Look kids, it's been a fun free ride and all, but if you think the government isn't gonna tax transactions once it figures out HOW to get at those transactions, well, ha ha ha. Sure. Okay.
They take the money you earn while working for a living and use it for corporate welfare and bailing out rich bastards who gamble and lose, so how long do you think they're gonna watch billions of dollars bouncing around the Interwebz before figuring out a way to dip their collective hand in there too?
As for the "freedom watch" website from TFA - you may wanna check out the rest of the site before you send any large donations.
Efforts to regulate carbon dioxide are an attempt by the global Left to gain control of the U.S. economy. lolwut?
hai guise theirs still a thing called 'storm' and itz bad
the blurb doesn't even SAY anything beyond that, and the 'article' is a skinny summary that has a cute lil stupid graph in the middle... and a solid bracing of two columns of ads on either side.
Does any article with the word "storm" in it get published...?
"We've seen 23-year-olds [come into the agency] and within several months be indoctrinated to the existing culture. They want to fit in. All that creativity they had before they walked in the door is pushed aside."
And this is why all the fancy tech and buzzwords in the world will not help the "intelligence" failcycle.
Everyone here knows that 'puters don't fix broken process or broken culture: if you're doing it wrong, more tech just lets you do it wrong faster.
Someone in an RIAA/MPAA thread said that since physical property was getting cheaper and cheaper to manufacture and took less and less people to make that we need to stake our future to IP. ... What will those who have no creativity do for a living? I believe you've answered your own question.
I see an opportunity here to nail down that problematic "insulting." Threatening or abusive, okay, we could argue that back and forth... but can you get a summons for calling someone a git? Can you say their hair is bad? Can this be differentiated from saying "I THINK your hair is bad!"?
IANAL nor do i play one on TV:
Hopefully, in court, the teen's barrister can lay out something like
1) It's been asserted that calling Scientology a cult is insulting 2) Past precedent in libel/slander laws say it ain't if it can be proven true 3) A cult has characteristics A, B, and C 4) Scientology has characteristics A, B, and C 5) No insult was made.
Furthermore, we establish legal precedent that Scientology fits the definition of Cult.
While you may not be able to stop your lawmakers from passing stupid, ambiguous laws, you can still succeed by working at the definition level, right? That's how it usually goes, innit?
i am so not a ST fanboi and mostly don't like the kidgloves treatment they gave themes they could have explored so much better (in TNG, anyway... commence flamage), but that was one of the best episodes of anything ever. mr. doohan was one of the most underutilized actors yet seen:(.
avatar = your representation in the game world, afaik, so i suppose you're both right and wrong:
in channels, on forums (we could argue how much they're a part of the game, which would also be ironic) and when doing the all-important char info lookup (Corp? Sec status?? Alliance? Employment History??), seeing what the player's done with the headshot *does* form part of your impression of that player, right? Some make you roll your eyes, or snicker, or impress you a little bit.
Meanwhile, your ship is really just your equipment worn and wielded, and can change rapidly. (or unexpectedly >:) ). The portrait is permanent, barring paid changes.
Plus the whole ambulation in stations thing is coming Soon(tm).
Can't LTFA yet either. Did they address the wildly varying degrees of avatar customization and what effect that may have?
Frex, WoW characters are - well, it's like everyone is related to you. Closely. Very little variation. What everyone then sees is the *gear* on WoW characters, that's what "matters" on that game (Woah, look at the sword / helmet / shield on that guy!). Actual avatar appearance is cookie-cutter, and quickly ignored after you realize you've seen what everyone looks like in 10 minutes. Does that affect acquisitiveness?
Conversely, games like CoH/V or EvE-online have avatar creation tools you can spend an hour or three on. There's more player input into the results, therefore more of the player's self-image (or fantasized version thereof) comes through. EvE, especially, makes it easy to make *hideous* characters, and many people do, for various reasons. Wouldn't that reinforce a lousy self-perception, if what TFA says is true..?
Seems (from the headline and blurb on NPR site) they simply make the assumption that everyone of COURSE goes and makes beautiful skinny Barbie avatars so we want to look "better," like them.
...players start spawning their own Eye of God ships.
