[OUYA's] business model is too much a hurdle for straight ports.
What did you mean by this? If you're referring to the requirement that all games have some free-to-play functionality, consider 1990s shareware games like Doom. Its first episode was free (as in beer).
I am referring directly to something a dev said in TFA. The games need a free portion. Be it a playable demo(which has seriously fallen out of fashion), a f2p model(which may also not be there to begin with) or a paywall somewhere along the line.
If you simply had designed the game as a straight-forward indie title to be sold cheaply then you won't meet the Ouya criteria by a simple port. You will have to introduce them. And given the cost/effort benefits whne you just about make a profit on a straight port you will not want to do any of the above.
Steambox is a very interesting thing. At the moment I have my PC hooked up to my TV and play in Steam Big Picture mode. But having my PC in my living room is not sustainable because it makes too much noise. Funnily I never thought so in my old flat where I kept it in my study. If they manage to keep the noise down with reasonably powerful results and they manage to keep the price down by skipping the Windows license then the Steam Box is very much in the market.
If you play a lot of games then a console is the very last thing you want to buy. I just got an alert for Mass Effect 1 and 2 being on sale for less than a pack of cigarettes. You will never get games as cheaply on a console.
Which takes us straight to the Ouya. On the cheap games front the Ouya competes with the PC(SteamBox) and loses out on every aspect. Except on price. I will keep buying Ouyas because frankly it is a great idea with two major flaws: it takes a lot more experience to build a proper controller and their business model is too much a hurdle for straight ports.
The people that are sending the messages aren't people? Maybe I find it rude that people think just because they happen to be in my personal space, that they automatically deserve my undivided attention?
One is synchronous face-to-face interaction while the other is asynchronous. A text message doesn't go away. you can deal with it later. And even if you get a phone call you still should politely ask "Do you mind if I take this?". You can always call back.
Of course the originators of the remote non-face-to-face messages are people, too. But they are not there. If your constant distraction forces you to check your devices then you are sending the wrong messages. Your body language tells the person next to you that he/she is not important and that can be a problem. We gladly acknowledge we are mammals at any given opportunity. We should also admit that we are primates and body language is a big part of our interaction.
So please consider what kind of interaction is important. Or you may be either punched in the face or deprived of some promising flirt.
Competitive tenders tend to lead to buying services off ATOS and their ilk. And their professionalism and competence is in constant question. I always wondered how these outsourcing agencies still are not barred from the process.
The lowest bidder is propably not what you want.
This outsourcing nonesense has had none of the predicted benefits. Overall costs have not gone down and professionalism has not gone up. It's more of the same with a larger overhead since the outsourcing agency has a beureaucratic overhead as well as the public agency and their respective law departments. To keep the cost roughly the same the people who actually do the work get pathetic wages that in no way shape or form echo their value in the whole system.
I also read this as "NHS is underfunded, says interested party".
Arguments about the NHS are eternal. I can't think of a moment in its history where things like this didn't crop up. And the sky hasn't fallen, yet. They will come up with another fee, shift expenses and will fiddle the figures as always. A couple of months ago it was Stafford and the various failings of individuals that caused the whole NHS to be painted in a rather rotten colour. Now they find it costs more than predicted in a couple of years. And as always this will be instrumentalized politically and used to demonstarte why another badger cull is in order.
UK politics are even funnier than anything "Yes, Minister" ever hinted at. When watched from abroard it looks a little bit unprofessional. If not downright incompetent. Beddroom Tax(judged to breach human rights), texting threats to illegal immigrants and another badger cull. As much as this sounds a lot like a Sir Humphrey Appleby smokescreen the UK still works. Even with figures as despicable as Theresa May and David Cameron at the helm.
Using this to fundamentally call the NHS in question is a bit silly. Does it need work? Sure. Can it work? Well it does. Sort of. But I very much prefer the German system. Mostly because it is not such an alien concept as the NHS.
Look, I'm not going to argue with you. A weak state and a weak economy lead to the rise of populists which not unlikely will lead to social unrest. It has happened, it is happening and it will happen.
I was wondering about a GOP split, too.
In any other country the Tea Party would be its own party. But in the weird two party system in the US such a split would mean they wouldn't get into congress/senate at all. They rode into the houses on the coat tails of the GOP and that's why they will never leave.
