People like you are why a law making it illegal to yell, "fire!"
And ACs like you aren't worth shit, grow some balls and get some manners then we can talk. Even a moron can see the benefits of clarity in laws and appreciate that it has fuck all to do with a kid and a pop tart. If I had a gun and any willingness to use it I'd want to have a decent idea of whether what I was doing was legal or not, having to estimate whether my life will or won't be ruined by the the police, jury etc own definition of what some generic reason-ability clause means isn't cool.
Unfortunately for you you're wrong: it was found that the downside of firing birdshot into the air is less than the downside of allowing drone operators to film someone else's backyard. Both are downsides but a court felt that the value of having one outweighed the value of having the other.
I hope that wasn't what happened in this case. If the law says firing a gun within the city is illegal then it should be illegal regardless of other criminality in the vicinity. If defending your property is a clear exception to the law then what happened here is that it was decided that this shooting fell within that definition.
To be fair to them it's really hard to get anything like an unbiased picture of anything remotely related to discrimination in gaming. You can find content about this that covers it as a harassment campaign against a business by 'MRAs' to attempts to get a scientist fired by an 'SJW' based on letters full of lies. The coverage invariably matches the underlying position of the organisation or forum that it features on.
So the take actions which do serious harm, in order to be protected from the most minor imagined slight
You mean like the dickheads who harassed and threatened people because those people wanted to shock horror hold a couple of panels on discrimination. In the end, all the retarded stuff like this does is reinforce the exact message that these socially inept morons dislike so much.
That's a large, and usually false, assumption. A plane with 2 engines, capable of flying on 1, may well have a higher chance of an engine failure but it is no less reliable as a plane (each engine is equally reliable, and the plane is more reliable). It is also considerably safer as the risk of mechanical failure leading to a crash are massively lower.
Decent reactor design will, one assumes, mean that they add additional valves etc because they lower the risk of catastrophic failure even if that means there is a higher chance of component failures that don't stop safe operation.
You're missing the point;) First you decide who you don't like, then you attribute the blame for everything to them. An actual relationship between them and the problem is just a happy coincidence.
I think you're rather missing the point; the choice isn't between Youtube and Netflix, it's between Netflix & Youtube vs Youtube Red. I can already see all that Youtube content on Youtube for free, what's my $9.99 gonna get me that makes it more appealing than Netflix.
I have no issue with Google trying to launch a premium video service but I'm really surprised by the price point. When Netflix is $8.99 (I think in the US) and Amazon bundles its service with prime for $99 I can't imagine Google is going to be providing a service that is worth notably more than either of these quickly.
Because they likely are. If it was an American pharmacy they'd have contractual terms hidden somewhere giving them permission to sell your data to whomever they liked and they wouldn't be getting fined at all... Data protection laws clearly can't stop crime (in the same way that laws against murder don't stop murder); it hardly takes a genius to realise that.
Can we bring that in for companies that knowingly sell products with life threatening flaws (both Ford & GM), that illegally pollute (GE), that cooperate in unlawful surveillance (AT&T, most other carriers, and many tech companies) or do anything else that is equally bad or worse? Sure you'd put most of America's (and the rest of the worlds) workforce out of jobs, but it's a principle thing right?
If a company does something like this then why on earth do people think winding the company up is the fitting punishment. The people most harmed by that decision will almost certainly not be the people who actually made the decision to do something wrong.
Not picking on you personally but why are so many people interested in what others do with their privacy?
We're both commenting on the same article, thus you're showing just as much interest as I am... the only difference is that I think people are making a mistake by valuing their personal information so lowly and you don't. Why do you care so much about people, allegedly, caring so much about what others do with their privacy?
How can they be the ruling class if they're lumped in with the proles? There aught a be a law!
One common form of communication for MPs is with their constituents, thus spying on communication involving MPs generally involves spying on a great deal of communication between the proles and their political representative... but don't let that get in the way of making cliché claims that politicians think they deserve special treatment.