If you get THAT reference, come join me here in ex-space-MMOer's hell. *pats seat*
Here's something not to do: make the Dev's personal ships explode for a billion jillion points of system-wide damage, to discourage people firing on devs.
Then do nothing about players finding ways to spawn EoG ships in enemy systems and detonating them on purpose...
Mankind, that was the name of it. Now, I can't picture CCP letting that go on for more than 5 minutes - but i do recall them being more than a little touchy about any kind of dissent or confrontation.
It's ironic - EvE devs have never flinched from throwing players into hard situations and seeing how the playerbase coped. This incident may have them on the receiving end - auditing and fixing glaring holes that otherwise may not have been addressed any time soon...
Their GMs and such widely varied. Some had almost inhuman patience, some never lost their cool and had serious style, quite a few joined in with the players in keeping things as IC (or at least tongue-in-cheek IC) as possible... and others were, now and then, sad to say, useless flaming wrecks. It happens. TBH i hope to reactivate my EvE account again one day when i have the time. It's a unique experience.
Translation: You are fools for believing your biased and slanted corporate-owned media outlets and partisan pundits! MY biased and slanted corporate-owned media outlets and partisan pundits are far superior!
Mod parent up, i sadly conclude. Y'know, i think in this judgement i saw one thing that's convinced me of the need for net neutrality more than anything else:
(C) Comcast is a private enterprise and has no obligation to honor the free speech rights of e360.
"...or anyone else, nyah nyeah."
I guess i've gotten caught up in the various arguments on the issue, but that one stark line makes it quite clear.
While soulskill did a good job of shall we say adding value to my submitted writeup and citing additional sources, i wish my last line had been left intact, going by much of the discussion that's been generated:
"We've been batting the idea around for weeks now. Are these isolated, over-hyped events, or is this the beginning of a lasting trend?"
I never meant to imply that we should all just take Gartner at their word without the presence of any sodium chloride...
Slashdot Mirror
From TFA:
Purchasing histories could be monitored to weed out potential problem drinkers.
HA HA HA GO TO HELL.
Look kids, it's been a fun free ride and all, but if you think the government isn't gonna tax transactions once it figures out HOW to get at those transactions, well, ha ha ha. Sure. Okay.
They take the money you earn while working for a living and use it for corporate welfare and bailing out rich bastards who gamble and lose, so how long do you think they're gonna watch billions of dollars bouncing around the Interwebz before figuring out a way to dip their collective hand in there too?
As for the "freedom watch" website from TFA - you may wanna check out the rest of the site before you send any large donations.
Efforts to regulate carbon dioxide are an attempt by the global Left to gain control of the U.S. economy. lolwut?I am assuming you know about the folding@home project, yah..?
Which supposedly hit a petaflop back in 9/07.
get_coat(bye);
hai guise theirs still a thing called 'storm' and itz bad
the blurb doesn't even SAY anything beyond that, and the 'article' is a skinny summary that has a cute lil stupid graph in the middle... and a solid bracing of two columns of ads on either side.
Does any article with the word "storm" in it get published...?
From TFA:
"We've seen 23-year-olds [come into the agency] and within several months be indoctrinated to the existing culture. They want to fit in. All that creativity they had before they walked in the door is pushed aside."
And this is why all the fancy tech and buzzwords in the world will not help the "intelligence" failcycle.
Everyone here knows that 'puters don't fix broken process or broken culture: if you're doing it wrong, more tech just lets you do it wrong faster.
"an accidental release of armed bats" /facepalm
right, i'm going back to work now...
What will those who have no creativity do for a living? I believe you've answered your own question.
Great, now even the moderations are making copies of themselves!
Maybe you've heard of the PATRIOT act...
I see an opportunity here to nail down that problematic "insulting." Threatening or abusive, okay, we could argue that back and forth... but can you get a summons for calling someone a git? Can you say their hair is bad? Can this be differentiated from saying "I THINK your hair is bad!"?
IANAL nor do i play one on TV:
Hopefully, in court, the teen's barrister can lay out something like
1) It's been asserted that calling Scientology a cult is insulting
2) Past precedent in libel/slander laws say it ain't if it can be proven true
3) A cult has characteristics A, B, and C
4) Scientology has characteristics A, B, and C
5) No insult was made.
Furthermore, we establish legal precedent that Scientology fits the definition of Cult.
