Well I do and the circle I game in does but most of us are either new to RPGs or comparatively light players. Personally I find more complex rule sets limit the game more than they open them up if you have a remotely flexible/capable GM and they definitely slow everything down.
It's absurd. While I have never (and am not planning to) used Instagram, I find the whole concept redundant
And what exactly does your own inability to find a use show? I've toyed with Instagram and still use it to upload some images to FB/Twitter etc; that doesn't prove much of anything. A lot of people use Instagram, they evidently have found something about the concept that isn't redundant.
Personally I see nothing worrying about Facebook doing this. They probably started devoping it before they acquired Instagram. Generally dev costs aren't that huge and this allows them to try different functionality/integrations on the two platforms while taking the best of each and incorporating it into the other.
The main difference in the UK is that we actually have a lot of competition in the broadband sector. In the US it is not unusual to have 2 or even just 1 viable option (your local cable company). Metered use is fine in a competitive enviroment (in fact arguably it is better because it stops low use customers subsidising heavu users) but that isn't true in a monopoly.
Unless the US government can force some competition into the market then it will only be able to keep the market 'fair' by constantly controlling company behaviour.
Our courts operate on the notion that yes, longer prison sentences act as deterrents
The highest per capita incarceration level on earth shows how well that's been working. People almost never commit crimes because they think the punishment isn't sufficient to stop it. They either don't expect to be caught or don't consider it at all.
I can't comment on the validity of your assertion that there is a general bias towards tolerance for white people etc people. Last time I checked I thought the defendant here was a minority himself so I'm not sure it makes that point for you. Personally I'm very much for allowing gay people the same rights and tolerance as anyone else. I may have some unconscious racial bias, even people of minority groups tend to have it due to enviroment, but I do what I can to challenge it and account for it.
Seems like a reasonable sentence to me. As stupid, and intolerant, as what he did was and as severe as the consequences were there's nothing gained by excessive punishment. Would a longer prison sentence really act as a deterrent to similar behaviour? Isn't a criminal record, the court process he's been through, a month in prison and having to live with the consequences of his actions enough for doing something stupid and not considering how bad the consequences might be?
Some poor bastard has already lost his life. Another has pretty much ruined his. Sticking someone in prison longer doesn't make any of that better; it's just an expensive way to cause more suffering.
This is the classic prisoner dilemma. It is in the interests of each individual to choose the option which is of least value to all the actors (cities) combined. Either change the rules or don't be surprised.
I definitely agree that there are costs to this. As I don't know how carefully the towns have considered the deal I can't comment on whether it is in their benefit or not.
You can't stop this kind of thing short of banning it. The towns could just offer a 50% rebate on sales tax if you employ 5,000+ warehouse workers at a new site (something a small or start up competitor couldn't do). If you stop towns doing it within the state then you'll still get states that offer tax incentives for big firms to set up in their state (what amazon had been using in Nevada etc before they moved into California). Hell, even if the entire US set a tax rate then you'd get people moving some business/headquarters etc into other countries to avoid tax.
A company comes to you and says you can have 5,000 jobs and $20,000,000 as long as you give them $15,000,000 back. That's a tempting offer and you can hardly blame the towns for considering it. Someone comes to you offering 10 jobs and a worn out $5 it's not worth the effort. It's not corruption it's the cost of allowing internal variation in tax and rebates.
I'm very dubious about fracking; I'd go as far as to say irrationally so. I saw stories about tremors near sites and taken a real interest since. That said I have seen precious little evidence that fracking is actually causing most of the problems it is being blamed for. Given the way fracking works it would have to be a very flawed implementation to have any chance of contaminating drinking water.
Arguments as weak as yours don't help; hell at least if you shared ANY true facts rather than hyperbole and FUD you'd add something.
If I got a letter from RIAA or MPAA demanding $5000 I'd just throw it in the trash.
It's doubtful they'd come after me, and if they did, then I'd enjoy fighting them in court. And if I wound-up losing and owing $1.5 million (two songs infringed upon), I'd consider that a life sentence. That's worse than the punishment for murder.
Oh come on. If the punishment was that bad why would you throw the letter away without seeking legal advice. Either you like acting irrationally or that position makes no sense. Secondly I'd much rather get a $1.5 million fine (which would bankrupt me) than spend 10+ years in prison. I'd have to question the sanity of anyone who genuinely thought the fine would be worse.
The food cost argument is one I find particularly disheartening to hear. You can buy bananas as cheaply as most snacks. Wholegrain rice/pasta isn't expensive. Tinned spinach costs something like 10-20 pence (as is a healthy choice). I have trouble losing weight and am slightly heavier than I'd like so I won't pretend I'm the role model for dieting but I can say for sure that healthy eating is probably cheaper than not.