Also in the primaries the regular GOPpers compete with the Tea Party candidates who usually have no qualms to push the right populist buttons. They can be a very tough competition. So yeah, moderate Republicans are afraid to lose their seats to them.
They should just give up and shut it down. It's what the Republicans (or at least 144 of them) want.
They shouldn't go for this partial shutdown except essential services. Shut it all down.
People in seek order in chaos. Call it an era, and let it go. We'll rebuild something better in it's place. Rebuilding will let us get rid of waste and inefficiency that has existed for an awful long time.
Then again, the current politicians wouldn't have a place in a new system. They aren't really willing to give up power, and perks through questionable dealings.
Historically, every civilization has come and gone. What we see today are just the ones that happen to still exist. In time, they will fall, and new ones will rise. It's just the way things work.
I for one could do without the violence and turmoil that historically follows a complete breakdown. You have an awefully cavalier attitude towards this.
What amazes me is that those people seriously considered a situation that could have had a devastating economical effect on the US. Things like this cause nations to implode. A bankrupt, non-functional state has time and again led to violent overthrow and civil war. This is what their game of chicken was risking. And when you listen to some of their backers they would welcome this in the hopes to build a different state from the ashes. Only their vision is really frightening.
And yet come next election they will present themselves on TV spots with flowing stars&stripes banner and parade their patriotism in front of everybody who is stupid enough to believe in it.
I feel our definitions of patriotism differ substantially.
Good point, but I don't think the Guardian got the gist across to David Cameron (see Slashdot reference of today). Perhaps the Guardian should have used even shorter words.
David Cameron understands. He even understands the complicated bits. He does not act out of ignorance. Nor does Theresa May. I think those two are genuinely evil.
I feel this is a behavioral bump in the road that may disappear as my generation becomes the parental generation.
I am 30 years old. I remember a pre-WWW world (I deliberately say WWW to differentiate from chats, BBS etc, which was largely inaccessible to all but the greasiest of geeks). I have grown with the technology, and know its potential and pitfalls. My parents however have no idea of either. They got all my hand-me-down computers, they appreciated my efforts to educate them. Because I was around fro the pre WWW, analogies were easy. I knew how the postal system worked, I could easily analogise POP mail etc. But they do not know the full potential. They look up their recipes, history of [subject] info, and IMDB pages, harass and embarrass me on fakebook, but they never really matured with the technology, and never had to suffer the pitfalls. It was just suddenly there, and they shat bricks, because it was like nothing they had ever seen, and they didn't understand the dynamics. They adapted, but never understood.
I feel as my generation become the parents and out kids hit those preteen/teen years (maybe 10-15 years), the problems will go away, because we will be capable of not only being able to give good advice on troll evasion and shaming, but we will also be in a far better position to adequately monitor, and mentor, about what actually happens on the internet. We know what to look for, we know how to find it, and we know how to deal with it. Not all of my generation are savvy enough to do it, but a greater percentage of us are, as compared to the current crop of 40-50 year old who had this thrust on them by their kids demanding internet connections and fondletoys to use on them.
I feel for that girl, and her parents who were blindsided by and lost a child to a technology they had to scramble to understand. I feel for the parents of the aggressors for not knowing just how serious the shit their kids were doing. I hope and feel that my generation will be more capable than them.
I'm sorry to burst your bubble but you will never be able to fully control what teenagers do. You may be savvy enough to tutor them but good luck to you to get them to heed the advice.
Also you should bear in mind that teenager suicides never have been as uncommon as one would wish. Bullying also has never been uncommon. But now we have public records of it whereas previously it mostly were transient words uttered face-to-face. And the press eats stuff like this up because it is a real tear-jerker.
The WWW took off in the early 90ies. The current crop aged 40-50 was in its 20ies back then. And I can tell you we weren't ignorant back then. In fact we were the first to use this stuff. And do believe me, you'll be 40 sooner than you think you will be.
The problem here is that society and culture haven't moved as fast as technology did. Back then we somewhat managed to enforce something we called "netiquette" until the floodgates opened. While we at least had a concept of what was acceptable we didn't follow it because it was the right thing to do but because we were browbeaten by those who had seniority. We should have followed it because on the other side of the screen was a breathing, feeling human being. Which is easy to forget when all you see is words and not facial expression and body language(or a fist accelerating towards your face). That teenaged girl would never have stood in front of her school and yelled at everybody that she bullied her to her suicide. There's a reason why flamewars happen so easily on the net and yet arguments as vicious as those flame wars are not as common.
