Plus, by issuing a GSM phone, Apple is open to pretty much the whole world on one phone platform. CDMA is pretty much US only and companies like Verizon, while supporting tech like Bluetooth, only support it in a crippled version that they can fee their customers to death with.
If the NFL titles suck, then support other titles that don't need NFL endorsement. Cyberball rocked in the day. No NFL needed. Support great games, don't support big name trademarks and monopolistic organizations.
I think you are confusing what scientists actually state and what the media/opponents *say* they stated. I doubt you would find many people, if any, in the evolution field that would state that evolution, as we know it today, is accurate and needs no further updating or study.
The point of contention is arguing that a philisophical position similar to ID is on the same factual and theoretical ground as evolution and is as deserving to be taught in the US public school system, diverting time and money away from a much more deep and broadly studied topic like evolution.
You are correct that all people can have reasonable beliefs, but don't claim that scientists get together and make some edict that states "We're right, you're wrong." They will state "support your position with facts before you take away my funding and LONG before I allow you to force my children to be taught your religion in a government funded education program." Which I think justifiably they should.
Just go back and read the/. thread from yesterday. There were plenty of people who fully understood what this mouse was about. There just were a larger number of people whose kneejerk reaction was completely unwarrented. "THE SKY IS FALLING, THE SKY IS FALLING" Get a grip. It's a mouse. It's not a bloody revolution. It's not the end days. It's a freakin' mouse. People read WAY too much into the descriptions that wasn't there. They wanted to believe crazy things and...TADA...they were wrong. It's not Apple's fault.
Speculating that the mouse, which has previously always moved up and down, does not now move up and down is like speculating that the touchpad on a laptop, that has always been a touchpad, will no longer be a touchpad, but will move up and down. I would not infer that any changes to the up/down motion of the mouse have been made unless is specified that, which it did not.
The article, and more specifically your quoted portion, only states that the mouse senses where the pressure is coming from. I would infer that it clicks like a normal mouse, but additionally senses which side of the mouse the click had come from. You obviously interpreted that differently. However, in your brilliantly worded and loquacious analysis of article that contained a stunning four letters, one could not discern that fact. One could only tell that someone who may have read the article should somehow read it again for some unstated purpose to find some unstated fact about some unstated topic. Kudos to you and your new reductionist conversation! If only we could all be so eloquent and concise. I shall stop using words to say things and mere use single acronyms that imply no meaning other than a cliche usage.
Let me be the first to say "Thank you." No only do I have no idea what you are trying to point out, but your bold, capital, multi-puncuated, character seperated, acronym made *everything* so much clearer.
My thoughts exactly. I need to buy a new laptop asap. My old Powerbook is dead as dead can be. I'm half tempted now to just buy a low-end Dell and slum it for a year or so until the new computers come out. Why would I invest in a new Powerbook today that will be the abandoned hardware in one year. I realize that the support won't completely dry up, but come on, $3000 for a new fully loaded Powerbook that won't run the newest versions of the OS in about a year. That worries me.
Keep in mind that when you receive $1 million for a service contract, you don't recognize $1 million in revenue. You space it out over the contract length (ex: 10 years) and show it as revenue in tiny portions (ex: $100,000 per year). So this is probably cash they received *long* ago that is still being recognized as earned revenue in the period that it is allocated. I doubt there is a whole lot of *new* money coming in.
How about this for a compromise? If any label would like to sell lossless in the store they can. Indy labels would probably be more interested since they could use it as an advantage for their artists. Additionally, once it's available, certain genres (classical?) might be more likely to take advantage. (classical probably less traded illegaly online, while benefiting greatly from lossless files) Charge a premium for the lossless format and let the market decide.
Hey, why don't they also reference that the Intelligent Designer as possibly the Christian, Hindu, or Bhuddist dieties, a tiny Green Martians, Vulcans, Goa'ulds, Gary The Mighty Sorcerer from the Days of Yore, Large Tenticled Aliens from Outerspace, and that all of these and many many more are equally valid designers under this theory, not matter how fictional the character is, there is absolutely no way to prove that they aren't the creator.
Ahem...nice theory guys, very useful.
