I don't understand how this could be true. Seems like it would be heavier, more sensitive to water/rain/mist/fog, harder to see in bright sunlight, etc etc...
The video says something about it not using a back-lit LCD display, but rather something called 'Electronic Paper' which can be read even in the brightest of sunlight. Personally I think the whole active electron (ie monitors) vs passive reflection (ie light bouncing off paper and hitting your eye) is much more of an issue than they lead me to believe, but I'd still like to try it out. Whatever the hell 'electronic paper' is, if they actually manage to pull off being able to read the screen in bright sunlight, it'll be a selling point for not only this device, but many more electronic devices in the future.
If you can meet all of those criteria, I'd support that claim 100%.
Thank you for your support!
Bet it's lonely on that side of the street. I only wish that certain things allowed me to join you, but unfortunately the wife must have her credit cards!
The mere fact that you own an email address, means that you expect people to email you. The mere fact that you own a cell-phone means that you expect people to SMS you.
See a trend here?
It doesn't matter what communication medium you own, it's all about prior permission. Anything else is $medium spam.
I couldn't resist to respond to this one. The mere fact that I own an email address does mean that I expect people to email me. I get hundreds, sometimes thousands of emails per day that I do not want. Luckily I use a system that has an excellent spam filter. It is well within their right to email me, because as long as my spam filter works, I see no need in trying to get them to stop emailing me.
I own a cell phone, but that's a different story, because when someone SMS's me, I get charged for it, and that is not just a harmless thing. I have never received an unwanted SMS, granted I don't advertise my number, but again that is not even the same story. Companies who do that will find themselves in a lawsuit pretty quickly, and I have read about a few already.
Show me a document by the FCC that says someone must have your prior permission before contacting you in any electronic medium. I'm no expert, but I'm pretty sure that the current laws say that anyone can contact you, but you have the right to demand to be taken off their list so they don't call you again, and the law says they have to comply. That's not prior permission, that's something else entirely.
The mere fact that you own a phone and have a number means that you expect people to call you.
No it doesn't. There are many legitimate reasons for having a phone without wanting to receive calls, such as emergency support for sick or old people, dialup data lines, or simply the fact that you have to have one to get DSL in some places. Maybe those aren't all that common, but it's not my responsibility to prove to them that I want to receive calls.
Then have a private, unlisted number, and be on every do-not call registry, and never sign up for anything that gives the company the right to have their affliates call you for any reason. If you can meet all of those criteria, I'd support that claim 100%.
Probably explains your pro-telejunking stance on "the mere fact" of owning a telephone number makes one fair game. Does "merely" having a phone next to my hospital bed mean that I'm expecting a call from one of the telemarketing droids you maintain the DB's for, silent call or not?
I'll have to re-read my comment from yesterday, but I'm pretty sure I never said that owning a phone makes one fair-game, I said that you should expect to receive calls. I also mentioned (or should have) that the telemarketers sometimes employ borderline (if not completely) illegal methods to gain your information to call you in the first place. I also have a serious problem with the "keeptalkingdontpausetogivethemachancetosayno" pitch, but whaddyagonnado?
My original post was just stating facts about what I know about my little ex-world of telemarketing. What made my situation different was that I worked for a University that only called recent graduates and alumni, and they were mostly prepared for such calls, and we highly respected them telling us no, and to remove them from the list, etc etc. On mere principle alone, I'd never work for an industry "for profit" (yes my center was labelled non-profit) telemarketing firm.
In other words, I have no pro-telejunking stance, I've never had a pro-telejunking stance, and I never will have a pro-telejunking stance.
In the end, it all comes down to a decision that the company doing the calling/research has to make: Do I maximize the call throughput (and potentially piss more people off with nuisance calls), or do I treat people better and call them individually.
YOU MAKE THE CALL! (I've always wanted to say that!)
I usually just hang up if there's no answer. But sometimes, I'll play their game. They invade my privacy, I figure I'm within my rights to ask a few questions:
I'm all for wasting telemarketer's time, and I agree that you have every right to know as much about them as they know about you, but you can't say that they are invading your privacy by calling you. The mere fact that you own a phone and have a number means that you expect people to call you. Granted their reasons or methods by which they gained your number may be questionable, but if you want to complain about them, do it correctly. Invading your privacy would be them knocking your door down after you closed it in their face.
