it doesn't make sense to me that an Apple store employee would simply assume based on no evidence whatsoever that an American-born person of Iranian descent is going to take an iPad back to Iran.
Does it make any more sense to you when you notice that she had *plainly stated* that she was buying the iPad for a cousin who lives in Iran?
Poisoning the well is a name for a particular debate tactic that is a modified form of ad-hominem, but rather than simply resorting to direct personal attacks against detractors instead of refuting their points, poisoning the well occurs when a person preemptively makes an assertion about the quality of a potential detractor's character or viewpoint before the criticisms have even been actually heard. A typical characteristic of this tactic is that the assertion that would cast doubts on viewpoints raised by potential credits is invariably unsubstantiated by anything other than personal bias.... there would not exist any objective evidence to substantiate the assertion.
How, exactly, are they suggesting that SOPA protestors "poisoned the well" in their arguments? As far as I know, at the center of the protests were mostly highly reasoned arguments that addressed problems with the bill, and not problems with the bodies that were pushing for the bill to go through.
Possibly.... but vaporware isn't exactly Microsoft's style. While they've been known to announce products before they existed before, to the best of my knowledge, they always seem to have followed through with such announcements once they've made them To that end, I expect that the device will become just as mainstream as most of the other tablet devices out there. That does not mean I expect it to do blindingly well, or to be an "iPad killer".
I suppose if it really does come to naught, then the "surface computing" terminology won't be perceived as trying to "Microsoftize" the industry, as I expected, but that still doesn't answer my original question about why they renamed their old "Surface" product.
Speculation, perhaps... more accurately, they are educated estimates. One could, on the basis that it is also an estimate, object to the notion that the universe is roughly 13.7 billion years old as well. The chief point is that the estimate is going to be accurate enough for all practical purposes.
To understand why I'm inclined to accept as a given that MS's tablet will be affordable, consider that Microsoft is not stupid... They aren't coming into this game as a market leader... and for the device to succeed commercially, it must be priced competitively with other tablet devices that offer similar amounts of computing power.
You can go on challenging my points with additional courtroom style objections if you wish, but it hardly changes reality.
I know what they renamed Surface to, I was asking why they bothered to rename it at all. What was the initial motivation behind it?
While I'm aware that one partial explanation could easily be that MS simply wanted to clear out the namespace for their tablet device (I don't know if this is true, but I find it to be at least plausible)... but this notion does not actually address what the underlying motivation is... If that were the case, it invites the question of why they wanted to name their tablet "Surface" when they already had another device being sold with that name?
Sorry... I missed the bolding. I was responding on a terminal that did not show the text any differently than anything else you quoted. Nonethless, you still could have gotten away with quoting only that single sentence.
As for the notion that it's going to be mainstream, It's an affordably priced consumer electronics product, designed along the same vein as most other tablets available today, and as a is reasonable to presume it will be just as mainstream as any one of them.
Objection! Quoting a dozen lines to only supply a single lIne of your own!
Also... Failing to be specific in your objection lends suspect that your own objection is not rationally founded. Counsel is requested to clarify or else withdraw the objection.
Also... what term can we use now for gesture-based computing that isn't necessarily geared towards tablets? The term "surface computing" has been around for a while, but now I expect that term is going to just be too heavily associated with this particular mainstream product.. where at least with the old MS Surface, Microsoft could legitimately have made a claim to being the first one to commercialize a product that the term would get named for. Now calling something "surface computing" is just going to sound like people are trying to "microsoftize" an industry where there are already a number of other players.
Yes. I changed the question... but you can see that they are very related. And, especially, it raises far more intriguing questions of its own.
Why should a sentient computer have rights while a non-sentient computer should not, for example? Assuming that they ought to be treated differently, at what point can we assert that a computer displays sentience?
To accept your challenge, at no point in the gradual transition scenario I described was I suggesting there be any period of time during which existing brain activity had actually stopped.
My own observations with kids hating their parents is that unless the hatred is bordering on homicidal, then they generally eventually learn to get over it. And, in fact, after some time has passed (by my observations, typically between ages 20 to 25 or so) they can often see that their parents were actually just looking out for them, and can even be genuinely grateful for just knowing they had a parent that cared enough about them to seriously stop them from doing stuff that they could not have possibly realized how bad it was at the time, and it is only in full hindsight that they can often see their parents for what they truly were... somebody who has always and will always love them.
What you describe has no continuity of existence. When your brain is removed, for example... you are dead. By definition. I proposed a gradual transition so that at no point in time would the person ever have actually ceased to be alive in the same sense that they were alive before the last procedure.
In many ways, what I've described bears more than a passing resemblance to the metaphysical subject of the Ship of Theseus, but it throws in some aspects of what makes a person have consciousness as well.
... where medical technology has advanced to the point that we can, as people grow older, replacing dying or broken parts of our body or organs with reliable synthetic replacements, and even as portions of the living brain start to deteriorate, portions of it too can be supplemented or replaced with synthetic alternatives that function equivalently (or maybe better) than the organic versions.
