Do rival taggers come by and beat you up for defacing their art?

Do you have to run from angry homeowners?

Do the cops shake you down because they see all the paint on your hands?

Not much of a simulation.

You're likely correct, that's what they're thinking.
Unfortunately, while the first assumption is probably correct if young voters can't vote for Sanders, she is likely incorrect on the second point. She's not taking into account her own unlikeability rating, which rivals Trump's. People won't come out in large numbers to vote against Trump if they don't think she's a better alternative, and every time her campaign or the DNC does something underhanded she gets a little closer to tying with him for people's hatred and distain.
She also ignores or underestimates how much the Republicans hate her...it's enough to get them to come out and vote for Trump, even though they don't like him at all, just to spite her. Remember, the Republicans are fine being driven by hate and spite, Democrats and Independents at least like to pretend they aren't. That does not bode well for November.

One of the things chimps will do is drag tree branches around for use in dominance displays in which they run at rivals, hair on end, screaming, throwing rocks, making as much noise as possible.

Jane Goodall described one of her chimps who discovered he could bang gas cans together to create an enormous racket, and in the use of which artificial aid he rapidly advanced from relatively low status to alpha.

Chimps use tools in other ways such as when 'fishing' for termites, or most incredibly for me, making absorbent sponges from chewed up leaves or moss. They learn these behaviours from each other: some chimp groups use some tools, some use others, some use none, and innovations spread rapidly within groups.

Ugh... my distaste for Trump is rivaled by my distaste for people who use children in propaganda videos...

@newtboy
still missing my main point.

which may be my fault,i tend to ramble.

i can agree that:
choices have consequences.
i can agree that an employer had a right to fire according to its own dictates and standards.
i can actually agree with much of what you are saying,but it is not my point.

i am simply pointing out the larger and greater societal implications of how social media,youtube,instagram,tumblr etc etc are being used as bully pulpits by those who feel morally superior to admonish,chastise and ridicule other people into submission.sometimes rightly so,other times not.

there is already a growing number of people who have been directly affected by this new paradigm,and what i find disturbing is that so few are even bothered by this new development.

people have lost jobs over facebook posts!
for posting an opinion for fuck sakes!

and nobody seems to have a problem with this?
this is perfectly acceptable in a supposed "free" society?

lets use a totally hyperbolic example,but the parameters are the same:
during the salem witch trials it was later found to be common practice that one farmer would accuse his competition of witchcraft.

was this neighbor actually practicing witchcraft?
probably not,but what an effective way to rid yourself of competition.

we can use an even more recent example of afghanistan,where farmers were turning in their rivals for cash.they get rid of competition and their neighbor is whisked off to gitmo.

do you see what i am saying?

the larger implications are vast and easily abused.
and this is most certainly a PC police issue,because it is actually punishing offensive speech,opinions and positions.

west baptist church are a repulsive and offensive group of religious thugs,but they have a right to speak and express their vile opinions.

and i will defend their right to be offensive and vulgar,while totally disagreeing with their position.

this is social control by proxy.
don't say anything offensive,or there shall be consequences i.e:job loss
dont say anything controversial or there will be consequences,or post anything racy or contrary to social norms.

in fact,because more and more people are paying the price for saying/posting a controversial view or offensive opinion,just be quiet.

sit down.
shut up.
and obey.

or the PC police will band together to expose your offensive,controversial and subversive opinions and destroy your life.

so you just sit there and think your thoughts,but don't you dare voice them,or the morality police will expose you for the subversive you are.

this tactic is already reaching orwellian levels.
and nobody seems to be bothered.
nobody seems to be giving this the scrutiny and examination it deserves.there is a real danger here that many of my fellow citizens seems to be either unaware,or just dont care the larger implications and that is disturbing to me.

because some of the examples are just like THIS turdnugget.
a reprehensible,vulgar and ignorant example of a human being.so it is easy to feel good about him getting a "comeupance".

because we hate him and what he represents.so it is easy to ignore the larger picture and the implications of social warriors taking things too far.which i could literally type all day laying out scenarios where this form of PC police/social warriors could easily be abused (and already HAS in some instances).

and that should have us all standing up and taking notice,because it is those very implications and the relative silence that is disturbing me the most.

so yeah,this turdnugget is an easy target and easily dismissed as getting what he deserved,but what happens when it is YOUR behavior being villified? something you were doing ,maybe in the privacy of your own home or out with friends that made its way to youtube,and someone found offensive.what if you were taken out of context? or the video was edited?

how would you defend yourself?
better yet,WHY would you have to defend yourself when you were not harming anyone,but some overly-sensitive fuckwit was offended and decided you should be punished?

there is a plethora of historical examples i could use where tyrannical governments,despots and police states have literally quashed dissent,differing opinions and abhorrent behavior by simply creating fear..not of the government per se,but rather by their own neighbors.

which is EXACTLY what the PC police and social warriors use to silence their opponents.fear.

you are totally within your right to disagree with me,but my main argument is how easily this tactic can be abused and if we dont start paying attention now.we may not get a chance later.

it has happened before.
it can happen again.

