I'm not drawing an analogy. With offline lego, you couldn't talk to people across long distances. With online lego, you can't (effectively) talk to people across long distances. Is that a stupid failure to exploit the medium? Yes. Is long-distance communication necessary to enjoy lego? No.
There were three Lego Creator games before this that were purely offline. Were they equivelant to Mum beating you around the head when you talked because they didn't have a chat component?
I don't think this game will succeed hugely, but I think it's failure will be in the fact that it fails to recreate the physical sense of building and constructing, not due to its communications sucking.
Nope, haven't played my game. But I think you missed the point of my comment, which is why I asked for clarification. It doesn't stop you talking about your lego - it can't. You can talk to your friends about it - in exactly the same way you could talk about lego back when you were kids, and didn't have none of this fancy interwebs.
My post was a response to someone who claimed you couldn't really have fun with lego without an integrated chat room, or words to that effect.
Building under constrained circumstances - yeah, that's why I qualified my statement in regards to talking sharing.
Nothing's stopping you from showing friends your creation while they're over your place, or logging in to your account while you'r over theirs. This game is not stopping you doing anything you could normally do with physical lego (in terms of sharing/talking about it, of course).
I wouldn't rely on whitelists to restrain human language. Innuendo will evolve faster than the mods can keep up with it. It's probably fine for your 7 year old, who's probably not linguistically sophisticated enough to understand that sort of thing, but older kids will be able to subvert that sort of stuff without too much trouble.
Hey, I played lego heaps when I was a kid - and we had no chat, or public areas to share the creation in. If the game is close enough to the real thing, the censorship will be a non-issue. Of course, I doubt it will be - tactile sensation and physical objects aren't replacable by images.
Doesn't that just show the failure of the union? Part of the point of a union is to ensure workplace conditions and safety. Looks like management was attempting to screw the workers, as per usual, and the union, which was supposed to be looking out for the workers, was asleep on the job.
You do not that the police are reactive, not proactive don't you? That it has been determined (in the US anyway) that the police have no obligation to protect an individual? That the vast majority of burglaries go uninvestigated? That modern police forces have existed only since the middle of last millenia, and that the concept of private property extends far before that? You realise that the situation in Zimbabwe is caused by the government printing new notes, that fiat currencies depending on the stability of government are relatively new, and have been preceded by millenia of stable currency based on natural scarcity?
Some government services are necessary; taxes to support them are necessary. And a fraction of the taxes that are collected actually go towards paying for those necessities.
Flowers for Algernon is a hard one. It's a good story, but there's not really a common quote, or stand-out line that you can quickly drop to reference it.
That's a bit different. They disabled a chip, and sold you the board. You could turn it on if you wanted - with no guarantee that it'd actually work. They do the same with multi-core CPUs. They build em all with X cores, during QA, if one of the cores fails a test, they'll just disable the core, and sell it as X-1.You're perfectly free to try and re-enable your disabled core - but there's a chance it won't work. They can't sell them as X-core processors, because they can't guarantee all cores will work.
This, on the otherhand, is them selling you a piece of hardware with functionality *that they know is 100% functional* (or they wouldn't be able to offer the upgrade) and are trying to make you pay for what you already own.
Yeah, it was aimed at Britain, warning them that they could end up like Russia (but worse). The outworkings of Fascism described in the book still built on the example of the USSR.
He wasn't recommending it, he was just describing the results of the outcome. Of course, nobody will do that, because most people seem to forget that "government money" is actually their money. They think that "getting the government to do it" means the resources required just pop into being.
Usually when they give those sort of predictions, it's based on the current known wells. There've been more wells discovered since 1987 (large ones), that threw those estimates out.
Even if oil is an abiotic process, unless that process can keep up with our demands (unlikely, seeing as wells aren't replenished as fast as we pump 'em), we will face a peak oil problem as we blow through the stockpiles built up in the earth.
I would have thought it was obvious - being vegan or vegetarian wasn't sufficiently unique for him, so he had to come up with some other method of demonstrating his superiority/individuality.
You make $35k before or after tax? Cause where I live (Australia, so a totally different tax system) - after tax, you'd probably just have the $24k you're spending on rent and food left from a $35k gross. That's not to mention water or power bills, insurance, car and maintenance (if you own one), and savings for one-off expenses (repair, medical, etc).
If you were an investment banker, and used your trusted position to deposit a ton of money in his account, it would be a shameless abuse of your authority. What you are doing is less relevant than how in this case.
That said, saying that a/b/ account comes with any level of trust or authority is laughable in itself.
