Errhm...There's a reason that so many people have poor experiences with work -- it is almost guaranteed that you will make significantly more money by crushing them beneath your booted heel...
Actually that is not true. Why was Henry Ford successful? Because he paid his employees enough to be able to afford the cars he produced. Robert Heinlein called it enlightened self interest. If I run a business and treat my employees well (and make sure that they know it), they will be more likely to do everything in their power to make my business more successful. On the other hand if I work for a business and it treats me well, if I do everything in my power to make that business successful, I am more likely to have job security.
The difference is they are trying to change people's ongoing behavior (what software they use/buy) rather than just cause a specific behavior on a particular date (vote for or against a particular guy).
Whether tactics that work in campaign ad campaigns work in this sort of ad campaign is a different question, but it is clear that just because it works in a campaign ad doesn't mean it will work here. This compares more to PSA type of ad campaigns (like the ones run by MADD to get people to not drive after drinking) than to either an ad campaign trying to sell a product or one trying to get people to vote a certain way.
I get mighty tired of the scientific meme "functionless until proved grantable". Were the scientists originally responsible for this, or the surgeons?
This meme is the result of the Theory of Evolution. The idea was (is?) that creatures evolved a new structure that would make the function of an existing structure redundant. Gradually the creature would mutate so that the now redundant structure becomes less and less functional over time until it eventually disappears completely.
Whether or not this meme is a valid interpretation of the Theory of Evolution or not is a completely different question. It was however a prevalent understanding until at least quite recently.
I am lazy and I did a quick google and couldn't find a link...
However, I remember reading about a study in my college Psychology class that pointed to the fact that people depressed actually have a *clearer* view of reality when compared to the non-depressed. It's a rose colored glasses type of effect. When given questions about certain situations, clinically depressed persons tended to give more answers that matched up with the real-world reality of situations than the non-depressed.
In other words the world is shit I am justified in being depressed all the time.
Actually, looking at the Wikipedia entry posted further down, it appears to me that the study found that depressed people believed that they had no control in certain situations where in fact they had no control, whereas the non-depressed persons in the study felt that they had some control. The problem with the conclusion that the depressed people had a clearer view of reality comes from the fact that they, also, believed they had no control in situations where in fact they had some level of control.
So, Foxnews trumps polls that show that most people (somewhere in the 90% range) in the news industry (reporters, editors, etc)are self-identified Democrats? You do realize that television news is only a small part of the news industry?
But because you perceive (I don't watch television news, so don't have an opinion on Fox News) that Fox News leans Republican that means that the news media in general doesn't lean Democrat?
OK, we need to understand something. Political advertising is different from commercial advertising.
The reason that "think of the children" works in politics is because of the ability to condense a bill down to a sound bite. "Representative Smith voted against protecting our children when he voted against the Defend the Children bill." They don't tell you that the Defend the Children bill contained a provision that would have housed convicted pedophiles in the same cells as juvenile delinquents (hyperbole--but not necessarily by much--to make the point).
Hitler tricked and schemed other politicians into giving him more power, in exchange for getting rid of the threat of communism (much like McCarthy),
I agree with all of your post except your apparent belief that Senator Joseph McCarthy ever had any real power. Joseph McCarthy was a demagogue who attempted to use the anti-communist scare to acquire greater influence in the U.S. Senate, but he never really succeeded. The people who suffered during the communist witch hunts** mostly ran into trouble with the House UnAmerican Activities Committee, which Joseph McCarthy was not a member of. This committee was run by Democrats at the time (since they were the majority party in Congress). Joseph McCarthy was a loud mouthed demagogue, but he did little real harm, what harm was done was done by others who mostly have been ignored by history.
**Most of them were actually communists and many of them were actually working to overthrow the U.S. government, but the approach used to go after them was counterproductive and violated the ideals of the Constitution.
Looking through browser history is equivalent to asking you to provide your personal diary in order to get into the country. Similarly, looking at your saved email is equivalent to requiring you to bring copies of all your personal correspondence for the previous 12 months in order to get into the country.
Todd
If you were carrying your personal diary when you crossed the border, customs can legally read it. If you are carrying your personal correspondence for the previous 12 months when you cross the border, customs can legally read it. Just because you are carrying it on your laptop doesn't change that.
The logical conclusion is that warrants are not required in all circumstances, and national borders would seem to be an appropriate location for some amount of searching (for contraband, at least). As there is no prohibition on data entering the country, I'm at a loss as to why border agents would be interested in or have authority to search laptops beyond checking that they are, in fact, actually laptops.
Has anyone on here heard of a thing called a "diplomatic pouch"? If not, they are a briefcase or bag or other container that contains communications from home government to an embassy in another country. They are, by international treaty, exempt from border searches. Diplomatic pouches are not a concept that was developed in the U.S., as a matter of fact, it is a concept that was developed before the U.S. was a significant player in international affairs.
