Not sure that's a counter, actually; I don't think that's the kind of behavior doctors are concerned about. When your wife found the evidence that she may have been misdiagnosed, she went to her doctor to confirm it and get his opinion; she didn't dismiss him as a quack and go all homeopathic on him, or assume that he was an idiot and stop taking his advice seriously.
My way of thinking about this is that if the wife was open to an adulterous relationship in the first place, he didn't really need to frame the husband to start that. His actions only make sense if she spurned his advances and he was trying to remove a real barrier: not her husband, but her love for her husband. He didn't murder the guy or set him up as a thief; he set him up as something a wife might reasonably be shocked into rejecting completely. To me, she seems very likely to be blameless.
When they talk about the warring parties, there doesn't seem to be enough discussion of the death of free (ad-driven or public, but no access fee) broadcasting. Much of the focus, with some lip service to expanding access to broadband, seems to be on wringing as much profit out of the limited spectrum as possible rather than the maximum benefit to all of us from what is basically a natural resource. I don't like the idea of private industry snapping up control and then renting it back to us. How long before the old rabbit ear antennas are quaint and $50/month service is required? The Internet is a vital alternative for many things, but it is far from cheap or independent itself. I for one am feeling more and more "owned" by the access providers and would like to hear a lot more about ubiquitous free Wifi -- in the cities and the boondocks -- and such, as common and cheap as electricity.
"Free" broadcast is alive and well - online. Rabbit ear antennas were quaint fifteen years ago. Internet access in many areas is already as common and nearly as cheap as electricity. Being owned by service providers has been happening your entire life; if the electric company suddenly tripled their rates, what would you do besides complain and pay it?
Given that they approved individual songs for radio play and the like would seem to indicate that they aren't being pretentious assholes so much as retaining some vestiges of power over the record label. They're not trying to tell you how to listen to the music; they're telling EMI how they can make money off of it.
That is, does one expect them to actually follow the rules? No. The ASCC is a whitewash given that it has no real ability to exact meaningful punishments.
Those are about 133,000 jobs on the wrong side of the US and Western Europe - where they might actually respect the law for once.
Assuming that Apple is a major client and significant source of income for these companies, then they do have real clout. Money clearly is a motivating tool for these people since that's the main benefit of child labor in the first place.
Because the CEOs don't listen to the IT people and they believe that profit is more important than security.
Since they are mostly rich and they are insulated from any problems they cause I guess they may be right.
So then the solution should be simple: have congress legislate that the networks be separate.
I see zero evidence that Congress is willing and/or able to legislate that corporations do much of anything that they don't already want to do.
Think about what you just said for a minute. The grinding is bad enough the first time....
Frankly, I'm surprised that any MMO manages to last as long as they do once people realize that. I'm dumbfounded at WoW's success, though.
I honestly believe that if Blizzard ever manages to balance WoW it will die a swift death. As it is, playing different classes can be a completely new experience; what is a grinding, boring test of patience on a Warrior might be an exciting swath of destruction on a Death Knight or a Mage. What is a pointless effortless quest on a Paladin might be a challenging test of skill on a Rogue. And so on. You do repeat the same content, but it isn't always the same experience. This doesn't explain WoW's staying power by itself, but I think it's a major factor.
Representative democracy = vote on "plague or Cholera".
Anarchy = kill plague and Cholera.
The people want neither plague or Cholera, ergo anarchy is the real "rule of the people".
Just to be clear, here: people created and continue to maintain both plague and cholera at great cost, even while complaining about them, and your position is that they actually don't want them.
I think you have a lot to learn about the difference between what people say they want and what they actually want.
are you yet another nerd raging at some book/comic not being adapted to film in a way that matches his wet dreams? *yawn*
I realize you're mostly trolling here, but a lot of people never stop to think about why fans are so upset when their favorite stories are misrepresented. I don't believe it's mostly a selfish reaction, but more the simple human desire to share positive experiences. When you hear a funny joke, you tell other people the joke so that they can enjoy it, too. If you hear someone else telling the joke in such a way as to render it unfunny, this is irksome because they are both wasting an opportunity to share a good joke and making the correct joke itself less effective since it's been ruined. I think a poorly adapted movie is engendering much the same hostility as someone who mangles a good joke, and for much the same reasons.
