Infinite computing power to apply analytics to hiring practices, and they end up with nepotism. Truly garbage in, garbage out. I bet the friends of the HR VP are all top candidates...
"...To a frustrated game developer who feels the software conglomerates are stifling his creativity..."
Are we talking about the same person here? Notch takes Infiniminer, adds some new features and extensibility to the basic gameplay, which becomes his one and only claim to creative success. And it's the software conglomerates' fault that he doesn't have an original idea out yet?
Lucking into the Angry Birds
They obviously need more employee lock-ins. Servants! Work harder! You are failing management!
My family owns Apple shares and I think it's wrong.
Just curious. Do YOU pay more taxes than you're legally obligated to?
If not, why not?
You've just stated that you "think it's wrong" that Apple pays no more taxes than they're legally liable for. Which would make YOU wrong for not paying extra taxes.
Whoa. You're confusing "It's wrong because ethically it stinks" with "It's wrong because it's against the law".
It IS wrong that multibillion dollar corporations are unfairly paying cellar-level taxation for large profits made from consumers. Just because corporations own governments around the world and have enshrined that unfairness in taxation law to benefit themselves does not suddenly make that right.
Yay! It's got prettier particle effects than BF3! Glad that's $60 that would be well spent. "The blood spatter will be even cooler now!"
Stop shipping a browser with Do Not Track defaulted to off.
Some web servers have had a policy of disregarding DNT headers from browsers known to default it to on. Case in point: pre-release versions of IE 10. If Google were to "Stop shipping a browser with Do Not Track defaulted to off" as you suggest, what would that do other than get Chrome added to the list of browsers from which to disregard DNT?
Is this a damnation of Internet Explorer, or a damnation of a weak-ass privacy flag labeled "Do Not Track" that corporations can apparently ignore at will?
Newsflash: this is not a indication that Google is doing things the right way. This means Do Not Track needs to be fixed.
Lots of people act dumb and don't die.
Not the original poster, but yet again, the propensity of any given person (you, me, this guy in Brooklyn) to act dumb and do really stupid things should be proportionally inverse to their ability or desire to engage in activities that can hurt themselves and/or others.
Hairyfeet is 100% correct, and what I am most thankful for out of this completely avoidable tragedy is that no innocent bystanders got hurt with this guy.
Yes, we can all die in the next minute, but if a person dies while doing something completely forseeable and avoidable such as driving drunk, juggling running chainsaws, or doing stunts with remote control helicopters right over your own head, there is no guilt on anyone else's part, and there is very little sympathy, except for the people that person left behind that have to deal with the aftermath.
"William Lowell Putnam III says his family has identified with the cause of African American rights, and thus an asteroid named after Trayvon Martin is perfectly appropriate."
So a teenager whom a jury said was shot in self-defense (or there was no convincing evidence otherwise) is perfectly appropriate? Might as well name the asteroid "Al Sharpton".
How about a black scientist, like George Washington Carver? Or Mae Jemison or Guion Bluford, since this is space and asteroids we're talking about? Maybe a Rosa or a Frederick or a W.E.B. might have done a thing or two for civil rights and African Americans?
“As I see it, the social fairness showed to Trayvon Martin was very sadly lacking.”
Oh, I don't know, dominating the cable news cycle for months on end, hundreds of thousands of people taking selfies wearing hoodies and national black leaders/celebrities calling for a Double Jeopardy trial and/or punishment for George Zimmerman seems to show some kind of social backing.
Why don't we start enshrining every person that gets shot in a bar fight next?
US Deaths caused by illicit drug overdose - ~5,000 per year
WAR ON DRUGS!!!!
US Deaths caused by terrorists - 3000, twelve years ago
WAR ON TERROR!!!!
US Deaths caused by hacking - 1 (and that one by "friendly fire", sorry Aaron Schwartz)
WAR ON HACKING!!!!
US Deaths caused by automobile accidents - 30,000 per year
We'll get back to you on that.
(admittedly not a fair or entirely accurate comparison... but it does say something about America's priorities.)
Are you from the United States? If you don't think there isn't a War on Motorists out there (ostensibly for the safety of the children! but also to increase the local government revenue), you haven't been paying any attention at all.
