I don't think it's so much the taunting itself that usually upsets bullying victims, it's the fact that they're on the bottom of the social rung, the taunting is, in a way, a symptom or expression (and reminder) of that.
Generally there are two types of "taunting": The type of 'ragging' that guys do anyway between their friends, which although it may serve a purpose of re-affirming social hierarchies and boundaries it does so specifically in a "you're acceptable" way. The other type is taunting someone because they are at the bottom. These are very different, and to expect people to react the same doesn't make sense. What's to just "laugh off" when you're at the bottom and can't defend yourself? Nothing. Laughing doesn't help and isn't going to raise your status at all.
You *should* listen to what the experienced investors are telling you about potential pitfalls to running a business
"About the potential pitfalls", yes, but not about what to actually do. At the end of the day, a lot of people are going to give you advice, some of it will be good, a lot of it will be bad (and which category the advice falls into often has little to do with whether or not the people are "experts" or "experienced"), and what you have to realise is that only you are really qualified to know what decisions to take, simply because it's 'your company' - you have far more information about the details of your business than anyone else, have put far far more thought into it than anyone else, and everyone else who gives you advice is inherently doing so from a position of far less information and thought than you. This has been my experience with my business so far. So while I listen to everyone's advice, and take it all in, I first think carefully about whether or not it really applies to my business. I seldom say "no" to anyone giving suggestions though and I don't "push back" --- I just nod and listen, then go think about it for a while.
Also, what you "should" do isn't always necessarily what's "best" to do in the sense that you probably also want to have fun as you go. If you only ever do what you "should" do, i.e. what is logically the 'best thing for the company', you may well forget to actually enjoy what you're doing, and end up in a position where you don't really want to be.
To that end, my suggestion to the submitter is to simply ask yourself "do I want to try out this CEO thing" -- "does it appeal to me?". If you want to be CEO, then unless you suspect you'll be so bad at it you'll run the company into the ground, just do it, even if it's not "optimal". If it turns out that you hate it, you can always just swop around after a year or two and let the other guy be CEO. And then you'll know.
I'm the CEO of my small business (computer science guy turned CEO), and while I enjoy some aspects, one thing I definitely miss is having much time to actually code --- I hardly ever have time for it anymore.
That's why the idea is to put computers in the hands of thousands or even millions of children. Some of them will shatter them Chuck Norris style, but a few will be real nerds, and grow up to be IT leaders who create jobs and spread education etc. in their communities.
No beach ball of death. Man I hate that beach ball.
Valid point, but not against Explorer, Explorer often totally locks up for minutes at a time for stupid shit like not being able to find some network share or something. It just doesn't have a beachball, but the problem is really the locking up, not the beach ball itself. (To it's no-credit, Finder doesn't do much better with network shares.)
Directories with thousands of files. Simply faster in Explorer in my experience....
At least on my G4 Macs, Finder is a dog. Explorer is snappy dapply.
I don't know if you've uncovered some unknown setting in Explorer or if your expectations are very low, but I've always found Explorer to be a horribly slow dog on every machine I've ever used. But then I use Total Commander, which is far faster than Explorer.
As for the idea that MS might pay you a visit for not buying Windows...it's pure speculation and is not indicated by MS at all.
Funny, I know the owner of a smallish OEM and was told directly by him already a few years ago that Microsoft not only 'disallows' them from selling machines without Windows, but that they check up on it as well (e.g. have people make phone calls asking to buy PCs without Windows, and they get in trouble with MS if the answer is 'wrong'). Microsoft have been doing this for years, both before and after the anti-trust trial --- this isn't tinfoil hat conspiracy theories, it was one of the findings of fact of the frikkin trial.
I don't know about the rest of you guys, but I use my cell on both sides of my head.
I don't, I always use the same side. Always. (I just find it "harder" somehow to "listen" in the other ear, even though that ear actually hears a bit better.)
"The way to get the risk down is to use hands-free," he told Reuters.
On another note, I'm sure some people will post the "what are we supposed to do stop using cellphones completely" strawman... this suggestion FTA should counter that.
