He's probably referring to a prediction by Bear Stearns analyst Andrew Neff (who owns Intel stock, BTW). According to the article, "There's a better than 80 percent chance Apple will make the jump [to Intel] in two to four years, he said." Shortly after Neff's report was released, AnchorDesk Executive Editor David Coursey made a similar prediction, predicting the change would take place in less than 18 months. No word on how much Intel stock he owns;-)
Of course Apple makes virtually all its money from hardware sales, so I can't imagine why they'd want to make such a move. Not to mention, direct competition with Microsoft is never a good idea...
I probably spend an average of $100-$200 on music each month (to supplement the free promos I receive to review on my Web site). The catch? They're almost all from tiny labels that don't belong to the RIAA. I can do this because of the types of music I listen to. Unfortunately, if you're into pop music, you have no choice but to pirate or support the RIAA. So it would be easy for me to say "don't buy CDs from labels belonging to the RIAA; support labels not in the RIAA." It's not as easy for the top-40-listening public to follow through.
Even if everyone on Slashdot stopped buying music (it's not going to happen) record companies wouldn't notice the difference. If everyone on Slashdot wrote to their representatives, however, (snail mail, not email) we'd have a much larger impact.
the other things, such as taxes, etc, that's fine...they don't directly effect your day-to-day life...
What about the elderly lady whose amublance service (that she presumably pays for with her taxes) would be switched to a town much farther away? It's a situation that shows how important these borders (and your taxes) can be...
And what about voting districts? What if you're suddenly unable to vote for the school board for your child's district?
In the Southwest, water rights are a big issue. I wonder if GPS has been making any changes to who gets to water their crops.
Hey, the paper didn't suck...the design of the UI sucks. Learn to parse a sentence.
The issue here isn't with your commas, but with your pronoun, which doesn't clearly refer to its antecedent. Obviously most readers will realize that you think the Windows interface sucks, but I believe the poster you're criticizing made a valid (and amusing) point about your sentence structure.
But to me that does not rule out the possibility of reducing the mind to a mathematical description, which is more or less independent of the underlying brain archiecture.
But what if "the mind," aka the illusion of consciousness, is an emergent property of the brain's complex system?
I would think it would be very difficult to create a computer model of the brain, since there's likely a high degree of probability involved that can't be directly measured. But has any work been done along these lines (agent-based models, etc.)?
Is LEGO ("please refer to our products as LEGO toys or bricks, not 'Legos'...") really still alive and well?
They can try to keep their brand separate from little plastic blocks, but it's usage that eventually controls grammer, and people would rather say "Legos" than "Lego bricks" just as they'd rather say "Kleenex" than "Kleenex-brand facial tissues."
I am not User #4486, I am a Free Man!
Your signature seems somewhat ironic considering you're playing corporate grammer police:-)
Umm, that's my point, there aren't a lot of women qualified to be president, partly because they don't have as many opportunities in politics. There's only a couple of women governors. In our society, most women expect to just be homemakers, wheras in other countries, more women seek and receive positions in politics.
Explain why biology does not affect salaries in women, given that the latest NOW earnings study showed that a: unmarried childless women make on average 98% of what men of a similar age make, and b: that average drops to 79% when married women who have had children are factored in.
First of all, I don't know where you got these figures. According to this 2002 NOW press release, "in 2000 women were paid 73 cents for every dollar received by men. The news is even worse for women of color. African-American women are paid only 65 cents for every dollar received by white men while Hispanic women are paid only 53 cents to the dollar." These figures are from the U.S. Census, not some mysterious "NOW study." Second, do you think it's right that women with children earn less money? Why aren't there salary differences between men with and without children? They should have just as much responsibility to care for the child.
Extra Credit: explain why it's a good idea to lower the skills requirements for, say, a firefighter or a member of an Infantry division, in order to have more women present in the name of equality.
It's not a good idea. You're naming the very few jobs where women may be at a disadvantage for physical reasons (although I've seen a few overweight male firefighters in my day). This isn't to say there aren't women who are qualified physically for these jobs who don't get them due to prejudice.
