I don't think he must have gamed much while at Atari.
I can state with some certainty that he never seemed passionate about games or gaming. I think he liked being a productive businessman and just didn't see the beauty nor profit in gaming until it was too late.
I'll never forget the time he demoed Halo (which was supposed to be PowerPC-first!) at Macworld Expo: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tzrme9yWens We all know the huge letdown that happened after that. (Or at least, every Mac and gaming fan knows.)
I wonder if Jason Jones already knew at this point that they were going to sell out to Microsoft...
Isn't teaching part of the definition of faculty? In other words, isn't it impossible to be 'faculty' if you don't take 'students' (i.e., 'teach')? At least anywhere I've ever heard of, this is true; someone who doesn't have students is considered 'staff'.
> Isn't teaching part of the definition of faculty?
No - I'm not sure where you got that definition from. You can be a researcher and be on the faculty of a department. It just means as opposed to the support members of staff.
Is it really easier to get 'in' Denmark or Norway than the US or UK? Perhaps for vacation travel, but to settle permanently in small, wealthy, homogeneous countries is usually far more difficult than to settle in the US.
Any EU/EEA citizen has the right to settle in Denmark or Norway, so if getting in directly is hard, just get citizenship in another EU/EEA country first.
Unless NZ is significantly different from most other countries, no one has a right to a resident visa (although some people might have a right to citizenship, such as by descent), so they can already arbitrarily determine whether or not to grant a resident visa.
Sure, but in practice, they don't seem to do that. I've heard of public complaints of denials and it's because the person doesn't actually meet the published criteria, not just "they seemed a bit scary".
Under what conditions would any of these events actually occur? The government isn't going to waste resources to deport someone solely for forgetting an account; they would only go to such effort if there's another reason that they actually care about to deport that person.
The point isn't to go after everyone who fails to completely or accurately answer, but rather to provide a pretext for the deportation of people the government disfavor but lack a criminal case against; for example, an immigrant opposition leader, protestor, or whistleblower.
Yes exactly. Laws which de jure make everyone a criminal simply give the government an excuse to de facto imprison or expel whomever they want, and should be avoided at all costs
This is basically how all laws currently work. The prosecutor gets to pick who to charge (or sometimes gets to pick which case to put in front of a grand jury, though generally the process is so one sided that the prosecutor effectively has full control over what evidence the grand jury sees and is thus able to sway their decision either way). We would need to change the system to remove the choice of enforcing criminal charges from all, but this will be a very bad thing to do given current laws (just look at issues with teens sending photos to each other, what would happen if we really cracked down on all cases of illegal photos being shared).
The system appears designed so that once you are targeted, they can easily crush you by bringing forth laws generally ignored for the average person not targeted by the legal system. It needs to be fixed, but there is almost no political will to fix it and any fixes will be a drastic deviation from what we currently know.
Kind of, but the legal system is tilted to prevent people from being unjustly imprisoned, not to ensure that every guilty person is locked up. Prosecutorial discretion and the grand jury process is part of that, but there is always a regular jury as a check to determine if the charges should be dismissed and the "default" if no one does anything is always no charges.
Now, its fair that in practice this can be abused to protect people in power by not charging them, or to get people deported by charging with things no jury would convict on, or scare them into a plea deal. But that is where the political system is supposed to step in (most DAs are elected) and remove prosecutors who are making decisions the voting population doesn't like.
But people don't vote (or don't research or don't care) enough to be an effective check on the legal system like that, which is a whole different set of problems... but my point is that these systems are designed to balance each other, not so that each system is perfect by itself.
>but the legal system is tilted to prevent people from being unjustly imprisoned, not to ensure that every guilty person is locked up.
Not anymore. Now what happens is that once you are targeted all these laws that aren't enforced normally are pulled out, and you end up with an insane maximum potential time spent in prison. At which point a relatively light plea deal is offered. Even if you are innocent, unless you are rich enough to have money to afford a good lawyer, it isn't worth fighting. And even if you are rich, the prosecutor can just fine tune the plea deal until it is better than fighting the charge. This has strongly tilted the system now that most people (something around 90% if memory serves) do not get their day in front of a jury.
Not disagreeing. You are pointing out problems with the legal system and suggesting it be changed.
