So... considering that bad boards were used to replace bad boards, how many of those GX270s are still around? I too worked at a company that bought that model. When I left there were more GX260s and GX240s, even GX150s in circulation that GX270s, and it was dept. policy not to ship GX270s to any of our satellite offices because they were too likely to fail. What does a service contract matter if they're just going to dump in more bad hardware? RTFA.
You might try Ring TFA. This is in regard to the bad capacitor debacle of 2003-5. Dell was knowingly replacing bad cap boards with boards known to ALSO have bad caps, knowing that the failure rate was over 90%. You might think twice about how valuable your service contract is when you realize that it was standard procedure to 'service' machines with parts that were virtually guaranteed to fail in weeks or months.
People are complex molecular machines, as Carl Sagan used to say. In many ways most people are layers of archetypes, these archetypical layers are like the code wheels in an Enigma Machine. All you have to do is figure out how those layers are aligned at any given time, how the person is perceiving their immediate circumstances through these archetypes + experience, and you will be able to tell what a person is going to do, say, even think or feel a majority of the time. All of the people I know well I can predict their actions and responses almost perfectly almost all of the time. I think I'm truly surprised by anybody only about once every month or two.
Every individual is different to the degree that they are willful, that they can be controlled or satisfied. If you look at history and sociology, you will see that individuals only matter when they control group dynamics. Even lone wolves like John Wilkes Booth are historically notable only because the effects of their actions had an impact that altered a larger group subset of society. Some lead, some disrupt, some do both, but in the big picture individuals don't matter. (I say this as a rabid individualist.) Groups can be controlled or satisfied, but usually it's both, to the extent that only the majority need be satisfied, and the result will be that the minority is controlled at a grass-roots level by their peers.
People are objects, very unique objects, but still objects.
What a terrible argument. 'Well, it wouldn't be as bad as North Korea, therefore I would roll over and accept it if it came up, because relatively it's ok I guess.' Disgusting. There's an old platitude, 'I may not a agree with what you say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it.'
Man up, or you'll find yourself at the bottom of the slippery slope with everybody else once the regulation train leaves the station. Speech doesn't kill people, and unless there is a clear line of authority between individuals, nobody should be held accountable for the independent actions of somebody who took it upon themselves to do something because of what the first person may have said. If you start doing that, you might as well have executed J. D. Salinger because somebody shot John Lennon supposedly because of his work. Absurd.
Do you really think that underqualified candidates aren't hired because of the 'positive' nature of EOE? We know that underqualified admissions are approved at universities because of affirmative action.
Force doesn't cease to be force just because the thing forced isn't 'additional'. And of course the law doesn't ask people not to be racist, you might as well pass a law that says blue must be everybody's favorite color. I'm not saying that negativity towards race as a basis for hiring is good, I'm saying that positivity towards race as a basis for hiring isn't ethically any better, and if you don't think that has been the result of EOE and affirmative action, I think you're in denial.
You quote from the Declaration, ignoring the parts that undermine your very argument. The equality spoken of was not the private 'value perceived by others' as comes into play in hiring, rather it is equality under the law, that the medieval hierarchy of classes and privileges not result in different treatment by government itself, especially through the courts. You no doubt want to emphasize the 'pursuit of happiness' ignoring the 'liberty' bit. If I must be forced to do something, such as hire a person I otherwise wouldn't, out goes my liberty (and, ironically, my happiness) in favor of that other person's pursuit of happiness. Where does that stop? Why is that person's happiness more important than mine? Objectively, it may be morally superior, yes, but is that really for government to decide?
Where do you think the Continental Congress got the money, the supplies, such as they were, to fund the Continental Army among other functions of its new role as the independent government of the states? You present a false dichotomy, that fighting is the only means of support, and failing to fight is therefore not supporting and hence cowardice. That is not so, material support can be, and was, provided.
People today I think are far more afraid of social consequences than of actually losing their jobs. While that did happen in a limited number of cases, the vast majority of pressure from the fallout of the disclosure of such records was social, not economic. And as Cicero once said, "Even though I should meet with disapproval, I have always held that unpopularity earned by an act of courage is glory, not unpopularity." ~Oratio in Catilinam Prima in Senatu Habita
Working through your terrible spelling, how could fear of Catholics convince Maryland to join the revolution? It was significantly Catholic already. How can you lie about how bad taxes are, would people show up to the local stamp office and overpay? (Absurd!)
I have not heard anything in all my reviews of history of any imminent ceding of the Ohio territories to the French at that time. It seems to me a highly dubious assertion.
