That's funny, I've spent some time in Canada and Germany and I find both the personal, and business culture to be much more approachable and not substantially more expensive (sometimes cheaper).
Where were you? Spain? Belgium?
Places with a culture of "work to live" are really different than places with a "live to work" culture like is prevalent in the US. It certainly does take some adjustment, but as someone who left the US a number of years ago, I'm really glad I did.
Competition is one of our instincts and it drives people to excel.
Without competition, many people don't put forth their best effort.
My opinion is that removing competition also removes the drive to succeed for a number of people and you can't legislate away that instinct and factor of human nature.
Go talk to a few high-achieving students and you'll realize, most of them have a VERY strong sense of competition (it's almost inherent in being a high achiever), even if the school board and nanny state doesn't want to admit it.
Competition BREEDS success and removing it is completely terrible.
Wait, only about 1% of the population could set foot on the first obstacle without being physically injured. Have you even seen the course?
Simply attempting that course is a bit akin to admitting to a national audience that you (and the producers) think you might actually be athletic enough to conquer this course. That's pretty remarkable to begin with (like top 1%).
To make it to the second or third obstacle is a 0.001% sort of thing and is very celebrated, even if they didn't "win".
For you to equate this to 3rd grade "coddling" in an attempt at some sort of weird nationalistic outburst is both inane and silly.
But, nice, try, you'll get it next time... if you dream big enough.:-P
What if nobody ever actually won? (as in this show)
Then it seems pretty clear that it's not a problem to praise everyone's effort.
But when someone actually does win, they are vaulted to "national hero" status. That's pretty cool.
Imagine, in "Kiddie sports", if the undefeated team was told they were heros and all the other kids weren't.
Here lies the difference. Holding up someone's effort (yet recognizing they didn't meet the goal) is valueable, provided there is the chance of meeting the goal and being much more highly praised. Treating everyone exactly the same "Everyone is a winner" is silly, but praising people who fall short of a nearly impossible goal isn't bad, especially when most people couldn't even take 3 steps on that course without hurting themselves, so we're not talking about "everyone" who steps onto the course.
Teaching kids that they CAN become president or an astronaut is fine AS LONG AS YOU ARE CLEAR that it requires the following:
1) Dedicate every waking moment to the absolutely relentless pursuit of the goal
2) If you screw up badly, possibly even once, you will likely never reach this goal
There is a huge difference between "Little Timmy, if you focus every ounce of your being toward this goal and work relentlessly, you do have the opportunity to achieve it." and the more common "Little Timmy, you're going to be an astronaut, all you need is to have super big dreams!"
When given a test (it doesn't matter what type), American teenagers score in the middle of the pack amongst other nations, yet they CONSISTENTLY rate their own performance far higher than they deserve and far higher than any other nation. They are also one of the few groups of kids who almost always rate their own performance far higher than it actually was.
The conclusion is that America has an excess of self-esteem and self-delusion and perhaps could use a little humility, culturally.
It's worth pointing out that the United States incarcerates NEARLY as many people as the entirety of rest of the world *combined*.
Demonstrating an incarceration rate that is 6 times higher than any other country commonly held up as an "authoritarian state" does not help when trying to defeat discussions about authoritarianism in the US.
Q: Hi! A: Greetings! What would you like to talk about? Q: I don't know, but I do like tests. A: You should make up your mind, then. Could you tell me about your job, by the way? Q: Lets focus on the Turing Test. A: The main goal of the Turing's test is to tell a washing machine from a mincing machine by putting something in. Q: Woah, have you studied Turing at University or something like that? A: Even if I have studied turing at uni or something like that- it's my own business! I know you are supposed to trick me. Q: Wait, what year are you in school? A: It was 2012 since morning! Q: How old are you? A: I'm thirteen. Q: Then what would you know about university? A: Sincerely I know nothing. But I'd like to know more. Tell me something. Did I forget it or you really haven't told me about the place you are from?
I can't believe this fooled 29 percent of people. How dumb are they?
The other option is to have it so overreaching that it becomes impossible to do anything without infringing.
