Then they wouldn't benefit from the Streisand Effect and reap the rewards for a game that looks incredibly shitty (and has been derided by others as an asset flipper; I don't know whether that's true or not though).
I'd love MoviePass in the UK. At university our cinema society had 70mm projects and put on films almost every night. I'd nip upstairs from the computer lab, take money at the door then go in and act as the door guard during the showing.
Meant I got far more leg room, sitting by the aisle, rarely got interrupted and got to see a lot of films - many of which I'd never had paid to see.
If you love cinema it's a no brainer. Sure, there are a lot of films that just aren't that good, but there are plenty that are very good and when you encounter something brilliant it's just awesome.
Stuff like Scent of a Woman, Mad Dog and Glory, Naked Tango, Nikita.. not things I'd have sought out.
It's taught me to watch films that aren't my normal genres, so I watch 2-3 new films every week on TV and get a mix of hollywood, indie and foreign films, and get to discover and enjoy things like the Park Chan Wook revenge trilogy, the works of von Trier, tearjerkers like Never Let Me Go and the films that I wanted to see anyway like Blade Runner 2049. Although I saw that one at the cinema.
I wouldn't pay to go to the cinema and see things like Starred Up, Gone Girl, Kingsman: The Secret Service, Pawno or The Silver Linings Playbook. In hindsight I'd have loved to seen them at the cinema, and something like MoviePass would greatly increase my chances of doing that.
Instead I spend less on cinema tickets than the cost of MoviePass and mostly just wait for films to reach TV.
Actually, no. Travel agents used to need tremendous knowledge of products, prices and options, and because they were only human, there were very few of those options.
Then some bright spark bought a mainframe and started tracking this shit with computers. Automation expanded the amount of information that could be processed and the options grew accordingly. A whole industry grew up in the UK as a result of that automation.
Subsequent advances in automation have diminished the role o the travel agent by removing the skill required to seek, assess and choose an appropriate travel option. That's not shifting the burden to the consumer, that's eliminating an unnecessary step in the chain from consumer to provider.
Trust me, it takes more of my time to get a fucking holiday booked through my local travel agent than it does to go online and do it myself.
Well, sell via legacy retail and you'll see 5% returns on the gross sale price.
The Apple app store (and equivalents, like Google Play and Steam itself) will let you receive over 50% of the gross.
Sure, the storefronts are getting rich through this. They also offer customer services, payment facilities, automated update mechanisms, instrumentation, versioning support, download servers and other features.
The downside isn't the 30%, it's the effective monopoly. For games I can skip Steam, buy from GOG, HumbleBundle, EA, Ubisoft or others. For Android I can skip Google and install F-Droid. What are the options for iOS?
support - never had an android device go out of support before I replaced it malware - never had any, ever, on android. Getting less on iOS would be tricky flashlight - hit the 'flashlight' button that's built into the OS and it turns on the camera light. No permission changes required privacy - so you want privacy but you use Siri. Thanks, I needed the laugh.
But when taken in aggregate, Apple is still the superior device to use
That's subjective, and I disagree. E.g. I can't actually use an Apple device because it refuses to let me run the software I want.
Google has made great strides in improve Android. They've improved privacy
Nah, they're still a fucking nightmare. I'd love a "stop fucking tracking me" option.
What, take the car off the road until it was safe to be there? Nope, they did not do the right thing.
False positives of slamming on the brakes isn't safe for other drivers.
Failing to slam the brakes on has proved far less safe for a pedestrian.
Extreme\dangerous reactions should only be initiated by a safety driver until the false-positive rate is confirmed to be lower than the safety driver's false negative rate.
What fucking safety driver? Uber don't put one in the car.
If only there were decades of precedent on which cunt is at fault if someone is following a vehicle so closely that they can't stop in time if it slows down.
If your vehicle is dangerously over-cautious then take it off the road until you've fixed it. Don't just remove any and all caution at all.
They had an automated method of making an emergency stop. It was the brake pedal and a human brain.
That's a very flawed method, especially when the human brain is almost guaranteed to be inattentive.
She should have been watching the road, not the instrument panel. Given the automated emergency brake feature was disabled she should especially have been watching the road, not the instrument panel.
