That reference wasn't apparent to me. It's not like The Sound of Music is the only movie in which people go outside.
The imagery is exactly parallel to that of The Sound of Music. I hadn't recognized the other parallels; the encroaching Nazi menace with that of the Empire.
Haven't used UPS in years. I refuse to order from someone who only uses UPS to deliver their products. After they fucked up a critical order 4 years ago, inconvenienced me for 2 straight days of work, and ultimately made me haul my ass to their center in bumfuck nowhere to pick up packages they never rang my doorbell to deliver, I vowed to never use them. FedEx or even the USPS are better ways to go.
How do these numbers compare to in store purchasing habits?
Setting aside the difficulty of measuring these kinds of things, this study doesn't say anything about whether or not online purchasers are more impulsive than brick-mortar purchasers unless there's some sort of actual, quantitative comparison.
That said, anecdotally, I don't doubt that people are less impulsive online. When I go shopping in a physical store, I generally know what I want already and I've already done my research, but I'm much more tempted to buy something on display on a whim. Worse, because of the physical labor involved, I generally don't walk around the mall comparing prices. Online, on the other hand, I'll take weeks making a purchase in order to get the best deal and even though it's really easy to put other things in my basket, I don't find it to be nearly as tempting.
The exception to this is iTunes. There, I'm much more impulsive. "OOoh, 80's song I haven't heard in 20 years... (click)"
Heh. Judging by the loads of Apple Powerbooks I've been seeing around campus; especially among the CS students. I bought one a week ago myself and I love it.
Mainly because I don't feel like a system administrator on it, unlike my Windows 2000 desktop or my 3 linux servers. Between Linux and OS X, I haven't developed a preference yet. Between OS X and Windows (any version), OS X is the winner, hands down.
This is coming from a guy who would have skewered his left testicle rather than deal with Macs 5 years ago. Oh hell, 2 years ago.
You haven't seen Senator James Inhofe (R-OK) telling the Senate that global warming was a hoax (while brandishing Crichton's State of Fear book as the proof).
I thought we were talking about science and scientists. Not science fiction and idiots^H^H^H^H^H^H politicians.
there is no global climate change (flies in the face of 90%+ of scientific opinion)
Actually, I don't think anyone doubts that there is global climate change. What differs scientist to scientist are the causes of said change.
business can continue as usual without worrying about environmental factors (a hope, for short term business as usual)
This is true, but if you talk to responsible businessmen, they understand this. The problem is that people expect returns on their investments uberquickly, sometimes in short amount of time than is required to make ecologically sound expansions in production.
the economy can survive $100 oil
Why, in principle, can't the economy survive $100 oil? Perhaps not in its current form, but there's no universal law that says barrels of oil must be below $100.
nuclear is the solution to our energy needs
How is this a lie?
Here's the important point: a lot of scientists work for industry. So they have a distinct bias. In many cases they are providing reports for their employer. So next time you run into a scientific report, check the source... not all scientists are funded equally.
Unfortunately, what trickles down to us, non-experts, is some journalist's interpretation of highly complex work. We often get only half the story, and the half we get is usually incorrect.
You also can't blithely ascribe bias to pure monetary gain. Scientists differ on causes and solutions. Science isn't always a clean field and there are periods of time where no one really knows what the fuck the correct answer is. Call it scientific evolution; the debate and refinement of theories until the correct ones remain. What matters at the end of the day is how well other scientists are able to replicate results and if the theories stand the test of time. Those that don't, will be forgotten, or relegate to crack-pot conspiracy theorists. If a scientist sells his objectivity to the highest bidder, then they will eventually be discovered and his theories and work discredited.
The key point is that neither you (I'm assuming) nor I have the expertise required to make that call. We have to wait for what those in the field finally decide, if they ever come to a consensus.
There is a good reason why they are afraid of discovery whether they realize it or not. The general public views it as socially unacceptable, immoral, and wrong. No one will force them to change as it is their choice to behave the way they do but when they do something that is not socially acceptable they have to be prepared to face the consequences just like a child molester knows that if word gets out (especially in prison) as to what he/she did the public is going to be all over the person.
That's not a good reason, that's just a reason. Social norms change, and they have been changing with respect to sexuality; I would argue that those who think queers are unacceptable, immoral, and wrong are in the minority, possibly slight majority. At one point it was socially unacceptable to marry outside of one's ethnicity, and it was considered unacceptable, immoral, and wrong. Yet that changed. Why? Because society changed, as it is changing now. Using arguments like yours, the tyranny of the majority, to justify the treatment that gays receive at the hands of straight people is dangerous.