It's important to realise that the British study claiming no cancer risk was funded by a consortium made up of mobile phone operators and cellphone manufacturers.
Actually, it's a pretty good parody of a large percentage of actual teenage girls. As they say, "how do you think a cliche becomes a cliche?"... admit it, if there weren't some truth to it, it wouldn't be insulting would it? (In fact it wouldn't be funny either... that's the whole point of parody.) If you girls don't want to be seen that way, don't act that way.
Unfortunately, my bigger problem is that with pr0n on demand, and the ability to break movies up into scenes, and easily skip around to different parts of the movie, I have lost a lot of interest in foreplay, and now can only get off to actual penetration, and this has affected me when I'm with an actual girl. Has anybody else experienced this? How normal is this?
Actually this is perfectly normal. From an evolutionary perspective, we're pretty much hardwired to cut to the final scene as fast as damn possible - the whole idea of foreplay would be almost idiotic. Men have to almost be culturally conditioned (in a sense) to 'like' foreplay.
Now don't get me wrong though, it's not 100% black and white, I do genuinely like foreplay (sometimes... all depends on my mood, how much time I and my partner have, what level of genuine intimacy you're in the mood for, etc.... all of this applies to women too). But my point is, you definitely do not have to go around feeling guilty because you feel you aren't as into it as you're "supposed to be" i.e. as the imaginary "ideal men" portrayed in the media, in magazines etc. (The whole purpose of those magazines is to deliberately create artificial ideals that you cannot ever meet, keeping you in a constant state of semi-guilt from which they can sell products and more magazines that will supposedly help you "become better" and fill the "deficiencies". All the magazines tell us women want us to be these superhuman lovers that spend hours at a time skillfully pleasing them in all sorts of ways -- what a load of crap, women firstly don't really want that, secondly that's a surefire recipe to make sex boring and annoying and like "work" and will destroy your sex life, and thirdly what about the man's pleasure?)
Sex clearly has a 'journey' part and a 'destination' part, and we're definitely wired to want to get to that destination quickly, but with the right partner and 'intimate connection' and so on the "journey" part can be a lot of fun too. When you find the right woman, and when circumstances are right, I'm sure you will find the balance that works for you & your partner. But you can't "force" it, and there is no need to force it, it'll happen when it happens, and it's not necessary for every girl you sleep with (and keep in mind the amount of foreplay that the media tells us women want is much more than women really want anyway).
If movie theaters are a "fuller, more entertaining experience", then wouldn't customers automatically prefer to watch in cinemas anyway, even if the DVD was available? The only reason to artificially limit the distribution channels is if you know you need to force your customers to choose particular distribution channels against their preferences.
This translation is also much closer to the full original expression, "Umuntu ngumuntu ngabantu", in fact that's probably the closest literal translation you can get.
Yes, I do know what the life expectancy is in "those" parts of the world, because I live in a third world African country where the life expectancy is one of the worst in the world (lower to mid 40s). Yet even so, assuming you're 10 or 20 years old that still gives you a good 20 or 30 years to "wait" for electricity. However that type of reasoning is total bollocks anyway, because those life expectancy figures are averages and are after taking into account people who die of diseases like TB, AIDS, malaria etc. So in fact, unless you specifically become ill, your average life expectancy in a third world country is probably well over 60 years, and many poor people live well into their 80s and beyond (some even into the 100s). So you've got a pretty good chance of being able to hold onto your DS for a very long time.
Also, pretty much every country (3rd and 1st world) has a mixed population of rich and poor people, and in every country the rich live by fairly good standards and have electricity and plenty of food etc. So there will always be people in even the most godforsaken third-world countries who benefit from technologies.
Yes, very true. It may seem like a "common sense" basis for a moral philosophy, but that's not exactly terribly scientific in itself. There was an unstated premise underlying the notion, however, and I suspect one might be able to find something resembling a logical/scientific/mathematical "confirmation" if one works from some premise as starting point. In other words, one could say something like: "Assume that one wants to build a civilized, cooperative and sustainable society of members of the primate species Homo Sapiens, what is the best way to go about it for all concerned?". Clearly some moral philosophies would always result in failure to reach that goal while others would be more likely to lead to success; seems to me there must be some 'logical process' one could follow to figure that out even if extremely complex. (Of course one would probably want to better pin down the definitions of all of the terms in the premise.) Without stating some goals up front, then indeed one could end up with almost any kind of "moral philosophy" (deity-defined or otherwise). But the above seems like a reasonable and fair goal if 'given a planet with a bunch of apes that recently evolved a relatively high degree of intelligence' and assuming there are no deities to "divinely" give us a moral code.
