The funniest part of the debate is the self-important people who think they know a lot about guns, and want to educate everybody down-nose from them, but then they don't know that the firearm being a "shotgun" doesn't tell you that it was firing "shot." Newsflash, shotguns fire bullets, too, except they're called "slugs."
If you read the story and it said they used shot, then that it said they used shot is why you would know it was pellets; not because they said "shotgun." Huge difference.
This is America! It doesn't matter if it is "built-up" or a swamp. What matters is if it is legally inside the City Limits or not. My city has one part of town with lots of libertarians, and they always oppose annexation (and the city services that come with it...) and so there are little pockets on that side of town where one house is in the City, the next isn't, all the way down the road. You can legally hunt in your backyard on one side of the fence, but not the other.
Yeah, since Newton was born the same year Galileo died, he most certainly would have been aware of it. Not because he was some famous smart guy, but just because he was educated in the physical sciences and would have known the results of Galileo's experiment.
Naming Newton is out of place here. What he did was take Galileo's work on falling objects, and apply it to orbiting bodies to get a single law. You don't need to do that to figure out the speed of a falling piece of lead, or to calculate the potential damage.
When it is large and frozen it is a known danger to life. You need the speed and the mass to calculate impact force. Not just the speed. And not everybody is equally durable. What about somebody sunbathing, who gets hit in the eye? Is the only danger to their eye, or might it in fact kill them? Has anybody ever died from a hailstorm?
But thank you for at least linking to the correct shit. A lot of these idiots are waving their hands like they thought that the speed of falling objects was intuitive! lol It only took a few thousand years to figure out the answer.
If you have even a basic understanding of the history of physics, and why we know the speed of falling objects, and how much disagreement there was over it before the experiment, then you could understand the complete idiocy of using "owning a firearm" as a metric for if somebody should know the speed of falling objects. Owning a gun will not do anything to get a person on the correct side of the debate. Only knowledge of experimental outcomes is going to do that.
Presumably, that is a waste of time, ignorance is as ignorants do.
Here in Oregon, where the law is a lot more "wild west" and there is no duty to retreat, ever, in any circumstance, (retreat is considered immoral, standing your ground - in the sense of neither attacking nor retreating - is considered the neutral act) we can shoot them as soon as they try to illegally enter the house. But never in the yard, that is regular "self defense" where you have to be in danger.
OTOH, outside city limits you can shoot somebody's property to stop it from damaging your own property, so there are words you could say in this situation to make shooting the drone legal; "they weren't in line of site, and the fire danger is too high to have that thing come down out of site. I wanted to get it down while we had eyes on it, and make sure there wasn't a fire." If it is under 50' then it isn't in airspace, it is just "in the air on private property."
But no, you can't destroy property in any state just because you think you have an "expectation of privacy" outdoors. You would have to consider it abandoned, then you can claim it. If you're worried they might come back for it, or is being used to spy on you, then you'd have to turn it in to police. If nobody claims it by the deadline, you can claim it and then destroy or recycle it, whatever. Some States allow you to keep what you find on private land without a waiting period, but that usually has restrictions so that it wouldn't apply to recently-left items.
The Court has long held that you do not have an expectation of privacy on private property unless you actually and successfully block the view. The classic example is a curtain that doesn't cover the whole window, but blocks everywhere they thought a person would be. Not good enough to expect privacy. If the person in the house on the hill can see in with a telescope, then you didn't have a reasonable expectation of privacy.
This would require some other specific state or local law, "expectation of privacy" would never cover outdoors, uncovered areas. You know about airplanes, right? That they fly overhead? And that lenses exist? OK, so the Court knows there is no expectation of privacy outdoors and uncovered. That it is legal to fly over private land already tells them that much, because it is legal to look around wherever you are, using whatever otherwise-legal viewing device you have handy.
If you want drone-perverts to go to jail, you'll need to pass a new law.
It would add latency to do the full range of sanity checks
The engineering assumption is that the device will be lagging already from ads and other "monetization."
Robust software sells the same as buggy software, as long as the bug isn't routine.
