bluedanieru

You misunderstand the purpose of voting. It's not so that the people can choose the government they are subject to (that would be nice, but in practice it's difficult or impossible to implement). Rather, it's to serve as a check on tyranny.

Tell that to the executive (and Congress, for that matter). they could use a good chuckle.

Even US citizens traveling outside the country, and especially residing outside the country, are on thin fucking ice. No, the US government does not consider itself beholden to any laws when operating on foreign soil. It also doesn't really define any criteria that when met allow it to operate on foreign soil in the first place. As such, you are, in essence, right now a subject of a global American Empire under which you have no rights - not even a right to life or property.

How important that point is depends on how much range affects viability as opposed to the cost of the vehicle itself. Electric cars are rather expensive I guess, but few people are going to make the switch to cheaper cars if they only have a range of 20km.

But, then they can't push their agenda with loaded language! Did you consider that?

Everybody knows diamonds are worthless rocks priced in blood. The reason they retain the status they have is your girlfriend doesn't give a shit.

Take note: this kind of thinking is what being purely an "ideas guy" leads to.

Eh, that quote from a year ago isn't entirely clear on how they will look for a new job. I'm sure if the implications of the AI behavior were clear then, there would have been at least some raised eyebrows.

Haven't they been been posting pretty shitty quarterly statements for a few years now? They have a lot of money in the bank, so to speak, I'm sure, but it will catch up with them eventually.

There is definitely a cost but it's hard to calculate so it gets ignored. Certainly the rise of indie game developers has been aided in part by the continuing fuck-ups of AAA publishers, though.

I upvoted this. Yes, if :-)

Large corporations are rarely driven by profit, but rather petty political bullshit and personal crusades.

Because if your whole idea of what civilization is, is a bunch of bullshit rules enforced under the threat of violence, then I find it hard to imagine you're anything but an anarchist. Or a petulant child. Or both.

They knew exactly how many users to expect, I'm sure. But you aren't going to pay for a solution to handle all of them when you expect the demand to taper off after a few days.

Do you think you would fare well under an anarchy?

The derived market valuation of the commodity at that price in whatever reference currency you choose, of course.

This is the standard argument against affirmative action as well. Of course affirmative action is more about addressing pay inequality and discriminatory hiring practices, while the focus of this post is more around changing cultural attitudes toward certain activities. Is it possible to separate the two? That is, to have laws in place which will address the historical wrongs while simultaneously building a culture of inclusion?

And of course, the argument for continuing to do this inclusive workshop bullshit (you can tell I'm sympathetic to the author's point), is that while the gender bias persists active effort must be taken against it. So, how do you know when you're done? And, how do you measure your progress? No one answers these questions.

No shit. And let's quit going along with the fiction that the online requirement was for any other purpose.

This isn't a bad thing. EA should fire all it's developers, designers, sales people, management, liquidate its assets and distribute the proceeds to its shareholders, and quietly go out of business.

Really, the tech guys that got laid off will almost certainly go to find better jobs. Almost by definition, since they won't be making games at EA anymore.

Fought and lost.

I agree with you in principle but I will suggest that titles which are overly-burdened with bullshit DRM will tend to be less important to the cultural record. I think that's the case here.

>Brewster Kahle at archive.org gives his employees the option to be paid in bitcoin received by the site.

That's pretty cool actually, although personally I wouldn't do it. Hope to see more of that.

>Bitcoin has proven to be an excellent tool for buying low, waiting for a price rise, trading some of the bitcoin for gold, selling some of the gold and buying more bitcoin with the proceeds.

This speaks to Bitcoin's utility as an instrument for speculation, not for storing value. If it was a good store of value you would print out your private key and put it in a safety deposit box, confident that whenever you returned to retrieve it, it would represent approximately the same amount of wealth that it did when you left it.

This is most definitely not the case with Bitcoin at all.

>Limitation: I accept the argument that says if they are producing significantly more than they are paid, they will eventually be paid more anyway, so the gain is both temporary and small.

Where the flying fuck have you been for the last 30 years?

More adoption doesn't necessarily mean that. Of players who hold on to Bitcoin for longer than a few minutes, virtually all of them are speculators. If you accept Bitcoin as payment for services, your biggest technical challenge is converting them back into dollars/euros/whatever as quickly as possible. No one is accepting Bitcoin as payment and then holding on to them in order to buy something else or pay their workers.

As a long term (or medium-term anyway) store of value, Bitcoin is really quite useless for the time being.

It shed 25% of its worth just as quickly.

"This time it's different."

Which is what they were doing in the browser case right?

And yes, I do think Windows is still a monopoly. I think its days as such are numbered and I think that is a good thing not just for the PC space but for Microsoft as well (in the long term, at least). But for now, yes, with market share north of 90% they still most definitely qualify as a monopoly.

I agree it isn't fair and I hope that, when Microsoft Windows no longer has monopoly status in the desktop OS market, these onerous regulations are rescinded.

I think what we see here is a case of putting your mouth where your money is.

Bullshit. The Tea Party was swept into power because they had financial backing from rich extremists and mass media support. I'm somewhat sympathetic to the point you're trying to make, but you could not have picked a worse example.

Yes, the Tea Party started out as a grassroots thing, but it was quickly co-opted by the existing power structure and its message lost.

Eh, yeah and that's the correct one. In the interests of brevity I guess I left some ambiguity there in what I meant.