The starting weight has a big influence on what level of weight loss is healthy or sustainable. I'm slightly overweight by BMI but 8-10kg a month wouldn't be healthy (even 4-5kg is borderline) however if I was carrying another 40+ kg of fat then faster weight loss would be fine. I have to admit that 2.5kg per week is a very heavy diet. Your doctor obviously knows more than I do, and I'm sure it is fine, but I'd estimate that it wouldn't be suitable for most people who are considering trying to lose weight. I hope everything foes well for you.
You can filter out some IP's but not hundreds of thousands of scattered ones, you can block robots but not hundreds of thousands of pathetic greedy ignorant trolls.
Which doesn't really matter on a social network. I have a limited number of contacts. If the filters the site use don't work then it's a few seconds work for me to ignore or remove the person who posted it. People have been doing company sponsored advertising for years, the get a free iPad links being one of the more recent examples. Some people don't consider the negative impact their astroturfing has on the people who it is sent to; remove them and if you feel like it politely explain why.
Actually what you said isn't entirely true. If someone steals your credit card and you cancel it then the card they have can never work, even if they got your new pin. If someone gets your palm print and you change your pin then they still have a valid palm print. There is a reason cards get cancelled when stolen and we don't just change the pin. You also can't change your DOB so if they had that then the only thing they're missing is your PIN.
Is it a big enough issue to stop this from working? I'm not sure, but I can't say it's a good idea without seeing a lot more evidence to support that conclusion.
It was a response to an equally vague post about someone elses personal opinions. Also, Hint: How is acting like a jackass benefiting the debate? It doesn't and never does.
It's ok. His brain has learnt a specific, outdated, measurement system and now he is extrapolating his limitation into a generic universal one. Personally as a child of the 80s in the UK I'd much rather use the decimal system for just about everything. Admittedly I'd have trouble converting to metric speeds and distances as they are still imperial and I've grown accustomed to them but give it a few years and it'd be fine.
Full electric cars obviously have a limitation. For that reason they aren't going to be appropriate for everyone and there's no point in them trying. For a lot of people the benefits of being more enviromentally friendly and the fact it has sufficient range for 99% of their use will be enough.
I see electric cars as a good choice for a 2nd car in the UK, where petrol costs £1.40 per litre. If a couple both work and commute by car then the chances that one of them can live with a ~100 mile range is high.
If they didn't think the odds of them making a reasonable return on the suit were good they wouldn't start it in the first place. There is something distinctly wrong with people being able to start a legal action, with me as a plaintiff without my permission. Yes it is possible that they are representing the interests of all plaintiffs to the best of their ability, not abusing the huge leeway to put their own interest first. The opposite is also patently true.
You could and chances are that each time it hits something new like this it can be improved a little and any clue about rotation/flipping etc will check for this kind of skullduggery. However just building in functionality to look for something that looks like the word if viewed backwards and upside down isn't automatically something you'd add to a crossword computer.
If I buy two concert tickets, how does my friend give me the money for them?
Paypal gift, bank transfer etc. I always carry some cash but I avoid using it where possible. As cash becomes less popular we'll just see payments via mobile etc take off. It will be interesting to see how young children 0-10 interact when cash is out. There's bound to be a market for child appropriate payment methods (rather than just getting them a family Amex card;) ).
Any country that treats involvement in its democracy as a 'privilege' doesn't have a democracy. Otherwise a monarchy is just a democracy with fewer privileged individuals. Removing people's right to vote for any reason fundamentally undermines the legitimacy of a democracy and it doesn't even have any benefits. No one decides not to commit a crime because of voting rights. In return being excluded by society from involvement in democracy is hardly likely to make them value democracy and the rule of law any more than they originally did.
All the points you mention are completely valid and should be considered by any competent person with staff. Sadly it isn't either of the contradictory points made in the summary!
A lot of research has been done showing that increased spend on staff at retail venues leads to increased profit. Sadly because it is easier to see the £25k saving from not hiring someone than the improved customer service, product availability, quality of venue etc they provide which lead to £10k more profit arguing to increase staffing is hard work.
A bit of me almost wishes they'd just require DNA from everyone and try and get it over with. Either the populace would finally fight back and reclaim some rights or we'd give up the illusion of privacy and at least get some of the benefits that come with that. In the UK you can have DNA taken after being arrested, never get charged and still find it virtually/effectively impossible to get your DNA off of the database.
