That's kind of a silly assumption. If BA responded to it promptly, I'd question why they were bothering with twitter in the first place. (I may be a bit biased: I don't think twitter is useful for anything aside from shitty news stories.) Furthermore, if BA set a precedent for responding to angry tweets promptly, they might have to pay more people more money to respond to twitter. I'm sure however they currently handle complaints isn't exactly set up to respond to twitter.
The size limitations on twitter seem like it's a waste of time from customer service. What can you tweet back besides "@angryman: Well fuck you too #noflylisted"
GP was responding to "is it libel if it's true." If every airline does it, then it could be argued that "Their customer service is terrible" isn't true because it's relatively normal.
Some legal expert could say whether relative would matter, I just wanted to point out that "Alen" may not have been simply a brain-dead apologist for shitty airline treatment.
I'm as ignorant about hardware as they come on slashdot, so this is an honest question. By two are you saying the demand for per-core performance decreased or the capabilities bottomed out? I remember hearing we were at some point going to break moores law because there are finite limits to how much performance you can get out of silicone, and I've also not been blown away by increases in graphics or power requirements on games or applications. Which is it?
From what I've heard the last time the education board of Texas decided to teach that dinosaur bones were buried by the devil, it's worse than that. Texas is the biggest market outside of California, and California has so many crazy requirements that it's basically a separate market. Thus, Texas does decide what goes into text books for basically everyone except for California.
She was undoubtedly low enough on the totem pole to where she couldn't tell him to fuck off and be sure she wasn't going to get fired for it, or at least wasn't sure. I'd wager she'd only get in trouble for handing blatant spam onto her superior. "Yes sir, a Dr. cAnAdA tried to contact you about... ahem, 'c1@1is enl@rge y0ur d1ck!!!'"
Getting as much information about a problem someone brings to you is decent handling, even if you know someone above you is at most going to laugh and throw away the contact information.
What was that about the IRS? I think no politician in the last 20 years has said anything positive about the IRS. I think they realize if they made it a political issue, that would be bad, since it pays for their salaries and the pet projects their voters like.
It's not like they're trying to rename classic ballparks or changing gene names to corporate sponsors. It's their thing, it's been going on for, what, a few years, and so few people even know what android OS they're using, I'm not sure where the anger is coming from. I find "kit kat" more fun than iOS 6. And it's less crass than "McDonalds Kit Kat Flurry" or something like that.
I'll admit I am underinformed on the subject, but I do have to point out that if Regan did cause a lot of services to close, it's still his fault they CAN'T get it. Maybe they would have a better chance if we could FORCE them to be committed, but with a hospital closed due to defunding, they can't even be there voulontarily, can they?
I am so tired of the lack of personal responsibility in society today. It's always someone else at fault.
I don't think shifting the blame is the cause so much as greed or desperation. Desperation I can understand, if a kid eats one and the parents owe tens of thousands of dollars in medical fees they can't possibly pay, trying to get money from a big corporation starts to look like your only move I guess.
Not saying that's better, just that I don't think it has as much to do with scapegoating responsibility.
I read a better summary of the article here (paywalled unfortunately.) The novel concept appears to be that self-control is a limited resource. You hold yourself back from buying beer you don't need, you avoid flipping on the TV instead of working, you force yourself out of bed to go to two low paying jobs... you're going to have less ability to say "no" to yourself than if you had bought the beer, watched TV, and only had one high paying job. If after that, you face the choice of getting drunk on a weekday, your rich self might be more likely to say "no," your poor self might be more likely to say "Fuck it, sure" and then be hungover the next morning and lose one of your two jobs.
The concept of limited mental resources isn't redundant with Maslows from what I can tell. If anything, this new theory would seem to be a mechanism that would fit into WHY maslow's hieararchy are important that was previously lacking. If you're homeless you're not going to be actualized, yes, but why? Because you've spent yourself worrying about your safety and have less mental resources to solve higher problems?
I haven't actually studied Maslow's beyond what your wrote, and am not a psychologist, haven't read the wiki article, but it does seem to be a more specifically demonstrated mechanism at least, and is definitely more complicated than you suggested
I think it's rare that someone is driven to the streets due to a single fault as well. People often assume that homeless people are lazy and that's how they ended up on the street, and if they would just care enough to get off the street and get a job, they would be off in no time.