We shouldn't be so willing, as a species, to sell our privacy in return for services. People know Facebook etc are mining everything they put into the platform, they just don't care enough and would stop using the site if it started charging in return for stopping the mining. You can blame companies like Facebook all you like, but as long as the only businesses that succeed are the ones that don't charge users and instead make money by selling the users (as advertising viewers or data directly) it'll keep happening.
Islam is now the largest criminal prison gang [bbc.co.uk] in the UK. Muslim rape gangs run riot, and they openly target the military. Is it any surprise that we want to keep an eye on them?
Are you a Fox news commentator by any chance? Because that kind of xenophobic bullshit would be right up there alley.
Take a look at how many Soldiers have been killed in the UK by Muslims (one) and how many were killed by white Irishmen over 1,000 then fuck off and die you ignorant twat.
Islamists are dangerous far beyond their numbers, statistically.
Citation Needed. The UK has had more anti-Muslim terrorist attacks since 2010 than Islamist ones. There's been nearly as many Irish Catholic terrorist attacks since my birth as there have been years (~30) and 4 by Islamic Extremists; but good old fashioned racism and fear of people who are different means that whereas we stuck our fingers up at the IRA, carried on with our lives and continued to trust white people even if they were Irish or Catholic, we completely lost our minds and openly discriminate against people for nothing more than being darker-skinned or Islamic.
b) The fact that they injured multiple people is worrisome. You can say that running over the first guy was an accident, but it's less credible the second time you hit someone and nobody alleges that both injuries were sustained at the same time.
Not saying this is what happened, but one explanation would be that a there were a group of security personnel near the vehicle when it intentionally/recklessly/accidentally hit the first one, the other security staff then got injured while they broke the window and cut the driver out of his seat.
Your logic about needing to show injury to prove you were attacked first doesn't match with reality. I can think of real life examples where it clearly isn't true. An example in this case might be that the security guards made a credible threat of violence while armed, or that one of the security guards attempted but failed to physically assault them. Maybe you're different but personally when someone tries to hit me, I don't wait until they have another go and succeed before considering myself under attack.
If you're getting struck by cars, you're not doing your job right. Having actually worked as a security guard before, I would have recorded the plate without endangering myself and not have obstructed the fleeing reporters in any way
...and as a soldier you'd have defeated the Viet Cong single handed, as President you'd have ended poverty and the national debt etc etc we get that you think you're awesome and could do better than other people based on no real knowledge of the situation.
Accurate analysis from the very first post. This is a classic economics problem, overuse of a good that is given away for free
Providing a parking space probably costs a couple of orders of magnitude more than the additional cost of adding a charging point to one, given that firms give away parking for free your economic justification is already being ignored in most cases.
What is interesting is that most EV drivers probably don't need the charge to get home and carry out their daily errands. If they do then they probably made the wrong vehicle choice. They just want to charge up on someone else's dime.
No need to assume everyone else is as greedy as yourself. There's plenty of benefit to having your electric car at a higher charge more of the time so regardless of money it shouldn't take a genius to realise that people would value being able to charge at a location where they park their EV. I'm sure the majority of EV owners would be happy to pay for the electricity, they already chose to buy an EV which can't yet be justified on purely financial terms.
You've managed to make traditional energy sources more expensive than wind. Impressive.
And you've managed to make junk food (HF Corn Syrup) cheaper than fresh food; at market interference goes we've still got a lot to learn to be half as retarded as that.
My car stereo from 2005 increases the volume as my speed increases, and that feature probably goes way back.
I thought that initially but then it occurred to me that the stereo should probably be using background noise level rather than speed to decide volume. I'm sure I've been doing 30mph on some bad roads and had more noise than doing 90mph on a decent motorway. It seems a bit backwards to use a primitive proxy like speed, when devices capable of detecting noise directly are available.
