But I don't pay attention to their advertisements. My impression of advertising on FB is that it is 100% for wastes of money if not complete scams. The exceptions seem to be dating sites that remarkably poorly targeted (and if they were correctly targeted enough to get me to click on them, I suspect that they would fall into the scam category anyway).
So if FB's product is the opportunity to sell me things that I am more likely to buy based on their ability to better perceive my wants and interests, their product is crap.
Correction: Not everybody; it helps the billons of people who are lower and middle incomes to afford buying entertainment and education online.
I've never in my life spent as much money on books/music/movies per month as I currently spend for internet access to all these new "cheap" alternatives.
Cash register workers are smarter and more observant than you may think.
Probably. But if they actually are smart and observant, they would observe that the smart thing to do when they are offered minimal pay is to provide minimal effort.
Really? I don't know one way or the other, but I wonder. For example, I would expect people who go out all the time, but only to get wasted and hook up with strangers, to demonstrate a higher incidence of depression. Just my gut feeling though.
My take on this study is that it may suggest that various internet "social" activities are just the latest coping mechanisms for depression that fall under the category of superficial and ineffectual attempts to reach out to others.
So basically, people that are depressed look for things that might make them feel better such as entertainment from videos, movies and games. They send more emails to reach out to other people trying to connect in an attempt to feel better. If you think about it, should anyone really be surprised?
We might be interested to know whether these things actually make people feel better, as opposed to offering no help or making things worse.
However, if these things actually made people happy, why would they be more common among the depressed? It seems to me that the correlation would be reversed.
Which is a problem. If that kind of discrimination is still a real problem in US (is it?), then it should be plainly illegal to deny this kind of thing to anyone without a good reason, regardless of whether they belong to a "protected class" or not.
Yes it is (unless you are of the mind that disparities in minority achievement are 100% explained by their inherent inferiority. I'm assuming that you don't believe this, so I hope you will take some time to think about why inequality persists on such starkly, racially delineated lines.
Frankly, the very term "protected class" is a slap in the face of equality. The moment you start drawing arbitrary lines between individuals and segregate them into "classes" of any kind, any pretense of equality goes out of the window.
Equality is already a pretense. People seem to think that efforts to fight discrimination amount to granting minorities superior privileges. This is nonsense if you recognize the current inequality.
Take the ADA. Your argument is akin to saying that mandating wheelchair access amounts to granting the disabled special privileges or "positive discrimination". They have already have the equal "right" to use the stairs as everyone, so why should you be compelled via taxes, higher rents and high prices to support "positive discrimination" for the disabled? No fair!
Except that (most) people realize that there are those of us who are disadvantaged in certain physical ways, and thus it is both fair and humane to grant them extra privileges so that they are afforded the same baseline rights as everyone.
IOW, It takes extra privileges for some to ensure equal privileges for all. As a matter of completely detached logic, this is nonsensical. Yet most people understand why, in the real world, that logic fails.
Protected laws of all kinds reflect that, whatever any individuals personal beliefs or affinity for strict logic, most people agree that the playing field needs a few shims in order to remain level.
Otherwise, you place one behavior or characteristic as being more valuable than any other.
We place bigoted behaviors below all others. That's just the way it is, thanks to a persistent strain in our society of criminality motivated by bigoted attitudes.
The only difference that the law should make is whether the act was intentional or not; the precise motive behind the intent is not relevant.
Your logic would re-legalize all kinds of discrimination.
The intent behind refusing to seat someone in your restaurant would not be relevant. The intent behind refusing to allow someone to attend your school would not be relevant. The intent behind refusing to rent someone an apartment would not be relevant. The intent behind refusing to loan a family money to buy a house in a certain neighborhood would not be relevant. The intent behind refusing to employ someone would not be relevant.
Note that none of these is illegal unless the intent is to deny members of protected classes. And by "protected", we are not talking about protecting some privilege, but rather ensuring that they are granted the same baseline of opportunity as everyone else.
