Judging from the audience for the highly personalized "news" network named Fox News, I'd say yes. Fox News tells a specific group of people exactly what they want to hear, not what needs to be known. It surprises me that they are still allowed to use the word "News" in their name.
Fox News do not use the word "News" to describe O'Reilly, Hannity, Cavuto, or anybody else you have heard of. For the most part, their news offering consists of a segment during Britt Hume's show, and the nameless, interchangeable blond women who deliver five minute news briefs at the top of the hour.
Don't forget sheeple! If you're going to make a condescending statement pronouncing your superiority to consumers of a more popular product, you are now required to use the phrase "sheeple", and grow a goatee, by mandate of the "think for yourself, broseph! Act of 2007"
QuoteMstr had made some good points, but I would also want to mention that academic papers should try to avoid expression of emotion (unless the paper is specifically meant to be autobiographical). I'm not saying the people should have no passion for what they do, but a significant percent of the time, academic papers should let the details speak for themselves. Part of the reason for this is because your opinion is subjective, but details are not.
Actually, it was better. Consumers put up a big fuss and Comcast changed their policy. Do you think they're likely to respond that well to their customers' rage once they have governmental backing for their anti-consumer policies?
Hold on.....right now, they can get away with whatever the hell they want, and they folded under bad publicity. So, when this proposal is released, it will say that they can do whatever the hell they want. And you think they will respond to customers by saying "we know you're pissed, but the government said we can't be fined over it"?
I know Comcast has bad customer service, but they aren't _that_ bad.
But don't join the Democratic party thinking you're going to score. Those Dem babes only date Republican jerks.
It's a Democrat thing, and if you aren't in the party you wouldn't understand. We just can't resist a guy who will cynically screw with us then break our hearts.
Yeah...That's the sad thing about being a white liberal man. You're only attractive to other white liberal men.
What, do something fun and intellectually stimulating AND make money? What madness is this? Everyone knows you have to be bored and trolling youtube for 8 hours a day in an office setting to make a decent salary!
Every parent instills values in their children. Those values may be twisted, at times, but a child learns by modeling authority figures. So are you suggesting that it be illegal for a parent to make his or her child go to church? school? What about to the cable company to pay a bill? Or to go shopping for news clothes? Where do you draw the line?
And then there is the question about whether the child is capable of making a decision. If a five year old says "I don't want to be enrolled in school", would you really let him choose to be ignorant at age five? What if a toddler refuses a vaccination that could save his or her life, on the grounds that "it would hurt"?
Would it be considered unethical to refuse to buy him or her toys until he agrees to do something that is best for him or her?
And, would you be comfortable with the big brother society we would have to live in, to enact such a policy? Indoctrination happens at church for a few hours per week, but it happens at home nearly 24/7.
Many of us hate software patents. (myself included). They limit what we can do, so we have to find innovative ways to avoid them.
That they are only a problem when abused. If company X develops some new way of sorting data that allows them to produce a better database, then they deserve an opportunity to profit from their work, just as an inventor deserves a chance to profit from an invention. The fact that company X's invention is not embedded within a specific piece of hardware doesn't change the fact that they have contributed something.
(And, unlike copyrights, software patents have a chance of dying before the product being patented becomes obsolete).
Besides litigation, how do software patents benefit their holders?
Besides paying for your hospital bills, how does health insurance benefit you? Litigation, or the threat of litigation, is the main benefit for patent holders. If somebody steals your idea, you have a legal recourse against them. That's the only good thing that comes from patent law, but it is sufficient.
In Clue only one person is a murderer, perhaps not even a played character, and your job is to find the killer and report it to the police.
Sounds like a winner.
I don't remember reporting the killer to the police. When I played it, the game was over once the killer's identity got exposed. How do you know the next step isn't "prison justice"?
Maybe he means that, if you make good pizza, then you need a good driver to deliver it. If you make bad pizza, then you'd better be a good driver. If you make bad pizza and you can't drive, then you need to own a pizzeria, preferably, a Dominoes, where you can be bad at both and still make money.
I could draw you a chi-square, if you'd like, but slashdot doesn't support tables.
On the other hand, Company A hires developers to improve software that others have made freely available. They get exactly the changes they want. Company A's competitors also get those changes, but the reverse is true: Company A gets Company C's improvements. Both companies find this agreeable because neither can gain an advantage through the software, and both have reduced the cost of developing it. Company A has cut out the middlemen, avoiding the cost of sales and profits extracted by Company B.
It seems like there would also be a company D, who benefits from companies A and C, but who does not contribute back. (I mention this, because it is a drawback. It happens.)
But company C gets free assistance in testing and development of their in-house product, they can also leverage their status as the experts in product X to get support contracts and consultation fees.
These numbers are misleading. AT&T doesn't need to spend as much money to be as productive in infrastructure expansion as its CDMA competitors because their engineers can talk and surf at the same time.