I think it's comforting to people to tell themselves that were they in that situation, they could EASILY identify the problem and fix it in a snap. That way, they don't have to feel sorry for said people, and don't have to worry themselves about what they would do if they ever end up in such a situation. "Oh, I'd just not be lazy, and bam, I'm off the street."
In reality, I doubt that many people are homeless because of one single problem like laziness. Addiction often seems to be involved. I've heard from people who know more about it than I do that most people actually on the street are there because homeless shelters refuse to allow drunk or high people in. Such people also typically must have reasons they don't stay with friends or family, either they don't have them or they burned through them already. Few places want to hire people with no home, a record, no car, no recent job. And obviously there are a lot of homeless people who need psychiatric help, but after Regan, they're never going to get it.
I'm skeptical that "become" is a word that can be used here. Perhaps for a brief period of time in some countries, governance was dominated by logic rather than pride and delusions, but it wasn't that way always. "USA is the best country in the world!" and "If you question anything the government does, you are as bad as our enemies and are helping them" have been illogical beliefs that have been around since I can remember.
Only in research programs where the results are given away free to other countries. Military research that stays secret? Seems like that only goes up and at worst slows down during economic problems.
Spending hard-taken tax dollars during a recession on something that will help out EVERYONE rather than just us? That would be insane! Insane I tell you!
Is the constant crunch time simply because everyone else is doing it, and if you want to work in games you don't have a choice in the matter, and besides everyone else is doing it so it must be the best way to go? Or is it more than that?
I think you can narrow it down a bit more. If it's a new franchise to EA (either a first game or a studio that was previously independent), it has a better than 50% shot of being good. If it's the second, it has less than a 50% chance of being good.
Different tools for different jobs. It depends on what "official" means. Officially ordering troop movement? Of course not, that would be a giant security hazard. Officially seeking bribes or rewriting the Indian equivalent of the constitution? It would be great if they could put that in an e-mail which would be automatically archived in case there was a question of whether it happened.
That's obviously what this is about. Snowden. The government wants the whole team to realize that if there's something that is going to make the government look bad, it better not be somewhere that it could easily be copied and forwarded to reporters.
I did actually. I still wonder if she would have been better, specifically because the Clintons know how to handle congressional republicans fighting dirty. I think a white woman also would have riled up the lunatic fringe of the right wing less. Not that it's a good reason to not have a black president, just that I think politics may have been a little less contentious. I'm skeptical that the Tea Party would have been as much of a thing.
I think at least recently it's more about not wanting to fit the stereotype of "tax and spend" while avoiding cuts to defense and playing into the other stereotype of hippies who would destroy the military.
This being a small part of the Democratic Party's strategy of "Maybe if we are really nice to the bullies on the right, they'll respect us and won't say mean things about us!" Or alternatively, "Ha, can you believe those idiots thought we were different from the Republicans!"
People tend to vastly overestimate how much defacto power a president has.
Why do people on Slashdot keep saying this?
Doesn't seem like anyone is saying the president is POWERLESS, but the thread was about budgeting. The president doesn't write the budget. He's obviously influential through allies in congress and has more leverage to influence it than probably any other single person, but he cannot wave a pen and change it fundamentally without getting congress on his side first.
It's amazing to me that we voters accept that budgeting needs to be secret for legitimate security purposes. "Oh no! If China knew how much money we're spending on tanks, they'd only have to spend ONE MORE DOLLAR to get an edge on us and take our freedom in a tank war!"
You missed the very next sentence. "Evolution" is a neutral term that means changing, essentially. Most people think it means "improving" but that is not the case. If humans were to change back to single celled organisms due to natural selection, that would still be evolution. Apple changing to a losing strategy is still "evolution" even if it's going to destroy them.
"Devolution" is like "deceleration" in that they're words that people use, but they're both actually included in the original meaning of the word that people misuse. If you slow down, that's still a change in velocity, which is acceleration. If a species gets simpler and weaker, that's still a change in genetics over time, which is still evolution.
Slashdot Mirror
I only meant that a "Game of Thrones" (or Ice and Fire) reference would have been more obvious.