This has got to be one of the most obviously nonsensical submission summaries I have seen. Firstly it talks about how people would get more work done if they didn't do overtime. Then it suggests that overtime is responsible for cutting down number of jobs. The second points very existence relies on the first point being false. If people doing 40 hrs are more effective then less overtime would increase the work done per person and thus decrease the need to employ more people.
Slashdot Mirror
Well I do and the circle I game in does but most of us are either new to RPGs or comparatively light players. Personally I find more complex rule sets limit the game more than they open them up if you have a remotely flexible/capable GM and they definitely slow everything down.
And what exactly does your own inability to find a use show? I've toyed with Instagram and still use it to upload some images to FB/Twitter etc; that doesn't prove much of anything. A lot of people use Instagram, they evidently have found something about the concept that isn't redundant.
Personally I see nothing worrying about Facebook doing this. They probably started devoping it before they acquired Instagram. Generally dev costs aren't that huge and this allows them to try different functionality/integrations on the two platforms while taking the best of each and incorporating it into the other.
The main difference in the UK is that we actually have a lot of competition in the broadband sector. In the US it is not unusual to have 2 or even just 1 viable option (your local cable company). Metered use is fine in a competitive enviroment (in fact arguably it is better because it stops low use customers subsidising heavu users) but that isn't true in a monopoly.
Unless the US government can force some competition into the market then it will only be able to keep the market 'fair' by constantly controlling company behaviour.
The highest per capita incarceration level on earth shows how well that's been working. People almost never commit crimes because they think the punishment isn't sufficient to stop it. They either don't expect to be caught or don't consider it at all.
I can't comment on the validity of your assertion that there is a general bias towards tolerance for white people etc people. Last time I checked I thought the defendant here was a minority himself so I'm not sure it makes that point for you. Personally I'm very much for allowing gay people the same rights and tolerance as anyone else. I may have some unconscious racial bias, even people of minority groups tend to have it due to enviroment, but I do what I can to challenge it and account for it.
Seems like a reasonable sentence to me. As stupid, and intolerant, as what he did was and as severe as the consequences were there's nothing gained by excessive punishment. Would a longer prison sentence really act as a deterrent to similar behaviour? Isn't a criminal record, the court process he's been through, a month in prison and having to live with the consequences of his actions enough for doing something stupid and not considering how bad the consequences might be?
Some poor bastard has already lost his life. Another has pretty much ruined his. Sticking someone in prison longer doesn't make any of that better; it's just an expensive way to cause more suffering.
This is the classic prisoner dilemma. It is in the interests of each individual to choose the option which is of least value to all the actors (cities) combined. Either change the rules or don't be surprised.
I definitely agree that there are costs to this. As I don't know how carefully the towns have considered the deal I can't comment on whether it is in their benefit or not.
You can't stop this kind of thing short of banning it. The towns could just offer a 50% rebate on sales tax if you employ 5,000+ warehouse workers at a new site (something a small or start up competitor couldn't do). If you stop towns doing it within the state then you'll still get states that offer tax incentives for big firms to set up in their state (what amazon had been using in Nevada etc before they moved into California). Hell, even if the entire US set a tax rate then you'd get people moving some business/headquarters etc into other countries to avoid tax.
A company comes to you and says you can have 5,000 jobs and $20,000,000 as long as you give them $15,000,000 back. That's a tempting offer and you can hardly blame the towns for considering it. Someone comes to you offering 10 jobs and a worn out $5 it's not worth the effort. It's not corruption it's the cost of allowing internal variation in tax and rebates.
I'm very dubious about fracking; I'd go as far as to say irrationally so. I saw stories about tremors near sites and taken a real interest since. That said I have seen precious little evidence that fracking is actually causing most of the problems it is being blamed for. Given the way fracking works it would have to be a very flawed implementation to have any chance of contaminating drinking water.
Arguments as weak as yours don't help; hell at least if you shared ANY true facts rather than hyperbole and FUD you'd add something.
Oh come on. If the punishment was that bad why would you throw the letter away without seeking legal advice. Either you like acting irrationally or that position makes no sense. Secondly I'd much rather get a $1.5 million fine (which would bankrupt me) than spend 10+ years in prison. I'd have to question the sanity of anyone who genuinely thought the fine would be worse.
The food cost argument is one I find particularly disheartening to hear. You can buy bananas as cheaply as most snacks. Wholegrain rice/pasta isn't expensive. Tinned spinach costs something like 10-20 pence (as is a healthy choice). I have trouble losing weight and am slightly heavier than I'd like so I won't pretend I'm the role model for dieting but I can say for sure that healthy eating is probably cheaper than not.