By the way, I'm assuming that you have caller-ID (who doesn't?), why do you answer the phone if you don't know the number on the display? Wasting their time is fun, but it's your time too. Just a thought.
I used to work for a call center (as the DBA who handled all of the data) and you are pretty much correct about how it works. We had 40-60 callers working per any given shift, and our dialers were capable of dialing out about 120 numbers at once. There was a percentage (known/calculated statistic for this call center) of no-answer and busy signals, so they tried to tune it to be as efficient as possible. What would happen would be the 60 callers would be at their stations, and the call center computer would dial out 120 numbers. The first one that connects gets sent to the first caller (their phone rings, they pick it up and their screen is updated with that person's information), and so forth. Once all of the callers were engaged, or if too many of the people being called answered their phones at once, they were immediately disconnected. They called these 'nuisance calls' and the number of them was kept track of every night. They had a goal to stay under, and they usually made it. (I don't recall what the goal was, but it was greater than 0)
There are also two different types of dialing, one is usually called 'autodialing', where the caller is sitting there, looking at the information of the person they are about to call. They initiate the call, and are met with a standard result: Answer, no answer, busy, line dead, etc. This causes no nuisance calls, because the caller is only calling that one person.
The other kind of dialer is a predictive dialer, which dials ahead, and can cause the nuisance calls mentioned above. This is the most efficient method from a call-center point of view, because they can get through many more numbers. Lines that are no-answers, and busy never make it to the callers, so their time is spent with live calls.
Revolution is a nasty and bloody business that only needs to be used as a last resort. Simply vote out the old parties and vote in new parties. If that doesn't happen people are so lazy tata even a revolution won't help.
I'm not advocating a revolution, but "simply voting out the old parties" is a lot more difficult than it seems. There are WAY TOO MANY un(der)-educated, poor, uninformed, "brainwashed" people out there who vote along party lines (ie all those red states that they don't even wait for results to fill in during the election) to ever 'simply vote out' anything.
In my opinion, there are two enemies to political progress. Religion and ignorance. Sometimes these go hand-in-hand, sometimes they don't. Until we rid the political process of those two elements, at least from a majority, this will continue.
In the last presidential election, both myself and my wife (who has NEVER voted before, that's how strongly she felt about not letting Bush win) stayed in line for several hours to get to vote. While in line, we overheard the guy behind us, in a very "hillbilly" accent say "I dun care who gets ta be president, I jus' dun want dem gays ta be able ta get married." It was then I truly saw the fault in the current system of government and election process. It was the epitome of uneducated, ignorant bias that will condemn this country for years to come.
It very much made me want to follow a friend of mine to live in Canada.
That's what the loser of a debate always says (or tries to), that its a stalemate. Once Sony sees that HD-DVD has taken off, and that Blu-Ray is being left behind, they're trying to salvage what little part of the market they have by trying to make people think that they're on equal ground, when in fact they're on the losing end.
Anyone (or any company) that thinks they'd still have a fighting chance (even if they were on equal ground) they'd never call it a stalemate, they'd keep fighting and marketing.
A report has been released recently showing that female breast implants are causing men to live longer lives. Studies have shown that since the year 1800, both of the number of breast implants and the average life span of men has increased dramatically. Since the two happened at the same time, one MUST be linked to the other!
The statement "75 out of every 100 women" does not imply that, say, there are 4 billion women in the world and three billion were counted.
Actually it does. Watch Family Feud. They don't say that 37% of people gorge themselves on turkey on Thanksgiving. They say "Out of 100 people surveyed... 37% gorge themselves..."
Per cent, as was mentioned, is per 100. If you want to make an assumption that "per 100" has ANYTHING to do with sample size, that's just ignorant. Assuming that a statement contains a generalized sample is also an assumption. If I say '57% of women have long hair', what can you possibly infer to be a generalized sample? How can you possibly know what the author's actual sample size is? Assuming that any statistic is a generalized sample without it beign explicitly defined is just that, an assumption.