You do not grasp the difficulty of never making a judgement error while interceding in a life & death situation.
I expect errors. I accept errors. I don't accept cowardly fucks murdering civilians.
You cannot competently expect LEOs to always let themselves to be shot first in any situation.
I don't. But nobody was shooting at them in this situation.
The SWAT team believed they were going into an active shooting situation
Did they fuck. They believed they were responding to a reported incident. Basic next fucking step: Ascertain the situation.
no, you don't knock on the door first and wait for someone to open the door
Then why did they bundle up, turn on the lights and wait for someone to open the door?
Shit, even by your paranoid anti-citizen measures they fucked up.
That alerts the shooter
The only shooter was already alert, aware and just fucking begging to kill some poor unarmed sod the moment he obeyed police orders.
The victim supposedly was not complying with officers orders to surrender.
Have you seen the fucking video? Bunch of people yelling at him to put his hands up, he puts his hands up, he's murdered for putting them up too fast.
Exactly what was he meant to do to stay alive? Seriously, fucking tell me, because I have no idea at all. I can't see a single fucking action he could have taken while stood on his own fucking porch and stayed alive.
Potential murderers do not have a free pass to run away when confronted with a LEO demanding their surrender.
Actual murderers get a fucking slap on the back from the DA. But I notice you've just eliminated yet another option from the victim's attempts to stay alive.
As long as the (SWAT) LEO can properly demonstrate they were following their department's rules of engagement, there will be a legal bias in favor of the LEO.
You're the stupid cunt that thinks "don't murder people" is an unreasonable constraint within the rules of engagement. That tells me that staying within them should be no legal defence whatsoever.
If the bystander makes a quick, suspicious move
like obeying the police screaming at him
that's grounds to be shot
Putting your hands up is not a suspicious move. Obeying the police with alacrity is not a suspicious move. I ask you again, just what the fuck was this poor sod meant to do to stay alive?
(Of course, its the LEO's responsibility to makes sure they were following ROE when effecting the arrest. If they went off script when attempting the arrest, asking the detained to do something that could be misinterpreted as threatening, then the LEO is probably screwed if they shoot the victim.)
Then why isn't the murdering scum that fired the killing shot being prosecuted? The rules of engagement don't current include "feel free to fucking murder people" do they?
The tactics and procedures to immobilize/kill a possible shooter by police in America, is not much different from US soldiers overseas storming a building with hostiles with human shields.
Several issues here. One is that you're discussing very different scenarios, another is the extremely different level of threat involved, on top of that is the significant difference in training and (far from least) I think you'll find that US soldiers follow rules of engagement that involve not fucking shooting unarmed men.
The only significant difference is that you give each person you confront the chance to surrender, but you don't give them extra chances to execute the first shot.
Oh, I see. So murdering the man was to prevent him leaving the scene, buying a rifle, sourcing some
Slashdot Mirror
As someone living in Great Britain I seem to have missed these multiple murders.
Could you perhaps provide references, as well as better explain who 'they' are?
ISIS try and take over the towns near me and you can fucking guarantee I'll be acquiring firearms.
Mocking Iraq for gun ownership is somewhat fucking asinine.
Then they wouldn't benefit from the Streisand Effect and reap the rewards for a game that looks incredibly shitty (and has been derided by others as an asset flipper; I don't know whether that's true or not though).
I'd love MoviePass in the UK. At university our cinema society had 70mm projects and put on films almost every night. I'd nip upstairs from the computer lab, take money at the door then go in and act as the door guard during the showing.
Meant I got far more leg room, sitting by the aisle, rarely got interrupted and got to see a lot of films - many of which I'd never had paid to see.
If you love cinema it's a no brainer. Sure, there are a lot of films that just aren't that good, but there are plenty that are very good and when you encounter something brilliant it's just awesome.
Stuff like Scent of a Woman, Mad Dog and Glory, Naked Tango, Nikita.. not things I'd have sought out.
It's taught me to watch films that aren't my normal genres, so I watch 2-3 new films every week on TV and get a mix of hollywood, indie and foreign films, and get to discover and enjoy things like the Park Chan Wook revenge trilogy, the works of von Trier, tearjerkers like Never Let Me Go and the films that I wanted to see anyway like Blade Runner 2049. Although I saw that one at the cinema.