Now, why do diplomatic pouches exist? Because letters going across borders are subject to being opened and examined by the governments of many countries and it was felt that allowing a government to communicate with its embassy without the host government knowing the contents of the communication was desirable.
Therefore there is obviously a longstanding tradition of governments examining information crossing into their country. Laptops are merely a technological method of carrying information. There is nothing novel about searching laptops, it is in a tradition going back as long as modern diplomacy.
Actually, the advantage of the pre-17th Amendment method of selecting U.S. Senators was that the Senators then represented the interests of the state as a whole/the state government. As opposed to now where they are answerable to popular sentiment. The members of the state legislature are more likely than the general populace to understand the "unintended consequences"** of any given federal legislation than the general populace.
**I put the quotes around unintended consequences because with increasing frequency the consequences were intended, but nobody was supposed to notice until after the bill became law.
So you are saying that the African-American who carried a gun to a protest near a political rally about health care attended by the President was doing so because he was a racist?
Or perhaps he did it to bring attention to the fact that it was perfectly legal for him to do so in Arizona, and that he felt that the President would try to change that?
You are correct it is not left leaning, it leans in favor of Democrat politicians, in particular those that favor greater government control over the economy. Polls have repeatedly shown that those who work in the news media overwhelming self-identify as Democrats and as liberals.
What you may not realize is that the Christian Science Monitor was founded by Mary Baker Eddy. Mary Baker Eddy is the founder of the Church of Christ, Scientist. Adherents of this religion often refuse modern medical treatments because they believe that disease is not real. The "Christian Science" in the name "Christian Science Monitor" is neither Christian, nor Science.
I am sorry, all the politicians I know who are opposing Democare (not Obamacare because Obama doesn't have a plan he is just backing whichever plan the Democrats in Congress decide to go with), also, have campaigned to fix Medicare/Medicaid (they are actually two separate, but equally bad federal programs).
You talk about the national health insurance plan as if it is some clearly laid out plan. Why do you think they tried to rush it through Congress before anyone could have time to read it?
I'm sorry, I was replying to your comment about the Dunning-Kruger effect. I don't quite see how your reply applies.
The Dunning-Kruger effect says that incompetent people think they are more competent than people who are in fact more competent than themselves, while competent people think that everyone else is competent. So, that would lead one to expect incompetent people to think that they should be allowed to run other people's lives (such as their health-care choices), while competent people think that other people would be just as competent to look after themselves (such as making their own health-care choices).
I see stories like this and wonder about the people who argue that member countries of the EU are not the equivalent of U.S. states. This actually makes them less sovereign than U.S. states, since U.S. states don't need to "inform" the federal government when they pass a new law for it to be a law.
For further info, just google "Sarah Palin" or "birthers".
So that would explain why people like Sarah Palin think that people are capable of taking care of themselves, while people like Barack Obama think people need the government to take care of them. Obviously this is because Sarah Palin is less competent and therefore thinks she is more competent than others, while Barack Obama is more competent and therefore thinks other people are equally competent.
Also, this is an interesting thing I'd like to point out. You're in favor of suing spammers, but are opposed to litigation-happy individuals doing it, because... we'd have to read about all those spammers facing trials on Slashdot? Seriously, why? It seems, from your reference to "litigation-happy individuals" and suggestion that it be limited to people in your situation, your primary complaint is that some people might make money for their time and efforts suing spammers, and that those people aren't you. This is a bit disingenuous.
The reason I would be reluctant to allow individuals to sue spammers is because of all the people who would try to bring a suit for email they signed up for and forgot about (sometimes they might not even have realized they were signing up for it). I'm not entirely sure that would be a bad thing, but we should try more carefully targeted approaches first to see if they work before flooding our courts with this sort of thing.
I visit a lot of websites. This is really the only one that ever talks about science fiction movies. I agree with the above poster, the only times I heard anything about Avatar was on Slashdot. I haven't even heard about it from my friends into science fiction.
Once more, it costs me the same if I pay cash or if I pay with credit card. The product may (and probably does) cost more because the merchant takes credit cards, but my price is the same whether I pay cash or credit card.
First off, your list is not based on inflation adjusted prices. Second, your list is only for box office returns, many movies make more money after they are no longer in the theaters.
I was curious if in context he actually said that "Avatar" was "Dances with Wolves" in space so I googled your search and skimmed the article.
Not only did he say that "Avatar" was "Dances with Wolves" in space, he then said he was trying to make it something that Rudyard Kipling might have written. I just don't see how his concept makes a good movie, but then again I don't understand the popularity of Quentin Tarantino movies either.
Slashdot Mirror
Errhm...There's a reason that so many people have poor experiences with work -- it is almost guaranteed that you will make significantly more money by crushing them beneath your booted heel...