RIPD is Bleach with a Western perspective. I dunno at the specifics, but that's exactly what the marketing made it out to be. The difference between why Bleach has hooked millions of kids and teenagers worldwide and RIPD is failing is twofold:
1) Bleach has teenagers as the main characters. The Star Trek reboot understands this. If you want to capture the core summer blockbuster audience, it helps to cater and relate to the core audience. Ryan Reynolds does not count. Jeff Bridges sure as hell doesn't count.
2) With Bleach, the cops / Soul Reapers have crazy unique powers like the X-Men. Incidentally, the X-Men movies have done well at the box office, even the crappy Last Stand. The power reveals are half the damn fun. In the trailers for RIPD, Jeff Bridges and Ryan Reynolds get to shoot stuff with guns. Woot.
But why chase after a complicated case involving an obscure amendment when there's a simple one available? Americans generally understand that political speech is protected by the 1st amendment. Point out that monitoring makes that impossible, and you're done, in a way that's very easy to explain to people--and therefore rally support around.
Yes, but it's not entirely clear that "monitoring makes that impossible". For example, as long as the government doesn't interfere with a political rally, can you really show harm to 1st Amendment rights by the mere fact that the government databased everyone who attended? It would seem that a 4th Amendment challenge would be much more clearcut.
To further extend the analogy, I'm in favor of responsible gun control that doesn't infringe on 2nd Amendment rights - including comprehensive databases on gun ownership for criminal tracing and background checks. Unless you really believe the nutball theory that evil UN men in black will use those databases to swoop in and start confiscating guns indiscriminately then it's pretty implausible that holding gun sellers and owners accountable would violate anyone's rights.
I am not amazed a white guy got off on a shooting charge of killing a black man. There is a long history of it, both in the US and elsewhere.
Yeah, no kidding!! Oh, wait. Zimmerman's Hispanic. Maybe you should read up on the actual facts of the case, not what NBC is trying to sell you.
The shots stopped the situation. If she had killed him, that would have stopped it too, but the shots stopped it dead. So why is a warning shot always a bad thing? You can scare an attacker off without killing them, often they will fear the shots are drawing police and other attention, and will flee. If it stops the situation and you have reason to use deadly force to stop the situation, then why not warn without killing?
There is only one reason recognized by the law to use deadly force: if you are in fear of immediate death or serious bodily harm to you or others. Not in the next minute. Not in the next hour. Now. In most situations, firing a warning shot means you have time to verbally warn an attacker, or otherwise try to reason with them to desist without pulling the trigger. And that is how it should be. In some states, you are allowed to brandish your weapon in "self-defense" with the express purpose of terminating an escalating confrontation, where you are not in immediate fear for your life but are being interfered with. Not sure it is universal, but I would bet it wouldn't be so. See my above post in response to someone else where NYC police shot 9 bystanders in addition to a criminal. And they weren't firing "warning shots", which intentionally are being shot somewhere else that you're not aiming at.
>You really have a criminal code where it is illegal to shoot warning shots without intended those shots to penetrate the person you are warning?
If this makes sense to you I am glad I live elsewhere.
It only makes sense to those who have very little value for human life.
It makes perfect sense to anyone who is grounded in the reality of physics. Every time you shoot a high velocity dense metal bullet, it goes somewhere. There was a recent shooting in New York City (revenge for some slight, google it) out in broad daylight. The cops who responded to the scene weren't even attempting "warning shots" and they still managed to hit multiple bystanders unintentionally, actually shooting more people than the real criminal.
Of course, if you're an anti-firearm liberal living in fantasyland, then yes... I suppose warning shots makes perfect sense, since confrontations are essentially Aaron Sorkin scripts to teach us life lessons, not unpredictable chaos.
I hope he's right about that. I suspect he may have thought that the last time.
Overthrowing dictators is always a good thing, but I consider it a tossup at best as to whether the new leadership actually wants to rule democratically. Egyptians voluntarily elected an Islamist party last time, and even if the Muslim Brotherhood is out, Islamist sentiments remain. I will hope for better, but I'll believe it when I see it.
I always want to throw up when I see sentiments like this. Egyptians ONLY voluntarily elected an Islamist party the last time because (insert crappy dichotomy) the OTHER choice was to elect a stooge of the outgoing dictatorship that they just spent blood, sweat, and tears to oust.
Go figure, Wolf #2 turns out to be just as bad as Wolf #1, and Egyptians turn out in the millions in the street again to protest Morsi. Now, that's not to say a sizeable minority of Egypt would like their freedoms to be bent over under Sharia rule, but there's also a sizeable minority in the US that would base the government on Old Testament law given the chance.