*intent to harm is an actual legal charge,and can be prosecuted.

there was no harm here.except for feelings and racist/derogatory language.

i guess you could make the "emotional distress' argument,but in a 5 minute video you would be hard pressed to prove actual,irreparable harm.

i am rambling again,and probably lost the plot somewhere,but i hope i at least got my main point across.

there is a real and present danger here my man,and it threatens some of this countries core ideas and is ripe for abuse.

because the truth is:this tactic works and it works extremely well.

I don't trust either side's statements. All government statements are tainted with whatever is the popular rhetoric of the time, meaning that historical accounts of those statements are also tainted.

Officials make statements with far too many factors to consider.
Drumming up popular support for a cause, one's own popularity with the electorate, misleading rivals about one's intentions, etc.

In the end, what matters is what they actually do (what, how, when, in what order, to whom, etc), because that shines a light on what they most likely intended, but never came out and said.



It's like a fishmonger with too many fish.
His desire is to sell them all before they go bad, and make as much money as possible.

He could say to people :
"I have too many fish, please buy some before they go bad"

Or he could say :
"I am running out of fish, there is a shortage, my apologies"

The first statement may bring in a few people, but they will ask for a deal. None will feel particularly urged to buy.

The second statement will make people worry about a scarce resource. More people will show up than usual, and none will be expecting a good price.

So, it's in the fishmonger's interest to lie in order to get people to make a decision on their own that happens to be the decision that the fishmonger wants them to make : gotta go get some fish asap.



Similarly, the government has its own intentions. It could come out and say what it wants, but it's much easier to tell the people things that will make the people ask for what the government wants.
(Plus, if things go bad, the government can say "Hey, we were only giving you democratic representation... you asked for it, not us".)

So in effect, taking any government statement as truth, without considering the future implications of believing and acting on that statement, is leaving one's self open to manipulation.

One of the issues I see with many historical studies, is that they tend to parrot official statements as if they were the actual opinions/thoughts of the officials making them - when it's far more likely that the officials were making those statements in a false and calculated manner.

-scheherazade

@947bis - that nearly brought a tear to my eye and explains EXACTLY why i was disappointed with Fallout 3. Or better to say, disappointed that it was given the label of Fallout instead of something like "Post Apocalyptic RPG".

FO3 had no subtlety. Sometimes you'd make decisions in Fallout 1&2 that you'd not even realised you'd made. Or chosen a dialogue option that you had no idea would affect how the game played out. There were multiple options to solve "quests" (there was no formal quest log) that would significantly alter the state of the rest of the game - what bases and equipment you had access to, and how you could ultimately finish the game. You could sneak into places, or disguise yourself and walk in, lie your way past NPCs, demolish your way in, then ultimately sabotage their base or fix it for them, ruin a gang's drug and slave trade, have sex with a crime boss's wife (or daughter if you preferred) and rob their safe before sneaking or shooting your way back out - and then the rival family would love you! It's as though the money they saved on not having voice actors for *every* NPC or graphical wizardry was spent on designing interesting, intertwined and thoughtful characters and situations, which were more fulfilling despite being a text only deal.

Fallout had so much character and charm and personality... It was genuinely funny and involved - in every area there would be many storylines that could affect each other directly and change the story, or change your reputation in the wasteland and affect your options elsewhere. FO3 feels cold and dead by comparison. In FO3, the decisions you make give the illusion of depth, when in actual fact only a small number of "decisions" affected the game at all, and even then, the consequences were not surprising or not impactful to the same degree.

God, i wish i could bottle the feeling of playing Fallout 1&2 back in the day.. i wish i could explain it to you young whippersnappers!

Fallout 1 was a technically antiquated VGA (that's right, 640x480, 256 colours) post-apocalyptic turn-based tactical RPG where you could not control you team mates during combat. It was a bit buggy (and so was F2). It was Mad Max, without cars.

And yet.

