286; 2MB RAM; 40MB HD; DR-DOS. Played Commander Keen pretty well.
286; 2MB RAM; 40MB HD; DR-DOS. Played Commander Keen pretty well.
"but we cannot and will not participate in a community that encourages abusers to totally destroy people's careers for personal or ideological reasons."
The facts of life are the people with the money get to pick their workers, and even if those people quit there are plenty of people who can replace them. And those people will be less likely to try to hold their employer hostage with the threat of quitting and draining the company of intellectual property.
The best course of action would be to let these people go (even if they're right) - they are not the people you want working at your company. Sure, it might take six months to get back up to speed, but it is worth it to get rid of those people.
...then you're already too late.
... replying to questions and comments that were never stated.
Seriously, how do you even get funding for this?
"I need money and time to research whether cannibals just eat people because coconuts are in short supply."
"Did someone say they did?"
"Sure. I've definitely heard that claim being made. Think I read it in a text book."
This is straw man research at it's best. Come up with an arbitrary claim and test it. It is crap published simply because you need to keep publishing to keep your position, and it takes money and time away from real, useful, research.
To get a PhD you need to show your research is: A) new; b) substantial; and C) useful. While this research may be new, it hardly satisfies the other two criteria. I would suggest that perhaps our peer review system starts valuing the qualities B and C more. Not so much as is required for a PhD, but certainly more than this.
So this is definitely inconvenient. Now, that's out of the way lets put this in perspective. You're not losing your PhD project, or mission critical data. Your losing some save data if, just if, there is a problem with that part of the system. This shouldn't be a deal breaker unless there are reports of this becoming a widespread problem. But again, the real problem there is that they sold you a faulty product, and not that you lost some game progress.
I always thought that. But, when I see videos of jaguars attacking caimans and mongooses and honeybadgers attacking cobras and mambas, I start to realise how adept mammals are at killing. I think we over identify with some of our most lethal cousins. Just because I'm a mammal and I'm not a killing machine doesn't mean a cheetah or wolf pack isn't totally bad ass. WAY more scary than a velociraptor - https://upload.wikimedia.org/w...
Because windows uses a one size fits all approach, where this program knows that it is specifically dealing only with websites and media modules, and acts accordingly.
A personal note: I switched to Opera about 8 months ago. Doing my dissertation I would have many, many tabs open concurrently, and really started to notice the memory issues that Chrome has. Since switching I have been really happy with Opera and it is now my main browser. It supports all my usual extensions OOTB and is responsive. I still have Chrome. Firefox and Edge for the same reasons that everyone has, but Opera is fantastic.
Try estimating the cost of a 4C rise in global temperatures.
I suspect there will be a spike in Opera usage in Australia. Opera's built in VPN is about as easy as it gets - when you're dealing with seniors and idiots you need a one button VPN solution because even those people want their GoT.
It should be pointed out that hawkish behaviour under the Bush regime meant a LOT of people didn't survive the Bush regime (literally bombed and shot to death). While American's have been concerned with talk of Mexican Walls and grabbing women inappropriately, the rest of the world has been gravely worried about the potential dismantling of major world alliances and free trade deals, and the potential for nuclear proliferation.
People in the US need to realise that US guns in US hands kill a LOT of people around the world.
Where can I find one of these elusive $4 coin?
In a facetious sense, yep.
Realistically, if an American wants education, they can get it. Further, if I want to educate Americans (I'm not one) then I can travel to your country, stand on the corner and shout obscenities about Trump, Clinton, Obama... whoever.
The NKs have no access to media outside the country, low education prospects. People can't easily get information to them. The risk of having a contrary opinion is death, as is the risk of espousing it.
That being said, as a non-American, I think Americans are particularly poorly educated in global affairs. But then again, I could have sample bias - my academic background is international relations.
I still think it is more complex than you're giving it credit. For example, The Glorious Leader is a bad guy - he's really responsible. And he tells the general's what to do, so they're responsible.
Lets use one of them as an example, say the minister for corrective services. He's responsible for the people tortured and killed in prison camps. Right? He tells the directors of the prisons what to do, so they're responsible. But they may not be the one's who are ordering all the people tortured and killed, so they're less responsible. What about the grounds keepers, janitors, secretaries, guards? Without them the prison might shut down - so they're all responsible. But not as responsible as the prison director. And definitely not as responsible as a general or minister. But they're a bit responsible.
What about the apartment full of people who didn't fight back against the secret police when they were arresting the guy unfairly? Are they responsible?
What about the US - the global hegemon, who could fly planes in an topple the regime? Surely they're the global leadership, so this moral duty would fall to them.
Or China, the dominant regional power?
Or the UN with the UNSC? They sent forces into Iraq claiming the presence of WMDs that didn't exist. Surely they have a responsibility based on precedent to topple North Korea? Are they the global leadership and therefore morally responsible.
Or how about the liberal democratic theory that people have moral equivalence and the right to self determination? That would mean that the leadership is only in power because they let it be. Are the people then responsible and the leaders of the republic?
I think leadership here is a very nebulous concept. Hannah Arendt covered this very well in Eichmann in Jerusalem. These arguments are nothing new. They were the same ones that confronted the Nuremburg trials when they were hanging people. How do you measure how responsible a person is? Where do you draw the 'leadership' line?
Actually, it is more likely a combination of both, but not in the way you think. I can think of a number of effects at play
Firstly, we know that Nazi's used Jews as guards and administrators in the death camps. Why'd they do it? Fear of individual persecution, and a desire to achieve a better circumstance. In situations like this it makes sense to sell out your neighbour for personal gain. I guess you'd call it a combination of greed and fear.
Secondly, there is the fact that they live in a controlling regime that makes dissent very difficult. Specifically you should google the Hawthorne effect. Basically, if there is a chance you're under surveillance then you alter your behaviour accordingly. They government tries to either achieve of implement panopticism (google it).
Thirdly, North Korea constitutes what social psychologists and political scientists call 'total instutionalism'. They've been cut off so well (28 websites remember) and so long that they are not only disconnected from the outside world, it doesn't exist to them. I mean, they know it is there, but they know nothing about it. They may never have heard the world revolution.
Fourthly, social facilitation in a police state is completely different than in a liberal democracy. You never know who is going to dob you in.
Finally, there are probably some people who just plain believe the lies. They've grown up with the indoctrination and just buy in.
I think it is a discredit to ourselves to try and say this is just a lazy population or an overbearing dictator. There are a number of complex social psychological phenomenons happening, as well as a totalitarian power structure. The problem is hard to understand. The solution is easy though - great leader will be the first guy with his back against the wall when the revolution comes.
How about this argument:
The entry level SLRs from the big vendors all allow you to use different lenses to effect a change in bokeh. They have higher MP counts. They all export RAWs for better image editing. They are all completely customisable in terms of ISO, aperture and shutter speed. They can all be mounted on standard tripods, dollys, etc... Futher, the experience of shooting through the lens is very different from that of shooting from the back of the camera. Further, there is a range of lens and flash modifiers to a SLR. You can add flashes (as many as you want) in configurations from on-camera, to soft boxes, hot lights, umbrellas, ring-flashes. Additionally, you can use Cokin type filters to adjust the image coming into the camera with star-filters, graduated neutral density filters, UV filters, circular polarising filters, etc.. If you want to do astro photography you can use a T-mount.
SLRs are ubiquitous not because they have a sensor and a lens, but because they are supported by an ecosystem that makes them the professional's choice.
The only perfect science is hind-sight.