I think that it is true that media people overestimate how much time people spend on vacation. Mostly people many people in the media get paid to go on vacation and go to trendy new restaurants, and forget to remember that the rest of us have to pay to do so.
I really don't see how this is a necessary application. People already have too much information, most of which they don't pay attention to,
If you are driving along a highway, and you come into town, do you really need to know what 500 previous visitors thought of Al's Coffee and Diner? Unless all 500 of them complained, they are probably going to end up saying "Its an Okay place to get a cup of coffee and a slice of pie". Which is almost exactly what most people would think to themselves, anyway.
I for one just don't see any reason to carry a gadget around to bombard me with information about the world, when I should be relying on my own senses.
That depends, do you have Dynamic Memory Modules running? Because without them, unless you want to pay for a Titanium Overlay Ohmage Breaker, you stand a chance of having your operating system stress your cross-channelled capacitors.
So, is this money going to pay for an actual physical toilet, or are they just paying for the licensing of the toilet?
Because if so, I expect loyal Slashdotters to be claiming that this is patent madness, and to start wearing t-shirts with the plans for these toilets on them, and to start launching tirades against the racketeering space plumbing business.
And this is why I started this long post, which I think has had more of a discussion than any other comment I've ever posted on Slashdot. Its all in that one word "references" The CIA world fact book is certainly not exactly esoteric fact digging, but just by reading things like that, you can look through some of the more flippant statements that people are making. If people are going to be making sociological statements about complicated issues, they should be doing research of all sorts of journals and works...and not just making stuff up that can be dismissed with five minutes of web surfing.
So, do you use Windows to play overhyped games, but still carry on about Linux, collect Legos and Transformers, argue about the inaccuracy of comic book movies, have a high payed job in computers, but still live with your parents and use all your money on collecting Star Wars toys, because you don't have a girlfriend to spend money on?
If not, what are you doing on Slashdot?
Okay, that is the funny answer.
The real answer is, stereotypes might be real, and science might even verify this, but in order to have a science, you have to have something that can make predictive calculations. So, you can't just say "Norwegians have a higher education level than people in Zimbabwe". You have to have a predictive pattern. The thing with psychology and sociology, unlike with say physics or chemistry, is you can't have perfect or near-perfect control groups. You can't take the population of Norway, and move them to a country with the same conditions as Zimbabwe. But there should still be some element of factors that can be explained or predicted, behind the stereotypes.
Well, I don't know if saying something is "just false" is the best way to go, but extraordinary claims do require extraordinary evidence. And honestly, for many of your examples, I would ask for references. A communist debating free markets is a somewhat "straw man" example. A better example would be an economic moderate debating someone who made claims that free markets were always, or almost always, the best sources of social good. If those type of claims were made in two paragraphs, with no references or detailed comparisons between different situations, I would not waste my time looking at them. And evolutionary psychology is the same way. I am willing to believe some of it, but if I read sweeping statements made in two paragraphs, I am not likely to believe them. Or even waste my time reading them.
I could go through this and try to argue with the reasoning of all the assertions about "human nature"
Instead, I will just say "References, please?"
I have noticed that Psychology Today, as a magazine, is notoriously short on scientific data, either theoretical or experiential, and long on tossing around "the common wisdom". If I want stereotypes and dimestore philosophy, I am sure I can find someone on the back of the bus to repeat them to me.
So, I've posted this a few times, whenever any of these Vista fumble stories comes out, whether there is actually any type of widespread verdict about the success of Vista (on any level, I know that few people are claiming it is a great technical accomplishment), but no one has really answered yet.
So are these stories about people preferring XP over Vista a substantial thing, or are they just scattered anecdotes? What is the overall picture?
Where was it positioned in the sky? It might have been below the southern horizon in Europe. China, North America, Egypt and the Middle East are all south of Europe. Beijing (in the far North of China) is south of Rome, or Madrid. So maybe that is why no one in Europe knew about it.
