Machinarium just came to Android - if you try one game today, make sure it's this one. It's absolutely fantastic and won awards for animation, music, visual art, etc.

archon810 · 13 days

Galaxy Nexus has a 720p screen and compatible with the game. The game is likely set to check against the resolution that a device supports, not the literal type of device.

KrevanSerKay · 1 month

I think that's the definition of underrated: Series that you think are amazing that others don't.

KrevanSerKay · 1 month

Noblesse isn't THAT good. It's not no depth of characters or story. It is "awesome" in that it's filled with epic moments, but the predictable storyline gets old after a while.

I personally think Tower of God is amazing, with awesome moments and awesome characters and depth.

TheLittleDeath · 2 months

You cannot read legal documents as a layman. That's not how the law is read. Yes, it says "Appeals as of Right," but what does that mean?

Appeal as of right is distinguished from discretionary appeals. An appeal as of right means that the court cannot deny you the right start the appeals process and submit briefs.

For example, the Supreme Court of the United States only has a very, very few (probably zero or one in the average term) of cases which it must take. Everything else it must decide to take of its volition (called "granting certiorari"). Similarly, state supreme court courts typically have a small set of cases it must hear if requested; in NJ, for example, the NJ Supreme Court must hear any case in which an appellate division judge issues a dissent (an appeal as of right). In all other cases, the NJ Supreme Court has discretionary authority to take the case (called "granting certification").

Now, in NJ, as in most other states, we have a three-tier system of courts: trial courts, intermediate appellate court, and supreme court. Appeals to the intermediate appellate court is as of right.

But this only governs the ACCESS to the court. It doesn't govern any other part of the legal process. In order to proceed with the case, you must have some legal theory. Though you have the right of ACCESS to the court, courts also require you to state a claim. You can't just go to court and say, "Uh, hi. Give me money. Cause I want it." You must state the claim, e.g., "Person A wronged me by hitting me with her car." Similarly, in an appeal, you must have some legal basis for your appeal. Failing to provide a legal basis is basis for sanctions against the lawyer for filing legally frivolous suits.

Of course, I'm sure the lawyers can find something to appeal. But the idea that you can appeal just cause you can is idiotic.

ikillbambis · 2 months

I'll throw my hat in the ring for a chance at this.

NoNMangaParent · 3 months

Black Butler isn't that bad at all, though I suppose it would depend on what standards you're using.

Black Butler's "maturity" comes from the fact that main character, a young royal charged with the responsibilities equivalent to black ops, occasionally depicts killing. There's no sexual content in the comic. But if you let her watch the TV, I'm sure she sees worse things than that. And overall, Black Butler has a great story.

This is my problem, in general, with a parent not reading stuff and censoring it for the child. Even if the parent has read it, I have a problem because children should be allowed to make decisions for themselves.

But anyway. I'm not the parent -- just an observation.

NoNMangaParent · 3 months

http://mangaupdates.com allows you to search for manga, see short summaries, and categories that they're in, all of which is user-submitted.

But I do have to ask why you're so concerned. Do you also monitor everything she watches on TV, her internet, and everything she reads? I don't mean to sound presumptuous or tell you how to parent or anything, but I'm a big proponent of freedom of speech.

The only thing (IMO) that's really inappropriate are hentai, which I doubt she would be able to access anyway.

manuelv19 · 3 months

I didn't cite Specht for the reasoning of the court. In all honesty, the logic there is sorta irrelevant. I was citing it for the definitions and the fact that the court recognized these two separate words as different / with different definitions. Shrinkwrap and clickwrap are related concepts (heavily related). However, they are different. I'm a stickler for using precise language. These two (well, three, if you include browsewrap) exist because they are different.

Shrinkwrap can only be used be used with software that you buy and take home. Cf. ProCD, Inc. v. Zeidenberg, 86 F.3d 1447 (contemplating various transactions, including computer products with shrinkwrap licenses, in which return of already-delivered goods after inspection by purchaser does not bind purchaser to contract terms). This is surely different from clickwrap, which is the term used for software (downloaded, not bought in a box) or websites. To put it colloquially, with clickwrap, there "are no take-backsies." Legally, the result is probably the same (i.e., contract terms upheld and enforceable) but there is a slight nuance there. Moreover, you can tell immediately whether something is about internet or about a physical good that you bought. But I feel the distinction is even more critical due to browsewrap, which has been often held unenforceable or at least subjected to more stringent scrutiny due to lack of notice provided to the consumer. I believe Specht actually mentions this with the discussion on submerged clauses.

Anyway, it's a problem of precision. There's definitely a difference between the terms. Maybe not in legal result, but in precision.

manuelv19 · 3 months

Not rename. Different concept.

You can't return your copy of the internet, thus click/browsewrap. You can, however, return your copy of Windows. Thus the distinction.

Also, I was editing my cites for a while there... should be finalized now.

manuelv19 · 3 months

I meant what I said.

Facebook does not have shrinkwrap. It has clickwrap and/or browsewrap.

