Indeed. And it's worse than that. What's frustrating about the baseless cynicism is that it only serves to justify continuing not to vote. I'm fine with people not voting, just so long as they admit it's because they're lazy and apathetic. Trying to justify it by saying "Aw, it won't do anything anyway," or "Well, there's no real difference in the candidates (why, no, I didn't vote in the primaries, why do you ask?" THAT I find annoying.
If we fail to keep a tyrant out through the voting box, I'd be deeply skeptical that we'd be competent to throw them out through violent rebellion. And also, I think the likelihood of me being shot by a citizen is a lot higher than the US turning into a totalitarian society.
Feel free to call me either too cynical about the effectiveness of a handgun vs the national guard, paranoid about violent whackos with guns, or naive about governments trying to take away my rights.
I think "dumb" would be refusing to consider any new or challenging ideas. TFA points out that people are demanding action. Would you rather a compromise where your gun refused to shoot in certain places, or would you rather the gun control advocates get their way? It's a false dichotomy, but one that is being forced by the discussion. It's not impossible to come up with a third option that no one had really considered before, which would be an acceptable compromise.
Maybe it would be a dumb idea, but discuss WHY it's a dumb idea, don't just say "It's dumb, you're dumb for thinking it."
How would we know? Voter turnout for the presidential election was about 50%. For local elections, like prosecutors, it's lower. Aside from rare occasions, people who don't know a local candidate personally don't vote. Can you name any of your state legislators, prosecutor etc? WE HAVEN'T TRIED INFORMED VOTING. At least not in a while.
Anyway, what are you suggesting? If not voting them out... then what? Vigilante justice? Living in the woods away from society?
The shifts - if they truly exist - have tended to become smaller asymptotically as science progresses.
Shifts in terms of our understanding of the universe, life, etc, yes. Shifts in terms of what's being researched on, the "way scientists are looking at things" no. From skimming TFA, it sounds like he was talking about the latter.
In cell biology, long ago it was all about shapes of cells. Cell biologists had electron microscopy, and it was awesome, so they found the ultrastructure of nearly any cell they could get their hands on. Then they discovered DNA and how to use it, and suddenly looking at stuff in the microscope was boring, it was all about molecular biology and proteins interacting. Now there seems to be a shift back to "Oh my god you guys, cells and organisms use genes for shapes and movement! WHAT IF WE LOOKED INTO THAT?!?!" combining both areas.
So it shifted from form to genes to form following genes (to some degree anyway). The first wave obviously understood that the structure of cells was determined by genetics, the second obviously understood that molecular biology was mainly of interest for what they were doing for the whole cell and organism (and form was important to many of those), but it was only fashionable and technically possible to do it for a lot of things recently.
So... this is probably stupid, but I tried downloading acrobat pro out of curiosity. It asked for the CD after installing. I force closed the program and it works fine. Is it possible they made it that simple?
One way it's creepy is that this will probably include kids. Maybe the message they're getting is "It's okay when corporations track you at all times. In fact, it's MAGIC! (TM)"
I have the same concerns about schools doing it, but with that, it's school, so maybe they'll associate being tracked with negative memories of being forced to do algebra. With disneyland, it would be a positive association. That said, when I went to Disneyworld as a kid, I was so excited about it that I was a whiney bitch the whole time. A 5 minute line was THE WORST THING EVER TO HAPPEN TO ME!
And if they're using this thing to enforce whatever the priority system they have going (something like "Pay an extra arm and leg and you get in the short line") kids might also get the message that tracking like this is just a way of fucking you over.
The targeted advertising is also a bit creepy. I'm guessing it will mainly be seeing which bathroom kids go into, and then they'll know whether to blast "Buzz Lightyear" or whatever it is their marketing staff tells them girls like. Ponies and ribbons or something like that. But considering how exceptionally greedy and efficient Disney already is about getting into your wallet through your kids, I can't imagine this will work out well for me.
Looks like you wrote that when the story had been up for about 15 minutes for one thing. For another, it's easy to comment on theoretical economic/political insanity. Coming up with a worthwhile comment on something that's real is more difficult.
I don't think saying "should" is appropriate unless you are only considering the situation from an economist's standpoint. From the perspective of "What's good for most people" that's not what you should do.
Anyway, you're ignoring the context of GP's remarks. He wasn't saying "Shareholders should be your friends," he was saying "Shareholders can be evil too" in response to a suggestion that the shareholders are good guys and the management is the bad guy.
Unfortunately, I don't see too much discussion around this, and just a lot of yelling around GMO bad! GMO good!