If I had grown up in New Guinea 50 years ago I probably would have thought burying your loved ones without sampling their flesh would have been unthinkable. Does that make them right or wrong?
What makes a practice right or wrong is a question of harm, not a question of disgust. People often confuse "disgusting" with "immoral". Sampling the flesh of loved ones certainly seems disgusting to me, but I'm struggling to see who is harmed in the process (dead people are dead). "Barbaric" would be eating them while they are alive or killing them just to eat them, which clearly would be immoral, as that clearly harms the people who get eaten (who, presumably, don't want to be eaten). OTOH, if sampling the flesh of a loved one who has died is seen as a sign of affection/respect, then one can presume that the people themselves would even want that when they die.
I see you've evoked the "white guilt" defence... our white ancestors did some really nasty shit, so whites are no longer "allowed" to criticise other obviously wrong practices.
This makes no sense. Things like violence and subordination of women are wrong, regardless of who is saying so. Nobody was claiming that white cultures were pure or innocent, so I'm not sure where you got that idea. We're talking about particular cultural practices, stick to the topic.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't think it's so much the taunting itself that usually upsets bullying victims, it's the fact that they're on the bottom of the social rung, the taunting is, in a way, a symptom or expression (and reminder) of that.
Generally there are two types of "taunting": The type of 'ragging' that guys do anyway between their friends, which although it may serve a purpose of re-affirming social hierarchies and boundaries it does so specifically in a "you're acceptable" way. The other type is taunting someone because they are at the bottom. These are very different, and to expect people to react the same doesn't make sense. What's to just "laugh off" when you're at the bottom and can't defend yourself? Nothing. Laughing doesn't help and isn't going to raise your status at all.
You *should* listen to what the experienced investors are telling you about potential pitfalls to running a business
"About the potential pitfalls", yes, but not about what to actually do. At the end of the day, a lot of people are going to give you advice, some of it will be good, a lot of it will be bad (and which category the advice falls into often has little to do with whether or not the people are "experts" or "experienced"), and what you have to realise is that only you are really qualified to know what decisions to take, simply because it's 'your company' - you have far more information about the details of your business than anyone else, have put far far more thought into it than anyone else, and everyone else who gives you advice is inherently doing so from a position of far less information and thought than you. This has been my experience with my business so far. So while I listen to everyone's advice, and take it all in, I first think carefully about whether or not it really applies to my business. I seldom say "no" to anyone giving suggestions though and I don't "push back" --- I just nod and listen, then go think about it for a while.
Also, what you "should" do isn't always necessarily what's "best" to do in the sense that you probably also want to have fun as you go. If you only ever do what you "should" do, i.e. what is logically the 'best thing for the company', you may well forget to actually enjoy what you're doing, and end up in a position where you don't really want to be.
To that end, my suggestion to the submitter is to simply ask yourself "do I want to try out this CEO thing" -- "does it appeal to me?". If you want to be CEO, then unless you suspect you'll be so bad at it you'll run the company into the ground, just do it, even if it's not "optimal". If it turns out that you hate it, you can always just swop around after a year or two and let the other guy be CEO. And then you'll know.
I'm the CEO of my small business (computer science guy turned CEO), and while I enjoy some aspects, one thing I definitely miss is having much time to actually code --- I hardly ever have time for it anymore.
That's why the idea is to put computers in the hands of thousands or even millions of children. Some of them will shatter them Chuck Norris style, but a few will be real nerds, and grow up to be IT leaders who create jobs and spread education etc. in their communities.
He didn't write his own books, he paid ghost writers to do it, that is known. At best he probably provided general guidance.
No beach ball of death. Man I hate that beach ball.