Fallout is arguably the best world-building work in the history of video games. People are probably going to dispute that, but most other games are built on pre-existing lore or works, or do not have that scope*. Fallout built its world pretty much from scratch, conflating a pre-war 1950's, golden-era, overly-optimistic world-view with the bleak desolation of the nuclear holocaust that ensued (to clarify for those who really know nothing about Fallout: in this universe a nuclear war happened in the 50s**. all that's left is from that era). Beside its content which was plentiful in and of itself, this created a contrasted, yet highly coherent and mature world (and by mature I don't just mean killing friendly NPC, I mean doing Morally Very Bad Things that don't necessarily result in graphic scenes). An open world that you could roam freely, be surprised by a new discovery that you made, and at the same time find these discoveries to fit perfectly with the game's logic. In most large games you just access new areas or are carried by the story, in Fallout you would go "Holy shit I'm in the middle of a city populated by centenarian ghouls!", shortly followed by "ho, of course it's full of ghouls, that's perfectly normal". There are not many games that have this mix of unexpected/logical and dark/humorous content.

Fallout 2 had the same ho-my-God-how-could-they-get-away-with-it VGA engine (so next to zero evolution there), but quadrupled the world map (with a minimum overlap with the one from F1) and brought it fifty or so years forward, expanding the world greatly (there are now rival quasi-city-states, and your action may influence their future), while also building on the first one: some antagonists 'classes' from F1 have now grown their own identity and became NPC, and some characters are still around -- a young character you saved in F1 went back to her settlement, became its leader, built it into a town, and is now in the process of expanding it into a new state...So Fallout 2 is basically the same game, except they did that one important thing: push the game world's boundaries even more. You could never guess what next city would be like, but you could bet it would have some crazy shit in it, and yet somehow still make sense.

That's why many people don't like Fallout 3. It is not in itself a bad game, but comparatively, it's kind of coasting. Also it's too damn easy.

I'm sorry, I got carried away, you were asking if you should play the previous ones? No, you 'should' not. But you could, and for F1 & F2 you would certainly not lose your time if you know what you're getting into. And if you don't, at least go and watch their intro on Youtube, they'll give you the feel of the world.

* Possible contenders in terms of "original video game world": Elder Scrolls (vast, but less original), Deus ex (not as large), Bioshock (same), Final Fantasy (original and vast, but not as complex). Any other idea?
** Technically not the 1950s, but in practice the 50s + a bunch of high tech gizmo.

Hockey is a violent sport. A lot of hockey people think that allowing fights, which in the NHL usually happen between each team's designated "goons", prevents or lessens other dirty/dangerous play that would build up with unchecked aggression that is a pretty natural part of the sport. That's an oversimplification, but one of the major justifications.

I love watching hockey. I think it is a great sport that allows for many different paths to victory -- you can have a winning team made up of fast, graceful, highly skilled players, OR cerebral, teamwork based players, OR intimidating, brute force goons. Or a mix of any/all of those.

I'm not an expert, but I'm a fan. I didn't grow up with hockey in my blood (not from Canada), but became a fan in my teens. But, I do actually see a certain amount of logic in the hockey pundits argument that fighting cuts down on other dirty play. I think that if anyone watches enough hockey, they see evidence that it is true. Maybe not quite as true as the pro-fight pundits suggest, but it is there.

Better officiating, penalties, and suspensions for the kinds of dangerous / dirty play that fighting is supposed to cut down on would help. Even though I think fighting has a place in the game, the NHL does need to evolve some more consistency in those areas.

I'm a Colorado Avalanche fan. The Avs main rival for a long time was the Detroit Red Wings, and then a former Wings player (Brendan Shanahan) became the head of player safety. His job was basically to review dirty plays or plays that resulted in an injury, and dole out warnings/suspensions/fines. He took a lot of flack for inconsistency; many people thought that in two similar incidents he might hand out a long suspension to one and a slap on the wrist to the other. But even though he was from my "rival team", I thought he did a pretty good job, and it represented a great step forward for the NHL. The thing that I thought he did really well was that for every incident he reviewed, there was always a video available on the internet showing what happened from multiple angles followed by his thoughts on it, what disciplinary action he was going to issue, and his justifications for it. Of course everyone isn't always going to agree about that kind of stuff, but he put it out in the open instead of behind closed doors.

To me, that was a big step forward for the NHL. If they continue on that path, I think it is reasonable to suggest that fighting will become less important/necessary/beneficial. But I think it will always be at least a small part of the game.

http://www.newyorker.com/news/john-cassidy/didnt-eric-holder-go-bankers

These pundits would be screaming for his head on a platter if Holder happened to be appointed by a republican or was white. American political TV shows rivals the Kardashians in the mindless bullshit department.

Consumer Reports tests Apple's iPhone 5 and 6 for bends against Android rivals (with video). http://www.theverge.com/2014/9/26/6852593/consumer-reports-finds-iphone-5-holds-up-better-than-6-6-plus

Gotta love Krugman.. not as an economist but as a world class hypocrite rivaling Molière's Tartuffe. He's getting paid $25,000 a month to do zero work, while calling for the end of income inequality. <scoff> I wonder if he's ready to give up 70% of that to the federal government like he says all "wealthy" ought to do.

