Alto isn't a new email client. You don't have to sign up for yet another email address
Now, somebody enlighten me: since when, if one switches email clients, the one needs to get another email address?
Since the definition of "email client" changed from "software you use to read your emails" to "corporation that provides your email service via the web browser," apparently.
YourGeneticDestiny
21 September 2011 12:12PM
I worship him as a living god.
RedBarchetta
22 September 2011 12:04AM
khafre
Please go away and let the grown ups talk.
TheSmokingMan [referring to a religious person's post]
22 September 2011 1:04PM
Obviously some pond scum has yet to evolve at all.
Also, just scroll through this and any other thread on/. regarding religion, you'll find no shortage of folks who are of the opinion that followers of religion (other than their religion of atheism) shouldn't be allowed to breed, or should be shot, or any of a dozen other fucked up things you usually only expect to hear from religious fundamentalists.
A strawman erected by those he debate against as far as I can tell.
Then you're not seeing the forest for the trees... possibly because you are one?
I don't think that means what you think it means, if you think my quandary qualifies.
Look, it's undeniable that some of the Followers of Dawkins* mimic the mentality of the fundamentalist religious zealots they claim to eschew; just read the comments on any of TFA's quoted in the summary (or, for that matter, any other blog about Dawkins) - you'll find no shortage of people who apparently hold the opinion that anyone who disagrees with their world view is some sort of lesser, sub-human, and that said sub-humans don't deserve to live. You'll also likely find an equal number of individuals who refer to Dawkins as if he were some sort of deity (one particular comment that caught my eye: "Richard Dawkins is my god"), implying that his word is infallible.
All I'm asking of Mr. Dawkins is A) is he aware of such behavior, and B) what are his feelings toward it. I'm not accusing Dawkins of supporting/denying the behavior, and there's no trick to my question.
* Sounds like a religious group when I put it that way, doesn't it? Natch.
Because Apple is more interested in keeping a good relationship with their users rather than tracking them.
You're lying to yourself if you think any for-profit company has the slightest altruistic feelings towards their commodities, er, "customers."
To wit: as a for-profit corporation, Apple's ultimate interest is in profits; if the company finds selling your data without your explicit permission more profitable than not doing so, they will sell your data without your explicit permission. Period. End of story.
You may find it consoling that Apple is far from alone in that mentality; verily, every for-profit puts their bottom line far ahead of the needs and wants of their market base, whenever profitable. Personally, I find it appalling.
Why do we need an origin story? It seems to me that if evolutionary theory, intelligent design, and creationism were to all disappear, science would be just fine. We don't need to know that a robotic arm assembled a car to know every detail of how the car works.
Second this, a million times; wasting time arguing about whether the chicken preceded the egg doesn't get my omelet made any faster.
He is a scientist. He understands the prepetual cycle of theory, proof, counterproof, refined theory. Dogma is lazy thinking.
There is nothing to be gained to compromise on that.
There are three enemies of knowledge:
Circular reasoning. Regressive argument. Dogma.
You chose yours. And I'm offended by your lazy choice. Regressive argument is ours. At least we get closer to knowledge whereas you are stumped by something as simple as evolution.
You obviously misunderstand what I'm getting at.
Think of it this way: Say someone is challenging what you believe in. Would you be more inclined to take them seriously if they A) posit their idea in a friendly, reasonable, non-confrontational way, or B) scream and bellow about how you are an absolute fucking moron who doesn't deserve to breath the same air as themselves, for not seeing the world through their ideology?
Classically, Dawkins has taken the latter track, and being a prick about it is no way to endear others to your cause. I'm curious as to if he's recognized the error of his methodology.
Any scientist knows that the answer is "absolutely yes."
No, any scientist knows that the answer is contingent on research and the discovery of a corresponding sequence within the human genome.
The irony of people making faith-based statements about science, such as yours quoted above, in a discussion about religion vs. science, is not lost on this guy.
Assuming you're aware of the behavior, what are your thoughts regarding the fundamentalist-like fervor exhibited by many of your followers, as well as the irony of their penchant for elevating you to a god-like status?
Mr. Dawkins - Are you going to insist on continuing to be an uncompromising asshat to those who disagree with your opinions and beliefs, or have you finally recognized both the irony of such a tactic, and the fact that it's far easier to attract flies with honey as opposed to vinegar?
And no, I'm not being arch, this is a legitimate question.
Given that it took us many years to come up with the scientific method, I'm pretty sure that would be a yes.