But supposing someone has been around long enough that there is no organic component left to them? Even their brain is completely synthetic. Bearing in mind that this individual experienced a continuity of existence, from being born into the world as a human, through the multiple surgeries, incrementally approaching what they are now.
But are they still human? Why, or why not?
I realize that actually requiring an answer to this sort of question is probably no less than a hundred years away or so... but it's an interesting philosophical puzzle, don't you think?
You are legally entitled to turn down a job offer for absolutely *ANY* reason you desire.... up to and including reasons that would even be completely illegal to dismiss an employee for.
However, if a job offer was legitimate, the location of it was within a specific maximum commute distance (I believe it's a 50km radius), and the job offered at least 80% of your previous job's salary, then not accepting the position after it is offered to you is grounds for immediate termination of all EI benefits. Admittedly, the chance of EI finding out about any one single such refusal is pretty slim, but owing to the fact that one must show they are actively looking for work to continue to collect EI benefits, the chance of them finding out is definitely not zero.
Wages are still subject to minimum wage laws, or else the job is not considered legitimate.
Also, by virtue of being legitimate, there would be pay records... as being paid under the table is not recognized. So this practice you propose could easily be observed by the Revenue Canada, as they could observe that employee's incomes (tracked by SIN) are regularly shrinking. If any former employees so desired, they could pursue wrongful dismissal against you, and those pay records would provide ample evidence to back up their claim. You'd be on the hook for paying their wages for anywhere from 3 months to a year, while they are completely free to look for other work, and not required to work for you.
In the end, not a remotely sound business plan. At least not in Canada.
No... it's generally done by the honor system (ie, in practice, nobody ever really admits that they actually turned down a legitimate job offer while on EI). But the possibility still exists that they could find out some way.... such as if the employer was getting grants from the government to hire people who are on EI to subsidize their training, and create lower risks for employers. One might not know about that unless they did some additional research about the company and their hiring policies. Such information isn't a secret, and isn't hard to find out, of course... but it might not be immediately obvious to anybody who happens to just be looking for work and decides to apply there.
First of all, anything below minimum wage is not a legitimate job offer.
Second of all, it is normally expected that you will be effective enough at your job that your income will go up over time, and not stay exactly the same.
... and you turn down *ANY* legitimate job offer that offers at least 80% of your previous job wages, then your benefits can be terminated, immediately. There's currently a bill in the pipe in Canada to reduce that percentage to, I think, 60%. Somebody feel free to correct me if I'm wrong about the exact percentage.
Bearing in mind that a significant percentage of light passes right through it...
The relatively small amount of remaining light that would have been otherwise reflected by normal glass could probably get entirely absorbed by the film and only contribute negligibly to heating up the surface.
Slashdot Mirror
Does it make any more sense to you when you notice that she had *plainly stated* that she was buying the iPad for a cousin who lives in Iran?
So... just how much do you pay each month to breathe air?
Poisoning the well is a name for a particular debate tactic that is a modified form of ad-hominem, but rather than simply resorting to direct personal attacks against detractors instead of refuting their points, poisoning the well occurs when a person preemptively makes an assertion about the quality of a potential detractor's character or viewpoint before the criticisms have even been actually heard. A typical characteristic of this tactic is that the assertion that would cast doubts on viewpoints raised by potential credits is invariably unsubstantiated by anything other than personal bias.... there would not exist any objective evidence to substantiate the assertion.
How, exactly, are they suggesting that SOPA protestors "poisoned the well" in their arguments? As far as I know, at the center of the protests were mostly highly reasoned arguments that addressed problems with the bill, and not problems with the bodies that were pushing for the bill to go through.
Possibly.... but vaporware isn't exactly Microsoft's style. While they've been known to announce products before they existed before, to the best of my knowledge, they always seem to have followed through with such announcements once they've made them To that end, I expect that the device will become just as mainstream as most of the other tablet devices out there. That does not mean I expect it to do blindingly well, or to be an "iPad killer".
I suppose if it really does come to naught, then the "surface computing" terminology won't be perceived as trying to "Microsoftize" the industry, as I expected, but that still doesn't answer my original question about why they renamed their old "Surface" product.
Speculation, perhaps... more accurately, they are educated estimates. One could, on the basis that it is also an estimate, object to the notion that the universe is roughly 13.7 billion years old as well. The chief point is that the estimate is going to be accurate enough for all practical purposes.
To understand why I'm inclined to accept as a given that MS's tablet will be affordable, consider that Microsoft is not stupid... They aren't coming into this game as a market leader... and for the device to succeed commercially, it must be priced competitively with other tablet devices that offer similar amounts of computing power.
You can go on challenging my points with additional courtroom style objections if you wish, but it hardly changes reality.
Between 600 and 800 dollars. Not cheap, but still definitely affordable.
I know what they renamed Surface to, I was asking why they bothered to rename it at all. What was the initial motivation behind it?
While I'm aware that one partial explanation could easily be that MS simply wanted to clear out the namespace for their tablet device (I don't know if this is true, but I find it to be at least plausible)... but this notion does not actually address what the underlying motivation is... If that were the case, it invites the question of why they wanted to name their tablet "Surface" when they already had another device being sold with that name?
