that someone can take various socially questionable if not outright bigoted positions, and that no business superior, investor or the like should have any right to mitigate the harm you may cause.
Isn't that what gay activists wanted for a long time? The right to not be fired just because your employers found out you held beliefs and practices they disapproved of, especially if it wasn't affecting your job?
You can refuse to do business with a class of people who are not "protected" under discrimination law. But you cannot refuse to do business with people who ARE protected. Wasn't there just a lawsuit recently about a wedding cake designer who LOST a court case about refusing to make a cake for a gay couple?
You call it "economic pressure" when a group you support is wielding the boycott.. but it's illegal discrimination when a group you don't like is wielding the boycott.
They have pretty damned good reasons to be upset. Even I have sympathy for them.
The problem with that logic is everybody has pretty damned good reasons to be upset. If you have sympathy for Muslim terrorists then surely you sympathize with people who commit hate crimes against Muslims. After all, think of their world-view, wherein for their whole lives they've seen acts of terrorism against their countries in the name of the Muslim religion.
What exactly do you think a 15-25 year old from Afghanistan has for a world view.
The 15-25 year old Muslims living in 3rd world countries like you're talking about don't have the means or motivation to attack the West. Many of these 3rd world terrorists are bought and paid for as young children and brainwashed to be used as weapons. If you want to read something heart wrenching, look into the stories of the Mumbai attackers from a few years ago. These guys, who genuinely deserve pity (though they still need to be put down.. they are thoroughly broken and cannot be fixed), are not well liked by Muslims unless they carry out their attacks on non-Muslim targets (e.g. India, Kashmir, Southern Nigeria, etc). There is very little support among Muslims for terrorists attacking other Muslims. They are not at all the same as the terrorists in the polls I mentioned, which were about Muslim terrorists attacking the West. I guess you have not heard about these polls.
The Western Muslim terrorists are pretty much the opposite of what you appear to think. They are often university students or graduates. They often have engineering degrees. They often come from wealth and well-connected families.
Do you honestly have sympathy/empathy for, say, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab (the Underwear Bomber), who was the son of the "former Chairman of First Bank of Nigeria and former Nigerian Federal Commissioner for Economic Development" described as "one of the richest men in Africa" ? What is it about his situation that evokes sympathy in you?
Or more to the point of the article, look at the Tsarnaev brothers. They came here as refugees and were welcomed, given a new life. The younger brother was a student in a US university. He was a citizen. The older brother married an American girl who converted to Islam on his behalf.
I mean... you must be insane to think these guys were somehow forced into terrorism by the unfairness of the world. They were given opportunities on a silver platter. Even their own uncle called them losers and said they brought shame to their family and community. But YOU have sympathy for them? Why?
Okay so you claim whites have "far more opportunity" to own cars. And yet, according to this study in Scotland: "The Scottish Government (2012) reports that Indian, Pakistani and Chinese households are the ethnic groups most likely to have access to a car."
But according to the stats in OP's link, white applicants in Scottish cities have far higher pass rates than Chinese and Asian/Asian British (mostly Pakistani and Indian) applicants.
So... basically you are making stuff up, you think it sounds good, you do no research to confirm your guess, and you state it authoritatively. And then your "out" is to accuse others of being hellbent on backing up their racism, which is merely a ploy to excuse your own incompetence. Yeah, if the other guy is an evil racist, then of course you're not going to waste your time doing research and vetting your hypotheses... who would waste their time on a racist...
Of course, you're wrong about pretty much everything you said, so there's that...
But that is NOT what this is. People back up over OTHER PEOPLE. So, at least in principle, this seems like a legitimate area for government regulation.
Since almost everything we do involves other people, there are very few protective regulations that would be illegitimate by that principle. But a nanny-state isn't just when regulations transgress into illegitimate areas, it's when they're "overprotective" (which is subjective).