Valid point, but not against Explorer, Explorer often totally locks up for minutes at a time for stupid shit like not being able to find some network share or something. It just doesn't have a beachball, but the problem is really the locking up, not the beach ball itself. (To it's no-credit, Finder doesn't do much better with network shares.)
Directories with thousands of files. Simply faster in Explorer in my experience. ...
At least on my G4 Macs, Finder is a dog. Explorer is snappy dapply.
I don't know if you've uncovered some unknown setting in Explorer or if your expectations are very low, but I've always found Explorer to be a horribly slow dog on every machine I've ever used. But then I use Total Commander, which is far faster than Explorer.
Explorer sucks ass, Finder sucks even more. (I mostly use Total Commander on Windows, and its equivalents on OS X.)
(Having said that though, there are a few things Finder does much better than Explorer.)
The 'negative space' between the four squares also forms an 'X' ... kinda like 'Windows on X'.
("Quick boot" is right, OS X boots pretty quickly, far quicker than Windows.)
As for the idea that MS might pay you a visit for not buying Windows...it's pure speculation and is not indicated by MS at all.
Funny, I know the owner of a smallish OEM and was told directly by him already a few years ago that Microsoft not only 'disallows' them from selling machines without Windows, but that they check up on it as well (e.g. have people make phone calls asking to buy PCs without Windows, and they get in trouble with MS if the answer is 'wrong'). Microsoft have been doing this for years, both before and after the anti-trust trial --- this isn't tinfoil hat conspiracy theories, it was one of the findings of fact of the frikkin trial.
I don't know about the rest of you guys, but I use my cell on both sides of my head.
I don't, I always use the same side. Always. (I just find it "harder" somehow to "listen" in the other ear, even though that ear actually hears a bit better.)
"The way to get the risk down is to use hands-free," he told Reuters.
On another note, I'm sure some people will post the "what are we supposed to do stop using cellphones completely" strawman ... this suggestion FTA should counter that.
It's important to realise that the British study claiming no cancer risk was funded by a consortium made up of mobile phone operators and cellphone manufacturers.
Actually, it's a pretty good parody of a large percentage of actual teenage girls. As they say, "how do you think a cliche becomes a cliche?" ... admit it, if there weren't some truth to it, it wouldn't be insulting would it? (In fact it wouldn't be funny either ... that's the whole point of parody.) If you girls don't want to be seen that way, don't act that way.
Am I the only one that got a bit of a rubbery one whilst reading this?
Yes ... get help!
I think you probably meant "emphatically". Those are completely different words that mean completely different things.
it's not fucking april fools yet you assholes!
It is where I am. In fact that pink kicked in at exactly midnight GMT+0.
Unfortunately, my bigger problem is that with pr0n on demand, and the ability to break movies up into scenes, and easily skip around to different parts of the movie, I have lost a lot of interest in foreplay, and now can only get off to actual penetration, and this has affected me when I'm with an actual girl. Has anybody else experienced this? How normal is this?
Actually this is perfectly normal. From an evolutionary perspective, we're pretty much hardwired to cut to the final scene as fast as damn possible - the whole idea of foreplay would be almost idiotic. Men have to almost be culturally conditioned (in a sense) to 'like' foreplay.
Now don't get me wrong though, it's not 100% black and white, I do genuinely like foreplay (sometimes ... all depends on my mood, how much time I and my partner have, what level of genuine intimacy you're in the mood for, etc. ... all of this applies to women too). But my point is, you definitely do not have to go around feeling guilty because you feel you aren't as into it as you're "supposed to be" i.e. as the imaginary "ideal men" portrayed in the media, in magazines etc. (The whole purpose of those magazines is to deliberately create artificial ideals that you cannot ever meet, keeping you in a constant state of semi-guilt from which they can sell products and more magazines that will supposedly help you "become better" and fill the "deficiencies". All the magazines tell us women want us to be these superhuman lovers that spend hours at a time skillfully pleasing them in all sorts of ways -- what a load of crap, women firstly don't really want that, secondly that's a surefire recipe to make sex boring and annoying and like "work" and will destroy your sex life, and thirdly what about the man's pleasure?)