Heh...As an honest question, who gives a rat's ass if you can talk and surf at the same time? How would you find time to steer?
> Enforcing a license violation is a lot cheaper than sticking someone in county jail for a couple of months.
Ah, and there is the problem. A lot of for-profit jails and prisons will lobby legalization out of existence. Pharmaceuticals selling prescription meds will add their army of lobbyists to the cause.
And any politician who supports it will be demonized as the man who voted to turn your children into drug addicts. (How sad, for that to be the least cynical reason it hasn't been legalized)
Am I the only one who thinks all these motion controllers are a passing fad that we will one day look back on and laugh about?
No. You'll be happy to know you're one of a million-strong army of internet nerds that 'predicts' that anything popular will not be in the unspecified future. Your breed is not rare, although noone is quite sure how they continue to thrive from generation to generation.
So are you suggesting that one day we will look back on them and laugh?
They should probably leave well enough alone at this point.
I personally don't want to go see *another* Spider Man movie, reboot or sequel, for a while. By while I mean years.
I agree. The real advantage to a reboot is that they can benefit from hindsight. They can look back at what worked and what didn't, update it for today's generation, and give it a new look and feel that either wasn't possible before, or that the director chose to ignore.
The only way this film can benefit right now, is if they feel that the current franchise has gone too far in the wrong direction. (See the discussion about making it grittier in other comments). This move will not "unjump" any sharks, and it will not replenish the pool of good ideas that was depleted by the last three films.
Society changes. Now, I am not going to argue about whether ADHD is overdiagnosed, or underdiagnosed, but the fact that someone had a learning disorder at a time when the US was primarily an agrarian society, and he become a war hero, is not a good indicator of whether someone with the same trait will be at a disadvantage when trying to find a job in 2025.
Slashdot Mirror
Judging from the audience for the highly personalized "news" network named Fox News, I'd say yes. Fox News tells a specific group of people exactly what they want to hear, not what needs to be known. It surprises me that they are still allowed to use the word "News" in their name.
Fox News do not use the word "News" to describe O'Reilly, Hannity, Cavuto, or anybody else you have heard of. For the most part, their news offering consists of a segment during Britt Hume's show, and the nameless, interchangeable blond women who deliver five minute news briefs at the top of the hour.
perfect little drones to the government
Don't forget sheeple! If you're going to make a condescending statement pronouncing your superiority to consumers of a more popular product, you are now required to use the phrase "sheeple", and grow a goatee, by mandate of the "think for yourself, broseph! Act of 2007"
QuoteMstr had made some good points, but I would also want to mention that academic papers should try to avoid expression of emotion (unless the paper is specifically meant to be autobiographical). I'm not saying the people should have no passion for what they do, but a significant percent of the time, academic papers should let the details speak for themselves. Part of the reason for this is because your opinion is subjective, but details are not.
Actually, it was better. Consumers put up a big fuss and Comcast changed their policy. Do you think they're likely to respond that well to their customers' rage once they have governmental backing for their anti-consumer policies?
Hold on.....right now, they can get away with whatever the hell they want, and they folded under bad publicity. So, when this proposal is released, it will say that they can do whatever the hell they want. And you think they will respond to customers by saying "we know you're pissed, but the government said we can't be fined over it"?
I know Comcast has bad customer service, but they aren't _that_ bad.
Yes. I have for four years, now, and, for the record, I am one of those white liberal men.
But don't join the Democratic party thinking you're going to score. Those Dem babes only date Republican jerks.
It's a Democrat thing, and if you aren't in the party you wouldn't understand. We just can't resist a guy who will cynically screw with us then break our hearts.
Yeah...That's the sad thing about being a white liberal man. You're only attractive to other white liberal men.
"Large breasted college age chick. Democrat."
So small breasted college aged chicks are republicans? That explains why they're so angry...
What, do something fun and intellectually stimulating AND make money? What madness is this? Everyone knows you have to be bored and trolling youtube for 8 hours a day in an office setting to make a decent salary!
I thought I was the only one who did that...
In some ways you can think of a person's brain as a computer.
When can we expect Scientology types to go to jail for fucking with peoples' heads?
I was going to point out that Scientologists invite the COS in, until I thought about trojans, and realized that you might have a good analogy.
Every parent instills values in their children. Those values may be twisted, at times, but a child learns by modeling authority figures. So are you suggesting that it be illegal for a parent to make his or her child go to church? school? What about to the cable company to pay a bill? Or to go shopping for news clothes? Where do you draw the line?
And then there is the question about whether the child is capable of making a decision. If a five year old says "I don't want to be enrolled in school", would you really let him choose to be ignorant at age five? What if a toddler refuses a vaccination that could save his or her life, on the grounds that "it would hurt"?
Would it be considered unethical to refuse to buy him or her toys until he agrees to do something that is best for him or her?
And, would you be comfortable with the big brother society we would have to live in, to enact such a policy? Indoctrination happens at church for a few hours per week, but it happens at home nearly 24/7.
