It all depends upon the STORY being told.

If the "infection" has already happened (you're a zombie when you die whether or not you were bitten) then that changes the math.

Then it comes down to how fast you become a zombie once a zombie bites you. Seconds or days?

And, finally, it comes down to whether this is going to be a book or a movie/TV show. In a book the protagonists can employ non-FPS means to deal with zombies. Otherwise you're stuck with hand-to-hand and guns.

Similarly, ...

No. Not similarly.

Just because A and B share a single common feature does NOT make A = B. And your original claim was incorrect. Twitter is not "the modern equivalent of the public square".

Particularly when you then try to argue that C and D are also equal.

Is it good to cut off access to the modern equivalent of the public square just because we don't like what is being said?

It's a good thing that no one is doing that, right?

Remember, twitter is owned by the twitter people who get to decide who is allowed to post what on twitter.

Just because you feel you have something to say does NOT mean that EVERYONE has to carry YOUR message.

Leon puts his hand in freezing liquid without a problem.

Pris puts her hand in boiling water without a problem.

You can argue whether they are "robots" based upon YOUR definition of "robot". But those are not human hands.

If you watch the original with the understanding that Deckard is a replicant then the unicorn origami and the ending have specific, complex, implications.

Now if the sequel shows Deckard as a human then they piss off everyone who prefers those implications. So, in effect, the sequel ruins the story for some people.

If the sequel shows Deckard as an aged replicant ... robots get old? So replicant Deckard is either killed or kills or runs away again at the end. ALREADY BEEN DONE IN THE FIRST MOVIE!

If 95%+ of scientists agree with each other ... and are NOT all paid by the same corporations ...

but the scientists who disagree with them ARE all (100%) paid by the same corporations ...

I think you're implying bias on the wrong side.

In those instances, why bother with homoeopathy? Why not go straight to sugar pills/water?

And THAT is the problem with his claims.

It isn't important whether reading YOUR horoscope makes YOU "feel" better about YOURSELF.

It's whether reading someone else's AND BELIEVING IT IS YOURS makes you "feel" better about yourself.

So ..... do we foster an anti-science belief system because some people can self-invoke the placebo effect? Or do point out that it is nothing more than the placebo effect?

TFA claims the opposite. But since they're trying to sell something ... of course they would.

When team members had overlapping lunch breaks and talked to each other, their stress was lower (as measured by tone of voice), job turnover was lower, and they completed their calls faster.

So the bank made a management change and tested it over several months -- it gave half the teams breaks at the same time and compared the results. It found the turnover rate fell from 40 percent to 12 percent, and the more cohesive teams completed their calls 23 percent more quickly -- which is "worth tens of millions of dollars" to Bank of America, Waber says.

Now, to me that that reads more like BoA's PRIMARY communication channels were fucked. So the employees were attempting to share information using the INFORMAL "lunch break" channel.

So BoA, in effect, makes the informal channel MANDATORY.

It isn't about swapping your ham and cheese for Alice's peanut butter and jelly. Or trading "dumbest question this morning".

It's about Alice ... on smoke break with Bob ... learning that X was changed and they weren't told ... and sharing that info with the Chuck at lunch ... who shares it with Danny ...

I was describing the model for "rock stars" and their managers.

You are describing the model that regular techs have. I'd be willing to bet that your friend gets his jobs because someone he's worked with in the past recommends him by name.

NOT because someone who's never worked with him, is claiming that this new project is PERFECT for him.

It is about the focus. For techs, the focus is on getting the talent for the project.

For "rock stars" the focus is on pitching the project to the talent.

That's what I was thinking. Isn't this BACKWARDS?

The A-list actors don't have agents looking for jobs for them. They have agents filtering out the crap.

The same thing with the top name bands and singers. Their agents filter out the crap. NOT dig around looking for any dive bar that will give them a gig.

How many CTO's/CIO's out there do you think are asking for whomever built Slashdot beta by name?

In my experience you get brought in, by name, when someone you've worked with in the past recommends you by name.

I think you're right. AND a big part of it INITIALLY is the presence of natural resources. Villages - towns - cities - they all need water and food. So they start where those are available.

The weird part of TFA is how exact their numbers are.

"15 percent"

"about 83 percent"

I suspect that a LOT of averaging went on there. And more than a little bit of "toss out the 'data scatter'". Which gives them the "mathematical rule".

And what about suburbs? Do the poor people live further from the city center because they cannot afford to live there? Or do the wealthier citizens live in the suburbs because they can afford larger villas?

On the other hand, there are lots of people that are only nominally religious until the religion that they only barely believe in and participate with is visibly threatened or demeaned, then they go off the deep end in its defense.

Kind of ...

But more like the non-crazies suddenly have to explain WHY the crazies are wrong when we are doing exactly what the crazies are claiming. So the crazies get louder while everyone else gets quieter.

As in the GP post. And it is sad that it was mod'ed to +5.

Pigs are NOT magical animals. Muslims do NOT believe that pigs are magical animals. So there is NOTHING that smearing a Koran with pig blood would accomplish EXCEPT showing that you are actively trying to be offensive to the non-crazies WITHOUT UNDERSTANDING them.

IF you chose to use religion against someone, it has to be personal, and even then, you have to be very careful, such that your choice doesn't motivate others to rally to the cause of the person whom you used it against.

Exactly. And the problem is that most of the crazies don't even care about their own religion. The same with the crazies in any religion. The religion is an excuse for them to associate themselves with other people. Otherwise they are just lone crazies.

Deal with them as lone crazies.

Do not try to piss off the people they CLAIM to represent. They don't represent anyone except themselves.

The problem is that our own government seems to WANT us to be terrified of the "terrorists".

Which is why spokespeople for our government are making sure that as many of our people are aware of the "threats" as possible.

The government should be posting videos of its own MOCKING them. And re-editing their videos.

And taking down the worst ones WITHOUT TELLING EVERYONE THAT YOU ARE TAKING THEM DOWN BECAUSE THEY ARE SO BAD AND HERE IS WHY THEY ARE SO BAD.

There's no paradox.

When you have a budget of millions of dollars AND practically unrestricted access to everyone's Internet transmissions then it is a lot easier to appear to be "omnipotent" in your ATTACKS.

But DEFENSE is a lot more difficult.

Civilians, even DoD civilians, are held to different standards than enlisted men and officers. Soldiers are held to the UMCJ and can be controlled much tighter.

That is correct. But the real question is whether they NEED to be "controlled much tighter". What, specifically, is their mission?

Also, how does that mission differ from the mission that the NSA is already performing?

And if you relax physical requirements for these guys, weel then what about your mechanics or clerks or cooks? Morale issues can easily rise up from that.

Bingo. Why should the cooks be held to a higher standard?

And I'm also questioning their numbers. How many thousand people do you need to crack networks that are all, basically, running the same software with the same vulnerabilities? A few very talented people writing 0-day exploits would probably be a better investment for ATTACK than 1,000 average coders.