Japanese pilots have demonstrated the ability to fly more than one craft simultaneously while defeating overwhelming odds:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

Upcoming headlines:

"UN Council: I just, like, can't even, China!"
"UN Council: Russia, you're being totally problematic. Not cool!"

In which we recognise the benefit of the bill to society is inversely proportional to how beneficial the name of the bill suggests it is.

This is why a cap can be placed on recoverable fees and has in many parts of the world.

http://www.policyarchive.org/h...

In short, a rich company hoping to scare off litigation by advertising a team of expensive lawyers or an extended litigation period would not be able to as those lawyers would recognise that they would only be able to share in a limited, small pot of cash.

While I am not an expert in the US legal system it seems like having the loser pay the legal bills might reduce some of this predatory litigation.

The question is, how much influence does the US electorate have over this kind of decision? People who rely on winning through bankruptcy are also the people who have the kind of money to lobby to maintain the current system.

A researcher has previously investigated controller-avatar interactions, specifically, if the player (this is video-games related) identifies with their avatar:

"Players do not automatically take on the role of characters/avatars. Playing as a character that is ostensibly “other” to you (in terms of gender, race, or sexuality) is not necessarily transgressive or perspective-altering. Playing as a character that is like you (in terms of demographic categories) does not necessarily engender identification."
"This calls into question both the educative benefits and the marketing benefits of playing as a main video game character that is a member of a marginalized group."

Limitations: Note that the sample for this paper did not involve what the researcher describes as "White male gamer", the researcher draws conclusions from a small sample. Also note that the paper does not seem to be peer reviewed.

Source: http://www.digra.org/wp-conten...

It's not *proof* of anything but it may suggest that VR interactions, like games, do not guarantee any identification between the subject and their avatar. In fact, it may be counter-productive; those who are asked to take part in the intervention/training may ask why it is that they're assumed to be racist.

While I am really only dipping my toe into R I decided to do some research on this question a while back.

I have used python for a number of scientific applications and was attempting to determine if I should use Rpy2 (http://rpy2.bitbucket.org/). It initially made sense to keep all of the data retrieval, formatting and analysis in a few python scripts. However, it seems that the design of the R language intrinsically accounts for the problem solving methodology: "R is designed to operate the way that problems are thought about." (http://www.burns-stat.com/documents/tutorials/why-use-the-r-language/)

I'll hand myself in as one of those disgusting monsters who tries to form an evidence-based opinion.

I'm trying my best to paint anyone who criticises an opinion given by a back person as a racist, a woman as misogynist or a trans person as... anti-trans?
I... I just need to learn to start treating people I don't know as victims who can't survive without my help, especially those who don't want it.

Twitter Launches Church Of We Don't Like Your Opinion So We're Going To Brand You A Troll Council to Help Put End To Hurt Feelings

In the same way we should stop calling terrorists "terrorists" and start calling them morons, we need to stop calling people virgins and start calling them sexually inept.

"In today's news, two morons blew themselves up for the promise of 72 sexually inept women."

Take all of the glory out of it.

Much of the spam I see is Paypal and Facebook. Shouldn't spam filters be image matching logos or looking for company names in an email and verifying the email came from a domain associated with that company?

From what I've saw of them this may be true of some people flying the GamerGate flag but there are people who are vociferously ethics only who don't like all of the identity politics crosstalk.

This is perhaps informative (unless one believes that the majority of the respondents are being disingenuous) http://gamepolitics.com/2015/0...

"I asked my first question, “What is GamerGate?” because that will be asked at the upcoming SPJ AirPlay discussion on August 15 and I wanted to compare answers."

"Their top-voted response explained, “GamerGate is a movement dedicated to fighting for ethics in (gaming) journalism and against censorship and the politicization of (gaming) media and games. It arose after several corruption scandals in the gaming media, attacks on the gamer identity and attempts by the gaming media and ‘cultural critics’ to force a political ideology down the throats of gamers.”"

I guess that there is a chance that a much larger group of people (including international Gamergaters?) that agree with your analysis missed Brad Glasgow's questions but assuming this isn't the case the group consensus seems to be focused on ethics.

Ultimately I accept that people are drawn to the group for different reasons but I think it's reasonable, if one is going to generalise, to look at the majority opinion and use it as a basis of describing the group.

Archive link for those who prefer not to support the reprehensible Gawker: https://archive.is/PP7q2

IMHO Gawker is an absolutely vile clickbait machine that portrays itself as a progressive voice while selling outrage.
It undermines what I consider valid, socially responsible goals by trivialising most of them, generating needless conflict by labelling "bad" people and maintaining a ludicrous left-wing good, right-wing evil narrative. It produces propaganda and hatred for cash.

Nick Denton - the CEO of Gawker - has admitted that the company has a severe empathy problem and tried to relaunch it:
http://www.thewrap.com/nick-de...
http://www.salon.com/2015/07/2...

The problem with journalism is not that one needs an audience, the problem with journalism is that factual reporting is no longer the main goal. Truth is secondary to page-views. Nolan suggests that people are the problem because they won't pay for factual material, http://www.private-eye.co.uk/ demonstrates that one can successfully run a publication that focuses on the pursuit and publication of truth (with a healthy injection of humour).

TFA is an attempt to blame absolutely shitty "journalism" on the audience, what in fact is happening is that those of us who do care about quality journalism recognise Gawker for what it is and don't give it ad-revenue or page-impressions.