They try to get developers to use the media library in place of the filesystem. Why? So they can do backups easily that back up "everything" the users added to the applications, without having to try to sort the filesystem or deal with unknown files.
I'm sure they have even more reasons. I hate it more and more all the time, personally. And I use it less and less. I've already replaced about half the apps I use with my own versions, that do almost nothing. (the 1 thing I need each app for) I'm starting to wonder why I'm running an Android version instead of a regular embedded linux.
Right, that is the false accusation that has already been debunked.
Depression Quest is not a commercial product. It is a free game, a public service. There is no ethical lapse in mentioning a free public service that somebody you once dated was involved in. There is no accusation there, except of two consenting adults having dated.
You might want to look up a few things, like: what are workplace ethics? What are the ethical restrictions on mentioning somebody you know personally in your work? What does libel mean? What does censor mean? These are important questions, because you get them all wrong.
Ethics doesn't mean, "things I don't like." Ethics is the rules agreed by the group. Generally, the overlapping portion of the various moral perspectives. You don't get to make up new, fake ethical rules and then have that count as an accusation when people aren't following it. There is no ill-gotten gains to be had by a free game with no advertising, written by a person who is not even a professional game writer. That is just daft. Ethical lapses involving significant others in the workplace have to include some ill deed; some inside influence that is hidden from an employer or client, or a contract given without normal competition, or assigning some task that has a financial reward. You are absolutely not forbidden from ever mentioning your spouse or date in your job. That is an insane idea that nobody would agree to, and would never become an ethical requirement.
That you think that is an ethical problem really shows that you haven't even googled for what actual journalistic ethics scandals look like. And the accusation is so small anyways, even if it was something unethical, it would be on the level of J-walking. It would still raise questions as to the real motives, because it would stand next to real ethics violations, like receiving large payments from a company to whitewash allegations against them. That is what the actual "ethics in journalism" issues are. Even in something totally trivial like "gaming journalism," which isn't even journalism but rather professional product reviewing, the actual scandals of the past were much larger; game companies paying media companies for favorable coverage. But generally in journalism nobody cared, because it wasn't about "news" or anything substantial. Even for people buying games, it wasn't news to start with; it was entertainment stories. Those were never considered to be "news" or to be being done as some part of journalistic effort to inform the public. Imagine if the readers of the local newspaper found out that the gardener profiled in the local Home and Garden section of the paper was married to an employee! Major scandal lasting years, or not an ethical lapse because it is OK to brag about your spouse's garden? This happened locally, and it wasn't even a complaint. The only reason anybody talked about it was because their garden looked really awesome.
The ethics complaints were all valid, and all involved journalists, so I don't know what you're talking about. You can view the laundry list at http://deepfreeze.it/
Justice is holding a person responsible for their actions. Social Justice is holding a person responsible for the actions of their race, gender, or creed. Social Justice is just another form of racism.
That is a totally made up definition of "social justice." That is never what it meant. Actually, fighting against what you describe is what "social justice" is! D'oh!
And no, I'm not going to click some weird link. Just say what you have to say, no need to link weird stuff. You haven't even signed up for an account here, so you don't know this, but people here only click links to websites they already visit, like wikipedia or something. You can keep your goats to yourself.
So what was the ethical complaint that you claim is "valid?" Spoiler: I already looked into the details of the original accusations. But please, for the sake of other readers, what was this ethical lapse? You're not going to say, because it would be embarrassing for you to admit it is gossip that isn't about ethics or journalism. Honestly, none of the people whining about a journalist maybe having had sex with a person they're not reporting on... have any idea what work ethics means. Presumably, they think it is also unethical for a mechanic to date a person who owns a car, or for a medical doctor to date a human. Or for any two people in related industries to date. Of course, none of those have ethical implications at all. Just like, a programmer who writes free games isn't prohibited from dating people who write about games. There is no ethical lapse there at all. The accusation is that two people may or may not have had sex, and some other person may or may not have been offended. It isn't anybody's business, and doesn't invoke ethics.