I am pointing out that the legal system is designed this way on purpose, the problem is that the other systems that are supposed to balance it are not doing so, and the focus should be on why the checks and balances are not working, not designing some perfect legal system to exist in isolation.
This is the same reason it bothers me that the actual speed limit is an unknown and inconsistent number approximately 15mph above the one they post and can punish you for exceeding.
You obviously have not dealt with the US government. Take it from someone who was, is and will likely be scarred several years from dealing with the US Government (esp. US Immigration), this scenario is very real.
With all due respect, I've been reading your comments on this thread and you sound completely off your rocker. You'd be surprised by how much more weight your opinions would hold if you'd cut the childish, pseudo-political statements about 'brown people', how the US is on the downslope and any disgusting statements calling an entire country "garbage".
Love the downvotes. The current US administration is racist through and through. This kind of very broad net will be used to target undesirables... which means brown people in the eyes of the human garbage who comprise current US leadership.
> Under what conditions would any of these events actually occur?
Someone with friends in high places decides he doesn't like your ugly face.
So long as that doesn't happen, the government will ignore the omissions you made in the visa application. But now they have a pretext for deporting you as soon as they feel like it.
In the UK, the government stupidly set a net migration target. Therefore there is an incentive to deport anyone simply to meet quota.
Latest round of stupidity is schemes to encourage doctors to come work in rural areas ... that don't meet the salary requirements for visas, so the NHS spends money recruiting people that the Home Office rejects.
Actually, you’re wrong. Att sells an iPhone that is not compatible with CDMA networks. Trust me bud, I’ve done all the research. Apple sells their devices with the ability to use any of the 4 carriers.
I have had ketamine infusions (approximately 15) under medical supervision, where a general practice MD, in his office, but in consultation with my psychiatrist, administers a specific dosage (usually starting at 0.50mg/kg, going up to 0.80mg/kg) calibrated by your weight and previous responses using an infusion pump, set to deliver the dose under an exact 40 minutes. Each session in (my case) costs $600 cash, out of pocket, with no insurance reimbursement, other than (in some people's' experience) potentially a small portion refunded (the "office visit" portion).
The infusion is conducted in a quiet, darkened room, and I'm checked in on periodically over the 40 minutes. The session makes you feel somewhat "out of it", but not "trippy" or "dissociative" or "psychedelic" in any way. It seems to give you an ability to put things that are causing depression or anxiety "in their place" so they cause less ongoing turmoil. There is conflicting evidence as to whether any of the perceived effects of the infusion have any of the antidepressant benefits or whether the benefits are solely chemical (and not in any way a function of any of this "enlightenment" that may be provided by the infusion).
It's a somewhat enjoyable experience but not "fantastic" or one that makes you feel like you want another infusion right away. The poster who insufflated the ketamine likely had a much higher dose over a much shorter period of time than the dosage used for an infusion, and reputable doctors generally give the infusion over 40-60 minutes, not all at once, and not via insufflation. Some doctors will prescribe a ketamine nasal spray or lozenges for use between intravenous sessions, but they are few and the evidence isn't really there for any potential benefit to this practice.
I have noticed a positive effect on my mood and depressive symptoms generally recently, but I have also had a full course of TMS during the same period of time, so it's difficult to attribute the benefits to one modality over the other. TMS, unlike ECT, does not involve anesthesia or shock therapy, and unlike ketamine, TMS is usually covered by insurance. However, it generally requires 30-36 visits to see improvement, so the timing is distinctly different from ketamine when ketamine works. I would think I'm a medium responder to ketamine and a medium responder to TMS.
I am feeling better, but not "a lot better", unfortunately, due to the cost of the ketamine infusions and the inconvenience of the TMS treatments. I received Brainsway deep TMS at one of the better / more well-known psychiatric hospitals in the US. FYI, this hospital is just now starting their own ketamine program, using the standard protocols that I described (i.e., 0.5mg - 0.75mg / kg / 40-60 min).
If you were insufflating it, you had a very ambiguous dose and were not using it under the care of a physician such as discussed by the article; not to discount your experience, which is somewhat similar to mine, but readers should know that it is very different from what the article is discussing, which is a very specific dose given over a specific period of time by IV by a medical doctor, under his/her supervision.
I meant that referring to someone as "needy" is needlessly derogatory and offensive, regardless of what the poster meant. If he meant low-income, there are less offensive ways to express that which he should use instead of "needy".