That's kind of a silly assumption. If BA responded to it promptly, I'd question why they were bothering with twitter in the first place. (I may be a bit biased: I don't think twitter is useful for anything aside from shitty news stories.) Furthermore, if BA set a precedent for responding to angry tweets promptly, they might have to pay more people more money to respond to twitter. I'm sure however they currently handle complaints isn't exactly set up to respond to twitter.
The size limitations on twitter seem like it's a waste of time from customer service. What can you tweet back besides "@angryman: Well fuck you too #noflylisted"
GP was responding to "is it libel if it's true." If every airline does it, then it could be argued that "Their customer service is terrible" isn't true because it's relatively normal.
Some legal expert could say whether relative would matter, I just wanted to point out that "Alen" may not have been simply a brain-dead apologist for shitty airline treatment.
I'm as ignorant about hardware as they come on slashdot, so this is an honest question. By two are you saying the demand for per-core performance decreased or the capabilities bottomed out? I remember hearing we were at some point going to break moores law because there are finite limits to how much performance you can get out of silicone, and I've also not been blown away by increases in graphics or power requirements on games or applications. Which is it?
From what I've heard the last time the education board of Texas decided to teach that dinosaur bones were buried by the devil, it's worse than that. Texas is the biggest market outside of California, and California has so many crazy requirements that it's basically a separate market. Thus, Texas does decide what goes into text books for basically everyone except for California.
She was undoubtedly low enough on the totem pole to where she couldn't tell him to fuck off and be sure she wasn't going to get fired for it, or at least wasn't sure. I'd wager she'd only get in trouble for handing blatant spam onto her superior. "Yes sir, a Dr. cAnAdA tried to contact you about... ahem, 'c1@1is enl@rge y0ur d1ck!!!'"
Getting as much information about a problem someone brings to you is decent handling, even if you know someone above you is at most going to laugh and throw away the contact information.
What was that about the IRS? I think no politician in the last 20 years has said anything positive about the IRS. I think they realize if they made it a political issue, that would be bad, since it pays for their salaries and the pet projects their voters like.
The UN needs to go in because Fukushima increases the chances of ANOTHER Godzilla movie remake.
Really? A big wall of ice and you go with a Godzilla reference?
You know nothing, ColdWetDog.
It's not like they're trying to rename classic ballparks or changing gene names to corporate sponsors. It's their thing, it's been going on for, what, a few years, and so few people even know what android OS they're using, I'm not sure where the anger is coming from. I find "kit kat" more fun than iOS 6. And it's less crass than "McDonalds Kit Kat Flurry" or something like that.
I'll admit I am underinformed on the subject, but I do have to point out that if Regan did cause a lot of services to close, it's still his fault they CAN'T get it. Maybe they would have a better chance if we could FORCE them to be committed, but with a hospital closed due to defunding, they can't even be there voulontarily, can they?
I am so tired of the lack of personal responsibility in society today. It's always someone else at fault.
I don't think shifting the blame is the cause so much as greed or desperation. Desperation I can understand, if a kid eats one and the parents owe tens of thousands of dollars in medical fees they can't possibly pay, trying to get money from a big corporation starts to look like your only move I guess.
Not saying that's better, just that I don't think it has as much to do with scapegoating responsibility.
I read a better summary of the article here (paywalled unfortunately.) The novel concept appears to be that self-control is a limited resource. You hold yourself back from buying beer you don't need, you avoid flipping on the TV instead of working, you force yourself out of bed to go to two low paying jobs... you're going to have less ability to say "no" to yourself than if you had bought the beer, watched TV, and only had one high paying job. If after that, you face the choice of getting drunk on a weekday, your rich self might be more likely to say "no," your poor self might be more likely to say "Fuck it, sure" and then be hungover the next morning and lose one of your two jobs.
The concept of limited mental resources isn't redundant with Maslows from what I can tell. If anything, this new theory would seem to be a mechanism that would fit into WHY maslow's hieararchy are important that was previously lacking. If you're homeless you're not going to be actualized, yes, but why? Because you've spent yourself worrying about your safety and have less mental resources to solve higher problems?
I haven't actually studied Maslow's beyond what your wrote, and am not a psychologist, haven't read the wiki article, but it does seem to be a more specifically demonstrated mechanism at least, and is definitely more complicated than you suggested
I think it's rare that someone is driven to the streets due to a single fault as well. People often assume that homeless people are lazy and that's how they ended up on the street, and if they would just care enough to get off the street and get a job, they would be off in no time.