Now, this argument alone will win this debate, I'm sure of it:
Chewbacca is a Wookie from the planet Kashyyyk, but he lives on Endor. Now that does not make sense. Why would a 6 foot tall wookie live on a planet with a bunch of 3 foot tall Ewoks. If Chewbacca lives on Endor, you must acquit!
This Is Just To Say: '75% of women' literally means 75 out of 100 women. Which is itself a sample. It is intrinsic to his statement that what he is talking about is a sample that is meant (or supposed) to be representative.
Sorry, wrong again. While it literally means 75 out of 100 women, the standard accepted notion (and I bet this has been true for multiple decades) that it really means '75 out of every 100 women'. If you are referring to a sample size of 100, 75 percent of women would be 75, each woman accounting for 1% of your sample size. Now I guess if that's true then he must only KNOW exactly 100 women. I'd bet that is not true, so please continue with the argument. It's still entertaining.
You can't expect someone to assume a sample size based on a simple percentage, that is just ridiculous and no mathematician or scientist would ever do it. Just because someone says something like "17% of adult Americans can't read", do you think that there are only 100 Americans and 17 of them can't read? Apparently your statement above leads to the answer "yes".
I wasn't going to reply to this really useless thread (original was meant more of a joke than a mockery, but whatever), but I did feel the need to point out your mistake as well. He clearly wrote '75% of women'. If he had said '75% of women I met' it would have been a clearly legitimate statistic. You assume that he "meant" the women he met, yet I have to say, you just don't know, do you? "100% of women" is ALL women. "100% of women I have met" is a different story. If you're going to criticize, at least have a general idea of what a described sample size is.
"Obviously, 75% is an extrapolation from whatever sample he has." -- Show me proof of that, and you'll win the argument. You can base your argument off fact, or you can base your argument off assumptions. I did the former, you did the latter.
If clarifying/attacking/etc such little details are of that much importance to you, happy hunting with your grammar/stat/spelling nazi friends. I've gotten today's chuckle out of your ignorance, so I can continue with my productive day. I think this horse is sufficiently dead, and its just about time to go home, so flame away, I probably won't read the rest of it anyway.:-)
That's why I see no place for women in business. They aren't the most rational beings either...
Yes, I'll probably get "modded down" as a sexist troll, but this is the truth, plain and simple. There are always exceptions to the rule, but I'd say 75% of women act irrationally 99% of the time.
You, sir, are an inspiration to all guys. Having met three-quarters of the women on the planet, and having gotten to know them so well that you know they are almost always irrational, that gives hope to the common man.
Just remember though, 47.5% of all statistics are made up on the spot.
It is because they picked that key before F5 meant refresh for everybody else, and they don't want to change it and confuse all the experienced Notes users just because some newfangled (read: after 1990 or so) products do it differently.
You'll probably feel equally angry when you try out Notes 8 and realize that CTRL+tab doesn't take you between tabs because they decided to update themselves to use the same shortcut keys Eclipse uses for that operation, but you can't be angry at BOTH decisions and maintain internal rational consistency.
There is an unbelievably simple fix for this situation (if they would just develop it). File/Preferences/"Use Classic Lotus Notes keybindings | Use Eclipse/New/Whatever keybindings"
Several other programs do it, some even go as far as to change the layout of the UI (re: Dreamweaver) depending on what style you are used to. Changing the key bindings to be par with the current times is one thing, but give people an option to select which key binding set the want. Or.. *GASP* you could *can't believe I'm going to say this out loud* LET THEM BIND THEIR OWN KEYS!! What a novel idea.
Only at Slashdot would this be considered a problem. Obviously, Microsoft does not consider unactivated software "legit" for the purposes of downloading add-ons. To me, this makes sense within the product activation concepts. Why would a company want to provide additional functionality to products that had not been activated? Within their scheme of DRM, products that have not been activated are probably not legit.
