No one needs to be lying. It could just be the Hawthorne effect at play. They'll want to make sure to observe this over a longer period to determine whether the productivity gains are merely a short-lived effect or if they stick around because they really are the result of a shorter work week and employees having more energy or less stress due to having additional free time.
It reminds me of when Kevin Smith made Dogma, which received similar backlash from Christian groups. Smith actually went out to one of the protests( which wasn't very large) and joined in with them, which was caught on film by a news crew covering it.
Comic sales are in the tank and I don't think Christians are the main customer base for DC. If anything, the extra attention would just drum up sales for the first issue because people would buy it just to spite the holier than thou religious types.
Yeah, there's been some good films recently (and maybe the limited quantity ensures only the better ones get made), but not as much as far as television series go. Sure there're shows the borrow elements (Firefly was often described as a western in space, but even that's getting close to two decades old now) but even those tend to trickle out.
I recently started reading a book on the history of the Comanches and I think a show centering around them and the U.S. expansion into their territory would be amazing. Modern television shows (especially those not done by networks) can do a better job of showing just how brutal history was.
Would it really matter if they came up with some original IP though? It's still almost certainly going to be the same super hero narratives we've seen time and time again. I think that the real issue is that the market has had too much super hero stuff dumped on it so it doesn't feel nearly as special as it originally did. I wonder if westerns will ever make a comeback.
You could probably make that claim of just about any invention. It wasn't possible for a long time for some reason, but once that reason went away someone was able to implement it. Personally I think the mark of a good invention is that it seems incredibly obvious in hind-sight, but for some reason wasn't done.
For example, most Amazon packages I get have inflated plastic packing material instead of packing peanuts or wads of paper. I look at that and wonder why the hell it wasn't done that way previously. I assume that the technology existed to make it possible (though maybe I'm wrong about this) but looking at it now, it seems stupid to do it any other way.
How long does something have to go between becoming technically possible and being implemented before it stops being obvious?
I think this is a gross oversimplification. For India it probably makes sense given the large size of the country as well as the capabilities of their workers (no one would complain about H1-B workers otherwise) and there's plenty of reason for a home-grown industry. However, should Ireland prioritize that same buildout (at least in terms of social networks) or would it just be better to leave that up to others so that Ireland can carve out its own niche?
There's as much folly in believing that everything needs to be produced locally or within a country as there is in outsourcing everything. There are a lot of countries that would benefit more from their high skill workers going into medicine, etc.
That was the reason humans started producing it. It killed all of the microbes and other parasites that they didn't understand and couldn't see and meant that you wouldn't shit your own eyeballs out from illness you could get from water due to poor sanitation. Historically beer had much lower alcohol levels for the stuff that workers were drinking out in the fields or that was being served at meals.
I think it shows how little the authorities care about things like this. Maybe it's just a jurisdictional mess and no one can really do anything about it at a local or state level, but this guy wasn't particularly difficult to catch from what it seems.
Hopefully now that people are getting pinched for this shit, the rest of the idiots doing it will knock it off. That's almost certainly wishful thinking, but at least maybe it will die down for a while.
They mainly do kill other gang members though, so releasing the most efficient killers is probably more effective at reducing the number of gang bangers in the street than anything else. I say they should ramp up such efforts. Just tell the gang members that it’s highlander rules and eventually there will be only one. Just take that guy to the next city with a gang problem and rinse and repeat.
I’m not particularly familiar with this system, but I’d doubt it’s working on anything other than a neighborhood basis. It isn’t predicting that John Die will commit a crime, rather than someone in John Doe’s neighborhood will. Maybe this system is being oversold, but it sounds like something an actuary would be able to tell you.
The elephant in the room is that it probably sends more police to minority neighborhoods. But that’s where the crime is at and it isn’t racist. The studies that have done regression analysis on crime show that it isn’t race, but socioeconomic and family group status that explain crime levels far better. So the police are going to poor neighborhoods with a lot of single mother families. That oredicts more crime regardless of the skin color of the people living there. Unfortunately everyone tunnels on it being a black or Latino neighborhood because they’re incapable of seeing a problem beyond a skin-depth level.
Well it does affect certain groups more than others. Only the highly exposed are at risk.
I'm sure if I click through enough links I'll eventually be able to find out whether highly exposed means you had to bathe in the shit or something like that, but is high exposure in the context of these results a practical concern for anyone who isn't working directly with the product?
I think that Bethesda and EA already both have followed suit. Each had terrible sales for flagship games (Fallout 76 and Battlefield V for Bethesda and EA respectively) and EA had its stock price cut in half by the end of 2018.
You assume that some of this isn't by design. Government contracts are a convenient way for politicians to kickback some of the bribes^H^H^H^H^H^H campaign contributions that politicians receive from various companies, unions, etc.