See, e.g., Specht v. Netscape Commc'ns Corp., 306 F.3d 17, 22 n.4 (2d Cir. 2002) (contrasting shrinkwrap with clickwrap), Feldman v. Google, Inc., 513 F. Supp. 2d 229, 236 (E.D. Pa. 2007) (defining clickwrap). See generally Enforceability of "Clickwrap" or "Shrinkwrap" Agreements Common in Computer Software, Hardware, and Internet Transactions, 106 A.L.R.5th 309.

manuelv19 · 3 months

Clickwrap, most likely. Or browsewrap. Not shrinkwrap.

mizderi · 3 months

Bonus to ResNet is increased supervisor promotion opportunity. It's not official, but all the managers want a RN person on their supervisor teams.

mizderi · 3 months

Also a former supervisor that worked with Talon.

One important thing to know is that these are SERVICE jobs. I'd say the primary traits were intelligence, capability to learn, and personality. As far as tech knowledge, we required you to know stuff about Word, how to use a browser, basic user stuff. Not even that much into power user stuff. But this depends on where you apply. C/D and Liv have lower requirements. CAC and HD had higher requirements (CAC because they were able to afford doing this, with the HUGE amount of applicants they had, and HD because they dealt with technical stuff on a more day-to-day level).

One important thing to note is that firings almost always happen because you don't show up to shift. This is a JOB. And more importantly, it's a service job that requires you to fill shifts. If you can't fill a shift (and do so EVERY TIME unless you get excused from the shift or get it covered by someone else), do NOT apply for this job.

Otherwise, it's relatively hard to get fired. There were performance reviews, yeah, but those were highly variable depending on what supervisor you had (Many times, reviews were just, "Hey, you're doing a good job. Keep it up. Bye.") The performance reviews actually mean very little in the long run. I don't know if this has changed, but the main factor was taking it seriously like a job.

2parties1cup · 4 months

What ylca is mostly correct, but let me add to that. Also, note that matrimonial law isn't really my "thing."

He said that marriage is a "partnership." I dunno if he was trying to say this or not, but lawyers actually see marriage as an "economic partnership." I understand that most normal people see marriage as joining for life (or... until divorce, you know. Whatever.) to love each other and share in trials, etc. But the prevailing legal doctrine is that marriage is an economic partnership. This is probably actually de facto true in most relationships, but the law presumes this is completely true (live in same house, save money; buy groceries together, save money; have a joint bank account, mixing money; own stuff together in an undivided interest in the whole [to simplify this, think of a dog where you can't just take half of it]).

When you view marriage as an economic partnership, the result leads to a splitting of the property at separation. The reason here is severalfold. One is what ylca said, that the woman may have provided hundreds of thousands of hours of man hours cooking, cleaning, etc. We say that we can't really economically account for the successful man coming home to a hot meal every night or having comfort and companionship of his wife. Perhaps he would not have been able to been successful at whatever without his wife. Of course, you can argue that this is speculation and the man could have done just as well without hot meals (or, perhaps, the wife did none of those things), but legally, the argument is, yes, this is speculation, but it's typically in favor of the wife (or husband, if it was the husband who was stay-at-home).

The other reason is that there are lost opportunities for the wife. If, in an economic partnership, the idea is that the wife takes care of the kids and house while the man earns the money, it's not a crazy idea, right. It's actually one way of attacking the problem of living arrangement and effecting the idea of an economic partnership. But the wife foregoes the opportunity to earn a degree / advanced degree. She doesn't have job experience. But in the partnership model, if they stay partners, it's okay, cause the guy provides everything. But in a divorce, she has no marketable job skills. Since they agreed to be in an economic partnership, the guy (or, again, girl, if the girl was making the money) has to pay for the wife's lost opportunities.

Similar to the above, you can't just dump your wife and leave her with nothing and no marketable job skills. That's just equity. Part of this may also depend on how long you are married, but if you're married for 15 years, it's safe to say you're handing over a payout if your wife can't do anything by herself.

Also, there's the idea that you sustain the wife's standard of living. I don't really agree with this and I know relatively little about it, but I'll throw it out there if you want to research it yourself.

2parties1cup · 4 months

Perhaps, but there's some important details here.

When you want to marry someone, presumably love and emotions play a factor. The idea is that people can't make objective decisions under such a conditions. Unless both people marrying are lawyers, it's unlikely that one would strenuously object--for example, when one party insists on a pre-nup and the other side doesn't care (thinking they will be married forever), one party may sign just to "not upset" the other party.
It's not always possible to understand legalese or the full implications of what you are signing without a lawyer. Can you describe, in detail, what "waiving my rights to the spousal elective share" means and its implications? Or, if you are in New York, what "waiving my right to claim enhanced earning capacity" means and under what situations this would be effective? Probably not.
You lack meaningful alternatives without a lawyer. Even if you know that you do not like something (which is doubtful without a lawyer), you would not be able to suggest a legal alternative, short of "I don't want it." But even then, you don't really know if you want it or not without someone to explain the benefits and downsides of the choices and the full gamut of options.