But how would letting Opera on the iPhone translate into any additional success on the desktop? People can already run Opera on OS X.
Many (perhaps most) people who do not run alternate browsers haven't made a choice; they run the default because they aren't aware that alternatives exist, or why they should care. If Opera shows iPhone users that it's better than Safari, that's potentially a lot of good will and good word-of-mouth and more importantly it gains recognition in the marketplace. Once you've replaced Safari with Opera on your iPhone, you're more likely to at least check that out on your home computer.
Ya know, this country could sure need a few men like its founding fathers.
But then again, they'd probably be hunted and tried as terrorists today.
We do have men like our founding fathers. It's just that there's a lot more money in politics today, so they either play the game and court corruption or never become successful politicians because they are simply outspent. The problem isn't that the quality of people has declined; the problem is that parts of the system are rotten.
If he didn't have focus-follows-mouse, he would be switching back and forth, and then maybe alt-tab would be better. What he's doing is avoiding the need to switch back and forth at all, because the source document remains visible on top while he is typing on a window "underneath" the source. It has all the benefits of alt-tab, but eliminates the need to actually alt-tab.
4chan allows free, anonymous posting of images and has high traffic. I doubt they do choose 4chan over any other board - surely there are boards someplace devoted to that content - but those are pretty attractive features to anyone. I've never seen CP last more than a few minutes there, though I will grant you that I am far from a devoted lurker, and I spend almost no time in/b/.
Any "science fiction geek" who hasn't read Dune should re-apply for the epithet, and anyone who's read the book would only be accepting of the movie because at the time it was the only Dune movie available. The miniseries, warts and all, is at least as good (I think it's much better) and so remaking the movie from scratch is a good idea; the definitive Dune film has yet to be made.
Normally I might question whether Dune were actually filmable, but the last time I had that question Peter Jackson crushed my cynicism and it hasn't quite recovered.
Nothing national about it, humans create heroes all the time. Astronauts had been a traditional American hero for well over a decade by this point, and had honestly become commonplace; this particular shuttle launch had a civilian aboard, a schoolteacher, and so received some publicity for that. If the shuttle hadn't exploded, six of the seven would be completely forgotten. In fact, I bet many, perhaps even most people here know who Christa McAuliffe (the teacher) was, but can't name another one of the astronauts. I think talking about the heroes is actually missing the point.
I think that the sense of loss isn't really about the people so much as about the surprising failure, a setback in a problem we (as a public) thought we'd solved. A lot of American pride was invested in the space program, too, so the cracks in that program made apparent by this disaster was a bit of a rude awakening. You're also dealing with American nerds, who probably feel that the space program hasn't lived up to the potential that it seemed to have in its first decade, and this event is often seen as a major contributing factor. In short, we're not mourning the loss of seven people, but the loss of a piece of American greatness.
I was in high school in a suburb of Houston and the jokes were out the very next day. I do recall that they were whispered and considered tasteless, which in retrospect was a surprising amount of restraint from us at the time.
Your analogy is wrong too. How much do you pay for air? Nothing. Why? Abundant supply. Air doesn't become precious until there's a limited supply of it.
Nonsense. Air is already precious, and the fact that we don't pay has nothing to do with abundance. We don't pay for air simply because nobody has figured out a good way to meter usage and assign monetary value to individual consumption. As soon as that is done, air (most likely in the form of cleaner air, or air now with fluoride! or whatever) will become a commodity.
We charge for water; is it your position that we do not have an abundant supply of that?
and imagine what the military-industrial-complex will think once we no longer have oil as a reason for war.
The reason for war is completely irrelevant to the military-industrial complex. That's the politicians' problem, and they never claimed oil was the reason. Real reasons aren't relevant, either; war just is, and it probably always will be, and that's all the military-industrial complex needs to know.
True in a classroom. In reality on the other hand, we could afford to send the probes but not the scientist so it's not a robot vs human scenario so much as robot vs nothing. Given the reality, the probe was the right choice and a clear winner.
To be fair, the case we make for IE8/FF3/Win 7/whatever is the same spiel we gave them to get them to switch to IE6/FF2/Win 98. It's a never-ending treadmill, it's not surprising that they'd see the entire enterprise as a bottomless money pit and want to get off at some point.