Are you sure there is really that much "technical news?" It seems to me there is very little that is new compared to 15 years ago. Are there any popular new OSes? Programming languages? A new company that makes products for the little guy? The maker stuff is the only thing new. A new version of old software isn't news. People hating on each other isn't news unless it goes felony.
It says a lot about people when they claim to be nerds, but they were running around the internet with autoplay turned on.
The nerds on the site never would have known about it, except for Mr Coward whining about it. It is disgusting, for sure, but the technical fix should have already been applied on the client side given the median quality of the internet.
I came here to suggest the same. Kickstarter to fund the creation of a new legal entity, with the pledges becoming shares in that new entity. I'm in with some pledge money, I just don't have the time to do it.
It'd be fantastic if CmdrTaco came back to lead the new entity.
If Taco came back, it would work. But I think he has better things to do. I hope so, anyways. Without him, it is easy for everybody to think they could do a great job running the place. And I don't doubt, most of these people talking about crowdfunding could indeed do a better job at their own personal nits. However, I doubt any of them could actually run it in a way that would appeal to the long-term luserbase.
If there was a missing word "projected" in there, then you fell victim to being credulous of numbers in press releases.
They planned to make a bunch of money selling us junk because many users have high incomes. Then they found out, we're allergic to advertising, and grew up pre-spam-filter; we know intuitively not to click their links that make it past the filter. I'm surprised they didn't lose 98% of their projected revenue.
Newsflash, this site dates back to when nerds wore pocket protectors, and often even ties. At least, to dinner. Not at work, obviously, nerds are too important to be subjected to dress codes. Then the internet bubble happened, and people from the wrestling team realized they could make money studying computers, and then the asserted that that makes them "nerds" too. Then eventually we got gamergate.
Slashdot Mirror
Standing and staring are both legal. Even if you're standing in a place that is illegal, staring is still legal.
You might not even need a gun to use the net. ;)
The funniest part of the debate is the self-important people who think they know a lot about guns, and want to educate everybody down-nose from them, but then they don't know that the firearm being a "shotgun" doesn't tell you that it was firing "shot." Newsflash, shotguns fire bullets, too, except they're called "slugs."
If you read the story and it said they used shot, then that it said they used shot is why you would know it was pellets; not because they said "shotgun." Huge difference.
This is America! It doesn't matter if it is "built-up" or a swamp. What matters is if it is legally inside the City Limits or not. My city has one part of town with lots of libertarians, and they always oppose annexation (and the city services that come with it...) and so there are little pockets on that side of town where one house is in the City, the next isn't, all the way down the road. You can legally hunt in your backyard on one side of the fence, but not the other.
Yeah, since Newton was born the same year Galileo died, he most certainly would have been aware of it. Not because he was some famous smart guy, but just because he was educated in the physical sciences and would have known the results of Galileo's experiment.
Naming Newton is out of place here. What he did was take Galileo's work on falling objects, and apply it to orbiting bodies to get a single law. You don't need to do that to figure out the speed of a falling piece of lead, or to calculate the potential damage.
When it is large and frozen it is a known danger to life. You need the speed and the mass to calculate impact force. Not just the speed. And not everybody is equally durable. What about somebody sunbathing, who gets hit in the eye? Is the only danger to their eye, or might it in fact kill them? Has anybody ever died from a hailstorm?
But thank you for at least linking to the correct shit. A lot of these idiots are waving their hands like they thought that the speed of falling objects was intuitive! lol It only took a few thousand years to figure out the answer.
If you have even a basic understanding of the history of physics, and why we know the speed of falling objects, and how much disagreement there was over it before the experiment, then you could understand the complete idiocy of using "owning a firearm" as a metric for if somebody should know the speed of falling objects. Owning a gun will not do anything to get a person on the correct side of the debate. Only knowledge of experimental outcomes is going to do that.
Presumably, that is a waste of time, ignorance is as ignorants do.
Sorry for spelling "sight" as "site," I'll read 10 dictionary pages as penance.
