. . . you apologize, but you cannot in good conscience remain a Toyota customer. Be polite, . ..
Why should you apologize for something that you are doing in good conscience? I'm all for politeness, but taken too far it just become obsequious blather.
When you have a blacksmith who cares more about money than his craft, you have a poor blacksmith indeed. When you have a musician who cares more about money than music, he produces crap.
Well AFAIK blacksmithing is an all but dead profession and there are plenty of musicians who care more about money than their craft and do quite well (its practically axiomatic).
Linux programmers are about making tools, Windows programmers are about making money.
And Microsoft sells more software in several vital niches than FOSS can give away.
Software should be about making tools, but the point of tools is to be used, not to be politically correct.
Moreover, people make software for more than one reason. If it is your job, software most certainly should be about making money (which is attracted to good-as-in-useful software, at least in theory). If it is not your job, then it can be about whatever you want it to be.
There is a difference between 'no, I'm not listening to you' and 'I hear what you are saying but for these reasons I am not implementing your request at this time.'
What's your point, anyway? That his sentiment is nullified by one example of his own failure to live up to it? Or any number of failures to live up to it? That it is fun to play 'gotcha' on someone who is in the limelight? That it is fun to whine?
From what I gather, existing UIs work, but they work 'wrong'. The only reason you think they are superior is because you have been forced to accommodate these 'wrong' UI paradigms for so long that your perception is warped.
Don't you see that task speed is a corrupt metric? It must be! You can't do right doing wrong.
I suppose it is a somewhat savvy leveraging of Twitter hype.
Even the most peripheral "connection" to Twitter is still enough to get a story bumped up on the perceived relevancy scale. At least as percieved by people who don't quite get Twitter or the appeal but sure hear about it a lot and are thus afraid of seeming un-hip by asking "what is this lame shit, really?" (IOW "Does the Emperor know he is naked").
Or maybe he is another narcissistic Twitter addict trying desperately to imbue it with significance by by further expanding its portfolio of uses.
So in summary, you are stoked on your iPhone despite the fact that Apple cashes in on your enthusiasm for their product by forcing you to subscribe to a money grubbing carrier with an inferior network that dictates reduced functionality (or at least locks out perfectly legitimate, achievable functionality). And despite heaping so much scorn on AT&T, you are not convinced that the situation would be any different on any other carrier because of Apple's desire to work with an exclusive carrier (which allows them to get kick-backs).
But you are incredulous that someone else might not want to be an Apple customer?
My handwriting has gone to crap, but what does that have to do with spelling? If anything, I would think that spelling would be more likely to improve, thanks to the slower pace of writing by hand. I pay more attention to what I am writing when I have to take the time to write it out by hand.
If the quality of your writing is going down, I suspect that has to do with the quality of the writing you are consuming.
The whole idea of people living within their means is simple.
There is simple, and then there is simplistic. Your simplistic argument assumes that one can educate and relocate themselves out of deprivation. Barring that they can simply reduce their expectations to an affordable level that doesn't perpetuate the problems they are trying to escape, e.g. moving to a cheaper area that doesn't require more transportation costs to get to available jobs, or doesn't limit their children's educational opportunities to the point that they find themselves in the same boat when they are adults.
That you could admit that "today the economy is in bad shape and needs to be fixed" and simultaneously lecture people who bear the brunt of its under-performance suggests that you yourself are either ignorant of multi-generational economic trends in the US, are too lazy to demand more from the public and private sectors, or have simply resigned yourself to pitifully low standards.
No, it's designed to punish the people that don't know how to live within their means. I should not be putting a $2000 TV on a credit card if I have a job making $1000 a month. PERIOD.
Well gosh, aren't you a paragon of financial rectitude.
Lets try another scenario -- I should not be paying $200 for medical insurance if I have a job making $1000 a month and doing so would mean putting food on a credit card. Oops, I slipped on some ice and broke my leg. Well, I should not be putting $15000 worth of medical care on a credit card if I have a job that neither provides medical insurance nor pays enough for me to buy it without relying on credit cards to cover my overall monthly expenses. Rather, I should remain maimed for the rest of my life, thus even less able to earn more and provide for myself, or I should perhaps just die from internal bleeding or infection on principle. And my kids, well they should starve rather than spend more than they earn (nothing) on food.
