If you look into the facts, you can see that the journalists:
1. Have close personal relationships - sexual, financial, even living environment - with the subjects they write about. They do not recuse themselves appropriately. 2. They actively collude to push their personal politics. 3. Do not actually like or care about games or gaming. 4. Effectively take bribes. 5. Ostracize those that don't toe the party lines. So they're an asset if you're with them and a huge roadblock if you're not with them. They control most gaming events and actively work to shut down those that they don't control. 6. Dissenting opinions are never expressed in their pieces and facts are scant at best. It's all based on feelings. 7. They do not verify their sources and an egregious example is found directly in TFA. Nobody bothered to verify Anita Sarkeesian's story and somehow it keeps getting parroted as a fact. There have only been a couple people that looked into this and have found that the details are muddy at best and nonexistent at worst. As a result, she's come up with the phrase "listen and believe," but I'm much more a fan of "trust, but verify."
I'm confused -- I've reviewed my election booklet three times, but can't find them in the congressional or senatorial races. Or maybe they're preparing for an upcoming run?
It is not a scientists job to teach people science.
Now wait a second -- they're required in most academic institutions to teach at least a few classes. In my experience, they seriously consider that a primary part of their job responsib-- oh, I see what you mean.
For example, Scientist A, a respected immunologist, says that vaccines prevent disease and are good. Celebrity M, a former Playboy model, says they're filled with icky stuff and should be banned. Too many Americans would listen to the celebrity over the scientist or give their views equal weight when there is no comparison: The scientist should win out.
Pfft -- we've seen Celebrity M naked! That's as honest (cough) and (cough airbrushed) unobstructed as you get! Not like Scientist A has ever done anything forthcoming like that. What's s/he hiding behind that opaque white coat anyway? I'll bet there's a tree-hugging dirty agenda-ridden hippie under there, that's what.
If you own the land instead, and stop paying your property taxes, the government will take your property away.
I thought they'd put a lien against your property so they get it when you sell it or die; not that they could take it away while you were living on it.
CAMERON: To gain a brief advantage you've contrived, But your proud triumph will not be long-lived SCOTLAND: Don't say you are orphans, for we know that game. CAMERON: On your allegiance we've a stronger claim. We charge you yield, we charge you yield, In Queen Elizabeth's name! SCOTLAND: (baffled) You do? PARLIAMENT: We do! We charge you yield, In Queen Elizabeth's name! (SCOTS kneel, PARLIAMENT stands over them triumphantly.) SCOTLAND: We yield at once, with humbled mien, Because, with all our faults, we love our Queen.
When he finished 75th out of 76 applicants in the final round of screening, Cohn "intervened and created an additional position specifically for the applicant"
It's about time! I can't believe they only now got around to creating a position dedicated to checking for a filing's obviousness.
They might not be able to comment further, but if you put forth your request through legal representation -- maybe a paralegal -- their legal department may be more encouraged to respond in detail.
20 years is long enough, long enough for Terminator 2 to now be public domain and Skynet to be a free literary construct.
Considering some fashion of Skynet will probably soon be a reality, the copyright holders can then send it a forceful cease and desist letter, and will have the option to sue it in court. That'll show Skynet.
As far as the argument that "Nobody cares until it happens to a celebrity," sometimes a famous case that happens to a celebrity is what people need to get them to start caring about an issue. A lot of people started caring more about AIDS once Rock Hudson and Freddie Mercury died. Nobody really knew what ALS was until Lou Gehrig got it, and it ended his baseball career and then his life.
In the past, the press was the only way of distributing news widely, and celebrities were the only ones who got press coverage. Depending on your definition of 'celebrity', I suspect the Internet has changed that. Consider oh, I don't know, Tardar Sauce -- if he got a disease while he was still well-known, everybody in the world would know about it. A couple hyperlinks away is a detailed description of the disease, and you soon have worldwide visibility and education on what was otherwise a local concern.
