Wasn't it the teeth?

I just remember it would rise up and zorch someone, sated only after eating 10 souls. Hooray for villagers.

One of Gygax's hallmarks as DM was the killing of players and deadly traps. I'd never seen him run in person, but heard many stories. At cons, the players loved the creative ways he'd make them reroll.

Personally, I never enjoyed that much, but that said I actually ran a Tomb of Horrors campaign (sprung on unwitting players), but added a catch... they had the Groundhog Day curse, and woke up every morning exactly the same until they reached a certain part of the dungeon and flipped a switch which progressed them to the next day. They died a lot and it was hilarious, but they never had to reroll characters. Of course, one guy got eaten by the demilich, which was stuffed into a bag of holding, and tossed into a sphere of annihilation. It doesn't get much more "dead" than that.

If you don't buy, you're not paying for it. If you never click on ads (like me), you're not only getting served content you don't want, but it's taking you longer to load pages and so forth.

There's no guilt in it if you would otherwise never click and never buy. While I love (e.g. fark), I have never clicked one of their ads ever unless by accident. Being served ads is not somehow paying for anything, unless money actually comes out of your pocket.

You do own your computer, but zero tolerance is stupid. You have a choice to click or not. Content providers have a right to display on your computer when YOU request their site. If it's a malware site, it gets blacklisted by multiple entities and browsers. Since you're on slashdot, zero tolerance by an anonymous coward means you're getting fed ads. If you're not getting ads, you installed some software to prevent that, and that activity means you tolerated it more than zero. If you truly believe in zero tolerance, gtfo slashdot and nearly every other popular website out there including google search, youtube, yahoo, etc.

I will state that if a website uses anti-adblock software that bypasses my blocking in any way, I immediately close the page. I do not need their service enough that I will suffer their bullshit. This, in contrast to "zero tolerance" is my balking rate to annoying manipulation and my curiosity never gets the best of me. If I'm reading an article, and 15 seconds later an opaque ad comes up, I close the page and blacklist the site. Some sites even bypass noscript or make it unreadable without javascript, and noscript comes with its own set of problems making many web pages unusable (even with "temporarily allow all on this page") due to xss protection among other things.

You have that choice of what to browse, and content providers have a choice of how to market. Forcing ads onto people unwilling to view ads is a very low percentage market, therefore there is no reason to pretend there's some sort of arms race. There isn't.

The overall point is that spending money to market to people who not only don't want your ads, but will actively blacklist your entire website if it's too obnoxious (*cough*upworthy*cough*) means marketing money poorly spent. If adblock software is intentionally rendered ineffective, those websites will get far fewer visitors. They will lose money.

Will the programmer be held responsible for murder?

Will the programmer be guilty of creating a WMD if it goes crazy?

What if it gets hacked?

Unlike creating a firearm where the human controls all usage (thus, freeing the manufacturers from liability), this entire scenario is a lot less scary simply by holding the creators and operators guilty of any crimes it commits, including war crimes.

I claim, preemptively, that such claims are bullshit. The censorship is intentional, and will get reversed, but it will be cited as a mistake. Mark my words.

Smaller sites that are just as innocent will get blocked, but won't get unblocked because not enough people will complain. This causes real damage. It costs site owners real money.

That makes some sense, and I concede that if the substation is saturated by solar generation, there are additional costs that (for now), the generating solar stations should subsidize upgrading. It should not be a full 100% subsidy.

Or perhaps pay for storage devices (e.g. huge flywheels) that are used by the substation at night and for smoothing.

I also submit that all new substations in sunny or windy areas should be built with this eventuality in mind. I live in a very sunny area, and new housing is required to have roof wiring for future solar installations done by the homeowner. We're still at a point where there is no way substations are saturated, however the marketing attitude that somehow these generating stations are "freeloaders" needs to be nipped in the bud. That's simply a lie. At a 90% efficiency from the generating station, I can get electrons to a neighbor at 97% efficiency with zero emissions. No, it's the power companies that are freeloading MY clean air (and yours!).

You could not be more wrong. Peak power use is largely when the sun is shining.

Air conditioning and office lights and the majority of meals is during the time the sun is shining.