Most entities do track your SS#, however they associate it with any name that has ever been used with that SS. Then they correlate that with any other SS's that are used with those names. The idea is to catch anyone flip flopping SS's or names fraudulently. Not that it would be reported to the wrong account, but they might argue it wasn't really you making contributions in the first place.
With all the new provisions that financial institutions have to undertake with the Patriot Act, I for one wouldn't want to mess around with multiple legal identities. Keep it simple: one name, one state drivers license number, one SS number.
True, Jr or Sr isn't necessary to send things to hell in a hand basket, but damned if it isn't a sure fire way to. Sharing addresses will do it too. Even small apartment buildings that list the same street address, but not apartment numbers will do it. Credit reports, while not all evil, definitely could use some more reform.
If you ever get to look at an actual of a commercial version of your credit report you'll find that any version or spelling of your name that ever was filed with ANY officail document will show up as reported under your SS#.
This is the #1 reason to never use a JR or SR in naming your children. You are dooming them to forever having their financial records mixed up with every person in your family. Good luck getting a loan if you son or dad has bad credit. You could be perfect and it won't matter.
Unfortunately, your SS is your major ID number and however much it shouldn't be a universal ID system, it's become that without any real oversight or security to it.
Ok, so I'll go with you as far as saying that an individual is granted his ownership by the society around them. However, the "we, the people, are the real owners" is just as off base. No one has any inherent ownership of anything. The society make decide that it has the authority to grant those rights and imprison anyone who disagrees with them, but there is no law of nature that grants those property rights. As for music rights being in the same breath as the right to breath...now you've really lost me.
Well, to use your own words "You are not seeing all of the data." If you can't see the data, you can't assume there is a bell curve. The data we were given does not suggest a bell curve, it could suggests a linear relationship, not bell shaped. Chide me for assuming based on their statements, but don't turn around and make your own assumptions and claim reality.
Second, it is not my job to disprove them, it is their job to prove their hypothesis. They did not prove their point, merely made a funny anecdotal observation that could easily be explained through other methods. Far from science.
I think just as a control, all the cats should be shaved to eliminate any fur drag coefficient. Additionally, the cat food should all be the same for the cats too. Either all dry or all wet food. Wet food is far denser and would cause wet food fed cats to plummet like a rock.
To start with, a study of 115 cats is far from quality data. But given the data, let's take a look a little closer.
First, there is no bell curve in this study. They reported "Three of the cats were dead upon arrival and 8 more died in the next twenty-four hours, leaving 104 living cats or about 90%". All we know is that 104 of the 115 cats survived. There is no data as to the amount of trauma they incurred, so dividing them into 6 groups is pointless.
Secondly, we don't know how many cats are falling from places in the first place. The data could be supported if 10000 cats are falling and 104 survived. Doesn't sound good to me.
Alternate theories abound and are not disproven either. If there was an intervening circumstances (trees, awnings, boxes, flags, etc), that would allow a small % to decrease speed some. Or maybe some cats are less prone to die. Maybe between 5-10% are very light weight cats. There is no data given to a margin of error, so 5-10% could be completely realistic when no population size is known.
If your cat fell from a 5 story building and had a 10% chance of living and you brought the barely living cat in, we now have a cat in the study, but the cat has a much better than 10% chance of living because the cat already wasn't splattered.
Keep doing that for higher and higher heights. A 5% chance of living and then bring the living cat in. The cat initially had a 1 in 20 chance, but now that it's at the clinic it's already lived, so the odds are a heck of a lot better than that. Everytime a cat survives from a higher and higher fall, the odds in the clinic keep getting better and better because the surviving cats are part of a smaller and smaller group of "cats that survive falls".
If terminal velocity is low enough that a small portion of cats survive, that would explain why there is a fairly steady number of living cats after the falls. However, my guess would be that the rate of survival is actually due to random interference (awnings, trees, cardboard containers, etc). It would seem in an urban environment that these items would have a fairly high chance of interupting a fall in comparison to a random cat falling 100 stories in the middle of a suburban environment. Although, don't ask me to find out why there are cats falling 100 stories in that part of town.
I call bullshit. This study has one HUGE flaw in it. I remember in college when this study was brought up in a statistics class. The flaw can be summed up in one clear thought.
