Quick search on newegg.com has 16GB DDR3 RAM at $149, versus $200 from Apple, preconfigured. Your prices suck because you live in the UK, not because of Apple. And yes, I used to live in the UK...don't miss UK prices one bit.
16GB of RAM for $200 doesn't seem like much of a gauging to me, at least not in the traditional sense of manufacturers overcharging for RAM upgrades at point-of-sales purchases. I'd gladly pay $200 with the general sense of security that I'll never have to buy RAM for that machine again. Unless there's a massive computer paradigm shift, the stock 8GB of RAM is pretty stout, and 16 seems a bit, well, over-the-top.
My old iPod was more expensive to repair than a brand new iPod with 4x the storage capacity. I wasn't offended and just bought a new one instead. In fact, I was quite stoked.
My predictions about complaints before reading any comments include:
No physical media (wah). No ethernet and/or have to spend money on cheap ethernet dongle (wah). No 17" version (super wah). Something about random slashdot guy's opinion about glossy/non-glossy screen and/or other insignificant personal preference I bet it will run too hotly. Not enough USB ports. And then a whole bunch of technically incorrect gripes about resolution, screen size, and dpi...
Oh and let's not forgot the popular: OS X sucks (even though you can still run Windows on it if you like) no user-replaceable battery merely an expensive fashion item/social status
And one last prediction is I'll have to correct some snarky fool who will say something stupid like "no right click" or something track-pad related where they miss the entire point of gestures because they've actually never used an Apple notebook and are trying to wedge their Dell-centric worldview onto Apple hardware.
Now you are just being argumentative. You keep repeating that I only have one accepted definition of racism because I'm taking contention with one slashdot person's view of what racism is, by defining that what they think is racism, and explaining why that it is not racism as widely accepted in social science.
Of all the racist sentiments riddled throughout this thread, I chose to take this one on as I think it's the most egregious. That doesn't mean it's my only definition.
I'm sorry if you tend to read into what I've said as well. I never stated it is ok to 'favor' someone based on race...that implies racism...choosing one over the other based on race...I said it is ok to LIKE somebody based solely on their race. Being 'for' somebody does not imply you have to be 'against' somebody else.
It's a twisted world (maybe just a slashdot thing) when it is "racist" to LIKE (notice I didn't say favor) something because of it's race, ethnicity, heritage, whatever.
You've missed my point entirely. The definition I've apparently just "picked out of a long list of definitions and is the one I agree with the most" is not an accurate portrayal of my intellect or background in social sciences. What I'm saying, in that long list of definitions offered up by lots of really dumb and racist people, there are many definitions that don't define racism as accepted in social sciences. You are correct. I do ignore those, because they are factually incorrect.
When randomly picking my pet definition, please note I didn't pick "some people say that racism is prejudice plus power so ones without power can't be racist". Of course they can and many are. If a minority hates somebody else simply because they are a different race, that's racism. Notice the requirement for negative association with a race not your own...which is my point. Positive associations with particular characteristics of a person have never been included as cornerstones of racism.
You could have cut down your entire post by simply acknowledging that Universities lean left because critical thinking, empirical evidence, scientific inquiry, meta-cognition, and heavy doses of skepticism are staples for both.
You also failed to acknowledge that what qualifies as "right wing" and "left wing" swings wildly based on era and geography. I registered Republican in the 1980s. I haven't had anyone in my party to vote for since G. H. W. Bush left office. I've also lived in Georgia and Texas, but grew up in the Northwest. I'm more liberal than some so called "Democrats" in those states. I've also lived in England and Germany, where the concept of right and left are on completely different scales.
So, no, I don't think your analysis is very accurate. In fact, it sounds like the same sort of anti-intellectual rationalization for not having an education that I hear daily on conservative talk radio.
Indeed smart people can be dumb, like the ones who wrote this article.
“people who were aware of their own biases were not better able to overcome them.”
While it may be true some smart people cannot overcome their own biases, the first step in being smarter than others is being able to identify your biases, so you can work on overcoming them. The willfully ignorant person has no chance if they don't know what they don't know.
