Yes. Having the degree gets you past the HR check. They don't care where the degree is from. They only care about the check mark for degree on "meets the posted job requirements" so the resume can be passed on to the person actually making the hiring decision. If they have even the slightest bit of common sense, the person making the decision is going to be far more interested in the interview and what knowledge you can demonstrate than which college shows up on a piece of paper.
Aim itself is not this issue nor skill really. It is speed of aim. When you hit that choke point and see an enemy on the edge of the screen waiting to kill you, it takes longer for a player on a console with its steady one speed panning to turn towards the enemy than it does for PC player with a mouse who can twitch to face a new direction quickly. Consoles impose an artificial response time limitation that a mouse just doesn't have.
Or the conversation in "Objects in Space" where they are discussing whether she is a psychic and Zoe mentions that they may have been trying to create an assassin.
This depends on how you view the purpose of incarceration (the most common form of deprivation of liberties). If it's only purpose is to punish then your point would be valid, but I think there is the assumption by many that part of the point of incarceration is rehabilitation. There is supposed to be a lesson learned from the punishment.
If you go along with this assumption, then what do you do with those individuals for whom there is sufficient evidence that no amount of punishment or logic or any other factor will prevent them from committing violent and harmful acts again and again. Do we continue to pour the resources of the community into incarcerating the individual with the full knowledge that they will never be rehabilitated or do we cut our losses and remove that kill that individual?
I personally don't have an answer to this. I believe that there are some people out there who should be removed from the world for the safety of everyone else in the world, but I have never been able to develop a consistant and easily measurable criteria for who should and should not die. Again there are too many circumstances and variables involved. Each case must be weighed within its own context and mistakes will be and disagreements of interpretation of those circumstances will vary from person to person. More shades of grey.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes. Having the degree gets you past the HR check. They don't care where the degree is from. They only care about the check mark for degree on "meets the posted job requirements" so the resume can be passed on to the person actually making the hiring decision. If they have even the slightest bit of common sense, the person making the decision is going to be far more interested in the interview and what knowledge you can demonstrate than which college shows up on a piece of paper.
Ars Magica. I've been playing it nearly as long as I have D&D and it is still my favorite system.
Aim itself is not this issue nor skill really. It is speed of aim. When you hit that choke point and see an enemy on the edge of the screen waiting to kill you, it takes longer for a player on a console with its steady one speed panning to turn towards the enemy than it does for PC player with a mouse who can twitch to face a new direction quickly. Consoles impose an artificial response time limitation that a mouse just doesn't have.
Or as my grandmother used to say, "God answers all prayers. Sometimes he says no."
Or the conversation in "Objects in Space" where they are discussing whether she is a psychic and Zoe mentions that they may have been trying to create an assassin.
This depends on how you view the purpose of incarceration (the most common form of deprivation of liberties). If it's only purpose is to punish then your point would be valid, but I think there is the assumption by many that part of the point of incarceration is rehabilitation. There is supposed to be a lesson learned from the punishment. If you go along with this assumption, then what do you do with those individuals for whom there is sufficient evidence that no amount of punishment or logic or any other factor will prevent them from committing violent and harmful acts again and again. Do we continue to pour the resources of the community into incarcerating the individual with the full knowledge that they will never be rehabilitated or do we cut our losses and remove that kill that individual? I personally don't have an answer to this. I believe that there are some people out there who should be removed from the world for the safety of everyone else in the world, but I have never been able to develop a consistant and easily measurable criteria for who should and should not die. Again there are too many circumstances and variables involved. Each case must be weighed within its own context and mistakes will be and disagreements of interpretation of those circumstances will vary from person to person. More shades of grey.