I'm always desperately confused by Exploding Kittens. Everything I saw in the kickstarter was that it wasn't a fun game. Then when they finally released gameplay videos. I was still lost as to why I would want it. And yet it kept making more and more. But that's a fairly accurate description. "War without the strategic depth". I'm gonna steal that.
I think the whole case is pointless. It simply makes no sense to convict anyone for something they didn't do. There was no crime, there was no possibility of crime happening.
that doesn't make sense. Just because a crime didn't happen doesn't mean a crime wouldn't have happened. By that logic every crime stopped prematurely lacks the fruit for conviction because it didn't happen
It only proves that he could trigger the detonation of a bomb to kill people if manipulated by someone. But being such a person is clearly not a crime. Maybe this could be a reason for supervision and psychological support, but 30 years in prison is ridiculous.
This is the core of the argument. That anyone could be manipulated into pushing the button. But was he going to push the button or was he manipulated into it. That's the difference between a criminal who was stopped before he did something horrific and a guy who got caught up. The courts have thus far decided on the former and the article attempts to present that it's more likely he was manipulated. And they do this by showing all the ways he was manipulated. All the missing evidence that was claimed to have proven he was already a danger.
While I have no interest in going to Mississippi for a number of reasons. I question whether there might be value in having places that aren't as connected.
It will drain your town of young people and leave your business in the dust.
while i can imagine this is a real concern. Being untapped in doesn't necessarily have to be the be all end all. It's not necessarily as bad as we the tapped in make it seem.
I think the point of contention is whether such a $1 coder would actually establish contacts and whether those contacts would be worthwhile in any immediacy. Worthwhile meaning things like leading to more high paying jobs in the future because if they're being called back for bottom of the barrel prices again then this was a waste of her time.
Consider though, through a combination of nagative actions and inactions, these youth have had it made perfectly clear that they will never be accepted into society as full and equal members. Is it surprising that they formed their own society that doesn't really give a rats ass about the society that marginalized them?
It seems like a fairly rational response.
wow chicken and egg much?
these youth have had it made perfectly clear that they will never be accepted into society as full and equal members
Or maybe society has made it very clear that they will never be accepted into society as full and equal members so they stop trying. Considering that's the message of hip hop maybe we outta listen to what they're saying.
I dunno, it's hardly false advertising to say "this policy isn't working for us, we're changing it going forward, but you can keep that extra storage for 12 months as compensation". Because that's what they're doing. Is it false advertising to ever change what plans you choose to offer?
I kinda think it is unfair to advertise this platform as a backup and they severely limit it's abilities to be that backup. People will switch to one drive for that amount of space. that's some switchable space and then to reduce unlimited back up to 1TB with 12 months to find an alternative solution.. that's almost cruel. With the era of home videos getting bigger and bigger. More and more legitimate people are using that large amount of space. This isn't just a crew of nerds storing their DC++ porn on OneDrive but people who are photographers and videographers both of both professional and amateur status. These limits are deciding factors for them. It can save you a bunch of money on storage and then suddenly it's gone.
I'm not sure you read the article. It wasn't about being cluelessly wealthy or how wealth causes it's own problems. that would have made sense as Scalzi suggested. Instead the article was about how the poor keep blaming the rich. How the poor will single out the rich. How things like Occupy Wall Street make the rich feel nervous. Like how dare those poor people single out a Wal-mart Walton to make into their puppet. LIke what kind of sense does that make ehh? This isn't about affecting lottery winners.
The article made maybe two relatable points. One of which was how rich people problems are often money related and there's no way for them to talk about their problems and avoid the social taboo of talking about money. it's nothing nearly as serious as the complains of the black community or the homosexual community both of whom were used as analogies.
"she directly makes a comparison by encouraging people to replace the word "rich" with "black" to see the problem with how she says people speak of the rich."