The real question you should be asking is, is it proper to treat gays as second class citizens when they have done nothing to harm other people? The child molester example is in no way analogous to the current topic because the child molester hurt an innocent, and therefore are receiving the punishment that society deems appropriate. Gays hurt no one.
Unlike your skin color, it's not hard for a well-behaved homosexual to keep from getting fired in the vast majority of companies because of their sexuality. The key is being polite and well-behaved, two things that used to be common components of business decorum.
Your sexuality has no place in the office and it is common courtesy to leave it outside work. OMG did I just say that people should restrain themselves at work? Yes, I did. Your co-workers don't need to know who you like to fuck and if you genuinely respected them you wouldn't be talking about that sort of thing in mixed company.
I'm paraphrasing (and not very eloquently) a passage I read by Andrew Sullivan but can't locate for the life of me. He was traveling with a woman who remarked that she didn't have a problem with gay people as long as they didn't talk about it and kept their private lives to themselves. He responded, "But you talk about your private life all the time. Why should gay people not be allowed to?" When she said that she had not talked about her private life, he said, "In the past 5 minutes, I learned that you have a husband, that you're on your way to pick up your kids to take them to sports practice, during which you will visit your husband's sister."
His point is obvious, that in casual conversation with other people, even those we don't know on a friend or acquaintance level, we drop lots of details about our personal life. This is no different in the work place. For example, while I never discussed details of home life with my coworkers in my current job, or my previous job, I knew if they were married, or had significant others, if they had children, the general ages of their children, what they did over the weekend, where they went on vacation, etc.
If you're queer, you can't take part in those conversations unless you are prepared for people to know that you are queer. Think about how many times in a given week you talk about your spouse, significant other, and some of your plans for the evening (i.e. going out to a movie, dinner, etc) in casual conversation. Now, imagine censoring that all into the most bland conversation possible. That's the situation with a queer person.
So, yes, while your sexuality isn't something immediately noticable, such as ethnicity, it is something that takes quite a bit of effort to completely conceal.
You also ignore the fact that chance meetings occur outside the workplace, and if you think rumors don't fly, then you're completely naive. So, consider that when you're on a date with someone, you can't hold hands, walk closely, or share a quick kiss for the fear of being discovered by someone you know or knows someone you know at work.
You, and others, seem to be under the false impression that these laws are going to allow queer people to makeout in the copy room with no job-related repercussions. Straight people can't engage in such behavior, why should queers? These laws are supposed to allow queer people to have some sort of normal social interaction with co-workers and with their partners without the suffocating fear of discovery.
BMI is a shitty yardstick for general health in the first place because it is based on weight. Weight doesn't factor in different body types, muscle mass, bone density and other variables that affect.
According to BMI standards, a bodybuilder who is 220 pounds, 5' 10", works out 3 hours a day, can run 5 miles, and bench press a small truck, is obese. It doesn't even have to be the extreme case of a body builder. I'm not a bodybuilder (I have too much soft stuff), but I spend between 1.5 to 2.5 hours in the gym, 5 days a week exercise; both lifting and cardio. I eat somewhat healthy. Yet my BMI puts me in the overweight category. The last time I was "normal" weight, I was practically anorexic; a definitely unhealthy condition. When I weighed about 180, the weight standards were changed by some organ in the US government and I was classified as "overweight," due to BMI. Yet I could run 5 miles at a 6.5 min/mile pace. That's when I decided that the standards were fucked up.
The reports about this announcement I've seen say that basically, being "overweight" isn't as big a cause of premature death as once thought. Given that BMI/weight is a shitty indicator of overall health, this isn't a huge fucking surprise. People in the health/fitness industries have been complaining about the media's obsession with BMI for years now. It's simply a bad indicator of your health; a better indicator of health is your overall fitness.
Now, if you're a geek with a sedentary lifestyle, and you're not getting any or much exercise, then being overweight should be a concern. Your fitness is low. You don't get your heart moving, except for your forearms (and possibly your right shoulder), you don't work your muscles. Especially not your heart. You SHOULDN'T take this report as a license to pork out.
If you're a little "overweight" but make it a point to get some form of exercise on a regular basis, then you shouldn't feel guilty. Enjoy life more, get your exercise, don't feel bad everytime the evening news tells you that being at BMI 27 makes you overweight, and have a beer.
All this announcement does is tell us that the finger-wagging weight-nazis are finally starting on the path to some more realistic weight standards.
Now we're getting somewhere. Suppose Personality A also includes a slew of personally identifiable information about group B (like names, addressses, social security numbers, and the like) Should Personality A have a liability for the misuse of that information? Should Personality A have a defense if they can show a legitimate reason for posting that information? I would argure 'Yes' to both of those questions. Posting people personal information just because you can is irresponsible and distantly akin to yelling 'Fire' in a crowded theater. While I can think of plenty of good reasons for posting someone's address, I can't think of any for posting a SSN.