A regulation affecting 15 million people per year to save 13 people per year is overprotective to me. Though I wonder where that number came from... is it 13 people in the first year (and accelerating as more cars are sold), or 13 people per year assuming all cars have been replaced? The latter seems like a real low-ball estimate considering there are 210 deaths per year currently.
Besides Assad's allegations, some of Erdoan's followers have also called him a caliph. In 2013, Atlgan Bayar, an advisor to the pro-government news station A Haber, wrote that he recognized Erdoan as the caliph of the Muslim world and expressed his allegiance to him. In one of her recent tweets, Beyhan Demirci, a writer and follower of Erdoan, also wrote that Erdoan is the caliph and the shadow of God on Earth. Some of his followers have gone even further and said things like, “Since Erdoan is the caliph, he has the right to use money earned through corruption for his political goals.”
If you are the security guard at a Pfizer animal testing facility, you probably wouldn't look twice at the 2 Muslim guys who recently got hired, but the hippy-looking chick with the angry boyfriend? Yeah you're following them on the security cameras.
Profiling. It makes sense. It actually makes more sense the more specific the target you're looking for. Your error is lumping all terrorists in as one group, which is silly. The terrorists who attack tax buildings are completely different from the terrorists who want complete independence for Puerto Rico and still different from the terrorists who want to impose sharia law everywhere... etc.
Each of those groups is easy to profile. Lumping them all together serves no purpose except to cloud the issue. Are you doing that on purpose?
The Greater Toronto Area is nearly 8% muslims. If a planes destination is somewhere predominantly muslim, its pretty easy to be on a plane where they're the overwhelming majority.
And that plane will rightfully have greater scrutiny than others.
They aren't exactly "rare", and they're virtually all perfectly regular people.
Haven't you seen the polls in the last decade about how many "perfectly regular" Muslims actually support or sympathize with terrorists? Sure, virtually all Muslims are not terrorists. But with limited resources to investigate and stop terrorists, it makes sense to concentrate on populations where they're likely to have connections. That's why the FBI and police forces are infiltrating mosques... not because "all Muslims must be terrorists" but because the one-in-a-million Muslim terrorist in Toronto is probably going to one of a handful of mosques that the police know about with radical clerics and frequent trips and communications with foreign Muslim groups. And around that one-in-a-million terrorist, there's a network of 100 people who know him and pretty much support what he's doing even though they wouldn't do it themselves, and many of them are undoubtedly at the more radical mosques as well.
So if 3 of those guys gets on the same plane with a 4th guy who is not even on the radar but looks really radical, maybe we should check them all out thoroughly. Who cares if they're inconvenienced?
Well, if your name phonetically matches a known Muslim terrorist and you are a Muslim, then you need to be pretty heavily scrutinized whenever you travel.
If your name phonetically matches a known Muslim terrorist, but you are a 70 year old Mexican grandma, then you do not need to be heavily scrutinized whenever you travel.
That's how profiling helps. We know more about terrorists than their name -- we know physical and cultural characteristics. If we have that extra information about passengers as well, then it can be used to dramatically reduce false positives.
Granted its not a common American name, but as a middle eastern name, it might as well be Tom O'Conner.
That would be a problem if US airport security somehow was based in the Middle East, but it's not.
Yes. Small populations, like "foreigners". This is not a good plan.
Pretty much every country on Earth subjects foreigners to increased scrutiny. It's common sense.
and a LOT of false positives is like the boy who cries wolf, the border agents will ignore them if the computer cries terrorists on every flight.
That's unlikely.. there are already stupid things like not being allowed to bring shampoo on the plane. Border agents are not ignoring that stuff, and it's a lot less stupid to profile young Muslim men than to profile "everybody carrying more than 3oz of fluid" etc.
No you don't have to blindly agree, nor agree to everything. Blaming the GOP for 9/11 is really dumb though. Are you seriously defending that argument?