Sorry, John, but if you don't "like" the implications of replacing group X with group Y in a sentence, the problem exists in your own wetware, not with the underlying premise. You don't get to discriminate against "the right" groups with impunity just because it happens to better fit your world-view. Nor does the whiteness of that cohort have any relevance to the analogy (and in fact, your mentioning it actually commits the offense you accuse Kasperkevic of)
Kasperkevic didn't intend to literally equate the struggles of the rich with those of blacks (something you, as a professional author, should have grasped); rather, she used it as a literary device to highlight the fact that calling for lynching any group, whether black or Jewish or rich, should offend us as a violation of basic human dignity.
What are you talking about? discriminating against black people is NOTHING like the discrimination against the rich. First of all the rich as a group can do a whole lot more against discrimination against them then black people as a community. The rich have gotten away with MUCH MUCH more grievous harm and the black community has been punished for much less reason than the rich.
Which isn't to say that every rich person deserves to get their hands cut off or anything but their "struggle" is nothing like a racial struggle and bringing up the struggle of a racial minority like the black community only serves to make the black struggle seem disingenuous. The point of the comparison was not about literal lynching. No one thinks it's ok to literally lynch the rich. Which is the only way such a comparison might not be wildly offensive. The comparison was about how the rich are perceived and treated which is NOTHING like how a racial minority is treated or perceived.
..I don't use a single app that my mobile phone didn't ship with. I rarely, if ever, browse whilst using my mobile phone. I text and email, that's about it.
Don't get me wrong. I'm happy for you. But that's a hugely hugely fragment of a fragment of the population. there are entire countries where the phone is the primary computer device. I'm in North America and right now that's me. Because my laptop and tablet's screens are currently dead to me. I'm glad that option's open to you. Blackberry was fine in it's day and heaven knows I miss actual physical keyboards you can type without staring like an idiot. But it's far from a practical alternative the most anyone.
now they can spy on me together. I hate to think of them wasting time spying on me separately and comparing notes. The inefficiencies affect my engineering sensibilities.
Any decent futurecaster see this as the snowball that will blow up into the one cookie. The one cookie to rule them all.
The cables, which are sometimes accidentally used in datacenters, feature a protective boot that sticks out over the top to ensure the release tab isn’t accidentally pressed or broken off, rendering the cable useless.
I'm not a network engineer but why are those types of cables not supposed to be used? The article seems to imply that using these hooded cables is wrong. I can see why they wouldn't be cost effective or not necessary but why wrong?
I like Pocket. I use Pocket. It's a nifty way to have a bunch of articles categorized so when people say stupid things like black people loot and white people band together. I can pull together the many articles showing people looking and rioting over pumpkins so regularly it's expected. When someone wants to talk about how scary the rise of false rape allegations is I can pull together the numerous articles I've saved on that subject to explain to them why they're wrong. I think Pocket is great. I use pocket to keep design links that I'll find useful. Videos of people spending hours just creating graphics for games that I find compelling and educational. I keep links to brushes and background and resources for various projects. Pocket is in my opinion pretty awesome even though I use it not as intended most of the time.
I still don't want it integrated into my browser.
> And, although their suggestion about male superiority is pretty unpleasant at multiple levels, it *is* a possible explanation for observational survey results. None of us might like that, but it's possible.
while possible it's also almost completely baseless. It's also possible that these researchers are blonde and the review was actually a subconsious response to blonde hair and odd but true, dark-haired people make the best researchers. No one really wants to admit that blondes are actually stupider but it's something we should be prepared to face when the mountain of evidence in the article reveals this to be a central truth.
It's actually a quite plausible statistical consequence of programs aimed at increasing the number of women in STEM fields.
what?? no not at all. The whole purpose in increasing women in stem was to combat this statistic. It's not a result of trying to get women in. if anything it's a symptom that we still don't have enough women in. that's like saying that increasing the number of minority coders will decrease the overall quality of code produced. It's true in a way that completely ignores causality because all the black and latino kids who are coding now didn't learn to code from their engineering parents on some of the very first personal computing machines. Hey it's 50 years since civil rights and black people still make up the large population of criminals just like [those] organizations told us. Obviously it's a consequence of giving them all those rights and not say a lingering statistic that is a complex result of old cultural norms still be ingrained in the social practices of contemporary society.
