At this point let me say, in all honesty and conviction, that if I end up dead by strange means - suicide, overdose, drunk driving accident (I never, ever, ever drink and drive), "accidental" gunshot to the back of the head while sleeping ala Fred Hampton, car jacking, or anything else reasonably suspicious, contact the FBI in Chico, California for more details.
::rolls eyes:: Dude, that's just -- embarrassing. Really. You're not that important. Ironically, he then goes on to say...
Resist the extra y-chromosome influenced urge to sound more hardcore than the guy next to you. Nobody is impressed and the powers that be are sitting on the edges of their seats waiting for an excuse to shut down flag.
Indeed. You don't sound hardcore, you sound like a pathetic loser in this diatribe.
Yes but what about the people who don't keep it, but merely return it a few weeks late? They are charged a fee. What should we call this fee?
Well, the concession I'll make on this is that seven days is way too soon to assume the customer is never bringing it back. In that respect, I think Blockbuster's policy wasn't quite fair.
No, it's not a "delayed mandatory financial assessment". It's "the customer decided to keep the video, so we're selling it to them, instead of renting it to them."
You do realize that it's possible to buy videos, right?
So, you figure that a fee that is charged if and only if the video is late is not a late fee?
Yes. Why is this so hard for some people? A "late fee" is by definition a fee charged for RENTALS. You are no longer renting a video if you KEEP IT. In that case, then you are BUYING the video.
So you figured that there really WERE late fees even if the ads said NO late fees. More agreement that the ad campaign was all false.
No, I figured out that a "late fee" means a fee charged in addition to the normal rental fee if it was returned late. This is opposed to a fee charged to purchase a video. I figured out that, not wanting to give videos away for free, that Blockbuster would simply charge the retail price of the video.
In other words, if you keep the video then you buy the video. This really isn't that complicated.
Will that be true with the next generation of executives?
Yep. Every generation has their "stupid" things that they do to differentiate themselves from the previous generation. Most teenagers feel unremarkable, so they search for easy things to make themselves "different". Weird fashions, weird slang, etc.
Eventually people grow out of it and become adults, and realize how silly and superficial it all was, and is. Most everyone goes through it, and most everyone later in life has trouble remembering exactly why something that's so stupid seemed so cool at the time.:)
Once they have a huge database of DNA, they can start looking for patterns, matching anti-government personalities with DNA factors. Then they can slowly kill off the "anti-American elements" that might cause a bit too much trouble in the future.
The plan would be brilliant -- how could anyone sense the pattern of killing off agitators, before they're even agitators? Eventually, the population would be reduced to sheep content to follow our infallible rulers.
(just kidding -- wanted to see what it was like to wear the foil hat for a few minutes)
Well, hey, "Reality Master" says so. I think I'll trust "Reality Master" over Forbes Magazine. I'll add it to my list of predictions over the years.
So you believe every statistic you read, just because it's in a published magazine?
I'm not asking you to believe me, I'm asking you to *think*. Do you really -- really -- think that 20% of iPod people are going to switch to the Mac? This is not a question of Dell versus Gateway, where it's a commodity item. You have to throw away all your software. You have to pay more money than the equivalent PC. You have to be willing to be an oddball.
Analyst firm Morgan Stanley forecast on Friday that the Mac -- currently on three percent of desktops -- could win its way to five percent of desktop sales this year. This was based on a survey of 400 iPod users that found that 19 percent expect to convert from PC to Macintosh.
What absolute crap. 20% of iPod users going to switch? They're going to throw away their entire hardware investment and software investment, all because of an MP3 player??
I don't know how they phrased the question, or how they interpreted the answer ("would you ever consider moving to Apple" or something stupid), but it's just not going to happen.
In Apple's "1984" commercial the bad guys (big brother and all) were loving the "garden", Apple was represented by the flying hammer that was bashing the restrictive big brother.
Yes, I know -- hence the irony that Apple and its fans have become what they mocked in the original ad.
Now I'm not pro- nor anti-smoking but if it doesn't affect the other passengers I fail to see why it is not allowed.
1) How are the flight people supposed to know if the his helmet even works?
2) It's FEDERAL LAW. No one smokes on an airplane, period. Are they supposed to just throw away the law because some addicted nut pulls out a helmet?
3) Unless the helmet is a full-blown bubble over his head, I find it extremely unlikely the helmet captures 100% of the smoke.
Re:I'll take content over "hip-looking, style-lade
on
Web Design Garage
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
If people like you were in charge of the world, we'd all be living in gray, concrete houses composed of efficient squares that could be stacked and pushed together.
I know it's a radical concept to some Slashdotters, but style matters. I don't particularly want to go back to "green screen" text-only monochrome monitors.