The starting weight has a big influence on what level of weight loss is healthy or sustainable. I'm slightly overweight by BMI but 8-10kg a month wouldn't be healthy (even 4-5kg is borderline) however if I was carrying another 40+ kg of fat then faster weight loss would be fine. I have to admit that 2.5kg per week is a very heavy diet. Your doctor obviously knows more than I do, and I'm sure it is fine, but I'd estimate that it wouldn't be suitable for most people who are considering trying to lose weight. I hope everything foes well for you.
Which doesn't really matter on a social network. I have a limited number of contacts. If the filters the site use don't work then it's a few seconds work for me to ignore or remove the person who posted it. People have been doing company sponsored advertising for years, the get a free iPad links being one of the more recent examples. Some people don't consider the negative impact their astroturfing has on the people who it is sent to; remove them and if you feel like it politely explain why.
Actually what you said isn't entirely true. If someone steals your credit card and you cancel it then the card they have can never work, even if they got your new pin. If someone gets your palm print and you change your pin then they still have a valid palm print. There is a reason cards get cancelled when stolen and we don't just change the pin. You also can't change your DOB so if they had that then the only thing they're missing is your PIN.
Is it a big enough issue to stop this from working? I'm not sure, but I can't say it's a good idea without seeing a lot more evidence to support that conclusion.
It was a response to an equally vague post about someone elses personal opinions. Also, Hint: How is acting like a jackass benefiting the debate? It doesn't and never does.
Citation needed.
What? And you think it's funny/smart/witty when you do it...
It's ok. His brain has learnt a specific, outdated, measurement system and now he is extrapolating his limitation into a generic universal one. Personally as a child of the 80s in the UK I'd much rather use the decimal system for just about everything. Admittedly I'd have trouble converting to metric speeds and distances as they are still imperial and I've grown accustomed to them but give it a few years and it'd be fine.
Full electric cars obviously have a limitation. For that reason they aren't going to be appropriate for everyone and there's no point in them trying. For a lot of people the benefits of being more enviromentally friendly and the fact it has sufficient range for 99% of their use will be enough.
I see electric cars as a good choice for a 2nd car in the UK, where petrol costs £1.40 per litre. If a couple both work and commute by car then the chances that one of them can live with a ~100 mile range is high.
If they didn't think the odds of them making a reasonable return on the suit were good they wouldn't start it in the first place. There is something distinctly wrong with people being able to start a legal action, with me as a plaintiff without my permission. Yes it is possible that they are representing the interests of all plaintiffs to the best of their ability, not abusing the huge leeway to put their own interest first. The opposite is also patently true.
You could and chances are that each time it hits something new like this it can be improved a little and any clue about rotation/flipping etc will check for this kind of skullduggery. However just building in functionality to look for something that looks like the word if viewed backwards and upside down isn't automatically something you'd add to a crossword computer.
Paypal gift, bank transfer etc. I always carry some cash but I avoid using it where possible. As cash becomes less popular we'll just see payments via mobile etc take off. It will be interesting to see how young children 0-10 interact when cash is out. There's bound to be a market for child appropriate payment methods (rather than just getting them a family Amex card ;) ).
Any country that treats involvement in its democracy as a 'privilege' doesn't have a democracy. Otherwise a monarchy is just a democracy with fewer privileged individuals. Removing people's right to vote for any reason fundamentally undermines the legitimacy of a democracy and it doesn't even have any benefits. No one decides not to commit a crime because of voting rights. In return being excluded by society from involvement in democracy is hardly likely to make them value democracy and the rule of law any more than they originally did.
All the points you mention are completely valid and should be considered by any competent person with staff. Sadly it isn't either of the contradictory points made in the summary!
A lot of research has been done showing that increased spend on staff at retail venues leads to increased profit. Sadly because it is easier to see the £25k saving from not hiring someone than the improved customer service, product availability, quality of venue etc they provide which lead to £10k more profit arguing to increase staffing is hard work.
Probably not far enough from the truth :(
A bit of me almost wishes they'd just require DNA from everyone and try and get it over with. Either the populace would finally fight back and reclaim some rights or we'd give up the illusion of privacy and at least get some of the benefits that come with that. In the UK you can have DNA taken after being arrested, never get charged and still find it virtually/effectively impossible to get your DNA off of the database.
This has got to be one of the most obviously nonsensical submission summaries I have seen. Firstly it talks about how people would get more work done if they didn't do overtime. Then it suggests that overtime is responsible for cutting down number of jobs. The second points very existence relies on the first point being false. If people doing 40 hrs are more effective then less overtime would increase the work done per person and thus decrease the need to employ more people.