I'm probably in the minority of slashdotters, but I have no problem with the government spying on my communications and seeing what porn I watch--the only problem I have is with how this information is used. Even then, if the government ever came to me and said, "Do this, or we tell the world about your [redacted] fetish," I'd respond, "Go ahead. And I'll tell the world about how you tried to blackmail me." Guess who'd be in more trouble?
And yes, I do get off on looking at those blacked-out lines on partially de-classified documents. My horrible secret is now known.
The problem is that you CAN'T ever trust a system no matter how benevolent to always do the right thing. Human nature will always be the weakest link. I can fully understand how NSA geeks could sink so low as to use the gathered data for personal interests.
But there's private stuff(like your giraffe porn fetish) and public stuff. And Facebook is indeed very public. Much more public than an open street. Also Facebook is much more permanent. If you are an asshole on the internet the Wayback Machine will come back to haunt you. And you can't unpost anything that gets potentially replicated thousandfold.
That being said, there is stuff which you publish and there's stuff you keep to yourself. If you publish foolishly then that's not a privacy concern. If you transmit encrypted giraffe porn to your stash(btw, how do you keep a giraffe concealed beneath your bed) then that's very private.
I love how/. has truly grown up from being the "Voices From The Hellmouth" crowd to the "waaah, poor baby can't handle a little teasing" crowd. It's the classic "fuck you, got mine" but for advancing through life rather than up the income ladder. Where's the line for deserving sympathy, or even empathy? Does she have to shoot some classmates and THEN kill herself? Does she have to play video games first, and do people have to make that a public issue?
I've been wondering myself. These past 15 years have changed the general tone on the net. It has become much more selfish and callous. And yet we wonder if a 14 year old is selfish and callous on the net?
If OTOH you refer to the brow-beaten bullied nerd we all claimed to be 15 years ago then I'm sorry. The internet has now become simple enough for anybody to use. Evidently you don't even have to be literate to use Facebook.
You have the right to parent your kid as long as you do so responsibly.
Yeah, so who decides 'responsible' and what limits are there?
Let's say there was a cure for heart disease that would eliminate the possibility of it in later life, but the treatment had to be done before puberty. The cost savings were enormous for a socialized healthcare system and it would extend life an average of 20 years. It would also make the person much stronger and healthier for the rest of their lives. It would save lives of others by eliminating on-the-road and on-the-job heart failure (think truckers, crane operators, etc.).
Would a parent be reasonable to refuse such treatment? Would a government have the right to demand it?
What if this treatment was a mechanical heart (assuming they've been perfected)? What if the treatment consisted of removing the heart of every eight year old (100% success rate procedure) and replacing it with that mechanical heart?
By what criteria can medical treatments be imposed?
Who decides? Experts. Lawmakers. Will they get it right all of the time? Hell no. But they are better qualified than parents in some fields.
As much as I adore your little thought experiment it has got nothing to do with the case in question. The case in question is about the discredited MMR hysteria and a mother who only read the headlines in the tabloids and not about the ugly aftermath that involved exposure of scientific fraud for financial gain. This is an open and shut case. In other cases the courts will rule in favour of the child on a case by case basis.
"confirms there is no longer any debate about the benefits of the vaccine."
How can anyone be stupid enough to believe that a judge ruling has any effect on medical science?
Well, there is no debate about the MMR vaccine anymore. Medical science has resolved this and the courts have resolved the fraud cases against Wakefield. His paper was proven to be fraudulent. His financial motivation behind the fraud has been proven. He is no longer allowed to practice medicine. The whole matter has been resolved thouroughly.
...which is propably a copy&paste list of the publications who defined their view on journalism in today's edition of the Guardian. I've read that too on my daily commute. There's a lot of repition in it but it still is a highly interesting read.
Just be warned that the print edition of DER SPIEGEL differs quite a lot from the online version. They have different editorial staff and the truly valuable articles of the print edition never make it into the online version(but you can buy them as PDF). The Guardian in contrast simply publishes todays online version as tomorrows Kindle edition with no editorial oversight whatsoever. But you can't compare those two. One is a weekly publication and the other has daily issues. Then of course there still is the Observer.
Ah. The Daily Fail never stops to deliver as expected.
In contrast today's issue of the Guardian has a 5k words piece with quotes from editors of other(and reputable) publications explaining how responsible journalism works. They used very short words but I don't expect that they will get the message across to the Daily Fail or the people who wrap their cod&chips in it.