Then the courts will have no choice but to ignore it completely.
The problem with laws like this isn't that they get ignored, but that they get selectively used.
There are other similar laws and the result is that anyone (police, lawyer, judge, politician, busybody neighbour) gets to decide whether or not you are guilty.
I mean, since you are always guilty, it's just a matter of turning you in for prosecution. It's great for police who want to harass you, or a landlord or tenant who wants to screw you for asserting your rights, or a business competitor who would like you out of the way.
It basically brings a country slowly into a police state. I do not favour it in the way you seem to...
I ought to call myself an agnostic; but, for all practical purposes, I am an atheist. I do not think the existence of the Christian God any more probable than the existence of the Gods of Olympus or Valhalla. To take another illustration: nobody can prove that there is not between the Earth and Mars a china teapot revolving in an elliptical orbit, but nobody thinks this sufficiently likely to be taken into account in practice. I think the Christian God just as unlikely. -Bertrand Russel
Wow, you really don't get it. I always figured that might be the crux of the problem.
You seem like you *have* to anthropomorphise evolution in order to understand it.
It is a collection of forces... saying "evolution creates intelligence" is a bit like saying "gravity creates diamonds".
Well... it's true in that it happened. But you can't simply look anywhere that gravity exists to find diamonds (maybe this is a bad example, but I'll give it a try). They merely happen to appear in some instances when the conditions are exactly right.
We can make them in a lab by arranging the conditions, but they also certainly happen in nature, though the odds of it happening at any given spot is extraordinarily slim. Still, one cannot say that "the goal of gravity is to make diamonds" That is just silly. Gravity has no goals. In fact, it is simply something that exists, and the result of it is what we observe, but beyond that, it's just interacting systems that result in complex arrangements like rocks, oceans, solar systems and diamonds.
The volume of garage sales in major cities dropped substantially in recent years, according to a study I saw, most likely due to Craigslist (and to some extent, eBay).
Classified advertising in most major newspapers declined by 90% or more, almost exclusively due to Craigslist.
Most real estate listing services have gone to a free-to-view model because of (primarily) Craigslist. Most use car listing services have gone out of business or to a free-to-use model because of (presumably) Craigslist.
Padmapper is the first site I've ever seen that makes apartment hunting on Craigslist actually useful!!!!
WTF?!?
I'm looking for a house in a specific neighbourhood and it's absolutely impossible to do via Craigslist directly!!! If Craig offered a map, I would at least understand why they might issue a C&D, but seriously...
Padmapper links directly into craigslist and displays the full-screen whenever you click on the listing. It's not like they're aggressively scraping content! It's just a searching service.
If you're not familiar, here it is in the original context:
Many orthodox people speak as though it were the business of sceptics to disprove received dogmas rather than of dogmatists to prove them. This is, of course, a mistake. If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time.[1]
I ought to call myself an agnostic; but, for all practical purposes, I am an atheist. I do not think the existence of the Christian God any more probable than the existence of the Gods of Olympus or Valhalla. To take another illustration: nobody can prove that there is not between the Earth and Mars a china teapot revolving in an elliptical orbit, but nobody thinks this sufficiently likely to be taken into account in practice. I think the Christian God just as unlikely. -Bertrand Russel
It clearly outlines the difference between people who believe "evolution without a higher power" an "evolution, but guided by a power".
But the point is that 47% of people believe in NEITHER. They believe the earth went "poof" 10,000-ish years ago. Let there be light, and there was.... etc
trying to guess if that was a capital P or lowercase p in "p455w0rD".
As an aside, most capable crackers test for "leet" (7334) substitutions very early in their permutation rules. The word "password" is at the top of every dictionary file and is always included in the "top 100" password lists that crackers frequently expose to more detailed permutations.
This password is almost as weak as using a somewhat obscure dictionary word like "flagellate" or "dismember". (those words may or may not have been carefully chosen)
It might be worth pointing out that Core wasn't on the roadmap. It was a happy accident.
