People like Perelman have a more instinctive grasp of ethics than any neurotypical types..
This is an inaccurate generalization. I am not familiar with Perelman and have no idea of what motivates him. However, since you do not know every neurotypical type in the world, there is no way you can know that there are no neurotypical types with as strong a grasp of ethics as Perelman (and others like him).
If they are hooked up to the network there are several utilities available that can be used to automatically shut down all of the computers on the network at a pre-set time.
I worked for a company that could have used thin clients instead of PC's. The problem was that the cost of setting up thin clients for all of our users cost more than buying and deploying the cheapest PC's we could find. The cheapest individual thin clients we could find cost about 25% less than the cheapest PC's we could find, once we paid for the Server the total cost was about 50% more than just buying a PC for each of the users. Now this was a small company, but it should theoretically be possible to do it for at least the same price as individual PC's
Ordinarily, I would think this might be a good idea. However, Eliot Spitzer is among those calling for it. In the past there were several times where he called for "public accountability" of various corporations. Those seemed like good ideas too. They turned out to just be shakedowns and/or publicity opportunities to advance his political career, not attempts to serve the public interest. If an organization has Eliot Spitzer as a member, I will not believe that they are seeking something in the public interest. This is about serving the personal interests of the people calling for it, not about serving the public interest.
The point of a netbook is size and weight, not speed. More power is nice, but the creep up towards 12" screens is annoying.
Especially with the price creep up to $500. A 12", $500 portable computer is a laptop or notebook, not a netbook. A netbook costs less than $400 and has a 10" or less screen. You can fiddle with one or the other of these and still have a netbook (just barely). But once you change both you are competing against traditional notebook computers, not netbooks.
Saying that if you dress/behave in a particular manner others will think of you in a particular way is not the same as saying that it is your fault if they act on that impression.
I am unaware of any Christian who suggests that rape victims wanted it. There may be some who suggest that some women dress/behave as if they want to be raped, but that is a different argument than saying that a rape victim wanted to be raped.
The pricing of scientific equipment also reflects several other factors (not to say that some scientific equipment isn't overpriced): first, there is very high quality control. Scientific equipment generally goes through fairly rigorous quality testing. Second, and more importantly, any device that is used to capture scientific data for electronic storage must comply with 21 CFR part 11 if that data will be submitted to a regulatory agency in the U.S. (and similar regulations if it will be submitted to regulatory agencies in the E.U., Canada, Japan or several additional countries which I don't know the identity of off the top of my head).
In most states, if Company A acquires most of the assets of Company B (what percentage depends on the specifics of the situation), Company A is liable for the debts of Company B. If Imeem was in bankruptcy this law would not apply, but I haven't seen any mention of bankruptcy in any of the stories.
I'm a much better driver while on a cell phone than I am with a passenger in the car talking to me
No... You most certainly are not....
How do you know? Some people find it impossible to not look at the person they are talking to. Have you ever been in a car with a driver who turns to look at you when they talk to you? It is incredibly scary. So, it is entirely believable that some people are better drivers when they talk on the cellphone than when they have a conversation with a passenger. The OP did not say he was a better driver on the cell phone than when he was driving with no conversation.
No, it's the hypocrisy built into the laws. There is a higher risk of being involved in an accident if you use a cell phone while driving, but the law allows you to use a cell phone as long as you use a handsfree device (at least all of the laws in the U.S. do). All of the studies that I have seen indicate that the risk is just as great using a cell phone with a handsfree device as with a handheld cell phone, so what is the point of the laws?
I would agree that the correct response is to inform your boss that the music functions as a kind of white noise to block the distracting noises in the office (many of which are a necessary part of your fellow workers getting their jobs done). Then when he disagrees and insists on his edict, start looking for work. When you find another job, make sure that you make clear in the exit interview that you started aggressively looking for work because of this edict.
If your company doesn't do exit interviews, you should already be looking for work. Companies that don't want to know why people are leaving in order to improve the work environment are rarely good places to work. Replacing employees is expensive both in the cost to find and train a replacement and in lost productivity while the replacement gets up to speed.
1) they're guilty of not properly responding to a FOIA request
2) they've said nasty things about certain colleagues work (but still cited it)
3) they've discarded some data for reasons they should have better explained (reasons that were valid -- it wasn't properly calibrated)
4) they arranged to have a journal editor fired for publishing a peer reviewed article that questioned conclusions reached by AGW promoters.
Right, because the guys who got millions in grants because they said the "sky is falling" are so much more trustworthy? Dr. Phil Jones received grants in the 90s in the thousands of dollars, since 1998 the grants he has received have been in the millions of dollars.
