Yeah, pots already made that point. There's an interesting question whether the original tweet should have been deleted, but that's a tricky ethics question with no obviously right answers.
(reposting because my previous attempt had a typo that broke it)
By those criteria, the BBC is fake news.
They lack transparency, accountability, and do not publish corrections on debunked information.
I've written to the BBC debunking their flawed and incomplete information, and their response has always been, "That extra data isn't relevant to our story" - no, because it fucking contradicts it.
These outlets use emotionally driven language with emotive expressions
Recent BBC headline: "My vagina tried to kill me"
Reporting in these outlets is highly biased and ideologically skewed
Holy shit, take your pick. Brexit, men, innocent white girls in Rochdale.. they're all demonstrably targets to the BBC ideologues.
So basically this study says that anybody linking a BBC news article is propagating fake news. Good work Oxford.
They lack transparency, accountability, and do not publish corrections on debunked information.
I've written to the BBC debunking their flawed and incomplete information, and their response has always been, "That extra data isn't relevant to our story" - no, because it fucking contradicts it.
These outlets use emotionally driven language with emotive expressions
Reporting in these outlets is highly biased and ideologically skewed
Holy shit, take your pick. Brexit, men, innocent white girls in Rochdale.. they're all demonstrably targets to the BBC ideologues.
So basically this study says that anybody linking a BBC news article is propagating fake news. Good work Oxford.
Which is not true, as the Washington Post themselves acknowledged:
Editorâ(TM)s Note: An earlier version of this story incorrectly said that Russian hackers had penetrated the U.S. electric grid. Authorities say there is no indication of that so far. The computer at Burlington Electric that was hacked was not attached to the grid.
I don't care. If Lauri Love broke the law in the UK then he should be prosecuted in the UK. If he didn't break the law in the UK then he hasn't broken the law and shouldn't be extradited.
There are no possible grounds for him being extradited to the USA. Whether the USA want to be stupid about it is irrelevant.
Basically, you're confirming that EQ was hardcore. Sadly that's no longer commercially viable as MMOs rely on network effects, and the networks build around the less punitive games - as you indicate you'd prefer yourself.
It's a shame though, as EQ did have a tremendous amount of content and did help define a genre. I'm not sure I'd want to play it myself if it was released today (with shiny new graphics, etc) but EQ does have its place in gaming history.
Incidentally, points 2, 5, 7 and 16 aren't necessarily bad at all. Shit, you could/con something, find that it's pathetic and still get utterly hammered for attacking it. My first death happened that way..
Hmm. You're assuming though that the server has or provides the text and names.
I'd expect all of that to be client-side. Server will send "Quest 044 status 382" and the client will interpret that as "Chief Boyo congratulates you on your successful conquest. Would you like the ring of glowiness or the necklace of pantswetting?"
If the gamer has an original purchased copy of the game and is merely connecting to a different server then I'm not sure where the copyright violation lies.
Cameras trade off processing power for capture speed, physical dimensions and battery life.
You want to add additional processing, it comes at a cost. You may consider it a low cost but cameras are already running on the edge so it's going to have a discernable impact.
Sure, it can be done - but just who the fuck is going to want and use it? Maybe the demand is there, but so far it hasn't been strong enough to encourage a manufacturer to implement the feature, and even if they did, making it fit neatly into a sensible photographer workflow is still going to be bloody hard.
Yep. 20Mpx on a shitty small sensor is worse than 12Mpx, especially for photojournalism.
My phone can take some awesome photographs and has seriously good software helping with exposure and focus. It still can't get close to my proper camera in fast moving or low light situations.
for one Sony decided to make them too small for many if not most hands
No, it's just Americans that have big fat hands.
Seriously, most of the world gets on fine with small cameras, small console controllers, small phones. It's fucking fat Americans with their big slabs and fat fingers that do all the bitching about size.
Of course, when it comes to cameras there's also the compensation thing. "Must have big camera to show what a man I am." Sure.
Since cameras tend to write their data fairly slow
Are you shitting me? If you're shooting events (sports, combat, civil disruption) you're hitting the shutter frequently and/or using sequential capture at (up to) double-digit frames/second. The cameras are writing files in tenths of a second at most.
It's the guy shooting in a dodgy situation that will go, "Yeah, losing processing power and dropping to 4 frames per second is a reasonable trade-off if it stops people getting killed."
I'm just not sure that there are enough such people buying cameras to justify the cost of adding the feature.
Somewhat off topic... I'm glad that the Republicans who continually re-authorize the civil liberty abominations that 9/11 enabled are finally coming to realize that "Hey! this shit could be abused."
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, pots already made that point. There's an interesting question whether the original tweet should have been deleted, but that's a tricky ethics question with no obviously right answers.
(reposting because my previous attempt had a typo that broke it)
By those criteria, the BBC is fake news.
They lack transparency, accountability, and do
not publish corrections on debunked information.
I've written to the BBC debunking their flawed and incomplete information, and their response has always been, "That extra data isn't relevant to our story" - no, because it fucking contradicts it.
These outlets use emotionally driven language with emotive expressions
Recent BBC headline: "My vagina tried to kill me"
Reporting in these outlets is highly biased and ideologically skewed
Holy shit, take your pick. Brexit, men, innocent white girls in Rochdale.. they're all demonstrably targets to the BBC ideologues.
So basically this study says that anybody linking a BBC news article is propagating fake news. Good work Oxford.
By those criteria, the BBC is fake news.
They lack transparency, accountability, and do
not publish corrections on debunked information.
I've written to the BBC debunking their flawed and incomplete information, and their response has always been, "That extra data isn't relevant to our story" - no, because it fucking contradicts it.