What if you're a devout Muslim who believes Twitter should be blocked since it's a tool of Western agents to defame and slander your leader, a true lion of Islam, who wants to restore the caliphate?
Yeah, there are more people like that in Turkey than people like you...
allow me to correct your ignorance and lack of knowledge: you're legally obliged to wear a seatbelt when driving.
You better alert states like New Hampshire, which don't require you to wear a seatbelt.
you DO NOT have to bunker up at home. there is this word called "reasonably". you are never required to do literally everything possible, only evrything reaosonable to avoid damage.
Bunkering up at home is not the only alternative to vaccination. How about, for instance, breast feeding your baby so that the baby has the advantage of the mother's immunities before he can be vaccinated himself? Should that be a legal requirement since it's a pretty reasonable thing to do? If a woman chooses not to breastfeed, should she be criminally liable if the baby gets sick?
I don't think you read the post I was responding to.
Hmm the big difference is that Mubarak suppressed Islamist groups and Erdogan works with them. Who do you think was the muscle behind the protests in Egypt? Who is going to topple Erdogan? How are they going to do against the hardcore Muslims who support Turkey's fall into Islamism? I'm reminded of the hilarious naivete of Iranian intellectuals and communists who thought that allying with radical Muslims was a great idea to get rid of the shah. "Hey we'll let the Muslims do the fighting, and then they'll let us rule over them and impose a secular system that they hate to the core! What a simple and elegant solution! I wonder why other Muslim countries didn't think of that??"
Tangential point... why do you think the Arab spring began in Egypt instead of Tunisia? Tunisia has been oddly forgotten in the last few years, not just by you but the mainstream press as well. God only knows how many times NPR has linked Tahrir Square to the start of the Arab spring.
What if it's not pure bullshit? More to the point, the danger with limiting political speech based on libel and slander is that the government decides what libel and slander is. If Country X has a law that what politicians do in private is private, and that revealing those private actions is a form of libel/slander, then do you support the ban?
How far off am I? According to CNN Erdogan said the leaked material he's apparently trying to suppress was "immorally edited." He also said "Freedom is not invading someone's privacy."
What I don't get is why anyone outside of Turkey gives a crap if they block twitter. I get that some people are sad to see this so-called Islamic democracy turning into a failed state, but that's been going on for years. Twitter was the final straw?? Okay..
Looser name matching would increase false positives, but profiling would probably balance that out. Of course that would entail further invasion of privacy etc. If the authorities do it correctly, it would be pretty minor though. You have nothing to fear unless you start going to a mosque, etc.
I know you're just being funny, but terrorists don't have a goal of inconveniencing people, or interpreted loosely, throwing wrenches in the system. They are proud of who they are, what their ideology is, and they want to fight battles and win and be remembered for it.
The more hardcore the name, the cooler. Remember "Johnny Taliban?" Aka John Walker Lindh. He had a great undercover name. But he wanted to sound more authentic so he became Sulayman al-Faris.
While you are raising valid concerns about algorithms like soundex, aren't they minor concerns? Yeah there could be a typo in the name. But in the case we're talking about, it wasn't a typo, it was an alternate phonetic spelling.
And regarding false positives, luckily there aren't many terrorists today named John Smith. False positives would be restricted to relatively small populations anyway, like Muslims and non-Western names. How many "bin laden/bin ladin/bin ladan/ben laden/etc" names are there in the US? Maybe a few, who would all be false positives. So? That's still tiny.
The other thing you're ignoring is that name matching is just part of identity verification. I find it unlikely that Russia gave us this name and nothing else. There was probably a picture as well, or a description. Some percentage of false positives would be eliminated on that basis. "Oh this guy is 80, we're looking for a teenager. Next."
That's a bad way to evaluate the false positive rate because it assumes the distribution of terrorist names is the same as the distribution of names in Social Security. In reality there aren't many Muslims in the US, so the false positive rate for the general population would be much lower. (It may be high for Muslims though, especially since from what I recall soundex etc aren't really optimized for non-Western names.)