The other side of it is that sometimes its other parts of the government that are responsible for the holdups. I'm sure that this thing has been hit with the environmental impact report stick so many times it's cross-eyed.
The flip side of this is that if no one thought there were any value to it, they wouldn't want to buy it. There aren't very many people who are really interested in going to the moon or Mars so the market for supplying (or trying to supply) those services is much smaller.
They have little money, they tend to care more about experiences than possessions, and when they do spend they are heavily fashion-driven and quick to change. What is surprising is that Reddit reportedly thinks this is a valuable demographic.
Sounds as though the marketing firms are doing a shit job. Are you telling me that you can't market experiences or take advantage of new trends?
Sounds to me like there's a lot of opportunity with that market since people haven't figured out how to tap into it yet.
There's a difference between mature in the sense that you're using it and what it means in the context of the study. From my reading, that means any 'M' rated game which doesn't necessarily deal with mature adult situations. Typically it just means that there's sufficiently graphic violence and/or profanity. The problem, I think, is that almost any game that gets an 'M' rating is going to have what's described as either violence or intense violence as a content descriptor.
As a quick test, I did a search on the ESRB website for 'M' rated PS4 games. The results only display 25 titles per page (and I have no idea if it consistently returns the same 25) but of those 25 games on the first page of results, only 1 was 'M' rated without containing Violence or Intense Violence as a content descriptor. That game was Nekopara Vol. 1 which is listed as only containing Sexual Themes. If I look at games which are rated 'T' (teen rating) I still find plenty of titles with Violence as a content descriptor, but a large number only list either Fantasy Violence or Mild Fantasy Violence.
I haven't read through the entire study, but I have a feeling that it would be pretty easy to have a flawed methodology on top of potentially confusing anyone who's reading the results and not aware of what "mature" constitutes for the purposes of this study.
I think the clocks run out on any patents for trepanning though. You hold him down and I'll chisel the hole so that the evil spirits can escape. If that doesn't work we can swing by the bait shop and get some leaches.
That's right but not relevant here. He wasn't do that not as an investment but as a temporary solution to an international move.
It doesn't matter what you're doing. When I travel internationally, I never keep all of my cash in one location. Even though it's obviously not all of my assets, I try to make sure that no single adverse event leaves me up shit creek without a paddle. Same reasoning applies to important information, like your data, or the ability to access that data which is why this is a problem for more than just this one poor fool. It doesn't matter what the situation is, never have a single point of failure.
Industry doesn't want to do it. Plastic is a very versatile and inexpensive material that lends itself very well to commercial mass production.
It isn't that industry doesn't want to do it, it's that no one wants to buy these because plastic is a cheaper, better alternative for what the product is designed to do. If these biodegradable straws were less expensive to produce, we'd already be doing that. There simply aren't enough consumers who care more about being green or doing what's right for the planet than there are people who simply want the lowest cost option. No manufacturer wants to pay to retool their production line only to make themselves less competitive in the market.
If consumers cared, you wouldn't even need legislation because they would already demand the environmentally sustainable choice even if it has a larger upfront monetary cost.
It doesn't matter what you're doing, but there is an old saying about not keeping all of your eggs in one basket. Sometimes even incredibly intelligent people are capable of horrible foolishness.
They performed regression analysis in the study, but strangely did not include the factor which correlated with socioeconomic status (in this study, whether the participant was entitled to free school meals) as a part of the regression. I'm not sure that they have a large enough sample or are controlling for enough other factors to sufficiently eliminate other causes as an explanation for their result. They didn't look specifically at a lot of other genres of games, and there are some genres or specific games that I think most would assume would have an effect on moral reasoning, at least compared to other games.
So violent video games lead to higher moral reasoning skills, but mature (by this they mean 'M' rated games) games don't. However, you look at their own study data (full study here) in particular Table B1, they show that there's a nearly perfect correlation (.98) between violent and mature. I don't think I've ever seen a correlation that high in any study, but it's besides the point. Since they're that strongly correlated how do they get the result as stated in the summary?
Maybe I just need to read the whole study instead of skimming through it, but the results seem strange to me. I think that this is obviously a study that would benefit from multiple repetitions and with a larger sample size.
This is an age old problem. It doesn't matter how good your defenses are because they need to focus on the hundreds or thousands of adversarial actors and stop all of them. An attacker need not divide its efforts or attention and will eventually be able to sneak through. You can't rely on anyone else to provide you with perfect security. It's simply unobtainable and believing that you can have it is only leaving yourself vulnerable. Personal vigilance will always be necessary in order to minimize your own exposure.
