purpled_haze

...and I could not find the word "correlation" anywhere in this article discussion statistics, harm, misunderstanding, and studies. Shame.

I'd like the people that -1'd me to explain why I'm wrong.

No matter how much defense you put up, if you are accessible, you are at risk for unauthorized use of data.

Employing only people you trust and showing them you trust them is a great alternative to security restrictions.

The best security: be honest and place complete trust in those you employ. Hire people you trust. If there is nothing that is blocking you, then morale is higher, and people get more focused on what is important. If there is nothing to break into, there is less temptation. Your employees won't be perfect, but if they are trusted, if you let things be, there's a good chance everything will be fine- at least as fine as it would have otherwise.

A large organization I'm very aware of used such a strategy for their investments.

54% chance to have made money if you bet on any of these exclusively from IPO. That's a good reason to diversify over everything, or better yet, wait and then go with the ones who've increased investor value over the past two years. Investment in individual stocks, especially startups, is significantly risky otherwise. It's good that some gamble enough to support on an individual basis though- without them putting their necks out on the line, very few would be in this list.

> Tobacco and Alcohol companies would likely suffer as a result of drug legalisation, like cannabis.

To state this in another way- think of all of the Budweiser/Bud Light sponsorships and commercials and replace that Bud with the other kind of bud. That's about the scale and usage to expect, at the very least, if cannabis were to be completely legal everywhere alcohol is.

And all of the abuse, drunk driving, etc? Increase that somewhat. They won't be able to control all of it with treatment and education any more than they have with alcohol. Also, imagine the level of drinking at work even in the 1940's and 50's after alcohol prohibition was lifted.

Aside from cannabis, think of all of the other drugs that could be abused. Yes, drug violence, etc. will go down, but there is a tradeoff.

I'm curious- what do you think of Fedora? It's in the top 5 distros along with OpenSUSE, Ubuntu, Debian, and Mint, and yet I hardly ever hear people talk about it.

I had personally given up on Fedora years ago, but recently was told I should give it a second look and I've not had time to try it out.

> It isn't his fault the managers were being unreasonable in the timeline, and the company grossly over-manufactured the cartridges.

Yes, the real problem is that they expected something comparable in quality to his previous games with less time to develop it. He did agree to it, though. Watch "Atari: Game Over" and you'll be able to tell from interviews with him that he held a lot of guilt about it- for years.

The fact is that he was one of the best game developers in history that accepted a job that he couldn't do without making sacrifices that killed the game. He shouldn't take credit for killing Atari though. They ended up being split focused on computers (that did fairly well but were competing against giants) and consoles. And they messed up by releasing both the 5200, which was a bomb partially due to its controllers, and the 7800, which came too late. Even if Atari had done everything right, it would have been really difficult to compete with Nintendo.

I still love Atari, though. The NES was great, but the 2600, for its time, was the best thing that ever happened in the home gaming industry. It was the first proof that a home gaming console could be a staple to a first-world kid's life.

I played it a lot. I can't say I ever enjoyed it. It was a frustrating game with very little reward.

Yes, fingers kept typing wrong word.

Good to know it is just this organization having the awful ideas. ;)

Btw- I've worked with some great Dutch developers and am in awe of all of the talent there from the things I've seen over the years. The language isn't bad either. :) Just saying it's a mutt language like English, but mutts are good things. Diversity is a strength, not a weakness.

So true. And since you've gone the intellectual route, I'll choose the emotional one:

I propose the Dutch don't like English because their language is also bastardization of different languages. As a defensive mechanism, they're picking on English to distract everyone from their soddy language. :) Sure, the writer's English, but he had to pander to the locals.