Stop saying "free storage". It's not. There are two things. First, the power co doesn't "store" those electrons, they SELL THEM. It's more like a loan, and you're the bank. They should pay interest.
Second, they power co benefits from your electrons. During peak times, which is generally when the sun is shining and people have their AC cranked, the power co would normally have to send tons of power out, losing a TON in the transmission due to capacitance and resistance loss. Until we get superconducting wiring to the transformers, they suffer loss. But when someone sends power to a nearby neighbor, far fewer electrons are lost and the power company charges them the full amount, yet would have to send far more energy from the power plant if not for that neighbor.

Well stated and less scathing than I would've been.

One additional thing you left out is transmission loss, which small generators solve. Getting 1kwh to my house over the grid goes over high tension lines from 80 mi away to a distribution point 1mi away. I don't know the exact loss, but I'd be surprised if it were above 80%. It's pretty high compared to me sending excess energy back into the grid for my neighbors to use 300 feet away.

When these tweens driving this "new revolution/resolution" start losing their eyesight, retina display will be the work of the devil.

Of course, 4k will be outmoded by then, and if it's anything like the past 20 years, laptops will probably be relegated to the likes of 300 baud modems are today.

*sniff* I miss my eyesight :-)

That's not how you compute and remove outliers, although that was an interesting comparison. None of those examples are outliers.

Normally you would use something similar to removing data 3 std deviations from the mean, although that's pretty simplified. There are better ways.

Cities tend toward voting democrat as people believe the infrastructure works well for quality of life. Gun violence tends towards concentrations of people, otherwise known as cities.

Save your BS propaganda for facebook. It's not welcome here.

Plain and simple, keep your old emails, offline. If you get cornered for a conversation in person or phone, no problem... just dash off an email stating "You know how you were telling me at lunch not to worry about the security vulns? This still really bothers me. There's got to be a way to mitigate it without affecting deadlines. Imagine the missed deadlines if we lose our infrastructure to an easy hack."

Don't sound like a troublemaker, but rather, a concerned worker.

Make it clear you're the professional, and in your professional opinion and that of industry standards, security is sorely lacking. Itemize the issues you have in an email. Keep that email.

Support their decisions, and live with it.

Finally, if the shit hits the fan and anyone points fingers at you, refer them to that email. If they fire you for it, that's when you become a troublemaker.

It's called a "public accommodation", and it is indeed open to the GENERAL public during business hours, unless the place is rented out. You are conflating "public" as in publicly-owned (such as sidewalks that aren't actually owned by private individuals) with "public" as in public accommodation such as privately-owned restaurants. There is not an expectation of privacy in any general area except bathrooms and marked rooms. If there was, you could be sued (or even jailed) for taking a selfie in a restaurant and picking up anyone else in the background. If you had an expectation of privacy, security cameras would be illegal (like they are in bathrooms and hotel rooms, where there's an actual expectation).

You're simply out of your mind if you think there's a general expectation of privacy in any public accommodation. There are exceptions, e.g., privately-owned places open to the public can be marked as photography-free zones, such as museums and art galleries. Public places can have private events with their own rules, including renting out a public park. Entry may come with a contract, such as sports tickets and concerts. Some public places may prohibit all recording, such as SCOTUS.

As far as photography goes, entering the general areas of a public accommodation is the same as walking down the sidewalk. The only difference is that the owner can throw you out, as long as it's not based on your race or something. A restaurant is in public, you can be recorded, and you have no "right" or expectation of privacy or "right" to the recording. The photographer, in contrast, has a "right" to record you in public (with some limitations... some states prevent surreptitious recording and some have tried to prevent sound recording, recording of boondoggle animal-cruel farms even from public places, etc, and of course if you're told by the property owner not to record, you can't -- that's what TFA is whining about, because he got thrown out for carrying a recording device.) If you have to have privacy when you dine, then you have to dine in a private room or house where others are not allowed to enter, with the curtains drawn. Or, you can dine in a bathroom or locker room. Yum.

Privacy is not the reason photojournalists cannot enter these public accommodations. It's because the business owner won't let them harass their guests, since it's bad for business. If a photographer enters or lingers after being (legitimately) denied entry, they are trespassing, and can be hauled off.