RTFA. He said it was Visio that was not net activated, but that prevented him from downloading OFFICE add-ons, which WAS fully activated. Yes they're both from the same company, but one not-yet-activated program shouldn't cause everything on the system to get hosed. Oh, wait, that's right, Microsoft was ordered to separate their browser from their OS, they got out of it, but the point still remains. They don't care how they cripple you from doing what you want, as long as they can cripple you.
Yes, it does. In order for any court in the United States to conduct judicial review, at least one person must be harmed by it and have legal standing to present a case in the court. More on Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_review_in_the_United_States
The problem with that, obviously, is that you have to WAIT for someone to be harmed by it to be able to take action. I don't wait until my daughter is hit by a car to tell her that she shouldn't be playing in the street, because then well, of course it would be too late. Personally, and of course this idea is open to high scrutiny especially given the fact I haven't thought TOO much about it, I think that anyone should be able to present a case before the U.S. Supreme Court with why they think X law is unconstitutional. Maybe it will take years to get into court, maybe there are 100,000 other people who feel the same way, but if the first person to present the case makes a good case, with good reasoning, then the court should be able to decide if they agree with that person or not. If something is blatantly disregarding a Consitutional amendment, then I would think that it shouldn't take too much convincing to get the court to find it unconstitutional and throw it out.
They didn't really talk much about the underhanded tricks of Congress in my high school government class.
Either you went to school a long time ago, or you went to a really bad school. A pretty hefty portion of my (public highschool) government class was spent studying (common, legal) congressional tricks.
Yes, and yes. That was... let me think... about 15 years ago, and I did go to a crappy school. You know one of those inner-city schools that were just trying to get the students to pass the proficiency test without actually "teaching" them anything. Sad but true.
It would be unpatriotic to vote down the patriot act. Seriously, it would have been a lot easier to defeat had it been named the communist act.
I was asking myself the same question (parent of this parent as well), why did it take several years for something that was so much of a blatant violation of the Bill of Rights be removed? Does it actually take a challenge (ie lawsuit) for a court to overturn anti-constitutional laws?
You can go back even farther, how in the world did Congress ever allow this bill to become law anyway? Oh, did it ride on the coattails of another bill that was a sure-in to be signed? Now THAT is something that I think needs to change. If something is important enough to go before Congress, it should warrant its OWN vote, and not be able to be attached to something else, especially if the bill it's being attached to has nothing to do with the attached bill.
Of course, lets see Congress pass a law outlawing that. Where are the checks and balances here? They didn't really talk much about the underhanded tricks of Congress in my high school government class.
If he can't test this stuff without scraping real live user data, do you really think you should be trusting his code?
This guy is arrogant and his attitudes are potentially dangerous. If he was a truly good developer, this would not be an issue whatsoever.
Sheesh, and trying to justify this behavior based on what MS does for an entire OS...a) this is not an OS and b) it's a bad MS practice which certainly does not make it right for others to do.
It'd be one thing if it was opt in, but this is just pathetic.
I agree completely. Even though I'm not using v2.3, (I have 2.01 or the like), I will be removing WordPress completely from my site and doing it all myself. I already have the PHP/PostgreSQL setup installed, and I have a history of web development, so it shouldn't be too bad. Just as it was said above, its not the fact that it phones home, but how, and the fact that it cannot be disabled.
The founding fathers also probably did not think that there would be hundreds of thousands of illegal aliens in this country either, so they probably assumed (yes this is a guess) that this would usually only apply to US Citizens in the first place.
This has been done before, although for different reasons. It was called 'Tiny Elvis', and he stayed towards the bottom of your screen, occasionally saying things like 'Whoa, check out that icon. That sucker's huge!' They just put a cop uniform on it and took away the catchy phrases...
Slashdot Mirror
I don't understand how this could be true. Seems like it would be heavier, more sensitive to water/rain/mist/fog, harder to see in bright sunlight, etc etc...
The video says something about it not using a back-lit LCD display, but rather something called 'Electronic Paper' which can be read even in the brightest of sunlight. Personally I think the whole active electron (ie monitors) vs passive reflection (ie light bouncing off paper and hitting your eye) is much more of an issue than they lead me to believe, but I'd still like to try it out. Whatever the hell 'electronic paper' is, if they actually manage to pull off being able to read the screen in bright sunlight, it'll be a selling point for not only this device, but many more electronic devices in the future.