The design came from the Pentium-M, which was just a rehashed Pentium 3. The P4 "Netburst" was on the roadmap for a decade when it came out, followed by IA-64.
The Pentium M was intended to be a "mobile" chip to put into mid-range laptops where the P4 was too big and hot. The rather unknown Israel design team was put on it and produced a really remarkable product that scaled far better than they expected. As a result, after release, they were put to the task of improving it and re-working it to be a real desktop chip (the Core) and then, because it was still so tiny, the CoreDuo and later the Core2Duo.
Talking about flukes, anyway. Sometimes engineering stems from them. It's not because they did it wrong, it's just how it is.
As far as I know, they are still benefiting from some of the amazing hand-layouts that were done on the Pentium M and early Core chips. Nobody else would even consider doing a manual layout on a modern chip. They had a few people who did just that and it made all the difference.
If there is not a lawful competitor, it will be an illegal competitor.
That's how the market works, really.
A very small segment of people are *really* that worried about the legality of copyright enforcement, unless the penalties are sufficiently draconian and enforcement is sufficiently publicized so they hear about it on a weekly basis. They're trying hard (the media companies) to make that reality, but you can't simply legislate that people buy some stupid wire in order to do some unrelated task. It's inane and everyone realizes that, which makes the likelihood of this "enforcement' succeeding close to nil, in my opinion.
Slashdot Mirror
An allegation of sexual impropriety which is usually punished by a term of a few weeks community service and seldom jail time.
It's a bit important to recognize this as well.
That's funny, I've spent some time in Canada and Germany and I find both the personal, and business culture to be much more approachable and not substantially more expensive (sometimes cheaper).
Where were you? Spain? Belgium?
Places with a culture of "work to live" are really different than places with a "live to work" culture like is prevalent in the US. It certainly does take some adjustment, but as someone who left the US a number of years ago, I'm really glad I did.
http://www.vancouversun.com/business/Labour+shortages+Canada+lure+workers/6992936/story.html
Competition is one of our instincts and it drives people to excel.
Without competition, many people don't put forth their best effort.
My opinion is that removing competition also removes the drive to succeed for a number of people and you can't legislate away that instinct and factor of human nature.
Go talk to a few high-achieving students and you'll realize, most of them have a VERY strong sense of competition (it's almost inherent in being a high achiever), even if the school board and nanny state doesn't want to admit it.
Competition BREEDS success and removing it is completely terrible.
Wait, only about 1% of the population could set foot on the first obstacle without being physically injured. Have you even seen the course?
Simply attempting that course is a bit akin to admitting to a national audience that you (and the producers) think you might actually be athletic enough to conquer this course. That's pretty remarkable to begin with (like top 1%).
To make it to the second or third obstacle is a 0.001% sort of thing and is very celebrated, even if they didn't "win".
For you to equate this to 3rd grade "coddling" in an attempt at some sort of weird nationalistic outburst is both inane and silly.
But, nice, try, you'll get it next time... if you dream big enough. :-P
What if nobody ever actually won? (as in this show)
Then it seems pretty clear that it's not a problem to praise everyone's effort.
But when someone actually does win, they are vaulted to "national hero" status. That's pretty cool.
Imagine, in "Kiddie sports", if the undefeated team was told they were heros and all the other kids weren't.
Here lies the difference. Holding up someone's effort (yet recognizing they didn't meet the goal) is valueable, provided there is the chance of meeting the goal and being much more highly praised. Treating everyone exactly the same "Everyone is a winner" is silly, but praising people who fall short of a nearly impossible goal isn't bad, especially when most people couldn't even take 3 steps on that course without hurting themselves, so we're not talking about "everyone" who steps onto the course.
Teaching kids that they CAN become president or an astronaut is fine AS LONG AS YOU ARE CLEAR that it requires the following:
1) Dedicate every waking moment to the absolutely relentless pursuit of the goal
2) If you screw up badly, possibly even once, you will likely never reach this goal
There is a huge difference between "Little Timmy, if you focus every ounce of your being toward this goal and work relentlessly, you do have the opportunity to achieve it." and the more common "Little Timmy, you're going to be an astronaut, all you need is to have super big dreams!"