'Feminism' once was about seeking equality (see the writing of Betty Friedan) but now is about payback and pursuing power specifically to the detriment of men (see Gloria Steinem's writing or any number of courses at Smith College).
If by "the detriment of men" you mean giving up some power, you're probably right. But I'm a man and I'm willing to give up some power if it'll help people like my girlfriend make a fare wage.
Equality isn't about the number of women in a given job, it's about an equal (gender-blind)opportunity to achieve a position based on your ability to do so, in the same way that "civil rights" isn't about the number of black people present on a college campus, it's about an equal (race blind) shot at getting into college.
Exactly. I never argued otherwise. But the "number of women in a given job" is a good indicator of whether women have opportunities in that field and whether our culture is encouraging them to seek those opportunities.
I would not be very happy if I went to an orchestral performance of a Beethoven symphony and discovered that the conductor took it upon himself to cut out major portions of the work.
Yes, but you have to make changes when you're translating a work to a different medium. You can't expect audiences to sit through an 12-hour movie just so no dialogue, settings, and characters are removed. How long did it take you to read each book? How long are you willing to watch a movie for? They're completely different experiences.
Also, a conductor may be able to make minor changes when interpretting a musical piece, but a director has to take great liberties simply because Tokien never described the color of Gandalf's shoes. He didn't always specify each character's expression. When you read something, you have to fill in a lot of detail. Likewise, when you make a movie of a book, you have to fill in a lot of detail.
I can't believe this post got modded up so high. Do you really think it's biology that prevents women from making as much as men, or from holding certain jobs, or from being president of the U.S.? I'd argue that it's society that sets roles for men and women.
You're ignoring countries where there are more women than men in government or matriarchal societies (there were a few of them). Feminism is about seeking equality. It's a term similar to "civil rights." A hundred years ago racism was justified with the argument that it was a natural biological fact, today it's sexism.
Some time we'll have to discuss why the sight of a naked woman as God made her should be considered to harm a child...
Wow, talk about a straw man. The poster who asked the question wasn't saying there's anything wrong with the sight of naked women. I believe he or she was complaining about using naked women to sell books, aka objectification.
...are you doing an honest critique here, or merely attributing things that really are not in my books?
Instead of a blanket denial, how about, "yes, there are naked women on my book covers and in my stories, but..." [that's what sells books/I don't like writing about naked men/it's my publisher's fault/Cowboy Neal]
The story has been on Wired for almost 2 days now. Isn't it a little late for you to go into this rant?
Of course the red stapler news has been making the blog circuit for quite some time now. It was on Metafilter May 1. And for those who havn't seen Office Space (like me), mentioning the movie title in the Slashdot story would have been polite...
Even assuming you have a Nielson ratings box, what will changing the channel do? The media's choices are: report about every abduction, report about no abductions, or report about "interesting" abductions. Right now we get the third choice. I don't see the other two as viable alternatives.
As long as people realize news reporting is, by its very nature, non-objective, they can still watch it for information and entertainment. Jon Katz is complaining that news outlets choose what to report. Of course they do--there's no other option. It's like complaining that the sky is blue.
Do you live in Milwaukee? Do you realize that for the past two months... it's been on the news almost every day in Milwaukee?
That's exactly his point. Most kidnappings make the local news, but not national. For example, there have been a couple of unsolved kidnappings here in New Mexico in the last year. National news doesn't care because the kids are Hispanic, rather than pretty blonde rich girls.
But the truth is, media has always looked for stories that will sell newspapers, magazines, or ad space. The Lindberg kidnappings of the world will always be bigger news than the poor kid killed in Milwaukee. I think a large percentage of the public realizes this, so it's not like Katz is revealing a hidden truth.
Yes, they produced an update. No, it wasn't fast enough.
Not to be an Apple apologist, but Apache and OpenSSH are both disabled by default in OS X, so the vulnerability only affected a small percentage of users who would, presumably, be able to install the new versions themselves.