The only problem with your wealthy neighborhood -->wealthy school formula is that the City of Washington, D.C. is one of the poorest areas in the U.S., yet the Washington, D.C. school district spends among the highest levels per student of any school district in the country, for among the poorest results.
More importantly, there have been multiple studies which demonstrate that the correlation between well educated children and wealth is because both have similar causes. The overwhelming majority of children in single parent households live below the poverty level. After adjusting for household income, children in single parent households receive an inferior education to children from two parent households.
I don't have a reference currently. However, I came across an article a few years ago that contended that a larger percentage of the NEA (National Education Association--a teachers' union) were guilty of sexual abuse of children than the percentage of Catholic priests who were. That seems a stretch to me, but not a very large one.
You are right, I over simplified. If the four conditions you listed are met, I would agree that it is not a scam. If the "opt-in" does not explicitly state that failure to opt back out will result in future billing, it is probably a scam, but I would consider it on a case by case basis.
I hope you are joking about this being a "scam". This is a tactic used by many many legitimate companies that offer "free" trials. Even Blizzard does it with World of Warcraft free trials..*
Sorry, any company that offers a "free trial" and then automatically bills you is running a scam. Yes, there are many otherwise legitimate companies that run this scam. Yes, the Blizzard "free trials" are a scam. This tactic is a scam, any company that uses it should be considered suspect.
Thank you Mr Idiot from the guardian, we KNOW how the economy works, the exact same idiotic posts were made about Japan. Don't worry, Japan will only take a tiny bit of cash at the bottom, all the real money will be earned by the west. Yeah, this worked SO well, that Japan is now conveniently lumped with the west.
Yes, the same posts were made about Japan. They were made in response to articles and posts saying that Japan was going to replace the U.S. as the dominant economic power in the world. Guess what? That never happened.
Now, China is a different situation than Japan was. However, making the argument that posts saying that China won't take over the world economically are stupid because they are the same arguments as the one's that were made saying that Japan wouldn't take over the world economy is ridiculous. Japan never took over the world economy.
I suspect you know the answer and are just trying to avoid it, but let me explain. George Bush being photoshopped to look like a monkey is a personal insult implying he is as intelligent as a monkey. Michelle Obama being photoshopped to look like a monkey is a personal insult because it is implying her race makes her equal to a monkey. The former isn't racist, the latter is.
How do you know that the latter is the case? The fact that you believe that Michelle Obama was photoshopped to look like a monkey because of her race indicates that you are the rascist. We have no evidence that the person who created the image did so because of race. It may be that they think she isn't very bright.
This is really the exception and not the rule. A overwhelming majority of the items you buy at Wal-mart are the exactly same as what you would buy at any other retailers. Especially for big purchases you should be researching based on model number and can tell that Wal-Mart is selling a different model. Either way if you refuse to shop at Wal-Mart then only you are losing. Overall, I know I am getting a better price at Walmart just by their revenue statistics. Look at them compared to any other Brick and Mortar retailer and their profit to revenue ratio is going to be the lowest. This means less of my money is going into Wal-Mart shareholder pockets and towards the manufacturer.
The problem is that the same model # from the same manufacturer is not necessarily the same at Wal-Mart as at another retailer. A major magazine (I no longer remember which one) did an article where they compared items sold at Wal-Mart with the same model number from the same manufacturer from Sears and/or J.C. Penney's. The example I remember was a particular model of American Tourister luggage. The model had a "drag" handle and small wheels. On the one from Sears and J.C. Penney's those items were metal, on the one from Wal-Mart, they were plastic.
That being said, your second point is valid and important. If one shops carefully, one can get better value for one's money at Wal-Mart.
"Decent cameras will never go away because a phone will never be able to match the feature set of the camera....even compact ones, imo."
And mainframes will never go away because personal computers will never match the processing power of a mainframe. Right.
Mainframes haven't gone away. There are probably more of them today than ever.
The Obama peace prize meme is really annoying. I don't think it was a great idea to give the prize to him but it the idea that we don't give nobel peace prizes to people to encourage/support/recognize potential work is just wrong. For example, the 1935 prize went to Carl von Ossietsky for his journalism and peace activism against the Nazis. He had at that point done very little to stop the Nazis. And we all know how well he actually succeeded. Not at all. But that prize was completely reasonable. There's a long history of giving the prizes to people who promise future work.
Carl von Ossietsky did not receive the peace prize for "potential work". he received the prize for the work he had done publicizing the German violations of the Treaty of Versailles and for speaking out against the Nazi Party. He received the prize for actions he had already taken, even if such actions had been ineffective. Please try again to provide an example of someone (other than Obama) who received the Nobel Peace Prize for actions they had promised to take at some indefinite time in the future.
Slashdot Mirror
People like Perelman have a more instinctive grasp of ethics than any neurotypical types. .