These outlets use emotionally driven language with emotive expressions
Reporting in these outlets is highly biased and ideologically skewed
Holy shit, take your pick. Brexit, men, innocent white girls in Rochdale.. they're all demonstrably targets to the BBC ideologues.
So basically this study says that anybody linking a BBC news article is propagating fake news. Good work Oxford.
Which is true.
Which is not true, as the Washington Post themselves acknowledged:
Editorâ(TM)s Note: An earlier version of this story incorrectly said that Russian hackers had penetrated the U.S. electric grid. Authorities say there is no indication of that so far. The computer at Burlington Electric that was hacked was not attached to the grid.
-- https://www.washingtonpost.com...
Was it even the Russian government doing anything at all anyway?
https://www.washingtonpost.com...
Where is this inaccurate tweet you speak of?
I do believe you fucking linked it in your comment.
You'll fucking love these then:
http://reason.com/blog/2017/04...
http://www.independent.co.uk/n...
Ok, but make one man tax dollar equal to three girl tax dollars to even up that disparity too.
I'd seriously support that.
the gender pay gap is currently
a fucking myth put forward by sexist shits that want all the rewards for none of the work.
Who are these sexists that support an unjustified gender gap?
Most of us are wandering around trying to see where the fuck this supposed gender gap actually is.
The unfortunate thing here is that sexists will seize upon this
Why? It blows a massive hole in their sexist 'wage gap' propaganda.
Hint: anyone that keeps saying "nice guy", uses the phrase for himself, pulls the "not all men!"
You've lost me here. Are you suggesting that all men are identical?
I don't care. If Lauri Love broke the law in the UK then he should be prosecuted in the UK. If he didn't break the law in the UK then he hasn't broken the law and shouldn't be extradited.
There are no possible grounds for him being extradited to the USA. Whether the USA want to be stupid about it is irrelevant.
Sure: The patriarchy.
Basically, you're confirming that EQ was hardcore. Sadly that's no longer commercially viable as MMOs rely on network effects, and the networks build around the less punitive games - as you indicate you'd prefer yourself.
It's a shame though, as EQ did have a tremendous amount of content and did help define a genre. I'm not sure I'd want to play it myself if it was released today (with shiny new graphics, etc) but EQ does have its place in gaming history.
Incidentally, points 2, 5, 7 and 16 aren't necessarily bad at all. Shit, you could /con something, find that it's pathetic and still get utterly hammered for attacking it. My first death happened that way..
Hmm. You're assuming though that the server has or provides the text and names.
I'd expect all of that to be client-side. Server will send "Quest 044 status 382" and the client will interpret that as "Chief Boyo congratulates you on your successful conquest. Would you like the ring of glowiness or the necklace of pantswetting?"
If the gamer has an original purchased copy of the game and is merely connecting to a different server then I'm not sure where the copyright violation lies.
Which is clearly totally fucking stupid and demonstrates that environmentalists don't have a clue.
They should be demanding nuclear and hoping it goes pop. The Chernobyl exclusion zone is a wildlife paradise these days.
They're a bit slow though. Don't get me wrong, a few years ago they'd have been top-end cards, but they're just not cutting it for modern cameras.
RAW file sizes are higher, capture rates are higher.. SD cards need to keep up.
Cameras trade off processing power for capture speed, physical dimensions and battery life.
You want to add additional processing, it comes at a cost. You may consider it a low cost but cameras are already running on the edge so it's going to have a discernable impact.
Sure, it can be done - but just who the fuck is going to want and use it? Maybe the demand is there, but so far it hasn't been strong enough to encourage a manufacturer to implement the feature, and even if they did, making it fit neatly into a sensible photographer workflow is still going to be bloody hard.
Yep. 20Mpx on a shitty small sensor is worse than 12Mpx, especially for photojournalism.
My phone can take some awesome photographs and has seriously good software helping with exposure and focus. It still can't get close to my proper camera in fast moving or low light situations.
for one Sony decided to make them too small for many if not most hands
No, it's just Americans that have big fat hands.
Seriously, most of the world gets on fine with small cameras, small console controllers, small phones. It's fucking fat Americans with their big slabs and fat fingers that do all the bitching about size.
Of course, when it comes to cameras there's also the compensation thing. "Must have big camera to show what a man I am." Sure.
Since cameras tend to write their data fairly slow
Are you shitting me? If you're shooting events (sports, combat, civil disruption) you're hitting the shutter frequently and/or using sequential capture at (up to) double-digit frames/second. The cameras are writing files in tenths of a second at most.
The camera stops for a while as the buffer of set size and speed fills.
Nah, not any more. The storage media is now bloody fast and can keep up. My camera can sustain 17fps for a couple of minutes.
Admittedly if I set it to capture at 60fps (the most it will do in RAW) that slows right down after the buffer is filled.
To be fair, he'd just turn off the encryption.
It's the guy shooting in a dodgy situation that will go, "Yeah, losing processing power and dropping to 4 frames per second is a reasonable trade-off if it stops people getting killed."
I'm just not sure that there are enough such people buying cameras to justify the cost of adding the feature.
Your reading comprehension is fucking terrible. Again, nothing that tells us Trump wants to be an authoritarian despot.
Those articles suggest he has a highly inflated ego, but said fuck all about being an authoritarian despot.
Try again.
Somewhat off topic... I'm glad that the Republicans who continually re-authorize the civil liberty abominations that 9/11 enabled are finally coming to realize that "Hey! this shit could be abused."
It's a shame indeed that this isn't the topic.