Well, that's what we ALWAYS do in these situations. Name one public controversy that was resolved through rational discussion. Seriously, name one! Even slavery, we (Americans at least) had to have a civil war to resolve that.
The reason this guy is noteworthy is BECAUSE he's such a rare type: a person who is adamantly on one side of the debate but who was convinced to join the other.
This was in China though. And the Dad evidently gave up after the kid said "No, I'm STILL not going to look for a job." Sounds like the problem may have been lack of tough love. Furthermore, h4rr4r's suggestion doesn't need to be an immediate and total severing of all ties and support.
"You have a month or two to find a job, after that time you'll either be gainfully employed and enjoying your hobby on your off hours, or you will be sleeping on the concrete and won't have a computer."
Well, that has not been my experience with vibrating phones. I don't go to theater performances where the audience can't possibly handle quiet buzzing without it totally ruining the show. I will point out that this is for movies in theaters, which are generally uncomfortably loud, not live theater.
1. Someone noticed that kids who took online classes were doing better than average in school. The geniuses in the Idaho state legislature assumed that correlation is the same thing as causation, and thus decided that if EVERYONE took online classes, everyone would do better than they were now.
2. The Idaho legislature spent too much money and/or cut taxes too much. Someone pointed out that teachers cost more money than an internet connection. Someone else suggsted raising taxes to pay for teachers' salaries. That second person was laughed out of the building.
(To clarify, I'm cynical about state legislators, not online classes or specifically the Khan Academy, which could indeed be a big improvement over public school teachers.)
It's a real shame too: the product is beautiful to gaze at. A real work of art. Here is a -slightly- lower resolution image of the product with no watermark.
Slashdot Mirror
Indeed. And it's worse than that. What's frustrating about the baseless cynicism is that it only serves to justify continuing not to vote. I'm fine with people not voting, just so long as they admit it's because they're lazy and apathetic. Trying to justify it by saying "Aw, it won't do anything anyway," or "Well, there's no real difference in the candidates (why, no, I didn't vote in the primaries, why do you ask?" THAT I find annoying.
If we fail to keep a tyrant out through the voting box, I'd be deeply skeptical that we'd be competent to throw them out through violent rebellion. And also, I think the likelihood of me being shot by a citizen is a lot higher than the US turning into a totalitarian society.
Feel free to call me either too cynical about the effectiveness of a handgun vs the national guard, paranoid about violent whackos with guns, or naive about governments trying to take away my rights.
I think "dumb" would be refusing to consider any new or challenging ideas. TFA points out that people are demanding action. Would you rather a compromise where your gun refused to shoot in certain places, or would you rather the gun control advocates get their way? It's a false dichotomy, but one that is being forced by the discussion. It's not impossible to come up with a third option that no one had really considered before, which would be an acceptable compromise.
Maybe it would be a dumb idea, but discuss WHY it's a dumb idea, don't just say "It's dumb, you're dumb for thinking it."
How would we know? Voter turnout for the presidential election was about 50%. For local elections, like prosecutors, it's lower. Aside from rare occasions, people who don't know a local candidate personally don't vote. Can you name any of your state legislators, prosecutor etc? WE HAVEN'T TRIED INFORMED VOTING. At least not in a while.
Anyway, what are you suggesting? If not voting them out... then what? Vigilante justice? Living in the woods away from society?
what makes you think a SCOTUS ruling will stop it?
I don't think anything will solve any type of police misconduct in one fell swoop, but I doubt a supreme court ruling against this crap would hurt.
The shifts - if they truly exist - have tended to become smaller asymptotically as science progresses.
Shifts in terms of our understanding of the universe, life, etc, yes. Shifts in terms of what's being researched on, the "way scientists are looking at things" no. From skimming TFA, it sounds like he was talking about the latter.
In cell biology, long ago it was all about shapes of cells. Cell biologists had electron microscopy, and it was awesome, so they found the ultrastructure of nearly any cell they could get their hands on. Then they discovered DNA and how to use it, and suddenly looking at stuff in the microscope was boring, it was all about molecular biology and proteins interacting. Now there seems to be a shift back to "Oh my god you guys, cells and organisms use genes for shapes and movement! WHAT IF WE LOOKED INTO THAT?!?!" combining both areas.
So it shifted from form to genes to form following genes (to some degree anyway). The first wave obviously understood that the structure of cells was determined by genetics, the second obviously understood that molecular biology was mainly of interest for what they were doing for the whole cell and organism (and form was important to many of those), but it was only fashionable and technically possible to do it for a lot of things recently.
