The odds of your kids finding a sexual predator on MySpace are vastly less than them finding one in their own circle of family and friends...The younger the child, the higher the odds that any sex crime against them will be perpetrated by a family member or a close family friend, and at NO POINT do assaults by anonymous strangers become more common than assaults by acquaintances.
So saying, "ZOMG MySpace is rife with sex predators!" is essentially meaningless; they're no more prevalent there than anywhere else. People love to cling to the illusion that the bad people of the world are all faceless evil people lurking ion the shadows, and it's just not true. But the media is pushing the idea, and parents are eating it up.
Because it's clearly evidence of a hidden conspiracy somewhere to keep all women from doing the incredibly rewarding job that is IT.
I agree that math/science work is probably not put up to females as positively as it should be in their early lives, but this is not a workplace issue, it's a social issue. By the time they get to the workforce, they're going to be doing whatever it is that they've been studying to do...I mean, is it that there is a massive force of women with technical degrees who aren't going into IT because the recruiting pitch isn't to their taste? That doesn't make any sense.
It's far more likely (and my college experience bears this out) that there are relatively few women who choose to get technical degrees, and thus they are not heavily represented in the IT workforce.
People are too prone to thinking in black in white, and that sort of thinking leads them to create articles like "Study reveals what women want in IT jobs" like it's possible to isolate the two or three factors that are preventing hordes of women from descending on the IT profession.
"In addition, there was little overlap (between) the women who reported that managers give up technical skills to develop management skills"..."and women who reported that managers don't give up technical skills to develop management skills." Or something.
You can't have overlap with just one group. That's just lap.
You're talking educated consumers. As far as Joe Sixpack is concerned, Dell is still a quality brand...Hell, you buy a computer from Dell, and it actually has a NAME on the front, as opposed to most of the computers you buy from Best Buy, Staples, and Walmart now.
I dislike Dell, and when people ask me why I say, "I find their tier two and three support to be unbearable, and I hate their proprietary hardware, and their tendency to skimp on things like montherboards." It makes people's eyes glaze over, and in their minds, they file it away under "Nerd crap that doesn't apply to me."
The bottom line is, for the average Walmart buyer, Dell will seem like a sexy, high-end brand, even if they're just dumping their low end stock on Walmart.
Meh. If microsoft hadn't won, then decided that, since they'd won, all further development was a waste of time, there would have been no niche for new operators. We'd all be on IE11 by now, because they'd have agressively ported it to all operating systems in a bid to globally corner the hugely important browser market, and then they'd have built online application inventories through their massively dominant search portal that were tied directly to the pc through activeX.
Instead, they acted like fools, and blew their lead. So don't assume that because the last player who tried to be dominant mistook the game for the special olympics and got beat down, that the next competitor won't learn from their mistakes.
They're already out there. Most high powered rifles are capable of penetrating body armor that isn't backed by plates. They hint at it in the summary...Fast bullets are more of a concern than slow bullets, which is why it's a big deal that this one will stop a 9mm. It still probably won't stop a high powered rifle, which includes common hunting gear, and most assault weapons.
The big deal with this stuff isn't how effective it is...There's not much difference between it and kevlar...But kevlar weighs a hell of a lot more, so this is a lot more fun to wear.
Nah, it's not a slab. Wearable bulletproof materials are composed of interwoven fibers (occasionally with heavier armor plates backing 'em up), and if its made into a fabric, it's far more flexible and comfortable than a solid suit.
It's probably still pretty damn hot, and heavier than one would prefer. I'd be interested to see how this performs when coupled with some of the liquid armor tech the military has been working on.
Nice completely uninformed jab. Not only does Blizzard ALWAYS release a mac and a pc version at the same time, they also tend to make the final product compatible with WINE. WoW used to play beautifully in WINE, though I haven't tried it out in a while.
Say what you will about them, but they take cross-platform compatibility seriously.
Hell yea on the micromanagement in Starcraft. Unit AI could have been vastly improved...Like Dragoons...Great units in the open field, but worthless if the area was at all constrained because their pathing logic was craptacular. And what the hell was with units randomly wandering off after an enemy unit? They'd go forever! All the way to the enemy base where they'd be wiped out instantly.