Also, they have an interesting definition of bias. Yes, I got the math questions wrong because I am lazy and didn't take them seriously. I don't refute I got them wrong, however. If I were biased, I would not accept the fact that I was wrong, even when faced with evidence to the contrary...or at least that's what bias means to me. I also suck at math, and can't come to the correct conclusions on my own, but I DO understand and accept the correct answer when they are laid before me. To that regard, I consider myself unbiased. My cognition was only biased by my laziness, in this case.
When I think bias in the terms of intellect, I think people who cannot and/or refuse to accept a empirical evidence because of their pre-disposed belief system (be it religion, ignorance, money, corruption). Think "Al Gore" and "Environmentalism". He wants his beliefs to be true so badly, that he exaggerates what is actually true, and ignores anything that refutes his belief. (Please, spare me any political banter, because I voted for Gore and I do my part for the environment, just using him as an example since he seems to be a bit 'out there').
Thanks for the info. Sorry, meant "house", although we would considering a condo downtown. We've eliminated most east side communities because of the schools. I don't doubt you like the condos there. We did enjoy Braise on E. 6th the other night!
Nope, sorry, mate. Racism is defined as discriminatory actions and beliefs that one race is intrinsically worse than another and therefore others are superior. If I like somebody because of a trait, I am not discriminating against them or thinking they are better than something else, only that I like them for their traits. The opposite, not liking someone BECAUSE of his or her race, is the definition of discrimination and racism. So while it may be unfair to like somebody because of a certain racial trait, it is not discriminatory nor is it racist.
95% is not an exaggeration in certain areas of defense. Software development for signals intelligence, for example, requires people who understand how foreign voice and non-voice intercept operations work. Very few civilians have this skill, so you gotta hire the recently separated from the military types and train them how to be civilians and how to write code. It doesn't hurt that they have active security clearances, which most civilians also lack.
Making tank tracks or machine gun barrels might not require any military experience, though, for example.
What other countries is the US bailing out? I thought we were talking about bailing out failed auto industry and banking sectors of American companies...something that 56% of the public support (even though the general public's opinion generally means squat in reality).
While Germany may be weary of dragging along the deadbeats like Greece, we Americans are tired of dragging along the southeastern section of our country that seems to be stuck in the 1950s.
Favoring somebody because of their race is the opposite of discrimination, so reverse discrimination is a completely illogical construct. The term you are talking about is called positive discrimination.
I am not a person of faith, yet I have a sound moral guideline. I don't need dogma to tell me how not to be a prick to my fellow humans. I don't cheat on my wife because that's a douchy thing to do, not because some book of fables tells me so. I don't steal stuff because, well, it doesn't belong to me. I don't kill people because that's evil. My personality is the outward manifestation of my morality, but my morality has no basis in religion.
I'm seeing the problems in Greece, France, Spain...etc...and frankly, I'm not thrilled with what I see. At some point, you run out of other peoples' money to spend, and you get the problems we're seeing in parts of Europe.
Or you could drop the selection bias and look at other European countries like Germany before making sweeping generalizations.
[Obama] rescued the auto-sector, and they needed a rescue because banks were refusing to lend money to them at any price. Frankly, I suspect most Republicans would have done the same thing.
Indeed. George Bush (R) is actually the President that was in office when the auto-sector bailout was enacted. If you are against the bail-outs, blame Bush, not Obama. If you are for them, credit Bush for being a "liberal", I suppose.
I think Obama is one of the most left leaning, divisive and ideological people I've ever seen in power in the US, much less in the presidency.
This is wrong. I'll provided two admittedly anecdotal points. 1- Obama's ideology is very closely aligned with mine, and I'm a registered republican that leans left of center. 2 - None of my liberal friends think he's liberal enough.
Obama is no lefty. He's Clinton 2.0. There's not much difference between Obama and George H.W. Bush, policy wise, and nobody calls Bush I a liberal (except only the craziest of tea partiers).
You should have a basic understanding of the rules of the road. Unfortunately in America, that isn't true for most drivers. Simple rules like left lane for passing only and yield to the vehicle on your right should be mandatory before anyone gets a license.
Sadly, most poor driving comes down to simply inconsiderate behavior. I've been driving for 25 years and I've never caused an accident... it's "always the other guy", because of the law of averages. I'll "mind my own business" when crappy drivers like you are off the road and not interfering with my business.
