Depends. The only orders really necessary are those concerning "what to do next" from someone having previously done that particular scenario. Best issued as a description instead of commands.
This does require everyone to actually do their job and not come in pretending they'll be a controlling agent and then jumping the big boss like they're a tank. Or worse, pretending they'll heal and jumping into every fight.
Know what you're doing and do it effectively and even a randomly organized team will quickly leave you alone as far as orders.
My favorite is DCU Online. Mostly because it's completely fantasy (comics) oriented and you can go through all the levels completely without group gropes (although one would require a lot of grind). It also has a few mechanics built in like being able to slap players on ignore, leagues where you can find cooperative players (like clans) and making PvP play totally optional. True, some arena areas are restricted to groups of 4 or 8, but since you want to avoid team play, that's no real loss. On the other hand, some allow you to just walk in, and doing a team arena on your own (with a much higher level toon) can be very challenging.
Some good, some not so. TNG always had an undercurrent of wanting to 'fix' people. I really found Troi and crew obnoxious and disturbing. Picard never had any problems with assigning her to invading other minds.
Chris Inglis was the NSAâ(TM)s deputy director who made that assertion. He specifically stated the information used was Snowden's leaks about NSA eavesdropping on social media, email and so forth. *You* stated that the knowledge that the NSA was an internet threat, out of control and that they were spying on the above mentioned was common knowledge. So, according to your very own logic, Snowden's leaks weren't the cause of those deaths you're posturing over.
The arguments for requiring the mechanism are also astroturfed; like your "accuracy of 99.99 per cent" and 122 years, as that includes infants and children, invalids, people who don't own guns at all, etc.
Good argument for having no lock on it at all. The holster is negligible unless you've concocted a situation of the intruder already in the room and pointing his at you, in which case even having the gun in your lap won't help much.
Unfortunately, fringes always seem to get the most air and print time. Just this Friday, the NY Times admitted that "assault weapon" was a media fabrication initiated by gun control advocates - a fringe. As anybody and everybody who hits news gets "eviscerated" by some fringe loon, this is not a big deal. What is a big deal is when normally level-headed people believe that "the fringe" is restricted to only the side they disagree with.
If you claim that the existence of god or gods is a truth, it is incumbent on you to show that it is indeed a truth. Otherwise, you're just blowing smoke. Assertions are simply opinions.
Exactly. I get so tired of being asked "Then what *do* you believe?" with the emphasis on the do. My usual response is "Concerning what?" And there the questioner typically falters because they simply cannot wrap their minds around divorcing that question from some supernatural belief.
By all means, not all religious people are like that. My ex's father was a prof emeritus with five friggin' degrees in theological studies and we got along and understood each other just fine. He was, however, exceptional.
Try it from across the room and you don't know what the conversation is about. Do it at a bar looking for people using pick up lines and you'll get false positives. As for context, try to figure out how to inject that into the reading algorithms.
They did it as a humorous example, but there are many words which have negligible or synonymous lip movements. And as someone pointed out, ventriloquism is easily learned and *will* be as soon as authorities start using lip reading software.
For 100K, he could insulate the houses of a small neighborhood, doing more than what his Tesla would (because as greenies point out, you must include manufacture). He would also have greater cred as a goodwill ambassador for green. He could not, however, pull his cred up to the club at night and have everyone watch the valet drive the it off.
Slashdot Mirror
Depends. The only orders really necessary are those concerning "what to do next" from someone having previously done that particular scenario. Best issued as a description instead of commands.
This does require everyone to actually do their job and not come in pretending they'll be a controlling agent and then jumping the big boss like they're a tank. Or worse, pretending they'll heal and jumping into every fight.
Know what you're doing and do it effectively and even a randomly organized team will quickly leave you alone as far as orders.