If you can meet all of those criteria, I'd support that claim 100%.
Thank you for your support!
Bet it's lonely on that side of the street. I only wish that certain things allowed me to join you, but unfortunately the wife must have her credit cards!
The mere fact that you own an email address, means that you expect people to email you. The mere fact that you own a cell-phone means that you expect people to SMS you.
See a trend here?
It doesn't matter what communication medium you own, it's all about prior permission. Anything else is $medium spam.
I couldn't resist to respond to this one. The mere fact that I own an email address does mean that I expect people to email me. I get hundreds, sometimes thousands of emails per day that I do not want. Luckily I use a system that has an excellent spam filter. It is well within their right to email me, because as long as my spam filter works, I see no need in trying to get them to stop emailing me.
I own a cell phone, but that's a different story, because when someone SMS's me, I get charged for it, and that is not just a harmless thing. I have never received an unwanted SMS, granted I don't advertise my number, but again that is not even the same story. Companies who do that will find themselves in a lawsuit pretty quickly, and I have read about a few already.
Show me a document by the FCC that says someone must have your prior permission before contacting you in any electronic medium. I'm no expert, but I'm pretty sure that the current laws say that anyone can contact you, but you have the right to demand to be taken off their list so they don't call you again, and the law says they have to comply. That's not prior permission, that's something else entirely.
The mere fact that you own a phone and have a number means that you expect people to call you.
No it doesn't. There are many legitimate reasons for having a phone without wanting to receive calls, such as emergency support for sick or old people, dialup data lines, or simply the fact that you have to have one to get DSL in some places. Maybe those aren't all that common, but it's not my responsibility to prove to them that I want to receive calls.
Then have a private, unlisted number, and be on every do-not call registry, and never sign up for anything that gives the company the right to have their affliates call you for any reason. If you can meet all of those criteria, I'd support that claim 100%.
Probably explains your pro-telejunking stance on "the mere fact" of owning a telephone number makes one fair game. Does "merely" having a phone next to my hospital bed mean that I'm expecting a call from one of the telemarketing droids you maintain the DB's for, silent call or not?
I'll have to re-read my comment from yesterday, but I'm pretty sure I never said that owning a phone makes one fair-game, I said that you should expect to receive calls. I also mentioned (or should have) that the telemarketers sometimes employ borderline (if not completely) illegal methods to gain your information to call you in the first place. I also have a serious problem with the "keeptalkingdontpausetogivethemachancetosayno" pitch, but whaddyagonnado?
My original post was just stating facts about what I know about my little ex-world of telemarketing. What made my situation different was that I worked for a University that only called recent graduates and alumni, and they were mostly prepared for such calls, and we highly respected them telling us no, and to remove them from the list, etc etc. On mere principle alone, I'd never work for an industry "for profit" (yes my center was labelled non-profit) telemarketing firm.
In other words, I have no pro-telejunking stance, I've never had a pro-telejunking stance, and I never will have a pro-telejunking stance.
In the end, it all comes down to a decision that the company doing the calling/research has to make: Do I maximize the call throughput (and potentially piss more people off with nuisance calls), or do I treat people better and call them individually.
YOU MAKE THE CALL! (I've always wanted to say that!)
I usually just hang up if there's no answer. But sometimes, I'll play their game. They invade my privacy, I figure I'm within my rights to ask a few questions:
I'm all for wasting telemarketer's time, and I agree that you have every right to know as much about them as they know about you, but you can't say that they are invading your privacy by calling you. The mere fact that you own a phone and have a number means that you expect people to call you. Granted their reasons or methods by which they gained your number may be questionable, but if you want to complain about them, do it correctly. Invading your privacy would be them knocking your door down after you closed it in their face.
By the way, I'm assuming that you have caller-ID (who doesn't?), why do you answer the phone if you don't know the number on the display? Wasting their time is fun, but it's your time too. Just a thought.