I've heard that what users care about is applications, and that is why even though Ubuntu is clearly ahead of Windows in many categories, it still hasn't crossed over to mass desktop use. I don't think that is true, because most of the applications people use for basic productivity are loaded on to Ubuntu already. What seems to be the new stumbling block is peripherals. Its about whether you can hook up a digital camera, an ipod, or an all in one machine, and and have it work out of the box. And so, is there anything technically in BSD that would make any of this easier? Probably not. Which makes me think this project isn't going to find its niche too quickly.
What will it take to convince you people? Does Cheney have to visit each house in the US personally, pry open the door with his shotgun, be caught shitting in your pillowcase while installing a keylogger on your PC?
Thank you for the plotline for my next Literotica story!
You can make calculus harder, I imagine, by throwing in lots of complicated arithmetic. Not that that makes it conceptually harder, but it is more to keep track of, and will trip people up.
This actually can't be solved, it eventually forms a paradox, which I call "The Atomic Paradox". But not atoms in the technical sense, but atoms as things without parts. If an atom doesn't have parts (which is what the word means), it has to move uniformly, meaning that it has to move instantaneously. If it does have parts, it isn't an atom. It then has to be made up of smaller parts. Which are then the "real" atoms. Of course, if you take atom literally, it can have no parts, not even different sides, or a center and a radius, because those would be parts. All atoms would have to be point particles. And yet, if atoms are point particles, they can't interact with each other, because they would never be able to interact with each other. There is no way around this paradox that I know of.
Slashdot Mirror
It might take more than two days to work, but eventually your nose will let you know where it is.
I think that it is true that media people overestimate how much time people spend on vacation. Mostly people many people in the media get paid to go on vacation and go to trendy new restaurants, and forget to remember that the rest of us have to pay to do so.
I really don't see how this is a necessary application. People already have too much information, most of which they don't pay attention to,
If you are driving along a highway, and you come into town, do you really need to know what 500 previous visitors thought of Al's Coffee and Diner? Unless all 500 of them complained, they are probably going to end up saying "Its an Okay place to get a cup of coffee and a slice of pie". Which is almost exactly what most people would think to themselves, anyway.
I for one just don't see any reason to carry a gadget around to bombard me with information about the world, when I should be relying on my own senses.
That depends, do you have Dynamic Memory Modules running? Because without them, unless you want to pay for a Titanium Overlay Ohmage Breaker, you stand a chance of having your operating system stress your cross-channelled capacitors.
Does this law ever run into Godwin's Law?
My guess it probably went something like this:
http://www.theonion.com/content/node/29433
So, is this money going to pay for an actual physical toilet, or are they just paying for the licensing of the toilet?
Because if so, I expect loyal Slashdotters to be claiming that this is patent madness, and to start wearing t-shirts with the plans for these toilets on them, and to start launching tirades against the racketeering space plumbing business.
Maybe Psychology Today can write an article finally explaining why kids are naturally rebellious.
I was surprised you were the only person to make a Civ joke.
Extra points if you can come up with what bonuses these new-fangled wonders would provide.
And this is why I started this long post, which I think has had more of a discussion than any other comment I've ever posted on Slashdot.
Its all in that one word "references"
The CIA world fact book is certainly not exactly esoteric fact digging, but just by reading things like that, you can look through some of the more flippant statements that people are making. If people are going to be making sociological statements about complicated issues, they should be doing research of all sorts of journals and works...and not just making stuff up that can be dismissed with five minutes of web surfing.
So, do you use Windows to play overhyped games, but still carry on about Linux, collect Legos and Transformers, argue about the inaccuracy of comic book movies, have a high payed job in computers, but still live with your parents and use all your money on collecting Star Wars toys, because you don't have a girlfriend to spend money on?
If not, what are you doing on Slashdot?
Okay, that is the funny answer.