Speaking of Wired, anyone know what the relationship is now between Wired News and Wired Magazine? It seems Lycos bought the former from Wired Magzine's failed Wired Digital enterprise. And Conde Naste bought the latter. Are they completely separate now but for a cross-promotion agreement? It's a little confusing...
File sharing may make a small dent in the sales of a pop artist like Moby, but it's the little indy labels that are doing cutting edge stuff that have had to cut back their print runs from 300 to 200. Non-RIAA labels like Schematic, Isophlux, Leaf, Chocolate Industries, Dub, Fat Cat, Morr, and Skam. I've talked to the owners of record stores like s://kimo and they've seen a real hit lately since their main audience is college kids who would rather fire up soulseek and save a few bucks than support an artist by buying a limited-edition record. Should file-sharing be outlawed? Probably not. Should people think twice about not buying something since they have it on MP3? I think so.
If you bothered following the links, you'd see that what you're remembering is from the WIRED article. However, you state this story as fact, wheras the WIRED piece says "More puzzling is why Nixon chose to erase this segment and no other. One theory is that he sat down sometime in 1973 with the intention of erasing all incriminating tapes.... An opposing theory is that the lost conversation is the one Nixon couldn't bear anyone to hear." (Emphasis mine.)
Funny how everyone keeps pointing to a newspaper editorial (published in a city that's been historically pro-automobile) as evidence we'll never run out of oil... And how it quotes an astonomer, but no geologists. The truth is no one knows when we'll run out of easily accessible oil. But there are enough disadvantages to burning oil (pollution included) to start looking at alternatives. I mean, why not? Just because oil folk have deep pockets and a powerful lobby?
Slashdot Mirror
Although used in Macs, the PowerPC chip probably shouldn't be called "Mac technology."
Most chips using this architecture are used for embedded applications.
He's probably referring to a prediction by Bear Stearns analyst Andrew Neff (who owns Intel stock, BTW). According to the article, "There's a better than 80 percent chance Apple will make the jump [to Intel] in two to four years, he said." Shortly after Neff's report was released, AnchorDesk Executive Editor David Coursey made a similar prediction, predicting the change would take place in less than 18 months. No word on how much Intel stock he owns ;-)
Of course Apple makes virtually all its money from hardware sales, so I can't imagine why they'd want to make such a move. Not to mention, direct competition with Microsoft is never a good idea...
Actually Ub Iwerks drew Mickey.... Now I've sucked all the magic out of the world. ;-)
According to the alt.folklore.urban FAQ, Disney was cremated.
I probably spend an average of $100-$200 on music each month (to supplement the free promos I receive to review on my Web site). The catch? They're almost all from tiny labels that don't belong to the RIAA. I can do this because of the types of music I listen to. Unfortunately, if you're into pop music, you have no choice but to pirate or support the RIAA. So it would be easy for me to say "don't buy CDs from labels belonging to the RIAA; support labels not in the RIAA." It's not as easy for the top-40-listening public to follow through.
Even if everyone on Slashdot stopped buying music (it's not going to happen) record companies wouldn't notice the difference. If everyone on Slashdot wrote to their representatives, however, (snail mail, not email) we'd have a much larger impact.
And I suppose if they lowered car prices people would stop stealing cars too ;-)
the other things, such as taxes, etc, that's fine...they don't directly effect your day-to-day life...
What about the elderly lady whose amublance service (that she presumably pays for with her taxes) would be switched to a town much farther away? It's a situation that shows how important these borders (and your taxes) can be...
And what about voting districts? What if you're suddenly unable to vote for the school board for your child's district?
In the Southwest, water rights are a big issue. I wonder if GPS has been making any changes to who gets to water their crops.
I liked your theory better when you used to predict a SWAT team of FCC agents swarming a Senator's apartment to fix his poor TV reception... ;-)
Hey, the paper didn't suck...the design of the UI sucks. Learn to parse a sentence.
