Everything you say in your post has no merit, based on this one line. Yeah, so tell me, a professional Flash developer, how I'm not able to update Flash on a Mac? Speaking of not being able to update "everything else", maybe it's time you updated your rhetoric?
Well, Apple has shown great strides in penetrating the OS market...yet they've only penetrated it at the rate of about 3-5%, leaving a full 90% -ish percent left for growth. I'd say that, plus quality phones and mp3 players, is the potential that investors see in Apple.
$200 bucks!!! Whoopty frikken doooo. I'd pay an extra $500 just to get OSX instead of Vista. I'd pay the extra $200 just for the brand security, since I've been pretty much problem free with Apple products for over 25 years (YMMV). I'd pay $200 just to know that if something goes wrong with my computer, I walk into the mall and ask some teenager guy at the genius bar what the fuck is wrong with my computer, then go home and fix it myself. $200 alone is worth avoiding groveling to my closest geek-friend or going to the Geek-squad for them to screw up my Vista laptop even more. $200 ain't shit in the grand scheme of the world. And no, HP aren't BETTER parts in general. They offer a wider-variety of parts, but the parts that are in line with Apple prices are certainly no better (or worse).
Not to mention up in Seattle, they line up about 50 cops and then pull over 50 cars that are traveling safely at 65 mph in the 60 zone. Somebody please justify that as anything OTHER than a revenue generating scheme.
Well I grew up in Oregon (in Eugene) as a RHINO. SInce then I've lived all over. One thing I can say is that an Oregon "conservative" is more liberal than a Georgian (US version) or Texan "Democrat". It's all relative;-)
I'm not pro-gun at all. I'm just saying statistics are just numbers...they aren't right or wrong. PEOPLE misuse them, so it isn't statistics fault that people are creeps.
Bull Shit, with a capital BS. How hard is it to watch the average prick driver in your town change 4 lines at a time, with no blinker, cutting off one car in each lane? How hard is it to spot some 90 year-old fart in a Buick pull out in front of me from a side street, when there isn't a car within 2 minutes BEHIND me? How hard is it for a cop to sit at an intersection and spot people making illegal left turns against the red, because they don't want to have to wait another light cycle? I could write more tickets for tail-gating in ONE day on the beat than I could write speeding tickets in an entire month, which brings me back to the main point. Why do the freakin' cops sit at a "speed-trap" for 20 minutes, one or two times a month (mind you, not at an intersection, where the majority of collision accidents happen) if they are out there to protect us from evil speeders? If speeding at the particular (cough, convenient, cough) spot is such a public danger, then why the hell aren't they out there EVERY day? Why do the sit in conveniently unoccupied construction zones? To protect the absent workers and their precious gear? No, because fines are "doubled", meaning twice the profit.
Because traffic laws don't exist to promote public safety. Otherwise they'd ticket people who fail to yield, make illegal lane changes and tailgate...all much more dangerous driving habits than breaking the artificially low speed limits that exist solely to generate revenue. IF they must be lazy and just ticket speeders, then why the hell don't they come to my residential street and pull people over for doing 45 in the 25. Instead, they sit on the expressway and give out tickets for 62 in a 55 on an wide-open, empty highway without another car in sight (let alone small children playing in the street).
Sorry, hit submit too quickly. Taking the example of contrapositive from wiki... If an object is red, it has color (fine). The contrapositive being, if something does NOT have a color, then it is NOT red (also fine).
Let's take Hogwashes statement and make a contrapositive out of it for analysis:
If something exists, it is part of the natural world and can be examined through the scientific method.
The contrapositive would be: If something doesn't exist, it isn't part of the natural world and can not be examined through the scientific method.
Although that is a perfectly legitimate contrapositive, it's not the same thing as what PCandSony Fanboy is erroneously claiming:
it is ignorant to claim that something doesn't exist because you can't measure it.
The flaw in PC's logic (by inferring Hogwash said something he most certainly didn't) is that it isn't the inability to measure something that makes it not exist, it is the lack of being part of the natural world that makes something not exist. In other words, Hogwash's statement and PCs statement are not contrapositives, because they aren't equivalently expressed.
I admit, I had to look up contrapositives, but there is no way that is remotely applicable here. If I say I can see the cat, therefore the cat is real, I am NOT saying (or even implying) that if I can't see the cat, then cats don't exist. That's exactly what this guy is saying. Hogwash said if something can be observed, it can be measured. Meaning--if something has enough of a physical manifestation, then that can be measured, and proven to exist. The opposite of that (not a contrapositive) is if something can't be seen, then it must not exist. That is NOT what Hogwash is saying at all, and is EXACTLY what PC and Sony Fanboy is incorrectly inferring.
Yeah, again, I'm not a huge fan of the smug bastards on here who flex their intellectual muscles by throwing around tired cliches about anecdotes and correlations (and lately, how our Democracy isn't a Democracy, but a Republic...man this stuff gets old). More interesting to me is the "left handed" phenomena of Presidents (guaranteed to be a lefty again this time). Granted, "more interesting" doesn't mean "more scientifically sound", just that it's easy to see how people would be swayed to vote for somebody tall (subliminally or whatever), but much harder to anecdotally justify voting for someone because they are left-handed.