Perhaps, but imagine for a moment that you're an LGBT (or otherwise marginalised) teen living in a fairly hostile community. You'd want to reach out and communicate with people who could empathise, but wouldn't want to reveal your identity lest it lead to retribution. Not requiring a real name would allow them to reach out in a safer manner on that particular platform.
Until they screw up and contaminate their 'real' account with their 'secret' account... Facebook has a real names policy and plenty of people seem pretty happy with that, if someone wants to use a pseudonym then use a service that allows them.
Most software tests in the waterfall model -- including tests in xnu (that's the name of the Mac OS X kernel build component) and in ChromeOS regression tests -- tests for the bugs that have already been fixed.
If that is your experience then it says more about your experience than wider practice. Regression testing is simply ensuring that functionality that is already in place is not compromised when new versions/extensions/etc are added. Tests from the original specification for the system would be part of ongoing regression testing as the system is expanded/updated.
Slashdot Mirror
And ACs like you aren't worth shit, grow some balls and get some manners then we can talk. Even a moron can see the benefits of clarity in laws and appreciate that it has fuck all to do with a kid and a pop tart. If I had a gun and any willingness to use it I'd want to have a decent idea of whether what I was doing was legal or not, having to estimate whether my life will or won't be ruined by the the police, jury etc own definition of what some generic reason-ability clause means isn't cool.
I hope that wasn't what happened in this case. If the law says firing a gun within the city is illegal then it should be illegal regardless of other criminality in the vicinity. If defending your property is a clear exception to the law then what happened here is that it was decided that this shooting fell within that definition.
To be fair to them it's really hard to get anything like an unbiased picture of anything remotely related to discrimination in gaming. You can find content about this that covers it as a harassment campaign against a business by 'MRAs' to attempts to get a scientist fired by an 'SJW' based on letters full of lies. The coverage invariably matches the underlying position of the organisation or forum that it features on.
You mean like the dickheads who harassed and threatened people because those people wanted to shock horror hold a couple of panels on discrimination. In the end, all the retarded stuff like this does is reinforce the exact message that these socially inept morons dislike so much.
That's a large, and usually false, assumption. A plane with 2 engines, capable of flying on 1, may well have a higher chance of an engine failure but it is no less reliable as a plane (each engine is equally reliable, and the plane is more reliable). It is also considerably safer as the risk of mechanical failure leading to a crash are massively lower.
Decent reactor design will, one assumes, mean that they add additional valves etc because they lower the risk of catastrophic failure even if that means there is a higher chance of component failures that don't stop safe operation.
You're missing the point ;) First you decide who you don't like, then you attribute the blame for everything to them. An actual relationship between them and the problem is just a happy coincidence.
I think you're rather missing the point; the choice isn't between Youtube and Netflix, it's between Netflix & Youtube vs Youtube Red. I can already see all that Youtube content on Youtube for free, what's my $9.99 gonna get me that makes it more appealing than Netflix.
I have no issue with Google trying to launch a premium video service but I'm really surprised by the price point. When Netflix is $8.99 (I think in the US) and Amazon bundles its service with prime for $99 I can't imagine Google is going to be providing a service that is worth notably more than either of these quickly.
Because they likely are. If it was an American pharmacy they'd have contractual terms hidden somewhere giving them permission to sell your data to whomever they liked and they wouldn't be getting fined at all... Data protection laws clearly can't stop crime (in the same way that laws against murder don't stop murder); it hardly takes a genius to realise that.
Can we bring that in for companies that knowingly sell products with life threatening flaws (both Ford & GM), that illegally pollute (GE), that cooperate in unlawful surveillance (AT&T, most other carriers, and many tech companies) or do anything else that is equally bad or worse? Sure you'd put most of America's (and the rest of the worlds) workforce out of jobs, but it's a principle thing right? If a company does something like this then why on earth do people think winding the company up is the fitting punishment. The people most harmed by that decision will almost certainly not be the people who actually made the decision to do something wrong.