What a backwards thought process, they had the most to lose! If the revolution had failed, their whole fortune would be seized by the crown and passed to whomever happened to be in favor at the moment, and the original owner executed. You just want to vilify the upper class as somehow detached, when in fact they were the most invested.
The voting records of representatives aren't secret and rightly so, why should the average citizen be different? There was no secret ballot for the first hundred years of the history of the United States you should mark well.
A business is subject to different legal requirements than a residence, but that does not change the fact that it remains the personal property of its owner (if a sole proprietor), nor does it alter the ethical standards applied thereby.
Poll? how about the ultimate poll:
PEOPLE VOTED FOR THE BAN.
Argumentum ad populum, again. Did you even read what I wrote? You think the product of any democratic process is automatically good? People voted for Hitler for fuck's sake, and a score of other dictators. I voted against it when I lived in WA, and I don't smoke, but there are all these people going on and on about how 'all non-smokers wanted this!' Like they speak for everybody. It's fucking bullshit. Popularity does not equal right. It's this mentality that has destroyed many things in gruesome fashion, from mere things like Sappho's poetry to once living persons like Hypatia, killed by angry, unpunished mobs for no other reason than their destruction was 'popular'.
When the destruction of freedom is 'popular' I stand in the minority with pride.
I was not aware of this, but even if the health issue remains, that should not diminish the freedom of property owners to decide whichever otherwise legal conduct their patrons may engage in on their premises.
You may be willing to sacrifice basic human rights like freedom of association for social causes, but I am not. Desegregation should have happened, EOE should have happened, but in the public sector, not the private. Would this have slowed the process? Yes, but on the other side we'd all be more free, minorities included. As it is we now pick these petty fights based on the destruction of the freedom of association, since all the 'men only' clubs and organizations have been taken on, now men sue 'women only' clubs and organizations to get revenge. I remember just recently how a whole inquiry was launched because of 'black only' school field trip, and how segregation laws actually became a problem for areas in California with large ethnic Chinese populations.
Funny how the tables turn. At the core of all this is the fundamental problem: there is no such thing, rationally, as positive racism (or racial positivism). It's still just racism, except with the goal of preferential treatment of minorities instead of detrimental treatment, but it's still special treatment because of race, period. My wife, who is both African- and Native American, agrees, and actually stood against affirmative action in high school and still opposes it and similar efforts to this day. She doesn't want "positive" discrimination because of her skin color any more than she wants negative discrimination, not least of which because "positive" discrimination is implicitly insulting and paternalistic (because you're black, you couldn't have met our standards unless and until we lowered them for you).
The fundamental problem with socialism is that you can't force somebody to truly be a better person. If you say 'donate to charity or go to prison' the person who is forced circumstancially to do this is not improved. You're violating somebody's rights in the name of what you think is a good cause, in the end poisoning the good with the evil of impinging on people's freedoms.
You'll find that 'closeted' people don't accomplish anything. Homosexuality didn't evaporate between the fall of pagan pluralism in Rome and the 20th century, it went into hiding, and what, politically, did that accomplish for homosexuals? Nothing. Only when more and more came out and said 'this is who I am, deal with it,' was any headway made. So, yes, I am unafraid to call people unwilling to stand publicly for their convictions 'cowards'. History is not and has not been made by such people.
Is English not your first language? Let me walk you through it. I said '[x] is the very foundation of civic society in the [US]' which he quoted and said 'Yes [it is], but so is the secret ballot [also the very foundation of civic society]'. This would be considered an antecedent concept or an enthymeme (a syllogism where one of the premises is assumed).
As for racism and EOE, see my reply to somebody else here.
You should watch the Penn & Teller Bullshit episode about second-hand smoke. It doesn't make people sick, and in fact, the one study by the EPA that said that it did was discredited in federal court for its questionable methods and classifications. The whole 'it makes people healthier' argument used as justification, while intuitive, was at best unfounded, at worst deliberately false.
Racism was a social problem, yes, but mandating EOE didn't end racism. Racism has diminished through a shared social development, through succeeding generations rejecting the beliefs of their parents, not because Uncle Sam said 'hire that black guy, or else.' Do you really believe that? Do you trivialize the common efforts of the civil rights movement to foster understanding to nothing more than the heavy hand of the rulers dictating a social change through naught more than EOE?!
I am not signing a public document and asking the government to restrict access to that signature. It is the prerogative of people to engage in anonymous discourse if they choose it, to the degree that they choose it. I maintain that public documents mediated by the government are not the place for that.
Pierre Curie was run over by a carriage in the street. Marie was 66 when she died, which was a decent age for the time, cancer or no. At least during that time she won two Nobel prizes for her work, primitive by current standards though it was. That work contributed directly to the understanding of radiation that protects people today.