I wouldn't pay to go to the cinema and see things like Starred Up, Gone Girl, Kingsman: The Secret Service, Pawno or The Silver Linings Playbook. In hindsight I'd have loved to seen them at the cinema, and something like MoviePass would greatly increase my chances of doing that.
Instead I spend less on cinema tickets than the cost of MoviePass and mostly just wait for films to reach TV.
Fair enough, but quite obscure for those of us that don't track the political structures of every open source group out there.
So ATMs aren't automation?
Interesting, just what is your definition?
Well, you're being obtuse and stupid now.
Your point was that Steam Link had no purpose as people would either game natively on their device or sit at their PC to game.
My point is that people buy Steam Link because they find the two options to which you want to constrain them to be too limiting.
Thus, you're talking shit and have failed miserably to address my core argument that people actually use Steam Link.
I said that was the only scenario in which it actually works
I know. I pointed out however that other people disagree with you sufficiently to buy and use the technology, thus proving that you are in fact wrong.
You are wrong. Get over it.
This doesn't allow you to play your PC games while on the go, it literally requires you to be on the same LAN.
Not strictly true, but primarily, yes. However: Being on the same LAN is very fucking different to
scenarios where you could just as easily be sitting in front of your PC
Meanwhile,
The fact that you think I'm wrong demonstrates that you don't know what Steam Link is
The fact that I've provided the evidence that demonstrates that you're wrong means that whether I know what Steam Link is or not, you're wrong.
You're wrong, get over it.
Actually, no. Travel agents used to need tremendous knowledge of products, prices and options, and because they were only human, there were very few of those options.
Then some bright spark bought a mainframe and started tracking this shit with computers. Automation expanded the amount of information that could be processed and the options grew accordingly. A whole industry grew up in the UK as a result of that automation.
Subsequent advances in automation have diminished the role o the travel agent by removing the skill required to seek, assess and choose an appropriate travel option. That's not shifting the burden to the consumer, that's eliminating an unnecessary step in the chain from consumer to provider.
Trust me, it takes more of my time to get a fucking holiday booked through my local travel agent than it does to go online and do it myself.
Textile manufacture.
Car building.
Bank clerks. Actually, multiple roles in banks.
Insurance brokers.
Travel agents.
Basically anything that's highly repetitive and/or requires accurate processing of data and/or requires extensive information gather and analysis.
Quite a lot, really.
No, but it'll need a few hundred robot repairers.
Well, sell via legacy retail and you'll see 5% returns on the gross sale price.
The Apple app store (and equivalents, like Google Play and Steam itself) will let you receive over 50% of the gross.
Sure, the storefronts are getting rich through this. They also offer customer services, payment facilities, automated update mechanisms, instrumentation, versioning support, download servers and other features.
The downside isn't the 30%, it's the effective monopoly. For games I can skip Steam, buy from GOG, HumbleBundle, EA, Ubisoft or others. For Android I can skip Google and install F-Droid. What are the options for iOS?
Yeah, it's curiously inconsistent.
Not sure I'd want to game over RDP though :)
Steam Link only works in scenarios where you could just as easily be sitting in front of your PC.
The fact that there's a market for Steam Link demonstrates that you're wrong.
You may not have such a use, but very evidently others do.
How does that work? Can I go to a website, download the binaries for an app via my in-phone web browser, install and run it?
That's what I can do on every other OS, so I'm assuming iOS is the same?
You're a fucking comedian.
support - never had an android device go out of support before I replaced it
malware - never had any, ever, on android. Getting less on iOS would be tricky
flashlight - hit the 'flashlight' button that's built into the OS and it turns on the camera light. No permission changes required
privacy - so you want privacy but you use Siri. Thanks, I needed the laugh.
But when taken in aggregate, Apple is still the superior device to use
That's subjective, and I disagree. E.g. I can't actually use an Apple device because it refuses to let me run the software I want.
Google has made great strides in improve Android. They've improved privacy
Nah, they're still a fucking nightmare. I'd love a "stop fucking tracking me" option.
I'm a honking DD
double-dipper?
bra size?
designated driver?
navy destroyer?
daily diapers?
Actually, save your sanity, don't check that last one.
They did the right thing.