For those with smaller circles of influence, the same holds true to a lesser extent. When these people experience problems, information just as detailed can be spread just as easily by their followers through networking effects.
Quite frankly - if someone is getting shot every year, I would have no problem telling him he's probably not making the best choices.
Yes, yes, I know, but it is difficult to find a job when I'm not in the country entirely legally, and have a wife and eight children to feed. Nevertheless, I do very much appreciate your concern and advice.
... not necessarily a good thing with a so very imperfect set of laws.
Maybe it'll then point the finger towards the need to reform the laws themselves; assuming that better enforcement of an imperfect set of laws reveals more underlying problems.
He has a couple of "meet the police" fairs, which I never saw before.
He has done everything right that Ferguson did wrong.
Now, the NYC police is not perfect, but at least they are actively attempting to do a better job, rather than attempting to prove how 'tough' they are....
A working programmer and a computer scientist are two different things, but the computer scientist should be able to write a basic program:
A surprisingly large fraction of applicants, even those with masters' degrees and PhDs in computer science, fail during interviews when asked to carry out basic programming tasks.
For programmers, this is a basic test, but when a computer scientist can't do something this fundamental, it calls their higher-level qualifications into question; and even if it doesn't, it makes you worry that their architecture or design will consider real-world issues and implementability.
Slashdot Mirror
Oddly enough, this is perfectly timed with someone in the US getting infected.
Not hardly, we're still some number away before that happens.
If you look into the facts, you can see that the journalists:
1. Have close personal relationships - sexual, financial, even living environment - with the subjects they write about. They do not recuse themselves appropriately.
2. They actively collude to push their personal politics.
3. Do not actually like or care about games or gaming.
4. Effectively take bribes.
5. Ostracize those that don't toe the party lines. So they're an asset if you're with them and a huge roadblock if you're not with them. They control most gaming events and actively work to shut down those that they don't control.
6. Dissenting opinions are never expressed in their pieces and facts are scant at best. It's all based on feelings.
7. They do not verify their sources and an egregious example is found directly in TFA. Nobody bothered to verify Anita Sarkeesian's story and somehow it keeps getting parroted as a fact. There have only been a couple people that looked into this and have found that the details are muddy at best and nonexistent at worst. As a result, she's come up with the phrase "listen and believe," but I'm much more a fan of "trust, but verify."
I'm confused -- I've reviewed my election booklet three times, but can't find them in the congressional or senatorial races. Or maybe they're preparing for an upcoming run?
Negligent distracted attempted terrorism? That's a thing, right?
Blah, blah blah blah blah naked. blah blah blah [title inflation] blah blah blah hot as Celebrity M. I would totally trust them in that case.
Which is probably what collectively has brought us to our current situation.
It is not a scientists job to teach people science.
Now wait a second -- they're required in most academic institutions to teach at least a few classes. In my experience, they seriously consider that a primary part of their job responsib-- oh, I see what you mean.
For example, Scientist A, a respected immunologist, says that vaccines prevent disease and are good. Celebrity M, a former Playboy model, says they're filled with icky stuff and should be banned. Too many Americans would listen to the celebrity over the scientist or give their views equal weight when there is no comparison: The scientist should win out.
Pfft -- we've seen Celebrity M naked! That's as honest (cough) and (cough airbrushed) unobstructed as you get! Not like Scientist A has ever done anything forthcoming like that. What's s/he hiding behind that opaque white coat anyway? I'll bet there's a tree-hugging dirty agenda-ridden hippie under there, that's what.
If you own the land instead, and stop paying your property taxes, the government will take your property away.
I thought they'd put a lien against your property so they get it when you sell it or die; not that they could take it away while you were living on it.
Warren Buffet ... squeezed them for top of the line deals.
Can you give a little more detail on that?
Every dime spent on defense and prisons is a loss to infrastructure and progress.
Well, US prisons anyway.
Still, royalty does have a power over people:
CAMERON: To gain a brief advantage you've contrived,
But your proud triumph will not be long-lived
SCOTLAND: Don't say you are orphans, for we know that game.