The highest performing researchers will be given positions and grants regardless of their gender. If there are then slots or scholarships or grants for women without respect to their performance, it will increase the amount of research done by women but lower its average quality.
Again that's taking some pretty hefty jumps. Why not expect the opposite? With a history of sexual bias that would mean that qualified women have missed out because of their gender, meaning that men have gotten the job who were less qualified which means the overrepresentation of men is what reduces the overall quality of the field. Increasing the amount of women would serve to balance this and actually increase the average.
Let's transpose this to a different time: "Oh well no black person has ever gone to [Insert upper level educational facility named after a vine here] so while we're increasing the number of black students it's actually decreasing our schools overall intelligence. All of our non-black students have 5 generations of attendance and a legacy of expectation and support systems in place and years of grooming and a culture where this is normal, our black students have none of that, and all except the three who earned presidential scholarships are looked upon as tokens anyway (they just have state minority scholarships) but hey maybe the opposition is right that we should ignore when they complain about racial bias. It's their fault."
speaking of idiotic statements
The paper was not rejected because of one reviewer. It's standard to have THREE reviewers, this is one guy out of three. Additionally, it's the editor's call whether to accept or reject it. Typically that's based on the reviewers recommendation. However, the editor could and should have ignored that one reviewer and accepted it anyway. Actually, the AE should have deleted the review and said to the authors "Sorry, the third reviewer never turned in his review, sending it out for a different reviewer." The AE could have accepted it even if all three reviewers had insightful criticisms of the paper and said it was horrible.
In other words, the rejection for publication could have nothing to do with that one review, it was not rejected due to that review, it was rejected by t
I'm torn about whether I would have rejected the review. I would have ignored it probably, but would have I rejected it?
As many have pointed out, if the genders were reversed, this would be playing out in a very different way. Imagine, for example, that males submitted the paper, and the reviewer suggested they have a female co-author. Many would see it as rational, if extreme suggestion, that almost certainly would not have resulted in this outcome.
The difference is that the paper is on the experience of women. It's a paper on women suffering not a paper on men being advantaged [if that's not confusing]. If two guys write this paper they're not writing about how much better the male experience is by looking at it from the male perspective. That would be weird. Maleness is defaultness. The paper in on how the female experience is not the same as the male experience. It's less. Thus it makes sense to suggest an actual female researcher contribute to the effort.
I too was wondering how I would respond but after typing this out I don't see how I would have rejected it. And that third reviewer.. good lord what a tool. I'm not even sure i/want/ to read his review because you can't context any non offensive meaning out of that snippet.
Seriously, it was, and is, far more confusing and disorienting than Facebook ever was. It looked like a steep learning curve, to guess exactly what the privacy settings are, what "adding to circle" REALLY means, who sees WHAT, etc.
actually I completely disagree. Google+ had privacy settings you could understand. Easy to tell if what you're sending was going to be public or private. Heck you could even (to a limited extent) prevent your friends from resharing your posts if you wanted to all with relative ease. I never had that Facebook fear where the security settings would change and suddenly everything I had posted would become public.
...and Microsoft gets to pay support people to answer questions from people that never paid for their software. So dumb. Microsoft would be better off to cut these people loose and have them run Macs or Chrome or desktop Android. If someone is willing to run hacked XP or 7 for all this time, they're never going to be paying customers. So why support them? Why have market share if you never get revenue?
because they are not in isolation. They're a part of the internet. When their idiocy gets them infected with someone it spreads to the rest of us.
It may not be the best solution but there's reasoning behind it.
It's real because people like rev whats his face keeps it alive.
oh Sharpton? Rev Al Sharpton is keeping racism alive? Good lord if you guys put half the amount of effort into redefining things like "White Knight" from feminist insult to antifeminist insult and "Social Justice" to "Social Justice Warrior" and "racism" to "race baiting" into actually addressing the matters at hand half these problems could be a fraction of what they were instead of being multiplied.