If they added a formations interface, where you could (for example) set your melee groups to guard your ranged units...Hell the interface is already there (in that there is a "guard" command) if you just changed the logic around to make it more logical, that would be awesome. There are so many places where that would be useful.
The arbitrary group size limitation is ridiculous as well. What's the point of a group of 12 zerglings? You should be able to group them in groups of 48 at a minimum, and what the hell is wrong with a group of 200? Seriously. Would it mess up the wireframe interface, and if so, who cares? Just put a damn scroll bar on it, and you're good to go.
It irks me when people see a successful game and say, "Wouldn't it be better if it were totally different?"
Look at Master of Orion...Master of Orion II was a great game and Master of Orion III was a complete dog. An upgrade of AI, graphics, buildings and ship gear on MOO2 would have left them with a solid, potentially excellent game. Instead they tossed everything from MOO2 except the name, and proceeded to create one of the great flops of all time.
Judging by the Diablo->DiabloII sequel, I'll give 'em the benefit of the doubt.
Oh, I've played with them as well. It's especially hard when you've got a headset on and they turn out to be a Squeaker or some other annoying internet sub-breed.
It's definitely nice to be able to group your friends together, find people you don't mind playing with, and keep the annoying types to a minimum...The problem is, you have to go out into the world of jerks to find the people you want to hang out with.
Ha! I don't even have to look, I know the exact strip. I was trying to remember the equation when I was typing: Normal Person + Internet = Total Asshat...Or something like that.
Sure, I read it, but I still wasn't impressed. It was all very speculative. I'd be much more interested in a case study where the doctors actually worked on someone, where they discuss what did and did not go according to plan.
This is just a little splash mongering, trying to drum up some page views by applying modern medicine to historic injuries, without any knowledge of complications that we are now able to recognize, which doctors of the time period were not able to recognize.
And future medicine might have brought him back from the dead, able to play piano and fly! Or maybe not. No medicine might have saved George Washington, instead of the leeches.
Such pointless speculation. Yes, obviously better medical care could have saved a lot of people. How about "Modern Medicine Could Have Prevented Black Plague!" Maybe, "85% of amputations during the civil war wouldn't have occurred with modern surgery!" Seriously, I can keep this up all day...
Not to feed the flamebait, but he's right. If you don't like it, leave the channel.
The people who wish the internet was a sweet world of marshmallow fluff are doomed to perpetual disappointment; too much of our racial Freudian Id is floating around out there, and plenty of otherwise normal people can be complete dicks online. You just gotta learn to live with it, or keep playing neopets.
It's nothing to do with that; it's just regulating what the cable/phone companies can claim actually IS broadband; as it stands they screw a lot of people who don't know any better by selling them "broadband" which is no such thing by modern standards.
I think it's definitely a good step in the "truth in advertising" department...I'm tired of sneering at the commercials where the broadband companies are comparing their download speeds to 28.8 modems and other such crap.
The counter example is Eve Online, which is based on the same principles, but lacks the massive number of grinding timesinks. The fact that they basically supported botting for grinding up your skills is a huge tip off toward the glaring flaws in that system.
I think that either you need a relatively unstructured game with an equally unstructured skill system, or you need a more structured game with a more structured skill system. Putting an unstructured game together with a structured skill system is a recipe for disaster.
Frankly their opinions mean nothing to me. It's a handful of people from random fields of science. Very few Climatologists at all. I'm sure those some guys are trotted out by every other conservative zealot who feels the need to prop some real live scientists behind his point.
The point in question is that people are drawing a correlation between what's happening here and what's happening there, and that, in fact, there is no evidence of any such relationship, so anyone who claims that there is a relationship is talking out his ass.
It doesn't make it wrong either, as you clearly believe it is wrong.
Don't confuse me with some know-nothing cable news watching hysteric. I don't believe the scare hype. But there is a real concern based on existing trends that no one argues with, and the dominant theory that explains those trends pins the blame on human production of excessive CO2 through the burning of fossil fuels.
Until some other theory comes along that explains all the evidence, I'm not going to have any problem supporting fuel economy and renewable energy. It's only common sense.
...So therefore Global Climate change isn't caused by human activity?