That wasn't really a critique of Disney so much as it was I have no idea what little girls are interested in.
So... this is probably stupid, but I tried downloading acrobat pro out of curiosity. It asked for the CD after installing. I force closed the program and it works fine. Is it possible they made it that simple?
One way it's creepy is that this will probably include kids. Maybe the message they're getting is "It's okay when corporations track you at all times. In fact, it's MAGIC! (TM)"
I have the same concerns about schools doing it, but with that, it's school, so maybe they'll associate being tracked with negative memories of being forced to do algebra. With disneyland, it would be a positive association. That said, when I went to Disneyworld as a kid, I was so excited about it that I was a whiney bitch the whole time. A 5 minute line was THE WORST THING EVER TO HAPPEN TO ME!
And if they're using this thing to enforce whatever the priority system they have going (something like "Pay an extra arm and leg and you get in the short line") kids might also get the message that tracking like this is just a way of fucking you over.
The targeted advertising is also a bit creepy. I'm guessing it will mainly be seeing which bathroom kids go into, and then they'll know whether to blast "Buzz Lightyear" or whatever it is their marketing staff tells them girls like. Ponies and ribbons or something like that. But considering how exceptionally greedy and efficient Disney already is about getting into your wallet through your kids, I can't imagine this will work out well for me.
Looks like you wrote that when the story had been up for about 15 minutes for one thing. For another, it's easy to comment on theoretical economic/political insanity. Coming up with a worthwhile comment on something that's real is more difficult.
No, I meant each movie the PRODUCER made money off of. Producers don't cheat THEMSELVES out of money.
Am I okay with people being evil? Or am I okay with people having the right to be evil? No and yes, respectively.
Maybe they're making these for movie execs who need to carry the movies they made a profit from on their keys? I guess that's a market, right?
But I own it I can sell it if I want to.
Great. No one was suggesting otherwise.
I don't think saying "should" is appropriate unless you are only considering the situation from an economist's standpoint. From the perspective of "What's good for most people" that's not what you should do.
Anyway, you're ignoring the context of GP's remarks. He wasn't saying "Shareholders should be your friends," he was saying "Shareholders can be evil too" in response to a suggestion that the shareholders are good guys and the management is the bad guy.
Unfortunately, I don't see too much discussion around this, and just a lot of yelling around GMO bad! GMO good!
Well, that's what we ALWAYS do in these situations. Name one public controversy that was resolved through rational discussion. Seriously, name one! Even slavery, we (Americans at least) had to have a civil war to resolve that.
The reason this guy is noteworthy is BECAUSE he's such a rare type: a person who is adamantly on one side of the debate but who was convinced to join the other.
Caffeine is probably a better example.
Replace female and male with a couple of different races and maybe it will be easier for you to see.
What would that prove beyond "If you change people's words, you can make them say anything."
This was in China though. And the Dad evidently gave up after the kid said "No, I'm STILL not going to look for a job." Sounds like the problem may have been lack of tough love. Furthermore, h4rr4r's suggestion doesn't need to be an immediate and total severing of all ties and support.
"You have a month or two to find a job, after that time you'll either be gainfully employed and enjoying your hobby on your off hours, or you will be sleeping on the concrete and won't have a computer."
If the kid chooses the latter, that's his fault.
Well, that has not been my experience with vibrating phones. I don't go to theater performances where the audience can't possibly handle quiet buzzing without it totally ruining the show. I will point out that this is for movies in theaters, which are generally uncomfortably loud, not live theater.
Two guesses:
1. Someone noticed that kids who took online classes were doing better than average in school. The geniuses in the Idaho state legislature assumed that correlation is the same thing as causation, and thus decided that if EVERYONE took online classes, everyone would do better than they were now.
2. The Idaho legislature spent too much money and/or cut taxes too much. Someone pointed out that teachers cost more money than an internet connection. Someone else suggsted raising taxes to pay for teachers' salaries. That second person was laughed out of the building.
(To clarify, I'm cynical about state legislators, not online classes or specifically the Khan Academy, which could indeed be a big improvement over public school teachers.)
According to the description, you start the app's timer when the movie starts, and it VIBRATES when there is an opportunity to go to the bathroom.
So it can be silent, and you don't need to turn on the screen and distract anyone. So it's possible it could be used responsibly.
Until they do bring it back, there is an app for that
It's a real shame too: the product is beautiful to gaze at. A real work of art. Here is a -slightly- lower resolution image of the product with no watermark.
You have poor circulation too? Yeah, it sucks. I sometimes wear gloves in the house.