I used to work for a call center (as the DBA who handled all of the data) and you are pretty much correct about how it works. We had 40-60 callers working per any given shift, and our dialers were capable of dialing out about 120 numbers at once. There was a percentage (known/calculated statistic for this call center) of no-answer and busy signals, so they tried to tune it to be as efficient as possible. What would happen would be the 60 callers would be at their stations, and the call center computer would dial out 120 numbers. The first one that connects gets sent to the first caller (their phone rings, they pick it up and their screen is updated with that person's information), and so forth. Once all of the callers were engaged, or if too many of the people being called answered their phones at once, they were immediately disconnected. They called these 'nuisance calls' and the number of them was kept track of every night. They had a goal to stay under, and they usually made it. (I don't recall what the goal was, but it was greater than 0)
There are also two different types of dialing, one is usually called 'autodialing', where the caller is sitting there, looking at the information of the person they are about to call. They initiate the call, and are met with a standard result: Answer, no answer, busy, line dead, etc. This causes no nuisance calls, because the caller is only calling that one person.
The other kind of dialer is a predictive dialer, which dials ahead, and can cause the nuisance calls mentioned above. This is the most efficient method from a call-center point of view, because they can get through many more numbers. Lines that are no-answers, and busy never make it to the callers, so their time is spent with live calls.
And vested interest's. Three. Three main enemies to political progress.
I stand corrected, there are three. I agree completely.
Revolution is a nasty and bloody business that only needs to be used as a last resort. Simply vote out the old parties and vote in new parties. If that doesn't happen people are so lazy tata even a revolution won't help.
I'm not advocating a revolution, but "simply voting out the old parties" is a lot more difficult than it seems. There are WAY TOO MANY un(der)-educated, poor, uninformed, "brainwashed" people out there who vote along party lines (ie all those red states that they don't even wait for results to fill in during the election) to ever 'simply vote out' anything.
In my opinion, there are two enemies to political progress. Religion and ignorance. Sometimes these go hand-in-hand, sometimes they don't. Until we rid the political process of those two elements, at least from a majority, this will continue.
In the last presidential election, both myself and my wife (who has NEVER voted before, that's how strongly she felt about not letting Bush win) stayed in line for several hours to get to vote. While in line, we overheard the guy behind us, in a very "hillbilly" accent say "I dun care who gets ta be president, I jus' dun want dem gays ta be able ta get married." It was then I truly saw the fault in the current system of government and election process. It was the epitome of uneducated, ignorant bias that will condemn this country for years to come.
It very much made me want to follow a friend of mine to live in Canada.
That's what the loser of a debate always says (or tries to), that its a stalemate. Once Sony sees that HD-DVD has taken off, and that Blu-Ray is being left behind, they're trying to salvage what little part of the market they have by trying to make people think that they're on equal ground, when in fact they're on the losing end.
Anyone (or any company) that thinks they'd still have a fighting chance (even if they were on equal ground) they'd never call it a stalemate, they'd keep fighting and marketing.
A report has been released recently showing that female breast implants are causing men to live longer lives. Studies have shown that since the year 1800, both of the number of breast implants and the average life span of men has increased dramatically. Since the two happened at the same time, one MUST be linked to the other!
The statement "75 out of every 100 women" does not imply that, say, there are 4 billion women in the world and three billion were counted.
Actually it does. Watch Family Feud. They don't say that 37% of people gorge themselves on turkey on Thanksgiving. They say "Out of 100 people surveyed... 37% gorge themselves..."
Per cent, as was mentioned, is per 100. If you want to make an assumption that "per 100" has ANYTHING to do with sample size, that's just ignorant. Assuming that a statement contains a generalized sample is also an assumption. If I say '57% of women have long hair', what can you possibly infer to be a generalized sample? How can you possibly know what the author's actual sample size is? Assuming that any statistic is a generalized sample without it beign explicitly defined is just that, an assumption.
Now, this argument alone will win this debate, I'm sure of it:
Chewbacca is a Wookie from the planet Kashyyyk, but he lives on Endor. Now that does not make sense. Why would a 6 foot tall wookie live on a planet with a bunch of 3 foot tall Ewoks. If Chewbacca lives on Endor, you must acquit!