We've seen many studies that most of the time we choose avatars that look like us when given the choice. Most people see avatars as extensions of their choices. When you see someone playing a black character you presume that 90% of the time the person is dark skinned in real life. Thus we carry our prejudices into our virtual worlds with us. I'd be more surprised if that wasn't happening. If we've learned nothing since the 90s and Second Life in the early 00s, it's that contrary to popular belief the internet isn't some equalizing playing field making everyone the same footing. It just seemed that way to white tech heads at the time because being white tech heads they're default and thus invisible. When you're not the default the internet can make some interesting assessments about you so you sometimes are put in the box of having to stick out or pretend to be white. The "level playing field" of the internet is basically just that anyone can pretend to be white.
didn't real the full article but I was admittedly surprised that they corrected for bystander effect
The virtual human (either black or white) is the victim and the participant is the potential helper; nobody else appears in the environment until the participant has decided to help or not, because “the belief that others will take action can relieve a bystander from assuming personal responsibility for intervention”
that makes the results a little more chilling. I has assumed they just either helped or walked off assuming someone else helped. Still an interesting read on their methodology
The participant was asked to go to the closet of the virtual building and then exit the floor. Under the time pressure condition, the participant was instructed to reach the exit door “as quickly as possible”. After reaching the closet (location “e” in Fig. 1A), the participant heard the cry for help (“Help me, I’m [Mario/Nkhangweleni]. I’m stuck; I’m in the cafeteria—come here and help me!”). In the fire condition, a fire broke out at the same time (Fig. 1C). The task ended when the participant reached the exit doors, with or without helping the virtual human. Participants who reached the virtual human in the cafeteria found a second virtual human near the victim. The second virtual human was dressed in a typical emergency medical service suit and said, “I’m taking care of him; you go to the exit”. This second virtual human was introduced to avoid that participants started any attempt to actually “help” the victim, since no interaction was actually possible with the victim; and to direct participants to the exit doors so that they could eventually complete the session.
and of course the abstract give an interesting context to this paper
Virtual environments are increasingly used for emergency training, but tend to focus mainly on teaching prescribed emergency procedures. However, social psychology literature highlights several factors that can bias individual response to an emergency in the real world, and would be worth considering in virtual training systems. In this paper, we focus on withdrawal of help due to racial discrimination and explore the potential of virtual environments to trigger this bias in emergency situations. We also test if a virtual emergency is actually reacted to as an emergency.
I didn't expect there would be thousands of Floridians who were smart enough to know how to use email yet interested in contacting Jeb. Are we sure they aren't thousands of throwaway email addresses used by just a few people?
well sure i'm responsible for like 170 of the addresses but i didn't write ALL of them.
what' Kernal is saying is that because of first amendment people can spew racist things and form racist communities all under the guise of "Freedom of speech". Kernal is suggesting that other countries with less free speech might regulate racists to minimize their voice.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm always desperately confused by Exploding Kittens. Everything I saw in the kickstarter was that it wasn't a fun game. Then when they finally released gameplay videos. I was still lost as to why I would want it. And yet it kept making more and more. But that's a fairly accurate description. "War without the strategic depth". I'm gonna steal that.
From the summary
SHOW kickstarter. It's the 2nd highest show kickstarter. Second to Veronica Mars at the moment
.
I think the whole case is pointless. It simply makes no sense to convict anyone for something they didn't do. There was no crime, there was no possibility of crime happening.
that doesn't make sense. Just because a crime didn't happen doesn't mean a crime wouldn't have happened. By that logic every crime stopped prematurely lacks the fruit for conviction because it didn't happen
It only proves that he could trigger the detonation of a bomb to kill people if manipulated by someone. But being such a person is clearly not a crime. Maybe this could be a reason for supervision and psychological support, but 30 years in prison is ridiculous.
This is the core of the argument. That anyone could be manipulated into pushing the button. But was he going to push the button or was he manipulated into it. That's the difference between a criminal who was stopped before he did something horrific and a guy who got caught up. The courts have thus far decided on the former and the article attempts to present that it's more likely he was manipulated. And they do this by showing all the ways he was manipulated. All the missing evidence that was claimed to have proven he was already a danger.