The issue here isn't with your commas, but with your pronoun, which doesn't clearly refer to its antecedent. Obviously most readers will realize that you think the Windows interface sucks, but I believe the poster you're criticizing made a valid (and amusing) point about your sentence structure.
But to me that does not rule out the possibility of reducing the mind to a mathematical description, which is more or less independent of the underlying brain archiecture.
But what if "the mind," aka the illusion of consciousness, is an emergent property of the brain's complex system?
I would think it would be very difficult to create a computer model of the brain, since there's likely a high degree of probability involved that can't be directly measured. But has any work been done along these lines (agent-based models, etc.)?
Is LEGO ("please refer to our products as LEGO toys or bricks, not 'Legos'...") really still alive and well?
:-)
They can try to keep their brand separate from little plastic blocks, but it's usage that eventually controls grammer, and people would rather say "Legos" than "Lego bricks" just as they'd rather say "Kleenex" than "Kleenex-brand facial tissues."
I am not User #4486, I am a Free Man!
Your signature seems somewhat ironic considering you're playing corporate grammer police
Shoot. Somehow my link to the NOW press release got dropped. Must be a conspiracy ;-)
A brief exercise:
Name me three women you'd elect as President.
Umm, that's my point, there aren't a lot of women qualified to be president, partly because they don't have as many opportunities in politics. There's only a couple of women governors. In our society, most women expect to just be homemakers, wheras in other countries, more women seek and receive positions in politics.
Explain why biology does not affect salaries in women, given that the latest NOW earnings study showed that a: unmarried childless women make on average 98% of what men of a similar age make, and b: that average drops to 79% when married women who have had children are factored in.
First of all, I don't know where you got these figures. According to this 2002 NOW press release, "in 2000 women were paid 73 cents for every dollar received by men. The news is even worse for women of color. African-American women are paid only 65 cents for every dollar received by white men while Hispanic women are paid only 53 cents to the dollar." These figures are from the U.S. Census, not some mysterious "NOW study." Second, do you think it's right that women with children earn less money? Why aren't there salary differences between men with and without children? They should have just as much responsibility to care for the child.
Extra Credit: explain why it's a good idea to lower the skills requirements for, say, a firefighter or a member of an Infantry division, in order to have more women present in the name of equality.
It's not a good idea. You're naming the very few jobs where women may be at a disadvantage for physical reasons (although I've seen a few overweight male firefighters in my day). This isn't to say there aren't women who are qualified physically for these jobs who don't get them due to prejudice.
'Feminism' once was about seeking equality (see the writing of Betty Friedan) but now is about payback and pursuing power specifically to the detriment of men (see Gloria Steinem's writing or any number of courses at Smith College).
If by "the detriment of men" you mean giving up some power, you're probably right. But I'm a man and I'm willing to give up some power if it'll help people like my girlfriend make a fare wage.
Equality isn't about the number of women in a given job, it's about an equal (gender-blind)opportunity to achieve a position based on your ability to do so, in the same way that "civil rights" isn't about the number of black people present on a college campus, it's about an equal (race blind) shot at getting into college.
Exactly. I never argued otherwise. But the "number of women in a given job" is a good indicator of whether women have opportunities in that field and whether our culture is encouraging them to seek those opportunities.
I would not be very happy if I went to an orchestral performance of a Beethoven symphony and discovered that the conductor took it upon himself to cut out major portions of the work.
Yes, but you have to make changes when you're translating a work to a different medium. You can't expect audiences to sit through an 12-hour movie just so no dialogue, settings, and characters are removed. How long did it take you to read each book? How long are you willing to watch a movie for? They're completely different experiences.
Also, a conductor may be able to make minor changes when interpretting a musical piece, but a director has to take great liberties simply because Tokien never described the color of Gandalf's shoes. He didn't always specify each character's expression. When you read something, you have to fill in a lot of detail. Likewise, when you make a movie of a book, you have to fill in a lot of detail.