Slashdot Mirror
No one needs to be lying. It could just be the Hawthorne effect at play. They'll want to make sure to observe this over a longer period to determine whether the productivity gains are merely a short-lived effect or if they stick around because they really are the result of a shorter work week and employees having more energy or less stress due to having additional free time.
It reminds me of when Kevin Smith made Dogma, which received similar backlash from Christian groups. Smith actually went out to one of the protests( which wasn't very large) and joined in with them, which was caught on film by a news crew covering it.
Comic sales are in the tank and I don't think Christians are the main customer base for DC. If anything, the extra attention would just drum up sales for the first issue because people would buy it just to spite the holier than thou religious types.
Yeah, there's been some good films recently (and maybe the limited quantity ensures only the better ones get made), but not as much as far as television series go. Sure there're shows the borrow elements (Firefly was often described as a western in space, but even that's getting close to two decades old now) but even those tend to trickle out.
I recently started reading a book on the history of the Comanches and I think a show centering around them and the U.S. expansion into their territory would be amazing. Modern television shows (especially those not done by networks) can do a better job of showing just how brutal history was.
Would it really matter if they came up with some original IP though? It's still almost certainly going to be the same super hero narratives we've seen time and time again. I think that the real issue is that the market has had too much super hero stuff dumped on it so it doesn't feel nearly as special as it originally did. I wonder if westerns will ever make a comeback.
You could probably make that claim of just about any invention. It wasn't possible for a long time for some reason, but once that reason went away someone was able to implement it. Personally I think the mark of a good invention is that it seems incredibly obvious in hind-sight, but for some reason wasn't done.
For example, most Amazon packages I get have inflated plastic packing material instead of packing peanuts or wads of paper. I look at that and wonder why the hell it wasn't done that way previously. I assume that the technology existed to make it possible (though maybe I'm wrong about this) but looking at it now, it seems stupid to do it any other way.
How long does something have to go between becoming technically possible and being implemented before it stops being obvious?
I think this is a gross oversimplification. For India it probably makes sense given the large size of the country as well as the capabilities of their workers (no one would complain about H1-B workers otherwise) and there's plenty of reason for a home-grown industry. However, should Ireland prioritize that same buildout (at least in terms of social networks) or would it just be better to leave that up to others so that Ireland can carve out its own niche?
There's as much folly in believing that everything needs to be produced locally or within a country as there is in outsourcing everything. There are a lot of countries that would benefit more from their high skill workers going into medicine, etc.
Alcohol is a literal poison.
That was the reason humans started producing it. It killed all of the microbes and other parasites that they didn't understand and couldn't see and meant that you wouldn't shit your own eyeballs out from illness you could get from water due to poor sanitation. Historically beer had much lower alcohol levels for the stuff that workers were drinking out in the fields or that was being served at meals.
I think it shows how little the authorities care about things like this. Maybe it's just a jurisdictional mess and no one can really do anything about it at a local or state level, but this guy wasn't particularly difficult to catch from what it seems.
Hopefully now that people are getting pinched for this shit, the rest of the idiots doing it will knock it off. That's almost certainly wishful thinking, but at least maybe it will die down for a while.
They mainly do kill other gang members though, so releasing the most efficient killers is probably more effective at reducing the number of gang bangers in the street than anything else. I say they should ramp up such efforts. Just tell the gang members that it’s highlander rules and eventually there will be only one. Just take that guy to the next city with a gang problem and rinse and repeat.
I’m not particularly familiar with this system, but I’d doubt it’s working on anything other than a neighborhood basis. It isn’t predicting that John Die will commit a crime, rather than someone in John Doe’s neighborhood will. Maybe this system is being oversold, but it sounds like something an actuary would be able to tell you.
The elephant in the room is that it probably sends more police to minority neighborhoods. But that’s where the crime is at and it isn’t racist. The studies that have done regression analysis on crime show that it isn’t race, but socioeconomic and family group status that explain crime levels far better. So the police are going to poor neighborhoods with a lot of single mother families. That oredicts more crime regardless of the skin color of the people living there. Unfortunately everyone tunnels on it being a black or Latino neighborhood because they’re incapable of seeing a problem beyond a skin-depth level.
Well it does affect certain groups more than others. Only the highly exposed are at risk.
I'm sure if I click through enough links I'll eventually be able to find out whether highly exposed means you had to bathe in the shit or something like that, but is high exposure in the context of these results a practical concern for anyone who isn't working directly with the product?
Websites like Twitter and YouTube aren't really banning conservatives. People like Alex Jones are just paid crisis actors.
Someone might want to tell the #meToo people if we're moving away from "hashtag" and back to "pound". I think it kind of changes their message.
I think that Bethesda and EA already both have followed suit. Each had terrible sales for flagship games (Fallout 76 and Battlefield V for Bethesda and EA respectively) and EA had its stock price cut in half by the end of 2018.