The Bloggers have the edge on speed. But they only get the obvious or stuff they are personally involved.
Investigative journalism takes a lot of analysis of data from a lot of sources and that takes time.
The bloggers also write short 500 word texts. In contrast a proper newspaper will have much longer texts with a lot more detail. I remember reading an article in a weekly publication about the Boston bombers just the week after it happened. They had quotes from the mother, friends, people who knew them. They had information on their lives in the US. They painted a much more complete picture of the brothers than anything I had read in the Web or presumably seen on TV. That article had more than 10k words but then again Die Zeit is a very slow and very thourough publication.
Journalism is like food. There is fast food junk for people who can't be arsed and there's the real stuff. Most bloggers provide less than a printed menue from McD.
Snowden had to use a couple of layers of obfuscation which didn't add to his credibility. I would suggest that an investigative reported gets a lot of calls from the tinfoil hat brigade and what Snowden announced sounded so ludicrous that I also would have assumed just that.
Sometimes you do need such a bullshit filter. This is how communication works.
I've been looking for something similar in English, German and French. Sorry, there's only DER SPIEGEL and teh Gauniard. A word to the wise, though. The Kindle edition of Hte Guadrian seems not be be poorly edited but not edited at all. but not edited at all it reads exactly like this post. And as a UK newspaper expect a lot of reports on badger culling, the latest NHS bungling and some soccer/football.
DER SPIEGEL being DER SPIEGEL does not have a Kindle edition. They rely on apps for iOs and Android and very yesteryear payment methods. By the way there is a distinct difference between the print and the online edition of this particular rag. There is some reuse but not a lot. They seem to have a separate editorial staff and the two halves of the publication give the impression that they don't really talk.
Slashdot Mirror
[OUYA's] business model is too much a hurdle for straight ports.
What did you mean by this? If you're referring to the requirement that all games have some free-to-play functionality, consider 1990s shareware games like Doom. Its first episode was free (as in beer).
I am referring directly to something a dev said in TFA. The games need a free portion. Be it a playable demo(which has seriously fallen out of fashion), a f2p model(which may also not be there to begin with) or a paywall somewhere along the line.
If you simply had designed the game as a straight-forward indie title to be sold cheaply then you won't meet the Ouya criteria by a simple port. You will have to introduce them. And given the cost/effort benefits whne you just about make a profit on a straight port you will not want to do any of the above.
The Ouya rules are highly problematic.
Steambox is a very interesting thing. At the moment I have my PC hooked up to my TV and play in Steam Big Picture mode. But having my PC in my living room is not sustainable because it makes too much noise. Funnily I never thought so in my old flat where I kept it in my study. If they manage to keep the noise down with reasonably powerful results and they manage to keep the price down by skipping the Windows license then the Steam Box is very much in the market.
If you play a lot of games then a console is the very last thing you want to buy. I just got an alert for Mass Effect 1 and 2 being on sale for less than a pack of cigarettes. You will never get games as cheaply on a console.
Which takes us straight to the Ouya. On the cheap games front the Ouya competes with the PC(SteamBox) and loses out on every aspect. Except on price. I will keep buying Ouyas because frankly it is a great idea with two major flaws: it takes a lot more experience to build a proper controller and their business model is too much a hurdle for straight ports.
So yes, I agree with the GP.
The people that are sending the messages aren't people? Maybe I find it rude that people think just because they happen to be in my personal space, that they automatically deserve my undivided attention?
One is synchronous face-to-face interaction while the other is asynchronous. A text message doesn't go away. you can deal with it later. And even if you get a phone call you still should politely ask "Do you mind if I take this?". You can always call back.
Of course the originators of the remote non-face-to-face messages are people, too. But they are not there. If your constant distraction forces you to check your devices then you are sending the wrong messages. Your body language tells the person next to you that he/she is not important and that can be a problem. We gladly acknowledge we are mammals at any given opportunity. We should also admit that we are primates and body language is a big part of our interaction.
So please consider what kind of interaction is important. Or you may be either punched in the face or deprived of some promising flirt.
Proof that freedom of Religion isn't always a good thing...
As always you need to judge people and organisations by their actions and not their words.
Competitive tenders tend to lead to buying services off ATOS and their ilk. And their professionalism and competence is in constant question. I always wondered how these outsourcing agencies still are not barred from the process.