Not to mention, name matching is just step one of identification. I'm assuming there's also a picture that would pop up. If the person in front of you is an 80 year old man and the picture is a 17 old year kid, the security agent doesn't have to even mention it.
Excellent point. I don't know why you've been modded as a troll. GP sounds exactly like Newsnight's Will McAvoy (Jeff Daniels).. the Hollywood fantasy version of a conservative who is "fed up" with how "real" conservatives have no options because their party has been "hijacked" by nutjobs.
Yeah the game-play of an MMORPG is not radically different, which is why it's in the RPG genre I guess. The big two problems with them are the players and the resurrection of characters.
The players ruin the RPG environment because most of them are not there to RPG, they're there to chat or trade stuff. Most other players ignore you. It's just too annoying to go into town and suddenly it's like "hay ne1 got flour? I nd it 4 Barta's Recipe qst" or whatever. That kind of noise is no fun.
The constant availability and replayability of quests is also dumb and annoying. It makes sense that in an RPG I can wander around and kill the same type of creature over and over -- there are lots of them. It's dumb when entire dungeons respawn including the named boss characters. Diablo also had this feature, so it's not exclusively MMORPG, but I'm pretty sure it's universal among MMORPGs and rare in regular RPGs.
One obvious solution to your puzzle is that the average is staying the same but the extremes are narrowing, so the coldest spots on Earth are becoming warmer. Certainly if the arctic sent a polar vortex down our way, that cold air must have been replaced by warm air from here.
If the user is just having it read all the text on the screen it will probably be about the same, but if he's navigating within the page it will be different.
Slashdot Mirror
that someone can take various socially questionable if not outright bigoted positions, and that no business superior, investor or the like should have any right to mitigate the harm you may cause.
Isn't that what gay activists wanted for a long time? The right to not be fired just because your employers found out you held beliefs and practices they disapproved of, especially if it wasn't affecting your job?
Yes it is... are you just realizing that not all oppression is bad to all people??
You can refuse to do business with a class of people who are not "protected" under discrimination law. But you cannot refuse to do business with people who ARE protected. Wasn't there just a lawsuit recently about a wedding cake designer who LOST a court case about refusing to make a cake for a gay couple?
You call it "economic pressure" when a group you support is wielding the boycott.. but it's illegal discrimination when a group you don't like is wielding the boycott.
That's not a free market at all.
They have pretty damned good reasons to be upset. Even I have sympathy for them.
The problem with that logic is everybody has pretty damned good reasons to be upset. If you have sympathy for Muslim terrorists then surely you sympathize with people who commit hate crimes against Muslims. After all, think of their world-view, wherein for their whole lives they've seen acts of terrorism against their countries in the name of the Muslim religion.
What exactly do you think a 15-25 year old from Afghanistan has for a world view.
The 15-25 year old Muslims living in 3rd world countries like you're talking about don't have the means or motivation to attack the West. Many of these 3rd world terrorists are bought and paid for as young children and brainwashed to be used as weapons. If you want to read something heart wrenching, look into the stories of the Mumbai attackers from a few years ago. These guys, who genuinely deserve pity (though they still need to be put down.. they are thoroughly broken and cannot be fixed), are not well liked by Muslims unless they carry out their attacks on non-Muslim targets (e.g. India, Kashmir, Southern Nigeria, etc). There is very little support among Muslims for terrorists attacking other Muslims. They are not at all the same as the terrorists in the polls I mentioned, which were about Muslim terrorists attacking the West. I guess you have not heard about these polls.
The Western Muslim terrorists are pretty much the opposite of what you appear to think. They are often university students or graduates. They often have engineering degrees. They often come from wealth and well-connected families.