Actually that is not true. Why was Henry Ford successful? Because he paid his employees enough to be able to afford the cars he produced. Robert Heinlein called it enlightened self interest. If I run a business and treat my employees well (and make sure that they know it), they will be more likely to do everything in their power to make my business more successful. On the other hand if I work for a business and it treats me well, if I do everything in my power to make that business successful, I am more likely to have job security.
The difference is they are trying to change people's ongoing behavior (what software they use/buy) rather than just cause a specific behavior on a particular date (vote for or against a particular guy).
Whether tactics that work in campaign ad campaigns work in this sort of ad campaign is a different question, but it is clear that just because it works in a campaign ad doesn't mean it will work here. This compares more to PSA type of ad campaigns (like the ones run by MADD to get people to not drive after drinking) than to either an ad campaign trying to sell a product or one trying to get people to vote a certain way.
>
I get mighty tired of the scientific meme "functionless until proved grantable". Were the scientists originally responsible for this, or the surgeons?
This meme is the result of the Theory of Evolution. The idea was (is?) that creatures evolved a new structure that would make the function of an existing structure redundant. Gradually the creature would mutate so that the now redundant structure becomes less and less functional over time until it eventually disappears completely.
Whether or not this meme is a valid interpretation of the Theory of Evolution or not is a completely different question. It was however a prevalent understanding until at least quite recently.
I am lazy and I did a quick google and couldn't find a link...
However, I remember reading about a study in my college Psychology class that pointed to the fact that people depressed actually have a *clearer* view of reality when compared to the non-depressed. It's a rose colored glasses type of effect. When given questions about certain situations, clinically depressed persons tended to give more answers that matched up with the real-world reality of situations than the non-depressed.
In other words the world is shit I am justified in being depressed all the time.
Actually, looking at the Wikipedia entry posted further down, it appears to me that the study found that depressed people believed that they had no control in certain situations where in fact they had no control, whereas the non-depressed persons in the study felt that they had some control. The problem with the conclusion that the depressed people had a clearer view of reality comes from the fact that they, also, believed they had no control in situations where in fact they had some level of control.
So, Foxnews trumps polls that show that most people (somewhere in the 90% range) in the news industry (reporters, editors, etc)are self-identified Democrats? You do realize that television news is only a small part of the news industry?
But because you perceive (I don't watch television news, so don't have an opinion on Fox News) that Fox News leans Republican that means that the news media in general doesn't lean Democrat?
OK, we need to understand something. Political advertising is different from commercial advertising.
The reason that "think of the children" works in politics is because of the ability to condense a bill down to a sound bite. "Representative Smith voted against protecting our children when he voted against the Defend the Children bill." They don't tell you that the Defend the Children bill contained a provision that would have housed convicted pedophiles in the same cells as juvenile delinquents (hyperbole--but not necessarily by much--to make the point).
Hitler tricked and schemed other politicians into giving him more power, in exchange for getting rid of the threat of communism (much like McCarthy),
I agree with all of your post except your apparent belief that Senator Joseph McCarthy ever had any real power. Joseph McCarthy was a demagogue who attempted to use the anti-communist scare to acquire greater influence in the U.S. Senate, but he never really succeeded. The people who suffered during the communist witch hunts** mostly ran into trouble with the House UnAmerican Activities Committee, which Joseph McCarthy was not a member of. This committee was run by Democrats at the time (since they were the majority party in Congress). Joseph McCarthy was a loud mouthed demagogue, but he did little real harm, what harm was done was done by others who mostly have been ignored by history.
**Most of them were actually communists and many of them were actually working to overthrow the U.S. government, but the approach used to go after them was counterproductive and violated the ideals of the Constitution.
Looking through browser history is equivalent to asking you to provide your personal diary in order to get into the country. Similarly, looking at your saved email is equivalent to requiring you to bring copies of all your personal correspondence for the previous 12 months in order to get into the country. Todd
If you were carrying your personal diary when you crossed the border, customs can legally read it. If you are carrying your personal correspondence for the previous 12 months when you cross the border, customs can legally read it. Just because you are carrying it on your laptop doesn't change that.
The logical conclusion is that warrants are not required in all circumstances, and national borders would seem to be an appropriate location for some amount of searching (for contraband, at least). As there is no prohibition on data entering the country, I'm at a loss as to why border agents would be interested in or have authority to search laptops beyond checking that they are, in fact, actually laptops.
Has anyone on here heard of a thing called a "diplomatic pouch"? If not, they are a briefcase or bag or other container that contains communications from home government to an embassy in another country. They are, by international treaty, exempt from border searches. Diplomatic pouches are not a concept that was developed in the U.S., as a matter of fact, it is a concept that was developed before the U.S. was a significant player in international affairs.