When given a test (it doesn't matter what type), American teenagers score in the middle of the pack amongst other nations, yet they CONSISTENTLY rate their own performance far higher than they deserve and far higher than any other nation. They are also one of the few groups of kids who almost always rate their own performance far higher than it actually was.
The conclusion is that America has an excess of self-esteem and self-delusion and perhaps could use a little humility, culturally.
Due to E911 regulations, any triangulation data is ALREADY included with these calls.
I sincerely hope your laptop was encrypted...
This is absurdly low.
You commit 15 driving to work.
You commit another 10 each night on your computer.
Maybe 12,000,000 "old fashioned" crimes...
It's worth pointing out that the United States incarcerates NEARLY as many people as the entirety of rest of the world *combined*.
Demonstrating an incarceration rate that is 6 times higher than any other country commonly held up as an "authoritarian state" does not help when trying to defeat discussions about authoritarianism in the US.
Q: Hi!
A: Greetings! What would you like to talk about?
Q: I don't know, but I do like tests.
A: You should make up your mind, then. Could you tell me about your job, by the way?
Q: Lets focus on the Turing Test.
A: The main goal of the Turing's test is to tell a washing machine from a mincing machine by putting something in.
Q: Woah, have you studied Turing at University or something like that?
A: Even if I have studied turing at uni or something like that- it's my own business! I know you are supposed to trick me.
Q: Wait, what year are you in school?
A: It was 2012 since morning!
Q: How old are you?
A: I'm thirteen.
Q: Then what would you know about university?
A: Sincerely I know nothing. But I'd like to know more. Tell me something. Did I forget it or you really haven't told me about the place you are from?
I can't believe this fooled 29 percent of people. How dumb are they?
The other option is to have it so overreaching that it becomes impossible to do anything without infringing.
Then the courts will have no choice but to ignore it completely.
The problem with laws like this isn't that they get ignored, but that they get selectively used.
There are other similar laws and the result is that anyone (police, lawyer, judge, politician, busybody neighbour) gets to decide whether or not you are guilty.
I mean, since you are always guilty, it's just a matter of turning you in for prosecution. It's great for police who want to harass you, or a landlord or tenant who wants to screw you for asserting your rights, or a business competitor who would like you out of the way.
It basically brings a country slowly into a police state. I do not favour it in the way you seem to...
To be brief, I agree with this:
I ought to call myself an agnostic; but, for all practical purposes, I am an atheist. I do not think the existence of the Christian God any more probable than the existence of the Gods of Olympus or Valhalla. To take another illustration: nobody can prove that there is not between the Earth and Mars a china teapot revolving in an elliptical orbit, but nobody thinks this sufficiently likely to be taken into account in practice. I think the Christian God just as unlikely.
-Bertrand Russel
Wow, you really don't get it. I always figured that might be the crux of the problem.
You seem like you *have* to anthropomorphise evolution in order to understand it.
It is a collection of forces... saying "evolution creates intelligence" is a bit like saying "gravity creates diamonds".
Well... it's true in that it happened. But you can't simply look anywhere that gravity exists to find diamonds (maybe this is a bad example, but I'll give it a try). They merely happen to appear in some instances when the conditions are exactly right.
We can make them in a lab by arranging the conditions, but they also certainly happen in nature, though the odds of it happening at any given spot is extraordinarily slim. Still, one cannot say that "the goal of gravity is to make diamonds" That is just silly. Gravity has no goals. In fact, it is simply something that exists, and the result of it is what we observe, but beyond that, it's just interacting systems that result in complex arrangements like rocks, oceans, solar systems and diamonds.
How does Padmapper "feed Google's search engine"?
Or did you just make that up?
Craigslist does NOT have advertising. Have you ever seen any advertising? Where is it?
They make their money on Employment listings in major cities. That's what they charge for. It's the only thing they charge for.
The rest of the site is provided for free, because its "the right thing to do", apparently.
Wait, are you serious?
