fbbbbb

They landed it!!

It doesn't qualify because you said so, really?

This is something else than a joke, because?

Speculation and assertion is not an argument.

If a statement is a joke is not defined whether someone finds it is funny or not, but by its intention. We don't all laught at the same jokes do we? In this case, we don't know the intention behind it, or at least our two comments didn't reveal it.

(It is so sad to see preconditioned impulsive disagreement, just because certain words are discussed from a neutral perspective)

So what do you do when an index into an array is out of bounds at run-time. You can't perform a check every time because that would go against the C's principle, and at the same time it would degrade performance, making it less useful compared to newer languages.

How would you implement defined behavior without a significant (which is what an if check is at that level) overhead in this case?

>reproduce the MIT license alongside your GPLv3 license

The MIT license must be included in the provided software, but it isn't a part of the new license.

One intelligent mind in the combine that is BuzzFeed, doesn't account for the horde of mindless drones who write a huge majority of click-bait material.

I don't see where do you see the support for the idea that their goal is quality articles.

How does that relate to self driving cars?

I agree, minus the ride-sharing part, which will have a very minor share, in numbers compared to taxis and similar. Car is still a necessity in the eyes of an average (first world) human and our individuality will not let us share them.

Articles with lists, are like a self contained series of short clickbait articles.

The request was invalid from the start and OP probably knows it.

FOIA is not used to obtain information contained in the seized material, but information that arose during the investigation. If for some reason, the information created in the investigation contained the actual recording from the album, then you could at least theoretically ask for that information. If not, then there was no information to ask for in the first place.

What can I ask for under the FOIA?

A FOIA request can be made for any agency record. You can also specify the format in which you wish to receive the records (for example, printed or electronic form). The FOIA does not require agencies to create new records or to conduct research, analyze data, or answer questions when responding to requests.

Will be slightly scratched. He used it as a beer coaster. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=upxrrHQ6sXY

Can you share the link and the title of the video? I want to find a mirror.

Too crazy. I can't believe any public person, would say anything like that on record. I wouldn't be surprised if the article was revealed to be fake, but apparently he approved it [0]. So, either the article is real, or this [1] twitter account isn't his, which doesn't seem likely.

This must be a case of damage control [2] going haywire.

[0]:https://twitter.com/MartinShkreli/status/677168810432946176

[1]:https://twitter.com/MartinShkreli/

[2]:http://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/latest-news/466231/Martin-Sh...

The next to last paragraph makes a good point. Currently the state of the game seems to be: we don't care about you, as long as you aren't one of the most immoral actors.

Let's admit it, we just want to see the pictures and compare them to ourselves.

I incorrectly assumed the word coder denotes a male programmer.

The bias is very strong and real.

Anyway, judging from the website, I would say there are only males.

I was mildly surprised when John Carmack retweeted the original tweet. https://twitter.com/smashingmag/status/675624576630571009

The state of the image (jpeg artifacts), was a dead giveaway that the comparison is worthless.

Yes, the article is essentially quote mining the movies.

It is becoming more and more current and relevant. I'm assuming you saw the current 19th season. If you didn't see it, or at least the last three episodes that form a "trilogy" or sorts, and talk about online ads and ad-blockers.

I think they mostly see the ads (read: products) as things that will influence their life positively. While this is true in the short term, brief entertainment in compensation for their money, it makes the life less significant in the long term, because their time was wasted not improving themselves. You are not the car you drive, you are not the contents of you wallet... Most people are short sighted.

(I'm not pretending that this fully answers the question.)

Star Citizen employs microtransaction, you just pay them in advance. There are also whales, like the guy who paid 30000$, and many more who pay between 100$ and 1000$. In comparison with other mentions it is even worse, because this game isn't even completed yet. It fits in the narrative.

You base your argument on authority. If an actual health professional sells homeopathic remedies, then according to your argument, they are allowed to.

A product should be legal, if it really does what is it advertised to do. How is this validated? That is up to the lawmakers, as long as someone handles it, unlike now.

And why not?

There are cases over the world where advertising was banned with success.

http://www.worldwatch.org/node/5338

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/france/1125...

This is just the first step.

Try setting it to an imaginary value.

I would say that someone died within 1000 feet from where you live, while you actually lived there. This is probably true, unless you live in a remote house.

And they all forget to count ghosts from microorganisms and insects.

That is an appeal to tradition, and it a fallacy. It isn't moral for advertisers to do harmful things to users just because most advertisers do it.

Most scientist do not do harmful things to their subjects. Modern science requires consent. So your fallacious argument, even if it weren't, fails to argue correctly in the first place, because scientists aren't advertisers.

Facebook study was done without consent. It was harmful to their users (subjects) because it interfered with their emotions. It is immoral.

The outrage might seem ridiculous, from the perspective of an advertiser, because, as you said, they do worst things all the time, so this study is hardly appalling for them. But from the perspective of other people, it is.

I hope this gave you an insight into (our) reaction to the study.

merely exposing your own feelings. (Is that what you meant?)

Yes, in that case it is. Facebook is forcing us to stare in a mirror of our own mistakes and failings. We should fix them and not avoid them. Unfortunately the mirror is crooked. It only shows the apparent best features of a person, and it doesn't tell who are we supposed to compare to. There are always people who are (or appear) more successful; Facebook makes them visible to anyone as if they were the average case and not the rarity, what they really are.