Warrants or raises is probably a better phrasing, but "asks" is closer to the literal reading of "begs", without causing a "namespace conflict" with the established fallacy.
Really? You object to being required to be able to prove that what you said is true if it causes someone damage?
That might be alright. Unfortunately, the way the law works in merry old England is that truth is not necessarily a defence against libel - you can prove that what you said is true, and still be found liable.
Also, it's not the "proving to be true" that's the issue - it's the stupidly high cost of legally demonstrating that truth.
And the problem is that that meaning already has a perfectly fine phrase - "asks the question". If it supplants the meaning of "begs the question", then we have no way of referring to the original meaning of "begs the question" - our language becomes less able to discuss the subtleties of logic.
That's why people keep defending the original usage of "begs the question" - there is a reason why that phrase exists, and letting it drop impoverishes the language. Unfortunately, languages are like trademarks - you need to constantly defend them to keep them from becoming generecized.
She didn't make $2000. The original story is here. The $2000 came after the incident, when a radio station volunteered to sponsor her and registered her properly. The inspectors came "about 20 minutes" after she set up shop. I doubt she sold 4,000 cups in that time.
Maybe we should prevent crime by disbanding the police force, and not regarding citizens as criminals? Or stop treating the average internet user as a criminal by eliminating the necessity for passwords - just rely on the honesty system?
Give that a shot and let me know how it works out for you. Meanwhile, in the real world, employee theft does happen, particularly in boring, low-paying jobs. You either pass it on to the customer, or put measures in place to make sure your employees aren't robbing you blind. I know which seems fairer to me.
That sounds more retail than warehouse. RFID's fine for protecting your goods from customers - less so when protecting them from your employees. After all, its your employees that do the tagging.
I work for an online store - we've got trucks coming in to dump stuff, trucks coming in to pick up pallets of gear, and forklifts zipping around all over the place. Stopping to RFID each individual article before shelving it in the warehouse would probably cost more in lost staff-time than it saved. A one-time installation of a few IP-based cameras, and a review of the tapes when stock-loss creeps up is far more cost-effective.
Among other provisions, the bill would ban employers from surveilling their employees by cameras
Now's the time to get a job in a German warehouse it'd seem. I wonder what the stats on inventory shrinkage will look like after this law gets promulgated
Slashdot Mirror
I'm not drawing an analogy. With offline lego, you couldn't talk to people across long distances. With online lego, you can't (effectively) talk to people across long distances. Is that a stupid failure to exploit the medium? Yes. Is long-distance communication necessary to enjoy lego? No.
There were three Lego Creator games before this that were purely offline. Were they equivelant to Mum beating you around the head when you talked because they didn't have a chat component?
I don't think this game will succeed hugely, but I think it's failure will be in the fact that it fails to recreate the physical sense of building and constructing, not due to its communications sucking.
Nope, haven't played my game. But I think you missed the point of my comment, which is why I asked for clarification. It doesn't stop you talking about your lego - it can't. You can talk to your friends about it - in exactly the same way you could talk about lego back when you were kids, and didn't have none of this fancy interwebs.
My post was a response to someone who claimed you couldn't really have fun with lego without an integrated chat room, or words to that effect.
Building under constrained circumstances - yeah, that's why I qualified my statement in regards to talking sharing.
Care to give an example?
Nothing's stopping you from showing friends your creation while they're over your place, or logging in to your account while you'r over theirs. This game is not stopping you doing anything you could normally do with physical lego (in terms of sharing/talking about it, of course).
I wouldn't rely on whitelists to restrain human language. Innuendo will evolve faster than the mods can keep up with it. It's probably fine for your 7 year old, who's probably not linguistically sophisticated enough to understand that sort of thing, but older kids will be able to subvert that sort of stuff without too much trouble.
Hey, I played lego heaps when I was a kid - and we had no chat, or public areas to share the creation in. If the game is close enough to the real thing, the censorship will be a non-issue. Of course, I doubt it will be - tactile sensation and physical objects aren't replacable by images.
Doesn't that just show the failure of the union? Part of the point of a union is to ensure workplace conditions and safety. Looks like management was attempting to screw the workers, as per usual, and the union, which was supposed to be looking out for the workers, was asleep on the job.
You do not that the police are reactive, not proactive don't you? That it has been determined (in the US anyway) that the police have no obligation to protect an individual? That the vast majority of burglaries go uninvestigated? That modern police forces have existed only since the middle of last millenia, and that the concept of private property extends far before that? You realise that the situation in Zimbabwe is caused by the government printing new notes, that fiat currencies depending on the stability of government are relatively new, and have been preceded by millenia of stable currency based on natural scarcity?