Now, why do diplomatic pouches exist? Because letters going across borders are subject to being opened and examined by the governments of many countries and it was felt that allowing a government to communicate with its embassy without the host government knowing the contents of the communication was desirable.
Therefore there is obviously a longstanding tradition of governments examining information crossing into their country. Laptops are merely a technological method of carrying information. There is nothing novel about searching laptops, it is in a tradition going back as long as modern diplomacy.
Actually, the advantage of the pre-17th Amendment method of selecting U.S. Senators was that the Senators then represented the interests of the state as a whole/the state government. As opposed to now where they are answerable to popular sentiment. The members of the state legislature are more likely than the general populace to understand the "unintended consequences"** of any given federal legislation than the general populace.
**I put the quotes around unintended consequences because with increasing frequency the consequences were intended, but nobody was supposed to notice until after the bill became law.
So you are saying that the African-American who carried a gun to a protest near a political rally about health care attended by the President was doing so because he was a racist?
Or perhaps he did it to bring attention to the fact that it was perfectly legal for him to do so in Arizona, and that he felt that the President would try to change that?
You are correct it is not left leaning, it leans in favor of Democrat politicians, in particular those that favor greater government control over the economy. Polls have repeatedly shown that those who work in the news media overwhelming self-identify as Democrats and as liberals.
What you may not realize is that the Christian Science Monitor was founded by Mary Baker Eddy. Mary Baker Eddy is the founder of the Church of Christ, Scientist. Adherents of this religion often refuse modern medical treatments because they believe that disease is not real. The "Christian Science" in the name "Christian Science Monitor" is neither Christian, nor Science.
I am sorry, all the politicians I know who are opposing Democare (not Obamacare because Obama doesn't have a plan he is just backing whichever plan the Democrats in Congress decide to go with), also, have campaigned to fix Medicare/Medicaid (they are actually two separate, but equally bad federal programs).
You talk about the national health insurance plan as if it is some clearly laid out plan. Why do you think they tried to rush it through Congress before anyone could have time to read it?
I'm sorry, I was replying to your comment about the Dunning-Kruger effect. I don't quite see how your reply applies.
The Dunning-Kruger effect says that incompetent people think they are more competent than people who are in fact more competent than themselves, while competent people think that everyone else is competent. So, that would lead one to expect incompetent people to think that they should be allowed to run other people's lives (such as their health-care choices), while competent people think that other people would be just as competent to look after themselves (such as making their own health-care choices).
I see stories like this and wonder about the people who argue that member countries of the EU are not the equivalent of U.S. states. This actually makes them less sovereign than U.S. states, since U.S. states don't need to "inform" the federal government when they pass a new law for it to be a law.
For further info, just google "Sarah Palin" or "birthers".
So that would explain why people like Sarah Palin think that people are capable of taking care of themselves, while people like Barack Obama think people need the government to take care of them. Obviously this is because Sarah Palin is less competent and therefore thinks she is more competent than others, while Barack Obama is more competent and therefore thinks other people are equally competent.
I don't care if they are big or small, as long as they are "original equipment". I don't like after market modifications.
Also, this is an interesting thing I'd like to point out. You're in favor of suing spammers, but are opposed to litigation-happy individuals doing it, because... we'd have to read about all those spammers facing trials on Slashdot? Seriously, why? It seems, from your reference to "litigation-happy individuals" and suggestion that it be limited to people in your situation, your primary complaint is that some people might make money for their time and efforts suing spammers, and that those people aren't you. This is a bit disingenuous.
The reason I would be reluctant to allow individuals to sue spammers is because of all the people who would try to bring a suit for email they signed up for and forgot about (sometimes they might not even have realized they were signing up for it). I'm not entirely sure that would be a bad thing, but we should try more carefully targeted approaches first to see if they work before flooding our courts with this sort of thing.
I visit a lot of websites. This is really the only one that ever talks about science fiction movies. I agree with the above poster, the only times I heard anything about Avatar was on Slashdot. I haven't even heard about it from my friends into science fiction.
Once more, it costs me the same if I pay cash or if I pay with credit card. The product may (and probably does) cost more because the merchant takes credit cards, but my price is the same whether I pay cash or credit card.
If going from 10.5 to 10.6 is like going from win 98 to win 2k, my recommendation would be to buy a new machine for the new OS.
First off, your list is not based on inflation adjusted prices. Second, your list is only for box office returns, many movies make more money after they are no longer in the theaters.
Because historically, PG movies make more money.
I was curious if in context he actually said that "Avatar" was "Dances with Wolves" in space so I googled your search and skimmed the article.
Not only did he say that "Avatar" was "Dances with Wolves" in space, he then said he was trying to make it something that Rudyard Kipling might have written. I just don't see how his concept makes a good movie, but then again I don't understand the popularity of Quentin Tarantino movies either.