Do you honestly have sympathy/empathy for, say, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab (the Underwear Bomber), who was the son of the "former Chairman of First Bank of Nigeria and former Nigerian Federal Commissioner for Economic Development" described as "one of the richest men in Africa" ? What is it about his situation that evokes sympathy in you?
Or more to the point of the article, look at the Tsarnaev brothers. They came here as refugees and were welcomed, given a new life. The younger brother was a student in a US university. He was a citizen. The older brother married an American girl who converted to Islam on his behalf.
I mean... you must be insane to think these guys were somehow forced into terrorism by the unfairness of the world. They were given opportunities on a silver platter. Even their own uncle called them losers and said they brought shame to their family and community. But YOU have sympathy for them? Why?
Okay so you claim whites have "far more opportunity" to own cars. And yet, according to this study in Scotland: "The Scottish Government (2012) reports that Indian, Pakistani and Chinese households are the ethnic groups most likely to have access to a car."
But according to the stats in OP's link, white applicants in Scottish cities have far higher pass rates than Chinese and Asian/Asian British (mostly Pakistani and Indian) applicants.
So... basically you are making stuff up, you think it sounds good, you do no research to confirm your guess, and you state it authoritatively. And then your "out" is to accuse others of being hellbent on backing up their racism, which is merely a ploy to excuse your own incompetence. Yeah, if the other guy is an evil racist, then of course you're not going to waste your time doing research and vetting your hypotheses... who would waste their time on a racist...
Of course, you're wrong about pretty much everything you said, so there's that...
But that is NOT what this is. People back up over OTHER PEOPLE. So, at least in principle, this seems like a legitimate area for government regulation.
Since almost everything we do involves other people, there are very few protective regulations that would be illegitimate by that principle. But a nanny-state isn't just when regulations transgress into illegitimate areas, it's when they're "overprotective" (which is subjective).
A regulation affecting 15 million people per year to save 13 people per year is overprotective to me. Though I wonder where that number came from... is it 13 people in the first year (and accelerating as more cars are sold), or 13 people per year assuming all cars have been replaced? The latter seems like a real low-ball estimate considering there are 210 deaths per year currently.
Nope. But I know how to read, do you?
http://www.todayszaman.com/new...
Besides Assad's allegations, some of Erdoan's followers have also called him a caliph. In 2013, Atlgan Bayar, an advisor to the pro-government news station A Haber, wrote that he recognized Erdoan as the caliph of the Muslim world and expressed his allegiance to him. In one of her recent tweets, Beyhan Demirci, a writer and follower of Erdoan, also wrote that Erdoan is the caliph and the shadow of God on Earth. Some of his followers have gone even further and said things like, “Since Erdoan is the caliph, he has the right to use money earned through corruption for his political goals.”
If you are the security guard at a Pfizer animal testing facility, you probably wouldn't look twice at the 2 Muslim guys who recently got hired, but the hippy-looking chick with the angry boyfriend? Yeah you're following them on the security cameras.
Profiling. It makes sense. It actually makes more sense the more specific the target you're looking for. Your error is lumping all terrorists in as one group, which is silly. The terrorists who attack tax buildings are completely different from the terrorists who want complete independence for Puerto Rico and still different from the terrorists who want to impose sharia law everywhere... etc.
Each of those groups is easy to profile. Lumping them all together serves no purpose except to cloud the issue. Are you doing that on purpose?
The Greater Toronto Area is nearly 8% muslims. If a planes destination is somewhere predominantly muslim, its pretty easy to be on a plane where they're the overwhelming majority.
And that plane will rightfully have greater scrutiny than others.
They aren't exactly "rare", and they're virtually all perfectly regular people.