Slashdot Mirror
Not sure that's a counter, actually; I don't think that's the kind of behavior doctors are concerned about. When your wife found the evidence that she may have been misdiagnosed, she went to her doctor to confirm it and get his opinion; she didn't dismiss him as a quack and go all homeopathic on him, or assume that he was an idiot and stop taking his advice seriously.
My way of thinking about this is that if the wife was open to an adulterous relationship in the first place, he didn't really need to frame the husband to start that. His actions only make sense if she spurned his advances and he was trying to remove a real barrier: not her husband, but her love for her husband. He didn't murder the guy or set him up as a thief; he set him up as something a wife might reasonably be shocked into rejecting completely. To me, she seems very likely to be blameless.
When they talk about the warring parties, there doesn't seem to be enough discussion of the death of free (ad-driven or public, but no access fee) broadcasting. Much of the focus, with some lip service to expanding access to broadband, seems to be on wringing as much profit out of the limited spectrum as possible rather than the maximum benefit to all of us from what is basically a natural resource. I don't like the idea of private industry snapping up control and then renting it back to us. How long before the old rabbit ear antennas are quaint and $50/month service is required? The Internet is a vital alternative for many things, but it is far from cheap or independent itself. I for one am feeling more and more "owned" by the access providers and would like to hear a lot more about ubiquitous free Wifi -- in the cities and the boondocks -- and such, as common and cheap as electricity.
"Free" broadcast is alive and well - online. Rabbit ear antennas were quaint fifteen years ago. Internet access in many areas is already as common and nearly as cheap as electricity. Being owned by service providers has been happening your entire life; if the electric company suddenly tripled their rates, what would you do besides complain and pay it?
Given that they approved individual songs for radio play and the like would seem to indicate that they aren't being pretentious assholes so much as retaining some vestiges of power over the record label. They're not trying to tell you how to listen to the music; they're telling EMI how they can make money off of it.
That is, does one expect them to actually follow the rules? No. The ASCC is a whitewash given that it has no real ability to exact meaningful punishments.
Those are about 133,000 jobs on the wrong side of the US and Western Europe - where they might actually respect the law for once.
Assuming that Apple is a major client and significant source of income for these companies, then they do have real clout. Money clearly is a motivating tool for these people since that's the main benefit of child labor in the first place.
So then the solution should be simple: have congress legislate that the networks be separate.
I see zero evidence that Congress is willing and/or able to legislate that corporations do much of anything that they don't already want to do.
A suitable time to stop playing is when you're no longer having fun. I suspect most of these people won't actually quit when the time comes.
Think about what you just said for a minute. The grinding is bad enough the first time.... Frankly, I'm surprised that any MMO manages to last as long as they do once people realize that. I'm dumbfounded at WoW's success, though.
I honestly believe that if Blizzard ever manages to balance WoW it will die a swift death. As it is, playing different classes can be a completely new experience; what is a grinding, boring test of patience on a Warrior might be an exciting swath of destruction on a Death Knight or a Mage. What is a pointless effortless quest on a Paladin might be a challenging test of skill on a Rogue. And so on. You do repeat the same content, but it isn't always the same experience. This doesn't explain WoW's staying power by itself, but I think it's a major factor.
Representative democracy = vote on "plague or Cholera". Anarchy = kill plague and Cholera.
The people want neither plague or Cholera, ergo anarchy is the real "rule of the people".
Just to be clear, here: people created and continue to maintain both plague and cholera at great cost, even while complaining about them, and your position is that they actually don't want them.
I think you have a lot to learn about the difference between what people say they want and what they actually want.
are you yet another nerd raging at some book/comic not being adapted to film in a way that matches his wet dreams? *yawn*
I realize you're mostly trolling here, but a lot of people never stop to think about why fans are so upset when their favorite stories are misrepresented. I don't believe it's mostly a selfish reaction, but more the simple human desire to share positive experiences. When you hear a funny joke, you tell other people the joke so that they can enjoy it, too. If you hear someone else telling the joke in such a way as to render it unfunny, this is irksome because they are both wasting an opportunity to share a good joke and making the correct joke itself less effective since it's been ruined. I think a poorly adapted movie is engendering much the same hostility as someone who mangles a good joke, and for much the same reasons.
But how would letting Opera on the iPhone translate into any additional success on the desktop? People can already run Opera on OS X.