Here in Oregon, where the law is a lot more "wild west" and there is no duty to retreat, ever, in any circumstance, (retreat is considered immoral, standing your ground - in the sense of neither attacking nor retreating - is considered the neutral act) we can shoot them as soon as they try to illegally enter the house. But never in the yard, that is regular "self defense" where you have to be in danger.
OTOH, outside city limits you can shoot somebody's property to stop it from damaging your own property, so there are words you could say in this situation to make shooting the drone legal; "they weren't in line of site, and the fire danger is too high to have that thing come down out of site. I wanted to get it down while we had eyes on it, and make sure there wasn't a fire." If it is under 50' then it isn't in airspace, it is just "in the air on private property."
But no, you can't destroy property in any state just because you think you have an "expectation of privacy" outdoors. You would have to consider it abandoned, then you can claim it. If you're worried they might come back for it, or is being used to spy on you, then you'd have to turn it in to police. If nobody claims it by the deadline, you can claim it and then destroy or recycle it, whatever. Some States allow you to keep what you find on private land without a waiting period, but that usually has restrictions so that it wouldn't apply to recently-left items.
The Court has long held that you do not have an expectation of privacy on private property unless you actually and successfully block the view. The classic example is a curtain that doesn't cover the whole window, but blocks everywhere they thought a person would be. Not good enough to expect privacy. If the person in the house on the hill can see in with a telescope, then you didn't have a reasonable expectation of privacy.
This would require some other specific state or local law, "expectation of privacy" would never cover outdoors, uncovered areas. You know about airplanes, right? That they fly overhead? And that lenses exist? OK, so the Court knows there is no expectation of privacy outdoors and uncovered. That it is legal to fly over private land already tells them that much, because it is legal to look around wherever you are, using whatever otherwise-legal viewing device you have handy.
If you want drone-perverts to go to jail, you'll need to pass a new law.
Silly coward, it was a statement of opinion, not a question. Are you from the same neighborhood, or what?
Taking your question at face value:
I'm sure they have even more reasons. I hate it more and more all the time, personally. And I use it less and less. I've already replaced about half the apps I use with my own versions, that do almost nothing. (the 1 thing I need each app for) I'm starting to wonder why I'm running an Android version instead of a regular embedded linux.
Right, we're talking community-consensus level "good."
Is Justice good or bad? If you think that is an example of "people doing bad things for their personal `good' cause," you're an ignoramus.
Right, that is the false accusation that has already been debunked.
Depression Quest is not a commercial product. It is a free game, a public service. There is no ethical lapse in mentioning a free public service that somebody you once dated was involved in. There is no accusation there, except of two consenting adults having dated.
You might want to look up a few things, like: what are workplace ethics? What are the ethical restrictions on mentioning somebody you know personally in your work? What does libel mean? What does censor mean? These are important questions, because you get them all wrong.
Ethics doesn't mean, "things I don't like." Ethics is the rules agreed by the group. Generally, the overlapping portion of the various moral perspectives. You don't get to make up new, fake ethical rules and then have that count as an accusation when people aren't following it. There is no ill-gotten gains to be had by a free game with no advertising, written by a person who is not even a professional game writer. That is just daft. Ethical lapses involving significant others in the workplace have to include some ill deed; some inside influence that is hidden from an employer or client, or a contract given without normal competition, or assigning some task that has a financial reward. You are absolutely not forbidden from ever mentioning your spouse or date in your job. That is an insane idea that nobody would agree to, and would never become an ethical requirement.
That you think that is an ethical problem really shows that you haven't even googled for what actual journalistic ethics scandals look like. And the accusation is so small anyways, even if it was something unethical, it would be on the level of J-walking. It would still raise questions as to the real motives, because it would stand next to real ethics violations, like receiving large payments from a company to whitewash allegations against them. That is what the actual "ethics in journalism" issues are. Even in something totally trivial like "gaming journalism," which isn't even journalism but rather professional product reviewing, the actual scandals of the past were much larger; game companies paying media companies for favorable coverage. But generally in journalism nobody cared, because it wasn't about "news" or anything substantial. Even for people buying games, it wasn't news to start with; it was entertainment stories. Those were never considered to be "news" or to be being done as some part of journalistic effort to inform the public. Imagine if the readers of the local newspaper found out that the gardener profiled in the local Home and Garden section of the paper was married to an employee! Major scandal lasting years, or not an ethical lapse because it is OK to brag about your spouse's garden? This happened locally, and it wasn't even a complaint. The only reason anybody talked about it was because their garden looked really awesome.