You are arguing the same old "Welfare Queen" BS that intelligent people have been rolling their eyes at for a generation. Poor people buying $2000 TVs are not the meat of the credit crisis. Housing, transportation, healthcare and education are the frivolous luxuries that you would have two-full-time-income families live without.
Somewhere most Americans picked up this quaint idea that the law requires employers to treat employees fairly.
The law does require this -- within the constraints of the legal definition of "fair", which you point out is arbitrary and somewhat narrow.
There is a certain irony in your admonishment that people should take up this issue with their legislators while noting that political activity remains a legitimate cause for termination.
Of course, even if it gets that bad, I suspect it'd be defeated with something like duct tape.
"Sorry, but we have detected a problem with your set-top box. Please contact your local service center for repairs to your equipment and reactivation of your account."
As with anything you have to know how to work the system and evaluate the different options. Postpaid cellular service can be a great deal for a lot of people (who talk on the phone a lot and value mobility) or a horrible waste of money for others (who don't talk much). It's up to the consumer to research the options that are available to him and to select the one that best matches his needs.
Specious platitude.
There are high cost options for high volume users, period. Otherwise, you are paying far more per used minute than or sacrificing all manner of features and services to use a chintzy phone on a pre-pay plan.
Areas with lower costs of living have lower salaries and/or more scarce employment opportunities. Big city hassles are replaced by small city/rural hassles. "Less stress overall" coincides with diminished expectations.
I've had discussions about this and mainly it's a matter of philosophy and its foundation.
Leaving aside the erroneous conflation of evolution and "survival of the fittest", evolutionary theory is not a philosophy. Creationism may be -- It certainly isn't science. But just because creationism is not science does not mean that its "opposite", evolution, is superstition. They are not equals, and they are not rivals.
By the way, just how does it work out when someone supports Euthanasia and Abortion but is against the death penalty?
They recognize the Bible as fiction, and thus there is no irony. They have different beliefs about life and justice.
Of course they are spelled (or spelt).
on
KDE 4.3 Released
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Okay, you want to split hairs? Japanese words are not "spelled", they are written using a mix of Chinese and phonetic symbols.
Japanese has three phonetic writing systems, Hiragana, Katakana and "Romaji", the latter being their word for the Roman alphabet. These are traditionally reserved for separate contexts, but any can be used to spell any of the symbolic Chinese characters (Kanji), and may be at various times for a variety of reasons.
Since then the gap between the first "netbooks" (I hate that term, it implies the machines are far more crippled than they really are) and regular laptops has been gradually filling and I regard this as a good thing, users can now pick there preffered tradeoff between size and functionality.
See, the term "netbook" seems wrong to you because you don't want a netbook, you want a reasonably priced ultraportable, which is where the netbook market is currently heading. This is not a win for consumers who don't need a 10"+ screen or a "good" processor, or rather, doubling the price doesn't represent a good value in the form of a netbook, either in regards to price or diminished battery longevity.
Why would the AP charge for words it doesn't own? Is it malice or incompetence on their part?
Well, why would anyone request a license from AP for words that AP doesn't own? Is Grimmelmann too incompetent to figure out why the whole premise of his exercise is inane, or is he maliciously trying to portray AP as greedy when their only "sin" here is not making their systems impervious to idiots who would throw their money away?
This is exactly right. Even if what you're doing is working on a book, MS Word is not the tool you need to produce the book, and yet authors typically are asked to submit their work as Word docs. This just creates needless extra effort, because Word docs are so clumsy and Word is so buggy.
This is because at least 999 out of every 1000 books (or ideas for books) conceived isn't worth considering for publication. Imposing needless extra effort on "authors" is a feature, not a bug.
Slashdot Mirror
You call that science!?
. . . you apologize, but you cannot in good conscience remain a Toyota customer. Be polite, . . .
Why should you apologize for something that you are doing in good conscience? I'm all for politeness, but taken too far it just become obsequious blather.
When you have a blacksmith who cares more about money than his craft, you have a poor blacksmith indeed. When you have a musician who cares more about money than music, he produces crap.