Sorry to burst your bubble, but the United States did not use the 'secret ballot' until after the Civil War, and it was not used by most states until the 1880s. It was not a founding element in any way, shape, or form. Please learn your history before making these baseless pronouncements.
Argumentum ad populum. The majority of people want to force themselves onto others, therefor it is right, they can, and they do. Sorry, that is a failure of ethics. Something must be objectively right, not simply 'held to be right' or desirable by a majority, no matter how large. Heretics have been burned alive with popular support, that doesn't make it right. If 95% of people vote to say I can't smoke in my house (I'm not a smoker, BTW), that doesn't it make it right either. A business is no less personal property than a house, it just happens to be open to the public.
This is not 'market failure' which is a bullshit concept to begin with. Like I said before, these people were served in the market by exclusively non-smoking establishments. These did exist, people could go to them, and no amount of hand waving will make that go away.
Please cite the poll for this 'even more people are glad bars are smoke free'. I'm sure that it's not from anybody with a vested interest or bias, right?
I would be interested in sources that support your claims. The history as I understand it was that the majority of people in the colonies at the time were sympathetic to independence, with less than a fifth being loyalists, and less than that being truly neutral. The reason that more people didn't volunteer for the Continental Army was simply that the pay and provisioning was meager and sporadic, and life in the colonies was for most tenuous and near subsistence. People largely could not afford to abandon their work and their families to go off and harry the British. I would not call that cowardice of any color.
My nickname is personally identifiable to anybody willing to do a few minutes of work and has a few brain cells to rub together. I'm not hiding, but I'm not doing anybody's work for them. In fact, the SSID of my wireless at home is the address of my Slashdot profile page. (And at some point when I get back into volunteering time and points for Wigle, my Slashdot identity will be attached to the physical location of my house at least in one publicly accessible place.)
You're kidding right? You don't think the world would be improved by a sudden shift of seven billion people to a view of reality based on observed phenomena and testable hypotheses instead of millennia-old moralistic fiats from sociopathic mystics? Instead you essentially posit that the merits of scientists would evaporate and be essentially meaningless. Wow, that's such a good argument.
If everybody on earth tomorrow turned into intellectual and emotional clones of, say, Pierre and Marie Curie, I can't imagine anything but an exponential improvement of the human condition and the whole of society.
Slashdot Mirror
So... considering that bad boards were used to replace bad boards, how many of those GX270s are still around? I too worked at a company that bought that model. When I left there were more GX260s and GX240s, even GX150s in circulation that GX270s, and it was dept. policy not to ship GX270s to any of our satellite offices because they were too likely to fail. What does a service contract matter if they're just going to dump in more bad hardware? RTFA.
You might try Ring TFA. This is in regard to the bad capacitor debacle of 2003-5. Dell was knowingly replacing bad cap boards with boards known to ALSO have bad caps, knowing that the failure rate was over 90%. You might think twice about how valuable your service contract is when you realize that it was standard procedure to 'service' machines with parts that were virtually guaranteed to fail in weeks or months.
People are complex molecular machines, as Carl Sagan used to say. In many ways most people are layers of archetypes, these archetypical layers are like the code wheels in an Enigma Machine. All you have to do is figure out how those layers are aligned at any given time, how the person is perceiving their immediate circumstances through these archetypes + experience, and you will be able to tell what a person is going to do, say, even think or feel a majority of the time. All of the people I know well I can predict their actions and responses almost perfectly almost all of the time. I think I'm truly surprised by anybody only about once every month or two.
Every individual is different to the degree that they are willful, that they can be controlled or satisfied. If you look at history and sociology, you will see that individuals only matter when they control group dynamics. Even lone wolves like John Wilkes Booth are historically notable only because the effects of their actions had an impact that altered a larger group subset of society. Some lead, some disrupt, some do both, but in the big picture individuals don't matter. (I say this as a rabid individualist.) Groups can be controlled or satisfied, but usually it's both, to the extent that only the majority need be satisfied, and the result will be that the minority is controlled at a grass-roots level by their peers.
People are objects, very unique objects, but still objects.
What a terrible argument. 'Well, it wouldn't be as bad as North Korea, therefore I would roll over and accept it if it came up, because relatively it's ok I guess.' Disgusting. There's an old platitude, 'I may not a agree with what you say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it.'
Man up, or you'll find yourself at the bottom of the slippery slope with everybody else once the regulation train leaves the station. Speech doesn't kill people, and unless there is a clear line of authority between individuals, nobody should be held accountable for the independent actions of somebody who took it upon themselves to do something because of what the first person may have said. If you start doing that, you might as well have executed J. D. Salinger because somebody shot John Lennon supposedly because of his work. Absurd.
