It's funny that you can't face what you've become.
It's pretty arrogant for you to suggest otherwise based on a one line statement.
You're the one talking about "teens and college students", which duh, that's part of the younger generation you used to be.
It's funny that you can't admit you are wrong. I had the same attitude when I was a teen and in college but then again I wasn't like most teens and college students. It has nothing to do with age.
It's not and I haven't. It's pretty arrogant for you to suggest otherwise based on a one line statement. Your suggestion has about as much validity as me saying your attitude is one of the feckless, younger generation who must have the latest gadget regardless of its utility and you mistakenly think of this attitude as being open to innovation.
to pad their subscriber numbers. I cut the cord over a year ago and they keep calling me to give me "free" basic cable in order to pad their subscriber numbers and get more ad money. I always find it amusing when the person on the phone can't believe that I don't want "free" cable. I tell them I get everything I need over the internet and down't want cable. If they offer it to you, don't take it. It'll just prolong the life of an obsolete business model. I can only assume Comcast will eventually take the next next step and *require* you to have cable if you use broadband. If and when that happens I hope there is a firestorm of lawsuits...
The day I say something like that is the day I die.
But you already did, just in different words.
Oh, damn! You're right! I've turned into a technology fuddy-duddy and I didn't even know it! Thanks so much for giving me a chance to stay cool by buying into the hype machine! Haha.
I'm envisioning you leaning over, adjusting your glasses, and then leaning back and waving your hand. "When you've been around long as I have Sonny, you don't earn no favors by being all excitable".
Haha. The day I say something like that is the day I die.
Did you ever look at your parents when you were young and wondered when you'd get to that point where your thought patterns would switch from "cool" to "what we've got is good enough, dagnabbit" and you'd be officially old? Congrats, you're there. Its not a set age, its a state of mind.
Are there going to be problems with these? Sure. Will they be clunky and not good to start with? Of course. Is it the start of "something new", possibly something awesome? Most definitely. Sorry you won't be along for the ride.
Meh. When it's "something awesome" I might be interested. Right now it's clunky and stupid. Teens and college kids have time to put up with clunky and stupid for some marginal benefit. I don't.
I'm already too plugged in with my iPhone and iPad
on
Google Glasses Announced
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
The last thing I want is to be more plugged in. I don't want things popping up in my field of vision unbidden either. I am obviously not their target market. Maybe teens and college kids will love it. To me it's a total fail.
I couldn't agree more. Well said all around. I especially agree with this part:
"The easiest solution I see is to raise taxes on the upper class while reducing taxes on the lower and middle classes, so that the people that benefit the most from our current system pay more towards maintaining that system. (but I only care about reducing the the rate at which income inequality is growing. As far as I care it can be income-neutral to the government, or even income-negative)."
I wonder what the tax rate would need to be for the 1% to pay 99% of the tax. I don't think it's possible but it'd be nice to see a slider that showed the tax rates as you zero out taxes for increasing income brackets.
Slashdot is not responsible for the comments on articles but they are responsible for the titles of posts and what was described in this article is not remotely close to patent trolling. It's how patent infringement cases are handled in the best possible way. Not everyone who exercises his or her patent rights is a troll.
Why not take a step back and say, "Why do these women want to be like these models?". They want the popularity and ego satisfaction that goes along with looking like those models. The fact that their self-worth is based on the opinions of other anonymous people is the problem. It's their parents' job to redirect them to base their self-worth on more objective criteria. In other words the researchers have cause and effect backwards. These women already have low self-worth and think looking like anorexic models will make them better because people with low self-worth always think being popular makes them better. The fact that it's anorexic models is arbitrary. In other places and times it was Rubenesque models. It's a moral problem and as usual people want to find a short-cut to dealing with moral struggle by imposing censorship. Censorship doesn't solve the problem. It just forces the issue to manifest in another way.This research is worthless. Actual it's even worse than that. It's positively harmful.
P.S. You also see the inverse, being anti-popular (i.e. pick your "counter-culture" movement of choice) is seen as giving self-worth. It's all the same. The point is to make being popularity irrelevant to self-worth.