A common misconception. No, we will NEVER run out of oil. Ever.
Oil in the ground is not like a gas tank where you pump it out and Boom! it's gone one day. It just gets more and more expensive to pump it.
What will happen is that fossil fules will get progressively more expensive until cheaper alternatives become less expensive than they are, and certain uses will gradually switch over.
There's not going to be some magic day where Boom! THE OIL IS GONE OMG WE'RE DOOMED WHAAAA. Everything will "just work out", as it always does in matters of economics.
I'd say if a person is productive in society, and happy, you're going to have a hard time convincing me that he's sick.
If I'm missing an arm, but I'm still productive and happy, it doesn't mean I'm still not handicapped.
Re:I think he came off as having OCD
on
Donald Knuth On NPR
·
· Score: 2, Informative
Being enormously smarter and more creative than the average person is a form of weirdness, but not a form of sickness.
Weirdness and sickness is often only a question of degree. History is full of examples of geniuses that were barely balanced between the two, and in fact, their genius often derived from the sickness. Just because someone is functional doesn't mean they're normal and not sick. Sickness also doesn't mean that they have to be cured.
Nice bigotry. In other news, all catholics are child molestors, all hackers write viruses, all OSS software developers are communists, and all Slashdotters are shut-in virgins.
They come out with "stop using [product], [bad thing] will happen" about once a week. Two years later, we find out that [product] doesn't cause [bad thing] and [product] may be beneficial.
No, they come out with, "A study was published that says [product] may be harmful to you."
No one ever gets fired.
Why should they? They didn't run the study, they just reported on it.
Don't get me wrong -- I'm the last person to apologize for the media. I think the media sucks, for the most part. But there is a difference between a journalist and some fool off the street ranting in his blog.
The answer is to have a very liberal definition of what a journalist is and let people determine for themselves how much they should trust a journalist.
Unfortunately, that way leads to anarchy. Then anyone can publish anything citing "anonymous sources". If an "anonymous source" was publishing your financial records or your medical records, would you really want that source protected by a journalistic shield?
Then you have the problem of a blogger just making up anonymous sources, just to launch vendettas against someone.
That's why the organization matters. If the NYTs finds out that you're making up anonymous sources, then your ass will be fired. There is accountability.
Then by all means, share: where is the dividing line between journalists and non-journalists?
As with porn, "I don't know how to define it, but I know it when I see it."
I think what's important is the organization in which it's published. I know the New York Times is an organization that values journalism, therefore, people who work there are probably going to publish things to journalistic standards (this is ideal, of course). On the other hand, the Weekly World News has no journalistic reputation and thus we wouldn't consider their employees to be journalists. Note that both the NYT's writer and a WWN's write both write stories.
Joe Blogger has no credentials of respect to offer. We simply don't know what process he uses to craft his pieces. Most blogging is simply opinion, which is NOT journalism.
I don't know what the answer to this is, but I'll make a suggestion... perhaps there needs to be a professional journalistic organization that enforces standards among bloggers. If that organization builds enough respect, then members of that organization could possibly be considered journalists.
Online bloggers (in various forms) who pretend to be journalists are upset that courts ruled that bloggers who pretend to be journalists aren't really journalists.
Hard to imagine why that would be the case.
When everything that happens to be written becomes journalism, then the word journalism ceases to mean anything.
I can't resist pointing this out, yet again: No, reveal codes is NOT a good thing. It's a complete kludge. If you need a Reveal Codes feature, then that shows that the word processor is badly designed.
I was firmly in the reveal codes camp until I actually learned how to use Word, and then I realized what an atrocity Reveal Codes really was. The concept of Styles is far, far better.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, because we know that Buick makes the best cars in the world.
What anarchist is NOT pretending to be an anarchist and revolutionary?
::rolls eyes:: Dude, that's just -- embarrassing. Really. You're not that important. Ironically, he then goes on to say...
Resist the extra y-chromosome influenced urge to sound more hardcore than the guy next to you. Nobody is impressed and the powers that be are sitting on the edges of their seats waiting for an excuse to shut down flag.
Indeed. You don't sound hardcore, you sound like a pathetic loser in this diatribe.
Well, the concession I'll make on this is that seven days is way too soon to assume the customer is never bringing it back. In that respect, I think Blockbuster's policy wasn't quite fair.
You do realize that it's possible to buy videos, right?
Yes. Why is this so hard for some people? A "late fee" is by definition a fee charged for RENTALS. You are no longer renting a video if you KEEP IT. In that case, then you are BUYING the video.
No, I figured out that a "late fee" means a fee charged in addition to the normal rental fee if it was returned late. This is opposed to a fee charged to purchase a video. I figured out that, not wanting to give videos away for free, that Blockbuster would simply charge the retail price of the video.