% = percent = per centus = per/out of 100
This Is Just To Say: '75% of women' literally means 75 out of 100 women. Which is itself a sample. It is intrinsic to his statement that what he is talking about is a sample that is meant (or supposed) to be representative.
Sorry, wrong again. While it literally means 75 out of 100 women, the standard accepted notion (and I bet this has been true for multiple decades) that it really means '75 out of every 100 women'. If you are referring to a sample size of 100, 75 percent of women would be 75, each woman accounting for 1% of your sample size. Now I guess if that's true then he must only KNOW exactly 100 women. I'd bet that is not true, so please continue with the argument. It's still entertaining.
You can't expect someone to assume a sample size based on a simple percentage, that is just ridiculous and no mathematician or scientist would ever do it. Just because someone says something like "17% of adult Americans can't read", do you think that there are only 100 Americans and 17 of them can't read? Apparently your statement above leads to the answer "yes".
I wasn't going to reply to this really useless thread (original was meant more of a joke than a mockery, but whatever), but I did feel the need to point out your mistake as well. He clearly wrote '75% of women'. If he had said '75% of women I met' it would have been a clearly legitimate statistic. You assume that he "meant" the women he met, yet I have to say, you just don't know, do you? "100% of women" is ALL women. "100% of women I have met" is a different story. If you're going to criticize, at least have a general idea of what a described sample size is.
:-)
"Obviously, 75% is an extrapolation from whatever sample he has." -- Show me proof of that, and you'll win the argument. You can base your argument off fact, or you can base your argument off assumptions. I did the former, you did the latter.
If clarifying/attacking/etc such little details are of that much importance to you, happy hunting with your grammar/stat/spelling nazi friends. I've gotten today's chuckle out of your ignorance, so I can continue with my productive day. I think this horse is sufficiently dead, and its just about time to go home, so flame away, I probably won't read the rest of it anyway.
That's why I see no place for women in business. They aren't the most rational beings either...
Yes, I'll probably get "modded down" as a sexist troll, but this is the truth, plain and simple. There are always exceptions to the rule, but I'd say 75% of women act irrationally 99% of the time.
You, sir, are an inspiration to all guys. Having met three-quarters of the women on the planet, and having gotten to know them so well that you know they are almost always irrational, that gives hope to the common man.
Just remember though, 47.5% of all statistics are made up on the spot.
Barbara: "Excuse me Stewardess, but I speak Jive."
Stewardess: "Oh, good. Please tell him that I'll be right back with some medicine."
Barbara: (to man) "Jus hang loose blood, she gonna catch you on the rebound with some medicide..."
Man: "Whatchu talkin' bout momma, my momma didn't raise no dummies, I dug her rap!"
Barbara: "Cut me some slack jack! (arguing in Jive) Jive-ass fool ain't got no brains... anyhow."
(Forgive me if I missed a part, trying to do it from memory here....)
It is because they picked that key before F5 meant refresh for everybody else, and they don't want to change it and confuse all the experienced Notes users just because some newfangled (read: after 1990 or so) products do it differently.
You'll probably feel equally angry when you try out Notes 8 and realize that CTRL+tab doesn't take you between tabs because they decided to update themselves to use the same shortcut keys Eclipse uses for that operation, but you can't be angry at BOTH decisions and maintain internal rational consistency.
There is an unbelievably simple fix for this situation (if they would just develop it). File/Preferences/"Use Classic Lotus Notes keybindings | Use Eclipse/New/Whatever keybindings"
Several other programs do it, some even go as far as to change the layout of the UI (re: Dreamweaver) depending on what style you are used to. Changing the key bindings to be par with the current times is one thing, but give people an option to select which key binding set the want. Or.. *GASP* you could *can't believe I'm going to say this out loud* LET THEM BIND THEIR OWN KEYS!! What a novel idea.
By 'certain element' they mean almost everyone, and by 'more time' they mean 'forever since they refuse to upgrade'.