Considering that your response lacks anything so much as resembling a tribute to the scientific method, I'm inclined to agree... But will abstain for lack of proper experimentation:P
1) A lot of corporations use Verizon as the carrier for their company-owned cell phones; depending on who uses what apps and phones, this data mining could easily be construed as corporate espionage, as well as national security risk. Example: Defense contracting company who uses AutoCAD Mobile app to share top-secret designs among their engineers.
2) Albeit spoken by a true, obvious d-bag, the statement "data is the new oil" is a damn fine analogy IMO. Why, you may ask? Because no one gets to mine oil off my property without paying me for usage rights, and my data should be under the same consideration. Not only should mining my data for for-profit purposes require my explicit permission, it should also require fair compensation (fair to me, not Verizon).
Someone who's a better writer than me needs to draft up a letter to Congresscritters that we can all copy/paste to indicate our chagrin.
Doesn't matter which carrier you have a contract with, they all engage in this sort of deep monitoring. Verizon is just being particularly blatant about it.. today. Tomorrow, it will be AT&T, or T-Mobile, or [Insert Carrier Here].
Democracy NOW!'s claims with regard to the debate format are blatantly false. Particularly, this bit:
And this election cycle is the first time that the moderator herself is prohibited from asking follow-up questions, questions seeking clarification. She’s essentially reduced to keeping time and being a lady with a microphone.
I know it's easier to blame the messenger, but it wasn't Democracy NOW! that made the claim, it was their guest George Farrah.
The Commission rules for this debate did not include this prohibition.
OK, so that's one point the guy got wrong, out of how many he got right? You do realize that refuting that one almost non-existent point does nothing to disprove the obvious fact that the debate process is heavily controlled by the 2 parties in a concerted effort to shut out any alternative voices, don't you?
I believe what you've posted here is a classic example of "straining at gnats whilst swallowing a camel."
Which would stifle innovation coming from individual tinkerers, since companies would not licence patents from them because it would be cheaper to patent something similar and use lawyers to fend off complainers (with the added bonus of controlling the patent)...
No - licensing and transferring ownership are 2 completely different animals.
Third party candidates have the benefit of knowing what the questions are and are able to give prepared answers.
You don't seem to understand just how badly this debate process has been subverted. From Democracy NOW!:
"The town hall debate we’re going to see tonight is the most constrained and regulated town hall debate in presidential debate history. The first town hall debate was introduced in 1992, and no one knew what anyone was going to ask, none of the audience members were going to ask. The moderator could ask any follow-up questions. It was exciting, and it was real.
Well, President George H.W. Bush stumbled in response to an oddly worded question about the federal deficit, and the candidates—the campaigns have panicked and have attempted to avoid that kind of situation from happening again. In 1996, they abolished follow-up questions from the audience.
In 2004, they began requiring that every single question asked by the audience be submitted in advance on an index card to the moderator, who can then throw out the ones he or she does not like. And that’s why the audience has essentially been reduced, in some ways, to props, because the moderator is still ultimately asking the questions.
And this election cycle is the first time that the moderator herself is prohibited from asking follow-up questions, questions seeking clarification. She’s essentially reduced to keeping time and being a lady with a microphone." -- George Farrah, author of No Debate: How the Republican and Democratic Parties Secretly Control the Presidential Debates.
It's a goddamn circus, and an obvious one at that. anyone who can't see the forest for the trees in this situation, is probably one of the clowns.
Slashdot Mirror
Don't believe everything you read by some blowhard on slashdot. The actual minimum wage is $7.25/hr. That's $15,080 a year.
$15,080 pre-tax.
Large companies like Google actually don't have to pay that much, because the hours are more reasonable.
Word to the wise: Never, ever say something like that to a cop. He may taser you on pure principle.
Side rant: TASER has been part of the American vernacular since 1911, yet Chrome's spell-checker doesn't recognize it... WTF?
You have an NDA that you can't even name your employer?
Yes, some of us do. For example, I'm not currently allowed to mention that I work for them, and I can not do so for 1 year after I leave.
Man, that's really gonna fuck ya when it comes time to apply for a new job, don'tcha think?
Interviewer: So, I notice a lapse in your employment for several years...
You: No, I had a job.
IV: Where at?
You:... that's Classified...
IV: Okey dokey then... We'll let you know.
... is that you're expected to work 50 hour weeks. Forget annual pay, how much do these companies pay per hour?
A) Wrong thread
B) Base pay = $128,336
$128,336 / 2080 (hours worked in an year @ 40hrs/wk) = $61.70/hr.