While you may not be able to stop your lawmakers from passing stupid, ambiguous laws, you can still succeed by working at the definition level, right? That's how it usually goes, innit?
Will this work? What are the holes?
i am so not a ST fanboi and mostly don't like the kidgloves treatment they gave themes they could have explored so much better (in TNG, anyway... commence flamage), but that was one of the best episodes of anything ever. mr. doohan was one of the most underutilized actors yet seen :(.
avatar = your representation in the game world, afaik, so i suppose you're both right and wrong:
in channels, on forums (we could argue how much they're a part of the game, which would also be ironic) and when doing the all-important char info lookup (Corp? Sec status?? Alliance? Employment History??), seeing what the player's done with the headshot *does* form part of your impression of that player, right? Some make you roll your eyes, or snicker, or impress you a little bit.
Meanwhile, your ship is really just your equipment worn and wielded, and can change rapidly. (or unexpectedly >:) ). The portrait is permanent, barring paid changes.
Plus the whole ambulation in stations thing is coming Soon(tm).
Can't LTFA yet either. Did they address the wildly varying degrees of avatar customization and what effect that may have?
Frex, WoW characters are - well, it's like everyone is related to you. Closely. Very little variation. What everyone then sees is the *gear* on WoW characters, that's what "matters" on that game (Woah, look at the sword / helmet / shield on that guy!). Actual avatar appearance is cookie-cutter, and quickly ignored after you realize you've seen what everyone looks like in 10 minutes. Does that affect acquisitiveness?
Conversely, games like CoH/V or EvE-online have avatar creation tools you can spend an hour or three on. There's more player input into the results, therefore more of the player's self-image (or fantasized version thereof) comes through. EvE, especially, makes it easy to make *hideous* characters, and many people do, for various reasons. Wouldn't that reinforce a lousy self-perception, if what TFA says is true..?
Seems (from the headline and blurb on NPR site) they simply make the assumption that everyone of COURSE goes and makes beautiful skinny Barbie avatars so we want to look "better," like them.
Meh.
mod parent up!
as to which to choose, i about had an aneurysm trying to decide so good luck there.
yarrr, i be ganking your budget.
what is the sound of one forehead slapping?
...players start spawning their own Eye of God ships.
If you get THAT reference, come join me here in ex-space-MMOer's hell. *pats seat*
Here's something not to do: make the Dev's personal ships explode for a billion jillion points of system-wide damage, to discourage people firing on devs.
Then do nothing about players finding ways to spawn EoG ships in enemy systems and detonating them on purpose...
Mankind, that was the name of it. Now, I can't picture CCP letting that go on for more than 5 minutes - but i do recall them being more than a little touchy about any kind of dissent or confrontation.
It's ironic - EvE devs have never flinched from throwing players into hard situations and seeing how the playerbase coped. This incident may have them on the receiving end - auditing and fixing glaring holes that otherwise may not have been addressed any time soon...
Their GMs and such widely varied. Some had almost inhuman patience, some never lost their cool and had serious style, quite a few joined in with the players in keeping things as IC (or at least tongue-in-cheek IC) as possible... and others were, now and then, sad to say, useless flaming wrecks. It happens. TBH i hope to reactivate my EvE account again one day when i have the time. It's a unique experience.
The tag "youhave30secondstocomply" is a direct reference. (Or did you tag it thusly? :D)
Translation: You are fools for believing your biased and slanted corporate-owned media outlets and partisan pundits! MY biased and slanted corporate-owned media outlets and partisan pundits are far superior!
Hmmm. Are you perchance related to this guy?
Mod parent up, i sadly conclude. Y'know, i think in this judgement i saw one thing that's convinced me of the need for net neutrality more than anything else:
"...or anyone else, nyah nyeah."
I guess i've gotten caught up in the various arguments on the issue, but that one stark line makes it quite clear.
While soulskill did a good job of shall we say adding value to my submitted writeup and citing additional sources, i wish my last line had been left intact, going by much of the discussion that's been generated:
"We've been batting the idea around for weeks now. Are these isolated, over-hyped events, or is this the beginning of a lasting trend?"
I never meant to imply that we should all just take Gartner at their word without the presence of any sodium chloride...
If you *really* wanna tackle the issue of who to tell first, you're far braver than i'll ever be....