This is an inaccurate generalization. I am not familiar with Perelman and have no idea of what motivates him. However, since you do not know every neurotypical type in the world, there is no way you can know that there are no neurotypical types with as strong a grasp of ethics as Perelman (and others like him).
If they are hooked up to the network there are several utilities available that can be used to automatically shut down all of the computers on the network at a pre-set time.
I worked for a company that could have used thin clients instead of PC's. The problem was that the cost of setting up thin clients for all of our users cost more than buying and deploying the cheapest PC's we could find. The cheapest individual thin clients we could find cost about 25% less than the cheapest PC's we could find, once we paid for the Server the total cost was about 50% more than just buying a PC for each of the users. Now this was a small company, but it should theoretically be possible to do it for at least the same price as individual PC's
Ordinarily, I would think this might be a good idea. However, Eliot Spitzer is among those calling for it. In the past there were several times where he called for "public accountability" of various corporations. Those seemed like good ideas too. They turned out to just be shakedowns and/or publicity opportunities to advance his political career, not attempts to serve the public interest. If an organization has Eliot Spitzer as a member, I will not believe that they are seeking something in the public interest. This is about serving the personal interests of the people calling for it, not about serving the public interest.
The point of a netbook is size and weight, not speed. More power is nice, but the creep up towards 12" screens is annoying.
Especially with the price creep up to $500. A 12", $500 portable computer is a laptop or notebook, not a netbook. A netbook costs less than $400 and has a 10" or less screen. You can fiddle with one or the other of these and still have a netbook (just barely). But once you change both you are competing against traditional notebook computers, not netbooks.
Saying that if you dress/behave in a particular manner others will think of you in a particular way is not the same as saying that it is your fault if they act on that impression.
I am unaware of any Christian who suggests that rape victims wanted it. There may be some who suggest that some women dress/behave as if they want to be raped, but that is a different argument than saying that a rape victim wanted to be raped.
The pricing of scientific equipment also reflects several other factors (not to say that some scientific equipment isn't overpriced): first, there is very high quality control. Scientific equipment generally goes through fairly rigorous quality testing. Second, and more importantly, any device that is used to capture scientific data for electronic storage must comply with 21 CFR part 11 if that data will be submitted to a regulatory agency in the U.S. (and similar regulations if it will be submitted to regulatory agencies in the E.U., Canada, Japan or several additional countries which I don't know the identity of off the top of my head).
The question is what were average ticket prices last year vs average ticket prices this year?
In most states, if Company A acquires most of the assets of Company B (what percentage depends on the specifics of the situation), Company A is liable for the debts of Company B. If Imeem was in bankruptcy this law would not apply, but I haven't seen any mention of bankruptcy in any of the stories.
No... You most certainly are not... .
How do you know? Some people find it impossible to not look at the person they are talking to. Have you ever been in a car with a driver who turns to look at you when they talk to you? It is incredibly scary. So, it is entirely believable that some people are better drivers when they talk on the cellphone than when they have a conversation with a passenger. The OP did not say he was a better driver on the cell phone than when he was driving with no conversation.
No, it's the hypocrisy built into the laws. There is a higher risk of being involved in an accident if you use a cell phone while driving, but the law allows you to use a cell phone as long as you use a handsfree device (at least all of the laws in the U.S. do). All of the studies that I have seen indicate that the risk is just as great using a cell phone with a handsfree device as with a handheld cell phone, so what is the point of the laws?
I would agree that the correct response is to inform your boss that the music functions as a kind of white noise to block the distracting noises in the office (many of which are a necessary part of your fellow workers getting their jobs done). Then when he disagrees and insists on his edict, start looking for work. When you find another job, make sure that you make clear in the exit interview that you started aggressively looking for work because of this edict.
If your company doesn't do exit interviews, you should already be looking for work. Companies that don't want to know why people are leaving in order to improve the work environment are rarely good places to work. Replacing employees is expensive both in the cost to find and train a replacement and in lost productivity while the replacement gets up to speed.
1) they're guilty of not properly responding to a FOIA request
2) they've said nasty things about certain colleagues work (but still cited it)
3) they've discarded some data for reasons they should have better explained (reasons that were valid -- it wasn't properly calibrated)
4) they arranged to have a journal editor fired for publishing a peer reviewed article that questioned conclusions reached by AGW promoters.
Right, because the guys who got millions in grants because they said the "sky is falling" are so much more trustworthy? Dr. Phil Jones received grants in the 90s in the thousands of dollars, since 1998 the grants he has received have been in the millions of dollars.
The only problem with your wealthy neighborhood -->wealthy school formula is that the City of Washington, D.C. is one of the poorest areas in the U.S., yet the Washington, D.C. school district spends among the highest levels per student of any school district in the country, for among the poorest results.
