The people in charge of arranging these projects:
A) Do not understand the actual requirements.
B) Often do not know what they already have.
C) Drastically underestimate or do not factor in at all the maintenance costs.
D) Don't know what they actually want or how to articulate what it is they think they want.
As someone who has worked several 6 figure short term contracts for major airlines, you can hand over enterprise software to these people that they paid you hundreds of thousands of dollars to develop and then shove it on a VM with less power than you can purchase in a home PC with what they paid you per day to develop it. If its software they don't factor in hardware costs, if it's hardware they don't factor in installation and maintenance, if it's maintenance they don't factor in legacy costs, for all of the above they don't factor in training and changeover costs, or downtime.
Now if you're willing to be a little bit underhanded, when you're bidding for this contract you smile and nod and accept it knowing that you will never be able to deliver on time. However if you know anything about project management and the likely wording of the contract, the things that will keep you from delivering on time are not outlined in the requirements and you will mark as PCR's(Product Change Requests) and not in scope for the original project and bill out the ass for them which a lot of companies do.
The real issue, time and time again, is that the people hired to negotiate these contracts and the people who actually know what they need and what it'll take, never talk. As a result the requirements are always wrong, scope balloons, and so does the cost.
Slashdot Mirror
What? SC2's Battle.net interface is fucking terrible. You can't even resize chat boxes or move them outside of the window. It's slow as hell to respond and and on a widescreen format it doesn't even make use of the extra horizontal space.
In steam I can run my friend's list in a separate window, organize and rearrange chat windows in and out of any game I want, and simultaneously access them from the overlay. I can remotely download new games and access my steam chat from my god damn phone. I can even add non steam apps to my steam folder and benefit from the same connectedness I get in steam bought games besides automatic updates and server browsing.
What does Battle.net 2.0 get you? Chat with D3 and WoW players and only regional multiplayer support. SC2's battle.net interface has been ridiculed by the SC2 community at large as being the shoddiest of any community interface in existence and rightly so.
And you're addressing the relevant point that the book was fundamentally about choice and ignorance how? The whole point of the book is that the main character was selected to be the Receiver, the bearer of all unpleasant truths so that he could advise the community elders without them or anyone else having to know of those experiences. So that everyone could live in blissful ignorance while he bore that toll for them. It has nothing to do with violence, the whole point of killing off the elderly was that everyone knew of it as "Releasing" and didn't really know what it entailed, similar to Logan's Run. It was simply another uncomfortable truth that was decided that nobody needed to know about, that's the significance of it. There is no resolution through violence, the protagonist's solution is to run away and force the community to accept and deal with all of the bad memories and experiences he was meant to bear for them. You missed the point of the book entirely.
You need to read that book if that what you took away from it. The Giver was about a community that had given up all fear and knowledge to lead boring but safe lives. The question the book posed was whether or not knowledge and freedom were worth the pain and suffering that came with it and if one person had the right to choose for everyone who were too ignorant to choose for themselves. It has fuck all to do with pacifism as main theme, it only applies in that knowledge and freedom were given up for safety. How you equate that to pacifism and non violent conflict resolution is a huge reach.
I was youtube surfing and I can across a video called "iMac Unboxing". Not knowing what it was I clicked on thinking "Ok, it'll be cool to see what's in an iMac and how they put them together." I sat and watched the video as the guy showed the computer in its box and started opening it describing all the packaging and over the first 2 minutes of this 8 minute video it slowly dawned on me that all this fucker was doing was taking the god damn computer out of its fucking box and recording every moment of it like anyone else should give a shit. I had never felt such pity for a human being in my life until that moment.
An important part of the legislation that went into effect earlier this year is that insurers are required by law to spend 80% of revenue collected through premiums on healthcare, meaning they can only make a maximum or 25% percent profit if their administrative costs were zero. This means that it is no longer worthwhile to deny claims to policy holders because they still have to spend the 80% one way or another. Instead they are better off spending less money on administrative efforts to deny people's claims and more on being a leaner organisation and selling as many policies as possible.