While I have no interest in going to Mississippi for a number of reasons. I question whether there might be value in having places that aren't as connected.
while i can imagine this is a real concern. Being untapped in doesn't necessarily have to be the be all end all. It's not necessarily as bad as we the tapped in make it seem.
I think the point of contention is whether such a $1 coder would actually establish contacts and whether those contacts would be worthwhile in any immediacy. Worthwhile meaning things like leading to more high paying jobs in the future because if they're being called back for bottom of the barrel prices again then this was a waste of her time.
sure who wouldn't want more exposure. Such a unique platform like getting Govt Bids is sure to be rewarding down the line.
Consider though, through a combination of nagative actions and inactions, these youth have had it made perfectly clear that they will never be accepted into society as full and equal members. Is it surprising that they formed their own society that doesn't really give a rats ass about the society that marginalized them?
It seems like a fairly rational response.
wow chicken and egg much?
these youth have had it made perfectly clear that they will never be accepted into society as full and equal members
Or maybe society has made it very clear that they will never be accepted into society as full and equal members so they stop trying. Considering that's the message of hip hop maybe we outta listen to what they're saying.
I dunno, it's hardly false advertising to say "this policy isn't working for us, we're changing it going forward, but you can keep that extra storage for 12 months as compensation". Because that's what they're doing. Is it false advertising to ever change what plans you choose to offer?
I kinda think it is unfair to advertise this platform as a backup and they severely limit it's abilities to be that backup. People will switch to one drive for that amount of space. that's some switchable space and then to reduce unlimited back up to 1TB with 12 months to find an alternative solution.. that's almost cruel. With the era of home videos getting bigger and bigger. More and more legitimate people are using that large amount of space. This isn't just a crew of nerds storing their DC++ porn on OneDrive but people who are photographers and videographers both of both professional and amateur status. These limits are deciding factors for them. It can save you a bunch of money on storage and then suddenly it's gone.
I'm not sure you read the article. It wasn't about being cluelessly wealthy or how wealth causes it's own problems. that would have made sense as Scalzi suggested. Instead the article was about how the poor keep blaming the rich. How the poor will single out the rich. How things like Occupy Wall Street make the rich feel nervous. Like how dare those poor people single out a Wal-mart Walton to make into their puppet. LIke what kind of sense does that make ehh? This isn't about affecting lottery winners.
The article made maybe two relatable points. One of which was how rich people problems are often money related and there's no way for them to talk about their problems and avoid the social taboo of talking about money. it's nothing nearly as serious as the complains of the black community or the homosexual community both of whom were used as analogies.
i can agree that cultural heritage isn't the same thing as a racial one. but it's still nothing close to the acquired trait of wealth.
"she directly makes a comparison by encouraging people to replace the word "rich" with "black" to see the problem with how she says people speak of the rich."
Sorry, John, but if you don't "like" the implications of replacing group X with group Y in a sentence, the problem exists in your own wetware, not with the underlying premise. You don't get to discriminate against "the right" groups with impunity just because it happens to better fit your world-view. Nor does the whiteness of that cohort have any relevance to the analogy (and in fact, your mentioning it actually commits the offense you accuse Kasperkevic of)
Kasperkevic didn't intend to literally equate the struggles of the rich with those of blacks (something you, as a professional author, should have grasped); rather, she used it as a literary device to highlight the fact that calling for lynching any group, whether black or Jewish or rich, should offend us as a violation of basic human dignity.
What are you talking about? discriminating against black people is NOTHING like the discrimination against the rich. First of all the rich as a group can do a whole lot more against discrimination against them then black people as a community. The rich have gotten away with MUCH MUCH more grievous harm and the black community has been punished for much less reason than the rich.
Which isn't to say that every rich person deserves to get their hands cut off or anything but their "struggle" is nothing like a racial struggle and bringing up the struggle of a racial minority like the black community only serves to make the black struggle seem disingenuous. The point of the comparison was not about literal lynching. No one thinks it's ok to literally lynch the rich. Which is the only way such a comparison might not be wildly offensive. The comparison was about how the rich are perceived and treated which is NOTHING like how a racial minority is treated or perceived.