More importantly, there have been multiple studies which demonstrate that the correlation between well educated children and wealth is because both have similar causes. The overwhelming majority of children in single parent households live below the poverty level. After adjusting for household income, children in single parent households receive an inferior education to children from two parent households.
I don't have a reference currently. However, I came across an article a few years ago that contended that a larger percentage of the NEA (National Education Association--a teachers' union) were guilty of sexual abuse of children than the percentage of Catholic priests who were. That seems a stretch to me, but not a very large one.
You are right, I over simplified. If the four conditions you listed are met, I would agree that it is not a scam. If the "opt-in" does not explicitly state that failure to opt back out will result in future billing, it is probably a scam, but I would consider it on a case by case basis.
I hope you are joking about this being a "scam". This is a tactic used by many many legitimate companies that offer "free" trials. Even Blizzard does it with World of Warcraft free trials..*
Sorry, any company that offers a "free trial" and then automatically bills you is running a scam. Yes, there are many otherwise legitimate companies that run this scam. Yes, the Blizzard "free trials" are a scam. This tactic is a scam, any company that uses it should be considered suspect.
Thank you Mr Idiot from the guardian, we KNOW how the economy works, the exact same idiotic posts were made about Japan. Don't worry, Japan will only take a tiny bit of cash at the bottom, all the real money will be earned by the west. Yeah, this worked SO well, that Japan is now conveniently lumped with the west.
Yes, the same posts were made about Japan. They were made in response to articles and posts saying that Japan was going to replace the U.S. as the dominant economic power in the world. Guess what? That never happened.
Now, China is a different situation than Japan was. However, making the argument that posts saying that China won't take over the world economically are stupid because they are the same arguments as the one's that were made saying that Japan wouldn't take over the world economy is ridiculous. Japan never took over the world economy.
I suspect you know the answer and are just trying to avoid it, but let me explain. George Bush being photoshopped to look like a monkey is a personal insult implying he is as intelligent as a monkey. Michelle Obama being photoshopped to look like a monkey is a personal insult because it is implying her race makes her equal to a monkey. The former isn't racist, the latter is.
How do you know that the latter is the case? The fact that you believe that Michelle Obama was photoshopped to look like a monkey because of her race indicates that you are the rascist. We have no evidence that the person who created the image did so because of race. It may be that they think she isn't very bright.
Since the owners of Google were big supporters of the Democratic Party and had Al Gore in as a consultant on optimizing their search engine. http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2009/10/15/al-gore-advised-google-about-its-search-quality
This is really the exception and not the rule. A overwhelming majority of the items you buy at Wal-mart are the exactly same as what you would buy at any other retailers. Especially for big purchases you should be researching based on model number and can tell that Wal-Mart is selling a different model. Either way if you refuse to shop at Wal-Mart then only you are losing. Overall, I know I am getting a better price at Walmart just by their revenue statistics. Look at them compared to any other Brick and Mortar retailer and their profit to revenue ratio is going to be the lowest. This means less of my money is going into Wal-Mart shareholder pockets and towards the manufacturer.
The problem is that the same model # from the same manufacturer is not necessarily the same at Wal-Mart as at another retailer. A major magazine (I no longer remember which one) did an article where they compared items sold at Wal-Mart with the same model number from the same manufacturer from Sears and/or J.C. Penney's. The example I remember was a particular model of American Tourister luggage. The model had a "drag" handle and small wheels. On the one from Sears and J.C. Penney's those items were metal, on the one from Wal-Mart, they were plastic.
That being said, your second point is valid and important. If one shops carefully, one can get better value for one's money at Wal-Mart.
"Decent cameras will never go away because a phone will never be able to match the feature set of the camera....even compact ones, imo." And mainframes will never go away because personal computers will never match the processing power of a mainframe. Right.
Mainframes haven't gone away. There are probably more of them today than ever.
How about awarding it to someone who has done something whether successful or not?
The Obama peace prize meme is really annoying. I don't think it was a great idea to give the prize to him but it the idea that we don't give nobel peace prizes to people to encourage/support/recognize potential work is just wrong. For example, the 1935 prize went to Carl von Ossietsky for his journalism and peace activism against the Nazis. He had at that point done very little to stop the Nazis. And we all know how well he actually succeeded. Not at all. But that prize was completely reasonable. There's a long history of giving the prizes to people who promise future work.
Carl von Ossietsky did not receive the peace prize for "potential work". he received the prize for the work he had done publicizing the German violations of the Treaty of Versailles and for speaking out against the Nazi Party. He received the prize for actions he had already taken, even if such actions had been ineffective. Please try again to provide an example of someone (other than Obama) who received the Nobel Peace Prize for actions they had promised to take at some indefinite time in the future.