This essentially just shows that MS does not care about your data at all. A larger write will take time, and data will be corrupted if you just "yank it out". I think this is just another sign that MS has stopped to care about its users completely and this little piece of data-safety was just overlooked so far and is now gone as well.
Are you functionally illiterate? The research project found that IT MAKES NO DIFFERENCE. You want people to suffer for no good reason. Makes you evil scum.
Initial results of the two-year study had already shown that its 2,000 participants . ..
Whether people receiving UBI are more or less happy is irrelevant.
It very much is not. Takes 2 braincells to rub together to see that and you are obviously lacking. People that are happier are less sick and more willing to buy stuff, both which are of significant benefit economically.
Any competent security expert knows that security universally sucks and any experiences security consultant has seen the most demented decisions by "management" that are the root-cause for this. Unless we see personal, criminal liability for those that screwed it up and made the decision to go with bad (but cheap) options, nothing is going to change.
The problem is that for all content like games, movies, books, the decision is quite fuzzy and that invites misuse and censorship. For a casino, there is nothing fuzzy.
Of course that capitalism critically needs to get money to the masses in order for it to work is obvious (if apparently too difficult in its simplicity for a lot of people to understand). As long as the mechanism for the distribution of capital is "jobs", that means that in a working capitalism there must be lots of jobs and they must be well-paid (again something too difficult, apparently, for many people to understand). What is however really impressive is that somebody with a lot of money realistically recognizes this and talks about it publicly.
Available evidence suggests that fear of punishment does have no effects on "monsters", whether it is worldly punishment or "fear of God". From my observation that claim is just part of the dishonest sales-pitch used by may religions: They claim to be the source of morality, when a) that is not true in the least and b) their morality is usually quite broken.
There is also evidence that atheists are more moral, because unlike the religious, they do not think that they have that aspect of their lives already covered by being religious.
Seriously, the commercial stuff is, as usual, cheapest possible. There is no risk to them usually (for a counter-example, see Boeing at the moment, but even mass-murder will likely let then get away with a slap on the wrist), so security is not a concern. Because security costs money and usually is quite invisible to the customer. Add to that that customers are stupid and will buy the same brands again that just screwed them over, and the situation is explained nicely.
I am an atheist and I do rape and murder as much as I want! Which is not at all. (I know I am boring.)
If I look at certain groups of priests on the other hand that have a preference for raping children and a lot of them.... To be fair, in earlier times the same priests would have been killing (or ordered the killing of) witches, blasphemers and such. It is only natural for them to seek other entertainment now.
Casinos are different: That is a physical location dedicated to gambling, and no uncertainty about it. There can be one additional step before banning things: Make the game purchase-only for adults. Sure, enterprising kids will still get access, but that is the price of freedom. You cannot have safety and freedom at the same time. And sacrificing freedom has time and again proven to be an extremely bad idea.
Are you seriously suggesting that making a physical location off-limits that is definitely and without doubt dedicated to gambling is the same as banning a specific game?
But that makes it entirely logical! The worst problem must be Fortnite, then drugs and then, basically unimportant, alcohol. Unless we can get the numbers of death from Fortnite up to the level of Alcohol, it must be fought with all determination, filling up prisons, etc.!
Yes, but what is the consequence? There is no objective scale for "addictiveness" of games. Hence anything that could be done would just bring in censorship and a brief look at European history makes it amply clear how bad that idea is.
Saying that, we're also in a current situation with Brexit where not a single politician will ever say the words "the voters got it wrong and maybe we should deal with the underlying issues of why they voted that way rather than commit economic suicide", so maybe we just don't like blaming the root cause of issues because they'd be too hard to fix.
And they would expose the wrong people as self-centered, dangerous morons. Although I have to say the sheer amount of incompetence, arrogance and basic lack of capability to do anything right that the British political class is currently demonstrating is staggering. We all knew they were nil-whits. But this bad? I think at this time they do not have any reputation and respect left to lose. A kindergarten class is more disciplined and has more strategic thinking. The Queen should probably put on her EU-getup again and sit in on these "debates" looking sternly. (That is if she is allowed to do so.)
Sure, the addictiveness is there and it is intended and designed in. But "banning" is would just be another step into an even more authoritarian state that censors and controls everything its citizens are allowed to see, are allowed to read and are allowed to play. That is a vastly more serious problem as European history of the last 100 years nicely shows.
Slashdot Mirror
The ones being malicious are the callers. This is defense and that is never "malicious".
This essentially just shows that MS does not care about your data at all. A larger write will take time, and data will be corrupted if you just "yank it out". I think this is just another sign that MS has stopped to care about its users completely and this little piece of data-safety was just overlooked so far and is now gone as well.
Wong. It is more efficient, because oodles of money are not wasted on deciding what assign to whom. Pretty much all serious calculations show this.
