That may be, but it's not a trivial app.
That may be, but it's not a trivial app.
That's a ridiculous delay for any sort of vote coercion to occur.
How is that in any way ridiculous? The whole point of coercion is they come back and punish you if they find out later. If they can find out in 3 years and use it against you, you can still be intimidated. If you vote that way anyway, they'll come and break your kid's legs, and next year you'll know to vote with the thugs (the police aren't exactly going to be guarding you 24/7 for 3 years just in case this happens). Therefore the law must protect anonymity in these records a lot longer than 3 years.
I think what's needed is an alternate way to keep these records, which is both anonymous and non-burdensome to reveal in aggregation. If for whatever reason individual votes are needed, then shuffle them in random order or whatever. Surely this is technically possible? Maybe Kansas fucked up the record-keeping in the past but we can always fix the record-keeping now. Maybe there was fraud in the past that is unprovable, but that doesn't mean we can't put into place measures that prevent future fraud.
If they really wanted to commit fraud, what stops them from sending back false records, rather than sending no records?
Is that actually the case? I thought a big purpose was to avoid voter intimidation by non-governmental vigilantes who oppose a particular candidate.
The employees didn't fire him, so it's just not parallel. It wouldn't be okay if he, as an employee, was fired for a private vote he made, even if it was reprehensible (eg. he was donating to the campaign for the "kill all the 9-year-olds who fail this standardized test" act).
Because marriage was never about the people getting married. It was about the CHILDREN that marriage produced
No, it was usually about the PARENTS of the people getting married. This is also where we get the term elope, by the way.
That is obviously false, since how else do gay "parents" get their children except by divorce, buying them via surrogacy, or adoption?
This is a logical fallacy. Allow me to illustrate. Pretend that search and rescue teams don't exist for a moment.
- People who shipwreck in an ocean usually drown.
Then SUDDENLY ocean search & rescue teams exist, and the people they rescue are no more likely to drown than the general population. This is obviously false, because how else did they get rescued except by shipwreck?
Furthermore, even if true, it's only an argument against surrogacy. You aren't going to reduce divorce or the number of orphans by banning gay marriage. All you're going to reduce is the number of orphans or children with only a single parent. That's *it*.
MANY CHILDREN RAISED BY GAY COUPLES ARE AGAINST GAY MARRIAGE!
This would be more compelling if you had statistics rather than anecdotes.
the LGBT lobby IS "the man" and has been so for quite some time.
WTF? How can you actually believe this?
An entire generation of children bought and sold like cattle via surrogacy, the divorce courts, and adoption.
You are seriously anti-adoption aren't you? What is your recommendation for orphans? And how do you think that gay marriage, abortion, or divorce *in any way* affect adoption rates? Orphans get denied their rights to a mother and father first by *DEATH*.
Denied their right to not be bought and sold like cattle.
What colour is the sky on your planet, where children are "bought and sold like cattle"?
I doubt it. From reading the article, having add-ons able to fuck with Firefox's internal implementation details is exactly the problem they are solving by deprecating the API.
You're giving an explanation of how you don't respect monogamy. Like he said, if you expect it, fine, don't agree to it or negotiate your way out. A unilateral decision is unfair after a bilateral agreement.
Really? I've heard people say literally that. I would say most people don't stick to just one genre but they mostly float in just a few.
Lots of people don't like superhero movies, don't like movies with ambiguous villains and morality, don't like movies with clear villans and black & white morality, don't like arthouse films, don't like mainstream films, don't like character studies, don't like crime dramas...
In books people like romance, or detective, or Science Fiction, or fantasy, or horror, or humour, or comics, or historical fiction, or slice-of-life, or coming-of-age, or a combination of a few of those and others I can't think of at the moment. It always amused me that book genre was frequently defined by setting, whereas setting is considered almost irrelevant to video game genre classification.
Music comes in very clear genres and people very rarely like classical music and hip-hop music and folk music to an equal degree.
I like RPG*, RTS, and Adventure.