The lowest bidder is propably not what you want.
This outsourcing nonesense has had none of the predicted benefits. Overall costs have not gone down and professionalism has not gone up. It's more of the same with a larger overhead since the outsourcing agency has a beureaucratic overhead as well as the public agency and their respective law departments. To keep the cost roughly the same the people who actually do the work get pathetic wages that in no way shape or form echo their value in the whole system.
I also read this as "NHS is underfunded, says interested party".
Arguments about the NHS are eternal. I can't think of a moment in its history where things like this didn't crop up. And the sky hasn't fallen, yet. They will come up with another fee, shift expenses and will fiddle the figures as always. A couple of months ago it was Stafford and the various failings of individuals that caused the whole NHS to be painted in a rather rotten colour. Now they find it costs more than predicted in a couple of years. And as always this will be instrumentalized politically and used to demonstarte why another badger cull is in order.
UK politics are even funnier than anything "Yes, Minister" ever hinted at. When watched from abroard it looks a little bit unprofessional. If not downright incompetent. Beddroom Tax(judged to breach human rights), texting threats to illegal immigrants and another badger cull. As much as this sounds a lot like a Sir Humphrey Appleby smokescreen the UK still works. Even with figures as despicable as Theresa May and David Cameron at the helm.
Using this to fundamentally call the NHS in question is a bit silly. Does it need work? Sure. Can it work? Well it does. Sort of. But I very much prefer the German system. Mostly because it is not such an alien concept as the NHS.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weimar_republic
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Dawn_(political_party)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_Civil_War
Look, I'm not going to argue with you. A weak state and a weak economy lead to the rise of populists which not unlikely will lead to social unrest. It has happened, it is happening and it will happen.
I was wondering about a GOP split, too.
In any other country the Tea Party would be its own party. But in the weird two party system in the US such a split would mean they wouldn't get into congress/senate at all. They rode into the houses on the coat tails of the GOP and that's why they will never leave.
Also in the primaries the regular GOPpers compete with the Tea Party candidates who usually have no qualms to push the right populist buttons. They can be a very tough competition. So yeah, moderate Republicans are afraid to lose their seats to them.
They should just give up and shut it down. It's what the Republicans (or at least 144 of them) want.
They shouldn't go for this partial shutdown except essential services. Shut it all down.
People in seek order in chaos. Call it an era, and let it go. We'll rebuild something better in it's place. Rebuilding will let us get rid of waste and inefficiency that has existed for an awful long time.
Then again, the current politicians wouldn't have a place in a new system. They aren't really willing to give up power, and perks through questionable dealings.
Historically, every civilization has come and gone. What we see today are just the ones that happen to still exist. In time, they will fall, and new ones will rise. It's just the way things work.
I for one could do without the violence and turmoil that historically follows a complete breakdown. You have an awefully cavalier attitude towards this.
Germans do, too.
Wrong Paul. Please pardon the pun.
What amazes me is that those people seriously considered a situation that could have had a devastating economical effect on the US. Things like this cause nations to implode. A bankrupt, non-functional state has time and again led to violent overthrow and civil war. This is what their game of chicken was risking. And when you listen to some of their backers they would welcome this in the hopes to build a different state from the ashes. Only their vision is really frightening.
And yet come next election they will present themselves on TV spots with flowing stars&stripes banner and parade their patriotism in front of everybody who is stupid enough to believe in it.
I feel our definitions of patriotism differ substantially.
Good point, but I don't think the Guardian got the gist across to David Cameron (see Slashdot reference of today). Perhaps the Guardian should have used even shorter words.
David Cameron understands. He even understands the complicated bits. He does not act out of ignorance. Nor does Theresa May. I think those two are genuinely evil.
The Baby Boomers were pretty bad. At least Gen X smelled nice. Seems like this generation stuff is like a Star Trek movie. The odd ones stink.