Software patents stifle innovation.
Yet they are still around.
Many of us hate software patents. (myself included).
They limit what we can do, so we have to find innovative ways to avoid them.
That they are only a problem when abused. If company X develops some new way of sorting data that allows them to produce a better database, then they deserve an opportunity to profit from their work, just as an inventor deserves a chance to profit from an invention. The fact that company X's invention is not embedded within a specific piece of hardware doesn't change the fact that they have contributed something.
(And, unlike copyrights, software patents have a chance of dying before the product being patented becomes obsolete).
Besides litigation, how do software patents benefit their holders?
Besides paying for your hospital bills, how does health insurance benefit you? Litigation, or the threat of litigation, is the main benefit for patent holders. If somebody steals your idea, you have a legal recourse against them. That's the only good thing that comes from patent law, but it is sufficient.
In Clue only one person is a murderer, perhaps not even a played character, and your job is to find the killer and report it to the police.
Sounds like a winner.
I don't remember reporting the killer to the police. When I played it, the game was over once the killer's identity got exposed. How do you know the next step isn't "prison justice"?
What if they played any other sort of RPG?
Or is the law so nutty that they'll ban boardgames like Clue because it features a murder? Or Colditz, because it features escaping from a prison?
How about "simon says"? Tennis?
writes Laird, 'we're expected to pay for our own tools,
I don't think it's actually common for hired programmers to buy their own tools.
Nah...Most of them use torrents.
Maybe he means that, if you make good pizza, then you need a good driver to deliver it. If you make bad pizza, then you'd better be a good driver. If you make bad pizza and you can't drive, then you need to own a pizzeria, preferably, a Dominoes, where you can be bad at both and still make money.
I could draw you a chi-square, if you'd like, but slashdot doesn't support tables.
On the other hand, Company A hires developers to improve software that others have made freely available. They get exactly the changes they want. Company A's competitors also get those changes, but the reverse is true: Company A gets Company C's improvements. Both companies find this agreeable because neither can gain an advantage through the software, and both have reduced the cost of developing it. Company A has cut out the middlemen, avoiding the cost of sales and profits extracted by Company B.
It seems like there would also be a company D, who benefits from companies A and C, but who does not contribute back. (I mention this, because it is a drawback. It happens.)
But company C gets free assistance in testing and development of their in-house product, they can also leverage their status as the experts in product X to get support contracts and consultation fees.
These numbers are misleading. AT&T doesn't need to spend as much money to be as productive in infrastructure expansion as its CDMA competitors because their engineers can talk and surf at the same time.
Heh...As an honest question, who gives a rat's ass if you can talk and surf at the same time? How would you find time to steer?
The Devil was freeing slaves in the 18th century while God's followers were building a society upon the institution?
So how do you tell the difference between the two?
So does having a degree makes the laureates make them more or less credible then the crazy bum on the corner?
I don't think I've ever seen a bum on a street corner yelling "The end is less near than it was six months ago"
> Enforcing a license violation is a lot cheaper than sticking someone in county jail for a couple of months.
Ah, and there is the problem. A lot of for-profit jails and prisons will lobby legalization out of existence. Pharmaceuticals selling prescription meds will add their army of lobbyists to the cause.
And any politician who supports it will be demonized as the man who voted to turn your children into drug addicts. (How sad, for that to be the least cynical reason it hasn't been legalized)
What is the harm in collection of analytic data? Assuming that the only thing they record is
somebody from the zip code xxxxx copied and pasted 'yyyyyy'. He was using firefox and had flash installed on his system
, then what is the harm? (As for any further accusations, I would ask for evidence)
Am I the only one who thinks all these motion controllers are a passing fad that we will one day
look back on and laugh about?
No. You'll be happy to know you're one of a million-strong army of internet nerds that 'predicts' that anything popular will not be in the unspecified future. Your breed is not rare, although noone is quite sure how they continue to thrive from generation to generation.
So are you suggesting that one day we will look back on them and laugh?
They should probably leave well enough alone at this point.
I personally don't want to go see *another* Spider Man movie, reboot or sequel, for a while. By while I mean years.
I agree. The real advantage to a reboot is that they can benefit from hindsight. They can look back at what worked and what didn't, update it for today's generation, and give it a new look and feel that either wasn't possible before, or that the director chose to ignore.
The only way this film can benefit right now, is if they feel that the current franchise has gone too far in the wrong direction. (See the discussion about making it grittier in other comments). This move will not "unjump" any sharks, and it will not replenish the pool of good ideas that was depleted by the last three films.
Mel Gibson?
So Peter Parker's parents were killed by the Jews?
Society changes. Now, I am not going to argue about whether ADHD is overdiagnosed, or underdiagnosed, but the fact that someone had a learning disorder at a time when the US was primarily an agrarian society, and he become a war hero, is not a good indicator of whether someone with the same trait will be at a disadvantage when trying to find a job in 2025.