Sex clearly has a 'journey' part and a 'destination' part, and we're definitely wired to want to get to that destination quickly, but with the right partner and 'intimate connection' and so on the "journey" part can be a lot of fun too. When you find the right woman, and when circumstances are right, I'm sure you will find the balance that works for you & your partner. But you can't "force" it, and there is no need to force it, it'll happen when it happens, and it's not necessary for every girl you sleep with (and keep in mind the amount of foreplay that the media tells us women want is much more than women really want anyway).
Google disagrees with you I'm afraid, 64,500 hits for "crack ho" to 613,000 hits for "crack whore".
If movie theaters are a "fuller, more entertaining experience", then wouldn't customers automatically prefer to watch in cinemas anyway, even if the DVD was available? The only reason to artificially limit the distribution channels is if you know you need to force your customers to choose particular distribution channels against their preferences.
My favorite meaning comes from Wikipedia:
"a person is a person through other persons"
This translation is also much closer to the full original expression, "Umuntu ngumuntu ngabantu", in fact that's probably the closest literal translation you can get.
Yes, I do know what the life expectancy is in "those" parts of the world, because I live in a third world African country where the life expectancy is one of the worst in the world (lower to mid 40s). Yet even so, assuming you're 10 or 20 years old that still gives you a good 20 or 30 years to "wait" for electricity. However that type of reasoning is total bollocks anyway, because those life expectancy figures are averages and are after taking into account people who die of diseases like TB, AIDS, malaria etc. So in fact, unless you specifically become ill, your average life expectancy in a third world country is probably well over 60 years, and many poor people live well into their 80s and beyond (some even into the 100s). So you've got a pretty good chance of being able to hold onto your DS for a very long time.
Also, pretty much every country (3rd and 1st world) has a mixed population of rich and poor people, and in every country the rich live by fairly good standards and have electricity and plenty of food etc. So there will always be people in even the most godforsaken third-world countries who benefit from technologies.
Hmm ... looks like interesting reading material, thanks for the "leads" (have never done any formal philosophy courses (yet), so haven't studied this.)
Yes, very true. It may seem like a "common sense" basis for a moral philosophy, but that's not exactly terribly scientific in itself. There was an unstated premise underlying the notion, however, and I suspect one might be able to find something resembling a logical/scientific/mathematical "confirmation" if one works from some premise as starting point. In other words, one could say something like: "Assume that one wants to build a civilized, cooperative and sustainable society of members of the primate species Homo Sapiens, what is the best way to go about it for all concerned?". Clearly some moral philosophies would always result in failure to reach that goal while others would be more likely to lead to success; seems to me there must be some 'logical process' one could follow to figure that out even if extremely complex. (Of course one would probably want to better pin down the definitions of all of the terms in the premise.) Without stating some goals up front, then indeed one could end up with almost any kind of "moral philosophy" (deity-defined or otherwise). But the above seems like a reasonable and fair goal if 'given a planet with a bunch of apes that recently evolved a relatively high degree of intelligence' and assuming there are no deities to "divinely" give us a moral code.
If I had grown up in New Guinea 50 years ago I probably would have thought burying your loved ones without sampling their flesh would have been unthinkable. Does that make them right or wrong?
What makes a practice right or wrong is a question of harm, not a question of disgust. People often confuse "disgusting" with "immoral". Sampling the flesh of loved ones certainly seems disgusting to me, but I'm struggling to see who is harmed in the process (dead people are dead). "Barbaric" would be eating them while they are alive or killing them just to eat them, which clearly would be immoral, as that clearly harms the people who get eaten (who, presumably, don't want to be eaten). OTOH, if sampling the flesh of a loved one who has died is seen as a sign of affection/respect, then one can presume that the people themselves would even want that when they die.
I see you've evoked the "white guilt" defence ... our white ancestors did some really nasty shit, so whites are no longer "allowed" to criticise other obviously wrong practices.
This makes no sense. Things like violence and subordination of women are wrong, regardless of who is saying so. Nobody was claiming that white cultures were pure or innocent, so I'm not sure where you got that idea. We're talking about particular cultural practices, stick to the topic.