I agree with you, but I wasn't talking about personal information here. The thread, if you look at the previous couple of parent topics, was about hate speech. They're two separate issues, IMO.
Thus, I support Nazis, Skinheads, KKK, Anti-Abortionists, Abortionists, Greens, Communists, and etc all being able to say what they want, believe, etc without fear of governmental reprisal. It's when their conduct crosses the line from words to action that I'd come down on them like a ton of bricks.
I'm in complete agreement.
The problem is that say Personality A says a bunch of disagreeable things about group B, but doesn't explicitly advocate violence against group B. Person C infers from Peronsality A's commentary that something should be done to "fix" the problem with group B and causes bodily harm, harasses, etc a member of group B.
Some people would argue that Personality A is at least partially responsible for person C's behavior. Hence, hate speech laws.
If they don't know what a blog is, then why is their sample point counted? I'd be more interested in the opinion of those who have actually visited a blog.
The question, as has been pointed out, is obviously designed to elicit a specific answer and should be considered in that context.
I'm more concerned about this part:
A further 72 percent favoured censorship of personal information about celebrities, and 68 percent information about elected or appointed government officials such as judges or mayors
What are we defining as "personal information"? Addresses, phone numbers, yeah. I can see that. What about history about the politician? Spouse's name, business dealings (especially for politicians)? You could make a case for all of these as being personal information.
Fifty-two percent of those surveyed said bloggers should have the same rights as traditional journalists, while 27 percent did not express an opinion. Free speech rights are protected under the first amendment of the US Bill of Rights, which says the US Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech or of the press.
Since when, in the United States, do traditional journalists have MORE freedom of speech than ordinary citizens? IANAL, but methinks the Australians might have a misunderstanding as to what freedom of speech for Americans means. It's not for some Americans, it's for ALL Americans.
Actually, on a tangent. Reminds me of a discussion I got into with some Canadian friends of mine a couple years ago. They simply couldn't understand why I was so against censoring "objectionable" speech. In this case, speech deemed to be "hate speech."
sigh Anyone want to help me buy an island for libertarian refugees?
Oh get over it! Without unlimited funding for every last paper to be read, discussed and reviewed before being published, it's the way the system has to work.
It's not as if the whole world collapses if a crappy bit of science gets published.
What? No <sarcasm> tags? Look, the conference is sponsored by a for-profit entity that spams anyone who has published in legit conferences or journals. And they aren't the only ones. The excuse that they don't have funding to review each paper is BS, especially since the process works by parceling out papers to a large group of qualified researchers in the field, not by 3 or 4 people sitting around a conference table with a stack of submissions.
If you're going to lower your standards to the point that a glorified state machine can get its crap accepted as science, then why bother at all?
"I think this cache design is optimal because if I eat a banana and shove a roll of quarters up my nose, I can perceive a 1% increase in the angular velocity of the second hand of my digital watch. Plus, God told me and God doesn't lie. Therefore my idea is great. Gimme money and publish me. QED."
Slashdot Mirror
The imagery is exactly parallel to that of The Sound of Music. I hadn't recognized the other parallels; the encroaching Nazi menace with that of the Empire.
One can only pray.
Yeah, a fewer nuts with lightsaber envy on slashdot would be a good thing.
Dude, after Battlefield Earth? Maybe he's not evil, but he sure stinks.
RAT BRAIN!
(note: I actually think Travolta is a good actor... but he should never be forgiven for the steaming pile of cinematic dung.)
I have to report my mom?
She's not going to like that.
Articles?
ba-dum psssh.
Haven't used UPS in years. I refuse to order from someone who only uses UPS to deliver their products. After they fucked up a critical order 4 years ago, inconvenienced me for 2 straight days of work, and ultimately made me haul my ass to their center in bumfuck nowhere to pick up packages they never rang my doorbell to deliver, I vowed to never use them. FedEx or even the USPS are better ways to go.
If the irony doesn't kill you, the car will.
How do these numbers compare to in store purchasing habits?
Setting aside the difficulty of measuring these kinds of things, this study doesn't say anything about whether or not online purchasers are more impulsive than brick-mortar purchasers unless there's some sort of actual, quantitative comparison.
That said, anecdotally, I don't doubt that people are less impulsive online. When I go shopping in a physical store, I generally know what I want already and I've already done my research, but I'm much more tempted to buy something on display on a whim. Worse, because of the physical labor involved, I generally don't walk around the mall comparing prices. Online, on the other hand, I'll take weeks making a purchase in order to get the best deal and even though it's really easy to put other things in my basket, I don't find it to be nearly as tempting.