In other words, if you keep the video then you buy the video. This really isn't that complicated.
Not being a moron, I assumed I would be charged for the movie if it wasn't returned. I mean, jeez.
Yep. Every generation has their "stupid" things that they do to differentiate themselves from the previous generation. Most teenagers feel unremarkable, so they search for easy things to make themselves "different". Weird fashions, weird slang, etc.
Eventually people grow out of it and become adults, and realize how silly and superficial it all was, and is. Most everyone goes through it, and most everyone later in life has trouble remembering exactly why something that's so stupid seemed so cool at the time. :)
The plan would be brilliant -- how could anyone sense the pattern of killing off agitators, before they're even agitators? Eventually, the population would be reduced to sheep content to follow our infallible rulers.
(just kidding -- wanted to see what it was like to wear the foil hat for a few minutes)
So you believe every statistic you read, just because it's in a published magazine?
I'm not asking you to believe me, I'm asking you to *think*. Do you really -- really -- think that 20% of iPod people are going to switch to the Mac? This is not a question of Dell versus Gateway, where it's a commodity item. You have to throw away all your software. You have to pay more money than the equivalent PC. You have to be willing to be an oddball.
What absolute crap. 20% of iPod users going to switch? They're going to throw away their entire hardware investment and software investment, all because of an MP3 player??
I don't know how they phrased the question, or how they interpreted the answer ("would you ever consider moving to Apple" or something stupid), but it's just not going to happen.
Yes, I know -- hence the irony that Apple and its fans have become what they mocked in the original ad.
2) It's FEDERAL LAW. No one smokes on an airplane, period. Are they supposed to just throw away the law because some addicted nut pulls out a helmet?
3) Unless the helmet is a full-blown bubble over his head, I find it extremely unlikely the helmet captures 100% of the smoke.
I know it's a radical concept to some Slashdotters, but style matters. I don't particularly want to go back to "green screen" text-only monochrome monitors.
Oil in the ground is not like a gas tank where you pump it out and Boom! it's gone one day. It just gets more and more expensive to pump it.
What will happen is that fossil fules will get progressively more expensive until cheaper alternatives become less expensive than they are, and certain uses will gradually switch over.
There's not going to be some magic day where Boom! THE OIL IS GONE OMG WE'RE DOOMED WHAAAA. Everything will "just work out", as it always does in matters of economics.
If I'm missing an arm, but I'm still productive and happy, it doesn't mean I'm still not handicapped.
Weirdness and sickness is often only a question of degree. History is full of examples of geniuses that were barely balanced between the two, and in fact, their genius often derived from the sickness. Just because someone is functional doesn't mean they're normal and not sick. Sickness also doesn't mean that they have to be cured.
I wish I was bitter enough to believe in a "privileged class". It would make life so much easier to be able to blame someone else for all my problems.
Nice bigotry. In other news, all catholics are child molestors, all hackers write viruses, all OSS software developers are communists, and all Slashdotters are shut-in virgins.
No, they come out with, "A study was published that says [product] may be harmful to you."
No one ever gets fired.
Why should they? They didn't run the study, they just reported on it.
Don't get me wrong -- I'm the last person to apologize for the media. I think the media sucks, for the most part. But there is a difference between a journalist and some fool off the street ranting in his blog.
Unfortunately, that way leads to anarchy. Then anyone can publish anything citing "anonymous sources". If an "anonymous source" was publishing your financial records or your medical records, would you really want that source protected by a journalistic shield?
Then you have the problem of a blogger just making up anonymous sources, just to launch vendettas against someone.
That's why the organization matters. If the NYTs finds out that you're making up anonymous sources, then your ass will be fired. There is accountability.
As with porn, "I don't know how to define it, but I know it when I see it."
I think what's important is the organization in which it's published. I know the New York Times is an organization that values journalism, therefore, people who work there are probably going to publish things to journalistic standards (this is ideal, of course). On the other hand, the Weekly World News has no journalistic reputation and thus we wouldn't consider their employees to be journalists. Note that both the NYT's writer and a WWN's write both write stories.
Joe Blogger has no credentials of respect to offer. We simply don't know what process he uses to craft his pieces. Most blogging is simply opinion, which is NOT journalism.
I don't know what the answer to this is, but I'll make a suggestion... perhaps there needs to be a professional journalistic organization that enforces standards among bloggers. If that organization builds enough respect, then members of that organization could possibly be considered journalists.
Hard to imagine why that would be the case.
When everything that happens to be written becomes journalism, then the word journalism ceases to mean anything.
I was firmly in the reveal codes camp until I actually learned how to use Word, and then I realized what an atrocity Reveal Codes really was. The concept of Styles is far, far better.