You assume that some of this isn't by design. Government contracts are a convenient way for politicians to kickback some of the bribes^H^H^H^H^H^H campaign contributions that politicians receive from various companies, unions, etc.
The other side of it is that sometimes its other parts of the government that are responsible for the holdups. I'm sure that this thing has been hit with the environmental impact report stick so many times it's cross-eyed.
The flip side of this is that if no one thought there were any value to it, they wouldn't want to buy it. There aren't very many people who are really interested in going to the moon or Mars so the market for supplying (or trying to supply) those services is much smaller.
They have little money, they tend to care more about experiences than possessions, and when they do spend they are heavily fashion-driven and quick to change. What is surprising is that Reddit reportedly thinks this is a valuable demographic.
Sounds as though the marketing firms are doing a shit job. Are you telling me that you can't market experiences or take advantage of new trends?
Sounds to me like there's a lot of opportunity with that market since people haven't figured out how to tap into it yet.
There's a difference between mature in the sense that you're using it and what it means in the context of the study. From my reading, that means any 'M' rated game which doesn't necessarily deal with mature adult situations. Typically it just means that there's sufficiently graphic violence and/or profanity. The problem, I think, is that almost any game that gets an 'M' rating is going to have what's described as either violence or intense violence as a content descriptor.
As a quick test, I did a search on the ESRB website for 'M' rated PS4 games. The results only display 25 titles per page (and I have no idea if it consistently returns the same 25) but of those 25 games on the first page of results, only 1 was 'M' rated without containing Violence or Intense Violence as a content descriptor. That game was Nekopara Vol. 1 which is listed as only containing Sexual Themes. If I look at games which are rated 'T' (teen rating) I still find plenty of titles with Violence as a content descriptor, but a large number only list either Fantasy Violence or Mild Fantasy Violence.
I haven't read through the entire study, but I have a feeling that it would be pretty easy to have a flawed methodology on top of potentially confusing anyone who's reading the results and not aware of what "mature" constitutes for the purposes of this study.
I think the clocks run out on any patents for trepanning though. You hold him down and I'll chisel the hole so that the evil spirits can escape. If that doesn't work we can swing by the bait shop and get some leaches.
That's right but not relevant here. He wasn't do that not as an investment but as a temporary solution to an international move.
It doesn't matter what you're doing. When I travel internationally, I never keep all of my cash in one location. Even though it's obviously not all of my assets, I try to make sure that no single adverse event leaves me up shit creek without a paddle. Same reasoning applies to important information, like your data, or the ability to access that data which is why this is a problem for more than just this one poor fool. It doesn't matter what the situation is, never have a single point of failure.
Industry doesn't want to do it. Plastic is a very versatile and inexpensive material that lends itself very well to commercial mass production.
It isn't that industry doesn't want to do it, it's that no one wants to buy these because plastic is a cheaper, better alternative for what the product is designed to do. If these biodegradable straws were less expensive to produce, we'd already be doing that. There simply aren't enough consumers who care more about being green or doing what's right for the planet than there are people who simply want the lowest cost option. No manufacturer wants to pay to retool their production line only to make themselves less competitive in the market.
If consumers cared, you wouldn't even need legislation because they would already demand the environmentally sustainable choice even if it has a larger upfront monetary cost.
It doesn't matter what you're doing, but there is an old saying about not keeping all of your eggs in one basket. Sometimes even incredibly intelligent people are capable of horrible foolishness.
They performed regression analysis in the study, but strangely did not include the factor which correlated with socioeconomic status (in this study, whether the participant was entitled to free school meals) as a part of the regression. I'm not sure that they have a large enough sample or are controlling for enough other factors to sufficiently eliminate other causes as an explanation for their result. They didn't look specifically at a lot of other genres of games, and there are some genres or specific games that I think most would assume would have an effect on moral reasoning, at least compared to other games.
So violent video games lead to higher moral reasoning skills, but mature (by this they mean 'M' rated games) games don't. However, you look at their own study data (full study here) in particular Table B1, they show that there's a nearly perfect correlation (.98) between violent and mature. I don't think I've ever seen a correlation that high in any study, but it's besides the point. Since they're that strongly correlated how do they get the result as stated in the summary?
Maybe I just need to read the whole study instead of skimming through it, but the results seem strange to me. I think that this is obviously a study that would benefit from multiple repetitions and with a larger sample size.
This is an age old problem. It doesn't matter how good your defenses are because they need to focus on the hundreds or thousands of adversarial actors and stop all of them. An attacker need not divide its efforts or attention and will eventually be able to sneak through. You can't rely on anyone else to provide you with perfect security. It's simply unobtainable and believing that you can have it is only leaving yourself vulnerable. Personal vigilance will always be necessary in order to minimize your own exposure.