2parties1cup · 4 months

It can. Particularly with pre-nups, it could be that one side drafted the agreement and just tells the other side to sign it. If the other side did not have the opportunity for independent counsel (a lawyer NOT paid by the other party), then it could be thrown out.

Wingnut417 · 5 months

I think that's the problem, and you just nailed it. You recognize that it's NOT currently generally socially accepted.

Whether it should or shouldn't be generally accepted is beyond the scope of SS. I don't think it's fair to put Secret Santa gifters in the awkward position where they have to make judgments like that. And beyond everything, it's typically illegal. I understand that you can get legal gifts for people; I actually appreciate the views in this because it's given me ideas that I wouldn't have otherwise thought of, but I think it's just one of those things that people should have a little more respect for others. I think that saying you like an illegal activity just puts people in an awkward position.

Just because you have moral or ethical arguments in favor of your position doesn't mean you should always advance it. Again, it's like how you wouldn't write that you want a fleshlight, even though I think that what you do personally on your own time is fine, it just shouldn't be brought up in this sort of public context. Or to make a better analogy, I'm not going to go up to a stranger and start telling him how gun policy in the US is wrong.

Basically, I think that you can advocate legally or socially for change, but when you're placed in these intimate contacts, you should be more prudent and respectful of others' opinions.

Wingnut417 · 5 months

I know it's a joke, but I have to agree with OP that this is a problem. Sometimes, it's limiting on the gifter. For example, I had a giftee who wrote very little, of which one of the main things was simply "trees."

I ended up getting what I think was a pretty good gift (not trees related), but I don't think it's a really appropriate thing to write for secret santa. Maybe a lot of people are going to disagree with me, but I think it should be "family friendly," in the same sense that I wouldn't write about wanting a fleshlight. I just don't think that it's worth it to bring up conflicts with people, because some people really disagree with drug use. Or other people (like me) are just simply not going to send illegal things through the mail.

soral · 5 months

I don't think that, strictly speaking, they don't understand median. I think their argument is that with respect to income, there's some nuance that makes his equation of median not work.

I'm tired and don't understand the nuance or argument, but I do think that it needs to be addressed directly, instead of just bashing them for not understanding median, because at the end of the day, this argument is only interesting because it's rooted not in math but in practical application.

vilains11 · 5 months

It's in the comic itself, in one of the earlier chapters. It's reduced to writing in wiki, although, obviously, it's not a strong source, but I can't remember which exact chapter the info came from: http://hunterxhunter.wikia.com/wiki/Hunter_License

vilains11 · 6 months

There's four (maybe five) ranks of hunters.

Passed the hunter exam, hasn't learned Nen yet.
Passed the hunter exam, learned nen (Full Hunter / Regular Hunter).
One Star Hunter
Double Star Hunter
Triple Star Hunter

Regular hunters specialize in something - food hunters, black list (bounty hunters), etc.

One star hunters are those that have contributed significantly to a single branch of knowledge. Double stars have contributed significantly to multiple branches. Triple stars have contributed pervasively to all branches of hunting.

nocrime4u2 · 6 months

Speculation isn't the right word... We were all SHOCKED this guy decided to go to trial with all the evidence against him. I mean conviction in court room in criminal cases with juries is already, I believe, 75% (correct me if I am wrong). I believe this guy was suicidal and the only explanation was that the plea deal was insanely bad.

No, fuck you and your sensationalism. No one is REQUIRED to have a plea deal. A jury trial is the Constitutional guarantee of rights. In fact, there are many that would actually say this guy got the FULL gamut of protections offered by the system because he went to jury trial -- and you did acquit him, so that actually bears out the point even further.

But it's hard to believe that he wouldn't have gotten a plea deal anyway, because plea deals, while not a guarantee of our system of justice, have evolved to become an essential part of our system of justice, to foster quick and efficient adjudication of cases. It's insane to believe the prosecutor wouldn't have offered a plea deal.

And what do you do when people point out that you couldn't have possibly known about any plea deals?

You retreat. "Oh, but wait. I don't actually know anything. I'm just assuming." I'm appalled by your sensationalism and lack of intellectual rigor, overall, but especially here when you ADMIT that you don't know what you're talking about and no one has called you out on it yet.

Or, you know, you're just a troll. Give us a docket number or go back to the cave you came from.

MrNonplussed · 7 months

You go explain that to his girlfriend that it isn't bloody.

MrNonplussed · 7 months

While you're (probably) not gonna be serving her steaks right away, I'd advise you to not serve her rare steak when the opportunity comes or even stress that fact. If she thinks steaks are gross, bloody, red steaks are probably super gross. Try serving her stuff that's at least medium, probably medium-well.

Two-Year Club	Secret Santa 2011
Summer Santa 2011	Secret Santa 2010
Rally Monkey Tent number = 2	Charter Member
Verified Email

MistakerPointerOuter

TROPHY CASE

MistakerPointerOuter

TROPHY CASE

you'll need to login or register to do that

create a new account

login