I think it's comforting to people to tell themselves that were they in that situation, they could EASILY identify the problem and fix it in a snap. That way, they don't have to feel sorry for said people, and don't have to worry themselves about what they would do if they ever end up in such a situation. "Oh, I'd just not be lazy, and bam, I'm off the street."
In reality, I doubt that many people are homeless because of one single problem like laziness. Addiction often seems to be involved. I've heard from people who know more about it than I do that most people actually on the street are there because homeless shelters refuse to allow drunk or high people in. Such people also typically must have reasons they don't stay with friends or family, either they don't have them or they burned through them already. Few places want to hire people with no home, a record, no car, no recent job. And obviously there are a lot of homeless people who need psychiatric help, but after Regan, they're never going to get it.
I'm skeptical that "become" is a word that can be used here. Perhaps for a brief period of time in some countries, governance was dominated by logic rather than pride and delusions, but it wasn't that way always. "USA is the best country in the world!" and "If you question anything the government does, you are as bad as our enemies and are helping them" have been illogical beliefs that have been around since I can remember.
Only in research programs where the results are given away free to other countries. Military research that stays secret? Seems like that only goes up and at worst slows down during economic problems.
Spending hard-taken tax dollars during a recession on something that will help out EVERYONE rather than just us? That would be insane! Insane I tell you!
Is the constant crunch time simply because everyone else is doing it, and if you want to work in games you don't have a choice in the matter, and besides everyone else is doing it so it must be the best way to go? Or is it more than that?
I think you can narrow it down a bit more. If it's a new franchise to EA (either a first game or a studio that was previously independent), it has a better than 50% shot of being good. If it's the second, it has less than a 50% chance of being good.
Different tools for different jobs. It depends on what "official" means. Officially ordering troop movement? Of course not, that would be a giant security hazard. Officially seeking bribes or rewriting the Indian equivalent of the constitution? It would be great if they could put that in an e-mail which would be automatically archived in case there was a question of whether it happened.
That's obviously what this is about. Snowden. The government wants the whole team to realize that if there's something that is going to make the government look bad, it better not be somewhere that it could easily be copied and forwarded to reporters.
Knowledge of program costs give you plenty of knowledge about potential capabilities
I have absolutely no experience with such things. Could I have an example?
I did actually. I still wonder if she would have been better, specifically because the Clintons know how to handle congressional republicans fighting dirty. I think a white woman also would have riled up the lunatic fringe of the right wing less. Not that it's a good reason to not have a black president, just that I think politics may have been a little less contentious. I'm skeptical that the Tea Party would have been as much of a thing.
I think at least recently it's more about not wanting to fit the stereotype of "tax and spend" while avoiding cuts to defense and playing into the other stereotype of hippies who would destroy the military.
This being a small part of the Democratic Party's strategy of "Maybe if we are really nice to the bullies on the right, they'll respect us and won't say mean things about us!" Or alternatively, "Ha, can you believe those idiots thought we were different from the Republicans!"
People tend to vastly overestimate how much defacto power a president has.
Why do people on Slashdot keep saying this?
Doesn't seem like anyone is saying the president is POWERLESS, but the thread was about budgeting. The president doesn't write the budget. He's obviously influential through allies in congress and has more leverage to influence it than probably any other single person, but he cannot wave a pen and change it fundamentally without getting congress on his side first.
It's amazing to me that we voters accept that budgeting needs to be secret for legitimate security purposes. "Oh no! If China knew how much money we're spending on tanks, they'd only have to spend ONE MORE DOLLAR to get an edge on us and take our freedom in a tank war!"
You missed the very next sentence. "Evolution" is a neutral term that means changing, essentially. Most people think it means "improving" but that is not the case. If humans were to change back to single celled organisms due to natural selection, that would still be evolution. Apple changing to a losing strategy is still "evolution" even if it's going to destroy them.
"Devolution" is like "deceleration" in that they're words that people use, but they're both actually included in the original meaning of the word that people misuse. If you slow down, that's still a change in velocity, which is acceleration. If a species gets simpler and weaker, that's still a change in genetics over time, which is still evolution.