The exception to this is iTunes. There, I'm much more impulsive. "OOoh, 80's song I haven't heard in 20 years... (click)"
You must have been absent the day they handed out senses of humor.
Derf... first sentence should be:
"I doubt it, judging by the loads of Apple Powerbooks I've been seeing around campus; especially among the CS students."
Heh. Judging by the loads of Apple Powerbooks I've been seeing around campus; especially among the CS students. I bought one a week ago myself and I love it.
Mainly because I don't feel like a system administrator on it, unlike my Windows 2000 desktop or my 3 linux servers. Between Linux and OS X, I haven't developed a preference yet. Between OS X and Windows (any version), OS X is the winner, hands down.
This is coming from a guy who would have skewered his left testicle rather than deal with Macs 5 years ago. Oh hell, 2 years ago.
I thought we were talking about science and scientists. Not science fiction and idiots^H^H^H^H^H^H politicians.
Actually, I don't think anyone doubts that there is global climate change. What differs scientist to scientist are the causes of said change.
business can continue as usual without worrying about environmental factors (a hope, for short term business as usual)
This is true, but if you talk to responsible businessmen, they understand this. The problem is that people expect returns on their investments uberquickly, sometimes in short amount of time than is required to make ecologically sound expansions in production.
the economy can survive $100 oil
Why, in principle, can't the economy survive $100 oil? Perhaps not in its current form, but there's no universal law that says barrels of oil must be below $100.
nuclear is the solution to our energy needs
How is this a lie?
Unfortunately, what trickles down to us, non-experts, is some journalist's interpretation of highly complex work. We often get only half the story, and the half we get is usually incorrect.
You also can't blithely ascribe bias to pure monetary gain. Scientists differ on causes and solutions. Science isn't always a clean field and there are periods of time where no one really knows what the fuck the correct answer is. Call it scientific evolution; the debate and refinement of theories until the correct ones remain. What matters at the end of the day is how well other scientists are able to replicate results and if the theories stand the test of time. Those that don't, will be forgotten, or relegate to crack-pot conspiracy theorists. If a scientist sells his objectivity to the highest bidder, then they will eventually be discovered and his theories and work discredited.
The key point is that neither you (I'm assuming) nor I have the expertise required to make that call. We have to wait for what those in the field finally decide, if they ever come to a consensus.
That's not a good reason, that's just a reason. Social norms change, and they have been changing with respect to sexuality; I would argue that those who think queers are unacceptable, immoral, and wrong are in the minority, possibly slight majority. At one point it was socially unacceptable to marry outside of one's ethnicity, and it was considered unacceptable, immoral, and wrong. Yet that changed. Why? Because society changed, as it is changing now. Using arguments like yours, the tyranny of the majority, to justify the treatment that gays receive at the hands of straight people is dangerous.
The real question you should be asking is, is it proper to treat gays as second class citizens when they have done nothing to harm other people? The child molester example is in no way analogous to the current topic because the child molester hurt an innocent, and therefore are receiving the punishment that society deems appropriate. Gays hurt no one.
I'm paraphrasing (and not very eloquently) a passage I read by Andrew Sullivan but can't locate for the life of me. He was traveling with a woman who remarked that she didn't have a problem with gay people as long as they didn't talk about it and kept their private lives to themselves. He responded, "But you talk about your private life all the time. Why should gay people not be allowed to?" When she said that she had not talked about her private life, he said, "In the past 5 minutes, I learned that you have a husband, that you're on your way to pick up your kids to take them to sports practice, during which you will visit your husband's sister."
His point is obvious, that in casual conversation with other people, even those we don't know on a friend or acquaintance level, we drop lots of details about our personal life. This is no different in the work place. For example, while I never discussed details of home life with my coworkers in my current job, or my previous job, I knew if they were married, or had significant others, if they had children, the general ages of their children, what they did over the weekend, where they went on vacation, etc.
If you're queer, you can't take part in those conversations unless you are prepared for people to know that you are queer. Think about how many times in a given week you talk about your spouse, significant other, and some of your plans for the evening (i.e. going out to a movie, dinner, etc) in casual conversation. Now, imagine censoring that all into the most bland conversation possible. That's the situation with a queer person.
So, yes, while your sexuality isn't something immediately noticable, such as ethnicity, it is something that takes quite a bit of effort to completely conceal.