As for the notion that it's going to be mainstream, It's an affordably priced consumer electronics product, designed along the same vein as most other tablets available today, and as a is reasonable to presume it will be just as mainstream as any one of them.
Objection! Quoting a dozen lines to only supply a single lIne of your own!
Also... Failing to be specific in your objection lends suspect that your own objection is not rationally founded. Counsel is requested to clarify or else withdraw the objection.
Arguably, yes.... but to make any claim on a bounty, you are obligated to discuss the matter with them privately.
As you've already openly disclosed it here, however... it is too late for that.
Nothing. You're supposed to disclose it *privately* to them.
Anybody know?
Also... what term can we use now for gesture-based computing that isn't necessarily geared towards tablets? The term "surface computing" has been around for a while, but now I expect that term is going to just be too heavily associated with this particular mainstream product.. where at least with the old MS Surface, Microsoft could legitimately have made a claim to being the first one to commercialize a product that the term would get named for. Now calling something "surface computing" is just going to sound like people are trying to "microsoftize" an industry where there are already a number of other players.
Yes. I changed the question... but you can see that they are very related. And, especially, it raises far more intriguing questions of its own.
Why should a sentient computer have rights while a non-sentient computer should not, for example? Assuming that they ought to be treated differently, at what point can we assert that a computer displays sentience?
To accept your challenge, at no point in the gradual transition scenario I described was I suggesting there be any period of time during which existing brain activity had actually stopped.
My own observations with kids hating their parents is that unless the hatred is bordering on homicidal, then they generally eventually learn to get over it. And, in fact, after some time has passed (by my observations, typically between ages 20 to 25 or so) they can often see that their parents were actually just looking out for them, and can even be genuinely grateful for just knowing they had a parent that cared enough about them to seriously stop them from doing stuff that they could not have possibly realized how bad it was at the time, and it is only in full hindsight that they can often see their parents for what they truly were... somebody who has always and will always love them.
What you describe has no continuity of existence. When your brain is removed, for example... you are dead. By definition. I proposed a gradual transition so that at no point in time would the person ever have actually ceased to be alive in the same sense that they were alive before the last procedure.
In many ways, what I've described bears more than a passing resemblance to the metaphysical subject of the Ship of Theseus, but it throws in some aspects of what makes a person have consciousness as well.
But supposing someone has been around long enough that there is no organic component left to them? Even their brain is completely synthetic. Bearing in mind that this individual experienced a continuity of existence, from being born into the world as a human, through the multiple surgeries, incrementally approaching what they are now.
But are they still human? Why, or why not?
I realize that actually requiring an answer to this sort of question is probably no less than a hundred years away or so... but it's an interesting philosophical puzzle, don't you think?
You are legally entitled to turn down a job offer for absolutely *ANY* reason you desire.... up to and including reasons that would even be completely illegal to dismiss an employee for.
However, if a job offer was legitimate, the location of it was within a specific maximum commute distance (I believe it's a 50km radius), and the job offered at least 80% of your previous job's salary, then not accepting the position after it is offered to you is grounds for immediate termination of all EI benefits. Admittedly, the chance of EI finding out about any one single such refusal is pretty slim, but owing to the fact that one must show they are actively looking for work to continue to collect EI benefits, the chance of them finding out is definitely not zero.
Wages are still subject to minimum wage laws, or else the job is not considered legitimate.
Also, by virtue of being legitimate, there would be pay records... as being paid under the table is not recognized. So this practice you propose could easily be observed by the Revenue Canada, as they could observe that employee's incomes (tracked by SIN) are regularly shrinking. If any former employees so desired, they could pursue wrongful dismissal against you, and those pay records would provide ample evidence to back up their claim. You'd be on the hook for paying their wages for anywhere from 3 months to a year, while they are completely free to look for other work, and not required to work for you.
In the end, not a remotely sound business plan. At least not in Canada.
No... it's generally done by the honor system (ie, in practice, nobody ever really admits that they actually turned down a legitimate job offer while on EI). But the possibility still exists that they could find out some way.... such as if the employer was getting grants from the government to hire people who are on EI to subsidize their training, and create lower risks for employers. One might not know about that unless they did some additional research about the company and their hiring policies. Such information isn't a secret, and isn't hard to find out, of course... but it might not be immediately obvious to anybody who happens to just be looking for work and decides to apply there.
Second of all, it is normally expected that you will be effective enough at your job that your income will go up over time, and not stay exactly the same.
Yes. It applies only to jobs within 50km.
... and you turn down *ANY* legitimate job offer that offers at least 80% of your previous job wages, then your benefits can be terminated, immediately. There's currently a bill in the pipe in Canada to reduce that percentage to, I think, 60%. Somebody feel free to correct me if I'm wrong about the exact percentage.
Bearing in mind that a significant percentage of light passes right through it...
The relatively small amount of remaining light that would have been otherwise reflected by normal glass could probably get entirely absorbed by the film and only contribute negligibly to heating up the surface.
We have them all the time. And they end up getting called meteors. But they were asteroids once too...