CAMERON: On your allegiance we've a stronger claim.
We charge you yield, we charge you yield,
In Queen Elizabeth's name!
SCOTLAND: (baffled) You do?
PARLIAMENT: We do!
We charge you yield,
In Queen Elizabeth's name!
(SCOTS kneel, PARLIAMENT stands over them triumphantly.)
SCOTLAND: We yield at once, with humbled mien,
Because, with all our faults, we love our Queen.
Get Steve Ballmer hired to the FCC?
As featured in this video about Apple's new product. The appropriate quote is at 2:50, but the whole thing is pretty funny.
When he finished 75th out of 76 applicants in the final round of screening, Cohn "intervened and created an additional position specifically for the applicant"
It's about time! I can't believe they only now got around to creating a position dedicated to checking for a filing's obviousness.
Do Vulcans have God/gods in their modern-day culture?
They might not be able to comment further, but if you put forth your request through legal representation -- maybe a paralegal -- their legal department may be more encouraged to respond in detail.
If this ...
The FCC has to pull legal stunts which will likely be overturned in court just to get the jurisdiction to cover the internet let alone regulate it.
ever happens, I wonder what these people will do
... surpassing the approximately 1.4 million complaints it saw after the exposure of Janet Jackson's breast ...
when they find out what's available on the internet.
So ... an innovation driver?
20 years is long enough, long enough for Terminator 2 to now be public domain and Skynet to be a free literary construct.
Considering some fashion of Skynet will probably soon be a reality, the copyright holders can then send it a forceful cease and desist letter, and will have the option to sue it in court. That'll show Skynet.
A server is just a bigger laptop.
Not to mention, today's server spec is comparable to tomorrow's laptop spec.
As far as the argument that "Nobody cares until it happens to a celebrity," sometimes a famous case that happens to a celebrity is what people need to get them to start caring about an issue. A lot of people started caring more about AIDS once Rock Hudson and Freddie Mercury died. Nobody really knew what ALS was until Lou Gehrig got it, and it ended his baseball career and then his life.
In the past, the press was the only way of distributing news widely, and celebrities were the only ones who got press coverage. Depending on your definition of 'celebrity', I suspect the Internet has changed that. Consider oh, I don't know, Tardar Sauce -- if he got a disease while he was still well-known, everybody in the world would know about it. A couple hyperlinks away is a detailed description of the disease, and you soon have worldwide visibility and education on what was otherwise a local concern.
For those with smaller circles of influence, the same holds true to a lesser extent. When these people experience problems, information just as detailed can be spread just as easily by their followers through networking effects.
Quite frankly - if someone is getting shot every year, I would have no problem telling him he's probably not making the best choices.
Yes, yes, I know, but it is difficult to find a job when I'm not in the country entirely legally, and have a wife and eight children to feed. Nevertheless, I do very much appreciate your concern and advice.
-- Apu Nahasapeemapetilon
... not necessarily a good thing with a so very imperfect set of laws.
Maybe it'll then point the finger towards the need to reform the laws themselves; assuming that better enforcement of an imperfect set of laws reveals more underlying problems.
To make sure that NYC is not Ferguson.
He has a couple of "meet the police" fairs, which I never saw before.
He has done everything right that Ferguson did wrong.
Now, the NYC police is not perfect, but at least they are actively attempting to do a better job, rather than attempting to prove how 'tough' they are. ...
This initiative, in particular, is unusually progressive.
You can't make a statement like that without at least linking to the video.
A working programmer and a computer scientist are two different things, but the computer scientist should be able to write a basic program:
A surprisingly large fraction of applicants, even those with masters' degrees and PhDs in computer science, fail during interviews when asked to carry out basic programming tasks.
For programmers, this is a basic test, but when a computer scientist can't do something this fundamental, it calls their higher-level qualifications into question; and even if it doesn't, it makes you worry that their architecture or design will consider real-world issues and implementability.