Attention Rick Schumann: Have a look at actual numbers before you disgrace yourself. For example, the Swiss have them.
Are you functionally illiterate? The research project found that IT MAKES NO DIFFERENCE. You want people to suffer for no good reason. Makes you evil scum.
Initial results of the two-year study had already shown that its 2,000 participants . . .
Whether people receiving UBI are more or less happy is irrelevant.
It very much is not. Takes 2 braincells to rub together to see that and you are obviously lacking. People that are happier are less sick and more willing to buy stuff, both which are of significant benefit economically.
Great, no more dying! How do they do that exactly?
If you go by TCO, it is already massively negative in worth...
Any competent security expert knows that security universally sucks and any experiences security consultant has seen the most demented decisions by "management" that are the root-cause for this. Unless we see personal, criminal liability for those that screwed it up and made the decision to go with bad (but cheap) options, nothing is going to change.
The problem is that for all content like games, movies, books, the decision is quite fuzzy and that invites misuse and censorship. For a casino, there is nothing fuzzy.
Of course that capitalism critically needs to get money to the masses in order for it to work is obvious (if apparently too difficult in its simplicity for a lot of people to understand). As long as the mechanism for the distribution of capital is "jobs", that means that in a working capitalism there must be lots of jobs and they must be well-paid (again something too difficult, apparently, for many people to understand). What is however really impressive is that somebody with a lot of money realistically recognizes this and talks about it publicly.
But he did not tell you how long they would be existing!
Just so we're clear.
Not at all. You are intentionally confusing the issue and lying about what I said. I find that dishonest and repulsive.
Available evidence suggests that fear of punishment does have no effects on "monsters", whether it is worldly punishment or "fear of God". From my observation that claim is just part of the dishonest sales-pitch used by may religions: They claim to be the source of morality, when a) that is not true in the least and b) their morality is usually quite broken.
There is also evidence that atheists are more moral, because unlike the religious, they do not think that they have that aspect of their lives already covered by being religious.
Seriously, the commercial stuff is, as usual, cheapest possible. There is no risk to them usually (for a counter-example, see Boeing at the moment, but even mass-murder will likely let then get away with a slap on the wrist), so security is not a concern. Because security costs money and usually is quite invisible to the customer. Add to that that customers are stupid and will buy the same brands again that just screwed them over, and the situation is explained nicely.
Some people are fundamentally incompetent and clueless. To them new=better, which is pretty irrational.
I am an atheist and I do rape and murder as much as I want! Which is not at all. (I know I am boring.)
If I look at certain groups of priests on the other hand that have a preference for raping children and a lot of them....
To be fair, in earlier times the same priests would have been killing (or ordered the killing of) witches, blasphemers and such. It is only natural for them to seek other entertainment now.
Casinos are different: That is a physical location dedicated to gambling, and no uncertainty about it. There can be one additional step before banning things: Make the game purchase-only for adults. Sure, enterprising kids will still get access, but that is the price of freedom. You cannot have safety and freedom at the same time. And sacrificing freedom has time and again proven to be an extremely bad idea.
Are you seriously suggesting that making a physical location off-limits that is definitely and without doubt dedicated to gambling is the same as banning a specific game?
Argggh, a bunch of religious fanatics! Humanity does so love its collective stupidity it enshrines it in associations like these.
But that makes it entirely logical! The worst problem must be Fortnite, then drugs and then, basically unimportant, alcohol. Unless we can get the numbers of death from Fortnite up to the level of Alcohol, it must be fought with all determination, filling up prisons, etc.!
Yes, but what is the consequence? There is no objective scale for "addictiveness" of games. Hence anything that could be done would just bring in censorship and a brief look at European history makes it amply clear how bad that idea is.
Saying that, we're also in a current situation with Brexit where not a single politician will ever say the words "the voters got it wrong and maybe we should deal with the underlying issues of why they voted that way rather than commit economic suicide", so maybe we just don't like blaming the root cause of issues because they'd be too hard to fix.
And they would expose the wrong people as self-centered, dangerous morons. Although I have to say the sheer amount of incompetence, arrogance and basic lack of capability to do anything right that the British political class is currently demonstrating is staggering. We all knew they were nil-whits. But this bad? I think at this time they do not have any reputation and respect left to lose. A kindergarten class is more disciplined and has more strategic thinking. The Queen should probably put on her EU-getup again and sit in on these "debates" looking sternly. (That is if she is allowed to do so.)
Alternatively, Harry may just mistakenly think the game mode is called "Battle Royals" and he's worried it's teaching the peasants to revolt.
Well, given that this is not an intellectual giant speaking here...
Sure, the addictiveness is there and it is intended and designed in. But "banning" is would just be another step into an even more authoritarian state that censors and controls everything its citizens are allowed to see, are allowed to read and are allowed to play. That is a vastly more serious problem as European history of the last 100 years nicely shows.