I feel this is a behavioral bump in the road that may disappear as my generation becomes the parental generation. I am 30 years old. I remember a pre-WWW world (I deliberately say WWW to differentiate from chats, BBS etc, which was largely inaccessible to all but the greasiest of geeks). I have grown with the technology, and know its potential and pitfalls. My parents however have no idea of either. They got all my hand-me-down computers, they appreciated my efforts to educate them. Because I was around fro the pre WWW, analogies were easy. I knew how the postal system worked, I could easily analogise POP mail etc. But they do not know the full potential. They look up their recipes, history of [subject] info, and IMDB pages, harass and embarrass me on fakebook, but they never really matured with the technology, and never had to suffer the pitfalls. It was just suddenly there, and they shat bricks, because it was like nothing they had ever seen, and they didn't understand the dynamics. They adapted, but never understood. I feel as my generation become the parents and out kids hit those preteen/teen years (maybe 10-15 years), the problems will go away, because we will be capable of not only being able to give good advice on troll evasion and shaming, but we will also be in a far better position to adequately monitor, and mentor, about what actually happens on the internet. We know what to look for, we know how to find it, and we know how to deal with it. Not all of my generation are savvy enough to do it, but a greater percentage of us are, as compared to the current crop of 40-50 year old who had this thrust on them by their kids demanding internet connections and fondletoys to use on them. I feel for that girl, and her parents who were blindsided by and lost a child to a technology they had to scramble to understand. I feel for the parents of the aggressors for not knowing just how serious the shit their kids were doing. I hope and feel that my generation will be more capable than them.
I'm sorry to burst your bubble but you will never be able to fully control what teenagers do. You may be savvy enough to tutor them but good luck to you to get them to heed the advice.
Also you should bear in mind that teenager suicides never have been as uncommon as one would wish. Bullying also has never been uncommon. But now we have public records of it whereas previously it mostly were transient words uttered face-to-face. And the press eats stuff like this up because it is a real tear-jerker.
The WWW took off in the early 90ies. The current crop aged 40-50 was in its 20ies back then. And I can tell you we weren't ignorant back then. In fact we were the first to use this stuff. And do believe me, you'll be 40 sooner than you think you will be.
The problem here is that society and culture haven't moved as fast as technology did. Back then we somewhat managed to enforce something we called "netiquette" until the floodgates opened. While we at least had a concept of what was acceptable we didn't follow it because it was the right thing to do but because we were browbeaten by those who had seniority. We should have followed it because on the other side of the screen was a breathing, feeling human being. Which is easy to forget when all you see is words and not facial expression and body language(or a fist accelerating towards your face). That teenaged girl would never have stood in front of her school and yelled at everybody that she bullied her to her suicide. There's a reason why flamewars happen so easily on the net and yet arguments as vicious as those flame wars are not as common.
I'm probably in the minority of slashdotters, but I have no problem with the government spying on my communications and seeing what porn I watch--the only problem I have is with how this information is used. Even then, if the government ever came to me and said, "Do this, or we tell the world about your [redacted] fetish," I'd respond, "Go ahead. And I'll tell the world about how you tried to blackmail me." Guess who'd be in more trouble? And yes, I do get off on looking at those blacked-out lines on partially de-classified documents. My horrible secret is now known.
The problem is that you CAN'T ever trust a system no matter how benevolent to always do the right thing. Human nature will always be the weakest link. I can fully understand how NSA geeks could sink so low as to use the gathered data for personal interests.
But there's private stuff(like your giraffe porn fetish) and public stuff. And Facebook is indeed very public. Much more public than an open street. Also Facebook is much more permanent. If you are an asshole on the internet the Wayback Machine will come back to haunt you. And you can't unpost anything that gets potentially replicated thousandfold.
That being said, there is stuff which you publish and there's stuff you keep to yourself. If you publish foolishly then that's not a privacy concern. If you transmit encrypted giraffe porn to your stash(btw, how do you keep a giraffe concealed beneath your bed) then that's very private.
I love how /. has truly grown up from being the "Voices From The Hellmouth" crowd to the "waaah, poor baby can't handle a little teasing" crowd. It's the classic "fuck you, got mine" but for advancing through life rather than up the income ladder. Where's the line for deserving sympathy, or even empathy? Does she have to shoot some classmates and THEN kill herself? Does she have to play video games first, and do people have to make that a public issue?
I've been wondering myself. These past 15 years have changed the general tone on the net. It has become much more selfish and callous. And yet we wonder if a 14 year old is selfish and callous on the net?
If OTOH you refer to the brow-beaten bullied nerd we all claimed to be 15 years ago then I'm sorry. The internet has now become simple enough for anybody to use. Evidently you don't even have to be literate to use Facebook.
Also computer games.
What was more fun? Proper physics as in Elite or the mindless WTFness that was Wing Commander?
I'll go with space combat as in Wing Commander any day. Everything else is just too painfull.