..I don't use a single app that my mobile phone didn't ship with. I rarely, if ever, browse whilst using my mobile phone. I text and email, that's about it.
Don't get me wrong. I'm happy for you. But that's a hugely hugely fragment of a fragment of the population. there are entire countries where the phone is the primary computer device. I'm in North America and right now that's me. Because my laptop and tablet's screens are currently dead to me. I'm glad that option's open to you. Blackberry was fine in it's day and heaven knows I miss actual physical keyboards you can type without staring like an idiot. But it's far from a practical alternative the most anyone.
now they can spy on me together. I hate to think of them wasting time spying on me separately and comparing notes. The inefficiencies affect my engineering sensibilities. Any decent futurecaster see this as the snowball that will blow up into the one cookie. The one cookie to rule them all.
What about when you are on a metered connection (such as mobile broadband) ?
This could cost you a fortune. Any chance Microsoft could be held liable for their customers communication costs ?
Yep, that happened. Let's see if coop247 tries to take them to court.
I'm not a network engineer but why are those types of cables not supposed to be used? The article seems to imply that using these hooded cables is wrong. I can see why they wouldn't be cost effective or not necessary but why wrong?
I like Pocket. I use Pocket. It's a nifty way to have a bunch of articles categorized so when people say stupid things like black people loot and white people band together. I can pull together the many articles showing people looking and rioting over pumpkins so regularly it's expected. When someone wants to talk about how scary the rise of false rape allegations is I can pull together the numerous articles I've saved on that subject to explain to them why they're wrong. I think Pocket is great. I use pocket to keep design links that I'll find useful. Videos of people spending hours just creating graphics for games that I find compelling and educational. I keep links to brushes and background and resources for various projects. Pocket is in my opinion pretty awesome even though I use it not as intended most of the time. I still don't want it integrated into my browser.
> And, although their suggestion about male superiority is pretty unpleasant at multiple levels, it *is* a possible explanation for observational survey results. None of us might like that, but it's possible.
while possible it's also almost completely baseless. It's also possible that these researchers are blonde and the review was actually a subconsious response to blonde hair and odd but true, dark-haired people make the best researchers. No one really wants to admit that blondes are actually stupider but it's something we should be prepared to face when the mountain of evidence in the article reveals this to be a central truth.
It's actually a quite plausible statistical consequence of programs aimed at increasing the number of women in STEM fields.
what?? no not at all. The whole purpose in increasing women in stem was to combat this statistic. It's not a result of trying to get women in. if anything it's a symptom that we still don't have enough women in. that's like saying that increasing the number of minority coders will decrease the overall quality of code produced. It's true in a way that completely ignores causality because all the black and latino kids who are coding now didn't learn to code from their engineering parents on some of the very first personal computing machines. Hey it's 50 years since civil rights and black people still make up the large population of criminals just like [those] organizations told us. Obviously it's a consequence of giving them all those rights and not say a lingering statistic that is a complex result of old cultural norms still be ingrained in the social practices of contemporary society.
The highest performing researchers will be given positions and grants regardless of their gender. If there are then slots or scholarships or grants for women without respect to their performance, it will increase the amount of research done by women but lower its average quality.
Again that's taking some pretty hefty jumps. Why not expect the opposite? With a history of sexual bias that would mean that qualified women have missed out because of their gender, meaning that men have gotten the job who were less qualified which means the overrepresentation of men is what reduces the overall quality of the field. Increasing the amount of women would serve to balance this and actually increase the average.
Let's transpose this to a different time: "Oh well no black person has ever gone to [Insert upper level educational facility named after a vine here] so while we're increasing the number of black students it's actually decreasing our schools overall intelligence. All of our non-black students have 5 generations of attendance and a legacy of expectation and support systems in place and years of grooming and a culture where this is normal, our black students have none of that, and all except the three who earned presidential scholarships are looked upon as tokens anyway (they just have state minority scholarships) but hey maybe the opposition is right that we should ignore when they complain about racial bias. It's their fault."
speaking of idiotic statements
I'm an academic journal editor.