Casual. But, by mere coincidence, I could have meant causal, even though I find the "correlation does not equal causation" crowd to be faux-intellectuals who are addicted to buzz-phrases and Interenet memes and lack any real skills for thinking for themselves. Hey, but most of us were college students at one point, so all remember what it was like being smarter than every one else;-)
Unfortunately, I wasn't able to read the article you cited. I'm sure he provides plenty of logic to support the findings. I just think there are far more intervening variables to make anything of 'the taller candidate usually wins'.
FTA: "Still, the CGI eye candy will make it popular with kids."
My kids are pretty typical American kids and they said it "looks gay". Not that there's anything wrong with that...
Actually, making casual relationships without considering intervening variables isn't that much less ignorant that picking a candidate based solely on their height:-p
No, because it has a decent set of features that work really well as opposed to a bunch of poorly-designed afterthoughts where some program manager can check-the-blocks on his feature list. I see it every day at work, and nobody considers our product to be very good, even though it has a billion features.
Some people find gruel to be delicious. But back on topic, after reading through all of this, I would agree that treating each song as a separate incident of "shoplifting" could be argued as being excessive. The point I made in the last post is what constitutes how many "shoplifting" incidents you created? Every time you download one song? Every session you download X amount of songs? Every computer or ip address you've used to download songs? It's slippery. But back to my SINGLE most over looked premise. A $749 fine for stealing something is not a constitutional issue, not only because it isn't cruel, unusual, or excessive in the minds of most people who don't hang out on slashdot, but also because "constitutionality" doesn't apply to a civil organization like the RIAA. They aren't the government.
Yeah, that's why I prefer the 15" MBP (or hell, even the 13" MacBook) to the 17" one. I'd get a 17" if I did a lot of demos or it sat in my office as a desktop replacement. I think lenovo is fully in the "desktop replacement" mode.
Slashdot Mirror
iMac? can't even update flash, or anything else.
Everything you say in your post has no merit, based on this one line. Yeah, so tell me, a professional Flash developer, how I'm not able to update Flash on a Mac? Speaking of not being able to update "everything else", maybe it's time you updated your rhetoric?
IBM isn't really a computer company either!
Cough, Lenovo, cough...
Well, Apple has shown great strides in penetrating the OS market...yet they've only penetrated it at the rate of about 3-5%, leaving a full 90% -ish percent left for growth. I'd say that, plus quality phones and mp3 players, is the potential that investors see in Apple.
Given the choice of OS X and Windows Vista, give me Vista any day. I know that's not a popular opinion on Slashdot or anywhere else on planet Earth.
Fixed that for ya.
$200 bucks!!! Whoopty frikken doooo. I'd pay an extra $500 just to get OSX instead of Vista. I'd pay the extra $200 just for the brand security, since I've been pretty much problem free with Apple products for over 25 years (YMMV). I'd pay $200 just to know that if something goes wrong with my computer, I walk into the mall and ask some teenager guy at the genius bar what the fuck is wrong with my computer, then go home and fix it myself. $200 alone is worth avoiding groveling to my closest geek-friend or going to the Geek-squad for them to screw up my Vista laptop even more. $200 ain't shit in the grand scheme of the world. And no, HP aren't BETTER parts in general. They offer a wider-variety of parts, but the parts that are in line with Apple prices are certainly no better (or worse).
Sure the HP will be fatter and carry more plastic and it also comes with Windows Vista and not OS X...
There, fixed that for ya.
Ahhhh, you lost me at "real work". Nice try, but the "real people" use "real computers" argument ran dry about 5 years ago.
Not to mention up in Seattle, they line up about 50 cops and then pull over 50 cars that are traveling safely at 65 mph in the 60 zone. Somebody please justify that as anything OTHER than a revenue generating scheme.
Well I grew up in Oregon (in Eugene) as a RHINO. SInce then I've lived all over. One thing I can say is that an Oregon "conservative" is more liberal than a Georgian (US version) or Texan "Democrat". It's all relative ;-)
I'm not pro-gun at all. I'm just saying statistics are just numbers...they aren't right or wrong. PEOPLE misuse them, so it isn't statistics fault that people are creeps.
They're just quite a bit more difficult to spot.
Bull Shit, with a capital BS. How hard is it to watch the average prick driver in your town change 4 lines at a time, with no blinker, cutting off one car in each lane? How hard is it to spot some 90 year-old fart in a Buick pull out in front of me from a side street, when there isn't a car within 2 minutes BEHIND me? How hard is it for a cop to sit at an intersection and spot people making illegal left turns against the red, because they don't want to have to wait another light cycle? I could write more tickets for tail-gating in ONE day on the beat than I could write speeding tickets in an entire month, which brings me back to the main point. Why do the freakin' cops sit at a "speed-trap" for 20 minutes, one or two times a month (mind you, not at an intersection, where the majority of collision accidents happen) if they are out there to protect us from evil speeders? If speeding at the particular (cough, convenient, cough) spot is such a public danger, then why the hell aren't they out there EVERY day? Why do the sit in conveniently unoccupied construction zones? To protect the absent workers and their precious gear? No, because fines are "doubled", meaning twice the profit.
