Can we get verification on this? The CNN story doesn't so much as contain a picture of the flier, let alone corroboration that these were really distributed by ISIS. Is this like how, a few weeks ago, they were incorrectly accused of performing FGM? If this one is accurate, we should be able to get some evidence, if not necessarily proof...
WTF does that even mean?
It means whoever wrote this doesn't know what "times" means.
He also thinks the technology underpinning games matters less than ever. Romero says high poly counts and new shaders are a distraction from what's important: good game design. "Look at Minecraft – it's unbelievable that it was made by one person, right? And it shows there's plenty of room for something that will innovate and change the whole industry. If some brilliant designers take the lessons of Minecraft, take the idea of creation and playing with an environment, and try to work out what the next version of that is, and then if other people start refining that, it'll take Minecraft to an area where it will become a real genre, the creation game genre."
Your solution is....extreme. Sometimes, I want to watch the video. Chome lets you set plug-in exceptions on a per-site basis, but it is buried away. (chrome://settings->Show advanced settings->Privacy->Content-settings->plugins->Manage Exceptions...)
just add [*.]cnn.com as an exception with "ask" as the new default. I imagine you could do the same to facebook. Now, instead of an autoplay video, you get a nice grey box that you can click, if YOU decide you want to watch the video.
As a black "nerd", I'm only offended that you were marked as a troll - as I share your opinion of the show.
Asking a slashdotter for his insights about women is like asking a Mormon about his favorite microbrews.
I'm Mormon, and I'll have you know that I have very strong opinions about which local microbrew has the best root beer, you insensitive clod!
You'd fail law school. 10th amendment is an throw away amendment that holds no legal meaning or legal standard. It's used today to galvanize the states rights / confederate base but there is no sound legal jurisprudence that has ever been accepted by the Supreme Court.
I have a JD and a Texas bar card that say otherwise.
You're thinking of the Articles of Confederacy, which preceded the Constitution. Study your history.
No, you're thinking of some government that you just made up. Go read the Constitution, especially the 10th Amendment. The states wanted to make it very clear that they were giving the federal government only specific, enumerated powers. Then FDR told the court where it could stick its Constitution (as the GP said) and told them that if they didn't back down, he would stack the court with yes-men who would give him his way. The court backed down, and the result was 75 years of the federal government encroaching into everyday life until you couldn't buy a shower head without Uncle Sam's permission, and people like you who don't even realize anymore that it was supposed to be a government of specific, enumerated powers.
Those mistakes will lead to lawsuits. You were injured when a vehicle manufactured by "Artificially Intelligent Motors, inc (AIM, inc)" hit you by "choice". That "choice" was programmed into that vehicle at the demand of "AIM, inc" management. So no. No company would take that risk. And anyone stupid enough to try would not write perfect code and would be sued out of existence after their first patch.
What will happen is that the manufacturers will lobby for a statutory "safe harbor." The legislature will make the ethical decisions in advance, or provide a menu of "safe" ethical options. And the manufacturer will be statutorily immune from lawsuits as long as they have followed those safe harbor guidelines. This is a good thing in theory, as it permits the technology to progress, where lawsuits would otherwise eliminate it. So don't worry about the manufacturers. What you should worry about is that those clowns in Washington, D.C.* will be selling off their "ethics" decisions under the table in exchange for cushy corner-office jobs with AIM, Inc. after they retire from public office.
*Yes, it will inevitably be a federal law, though just as inevitably, California will have some granola-munching variant that requires autonomous cars operating in California to place a super-premium on the lives of endangered salamanders or something.
You might want to read more of her stuff before you dismiss her. She's primarily using the analysis of trolls, as examples of bad behavior, to study what our culture considers good behavior, and the boundaries thereof. She asks questions like "why is it okay for Fox News to sensationalize tragic events for their own profit, but not okay for a troll to amuse himself doing the same?", or "what are the boundaries between dialogue, critique, trolling, and harassment?" She treats trolls as a symptom of a culture that permits (and sometimes encourages) the behavior. Not because we're "bad" as a culture, but because sometimes our values and attributes (free speech, devil's advocate, macho, narcissism, etc.) sometimes intersect in odd ways. I've not seen her claim that things are now worse than ever before, nor that anonymity has anything to do with it, nor that "online"-ness is even particularly important -- this is just an entry-point to a wider field of study about cultural norms and how/when we break/bend them.