We're both commenting on the same article, thus you're showing just as much interest as I am... the only difference is that I think people are making a mistake by valuing their personal information so lowly and you don't. Why do you care so much about people, allegedly, caring so much about what others do with their privacy?
Politicians in the UK can, and have been spied upon, the difference here is how and with what authorisation.
One common form of communication for MPs is with their constituents, thus spying on communication involving MPs generally involves spying on a great deal of communication between the proles and their political representative... but don't let that get in the way of making cliché claims that politicians think they deserve special treatment.
We shouldn't be so willing, as a species, to sell our privacy in return for services. People know Facebook etc are mining everything they put into the platform, they just don't care enough and would stop using the site if it started charging in return for stopping the mining. You can blame companies like Facebook all you like, but as long as the only businesses that succeed are the ones that don't charge users and instead make money by selling the users (as advertising viewers or data directly) it'll keep happening.
Probably because it is usually known that Vienna isn't in France, the French were Allies with the Ottomans, and... it isn't true.
Are you a Fox news commentator by any chance? Because that kind of xenophobic bullshit would be right up there alley.
Take a look at how many Soldiers have been killed in the UK by Muslims (one) and how many were killed by white Irishmen over 1,000 then fuck off and die you ignorant twat.
Citation Needed. The UK has had more anti-Muslim terrorist attacks since 2010 than Islamist ones. There's been nearly as many Irish Catholic terrorist attacks since my birth as there have been years (~30) and 4 by Islamic Extremists; but good old fashioned racism and fear of people who are different means that whereas we stuck our fingers up at the IRA, carried on with our lives and continued to trust white people even if they were Irish or Catholic, we completely lost our minds and openly discriminate against people for nothing more than being darker-skinned or Islamic.
Not saying this is what happened, but one explanation would be that a there were a group of security personnel near the vehicle when it intentionally/recklessly/accidentally hit the first one, the other security staff then got injured while they broke the window and cut the driver out of his seat.
Your logic about needing to show injury to prove you were attacked first doesn't match with reality. I can think of real life examples where it clearly isn't true. An example in this case might be that the security guards made a credible threat of violence while armed, or that one of the security guards attempted but failed to physically assault them. Maybe you're different but personally when someone tries to hit me, I don't wait until they have another go and succeed before considering myself under attack.
...and as a soldier you'd have defeated the Viet Cong single handed, as President you'd have ended poverty and the national debt etc etc we get that you think you're awesome and could do better than other people based on no real knowledge of the situation.
Providing a parking space probably costs a couple of orders of magnitude more than the additional cost of adding a charging point to one, given that firms give away parking for free your economic justification is already being ignored in most cases.
No need to assume everyone else is as greedy as yourself. There's plenty of benefit to having your electric car at a higher charge more of the time so regardless of money it shouldn't take a genius to realise that people would value being able to charge at a location where they park their EV. I'm sure the majority of EV owners would be happy to pay for the electricity, they already chose to buy an EV which can't yet be justified on purely financial terms.
And you've managed to make junk food (HF Corn Syrup) cheaper than fresh food; at market interference goes we've still got a lot to learn to be half as retarded as that.
I thought that initially but then it occurred to me that the stereo should probably be using background noise level rather than speed to decide volume. I'm sure I've been doing 30mph on some bad roads and had more noise than doing 90mph on a decent motorway. It seems a bit backwards to use a primitive proxy like speed, when devices capable of detecting noise directly are available.
Until they screw up and contaminate their 'real' account with their 'secret' account... Facebook has a real names policy and plenty of people seem pretty happy with that, if someone wants to use a pseudonym then use a service that allows them.
If that is your experience then it says more about your experience than wider practice. Regression testing is simply ensuring that functionality that is already in place is not compromised when new versions/extensions/etc are added. Tests from the original specification for the system would be part of ongoing regression testing as the system is expanded/updated.