That's not an argument. That's a statement. It's not a reason why you should do or believe anything. I believe that the sky is often blue the the subtropical zone I live in, and most people agree with me. Are we wrong?
My usual issue is with hardware support. Some part craps out, and I call them for a replacement part, and have to go through so many hoops that it would have been cheaper to just buy a new computer for what they had to pay me to sit on the phone with some joker in India who is running through the "Choose Your Own Adventure" tech support binder, and not listening when I tell him what the problem is.
I shouldn't have to spend hours coaxing a guy on the phone through his troubleshooting manual until he gets the answer that I know is the right answer.
It's not really worth it, imho. Your response time goes up, but you're still likely to get a guy coming to your door who has the wrong part, and no idea how to install it.
I've dealt with standard, silver, and gold support, and they're all crappy. I've had to get our regional corporate IT director involved on more than one occasion...I mean literally, this guy is 2 steps below the CEO of a multi-billion dollar company, and I'm having to have him PERSONALLY intervene in a support issue and threaten to pull our entire corporate account, just so I can get support.
So wait, let me get this straight: You're saying that they're both bullshit arguments, but you only believe the one that supports your preconceived notion? Who do you do proofs for? Bill O'Reilly?
Science isn't about deductive proofs, because deduction doesn't work worth crap in the real world. We know CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and we know that an increase in CO2 can cause warming. We have an increase in CO2, and we're experiencing warming, and we don't have any other factor that we can point to and say, "This thing is definitely causing our warming." That gives us a pretty good reason to dig further, and to try and lower emmissions to be on the safe side.
Mars and Pluto? What the fuck do we know about the climate on Pluto? Are you suggesting that the forces that are causing warming here are causing the exact same warming there? What are they? What's the mechanism?
It may be that this theory is completely wrong, but almost no one thinks so, and there is no credible alternate explanation. Until one comes up, it seems intelligent to treat this one as if it is serious, and not to just dismiss the whole thing as crap because you don't agree, and yet still don't have a better answer.
Slashdot Mirror
The odds of your kids finding a sexual predator on MySpace are vastly less than them finding one in their own circle of family and friends...The younger the child, the higher the odds that any sex crime against them will be perpetrated by a family member or a close family friend, and at NO POINT do assaults by anonymous strangers become more common than assaults by acquaintances.
So saying, "ZOMG MySpace is rife with sex predators!" is essentially meaningless; they're no more prevalent there than anywhere else. People love to cling to the illusion that the bad people of the world are all faceless evil people lurking ion the shadows, and it's just not true. But the media is pushing the idea, and parents are eating it up.
Because it's clearly evidence of a hidden conspiracy somewhere to keep all women from doing the incredibly rewarding job that is IT.
I agree that math/science work is probably not put up to females as positively as it should be in their early lives, but this is not a workplace issue, it's a social issue. By the time they get to the workforce, they're going to be doing whatever it is that they've been studying to do...I mean, is it that there is a massive force of women with technical degrees who aren't going into IT because the recruiting pitch isn't to their taste? That doesn't make any sense.
It's far more likely (and my college experience bears this out) that there are relatively few women who choose to get technical degrees, and thus they are not heavily represented in the IT workforce.
Like most dichotomies, it's a false one.
People are too prone to thinking in black in white, and that sort of thinking leads them to create articles like "Study reveals what women want in IT jobs" like it's possible to isolate the two or three factors that are preventing hordes of women from descending on the IT profession.
It's a sentence fragment.
"In addition, there was little overlap (between) the women who reported that managers give up technical skills to develop management skills"..."and women who reported that managers don't give up technical skills to develop management skills." Or something.
You can't have overlap with just one group. That's just lap.
This survey is 100% accurate, because they interviewed all 29 females currently working in IT jobs.
You're talking educated consumers. As far as Joe Sixpack is concerned, Dell is still a quality brand...Hell, you buy a computer from Dell, and it actually has a NAME on the front, as opposed to most of the computers you buy from Best Buy, Staples, and Walmart now.
I dislike Dell, and when people ask me why I say, "I find their tier two and three support to be unbearable, and I hate their proprietary hardware, and their tendency to skimp on things like montherboards." It makes people's eyes glaze over, and in their minds, they file it away under "Nerd crap that doesn't apply to me."