You also ignore the fact that chance meetings occur outside the workplace, and if you think rumors don't fly, then you're completely naive. So, consider that when you're on a date with someone, you can't hold hands, walk closely, or share a quick kiss for the fear of being discovered by someone you know or knows someone you know at work.
You, and others, seem to be under the false impression that these laws are going to allow queer people to makeout in the copy room with no job-related repercussions. Straight people can't engage in such behavior, why should queers? These laws are supposed to allow queer people to have some sort of normal social interaction with co-workers and with their partners without the suffocating fear of discovery.
BMI is a shitty yardstick for general health in the first place because it is based on weight. Weight doesn't factor in different body types, muscle mass, bone density and other variables that affect.
According to BMI standards, a bodybuilder who is 220 pounds, 5' 10", works out 3 hours a day, can run 5 miles, and bench press a small truck, is obese. It doesn't even have to be the extreme case of a body builder. I'm not a bodybuilder (I have too much soft stuff), but I spend between 1.5 to 2.5 hours in the gym, 5 days a week exercise; both lifting and cardio. I eat somewhat healthy. Yet my BMI puts me in the overweight category. The last time I was "normal" weight, I was practically anorexic; a definitely unhealthy condition. When I weighed about 180, the weight standards were changed by some organ in the US government and I was classified as "overweight," due to BMI. Yet I could run 5 miles at a 6.5 min/mile pace. That's when I decided that the standards were fucked up.
The reports about this announcement I've seen say that basically, being "overweight" isn't as big a cause of premature death as once thought. Given that BMI/weight is a shitty indicator of overall health, this isn't a huge fucking surprise. People in the health/fitness industries have been complaining about the media's obsession with BMI for years now. It's simply a bad indicator of your health; a better indicator of health is your overall fitness.
Now, if you're a geek with a sedentary lifestyle, and you're not getting any or much exercise, then being overweight should be a concern. Your fitness is low. You don't get your heart moving, except for your forearms (and possibly your right shoulder), you don't work your muscles. Especially not your heart. You SHOULDN'T take this report as a license to pork out.
If you're a little "overweight" but make it a point to get some form of exercise on a regular basis, then you shouldn't feel guilty. Enjoy life more, get your exercise, don't feel bad everytime the evening news tells you that being at BMI 27 makes you overweight, and have a beer.
All this announcement does is tell us that the finger-wagging weight-nazis are finally starting on the path to some more realistic weight standards.
Cute. Hats off to you.
I wonder how many people actually ran that?
I'm in complete agreement.
The problem is that say Personality A says a bunch of disagreeable things about group B, but doesn't explicitly advocate violence against group B. Person C infers from Peronsality A's commentary that something should be done to "fix" the problem with group B and causes bodily harm, harasses, etc a member of group B.
Some people would argue that Personality A is at least partially responsible for person C's behavior. Hence, hate speech laws.
Agreed. But that's not the aspect I was interested in.
What if someone says (to take the example profferred by another poster), "All gays should be sterilized."?
Does that count as an incitement to act? I could see someone arguing that it does.
If they don't know what a blog is, then why is their sample point counted? I'd be more interested in the opinion of those who have actually visited a blog.
The question, as has been pointed out, is obviously designed to elicit a specific answer and should be considered in that context.
I'm more concerned about this part:
What are we defining as "personal information"? Addresses, phone numbers, yeah. I can see that. What about history about the politician? Spouse's name, business dealings (especially for politicians)? You could make a case for all of these as being personal information.
Since when, in the United States, do traditional journalists have MORE freedom of speech than ordinary citizens? IANAL, but methinks the Australians might have a misunderstanding as to what freedom of speech for Americans means. It's not for some Americans, it's for ALL Americans.
Actually, on a tangent. Reminds me of a discussion I got into with some Canadian friends of mine a couple years ago. They simply couldn't understand why I was so against censoring "objectionable" speech. In this case, speech deemed to be "hate speech."
sigh Anyone want to help me buy an island for libertarian refugees?
http://www.iiisci.org/sci2005/reviewers/Reviewe
What? No <sarcasm> tags? Look, the conference is sponsored by a for-profit entity that spams anyone who has published in legit conferences or journals. And they aren't the only ones. The excuse that they don't have funding to review each paper is BS, especially since the process works by parceling out papers to a large group of qualified researchers in the field, not by 3 or 4 people sitting around a conference table with a stack of submissions.
If you're going to lower your standards to the point that a glorified state machine can get its crap accepted as science, then why bother at all?
"I think this cache design is optimal because if I eat a banana and shove a roll of quarters up my nose, I can perceive a 1% increase in the angular velocity of the second hand of my digital watch. Plus, God told me and God doesn't lie. Therefore my idea is great. Gimme money and publish me. QED."