Yeah, because Oregon is SO blue outside of Portland and Eugene....or not.
Because traffic laws don't exist to promote public safety. Otherwise they'd ticket people who fail to yield, make illegal lane changes and tailgate...all much more dangerous driving habits than breaking the artificially low speed limits that exist solely to generate revenue. IF they must be lazy and just ticket speeders, then why the hell don't they come to my residential street and pull people over for doing 45 in the 25. Instead, they sit on the expressway and give out tickets for 62 in a 55 on an wide-open, empty highway without another car in sight (let alone small children playing in the street).
Sorry, hit submit too quickly. Taking the example of contrapositive from wiki... If an object is red, it has color (fine). The contrapositive being, if something does NOT have a color, then it is NOT red (also fine).
Let's take Hogwashes statement and make a contrapositive out of it for analysis:
If something exists, it is part of the natural world and can be examined through the scientific method.
The contrapositive would be: If something doesn't exist, it isn't part of the natural world and can not be examined through the scientific method.
Although that is a perfectly legitimate contrapositive, it's not the same thing as what PCandSony Fanboy is erroneously claiming:
it is ignorant to claim that something doesn't exist because you can't measure it.
The flaw in PC's logic (by inferring Hogwash said something he most certainly didn't) is that it isn't the inability to measure something that makes it not exist, it is the lack of being part of the natural world that makes something not exist. In other words, Hogwash's statement and PCs statement are not contrapositives, because they aren't equivalently expressed.
I admit, I had to look up contrapositives, but there is no way that is remotely applicable here. If I say I can see the cat, therefore the cat is real, I am NOT saying (or even implying) that if I can't see the cat, then cats don't exist. That's exactly what this guy is saying. Hogwash said if something can be observed, it can be measured. Meaning--if something has enough of a physical manifestation, then that can be measured, and proven to exist. The opposite of that (not a contrapositive) is if something can't be seen, then it must not exist. That is NOT what Hogwash is saying at all, and is EXACTLY what PC and Sony Fanboy is incorrectly inferring.
Yeah, again, I'm not a huge fan of the smug bastards on here who flex their intellectual muscles by throwing around tired cliches about anecdotes and correlations (and lately, how our Democracy isn't a Democracy, but a Republic...man this stuff gets old). More interesting to me is the "left handed" phenomena of Presidents (guaranteed to be a lefty again this time). Granted, "more interesting" doesn't mean "more scientifically sound", just that it's easy to see how people would be swayed to vote for somebody tall (subliminally or whatever), but much harder to anecdotally justify voting for someone because they are left-handed.
Casual. But, by mere coincidence, I could have meant causal, even though I find the "correlation does not equal causation" crowd to be faux-intellectuals who are addicted to buzz-phrases and Interenet memes and lack any real skills for thinking for themselves. Hey, but most of us were college students at one point, so all remember what it was like being smarter than every one else ;-)
Unfortunately, I wasn't able to read the article you cited. I'm sure he provides plenty of logic to support the findings. I just think there are far more intervening variables to make anything of 'the taller candidate usually wins'.
Stu
FTA: "Still, the CGI eye candy will make it popular with kids." My kids are pretty typical American kids and they said it "looks gay". Not that there's anything wrong with that...
You mean there are required qualifications other than a vision test and not being dead to drive in the US?
Actually, making casual relationships without considering intervening variables isn't that much less ignorant that picking a candidate based solely on their height :-p
I'm saying that it is ignorant to claim that something doesn't exist because you can't measure it.
Except he didn't claim that. He claimed the opposite--if something does exist, it can be measured.
Stupid People have a right to vote too. That's what supposedly makes this country so great.
No, because it has a decent set of features that work really well as opposed to a bunch of poorly-designed afterthoughts where some program manager can check-the-blocks on his feature list. I see it every day at work, and nobody considers our product to be very good, even though it has a billion features.
Some people find gruel to be delicious. But back on topic, after reading through all of this, I would agree that treating each song as a separate incident of "shoplifting" could be argued as being excessive. The point I made in the last post is what constitutes how many "shoplifting" incidents you created? Every time you download one song? Every session you download X amount of songs? Every computer or ip address you've used to download songs? It's slippery. But back to my SINGLE most over looked premise. A $749 fine for stealing something is not a constitutional issue, not only because it isn't cruel, unusual, or excessive in the minds of most people who don't hang out on slashdot, but also because "constitutionality" doesn't apply to a civil organization like the RIAA. They aren't the government.
Yeah, that's why I prefer the 15" MBP (or hell, even the 13" MacBook) to the 17" one. I'd get a 17" if I did a lot of demos or it sat in my office as a desktop replacement. I think lenovo is fully in the "desktop replacement" mode.