The bottom line is, for the average Walmart buyer, Dell will seem like a sexy, high-end brand, even if they're just dumping their low end stock on Walmart.
Meh. If microsoft hadn't won, then decided that, since they'd won, all further development was a waste of time, there would have been no niche for new operators. We'd all be on IE11 by now, because they'd have agressively ported it to all operating systems in a bid to globally corner the hugely important browser market, and then they'd have built online application inventories through their massively dominant search portal that were tied directly to the pc through activeX.
Instead, they acted like fools, and blew their lead. So don't assume that because the last player who tried to be dominant mistook the game for the special olympics and got beat down, that the next competitor won't learn from their mistakes.
They're already out there. Most high powered rifles are capable of penetrating body armor that isn't backed by plates. They hint at it in the summary...Fast bullets are more of a concern than slow bullets, which is why it's a big deal that this one will stop a 9mm. It still probably won't stop a high powered rifle, which includes common hunting gear, and most assault weapons.
The big deal with this stuff isn't how effective it is...There's not much difference between it and kevlar...But kevlar weighs a hell of a lot more, so this is a lot more fun to wear.
Nah, it's not a slab. Wearable bulletproof materials are composed of interwoven fibers (occasionally with heavier armor plates backing 'em up), and if its made into a fabric, it's far more flexible and comfortable than a solid suit.
It's probably still pretty damn hot, and heavier than one would prefer. I'd be interested to see how this performs when coupled with some of the liquid armor tech the military has been working on.
Nice completely uninformed jab. Not only does Blizzard ALWAYS release a mac and a pc version at the same time, they also tend to make the final product compatible with WINE. WoW used to play beautifully in WINE, though I haven't tried it out in a while.
Say what you will about them, but they take cross-platform compatibility seriously.
Hell yea on the micromanagement in Starcraft. Unit AI could have been vastly improved...Like Dragoons...Great units in the open field, but worthless if the area was at all constrained because their pathing logic was craptacular. And what the hell was with units randomly wandering off after an enemy unit? They'd go forever! All the way to the enemy base where they'd be wiped out instantly.
If they added a formations interface, where you could (for example) set your melee groups to guard your ranged units...Hell the interface is already there (in that there is a "guard" command) if you just changed the logic around to make it more logical, that would be awesome. There are so many places where that would be useful.
The arbitrary group size limitation is ridiculous as well. What's the point of a group of 12 zerglings? You should be able to group them in groups of 48 at a minimum, and what the hell is wrong with a group of 200? Seriously. Would it mess up the wireframe interface, and if so, who cares? Just put a damn scroll bar on it, and you're good to go.
It irks me when people see a successful game and say, "Wouldn't it be better if it were totally different?"
Look at Master of Orion...Master of Orion II was a great game and Master of Orion III was a complete dog. An upgrade of AI, graphics, buildings and ship gear on MOO2 would have left them with a solid, potentially excellent game. Instead they tossed everything from MOO2 except the name, and proceeded to create one of the great flops of all time.
Judging by the Diablo->DiabloII sequel, I'll give 'em the benefit of the doubt.
Oh, I've played with them as well. It's especially hard when you've got a headset on and they turn out to be a Squeaker or some other annoying internet sub-breed.
It's definitely nice to be able to group your friends together, find people you don't mind playing with, and keep the annoying types to a minimum...The problem is, you have to go out into the world of jerks to find the people you want to hang out with.
Ha! I don't even have to look, I know the exact strip. I was trying to remember the equation when I was typing: Normal Person + Internet = Total Asshat...Or something like that.
Sure, I read it, but I still wasn't impressed. It was all very speculative. I'd be much more interested in a case study where the doctors actually worked on someone, where they discuss what did and did not go according to plan.
This is just a little splash mongering, trying to drum up some page views by applying modern medicine to historic injuries, without any knowledge of complications that we are now able to recognize, which doctors of the time period were not able to recognize.
And future medicine might have brought him back from the dead, able to play piano and fly! Or maybe not. No medicine might have saved George Washington, instead of the leeches.