The real answer is, stereotypes might be real, and science might even verify this, but in order to have a science, you have to have something that can make predictive calculations. So, you can't just say "Norwegians have a higher education level than people in Zimbabwe". You have to have a predictive pattern. The thing with psychology and sociology, unlike with say physics or chemistry, is you can't have perfect or near-perfect control groups. You can't take the population of Norway, and move them to a country with the same conditions as Zimbabwe. But there should still be some element of factors that can be explained or predicted, behind the stereotypes.
Well, I don't know if saying something is "just false" is the best way to go, but extraordinary claims do require extraordinary evidence. And honestly, for many of your examples, I would ask for references.
A communist debating free markets is a somewhat "straw man" example. A better example would be an economic moderate debating someone who made claims that free markets were always, or almost always, the best sources of social good. If those type of claims were made in two paragraphs, with no references or detailed comparisons between different situations, I would not waste my time looking at them. And evolutionary psychology is the same way. I am willing to believe some of it, but if I read sweeping statements made in two paragraphs, I am not likely to believe them. Or even waste my time reading them.
There is a good chance that many of those are foreign workers come to work in the oil business.
I could go through this and try to argue with the reasoning of all the assertions about "human nature"
Instead, I will just say "References, please?"
I have noticed that Psychology Today, as a magazine, is notoriously short on scientific data, either theoretical or experiential, and long on tossing around "the common wisdom". If I want stereotypes and dimestore philosophy, I am sure I can find someone on the back of the bus to repeat them to me.
But, he could be destroyed. The 31st richest person has done it before, and he will do it again.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Year_2038_problem#Sol utions
Looks like you are safe!
So, I've posted this a few times, whenever any of these Vista fumble stories comes out, whether there is actually any type of widespread verdict about the success of Vista (on any level, I know that few people are claiming it is a great technical accomplishment), but no one has really answered yet.
So are these stories about people preferring XP over Vista a substantial thing, or are they just scattered anecdotes? What is the overall picture?
"digital natives"
Would anyone ever knowingly refer to themselves as a "digital native"?
I didn't think so.
At least it isn't "e-natives"...
Where was it positioned in the sky? It might have been below the southern horizon in Europe. China, North America, Egypt and the Middle East are all south of Europe. Beijing (in the far North of China) is south of Rome, or Madrid. So maybe that is why no one in Europe knew about it.
or, "GOML", as we call it these days
I've heard that what users care about is applications, and that is why even though Ubuntu is clearly ahead of Windows in many categories, it still hasn't crossed over to mass desktop use. I don't think that is true, because most of the applications people use for basic productivity are loaded on to Ubuntu already.
What seems to be the new stumbling block is peripherals. Its about whether you can hook up a digital camera, an ipod, or an all in one machine, and and have it work out of the box.
And so, is there anything technically in BSD that would make any of this easier? Probably not. Which makes me think this project isn't going to find its niche too quickly.
What will it take to convince you people? Does Cheney have to visit each house in the US personally, pry open the door with his shotgun, be caught shitting in your pillowcase while installing a keylogger on your PC?
Thank you for the plotline for my next Literotica story!
You can make calculus harder, I imagine, by throwing in lots of complicated arithmetic. Not that that makes it conceptually harder, but it is more to keep track of, and will trip people up.
This actually can't be solved, it eventually forms a paradox, which I call "The Atomic Paradox". But not atoms in the technical sense, but atoms as things without parts.
If an atom doesn't have parts (which is what the word means), it has to move uniformly, meaning that it has to move instantaneously.
If it does have parts, it isn't an atom. It then has to be made up of smaller parts. Which are then the "real" atoms.
Of course, if you take atom literally, it can have no parts, not even different sides, or a center and a radius, because those would be parts. All atoms would have to be point particles.
And yet, if atoms are point particles, they can't interact with each other, because they would never be able to interact with each other.
There is no way around this paradox that I know of.
As someone who knows Beaverton well, I can say that hip-hop mix tapes are not a large item there.