"No one brings a clearly dead cat to the vet."
If the fall is high enough, the odds of living decrease and therefore no cats are brought to the vet unless they miraculously survived. The study self-selects for those cases. Ergo...bad stats. Grrr...the bane of my social sci existence.
Sure, I see the humor in wearing a tie with a ratty t-shirt. Ha, ha. Good laugh for all. I however don't see someone wearing a tie and a ratty t-shirt during the mortgage closing for the 100,000 sq. ft. office building being very successful. I don't see Presidents, Vice-Presidents, foreign dignitaries, the local manager of CompUSA, middle managers at IBM, or bank tellers wearing that. Hell, I don't see lackies at the local furniture store wearing that.
A tie is random. Sure, I agree. But guess what, it's the random that we have now. Deal with it.
It doesn't suggest any position or rank. If I put a person with a tie in front of you, could you tell us what job they have? No? I didn't think so. If you were to enter a law firm and line up all the people with ties, could you tell by their tie who was the boss and who ran the copy machine? Doubt it. Maybe if you knew good silk from bad and what the lately DKNY tie patterns were. In the end it's what we have to work with. Choose not to wear one, that's great. But understand there are consequences whether you like it or not.
Well, if you're thinking of wearing a tie with a ratty t-shirt, I think that speaks for itself. As for your other points, a tie is as useless as tattoos, piercings, colors and patterns, snaps, rivets, buttons, cuffs and almost anything else that adorns your clothing. One could argue we should all wear bleached canvas so that the we can all be equal. Then we wake up from our 1984 style dream and realize that people wear cloths in a context. A tie is the current way for men in a professional setting to exhibit some control over their appearance. If wristbands were the current way, I'd be all for wearing them too. I don't feel like men have enough ways express themselves through clothing.
However, having everyone wear ties is obviously a bad idea. There are safety issues to be concerned with (the point of the article...I would argue maybe doctors should bypass the tie) and there are practicality issues. If someone is sitting at a desk answering phone calls all day or coding, there is no point in be dressed to the nines. However, someone involved with the public should be concerned about their appearance. You should practice good personal hygeine, clean your cloths and wear cloths appropriate to the situation.
Ties don't adorn rank, they don't say "I'm important". Ties are merely a reflection of your attitude about your workplace. If a tie is appropriate and you chose not to wear one, I think that says a lot about your attitude. There a tons of different ties out there. Find one that reflects your personality and have fun with it. No one ever said a tie had to be black and lifeless. Hell, you can even get ties at ThinkGeek that decry the use of ties. There ya go, the best of both worlds.
While I agree with the idea that merit should be where we derive success from. The fact of the matter is that there are a lot of very qualified, highly skilled individuals out there competing for a much smaller pool of jobs and promotions. Doing quality work should be your first priority. But after that, anything you can do to get an edge on all the other people doing quality work is fair game.
I say wear a tie. It makes a nice personal statement and shows your coworkers some respect. No one likes to see ratty t-shirts and pit-stained polos.
Slashdot Mirror
Plus, by issuing a GSM phone, Apple is open to pretty much the whole world on one phone platform. CDMA is pretty much US only and companies like Verizon, while supporting tech like Bluetooth, only support it in a crippled version that they can fee their customers to death with.
If the NFL titles suck, then support other titles that don't need NFL endorsement. Cyberball rocked in the day. No NFL needed. Support great games, don't support big name trademarks and monopolistic organizations.
I think you are confusing what scientists actually state and what the media/opponents *say* they stated. I doubt you would find many people, if any, in the evolution field that would state that evolution, as we know it today, is accurate and needs no further updating or study.
The point of contention is arguing that a philisophical position similar to ID is on the same factual and theoretical ground as evolution and is as deserving to be taught in the US public school system, diverting time and money away from a much more deep and broadly studied topic like evolution.
You are correct that all people can have reasonable beliefs, but don't claim that scientists get together and make some edict that states "We're right, you're wrong." They will state "support your position with facts before you take away my funding and LONG before I allow you to force my children to be taught your religion in a government funded education program." Which I think justifiably they should.
