This seems to be the attitude of the Roman government for a couple hundred years before the complete collapse of their nation. Then they started thinking that little things like the basic needs of the majority didn't really matter so much, and there was a revolution. America has gotten there a lot faster than Rome did. Maybe they will get to the next couple steps faster, too.

And by diverse you mean...everyone has to agree with everyone else.

As a general rule, I don't put up with intolerance, but I'm not saying I agree with his political choices, but I think he just might be able to separate his personal opinions from his work.

Also, he's in his fifties - his view is held by almost half the people in his demographic. Should they all be banned from leadership roles? A more reasonable idea might be to just wait for those who don't like the modern state of things to die off. It's a typical part of the process for a lot of social change. This will barely be an issue in a generation, although I can appreciate the discomfort this causes for everyone involved in the process.

You're looking at it from the wrong perspective. So are the people you're commenting about. Those who don't value interpersonal interaction (or haven't had it significantly hurt their career) see someone promoting something that holds little value for them. "It's all just marketing and bullshit actions to make the other person have better feelings about working with you. There's nothing of practical value here!" Then you come along and say, "What do you mean? Why all the hate?! She has a bunch of tools to help you get along better with other, diverse people." And the nerdy types respond with, "Exactly!"

I certainly see value in what she's presenting. But on a website made for people who count non-technical stuff as not "stuff that matters", she will get a cool reception. This can't be surprising. Certainly, once some of these people have been negatively impacted due to their behaviour (and they recognize it), or moved to a position where they have to deal with diverse types of people (management or hell, which are often thought of as the same thing), their perspective may change. Until then, this will be the typical response.

Do a little research. Watch 6 hours of the Kardashian family, and you will have it made. If the DM disagrees with your actions, say, "But I'm so pretty! Don't you want to be my friend?" If that doesn't work, say, "I have a Charisma of 23. I'm so pretty! Don't you want to be my friend?" At this point, he will either give in, or you will have a chance to sell your obviously useless equipment and buy a castle somewhere.

I get that you're joking, but this is pretty much how the world works sometimes. It seems that a pile of cash, some marketing, and the resultant celebrity status can take someone with a Cha of 15 (or less!) and give them a modified Cha of 20.

First, if this is going to be at all successful, the implementers are going to watch, and see what happens with the system in real-world use. Unless they happened on the perfect system right at the gate, there will be room for improvement. Second, they may have more than one category, not visible to the user. Maybe "complainers" (people who always report on people who kill them) and "bullies" (campers and griefers) will both get a red rating over time. (Yes, the guy who responds to everyone who's better than him by labeling him a cheater is a bad actor, just of a different style than the bully.) And if they're put in different categories, then you'll have a bunch of red guys who all happen to be complainers accusing each other of having nice aimbots and another bunch of guys saying "fuck you!" when someone kills them and hunting each other down for the rest of the session. Couple this with a little bit of trust management, where the opinions of people who are higher in your levels of trust will make their opinions carry more weight for your experience, and therefore who you're likely to be playing with. I don't need to know someone very well to decide that I think they're a bit of a dick, and a good game will keep us separate just to make everyone's experience better. And my opinion might be shared by my friends for a number of reasons, some of them valid.

Really, you're thinking about this too simplistically. Most of these games aren't some seasonal league where you have to play a bunch of the other teams to see who's the best, and the people who want to play will generally be enough that you can use some discrimination in your grouping to keep conflicting personalities apart without diminishing gameplay for anyone, let alone the good actors.

That doesn't appear to be the case in Canada. Last I heard, no mass John Doe subpoenas based on IP addresses, no cases with multiple defendants whose only connection is being caught by the same dragnet, and a maximum fine of $500 for any amount of non-commercial pirating, per case. This means that most IP lawyers will be taking a massive pay cut to even look at these cases. If the defendant stalls at all, they'll take a loss. And so there just isn't a lot of court cases for music and video piracy in Canada. Sure, we pay a percentage (about 10%, I think) on media prices to not have to put up with these lawsuits. It's been a couple years since I paid anything (haven't bought any media for a while), and I've never paid more than what I pay to go to the theatre every year. The people have won, and the lawyers have lost. It's pretty nice, actually.

Yes, we still have to keep on our toes, lest the politicians try to screw us over once again. But that's a better position than many other countries are in.

The far better system is to have someone trained and (over time) experienced with the system and have the customer see a copy of the screen so they can review what the order says. This is a small cost increase, and will reduce the high level of errors with outliers like yourself, and also help reduce the level of errors with people who tend to buy the standard stuff ("I wanted [no] cheese on that burger..."). It will also have the benefit of bypassing issues like non-payment (also solved for automated systems) and returns (EVERY return in the food industry is a loss in profit, if not a complete loss).

And what you will see is that you pay about 100 times what you paid before and a semi truck pulls up to your house rather than a mini-van. Because you pay per piece (with possible bulk reductions) for material objects. But that's not the deal that Comcast and AT&T have made with their customers.

You're completely correct. And I, not being a design specialist, can look at the Fluke design and make about 10 different variants that wouldn't match their designs while still using just grey and yellow. Seriously, just reversing the colors probably would have bypassed the trade dress requirements. If not, any number of different options could have been used. Having looked at images of the devices in question, it's clear they're trying to mimic Fluke's trade dress.

Whether you agree with trade dress or not, it's obvious that the Chinese version is trying to mimic, probably to mislead potential buyers. The effort to make a reasonably standard design of their own, with standard safety colors (which doesn't include grey), would have been a minimal effort.

They've been dead here for 5 or 10 years. Before that, they were the norm. With banks that had a stated focus on customer service, if you didn't fill one out, they would and have you sign it.

I personally wouldn't mind having a proctologist who can get in and out without my noticing. "Alright, drop your drawers, tuck up your knees...and we're done!" This idea should be promoted!

And all that said, the current system is designed to condone and promote abuse of prisoners, whether they are in the category you believe can't be rehabilitated or not. Unless your premise is that prison is primarily for punishment in those situations, and not for the protection of society, there is no need or benefit for this attitude. The article's author merely takes it to extremes.

You're also missing the component of rehabilitation for the minor offenders. If you like revolving-door imprisonment, forget about rehabilitation. If you want to slow down the revolving door, increase the terms. But it still seems like a better alternative would be to get the people to not want to bother breaking the law again. It seems that both the US and Canada (and others, I'm sure) consistently fail in that category.

Go shopping in China, enjoy the additional benefit of knockoffs with the competitor name already glued on.

And how is it not a failure to barely even tap the potential of on of their students? Not helping the gifted to do their best is as much of a travesty as not helping the poorest student do his best, however poor it is.