*Not Elder-Scrolls or similar. Not most JRPGs, although Chrono Trigger was pretty good and hell, early Sega Master system RPGs were good. RPG is a wide genre that also includes Might & Magic, Ultima, Infinity Engine games and similar-style, Fallouts 1 & 2, Wizardly, Shadowrun Returns, "old-school" RPG, Mass Effect 1 and to a lesser extent 3, etc.. -- this is where the article has a point; RPG is too broad and JRPG and Western RPG doesn't really divide the market correctly in my opinion.
The summary doesn't really match the article. I think the summary is neither common sense, nor public knowledge, nor correct. I think the article is mostly common sense and public knowledge though.
The article says that you can't make a game that appeals broadly to "core gamers" or broadly to "female gamers" because those aren't coherent genres, those are demographics. Of course you can't make a game that all female gamers enjoy, because different female gamers tend to enjoy different kinds of games -- kinds that we broadly group into genres.
Then it discusses MOBA and MMORPG. Maybe I'm out of touch or something but I didn't even know what MOBA is. There's so few of them listed on wikipedia that it's easy to imagine it's not a genre.
MMORPG is the one that's kind of interesting. It makes sense that you can basically only play 1 time-consuming MMORPG at a time, but the idea that, if WoW goes away tomorrow, its fans will not even seek a similar replacement is kind of interesting.
But the fact that I like single-player RPGs, mostly-single-player RTS, and Adventure games isn't nonexistent from a marketing standpoint, not like "core gamers" or "female gamers" is. Although at the same time, popular RPGs include Elder Scrolls games and Final Fantasy games, both of which I find terribly boring -- I consider that a problem of that genre label being a little overbroad.
I think when people are talking about corporations being shortsighted, they aren't talking about corporations failing to plan ahead, they are talking about corporations taking actions that clearly damage their own future potential. Linus taking Linux day by day, or in 6-month sprints, or whatever, isn't really the same thing because that doesn't hinder Linux's ability to compete. At worst, it helps it sub-optimally. This as opposed to killing your most profitable product line, or laying off the people who work on your next product instead of the people who sell last year's product, etc..
It would surprise me though if he doesn't have at least some long-term goals that take over 6 months to complete and that he's not focussed on working on right now but has in his back-pocket, but maybe he really doesn't.
I also think the statement about corporate shortsightedness is somewhat overused, although not entirely without merit. When somebody says something like that, I sometimes click on their posting history to see if they also make claims like "big Pharma will never release cures because palliative care is more profitable" and the like to help me determine if they're logically consistent and therefore might be worth paying attention to, or just reflexively take anti-corporate positions (likewise for pro-corporate positions). And yes, I know they could believe that all corporations *except* big Pharma are short-sighted.
One possible mercenary reason: because their consumers will blame them if the Internet fucks up, even if it's not their fault. Therefore it behooves them to ensure that the Internet keeps working without a major incident.
When I said "how is data that is gathered from telescopes on Mars materially more interesting on Mars? "I meant "how is data that is gathered from telescopes on Mars materially more interesting than data gathered on Earth"?
Aside from avoiding interference (which the dark side of the moon does better because the *same half* is always facing away from Earth), and of course looking at Mars itself and maybe its moons, how is data that is gathered from telescopes on Mars materially more interesting on Mars? Slightly better parallax data?
Consider the point you're making. You believe that having a book that explains things using only the 1000 most commonly-used English words causes falsified scientific results and non-entertaining TV debates.
Can the hyperbole. You could make an argument that such negligence justifies expulsion, but you're just embarrassing yourself when you claim "thinks denying the right of teacher to feed her family is funny".
We all know the kid didn't write this tweet thinking "haHA, this will bring my teacher up on sexual harassment charges!", nor was it materially likely to happen. Just like your "Eat Locals!" signature isn't going to get you accused of cannibalism.
Disciplinary action is appropriate. I'd have gone with a short suspension. Expulsion seems very extreme to me, although the teacher herself might be able to bring a minor civil suit depending on the exact circumstances, and I can imagine the parents might have acceded to the transfer in lieu of a lawsuit.
You're better than the guy claiming this was an attempted kidnapping, except I'm pretty sure that guy's a troll and that you're serious.
Statistics means never having to say you're certain.