Combine this with the individual mandate, and you'll see the size of the risk pool explode and it's why you can bank on premiums going down.
You mean like you're doing now?
It's another excuse to not fix our failed education system, with dismal results for k-12 and crushing debt for college graduates. When we artificially inflate the skill worker pool with skilled foreign workers with temporary visas. We are accruing a massive educational debt in this country and as soon as the foreign workers find better opportunities eslewhere, that bubble is going to burst and we're going to have a serious problem.
We need to stop and recognize that fucking over our own citizens and take workers that other countries spent the time and resources to train and educate, is not sustainable. We need to invest in our own citizen's education and this bill is a measure to put that off and make the problem worse.
But hey, who cares that some studies even showed a person to be more safe after one drink. This isn't about safety, its about the perception of safety.
"Some Studies"
I call bullshit.
How many studies, what kind of peer review, how many dissenting studies? You don't get to cite "some studies" without so much as a fucking link as license to push any opinion you like. Let me guess, one time you came across a link stating that one drink make drivers safer, you didn't read the study and you made no effort to be skeptical because you liked the conclusion. At least have the honesty to say you really don't give a fuck that you drink and drive and that evidence isn't important, only the perception of evidence.
There is more than one way to make a profit off of a piece of work. The pirate bay's approach of torrenting all content might not be moral or the correct approach, however Hollywood is still making their money and challenging the legitimacy of and practicality of current copyright law is a worthwhile cause. If it wasn't these guys it would be someone else and at some point governments, content publishers and Internet users are going to have to reconcile that an open and free internet is not compatible with draconian copyright law and the current business model most content publishers employ.
Even if publishers have a valid case against piracy and will actually fail as a result of it, I still choose a free Internet over the publishers. As it stands no data indicates that they do and even if they did it is not our obligation to change the world and restrict technology for the benefit of their outdated business model at the cost of progress.
You know I think you're right. I don't think I can recall any occurrences of people enacting socail change by breaking the law~. You might be on to something here. ~~
No but it does make you delusional to think it's reasonable.
It may very well have been, most of my experience was pre-911.
Thousands of dollars and years of your life spent waiting for your number to be called in an INS office.
Yes, because as well all know the truth has a well known liberal bias.
Your incorrect use of Occam's razor makes me a sad panda. Occam's Razor does not state that the simplest solution is usually the correct one, it states that in the absence of complete knowledge the conclusion that is required to make the least assumptions about unknowns in order to be true has the highest probability of being correct.
Of course! How could he possibly be informed AND disagree with your point of view? Must be a piece of shit socialist.
This is actually kind of a fair point, most of Europe doesn't have a big problem with meth addicts.
A government IT and infrastructure project went over budget? What a shock. This article would be post-worthy if it was a government contract coming in UNDER budget, this is the norm not the exception. The people in charge of arranging these projects: A) Do not understand the actual requirements. B) Often do not know what they already have. C) Drastically underestimate or do not factor in at all the maintenance costs. D) Don't know what they actually want or how to articulate what it is they think they want. As someone who has worked several 6 figure short term contracts for major airlines, you can hand over enterprise software to these people that they paid you hundreds of thousands of dollars to develop and then shove it on a VM with less power than you can purchase in a home PC with what they paid you per day to develop it. If its software they don't factor in hardware costs, if it's hardware they don't factor in installation and maintenance, if it's maintenance they don't factor in legacy costs, for all of the above they don't factor in training and changeover costs, or downtime. Now if you're willing to be a little bit underhanded, when you're bidding for this contract you smile and nod and accept it knowing that you will never be able to deliver on time. However if you know anything about project management and the likely wording of the contract, the things that will keep you from delivering on time are not outlined in the requirements and you will mark as PCR's(Product Change Requests) and not in scope for the original project and bill out the ass for them which a lot of companies do. The real issue, time and time again, is that the people hired to negotiate these contracts and the people who actually know what they need and what it'll take, never talk. As a result the requirements are always wrong, scope balloons, and so does the cost.