These type of people are the ones who park in the fire lane at the grocery store while their (usually really fat, but completely irrelevant to this conversation, but still fun to note) spouse goes shopping. They are the people who are perfectly healthy who use their spouse's handicapped sticker to park close. They are the jerks who cause 10 cars behind them to miss the light because they were responding to a text and didn't go on green.
You have falsely characterized me. I'm not the old fart yelling at everyone to slow down or to quit tailgating me. I do, however, want people to GO when the light turns green, NOT slow down and rubberneck when there's a broken down car or a cop on the side of the road. Leaving 40 car lengths between you and the next guy is about as unacceptable as swearing across 1.5 lanes...because you are texting. You know what doesn't happen when you are eating, yelling at your kids, or talking on a hand held device? You don't drive like an asshole who is texting.
I wish people would drive more aggressively...just with more skill and consideration...green means go, stay out of the left lane, let people trying to merge in without closing their gap, if I put my blinker on to change lanes and I'm ahead of you, don't zip around me. Don't change three lanes at a time at 85 mph in a suburban. All easy stuff that have deadly consequences for the idiots who can't follow.
Lastly, you miss the point about heavy fines. If only AFTER enforcement is increased and drivers continue to exhibit the same dangerous behavior should fines be increased. That's how deterrence works...if you fine a soccer mom $50 for texting and driving, she's just going to look twice for cops before texting. If you fine her $500 and jack up her insurance, and require her to show up for court in order to get her driving license back, she might stop being a risk to me and my family.
And no, I don't want this blanket policy for everything traffic related. Speeding fines for doing 38 in a 30 mph zone, for example, are stupid, especially when the road and conditions can handle upwards of 50 mph safely. Back to my initial point...get cops out of speed traps, just drive around randomly all day, and there are plenty of dangerous drivers to cite.
Slashdot Mirror
Quick search on newegg.com has 16GB DDR3 RAM at $149, versus $200 from Apple, preconfigured. Your prices suck because you live in the UK, not because of Apple. And yes, I used to live in the UK...don't miss UK prices one bit.
16GB of RAM for $200 doesn't seem like much of a gauging to me, at least not in the traditional sense of manufacturers overcharging for RAM upgrades at point-of-sales purchases. I'd gladly pay $200 with the general sense of security that I'll never have to buy RAM for that machine again. Unless there's a massive computer paradigm shift, the stock 8GB of RAM is pretty stout, and 16 seems a bit, well, over-the-top.
To be fair, Rome and Bologna are not the same city.
My old iPod was more expensive to repair than a brand new iPod with 4x the storage capacity. I wasn't offended and just bought a new one instead. In fact, I was quite stoked.
My predictions about complaints before reading any comments include:
No physical media (wah).
No ethernet and/or have to spend money on cheap ethernet dongle (wah).
No 17" version (super wah).
Something about random slashdot guy's opinion about glossy/non-glossy screen and/or other insignificant personal preference
I bet it will run too hotly.
Not enough USB ports.
And then a whole bunch of technically incorrect gripes about resolution, screen size, and dpi...
Oh and let's not forgot the popular:
OS X sucks (even though you can still run Windows on it if you like)
no user-replaceable battery
merely an expensive fashion item/social status
And one last prediction is I'll have to correct some snarky fool who will say something stupid like "no right click" or something track-pad related where they miss the entire point of gestures because they've actually never used an Apple notebook and are trying to wedge their Dell-centric worldview onto Apple hardware.
This should be fun.
Now you are just being argumentative. You keep repeating that I only have one accepted definition of racism because I'm taking contention with one slashdot person's view of what racism is, by defining that what they think is racism, and explaining why that it is not racism as widely accepted in social science.
Of all the racist sentiments riddled throughout this thread, I chose to take this one on as I think it's the most egregious. That doesn't mean it's my only definition.
I'm sorry if you tend to read into what I've said as well. I never stated it is ok to 'favor' someone based on race...that implies racism...choosing one over the other based on race...I said it is ok to LIKE somebody based solely on their race. Being 'for' somebody does not imply you have to be 'against' somebody else.
It's a twisted world (maybe just a slashdot thing) when it is "racist" to LIKE (notice I didn't say favor) something because of it's race, ethnicity, heritage, whatever.
Sorry, meant to say "misrepresented my point entirely", not "missed my point".