I'm torn about whether I would have rejected the review. I would have ignored it probably, but would have I rejected it?
As many have pointed out, if the genders were reversed, this would be playing out in a very different way. Imagine, for example, that males submitted the paper, and the reviewer suggested they have a female co-author. Many would see it as rational, if extreme suggestion, that almost certainly would not have resulted in this outcome.
The difference is that the paper is on the experience of women. It's a paper on women suffering not a paper on men being advantaged [if that's not confusing]. If two guys write this paper they're not writing about how much better the male experience is by looking at it from the male perspective. That would be weird. Maleness is defaultness. The paper in on how the female experience is not the same as the male experience. It's less. Thus it makes sense to suggest an actual female researcher contribute to the effort. I too was wondering how I would respond but after typing this out I don't see how I would have rejected it. And that third reviewer.. good lord what a tool. I'm not even sure i /want/ to read his review because you can't context any non offensive meaning out of that snippet.
exactly. Congratulations on this one guy for not falling into the trap but just because he didn't doesn't mean that people in general don't.
Seriously, it was, and is, far more confusing and disorienting than Facebook ever was. It looked like a steep learning curve, to guess exactly what the privacy settings are, what "adding to circle" REALLY means, who sees WHAT, etc.
actually I completely disagree. Google+ had privacy settings you could understand. Easy to tell if what you're sending was going to be public or private. Heck you could even (to a limited extent) prevent your friends from resharing your posts if you wanted to all with relative ease. I never had that Facebook fear where the security settings would change and suddenly everything I had posted would become public.
...and Microsoft gets to pay support people to answer questions from people that never paid for their software. So dumb. Microsoft would be better off to cut these people loose and have them run Macs or Chrome or desktop Android. If someone is willing to run hacked XP or 7 for all this time, they're never going to be paying customers. So why support them? Why have market share if you never get revenue?
because they are not in isolation. They're a part of the internet. When their idiocy gets them infected with someone it spreads to the rest of us. It may not be the best solution but there's reasoning behind it.
It's real because people like rev whats his face keeps it alive.
oh Sharpton? Rev Al Sharpton is keeping racism alive? Good lord if you guys put half the amount of effort into redefining things like "White Knight" from feminist insult to antifeminist insult and "Social Justice" to "Social Justice Warrior" and "racism" to "race baiting" into actually addressing the matters at hand half these problems could be a fraction of what they were instead of being multiplied.
We've seen many studies that most of the time we choose avatars that look like us when given the choice. Most people see avatars as extensions of their choices. When you see someone playing a black character you presume that 90% of the time the person is dark skinned in real life. Thus we carry our prejudices into our virtual worlds with us. I'd be more surprised if that wasn't happening. If we've learned nothing since the 90s and Second Life in the early 00s, it's that contrary to popular belief the internet isn't some equalizing playing field making everyone the same footing. It just seemed that way to white tech heads at the time because being white tech heads they're default and thus invisible. When you're not the default the internet can make some interesting assessments about you so you sometimes are put in the box of having to stick out or pretend to be white. The "level playing field" of the internet is basically just that anyone can pretend to be white.
didn't real the full article but I was admittedly surprised that they corrected for bystander effect
that makes the results a little more chilling. I has assumed they just either helped or walked off assuming someone else helped. Still an interesting read on their methodology
and of course the abstract give an interesting context to this paper
I didn't expect there would be thousands of Floridians who were smart enough to know how to use email yet interested in contacting Jeb. Are we sure they aren't thousands of throwaway email addresses used by just a few people?
well sure i'm responsible for like 170 of the addresses but i didn't write ALL of them.
what' Kernal is saying is that because of first amendment people can spew racist things and form racist communities all under the guise of "Freedom of speech". Kernal is suggesting that other countries with less free speech might regulate racists to minimize their voice.