I am talking about real inflation, the real money printing that causes it and the increase of prices that is coming to USA due to it, though it was able to severely delay that by exporting all of that inflation (specifically because the printed money leaves the country to buy foreign goods, where it is accumulated).
Real inflation, the kind of inflation that should have been used as deflater to the fake GDP numbers (GDP has been shrinking in USA for over 20 years, not growing, and in all cases, GDP is 70% spending of imported goods, and there are bail outs and military spending there too). Real inflation, which is the real tax on everybody holding US denominated assets.
Real inflation, the way it was calculated during Nixon, when simple 4% was enough for the gov't to set wage and price controls (misguidedly, as all economic and fiscal things gov'ts do). It was calculated without substitutions and hedonics, without reverse engineering the numbers to fit the narrative.
Or real inflation as calculated from rise of commodity prices (and no, it's not 'speculation', that's a cop out for the gov't inflating its money, buying its own debt, there are always 2 people in each transaction - one buy, one selling).
Real inflation, which does not need to see increase in wages, that's Keynesian nonsense. Wages don't increase because there is nothing manufactured.
Are you familiar with the concept of relative value? You know, the underpinning of modern economics?
Interesting how much of the world is interested in our politics. Several years ago, I was walking around Porvoo, Finland, taking pictures. I talked to a few teenagers doing skateboard tricks. In their perfect English, they were very curious how we could have elected Bush II twice. It's all they wanted to talk about.
They were probably interested because it directly impacts them. It's something I think our politicians don't think about enough. If we decide to go start a few wars around the world we bring all of our allies with us whether they like it or not.
Apple has too many US DOLLARS, that's its problem. With 15% inflation it is insane to keep savings in that currency, they need to come up with a diversification strategy. However paying dividends to shareholders is also a very reasonable suggestion.
Too many eggs in one basket, I'd look at completely different businesses (agriculture, mining, but obviously not in US, it's too dangerous, there will be more nationalisation and more taxes and more inflation and other types of theft by government).
They definitely need to diversify out of their own bonds, which are dollar denominated though. Again - buying up some mining businesses, joint venture into energy, metals, agriculture.
Now, I understand why space travel is so important to so many people. It's motivated by the desire for immortality albeit an impersonal one. The seeming irrationality of the obsession with space travel makes sense now. Thanks.
I hope that some of the network/systems analysis companies out there are taking accurate notes about the state of what's accessible via IPv6 and IPv4. I think we'll see an interesting sort of "avalanche" graph when we reach the tipping point. Or not -- perhaps there will be enough dual-stack that we'll just have a slow deathmarch of sites available by IPv4, with a few less year after year?
But to step back and wax lyrical about the whole problem, the reason that IPv6 hasn't taken hold yet is because it just hasn't gotten enough of an IPv6-only install base clamouring for support on their popular websites.
Having major websites and hardware manufacturers on board is an important piece of the puzzle, but it's nothing compared to money. Get enough people inconvenienced that they will take their eyes and their money elsewere (directly, or through advertising revenue on sites, etc...), and every site that cares about their viewership will hop on the IPv6 train. Of course, this means that Bob's website that features his personal Banana Sticker Collection might not get IPv6 support until his ISP drags him to an IPv6 address, kicking and screaming all the way.
That whole idea a year or two ago about putting out a big zip file of porn, but only available on IPv6, was kind of a hoot. AFAIK it never came to fruition, but I liked the creative thinking there. Has anyone else had any crazy good (or just crazy) suggestions about how to spur IPv6 adoption?
It could easily be said the other way around, right? Until content providers start using IPv6 ISPs won't hand out IPv6 addresses to the end-users. It's the classic chicken-egg problem. No, what really made this day come is that ISPs cannot buy anymore addresses and cannot grow unless they do. Sure they could do CGN or a bunch of other things but they have enough drawbacks and are sufficiently different from an operational perspective to make the expense of adopting IPv6 reasonable.
" and flip-flop on any issue where new evidence causes him to modify his position"
If there's one aspect of the political system that mystifies me, it's this. One of the very definitions of intelligence is the ability to take information and make conclusions. Obviously new information can lead to new conclusions. Yet in politics, even a hint of a politician displaying intelligence by changing his stance after new information and it's the political kiss of death. So instead we get politicians who will stick to their beliefs despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary. So why are we pushing so hard to support political figures who don't demonstrate intelligence and tossing aside the ones that do?