You've missed my point entirely. The definition I've apparently just "picked out of a long list of definitions and is the one I agree with the most" is not an accurate portrayal of my intellect or background in social sciences. What I'm saying, in that long list of definitions offered up by lots of really dumb and racist people, there are many definitions that don't define racism as accepted in social sciences. You are correct. I do ignore those, because they are factually incorrect.
When randomly picking my pet definition, please note I didn't pick "some people say that racism is prejudice plus power so ones without power can't be racist". Of course they can and many are. If a minority hates somebody else simply because they are a different race, that's racism. Notice the requirement for negative association with a race not your own...which is my point. Positive associations with particular characteristics of a person have never been included as cornerstones of racism.
You could have cut down your entire post by simply acknowledging that Universities lean left because critical thinking, empirical evidence, scientific inquiry, meta-cognition, and heavy doses of skepticism are staples for both.
You also failed to acknowledge that what qualifies as "right wing" and "left wing" swings wildly based on era and geography. I registered Republican in the 1980s. I haven't had anyone in my party to vote for since G. H. W. Bush left office. I've also lived in Georgia and Texas, but grew up in the Northwest. I'm more liberal than some so called "Democrats" in those states. I've also lived in England and Germany, where the concept of right and left are on completely different scales.
So, no, I don't think your analysis is very accurate. In fact, it sounds like the same sort of anti-intellectual rationalization for not having an education that I hear daily on conservative talk radio.
Like my father used to say..."vote your pocketbook, son!". To which I say, my dad was an idiot.
I'm not arguing semantics or dictionary answers. I'm talking about the fundamental meaning of what racism is (and more importantly, what it isn't).
And telling me to argue about something that matters is really insulting, as if racism is not an important topic.
Do you mean psychiatrists and not psychologists?
Indeed smart people can be dumb, like the ones who wrote this article.
“people who were aware of their own biases were not better able to overcome them.”
While it may be true some smart people cannot overcome their own biases, the first step in being smarter than others is being able to identify your biases, so you can work on overcoming them. The willfully ignorant person has no chance if they don't know what they don't know.
Also, they have an interesting definition of bias. Yes, I got the math questions wrong because I am lazy and didn't take them seriously. I don't refute I got them wrong, however. If I were biased, I would not accept the fact that I was wrong, even when faced with evidence to the contrary...or at least that's what bias means to me. I also suck at math, and can't come to the correct conclusions on my own, but I DO understand and accept the correct answer when they are laid before me. To that regard, I consider myself unbiased. My cognition was only biased by my laziness, in this case.
When I think bias in the terms of intellect, I think people who cannot and/or refuse to accept a empirical evidence because of their pre-disposed belief system (be it religion, ignorance, money, corruption). Think "Al Gore" and "Environmentalism". He wants his beliefs to be true so badly, that he exaggerates what is actually true, and ignores anything that refutes his belief. (Please, spare me any political banter, because I voted for Gore and I do my part for the environment, just using him as an example since he seems to be a bit 'out there').
Cheers. ~stewie
Thanks for the info. Sorry, meant "house", although we would considering a condo downtown. We've eliminated most east side communities because of the schools. I don't doubt you like the condos there. We did enjoy Braise on E. 6th the other night!
Nope, sorry, mate. Racism is defined as discriminatory actions and beliefs that one race is intrinsically worse than another and therefore others are superior. If I like somebody because of a trait, I am not discriminating against them or thinking they are better than something else, only that I like them for their traits. The opposite, not liking someone BECAUSE of his or her race, is the definition of discrimination and racism. So while it may be unfair to like somebody because of a certain racial trait, it is not discriminatory nor is it racist.
95% is not an exaggeration in certain areas of defense. Software development for signals intelligence, for example, requires people who understand how foreign voice and non-voice intercept operations work. Very few civilians have this skill, so you gotta hire the recently separated from the military types and train them how to be civilians and how to write code. It doesn't hurt that they have active security clearances, which most civilians also lack.
Making tank tracks or machine gun barrels might not require any military experience, though, for example.
What other countries is the US bailing out? I thought we were talking about bailing out failed auto industry and banking sectors of American companies...something that 56% of the public support (even though the general public's opinion generally means squat in reality).