Haven't you seen the polls in the last decade about how many "perfectly regular" Muslims actually support or sympathize with terrorists? Sure, virtually all Muslims are not terrorists. But with limited resources to investigate and stop terrorists, it makes sense to concentrate on populations where they're likely to have connections. That's why the FBI and police forces are infiltrating mosques... not because "all Muslims must be terrorists" but because the one-in-a-million Muslim terrorist in Toronto is probably going to one of a handful of mosques that the police know about with radical clerics and frequent trips and communications with foreign Muslim groups. And around that one-in-a-million terrorist, there's a network of 100 people who know him and pretty much support what he's doing even though they wouldn't do it themselves, and many of them are undoubtedly at the more radical mosques as well.
So if 3 of those guys gets on the same plane with a 4th guy who is not even on the radar but looks really radical, maybe we should check them all out thoroughly. Who cares if they're inconvenienced?
Well, if your name phonetically matches a known Muslim terrorist and you are a Muslim, then you need to be pretty heavily scrutinized whenever you travel.
If your name phonetically matches a known Muslim terrorist, but you are a 70 year old Mexican grandma, then you do not need to be heavily scrutinized whenever you travel.
That's how profiling helps. We know more about terrorists than their name -- we know physical and cultural characteristics. If we have that extra information about passengers as well, then it can be used to dramatically reduce false positives.
Granted its not a common American name, but as a middle eastern name, it might as well be Tom O'Conner.
That would be a problem if US airport security somehow was based in the Middle East, but it's not.
Yes. Small populations, like "foreigners". This is not a good plan.
Pretty much every country on Earth subjects foreigners to increased scrutiny. It's common sense.
and a LOT of false positives is like the boy who cries wolf, the border agents will ignore them if the computer cries terrorists on every flight.
That's unlikely.. there are already stupid things like not being allowed to bring shampoo on the plane. Border agents are not ignoring that stuff, and it's a lot less stupid to profile young Muslim men than to profile "everybody carrying more than 3oz of fluid" etc.
2.5 - 3 million, estimated Muslims in the USA.
So less than 1%.
As to "muslim names", remember that Cat Stevens is Muslim.
Cat Stevens changed his name to Yusuf Islam.
No you don't have to blindly agree, nor agree to everything. Blaming the GOP for 9/11 is really dumb though. Are you seriously defending that argument?
What if you're a devout Muslim who believes Twitter should be blocked since it's a tool of Western agents to defame and slander your leader, a true lion of Islam, who wants to restore the caliphate?
Yeah, there are more people like that in Turkey than people like you...
Hi anon, you are an idiot.
allow me to correct your ignorance and lack of knowledge: you're legally obliged to wear a seatbelt when driving.
You better alert states like New Hampshire, which don't require you to wear a seatbelt.
you DO NOT have to bunker up at home. there is this word called "reasonably". you are never required to do literally everything possible, only evrything reaosonable to avoid damage.
Bunkering up at home is not the only alternative to vaccination. How about, for instance, breast feeding your baby so that the baby has the advantage of the mother's immunities before he can be vaccinated himself? Should that be a legal requirement since it's a pretty reasonable thing to do? If a woman chooses not to breastfeed, should she be criminally liable if the baby gets sick?
I don't think you read the post I was responding to.
Hmm the big difference is that Mubarak suppressed Islamist groups and Erdogan works with them. Who do you think was the muscle behind the protests in Egypt? Who is going to topple Erdogan? How are they going to do against the hardcore Muslims who support Turkey's fall into Islamism? I'm reminded of the hilarious naivete of Iranian intellectuals and communists who thought that allying with radical Muslims was a great idea to get rid of the shah. "Hey we'll let the Muslims do the fighting, and then they'll let us rule over them and impose a secular system that they hate to the core! What a simple and elegant solution! I wonder why other Muslim countries didn't think of that??"
Tangential point... why do you think the Arab spring began in Egypt instead of Tunisia? Tunisia has been oddly forgotten in the last few years, not just by you but the mainstream press as well. God only knows how many times NPR has linked Tahrir Square to the start of the Arab spring.