You have the right to parent your kid as long as you do so responsibly.
Yeah, so who decides 'responsible' and what limits are there?
Let's say there was a cure for heart disease that would eliminate the possibility of it in later life, but the treatment had to be done before puberty. The cost savings were enormous for a socialized healthcare system and it would extend life an average of 20 years. It would also make the person much stronger and healthier for the rest of their lives. It would save lives of others by eliminating on-the-road and on-the-job heart failure (think truckers, crane operators, etc.).
Would a parent be reasonable to refuse such treatment? Would a government have the right to demand it?
What if this treatment was a mechanical heart (assuming they've been perfected)? What if the treatment consisted of removing the heart of every eight year old (100% success rate procedure) and replacing it with that mechanical heart?
By what criteria can medical treatments be imposed?
Who decides? Experts. Lawmakers. Will they get it right all of the time? Hell no. But they are better qualified than parents in some fields.
As much as I adore your little thought experiment it has got nothing to do with the case in question. The case in question is about the discredited MMR hysteria and a mother who only read the headlines in the tabloids and not about the ugly aftermath that involved exposure of scientific fraud for financial gain. This is an open and shut case. In other cases the courts will rule in favour of the child on a case by case basis.
"confirms there is no longer any debate about the benefits of the vaccine."
How can anyone be stupid enough to believe that a judge ruling has any effect on medical science?
Well, there is no debate about the MMR vaccine anymore. Medical science has resolved this and the courts have resolved the fraud cases against Wakefield. His paper was proven to be fraudulent. His financial motivation behind the fraud has been proven. He is no longer allowed to practice medicine. The whole matter has been resolved thouroughly.
No. It doesnt. The right to parent your kids is another fairly fundamental right.
You have the right to parent your kid as long as you do so responsibly. If not you will rightfully so find yourself in real hot water.
...which is propably a copy&paste list of the publications who defined their view on journalism in today's edition of the Guardian. I've read that too on my daily commute. There's a lot of repition in it but it still is a highly interesting read.
Just be warned that the print edition of DER SPIEGEL differs quite a lot from the online version. They have different editorial staff and the truly valuable articles of the print edition never make it into the online version(but you can buy them as PDF). The Guardian in contrast simply publishes todays online version as tomorrows Kindle edition with no editorial oversight whatsoever. But you can't compare those two. One is a weekly publication and the other has daily issues. Then of course there still is the Observer.
Ah. The Daily Fail never stops to deliver as expected.
In contrast today's issue of the Guardian has a 5k words piece with quotes from editors of other(and reputable) publications explaining how responsible journalism works. They used very short words but I don't expect that they will get the message across to the Daily Fail or the people who wrap their cod&chips in it.
The Bloggers have the edge on speed. But they only get the obvious or stuff they are personally involved.
Investigative journalism takes a lot of analysis of data from a lot of sources and that takes time.
The bloggers also write short 500 word texts. In contrast a proper newspaper will have much longer texts with a lot more detail. I remember reading an article in a weekly publication about the Boston bombers just the week after it happened. They had quotes from the mother, friends, people who knew them. They had information on their lives in the US. They painted a much more complete picture of the brothers than anything I had read in the Web or presumably seen on TV. That article had more than 10k words but then again Die Zeit is a very slow and very thourough publication.
Journalism is like food. There is fast food junk for people who can't be arsed and there's the real stuff. Most bloggers provide less than a printed menue from McD.
Snowden had to use a couple of layers of obfuscation which didn't add to his credibility. I would suggest that an investigative reported gets a lot of calls from the tinfoil hat brigade and what Snowden announced sounded so ludicrous that I also would have assumed just that.
Sometimes you do need such a bullshit filter. This is how communication works.
I've been looking for something similar in English, German and French. Sorry, there's only DER SPIEGEL and teh Gauniard. A word to the wise, though. The Kindle edition of Hte Guadrian seems not be be poorly edited but not edited at all. but not edited at all it reads exactly like this post. And as a UK newspaper expect a lot of reports on badger culling, the latest NHS bungling and some soccer/football.
DER SPIEGEL being DER SPIEGEL does not have a Kindle edition. They rely on apps for iOs and Android and very yesteryear payment methods. By the way there is a distinct difference between the print and the online edition of this particular rag. There is some reuse but not a lot. They seem to have a separate editorial staff and the two halves of the publication give the impression that they don't really talk.