Do you really think that underqualified candidates aren't hired because of the 'positive' nature of EOE? We know that underqualified admissions are approved at universities because of affirmative action.
Force doesn't cease to be force just because the thing forced isn't 'additional'. And of course the law doesn't ask people not to be racist, you might as well pass a law that says blue must be everybody's favorite color. I'm not saying that negativity towards race as a basis for hiring is good, I'm saying that positivity towards race as a basis for hiring isn't ethically any better, and if you don't think that has been the result of EOE and affirmative action, I think you're in denial.
You quote from the Declaration, ignoring the parts that undermine your very argument. The equality spoken of was not the private 'value perceived by others' as comes into play in hiring, rather it is equality under the law, that the medieval hierarchy of classes and privileges not result in different treatment by government itself, especially through the courts. You no doubt want to emphasize the 'pursuit of happiness' ignoring the 'liberty' bit. If I must be forced to do something, such as hire a person I otherwise wouldn't, out goes my liberty (and, ironically, my happiness) in favor of that other person's pursuit of happiness. Where does that stop? Why is that person's happiness more important than mine? Objectively, it may be morally superior, yes, but is that really for government to decide?
Where do you think the Continental Congress got the money, the supplies, such as they were, to fund the Continental Army among other functions of its new role as the independent government of the states? You present a false dichotomy, that fighting is the only means of support, and failing to fight is therefore not supporting and hence cowardice. That is not so, material support can be, and was, provided.
People today I think are far more afraid of social consequences than of actually losing their jobs. While that did happen in a limited number of cases, the vast majority of pressure from the fallout of the disclosure of such records was social, not economic. And as Cicero once said, "Even though I should meet with disapproval, I have always held that unpopularity earned by an act of courage is glory, not unpopularity." ~Oratio in Catilinam Prima in Senatu Habita
Working through your terrible spelling, how could fear of Catholics convince Maryland to join the revolution? It was significantly Catholic already. How can you lie about how bad taxes are, would people show up to the local stamp office and overpay? (Absurd!)
I have not heard anything in all my reviews of history of any imminent ceding of the Ohio territories to the French at that time. It seems to me a highly dubious assertion.
See above.
What a backwards thought process, they had the most to lose! If the revolution had failed, their whole fortune would be seized by the crown and passed to whomever happened to be in favor at the moment, and the original owner executed. You just want to vilify the upper class as somehow detached, when in fact they were the most invested.
The voting records of representatives aren't secret and rightly so, why should the average citizen be different? There was no secret ballot for the first hundred years of the history of the United States you should mark well.
Poll? how about the ultimate poll: PEOPLE VOTED FOR THE BAN.
Argumentum ad populum, again. Did you even read what I wrote? You think the product of any democratic process is automatically good? People voted for Hitler for fuck's sake, and a score of other dictators. I voted against it when I lived in WA, and I don't smoke, but there are all these people going on and on about how 'all non-smokers wanted this!' Like they speak for everybody. It's fucking bullshit. Popularity does not equal right. It's this mentality that has destroyed many things in gruesome fashion, from mere things like Sappho's poetry to once living persons like Hypatia, killed by angry, unpunished mobs for no other reason than their destruction was 'popular'.
When the destruction of freedom is 'popular' I stand in the minority with pride.
I see you speak for everybody. My, what foolish conceit you're capable of.
I was not aware of this, but even if the health issue remains, that should not diminish the freedom of property owners to decide whichever otherwise legal conduct their patrons may engage in on their premises.
You may be willing to sacrifice basic human rights like freedom of association for social causes, but I am not. Desegregation should have happened, EOE should have happened, but in the public sector, not the private. Would this have slowed the process? Yes, but on the other side we'd all be more free, minorities included. As it is we now pick these petty fights based on the destruction of the freedom of association, since all the 'men only' clubs and organizations have been taken on, now men sue 'women only' clubs and organizations to get revenge. I remember just recently how a whole inquiry was launched because of 'black only' school field trip, and how segregation laws actually became a problem for areas in California with large ethnic Chinese populations.
Funny how the tables turn. At the core of all this is the fundamental problem: there is no such thing, rationally, as positive racism (or racial positivism). It's still just racism, except with the goal of preferential treatment of minorities instead of detrimental treatment, but it's still special treatment because of race, period. My wife, who is both African- and Native American, agrees, and actually stood against affirmative action in high school and still opposes it and similar efforts to this day. She doesn't want "positive" discrimination because of her skin color any more than she wants negative discrimination, not least of which because "positive" discrimination is implicitly insulting and paternalistic (because you're black, you couldn't have met our standards unless and until we lowered them for you).