Such pointless speculation. Yes, obviously better medical care could have saved a lot of people. How about "Modern Medicine Could Have Prevented Black Plague!" Maybe, "85% of amputations during the civil war wouldn't have occurred with modern surgery!" Seriously, I can keep this up all day...
Not to feed the flamebait, but he's right. If you don't like it, leave the channel.
The people who wish the internet was a sweet world of marshmallow fluff are doomed to perpetual disappointment; too much of our racial Freudian Id is floating around out there, and plenty of otherwise normal people can be complete dicks online. You just gotta learn to live with it, or keep playing neopets.
It's nothing to do with that; it's just regulating what the cable/phone companies can claim actually IS broadband; as it stands they screw a lot of people who don't know any better by selling them "broadband" which is no such thing by modern standards.
I think it's definitely a good step in the "truth in advertising" department...I'm tired of sneering at the commercials where the broadband companies are comparing their download speeds to 28.8 modems and other such crap.
The counter example is Eve Online, which is based on the same principles, but lacks the massive number of grinding timesinks. The fact that they basically supported botting for grinding up your skills is a huge tip off toward the glaring flaws in that system.
I think that either you need a relatively unstructured game with an equally unstructured skill system, or you need a more structured game with a more structured skill system. Putting an unstructured game together with a structured skill system is a recipe for disaster.
Frankly their opinions mean nothing to me. It's a handful of people from random fields of science. Very few Climatologists at all. I'm sure those some guys are trotted out by every other conservative zealot who feels the need to prop some real live scientists behind his point.
The point in question is that people are drawing a correlation between what's happening here and what's happening there, and that, in fact, there is no evidence of any such relationship, so anyone who claims that there is a relationship is talking out his ass.
It doesn't make it wrong either, as you clearly believe it is wrong.
Don't confuse me with some know-nothing cable news watching hysteric. I don't believe the scare hype. But there is a real concern based on existing trends that no one argues with, and the dominant theory that explains those trends pins the blame on human production of excessive CO2 through the burning of fossil fuels.
Until some other theory comes along that explains all the evidence, I'm not going to have any problem supporting fuel economy and renewable energy. It's only common sense.
...So therefore Global Climate change isn't caused by human activity?
That's not an argument. That's a statement. It's not a reason why you should do or believe anything. I believe that the sky is often blue the the subtropical zone I live in, and most people agree with me. Are we wrong?
My usual issue is with hardware support. Some part craps out, and I call them for a replacement part, and have to go through so many hoops that it would have been cheaper to just buy a new computer for what they had to pay me to sit on the phone with some joker in India who is running through the "Choose Your Own Adventure" tech support binder, and not listening when I tell him what the problem is.
I shouldn't have to spend hours coaxing a guy on the phone through his troubleshooting manual until he gets the answer that I know is the right answer.
It's not really worth it, imho. Your response time goes up, but you're still likely to get a guy coming to your door who has the wrong part, and no idea how to install it.
I've dealt with standard, silver, and gold support, and they're all crappy. I've had to get our regional corporate IT director involved on more than one occasion...I mean literally, this guy is 2 steps below the CEO of a multi-billion dollar company, and I'm having to have him PERSONALLY intervene in a support issue and threaten to pull our entire corporate account, just so I can get support.
That's a problem.
So wait, let me get this straight: You're saying that they're both bullshit arguments, but you only believe the one that supports your preconceived notion? Who do you do proofs for? Bill O'Reilly?
Science isn't about deductive proofs, because deduction doesn't work worth crap in the real world. We know CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and we know that an increase in CO2 can cause warming. We have an increase in CO2, and we're experiencing warming, and we don't have any other factor that we can point to and say, "This thing is definitely causing our warming." That gives us a pretty good reason to dig further, and to try and lower emmissions to be on the safe side.
Mars and Pluto? What the fuck do we know about the climate on Pluto? Are you suggesting that the forces that are causing warming here are causing the exact same warming there? What are they? What's the mechanism?
It may be that this theory is completely wrong, but almost no one thinks so, and there is no credible alternate explanation. Until one comes up, it seems intelligent to treat this one as if it is serious, and not to just dismiss the whole thing as crap because you don't agree, and yet still don't have a better answer.