Just go back and read the /. thread from yesterday. There were plenty of people who fully understood what this mouse was about. There just were a larger number of people whose kneejerk reaction was completely unwarrented. "THE SKY IS FALLING, THE SKY IS FALLING" Get a grip. It's a mouse. It's not a bloody revolution. It's not the end days. It's a freakin' mouse. People read WAY too much into the descriptions that wasn't there. They wanted to believe crazy things and...TADA...they were wrong. It's not Apple's fault.
Speculating that the mouse, which has previously always moved up and down, does not now move up and down is like speculating that the touchpad on a laptop, that has always been a touchpad, will no longer be a touchpad, but will move up and down. I would not infer that any changes to the up/down motion of the mouse have been made unless is specified that, which it did not.
The article, and more specifically your quoted portion, only states that the mouse senses where the pressure is coming from. I would infer that it clicks like a normal mouse, but additionally senses which side of the mouse the click had come from. You obviously interpreted that differently. However, in your brilliantly worded and loquacious analysis of article that contained a stunning four letters, one could not discern that fact. One could only tell that someone who may have read the article should somehow read it again for some unstated purpose to find some unstated fact about some unstated topic. Kudos to you and your new reductionist conversation! If only we could all be so eloquent and concise. I shall stop using words to say things and mere use single acronyms that imply no meaning other than a cliche usage.
Let me be the first to say "Thank you." No only do I have no idea what you are trying to point out, but your bold, capital, multi-puncuated, character seperated, acronym made *everything* so much clearer.
My thoughts exactly. I need to buy a new laptop asap. My old Powerbook is dead as dead can be. I'm half tempted now to just buy a low-end Dell and slum it for a year or so until the new computers come out. Why would I invest in a new Powerbook today that will be the abandoned hardware in one year. I realize that the support won't completely dry up, but come on, $3000 for a new fully loaded Powerbook that won't run the newest versions of the OS in about a year. That worries me.
Keep in mind that when you receive $1 million for a service contract, you don't recognize $1 million in revenue. You space it out over the contract length (ex: 10 years) and show it as revenue in tiny portions (ex: $100,000 per year). So this is probably cash they received *long* ago that is still being recognized as earned revenue in the period that it is allocated. I doubt there is a whole lot of *new* money coming in.
How about this for a compromise? If any label would like to sell lossless in the store they can. Indy labels would probably be more interested since they could use it as an advantage for their artists. Additionally, once it's available, certain genres (classical?) might be more likely to take advantage. (classical probably less traded illegaly online, while benefiting greatly from lossless files) Charge a premium for the lossless format and let the market decide.
Hey, why don't they also reference that the Intelligent Designer as possibly the Christian, Hindu, or Bhuddist dieties, a tiny Green Martians, Vulcans, Goa'ulds, Gary The Mighty Sorcerer from the Days of Yore, Large Tenticled Aliens from Outerspace, and that all of these and many many more are equally valid designers under this theory, not matter how fictional the character is, there is absolutely no way to prove that they aren't the creator. Ahem...nice theory guys, very useful.
It is near an Indiana town called Michigan City...but not in the state of Michigan. Check it out. Here it is.
Didn't anyone read the article...even the submitter? Hello!
With all the new provisions that financial institutions have to undertake with the Patriot Act, I for one wouldn't want to mess around with multiple legal identities. Keep it simple: one name, one state drivers license number, one SS number.
True, Jr or Sr isn't necessary to send things to hell in a hand basket, but damned if it isn't a sure fire way to. Sharing addresses will do it too. Even small apartment buildings that list the same street address, but not apartment numbers will do it. Credit reports, while not all evil, definitely could use some more reform.
This is the #1 reason to never use a JR or SR in naming your children. You are dooming them to forever having their financial records mixed up with every person in your family. Good luck getting a loan if you son or dad has bad credit. You could be perfect and it won't matter.
Unfortunately, your SS is your major ID number and however much it shouldn't be a universal ID system, it's become that without any real oversight or security to it.