Well AFAIK blacksmithing is an all but dead profession and there are plenty of musicians who care more about money than their craft and do quite well (its practically axiomatic).
Linux programmers are about making tools, Windows programmers are about making money.
And Microsoft sells more software in several vital niches than FOSS can give away.
Software should be about making tools, but the point of tools is to be used, not to be politically correct.
Moreover, people make software for more than one reason. If it is your job, software most certainly should be about making money (which is attracted to good-as-in-useful software, at least in theory). If it is not your job, then it can be about whatever you want it to be.
There is a difference between 'no, I'm not listening to you' and 'I hear what you are saying but for these reasons I am not implementing your request at this time.'
What's your point, anyway? That his sentiment is nullified by one example of his own failure to live up to it? Or any number of failures to live up to it? That it is fun to play 'gotcha' on someone who is in the limelight? That it is fun to whine?
Hard to see how this would be useful without moderation. Hard to see how moderation could be implemented in a practical way.
From what I gather, existing UIs work, but they work 'wrong'. The only reason you think they are superior is because you have been forced to accommodate these 'wrong' UI paradigms for so long that your perception is warped.
Don't you see that task speed is a corrupt metric? It must be! You can't do right doing wrong.
I suppose it is a somewhat savvy leveraging of Twitter hype.
Even the most peripheral "connection" to Twitter is still enough to get a story bumped up on the perceived relevancy scale. At least as percieved by people who don't quite get Twitter or the appeal but sure hear about it a lot and are thus afraid of seeming un-hip by asking "what is this lame shit, really?" (IOW "Does the Emperor know he is naked").
Or maybe he is another narcissistic Twitter addict trying desperately to imbue it with significance by by further expanding its portfolio of uses.
So in summary, you are stoked on your iPhone despite the fact that Apple cashes in on your enthusiasm for their product by forcing you to subscribe to a money grubbing carrier with an inferior network that dictates reduced functionality (or at least locks out perfectly legitimate, achievable functionality). And despite heaping so much scorn on AT&T, you are not convinced that the situation would be any different on any other carrier because of Apple's desire to work with an exclusive carrier (which allows them to get kick-backs).
But you are incredulous that someone else might not want to be an Apple customer?
My handwriting has gone to crap, but what does that have to do with spelling? If anything, I would think that spelling would be more likely to improve, thanks to the slower pace of writing by hand. I pay more attention to what I am writing when I have to take the time to write it out by hand.
If the quality of your writing is going down, I suspect that has to do with the quality of the writing you are consuming.
I'd be curious to know why in the land where consumers are king, products are often bloated, stripped down and late.
American consumers are king like cattle are king on the feedlot.
Please don't confuse a President who TALKS about being for science, just understand the science politicians support is the science that polls well.
And science that people are likely to think of as relevant and necessary polls well.
The whole idea of people living within their means is simple.
There is simple, and then there is simplistic. Your simplistic argument assumes that one can educate and relocate themselves out of deprivation. Barring that they can simply reduce their expectations to an affordable level that doesn't perpetuate the problems they are trying to escape, e.g. moving to a cheaper area that doesn't require more transportation costs to get to available jobs, or doesn't limit their children's educational opportunities to the point that they find themselves in the same boat when they are adults.
That you could admit that "today the economy is in bad shape and needs to be fixed" and simultaneously lecture people who bear the brunt of its under-performance suggests that you yourself are either ignorant of multi-generational economic trends in the US, are too lazy to demand more from the public and private sectors, or have simply resigned yourself to pitifully low standards.
No, it's designed to punish the people that don't know how to live within their means. I should not be putting a $2000 TV on a credit card if I have a job making $1000 a month. PERIOD.
Well gosh, aren't you a paragon of financial rectitude.
Lets try another scenario -- I should not be paying $200 for medical insurance if I have a job making $1000 a month and doing so would mean putting food on a credit card. Oops, I slipped on some ice and broke my leg. Well, I should not be putting $15000 worth of medical care on a credit card if I have a job that neither provides medical insurance nor pays enough for me to buy it without relying on credit cards to cover my overall monthly expenses. Rather, I should remain maimed for the rest of my life, thus even less able to earn more and provide for myself, or I should perhaps just die from internal bleeding or infection on principle. And my kids, well they should starve rather than spend more than they earn (nothing) on food.