Some government services are necessary; taxes to support them are necessary. And a fraction of the taxes that are collected actually go towards paying for those necessities.
Flowers for Algernon is a hard one. It's a good story, but there's not really a common quote, or stand-out line that you can quickly drop to reference it.
That's a bit different. They disabled a chip, and sold you the board. You could turn it on if you wanted - with no guarantee that it'd actually work. They do the same with multi-core CPUs. They build em all with X cores, during QA, if one of the cores fails a test, they'll just disable the core, and sell it as X-1.You're perfectly free to try and re-enable your disabled core - but there's a chance it won't work. They can't sell them as X-core processors, because they can't guarantee all cores will work.
This, on the otherhand, is them selling you a piece of hardware with functionality *that they know is 100% functional* (or they wouldn't be able to offer the upgrade) and are trying to make you pay for what you already own.
Yeah, it was aimed at Britain, warning them that they could end up like Russia (but worse). The outworkings of Fascism described in the book still built on the example of the USSR.
He wasn't recommending it, he was just describing the results of the outcome. Of course, nobody will do that, because most people seem to forget that "government money" is actually their money. They think that "getting the government to do it" means the resources required just pop into being.
Usually when they give those sort of predictions, it's based on the current known wells. There've been more wells discovered since 1987 (large ones), that threw those estimates out.
Even if oil is an abiotic process, unless that process can keep up with our demands (unlikely, seeing as wells aren't replenished as fast as we pump 'em), we will face a peak oil problem as we blow through the stockpiles built up in the earth.
I would have thought it was obvious - being vegan or vegetarian wasn't sufficiently unique for him, so he had to come up with some other method of demonstrating his superiority/individuality.
You make $35k before or after tax? Cause where I live (Australia, so a totally different tax system) - after tax, you'd probably just have the $24k you're spending on rent and food left from a $35k gross. That's not to mention water or power bills, insurance, car and maintenance (if you own one), and savings for one-off expenses (repair, medical, etc).
If you were an investment banker, and used your trusted position to deposit a ton of money in his account, it would be a shameless abuse of your authority. What you are doing is less relevant than how in this case.
That said, saying that a /b/ account comes with any level of trust or authority is laughable in itself.
It's probably Apple getting it's own back after dealing with IE and MS Office for Mac.
Warrants or raises is probably a better phrasing, but "asks" is closer to the literal reading of "begs", without causing a "namespace conflict" with the established fallacy.
Really? You object to being required to be able to prove that what you said is true if it causes someone damage?
That might be alright. Unfortunately, the way the law works in merry old England is that truth is not necessarily a defence against libel - you can prove that what you said is true, and still be found liable.
Also, it's not the "proving to be true" that's the issue - it's the stupidly high cost of legally demonstrating that truth.
And the problem is that that meaning already has a perfectly fine phrase - "asks the question". If it supplants the meaning of "begs the question", then we have no way of referring to the original meaning of "begs the question" - our language becomes less able to discuss the subtleties of logic.
That's why people keep defending the original usage of "begs the question" - there is a reason why that phrase exists, and letting it drop impoverishes the language. Unfortunately, languages are like trademarks - you need to constantly defend them to keep them from becoming generecized.
She didn't make $2000. The original story is here. The $2000 came after the incident, when a radio station volunteered to sponsor her and registered her properly. The inspectors came "about 20 minutes" after she set up shop. I doubt she sold 4,000 cups in that time.
Yes, I think government should require people not to have to foot the bill for others' stupidity.
Maybe we should prevent crime by disbanding the police force, and not regarding citizens as criminals? Or stop treating the average internet user as a criminal by eliminating the necessity for passwords - just rely on the honesty system?
Give that a shot and let me know how it works out for you. Meanwhile, in the real world, employee theft does happen, particularly in boring, low-paying jobs. You either pass it on to the customer, or put measures in place to make sure your employees aren't robbing you blind. I know which seems fairer to me.
That sounds more retail than warehouse. RFID's fine for protecting your goods from customers - less so when protecting them from your employees. After all, its your employees that do the tagging.
I work for an online store - we've got trucks coming in to dump stuff, trucks coming in to pick up pallets of gear, and forklifts zipping around all over the place. Stopping to RFID each individual article before shelving it in the warehouse would probably cost more in lost staff-time than it saved. A one-time installation of a few IP-based cameras, and a review of the tapes when stock-loss creeps up is far more cost-effective.
Among other provisions, the bill would ban employers from surveilling their employees by cameras
Now's the time to get a job in a German warehouse it'd seem. I wonder what the stats on inventory shrinkage will look like after this law gets promulgated