What if it's not pure bullshit? More to the point, the danger with limiting political speech based on libel and slander is that the government decides what libel and slander is. If Country X has a law that what politicians do in private is private, and that revealing those private actions is a form of libel/slander, then do you support the ban?
How far off am I? According to CNN Erdogan said the leaked material he's apparently trying to suppress was "immorally edited." He also said "Freedom is not invading someone's privacy."
What I don't get is why anyone outside of Turkey gives a crap if they block twitter. I get that some people are sad to see this so-called Islamic democracy turning into a failed state, but that's been going on for years. Twitter was the final straw?? Okay..
Looser name matching would increase false positives, but profiling would probably balance that out. Of course that would entail further invasion of privacy etc. If the authorities do it correctly, it would be pretty minor though. You have nothing to fear unless you start going to a mosque, etc.
I know you're just being funny, but terrorists don't have a goal of inconveniencing people, or interpreted loosely, throwing wrenches in the system. They are proud of who they are, what their ideology is, and they want to fight battles and win and be remembered for it.
The more hardcore the name, the cooler. Remember "Johnny Taliban?" Aka John Walker Lindh. He had a great undercover name. But he wanted to sound more authentic so he became Sulayman al-Faris.
While you are raising valid concerns about algorithms like soundex, aren't they minor concerns? Yeah there could be a typo in the name. But in the case we're talking about, it wasn't a typo, it was an alternate phonetic spelling.
And regarding false positives, luckily there aren't many terrorists today named John Smith. False positives would be restricted to relatively small populations anyway, like Muslims and non-Western names. How many "bin laden/bin ladin/bin ladan/ben laden/etc" names are there in the US? Maybe a few, who would all be false positives. So? That's still tiny.
The other thing you're ignoring is that name matching is just part of identity verification. I find it unlikely that Russia gave us this name and nothing else. There was probably a picture as well, or a description. Some percentage of false positives would be eliminated on that basis. "Oh this guy is 80, we're looking for a teenager. Next."
That's a bad way to evaluate the false positive rate because it assumes the distribution of terrorist names is the same as the distribution of names in Social Security. In reality there aren't many Muslims in the US, so the false positive rate for the general population would be much lower. (It may be high for Muslims though, especially since from what I recall soundex etc aren't really optimized for non-Western names.)
Not to mention, name matching is just step one of identification. I'm assuming there's also a picture that would pop up. If the person in front of you is an 80 year old man and the picture is a 17 old year kid, the security agent doesn't have to even mention it.
Excellent point. I don't know why you've been modded as a troll. GP sounds exactly like Newsnight's Will McAvoy (Jeff Daniels).. the Hollywood fantasy version of a conservative who is "fed up" with how "real" conservatives have no options because their party has been "hijacked" by nutjobs.
It is really transparent.
Yeah the game-play of an MMORPG is not radically different, which is why it's in the RPG genre I guess. The big two problems with them are the players and the resurrection of characters.
The players ruin the RPG environment because most of them are not there to RPG, they're there to chat or trade stuff. Most other players ignore you. It's just too annoying to go into town and suddenly it's like "hay ne1 got flour? I nd it 4 Barta's Recipe qst" or whatever. That kind of noise is no fun.
The constant availability and replayability of quests is also dumb and annoying. It makes sense that in an RPG I can wander around and kill the same type of creature over and over -- there are lots of them. It's dumb when entire dungeons respawn including the named boss characters. Diablo also had this feature, so it's not exclusively MMORPG, but I'm pretty sure it's universal among MMORPGs and rare in regular RPGs.
One obvious solution to your puzzle is that the average is staying the same but the extremes are narrowing, so the coldest spots on Earth are becoming warmer. Certainly if the arctic sent a polar vortex down our way, that cold air must have been replaced by warm air from here.
Screen readers have contextual commands and may behave differently in real tables. For instance http://www.freedomscientific.c...
If the user is just having it read all the text on the screen it will probably be about the same, but if he's navigating within the page it will be different.