Only at Slashdot would this be considered a problem. Obviously, Microsoft does not consider unactivated software "legit" for the purposes of downloading add-ons. To me, this makes sense within the product activation concepts. Why would a company want to provide additional functionality to products that had not been activated? Within their scheme of DRM, products that have not been activated are probably not legit.
RTFA. He said it was Visio that was not net activated, but that prevented him from downloading OFFICE add-ons, which WAS fully activated. Yes they're both from the same company, but one not-yet-activated program shouldn't cause everything on the system to get hosed. Oh, wait, that's right, Microsoft was ordered to separate their browser from their OS, they got out of it, but the point still remains. They don't care how they cripple you from doing what you want, as long as they can cripple you.
http://www.openoffice.org/
Yes, it does. In order for any court in the United States to conduct judicial review, at least one person must be harmed by it and have legal standing to present a case in the court. More on Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_review_in_the_United_States
The problem with that, obviously, is that you have to WAIT for someone to be harmed by it to be able to take action. I don't wait until my daughter is hit by a car to tell her that she shouldn't be playing in the street, because then well, of course it would be too late. Personally, and of course this idea is open to high scrutiny especially given the fact I haven't thought TOO much about it, I think that anyone should be able to present a case before the U.S. Supreme Court with why they think X law is unconstitutional. Maybe it will take years to get into court, maybe there are 100,000 other people who feel the same way, but if the first person to present the case makes a good case, with good reasoning, then the court should be able to decide if they agree with that person or not. If something is blatantly disregarding a Consitutional amendment, then I would think that it shouldn't take too much convincing to get the court to find it unconstitutional and throw it out.
They didn't really talk much about the underhanded tricks of Congress in my high school government class.
Either you went to school a long time ago, or you went to a really bad school. A pretty hefty portion of my (public highschool) government class was spent studying (common, legal) congressional tricks.
Yes, and yes. That was... let me think... about 15 years ago, and I did go to a crappy school. You know one of those inner-city schools that were just trying to get the students to pass the proficiency test without actually "teaching" them anything. Sad but true.
It would be unpatriotic to vote down the patriot act. Seriously, it would have been a lot easier to defeat had it been named the communist act.
I was asking myself the same question (parent of this parent as well), why did it take several years for something that was so much of a blatant violation of the Bill of Rights be removed? Does it actually take a challenge (ie lawsuit) for a court to overturn anti-constitutional laws?
You can go back even farther, how in the world did Congress ever allow this bill to become law anyway? Oh, did it ride on the coattails of another bill that was a sure-in to be signed? Now THAT is something that I think needs to change. If something is important enough to go before Congress, it should warrant its OWN vote, and not be able to be attached to something else, especially if the bill it's being attached to has nothing to do with the attached bill.
Of course, lets see Congress pass a law outlawing that. Where are the checks and balances here?
They didn't really talk much about the underhanded tricks of Congress in my high school government class.
If he can't test this stuff without scraping real live user data, do you really think you should be trusting his code?
This guy is arrogant and his attitudes are potentially dangerous. If he was a truly good developer, this would not be an issue whatsoever.
Sheesh, and trying to justify this behavior based on what MS does for an entire OS...a) this is not an OS and b) it's a bad MS practice which certainly does not make it right for others to do.
It'd be one thing if it was opt in, but this is just pathetic.
I agree completely. Even though I'm not using v2.3, (I have 2.01 or the like), I will be removing WordPress completely from my site and doing it all myself. I already have the PHP/PostgreSQL setup installed, and I have a history of web development, so it shouldn't be too bad. Just as it was said above, its not the fact that it phones home, but how, and the fact that it cannot be disabled.
and to defend against piracy on the high seas.
I wish this would have been posted yesterday, during National Talk Like A Pirate Day.
The founding fathers also probably did not think that there would be hundreds of thousands of illegal aliens in this country either, so they probably assumed (yes this is a guess) that this would usually only apply to US Citizens in the first place.
This has been done before, although for different reasons. It was called 'Tiny Elvis', and he stayed towards the bottom of your screen, occasionally saying things like 'Whoa, check out that icon. That sucker's huge!' They just put a cop uniform on it and took away the catchy phrases...