@ 50hrs/wk, pay drops to $49.36/hr. Still not bad.
Thunderbird or Outlook HOW?
It's new, and if Apple's dev cycle has taught us anything, it's that new always, always == BETTER!
ALWAYS!
Well, I have a few holes in my head that are necessary for my survival. So you're saying Alto is necessary for my survival? Cool.
Yup, just stick your noggin in this here clamp and we'll get the install going for you!
Now, should I use the 1/2" wood-bore or the concrete bit? Hmm...
Alto isn't a new email client. You don't have to sign up for yet another email address
Now, somebody enlighten me: since when, if one switches email clients, the one needs to get another email address?
Since the definition of "email client" changed from "software you use to read your emails" to "corporation that provides your email service via the web browser," apparently.
You know, you've done a fine job of proving the "uncompromising asshat" part of my statement.
Not sure if kudos are in order...
Citation needed.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2011/sep/21/richard-dawkins-magic-reality-review?INTCMP=SRCH
YourGeneticDestiny
21 September 2011 12:12PM
I worship him as a living god.
RedBarchetta
22 September 2011 12:04AM
khafre
Please go away and let the grown ups talk.
TheSmokingMan [referring to a religious person's post]
22 September 2011 1:04PM
Obviously some pond scum has yet to evolve at all.
Also, just scroll through this and any other thread on /. regarding religion, you'll find no shortage of folks who are of the opinion that followers of religion (other than their religion of atheism) shouldn't be allowed to breed, or should be shot, or any of a dozen other fucked up things you usually only expect to hear from religious fundamentalists.
A strawman erected by those he debate against as far as I can tell.
Then you're not seeing the forest for the trees... possibly because you are one?
the fallacy of the complex question.
I don't think that means what you think it means, if you think my quandary qualifies.
Look, it's undeniable that some of the Followers of Dawkins* mimic the mentality of the fundamentalist religious zealots they claim to eschew; just read the comments on any of TFA's quoted in the summary (or, for that matter, any other blog about Dawkins) - you'll find no shortage of people who apparently hold the opinion that anyone who disagrees with their world view is some sort of lesser, sub-human, and that said sub-humans don't deserve to live. You'll also likely find an equal number of individuals who refer to Dawkins as if he were some sort of deity (one particular comment that caught my eye: "Richard Dawkins is my god"), implying that his word is infallible.
All I'm asking of Mr. Dawkins is A) is he aware of such behavior, and B) what are his feelings toward it. I'm not accusing Dawkins of supporting/denying the behavior, and there's no trick to my question.
* Sounds like a religious group when I put it that way, doesn't it? Natch.
Not all weekly news magazines are doing horribly. The Economist and the New Yorker are both doing fairly well
In fairness, The Economist and (IMO, to a lesser extent) the New Yorker aren't general gossip rags unfit for use even as birdcage liner.
Because Apple is more interested in keeping a good relationship with their users rather than tracking them.
You're lying to yourself if you think any for-profit company has the slightest altruistic feelings towards their commodities, er, "customers."
To wit: as a for-profit corporation, Apple's ultimate interest is in profits; if the company finds selling your data without your explicit permission more profitable than not doing so, they will sell your data without your explicit permission. Period. End of story.
You may find it consoling that Apple is far from alone in that mentality; verily, every for-profit puts their bottom line far ahead of the needs and wants of their market base, whenever profitable. Personally, I find it appalling.
Why do we need an origin story? It seems to me that if evolutionary theory, intelligent design, and creationism were to all disappear, science would be just fine. We don't need to know that a robotic arm assembled a car to know every detail of how the car works.
Second this, a million times; wasting time arguing about whether the chicken preceded the egg doesn't get my omelet made any faster.
He is a scientist. He understands the prepetual cycle of theory, proof, counterproof, refined theory. Dogma is lazy thinking. There is nothing to be gained to compromise on that. There are three enemies of knowledge: Circular reasoning. Regressive argument. Dogma. You chose yours. And I'm offended by your lazy choice. Regressive argument is ours. At least we get closer to knowledge whereas you are stumped by something as simple as evolution.
You obviously misunderstand what I'm getting at.
Think of it this way: Say someone is challenging what you believe in. Would you be more inclined to take them seriously if they A) posit their idea in a friendly, reasonable, non-confrontational way, or B) scream and bellow about how you are an absolute fucking moron who doesn't deserve to breath the same air as themselves, for not seeing the world through their ideology?
Classically, Dawkins has taken the latter track, and being a prick about it is no way to endear others to your cause. I'm curious as to if he's recognized the error of his methodology.
flys are to be swatted and not attracted.