The fundamental problem with socialism is that you can't force somebody to truly be a better person. If you say 'donate to charity or go to prison' the person who is forced circumstancially to do this is not improved. You're violating somebody's rights in the name of what you think is a good cause, in the end poisoning the good with the evil of impinging on people's freedoms.
You'll find that 'closeted' people don't accomplish anything. Homosexuality didn't evaporate between the fall of pagan pluralism in Rome and the 20th century, it went into hiding, and what, politically, did that accomplish for homosexuals? Nothing. Only when more and more came out and said 'this is who I am, deal with it,' was any headway made. So, yes, I am unafraid to call people unwilling to stand publicly for their convictions 'cowards'. History is not and has not been made by such people.
Is English not your first language? Let me walk you through it. I said '[x] is the very foundation of civic society in the [US]' which he quoted and said 'Yes [it is], but so is the secret ballot [also the very foundation of civic society]'. This would be considered an antecedent concept or an enthymeme (a syllogism where one of the premises is assumed).
As for racism and EOE, see my reply to somebody else here.
You should watch the Penn & Teller Bullshit episode about second-hand smoke. It doesn't make people sick, and in fact, the one study by the EPA that said that it did was discredited in federal court for its questionable methods and classifications. The whole 'it makes people healthier' argument used as justification, while intuitive, was at best unfounded, at worst deliberately false.
Racism was a social problem, yes, but mandating EOE didn't end racism. Racism has diminished through a shared social development, through succeeding generations rejecting the beliefs of their parents, not because Uncle Sam said 'hire that black guy, or else.' Do you really believe that? Do you trivialize the common efforts of the civil rights movement to foster understanding to nothing more than the heavy hand of the rulers dictating a social change through naught more than EOE?!
I am not signing a public document and asking the government to restrict access to that signature. It is the prerogative of people to engage in anonymous discourse if they choose it, to the degree that they choose it. I maintain that public documents mediated by the government are not the place for that.
Pierre Curie was run over by a carriage in the street. Marie was 66 when she died, which was a decent age for the time, cancer or no. At least during that time she won two Nobel prizes for her work, primitive by current standards though it was. That work contributed directly to the understanding of radiation that protects people today.
WRONG!
Sorry to burst your bubble, but the United States did not use the 'secret ballot' until after the Civil War, and it was not used by most states until the 1880s. It was not a founding element in any way, shape, or form. Please learn your history before making these baseless pronouncements.
Argumentum ad populum. The majority of people want to force themselves onto others, therefor it is right, they can, and they do. Sorry, that is a failure of ethics. Something must be objectively right, not simply 'held to be right' or desirable by a majority, no matter how large. Heretics have been burned alive with popular support, that doesn't make it right. If 95% of people vote to say I can't smoke in my house (I'm not a smoker, BTW), that doesn't it make it right either. A business is no less personal property than a house, it just happens to be open to the public.
This is not 'market failure' which is a bullshit concept to begin with. Like I said before, these people were served in the market by exclusively non-smoking establishments. These did exist, people could go to them, and no amount of hand waving will make that go away.
Please cite the poll for this 'even more people are glad bars are smoke free'. I'm sure that it's not from anybody with a vested interest or bias, right?
I would be interested in sources that support your claims. The history as I understand it was that the majority of people in the colonies at the time were sympathetic to independence, with less than a fifth being loyalists, and less than that being truly neutral. The reason that more people didn't volunteer for the Continental Army was simply that the pay and provisioning was meager and sporadic, and life in the colonies was for most tenuous and near subsistence. People largely could not afford to abandon their work and their families to go off and harry the British. I would not call that cowardice of any color.
My nickname is personally identifiable to anybody willing to do a few minutes of work and has a few brain cells to rub together. I'm not hiding, but I'm not doing anybody's work for them. In fact, the SSID of my wireless at home is the address of my Slashdot profile page. (And at some point when I get back into volunteering time and points for Wigle, my Slashdot identity will be attached to the physical location of my house at least in one publicly accessible place.)
You're kidding right? You don't think the world would be improved by a sudden shift of seven billion people to a view of reality based on observed phenomena and testable hypotheses instead of millennia-old moralistic fiats from sociopathic mystics? Instead you essentially posit that the merits of scientists would evaporate and be essentially meaningless. Wow, that's such a good argument.
If everybody on earth tomorrow turned into intellectual and emotional clones of, say, Pierre and Marie Curie, I can't imagine anything but an exponential improvement of the human condition and the whole of society.