I found The Hawkeye Initiative to be a pretty hilarious response to this issue (more geared towards representation in comics), not sure many people know about it. http://thehawkeyeinitiative.com/
There's actually a TED talk with a group of freeform jazz performers explaining something similar to this called "There are no mistakes on the bandstand":
Shows how even when you do something against the rules / on your own, you still need to remember you're part of a bigger unit.
I agree that people should know when to and how much they can break the rules and it takes experience to know that. But, I feel like you have to make mistakes to get that experience, and that there should be some room for experimentation and failure for those willing to take these risks.
Wow... Embarrassing that this guy was ever charged in the first place. I thought it was some kind of joke when reading the title or that there was more to it, but nope, that pretty much sums it up, chalk. :|
This is like saying "I take it you've never been shot", like knife stick or gun is the only other option. xD
Do you really think they would have subdued the (already held down by 5 officers) kid asking John Kerry uncomfortable questions with a knife stick if they didn't have tasers?
I think the resolution and real-time power of government satellites and the commercial satellites they have access to is debatable unless you've actually seen it. I recently had to look into this and was pretty surprised at the level of sophistication that's commercially available.
"And what kind of intelligence do you think they have?" With the massive amount of data gathering combined with information from satellites (that we know about) like these, who knows...
It's also sad to see the immediate dismissal of alternate story lines even after this discovery.
A conspiracy was just uncovered... and we're concerned about conspiracy-theorizing? The word itself has been dragged through the mud to the point of becoming a dismissing scare tactic, it basically translates to "crazy person, crazy ideas".
Basically, if your story doesn't match the official conspiracy theory given by the government and the companies that work for it, then you must be a conspiracy theorist...
This would be fine if many prisons were not privately owned entities and if most inmates were not overly sentenced for minor drug charges.
We also have a growing incarceration rate (U.S), which shows that prison does a pretty poor job of making people "scared absolutely shitless of prison so much that they play exactly by the rules" and don't forget, sometimes the rules are pretty ridiculous.
Also "...individuals that would love to sit around with a bunch of other lazy-asses and be fed 3 meals a day. For free." is already the reality of the situation in many cases.
It's not a choice between the scariest most brutal situation you can imagine or no prison at all. There are other options to make a better system. And in general, a society shouldn't have to be scared into "playing by the rules".
"All this is to say that the promises execs make on acquisitions are meaningless."
Well yeah, all promises are meaningless. Were any of these promises in writing as part of the acquisition? I mean are they legally bound to comply? If not, why would you expect to have any control over operations and decisions, regardless of your title, after being acquired? It's not your company anymore...
Also there's no detailed information about the meeting itself to show us how you came to that conclusion however true it is. I'm guessing they wouldn't listen to your advice, but again why would you expect them to?
Might not be the age, but the general mystery, undiscovered value and permanent loss of human history.
I mean, yes we tear down and rebuild buildings all the time, but no one is re-building these temples. Once it's gone no one is even thinking about building such a structure again because what purpose would it have? We barely even know the original function of a lot of ancient sites.
This is why I think there's more of an emotional reaction to ancient sites being destroyed, it's an unrecoverable piece of history that possibly hasn't even been fully understood.
It's a loss that can not be restored or studied further.
At the end of the day we don't really know how much value was lost, what was overlooked when the site was first discovered, etc.
Drag and drop. When I drag an icon to a location and I miss, I think it's better to see the item animate back to it's original location rather than just disappear and "pop" back.
Having it animate back is just better communication for that particular interface.
You can see this on Google Chromes new tab "Most Visited" page, drag an item and let it go on nothing, it will animate back to its position.
Then there's sorting, it's much better (to me) when the interface animates to show you what the effect of moving one item to a new location will have on the rest of the items in that list, you can see this effect on sites like Trello when you drag around cards, etc.
I'm sure there are more examples of good uses of animation in interfaces.
Great, as if people walking around talking to "no one" wasn't bad enough, now people will be randomly grabbing at air and twitching their eyes. How are we supposed to separate the crazy people from the sane?! And the real question here, who's going to be the first person to accidentally pinch their friends nose when trying to zoom? How will we recover from such embarrassment? Is it in the warranty?!
On the other hand this does look interesting, I wonder if you could use this to "select" things in the world like "click/point to" a restaurant sign to learn more.
"as of late"? Feels like the lack of checks and balances on the police has been going on for a while.
It's only when something major happens that people take notice, like someone putting together this report, now all of a sudden it's a new trend that's way to prevalent as of late. :P
To be fair, it was a giant yellow box that gave an explanation of the words "sponsor content" when you hovered over it. Also the box isn't always yellow or that big, sometimes it's light tan, small and blends into the page; so they at least attempted to make it more noticeable in this instance. Not saying they should have put the ad up, for obvious reasons, but people need to pay attention to what they're reading as well.
Pop Up Message: "Sponsor content is created by The Atlantic’s Promotions Department in partnership with our advertisers. The Atlantic editorial team is not involved in the creation of this content. Email [email protected] to learn more."
I wonder if this would have even been an issue if it wasn't an article about Scientology, especially since this style of advertising has been happening on that site for at least the last two years and elsewhere since newspapers have been in existence.
Didn't he also publicly release nude photos of her and three other women? Still maybe a bit extreme on the sentence, but it wasn't just "reading e-mail".
Maybe it's just me, but the photo itself looks very fake, specifically John McAfee, more specifically his head and the lighting. Why is his head distorted/skewed (on his left eye area, as if from the lens) when the other guys head isn't. There are way better compositors where I work, oh well maybe he just has a crooked smile/face. :P
Some of those "hobbyists" at Copenhagen Suborbitals are former NASA contractors and they have been working on that project since May 2008, so I think his main point still stands.
It also looks like they're still doing a lot of testing on active guidance systems, rather than trying to put a human up any time soon.
I don't like this argument because you can replace "drugs" with anything a government decides to make illegal. If a product or service is made illegal and there's still a demand, it will be sold on the black market and everyone knows what that funds.
The people who created laws that pushed these "drugs" into the black market knew this too and they also had a choice; collect the money themselves through taxes and use it as they see fit (probably to, I don't know, reduce drug use) or keep funding these kinds of activities.
Obviously if all/some drugs were legalized they'd find something else to sell, but why make it easy for them by giving them total monopoly over some of the most sought after substances on earth, with an endless supply of customers, some who are legitimately in need.
Also, when it comes to legalization vs "getting everyone in America to stop buying drugs", I think legalization is a lot more realistic.
P.S. I know one sure fire way to make sure it's home-sourced, unfortunately I can't do that because it carries some risk, jail.
------
Hearing a disturbance, the master programmer went into the novice's cubicle.
"Curse these search engines!" cried the novice in anger, "To find anything I must scroll through three or even four pages of results.
Sometimes I get so confused that I just give up. This is truly intolerable!"
The master programmer stared at the novice. "And what would you do to remedy this state of affairs?" he asked.
The novice thought for a moment. "I will design a new search engine," he said, "a search engine that will replace all these others."
Suddenly the master struck the novice on the side of his head. It was not a heavy blow, but the novice was nonetheless surprised.
"What did you do that for?" exclaimed the novice.
"I have no wish learn another search engine," said the master.
The novice packed his bags, left and went on to create Google, which gives him exactly the results he's looking for.
While his former master was left sifting through multiple pages of results on (insert other search engine here).
One day the master stumbled upon Google and the master was enlightened.