My favorite is DCU Online. Mostly because it's completely fantasy (comics) oriented and you can go through all the levels completely without group gropes (although one would require a lot of grind). It also has a few mechanics built in like being able to slap players on ignore, leagues where you can find cooperative players (like clans) and making PvP play totally optional. True, some arena areas are restricted to groups of 4 or 8, but since you want to avoid team play, that's no real loss. On the other hand, some allow you to just walk in, and doing a team arena on your own (with a much higher level toon) can be very challenging.
Some good, some not so. TNG always had an undercurrent of wanting to 'fix' people. I really found Troi and crew obnoxious and disturbing. Picard never had any problems with assigning her to invading other minds.
You criticize his logic by citing two places, one of which is as near a pole as the other is near the equator?
Chris Inglis was the NSAâ(TM)s deputy director who made that assertion. He specifically stated the information used was Snowden's leaks about NSA eavesdropping on social media, email and so forth. *You* stated that the knowledge that the NSA was an internet threat, out of control and that they were spying on the above mentioned was common knowledge. So, according to your very own logic, Snowden's leaks weren't the cause of those deaths you're posturing over.
If the statement is to his benefit, you can be pretty certain it's a lie or at least you should treat it as such until empirical proof is provided.
Organized crime had "NDAs" as well. The agreement is worth the organization you're agreeing with.
"At least the NSA can be voted out of office." Explain how.
Just do a search on "IRS lies to congress". PLENTY of citations there. Here's just a few.
The arguments for requiring the mechanism are also astroturfed; like your "accuracy of 99.99 per cent" and 122 years, as that includes infants and children, invalids, people who don't own guns at all, etc.
Crime = theoretical death. Criminals aren't exactly afraid to use force.
I love your pipe dream. Now, undo history and make it impossible to make weapons and we'll try to realize it. Until then, pass the joint.
Perhaps you've never heard the phrase "jammed gun"?
Good argument for having no lock on it at all. The holster is negligible unless you've concocted a situation of the intruder already in the room and pointing his at you, in which case even having the gun in your lap won't help much.
Yours is a valid question. What would your view be if said failure rate is high?
Criticizing a device that can fail in rain, with dirt, with gloves or simply too sweaty hands is not arguing against "something better".
Unfortunately, fringes always seem to get the most air and print time. Just this Friday, the NY Times admitted that "assault weapon" was a media fabrication initiated by gun control advocates - a fringe. As anybody and everybody who hits news gets "eviscerated" by some fringe loon, this is not a big deal. What is a big deal is when normally level-headed people believe that "the fringe" is restricted to only the side they disagree with.
A common argumentative fallacy - quoting raw numbers. Try putting the numbers in terms of ratio to human population and the view is very different.
One can follow a false premise to a false conclusion, as you demonstrated.
If you claim that the existence of god or gods is a truth, it is incumbent on you to show that it is indeed a truth. Otherwise, you're just blowing smoke. Assertions are simply opinions.
As an atheist of some fifty years I can tell you - bullshit - to each of your points.
Exactly. I get so tired of being asked "Then what *do* you believe?" with the emphasis on the do. My usual response is "Concerning what?" And there the questioner typically falters because they simply cannot wrap their minds around divorcing that question from some supernatural belief.
By all means, not all religious people are like that. My ex's father was a prof emeritus with five friggin' degrees in theological studies and we got along and understood each other just fine. He was, however, exceptional.
Try it from across the room and you don't know what the conversation is about. Do it at a bar looking for people using pick up lines and you'll get false positives. As for context, try to figure out how to inject that into the reading algorithms.
They did it as a humorous example, but there are many words which have negligible or synonymous lip movements. And as someone pointed out, ventriloquism is easily learned and *will* be as soon as authorities start using lip reading software.
For 100K, he could insulate the houses of a small neighborhood, doing more than what his Tesla would (because as greenies point out, you must include manufacture). He would also have greater cred as a goodwill ambassador for green. He could not, however, pull his cred up to the club at night and have everyone watch the valet drive the it off.
Was there a reason you omitted nuclear?