The volume of garage sales in major cities dropped substantially in recent years, according to a study I saw, most likely due to Craigslist (and to some extent, eBay).
Classified advertising in most major newspapers declined by 90% or more, almost exclusively due to Craigslist.
Most real estate listing services have gone to a free-to-view model because of (primarily) Craigslist. Most use car listing services have gone out of business or to a free-to-use model because of (presumably) Craigslist.
Who the hell doesn't use Craigslist?
Padmapper is the first site I've ever seen that makes apartment hunting on Craigslist actually useful!!!!
WTF?!?
I'm looking for a house in a specific neighbourhood and it's absolutely impossible to do via Craigslist directly!!! If Craig offered a map, I would at least understand why they might issue a C&D, but seriously...
Padmapper links directly into craigslist and displays the full-screen whenever you click on the listing. It's not like they're aggressively scraping content! It's just a searching service.
This is terrible, Craigslist!! Terrible!
Russel's teapot outlines this plenty.
I am also agnostic about Russel's Teapot.
If you're not familiar, here it is in the original context:
Many orthodox people speak as though it were the business of sceptics to disprove received dogmas rather than of dogmatists to prove them. This is, of course, a mistake. If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time.[1]
I ought to call myself an agnostic; but, for all practical purposes, I am an atheist. I do not think the existence of the Christian God any more probable than the existence of the Gods of Olympus or Valhalla. To take another illustration: nobody can prove that there is not between the Earth and Mars a china teapot revolving in an elliptical orbit, but nobody thinks this sufficiently likely to be taken into account in practice. I think the Christian God just as unlikely.
-Bertrand Russel
Did you read TFA? I didn't think so.
It clearly outlines the difference between people who believe "evolution without a higher power" an "evolution, but guided by a power".
But the point is that 47% of people believe in NEITHER. They believe the earth went "poof" 10,000-ish years ago. Let there be light, and there was.... etc
If all you need is one chances are you just need the word "Password".
FTFY
trying to guess if that was a capital P or lowercase p in "p455w0rD".
As an aside, most capable crackers test for "leet" (7334) substitutions very early in their permutation rules. The word "password" is at the top of every dictionary file and is always included in the "top 100" password lists that crackers frequently expose to more detailed permutations.
This password is almost as weak as using a somewhat obscure dictionary word like "flagellate" or "dismember". (those words may or may not have been carefully chosen)
"Had K8 gotten the success it deserved, "
it got all the success it deserved.
K8 sales would have doubled from the agreement they made with Dell, alone.
Intel strong-armed Dell into cancelling that contract AFTER it had already been signed.
They've since lost court battles and settled with AMD for a lot of money, but it almost doesn't matter at this point.
It might be worth pointing out that Core wasn't on the roadmap. It was a happy accident.
The design came from the Pentium-M, which was just a rehashed Pentium 3. The P4 "Netburst" was on the roadmap for a decade when it came out, followed by IA-64.
The Pentium M was intended to be a "mobile" chip to put into mid-range laptops where the P4 was too big and hot. The rather unknown Israel design team was put on it and produced a really remarkable product that scaled far better than they expected. As a result, after release, they were put to the task of improving it and re-working it to be a real desktop chip (the Core) and then, because it was still so tiny, the CoreDuo and later the Core2Duo.
Talking about flukes, anyway. Sometimes engineering stems from them. It's not because they did it wrong, it's just how it is.
As far as I know, they are still benefiting from some of the amazing hand-layouts that were done on the Pentium M and early Core chips. Nobody else would even consider doing a manual layout on a modern chip. They had a few people who did just that and it made all the difference.
If there is not a lawful competitor, it will be an illegal competitor.
That's how the market works, really.
A very small segment of people are *really* that worried about the legality of copyright enforcement, unless the penalties are sufficiently draconian and enforcement is sufficiently publicized so they hear about it on a weekly basis. They're trying hard (the media companies) to make that reality, but you can't simply legislate that people buy some stupid wire in order to do some unrelated task. It's inane and everyone realizes that, which makes the likelihood of this "enforcement' succeeding close to nil, in my opinion.