The headline might as well read, "Rich economist constantly holds forth on the evils of income inequality, while...." You get the point. Here's the back-of-the-envelope math on his recent windfall:

Not counting the $20,000 in non-transferable travel budget, moving bennies, etc. that they offered him, CUNY is paying Dr. Krugman a nine-month salary of $225,000. I presume he won't be working summer semesters, so let's say that's all his salary from CUNY for the year. Now normal tenured senior professors at CUNY make at most $116,364 a year. Adjuncts at CUNY make about $3,000 or so per course; you can teach at most 9 hours a semester. So let's say you're an adjunct maxed out at a 3/3 load; you make about $18,000 a year for that. So if Dr. Krugman wanted, he could pick out 6 adjuncts at CUNY and *double* their yearly income, just by giving away the amount of money he personally makes *over and above what the best-paid senior faculty make*. If he were willing to do the job (*) for a nominal fee (as you may know, Prof. Krugman has another line of work), he could literally pick some lucky adjunct at CUNY and double their entire year's income -- *every month of the year.

And honestly, @radx, what did the "progressives" expect would happen? This so-called "Democracy" can never be anything other than an "oligarchy," if not a governance by "mob rule" (and sometimes a combination of the two). If "Democracy" is the "least bad" kind of state/government possible as some (like Mark Twain) have claimed, then it's high time "the people" climbed out of the dark ages and lived without rulers, altogether.

The resultant "chaos" that would ensue would not be any worse (and in fact far better) than the kind of unintended chaos that results from the centralized power structures of state governance.

------

*Which, let's be clear, involves no teaching load, and seems to mainly mean that maybe he'll drop by the office every few months to share his brilliance with whoever happens to be there. The point for CUNY is almost certainly to purchase some of the aura from his name on the letterhead

My head hurts too much to read the paper right now, but I suspect that most of this can be attributed to learning, and that a 'causal understanding' is not being demonstrated here.

The important figure to look at here is Fig 3, specifically the first trial in figure 3, before the crows had a change to learn each particular task. Performance is, slightly, better than chance for each task except tasks D and F. But these are NOT naive birds. There are only 6 crows used in this experiment, and before the experiment they were all trained to perform a water displacement task for food reward. The better than chance performance on the first trial for some of the tasks could, and probably is, a result of the similarity between the 'correct' choice in that task and the training condition.
A: A water filled tube is more like the water filled tube in the training condition, than is a sand filled tube.
B: Heavy blocks are more like the heavy stones used in the training condition than are the light blocks.
C: Solid black weights are more like the black stones used in the training condition than are the hollow cages.
E: A nearly full tube is more similar to the training condition (which took only two stones to reach the food) than a nearly empty tube.
Tasks D and F, where the crows did not perform better than chance, have choices much more difficult to distinguish from the training condition (with both choices in F being nearly identical to the training condition).
What's more, the sample size is tiny, with a max of 6 birds for any task, and only 4 of these same (very experienced) birds for tasks E and F. You cannot do meaningful statistics with a sample size of 4.
If someone who has actually read the whole paper wants to show me how I'm wrong please do. Until then, I think the editors at PLoS ONE need to be more careful with their choice of reviewers. The journal, although noble in it's stated mission, is still young, and its reputation is still fragile.
"Our results indicate that New Caledonian crows possess a sophisticated, but incomplete, understanding of the causal properties of displacement, rivalling that of 5–7 year old children." How on earth did they let that pass! They know the press will have a field-day with misleading statements like that.

I think it might have been Dodge v. Ford Motor Co that established the principle that the business owner has a responsibility to profit his shareholders, rather than the community as a whole or employees... however, on reviewing the case itself, it seems rather shaky. Ford appears more interested in withholding funds from rivals than the public good, and I think the result reflects that.

I'll see if I can find my original references, my googling wasn't conclusive either.

Snowden should be in prison for life, if not shot. Sure, he did a good thing by revealing the spying on American citizens. That is true whistleblowing. Good on him.

But then he dwarfed that good act by giving away our (I am speaking as an American, here, obviously) secrets, in the form of the terabytes of data on those 4 laptops, to our biggest rivals, China and Russia. He has also revealed tons of national secrets and techniques to the whole world that have absolutely nothing to do with Americans' 4th Amendment rights. His acts have put American lives and American industry at risk and has definitely harmed American stature and American industry.

So, yeah, give him the Nobel prize and the Medal of Honor. He can admire them in his Supermax cell.