You are arguing the same old "Welfare Queen" BS that intelligent people have been rolling their eyes at for a generation. Poor people buying $2000 TVs are not the meat of the credit crisis. Housing, transportation, healthcare and education are the frivolous luxuries that you would have two-full-time-income families live without.
Somewhere most Americans picked up this quaint idea that the law requires employers to treat employees fairly.
The law does require this -- within the constraints of the legal definition of "fair", which you point out is arbitrary and somewhat narrow.
There is a certain irony in your admonishment that people should take up this issue with their legislators while noting that political activity remains a legitimate cause for termination.
How is government-run health care going to help these people? I think you'd still need to have a primary address.
Why? Unless you plan to mail them a bill, why should a primary address be a requirement for providing health care?
Of course, even if it gets that bad, I suspect it'd be defeated with something like duct tape.
"Sorry, but we have detected a problem with your set-top box. Please contact your local service center for repairs to your equipment and reactivation of your account."
As with anything you have to know how to work the system and evaluate the different options. Postpaid cellular service can be a great deal for a lot of people (who talk on the phone a lot and value mobility) or a horrible waste of money for others (who don't talk much). It's up to the consumer to research the options that are available to him and to select the one that best matches his needs.
Specious platitude.
There are high cost options for high volume users, period. Otherwise, you are paying far more per used minute than or sacrificing all manner of features and services to use a chintzy phone on a pre-pay plan.
I rather like to be able to call my friends who have cell phones without paying a penalty for doing so.
IOW, you don't mind overpaying for service because you get perks for "free"?
Areas with lower costs of living have lower salaries and/or more scarce employment opportunities. Big city hassles are replaced by small city/rural hassles. "Less stress overall" coincides with diminished expectations.
Sorry, there is no free lunch.
I think I just rolled any eyeball out of joint.
I've had discussions about this and mainly it's a matter of philosophy and its foundation.
Leaving aside the erroneous conflation of evolution and "survival of the fittest", evolutionary theory is not a philosophy. Creationism may be -- It certainly isn't science. But just because creationism is not science does not mean that its "opposite", evolution, is superstition. They are not equals, and they are not rivals.
By the way, just how does it work out when someone supports Euthanasia and Abortion but is against the death penalty?
They recognize the Bible as fiction, and thus there is no irony. They have different beliefs about life and justice.
Okay, you want to split hairs? Japanese words are not "spelled", they are written using a mix of Chinese and phonetic symbols.
Japanese has three phonetic writing systems, Hiragana, Katakana and "Romaji", the latter being their word for the Roman alphabet. These are traditionally reserved for separate contexts, but any can be used to spell any of the symbolic Chinese characters (Kanji), and may be at various times for a variety of reasons.
Since then the gap between the first "netbooks" (I hate that term, it implies the machines are far more crippled than they really are) and regular laptops has been gradually filling and I regard this as a good thing, users can now pick there preffered tradeoff between size and functionality.
See, the term "netbook" seems wrong to you because you don't want a netbook, you want a reasonably priced ultraportable, which is where the netbook market is currently heading. This is not a win for consumers who don't need a 10"+ screen or a "good" processor, or rather, doubling the price doesn't represent a good value in the form of a netbook, either in regards to price or diminished battery longevity.
Why would the AP charge for words it doesn't own? Is it malice or incompetence on their part?
Well, why would anyone request a license from AP for words that AP doesn't own? Is Grimmelmann too incompetent to figure out why the whole premise of his exercise is inane, or is he maliciously trying to portray AP as greedy when their only "sin" here is not making their systems impervious to idiots who would throw their money away?
This is exactly right. Even if what you're doing is working on a book, MS Word is not the tool you need to produce the book, and yet authors typically are asked to submit their work as Word docs. This just creates needless extra effort, because Word docs are so clumsy and Word is so buggy.
This is because at least 999 out of every 1000 books (or ideas for books) conceived isn't worth considering for publication. Imposing needless extra effort on "authors" is a feature, not a bug.