If he really wanted to torture us, he'd buy it and have Balmer help him rewrite the moderation system.
The ethics complaints were all valid, and all involved journalists, so I don't know what you're talking about. You can view the laundry list at http://deepfreeze.it/
Justice is holding a person responsible for their actions. Social Justice is holding a person responsible for the actions of their race, gender, or creed. Social Justice is just another form of racism.
That is a totally made up definition of "social justice." That is never what it meant. Actually, fighting against what you describe is what "social justice" is! D'oh!
And no, I'm not going to click some weird link. Just say what you have to say, no need to link weird stuff. You haven't even signed up for an account here, so you don't know this, but people here only click links to websites they already visit, like wikipedia or something. You can keep your goats to yourself.
So what was the ethical complaint that you claim is "valid?" Spoiler: I already looked into the details of the original accusations. But please, for the sake of other readers, what was this ethical lapse? You're not going to say, because it would be embarrassing for you to admit it is gossip that isn't about ethics or journalism. Honestly, none of the people whining about a journalist maybe having had sex with a person they're not reporting on... have any idea what work ethics means. Presumably, they think it is also unethical for a mechanic to date a person who owns a car, or for a medical doctor to date a human. Or for any two people in related industries to date. Of course, none of those have ethical implications at all. Just like, a programmer who writes free games isn't prohibited from dating people who write about games. There is no ethical lapse there at all. The accusation is that two people may or may not have had sex, and some other person may or may not have been offended. It isn't anybody's business, and doesn't invoke ethics.
If not, how would they tell you? Fear not, as long as you don't read it, you'll never know!
If you're still using flash without any blockers in 2015, wow. Gramps, meds.
Are you sure there is really that much "technical news?" It seems to me there is very little that is new compared to 15 years ago. Are there any popular new OSes? Programming languages? A new company that makes products for the little guy? The maker stuff is the only thing new. A new version of old software isn't news. People hating on each other isn't news unless it goes felony.
It says a lot about people when they claim to be nerds, but they were running around the internet with autoplay turned on.
The nerds on the site never would have known about it, except for Mr Coward whining about it. It is disgusting, for sure, but the technical fix should have already been applied on the client side given the median quality of the internet.
I, for one, think the editors will welcome they're new non-DICE overlords. Let's hope for everyone's sake, this idea catches on.
"their"
Remember, it is never too late to go back to school.
$1.7m is basically, "it is worthless but has a known minor brand name."
I came here to suggest the same. Kickstarter to fund the creation of a new legal entity, with the pledges becoming shares in that new entity. I'm in with some pledge money, I just don't have the time to do it.
It'd be fantastic if CmdrTaco came back to lead the new entity.
If Taco came back, it would work. But I think he has better things to do. I hope so, anyways. Without him, it is easy for everybody to think they could do a great job running the place. And I don't doubt, most of these people talking about crowdfunding could indeed do a better job at their own personal nits. However, I doubt any of them could actually run it in a way that would appeal to the long-term luserbase.
If there was a missing word "projected" in there, then you fell victim to being credulous of numbers in press releases.
They planned to make a bunch of money selling us junk because many users have high incomes. Then they found out, we're allergic to advertising, and grew up pre-spam-filter; we know intuitively not to click their links that make it past the filter. I'm surprised they didn't lose 98% of their projected revenue.
Newsflash, this site dates back to when nerds wore pocket protectors, and often even ties. At least, to dinner. Not at work, obviously, nerds are too important to be subjected to dress codes. Then the internet bubble happened, and people from the wrestling team realized they could make money studying computers, and then the asserted that that makes them "nerds" too. Then eventually we got gamergate.