What a perfectly fundamental, zealotous thing to say...
What's next, are you going to demand those who refuse to believe in your particular dogma be burned as heretics?
What is your favourite dinosaur of all time?
T-rex, if for nothing else, his penchant for sudden yet inevitable betrayals.
Any scientist knows that the answer is "absolutely yes."
No, any scientist knows that the answer is contingent on research and the discovery of a corresponding sequence within the human genome.
The irony of people making faith-based statements about science, such as yours quoted above, in a discussion about religion vs. science, is not lost on this guy.
Assuming you're aware of the behavior, what are your thoughts regarding the fundamentalist-like fervor exhibited by many of your followers, as well as the irony of their penchant for elevating you to a god-like status?
Mr. Dawkins - Are you going to insist on continuing to be an uncompromising asshat to those who disagree with your opinions and beliefs, or have you finally recognized both the irony of such a tactic, and the fact that it's far easier to attract flies with honey as opposed to vinegar?
And no, I'm not being arch, this is a legitimate question.
Given that it took us many years to come up with the scientific method, I'm pretty sure that would be a yes.
Considering that your response lacks anything so much as resembling a tribute to the scientific method, I'm inclined to agree... But will abstain for lack of proper experimentation :P
1) A lot of corporations use Verizon as the carrier for their company-owned cell phones; depending on who uses what apps and phones, this data mining could easily be construed as corporate espionage, as well as national security risk. Example: Defense contracting company who uses AutoCAD Mobile app to share top-secret designs among their engineers.
2) Albeit spoken by a true, obvious d-bag, the statement "data is the new oil" is a damn fine analogy IMO. Why, you may ask? Because no one gets to mine oil off my property without paying me for usage rights, and my data should be under the same consideration. Not only should mining my data for for-profit purposes require my explicit permission, it should also require fair compensation (fair to me, not Verizon).
Someone who's a better writer than me needs to draft up a letter to Congresscritters that we can all copy/paste to indicate our chagrin.
Uh? can't you even vote with your wallet ? drop Verizon and get a new contract with some other carrier ?
Morton's Fork
Doesn't matter which carrier you have a contract with, they all engage in this sort of deep monitoring. Verizon is just being particularly blatant about it.. today. Tomorrow, it will be AT&T, or T-Mobile, or [Insert Carrier Here].
Democracy NOW!'s claims with regard to the debate format are blatantly false. Particularly, this bit:
I know it's easier to blame the messenger, but it wasn't Democracy NOW! that made the claim, it was their guest George Farrah.
The Commission rules for this debate did not include this prohibition.
OK, so that's one point the guy got wrong, out of how many he got right? You do realize that refuting that one almost non-existent point does nothing to disprove the obvious fact that the debate process is heavily controlled by the 2 parties in a concerted effort to shut out any alternative voices, don't you?
I believe what you've posted here is a classic example of "straining at gnats whilst swallowing a camel."
Which would stifle innovation coming from individual tinkerers, since companies would not licence patents from them because it would be cheaper to patent something similar and use lawyers to fend off complainers (with the added bonus of controlling the patent)...
No - licensing and transferring ownership are 2 completely different animals.
Third party candidates have the benefit of knowing what the questions are and are able to give prepared answers.
You don't seem to understand just how badly this debate process has been subverted. From Democracy NOW!:
"The town hall debate we’re going to see tonight is the most constrained and regulated town hall debate in presidential debate history. The first town hall debate was introduced in 1992, and no one knew what anyone was going to ask, none of the audience members were going to ask. The moderator could ask any follow-up questions. It was exciting, and it was real.
Well, President George H.W. Bush stumbled in response to an oddly worded question about the federal deficit, and the candidates—the campaigns have panicked and have attempted to avoid that kind of situation from happening again. In 1996, they abolished follow-up questions from the audience.
In 2004, they began requiring that every single question asked by the audience be submitted in advance on an index card to the moderator, who can then throw out the ones he or she does not like. And that’s why the audience has essentially been reduced, in some ways, to props, because the moderator is still ultimately asking the questions.
And this election cycle is the first time that the moderator herself is prohibited from asking follow-up questions, questions seeking clarification. She’s essentially reduced to keeping time and being a lady with a microphone." -- George Farrah, author of No Debate: How the Republican and Democratic Parties Secretly Control the Presidential Debates.
It's a goddamn circus, and an obvious one at that. anyone who can't see the forest for the trees in this situation, is probably one of the clowns.