While Germany may be weary of dragging along the deadbeats like Greece, we Americans are tired of dragging along the southeastern section of our country that seems to be stuck in the 1950s.
Favoring somebody because of their race is the opposite of discrimination, so reverse discrimination is a completely illogical construct. The term you are talking about is called positive discrimination.
I am not a person of faith, yet I have a sound moral guideline. I don't need dogma to tell me how not to be a prick to my fellow humans. I don't cheat on my wife because that's a douchy thing to do, not because some book of fables tells me so. I don't steal stuff because, well, it doesn't belong to me. I don't kill people because that's evil. My personality is the outward manifestation of my morality, but my morality has no basis in religion.
Being "for" somebody because of their race is not the same thing as being "against" somebody because of their race. That is not how racism works.
Anyone who doesn't want to believe this needs to watch the movie "Game Changer".
I'm seeing the problems in Greece, France, Spain...etc...and frankly, I'm not thrilled with what I see. At some point, you run out of other peoples' money to spend, and you get the problems we're seeing in parts of Europe.
Or you could drop the selection bias and look at other European countries like Germany before making sweeping generalizations.
[Obama] rescued the auto-sector, and they needed a rescue because banks were refusing to lend money to them at any price. Frankly, I suspect most Republicans would have done the same thing.
Indeed. George Bush (R) is actually the President that was in office when the auto-sector bailout was enacted. If you are against the bail-outs, blame Bush, not Obama. If you are for them, credit Bush for being a "liberal", I suppose.
I think Obama is one of the most left leaning, divisive and ideological people I've ever seen in power in the US, much less in the presidency.
This is wrong. I'll provided two admittedly anecdotal points. 1- Obama's ideology is very closely aligned with mine, and I'm a registered republican that leans left of center. 2 - None of my liberal friends think he's liberal enough.
Obama is no lefty. He's Clinton 2.0. There's not much difference between Obama and George H.W. Bush, policy wise, and nobody calls Bush I a liberal (except only the craziest of tea partiers).
You should have a basic understanding of the rules of the road. Unfortunately in America, that isn't true for most drivers. Simple rules like left lane for passing only and yield to the vehicle on your right should be mandatory before anyone gets a license.
Sadly, most poor driving comes down to simply inconsiderate behavior. I've been driving for 25 years and I've never caused an accident... it's "always the other guy", because of the law of averages. I'll "mind my own business" when crappy drivers like you are off the road and not interfering with my business.
These type of people are the ones who park in the fire lane at the grocery store while their (usually really fat, but completely irrelevant to this conversation, but still fun to note) spouse goes shopping. They are the people who are perfectly healthy who use their spouse's handicapped sticker to park close. They are the jerks who cause 10 cars behind them to miss the light because they were responding to a text and didn't go on green.
You have falsely characterized me. I'm not the old fart yelling at everyone to slow down or to quit tailgating me. I do, however, want people to GO when the light turns green, NOT slow down and rubberneck when there's a broken down car or a cop on the side of the road. Leaving 40 car lengths between you and the next guy is about as unacceptable as swearing across 1.5 lanes...because you are texting. You know what doesn't happen when you are eating, yelling at your kids, or talking on a hand held device? You don't drive like an asshole who is texting.
I wish people would drive more aggressively...just with more skill and consideration...green means go, stay out of the left lane, let people trying to merge in without closing their gap, if I put my blinker on to change lanes and I'm ahead of you, don't zip around me. Don't change three lanes at a time at 85 mph in a suburban. All easy stuff that have deadly consequences for the idiots who can't follow.
Lastly, you miss the point about heavy fines. If only AFTER enforcement is increased and drivers continue to exhibit the same dangerous behavior should fines be increased. That's how deterrence works...if you fine a soccer mom $50 for texting and driving, she's just going to look twice for cops before texting. If you fine her $500 and jack up her insurance, and require her to show up for court in order to get her driving license back, she might stop being a risk to me and my family.
And no, I don't want this blanket policy for everything traffic related. Speeding fines for doing 38 in a 30 mph zone, for example, are stupid, especially when the road and conditions can handle upwards of 50 mph safely. Back to my initial point...get cops out of speed traps, just drive around randomly all day, and there are plenty of dangerous drivers to cite.