What, take the car off the road until it was safe to be there? Nope, they did not do the right thing.
False positives of slamming on the brakes isn't safe for other drivers.
Failing to slam the brakes on has proved far less safe for a pedestrian.
Extreme\dangerous reactions should only be initiated by a safety driver until the false-positive rate is confirmed to be lower than the safety driver's false negative rate.
What fucking safety driver? Uber don't put one in the car.
that stall warning horn will be hilarious in a car
Quite easy to trigger too. Hit the humpback bridge 20mph too fast and you find out very quickly just how poor your car's glide angle is.
Uber will likely change this automatic kill feature
Yeah, it'll become a premium upsell.
(basing this purely on historical decisions made by Uber management)
If only there were decades of precedent on which cunt is at fault if someone is following a vehicle so closely that they can't stop in time if it slows down.
If your vehicle is dangerously over-cautious then take it off the road until you've fixed it. Don't just remove any and all caution at all.
They had an automated method of making an emergency stop. It was the brake pedal and a human brain.
That's a very flawed method, especially when the human brain is almost guaranteed to be inattentive.
I got that impression too, but that means it wouldn't be braking excessively in the first place.
She should have been watching the road, not the instrument panel.
Given the automated emergency brake feature was disabled she should especially have been watching the road, not the instrument panel.
Blame her? Absolutely.
You ignorant fuck. No, it was not completely woman's fault.
You do not grasp the difficulty of never making a judgement error while interceding in a life & death situation.
I expect errors. I accept errors. I don't accept cowardly fucks murdering civilians.
You cannot competently expect LEOs to always let themselves to be shot first in any situation.
I don't. But nobody was shooting at them in this situation.
The SWAT team believed they were going into an active shooting situation
Did they fuck. They believed they were responding to a reported incident. Basic next fucking step: Ascertain the situation.
no, you don't knock on the door first and wait for someone to open the door
Then why did they bundle up, turn on the lights and wait for someone to open the door?
Shit, even by your paranoid anti-citizen measures they fucked up.
That alerts the shooter
The only shooter was already alert, aware and just fucking begging to kill some poor unarmed sod the moment he obeyed police orders.
The victim supposedly was not complying with officers orders to surrender.
Have you seen the fucking video? Bunch of people yelling at him to put his hands up, he puts his hands up, he's murdered for putting them up too fast.
Exactly what was he meant to do to stay alive? Seriously, fucking tell me, because I have no idea at all. I can't see a single fucking action he could have taken while stood on his own fucking porch and stayed alive.
Potential murderers do not have a free pass to run away when confronted with a LEO demanding their surrender.
Actual murderers get a fucking slap on the back from the DA. But I notice you've just eliminated yet another option from the victim's attempts to stay alive.
As long as the (SWAT) LEO can properly demonstrate they were following their department's rules of engagement, there will be a legal bias in favor of the LEO.
You're the stupid cunt that thinks "don't murder people" is an unreasonable constraint within the rules of engagement. That tells me that staying within them should be no legal defence whatsoever.
If the bystander makes a quick, suspicious move
like obeying the police screaming at him
that's grounds to be shot
Putting your hands up is not a suspicious move. Obeying the police with alacrity is not a suspicious move. I ask you again, just what the fuck was this poor sod meant to do to stay alive?
(Of course, its the LEO's responsibility to makes sure they were following ROE when effecting the arrest. If they went off script when attempting the arrest, asking the detained to do something that could be misinterpreted as threatening, then the LEO is probably screwed if they shoot the victim.)
Then why isn't the murdering scum that fired the killing shot being prosecuted? The rules of engagement don't current include "feel free to fucking murder people" do they?
The tactics and procedures to immobilize/kill a possible shooter by police in America, is not much different from US soldiers overseas storming a building with hostiles with human shields.
Several issues here. One is that you're discussing very different scenarios, another is the extremely different level of threat involved, on top of that is the significant difference in training and (far from least) I think you'll find that US soldiers follow rules of engagement that involve not fucking shooting unarmed men.
The only significant difference is that you give each person you confront the chance to surrender, but you don't give them extra chances to execute the first shot.
Oh, I see. So murdering the man was to prevent him leaving the scene, buying a rifle, sourcing some