As a matter of principal, you are exactly right, of course. Just as a grocer would be doing the "perfect" job if he were to price goods as cost plus the minimum he needed to keep his store open through the end of the day and provide enough for himself to survive to open it the next day.
Ever since the dot.com boom, IPO's have been judged on their performance as PR stunts. (I'm not saying this is right.)
That's all logical and reasonable, but the success of FB's IPO will be based on expectations, however irrationally exuberant. If the stock price fails to meet expectations of unreasonable growth, it will likely be punished by unreasonable declines.
Now, if only there was scientific evidence that there was a problem with fracking, instead of all of this political pressure because all fossil fuels are evil.
Because scientific evidence proves that there are no downsides to extracting and burning fossil fuels, and the only arguments against them are politically motivated?
Like minded people tend to converge to each other. Therefore, the closer the government is to the people, the less likely it is that people are under laws and regulations that they do not agree with.
"When you live on cash, you understand the limits of the world around which you navigate each day. Credit leads into a desert with invisible boundaries." ---Anton Chekhov
Neat. But living on cash is hardly better in a society where wealth and productivity are completely divorced.
They have every incentive to be able to understand whether and how their advertising works, and publicize its success. That they haven't done so (or at least publicized the results) suggests that they don't want to know the answer, or don't want others to know.
Slashdot Mirror
A guy can dream. . .
It's great for keeping in touch with distant friends
Unless you have "distant friends" you'd rather not have find you.
Quite often, distance is not a coincidence.
they sell advertisement. your the product dude
But I don't pay attention to their advertisements. My impression of advertising on FB is that it is 100% for wastes of money if not complete scams. The exceptions seem to be dating sites that remarkably poorly targeted (and if they were correctly targeted enough to get me to click on them, I suspect that they would fall into the scam category anyway).
So if FB's product is the opportunity to sell me things that I am more likely to buy based on their ability to better perceive my wants and interests, their product is crap.
Correction: Not everybody; it helps the billons of people who are lower and middle incomes to afford buying entertainment and education online.
I've never in my life spent as much money on books/music/movies per month as I currently spend for internet access to all these new "cheap" alternatives.
Indeed. The shitty boss has always been the customer.
Precisely because profit isn't the motive of kleptomaniacs, I believe this guy was just doing it for the cash.
Or just the smug satisfaction in his own cleverness and entrepreneurial spirit.
No, you're thinking of old-school Lego bricks. These days, Lego sets come with almost no generic bricks because kids want realism.
The Lego Deluxe Mistress set comes with a variety of custom soft silicone body parts that snap into place at key locations.
No kidding. New legos are like Mr. Potato Head.
Cash register workers are smarter and more observant than you may think.
Probably. But if they actually are smart and observant, they would observe that the smart thing to do when they are offered minimal pay is to provide minimal effort.
Once someone isn't depressed they go out more. . .
Really? I don't know one way or the other, but I wonder. For example, I would expect people who go out all the time, but only to get wasted and hook up with strangers, to demonstrate a higher incidence of depression. Just my gut feeling though.
My take on this study is that it may suggest that various internet "social" activities are just the latest coping mechanisms for depression that fall under the category of superficial and ineffectual attempts to reach out to others.
It must have been rather difficult to get these students also because who would agree to have all their online activities monitored and analyzed.
Um, practically anyone who uses the internet without jumping through hoops to try to avoid it?
So wtf do the non-depressed do online, just read the newspaper and post ads on Craigslist?
They log off more often and do some of the many things that are vital to all facets of human health and have no online equivalent.
So basically, people that are depressed look for things that might make them feel better such as entertainment from videos, movies and games. They send more emails to reach out to other people trying to connect in an attempt to feel better. If you think about it, should anyone really be surprised?
We might be interested to know whether these things actually make people feel better, as opposed to offering no help or making things worse.
However, if these things actually made people happy, why would they be more common among the depressed? It seems to me that the correlation would be reversed.
Which is a problem. If that kind of discrimination is still a real problem in US (is it?), then it should be plainly illegal to deny this kind of thing to anyone without a good reason, regardless of whether they belong to a "protected class" or not.