Many (perhaps most) people who do not run alternate browsers haven't made a choice; they run the default because they aren't aware that alternatives exist, or why they should care. If Opera shows iPhone users that it's better than Safari, that's potentially a lot of good will and good word-of-mouth and more importantly it gains recognition in the marketplace. Once you've replaced Safari with Opera on your iPhone, you're more likely to at least check that out on your home computer.
Ya know, this country could sure need a few men like its founding fathers.
But then again, they'd probably be hunted and tried as terrorists today.
We do have men like our founding fathers. It's just that there's a lot more money in politics today, so they either play the game and court corruption or never become successful politicians because they are simply outspent. The problem isn't that the quality of people has declined; the problem is that parts of the system are rotten.
You don't really have a democracy when you're arbitrarily defining the demos.
If he didn't have focus-follows-mouse, he would be switching back and forth, and then maybe alt-tab would be better. What he's doing is avoiding the need to switch back and forth at all, because the source document remains visible on top while he is typing on a window "underneath" the source. It has all the benefits of alt-tab, but eliminates the need to actually alt-tab.
4chan allows free, anonymous posting of images and has high traffic. I doubt they do choose 4chan over any other board - surely there are boards someplace devoted to that content - but those are pretty attractive features to anyone. I've never seen CP last more than a few minutes there, though I will grant you that I am far from a devoted lurker, and I spend almost no time in /b/.
People will start to care if they made a 4D Dune movie composed of prescient visions.
Ad campaign: "You loved it!"
Any "science fiction geek" who hasn't read Dune should re-apply for the epithet, and anyone who's read the book would only be accepting of the movie because at the time it was the only Dune movie available. The miniseries, warts and all, is at least as good (I think it's much better) and so remaking the movie from scratch is a good idea; the definitive Dune film has yet to be made.
Normally I might question whether Dune were actually filmable, but the last time I had that question Peter Jackson crushed my cynicism and it hasn't quite recovered.
Nothing national about it, humans create heroes all the time. Astronauts had been a traditional American hero for well over a decade by this point, and had honestly become commonplace; this particular shuttle launch had a civilian aboard, a schoolteacher, and so received some publicity for that. If the shuttle hadn't exploded, six of the seven would be completely forgotten. In fact, I bet many, perhaps even most people here know who Christa McAuliffe (the teacher) was, but can't name another one of the astronauts. I think talking about the heroes is actually missing the point.
I think that the sense of loss isn't really about the people so much as about the surprising failure, a setback in a problem we (as a public) thought we'd solved. A lot of American pride was invested in the space program, too, so the cracks in that program made apparent by this disaster was a bit of a rude awakening. You're also dealing with American nerds, who probably feel that the space program hasn't lived up to the potential that it seemed to have in its first decade, and this event is often seen as a major contributing factor. In short, we're not mourning the loss of seven people, but the loss of a piece of American greatness.
I was in high school in a suburb of Houston and the jokes were out the very next day. I do recall that they were whispered and considered tasteless, which in retrospect was a surprising amount of restraint from us at the time.
Just another example showing that sometimes merely being the best is insufficient.
Your analogy is wrong too. How much do you pay for air? Nothing. Why? Abundant supply. Air doesn't become precious until there's a limited supply of it.
Nonsense. Air is already precious, and the fact that we don't pay has nothing to do with abundance. We don't pay for air simply because nobody has figured out a good way to meter usage and assign monetary value to individual consumption. As soon as that is done, air (most likely in the form of cleaner air, or air now with fluoride! or whatever) will become a commodity.
We charge for water; is it your position that we do not have an abundant supply of that?
and imagine what the military-industrial-complex will think once we no longer have oil as a reason for war.
The reason for war is completely irrelevant to the military-industrial complex. That's the politicians' problem, and they never claimed oil was the reason. Real reasons aren't relevant, either; war just is, and it probably always will be, and that's all the military-industrial complex needs to know.
True in a classroom. In reality on the other hand, we could afford to send the probes but not the scientist so it's not a robot vs human scenario so much as robot vs nothing. Given the reality, the probe was the right choice and a clear winner.
When funding is on the line, PR becomes important work.
To be fair, the case we make for IE8/FF3/Win 7/whatever is the same spiel we gave them to get them to switch to IE6/FF2/Win 98. It's a never-ending treadmill, it's not surprising that they'd see the entire enterprise as a bottomless money pit and want to get off at some point.