Ok, so I'll go with you as far as saying that an individual is granted his ownership by the society around them. However, the "we, the people, are the real owners" is just as off base. No one has any inherent ownership of anything. The society make decide that it has the authority to grant those rights and imprison anyone who disagrees with them, but there is no law of nature that grants those property rights. As for music rights being in the same breath as the right to breath...now you've really lost me.
How about using clippers to trim the hair to a uniform length?
Second, it is not my job to disprove them, it is their job to prove their hypothesis. They did not prove their point, merely made a funny anecdotal observation that could easily be explained through other methods. Far from science.
I think just as a control, all the cats should be shaved to eliminate any fur drag coefficient. Additionally, the cat food should all be the same for the cats too. Either all dry or all wet food. Wet food is far denser and would cause wet food fed cats to plummet like a rock.
First, there is no bell curve in this study. They reported "Three of the cats were dead upon arrival and 8 more died in the next twenty-four hours, leaving 104 living cats or about 90%". All we know is that 104 of the 115 cats survived. There is no data as to the amount of trauma they incurred, so dividing them into 6 groups is pointless.
Secondly, we don't know how many cats are falling from places in the first place. The data could be supported if 10000 cats are falling and 104 survived. Doesn't sound good to me.
Alternate theories abound and are not disproven either. If there was an intervening circumstances (trees, awnings, boxes, flags, etc), that would allow a small % to decrease speed some. Or maybe some cats are less prone to die. Maybe between 5-10% are very light weight cats. There is no data given to a margin of error, so 5-10% could be completely realistic when no population size is known.
If your cat fell from a 5 story building and had a 10% chance of living and you brought the barely living cat in, we now have a cat in the study, but the cat has a much better than 10% chance of living because the cat already wasn't splattered.
Keep doing that for higher and higher heights. A 5% chance of living and then bring the living cat in. The cat initially had a 1 in 20 chance, but now that it's at the clinic it's already lived, so the odds are a heck of a lot better than that. Everytime a cat survives from a higher and higher fall, the odds in the clinic keep getting better and better because the surviving cats are part of a smaller and smaller group of "cats that survive falls".
If terminal velocity is low enough that a small portion of cats survive, that would explain why there is a fairly steady number of living cats after the falls. However, my guess would be that the rate of survival is actually due to random interference (awnings, trees, cardboard containers, etc). It would seem in an urban environment that these items would have a fairly high chance of interupting a fall in comparison to a random cat falling 100 stories in the middle of a suburban environment. Although, don't ask me to find out why there are cats falling 100 stories in that part of town.
Wrong! Dead cats don't get brought to vets to be added to the "survived cat" list.
"No one brings a clearly dead cat to the vet."
If the fall is high enough, the odds of living decrease and therefore no cats are brought to the vet unless they miraculously survived. The study self-selects for those cases. Ergo...bad stats. Grrr...the bane of my social sci existence.
A tie is random. Sure, I agree. But guess what, it's the random that we have now. Deal with it.
It doesn't suggest any position or rank. If I put a person with a tie in front of you, could you tell us what job they have? No? I didn't think so. If you were to enter a law firm and line up all the people with ties, could you tell by their tie who was the boss and who ran the copy machine? Doubt it. Maybe if you knew good silk from bad and what the lately DKNY tie patterns were. In the end it's what we have to work with. Choose not to wear one, that's great. But understand there are consequences whether you like it or not.
However, having everyone wear ties is obviously a bad idea. There are safety issues to be concerned with (the point of the article...I would argue maybe doctors should bypass the tie) and there are practicality issues. If someone is sitting at a desk answering phone calls all day or coding, there is no point in be dressed to the nines. However, someone involved with the public should be concerned about their appearance. You should practice good personal hygeine, clean your cloths and wear cloths appropriate to the situation.
Ties don't adorn rank, they don't say "I'm important". Ties are merely a reflection of your attitude about your workplace. If a tie is appropriate and you chose not to wear one, I think that says a lot about your attitude. There a tons of different ties out there. Find one that reflects your personality and have fun with it. No one ever said a tie had to be black and lifeless. Hell, you can even get ties at ThinkGeek that decry the use of ties. There ya go, the best of both worlds.
I say wear a tie. It makes a nice personal statement and shows your coworkers some respect. No one likes to see ratty t-shirts and pit-stained polos.