I can't believe this post got modded up so high. Do you really think it's biology that prevents women from making as much as men, or from holding certain jobs, or from being president of the U.S.? I'd argue that it's society that sets roles for men and women.
You're ignoring countries where there are more women than men in government or matriarchal societies (there were a few of them). Feminism is about seeking equality. It's a term similar to "civil rights." A hundred years ago racism was justified with the argument that it was a natural biological fact, today it's sexism.
Wow, talk about a straw man. The poster who asked the question wasn't saying there's anything wrong with the sight of naked women. I believe he or she was complaining about using naked women to sell books, aka objectification.
Instead of a blanket denial, how about, "yes, there are naked women on my book covers and in my stories, but..." [that's what sells books/I don't like writing about naked men/it's my publisher's fault/Cowboy Neal]
The story has been on Wired for almost 2 days now. Isn't it a little late for you to go into this rant?
Of course the red stapler news has been making the blog circuit for quite some time now. It was on Metafilter May 1. And for those who havn't seen Office Space (like me), mentioning the movie title in the Slashdot story would have been polite...
Even assuming you have a Nielson ratings box, what will changing the channel do? The media's choices are: report about every abduction, report about no abductions, or report about "interesting" abductions. Right now we get the third choice. I don't see the other two as viable alternatives.
As long as people realize news reporting is, by its very nature, non-objective, they can still watch it for information and entertainment. Jon Katz is complaining that news outlets choose what to report. Of course they do--there's no other option. It's like complaining that the sky is blue.
Do you live in Milwaukee? Do you realize that for the past two months... it's been on the news almost every day in Milwaukee?
That's exactly his point. Most kidnappings make the local news, but not national. For example, there have been a couple of unsolved kidnappings here in New Mexico in the last year. National news doesn't care because the kids are Hispanic, rather than pretty blonde rich girls.
But the truth is, media has always looked for stories that will sell newspapers, magazines, or ad space. The Lindberg kidnappings of the world will always be bigger news than the poor kid killed in Milwaukee. I think a large percentage of the public realizes this, so it's not like Katz is revealing a hidden truth.
Yes, they produced an update. No, it wasn't fast enough.
Not to be an Apple apologist, but Apache and OpenSSH are both disabled by default in OS X, so the vulnerability only affected a small percentage of users who would, presumably, be able to install the new versions themselves.
Speaking of Wired, anyone know what the relationship is now between Wired News and Wired Magazine? It seems Lycos bought the former from Wired Magzine's failed Wired Digital enterprise. And Conde Naste bought the latter. Are they completely separate now but for a cross-promotion agreement? It's a little confusing...
File sharing may make a small dent in the sales of a pop artist like Moby, but it's the little indy labels that are doing cutting edge stuff that have had to cut back their print runs from 300 to 200. Non-RIAA labels like Schematic, Isophlux, Leaf, Chocolate Industries, Dub, Fat Cat, Morr, and Skam. I've talked to the owners of record stores like s://kimo and they've seen a real hit lately since their main audience is college kids who would rather fire up soulseek and save a few bucks than support an artist by buying a limited-edition record. Should file-sharing be outlawed? Probably not. Should people think twice about not buying something since they have it on MP3? I think so.
If you bothered following the links, you'd see that what you're remembering is from the WIRED article. However, you state this story as fact, wheras the WIRED piece says "More puzzling is why Nixon chose to erase this segment and no other. One theory is that he sat down sometime in 1973 with the intention of erasing all incriminating tapes.... An opposing theory is that the lost conversation is the one Nixon couldn't bear anyone to hear." (Emphasis mine.)
News flash: Most of the interstate highway system is free.
Ever heard of taxes?
Funny how everyone keeps pointing to a newspaper editorial (published in a city that's been historically pro-automobile) as evidence we'll never run out of oil... And how it quotes an astonomer, but no geologists. The truth is no one knows when we'll run out of easily accessible oil. But there are enough disadvantages to burning oil (pollution included) to start looking at alternatives. I mean, why not? Just because oil folk have deep pockets and a powerful lobby?