Yes it is (unless you are of the mind that disparities in minority achievement are 100% explained by their inherent inferiority. I'm assuming that you don't believe this, so I hope you will take some time to think about why inequality persists on such starkly, racially delineated lines.
Frankly, the very term "protected class" is a slap in the face of equality. The moment you start drawing arbitrary lines between individuals and segregate them into "classes" of any kind, any pretense of equality goes out of the window.
Equality is already a pretense. People seem to think that efforts to fight discrimination amount to granting minorities superior privileges. This is nonsense if you recognize the current inequality.
Take the ADA. Your argument is akin to saying that mandating wheelchair access amounts to granting the disabled special privileges or "positive discrimination". They have already have the equal "right" to use the stairs as everyone, so why should you be compelled via taxes, higher rents and high prices to support "positive discrimination" for the disabled? No fair!
Except that (most) people realize that there are those of us who are disadvantaged in certain physical ways, and thus it is both fair and humane to grant them extra privileges so that they are afforded the same baseline rights as everyone.
IOW, It takes extra privileges for some to ensure equal privileges for all. As a matter of completely detached logic, this is nonsensical. Yet most people understand why, in the real world, that logic fails.
Protected laws of all kinds reflect that, whatever any individuals personal beliefs or affinity for strict logic, most people agree that the playing field needs a few shims in order to remain level.
Otherwise, you place one behavior or characteristic as being more valuable than any other.
We place bigoted behaviors below all others. That's just the way it is, thanks to a persistent strain in our society of criminality motivated by bigoted attitudes.
The only difference that the law should make is whether the act was intentional or not; the precise motive behind the intent is not relevant.
Your logic would re-legalize all kinds of discrimination.
The intent behind refusing to seat someone in your restaurant would not be relevant.
The intent behind refusing to allow someone to attend your school would not be relevant.
The intent behind refusing to rent someone an apartment would not be relevant.
The intent behind refusing to loan a family money to buy a house in a certain neighborhood would not be relevant.
The intent behind refusing to employ someone would not be relevant.
Note that none of these is illegal unless the intent is to deny members of protected classes. And by "protected", we are not talking about protecting some privilege, but rather ensuring that they are granted the same baseline of opportunity as everyone else.
As a matter of principal, you are exactly right, of course. Just as a grocer would be doing the "perfect" job if he were to price goods as cost plus the minimum he needed to keep his store open through the end of the day and provide enough for himself to survive to open it the next day.
Ever since the dot.com boom, IPO's have been judged on their performance as PR stunts. (I'm not saying this is right.)
That's all logical and reasonable, but the success of FB's IPO will be based on expectations, however irrationally exuberant. If the stock price fails to meet expectations of unreasonable growth, it will likely be punished by unreasonable declines.
The draft bill also bans under ground disposal of fracking fluids.
The article doesn't go into much detail on what specifically is banned.
Fracking related to oil and natural gas exploration. The draft bill (PDF linked in summary) states as much.
Now, if only there was scientific evidence that there was a problem with fracking, instead of all of this political pressure because all fossil fuels are evil.
Because scientific evidence proves that there are no downsides to extracting and burning fossil fuels, and the only arguments against them are politically motivated?
Like minded people tend to converge to each other. Therefore, the closer the government is to the people, the less likely it is that people are under laws and regulations that they do not agree with.
Ahem. California.
Not everyone in the TEA Party movement is what you appear to envision
Just ignore the man under the tricorn hat.
"When you live on cash, you understand the limits of the world around which you navigate each day. Credit leads into a desert with invisible boundaries."
---Anton Chekhov
Neat. But living on cash is hardly better in a society where wealth and productivity are completely divorced.
Especially when it's something as complicated and untestable as political hypothesis. Get over it.
Because there is just no way to evaluate the efficacy of political theory.
They have every incentive to be able to understand whether and how their advertising works, and publicize its success. That they haven't done so (or at least publicized the results) suggests that they don't want to know the answer, or don't want others to know.