Because in the United States many people believe that good leadership comes from good character rather than intelligence. If you change behavior then what you did previously was wrong and if it was wrong then you don't have good character. Why do people fall back on good character? Because they don't know enough about the issues to know who is right. It's the same reason people fall back on ideology. It's easier to have an a priori litmus test than to figure out enough about how the world works in order to make rational decisions. That's not to say that they are all lazy or stupid. Both political parties work hard at making sure the criteria we use to elect people to office is something they can easily control and manipulate. In fact most of their policies and propaganda are designed for one purpose, maintaining power.
Decisions based merely on results, divorced from ethics and morality can bring disastrous results. Think how quickly we could advance medicine if we started experimenting on humans unchecked, or how "safe" we could be if we lived in a police state. I put safe in quotes because we might be safe from terrorists and other boogeymen, but we wouldn't be safe from the police state.
That's true when you only consider one-dimension but most results have implications for many dimensions. As long as your criteria for success are sufficiently diverse then you aren't likely to have these kinds of problems. For example, we might be able to deploy high speed light rail everywhere we want to in five years, if cost were not an issue. The additional dimensions may be ethical or moral but need not be.
Out of the kindness of their heart? To placate someone's body image issues? Please. Which one sells better? I guess it's more complicated than that... You'd have to control for the clothes. You'd need to have virtual and real models wear the same clothes at different times.
The only way to validate the model is to apply it and see if it works. The problem with hish risk disasters is that they don't happen all that often so it's hard to validate the model. I mean sure you can special case it to death to get it to predict "the Columbia disaster, Hurricane Katrina and the World Trade Center collapse" but if you special case it too much it loses predictive ability for similar but not identical events.
True, but, despite the/. summary, the article really isn't about predicting events so much as trying to assess the level of uncertainty around the results o fteh model. By quantifying the uncertainty you can better use the results to decide what to do. Essentially, you want to be able to say "I think this will be the outcome, but I am only so sure about the accuracy of my prediction." It's not really about predicting the future (in the sense of "what event will occur" but what will happen if x occurs and how certain am I about that result.
Yeah, I hate to go all Taleb but that doesn't make sense from a Black Swan point of view. The catastrophes outside the model are always the worst catastrophes because they are outside the model.
The only way to validate the model is to apply it and see if it works. The problem with hish risk disasters is that they don't happen all that often so it's hard to validate the model. I mean sure you can special case it to death to get it to predict "the Columbia disaster, Hurricane Katrina and the World Trade Center collapse" but if you special case it too much it loses predictive ability for similar but not identical events.
The reason there is so much "uncertainty" (not for me but many others) around climate change is that it is practically a singular event that'll occur 50-100 years in the future. Of course the models can be validated as we go but how much validation is enough? When it's too late?
Communism, Maoism, and Stalinism are all very similar. Corporatism couldn't be more different from capitalism. It's like trying to describe white by saying it is black, or describing one degree off left by saying it is right.
That isn't capitalism, it's Crony Capitalism. Our political class has become so corrupt they can't even see the problem.
This isn't communism. It's Maoism. It's Stalinism. Get it? Theoretical ideals go out the window when they hit reality. Any ideology that denies reality is doomed to failure, not to mention embittering its adherents or resulting in significant cognitive dissonance and rationalization.
Slashdot Mirror
Yup, exactly right. Same here.
It's not and I haven't.
It's funny that you can't face what you've become.
It's pretty arrogant for you to suggest otherwise based on a one line statement.
You're the one talking about "teens and college students", which duh, that's part of the younger generation you used to be.
It's funny that you can't admit you are wrong. I had the same attitude when I was a teen and in college but then again I wasn't like most teens and college students. It has nothing to do with age.
It's not and I haven't. It's pretty arrogant for you to suggest otherwise based on a one line statement. Your suggestion has about as much validity as me saying your attitude is one of the feckless, younger generation who must have the latest gadget regardless of its utility and you mistakenly think of this attitude as being open to innovation.
to pad their subscriber numbers. I cut the cord over a year ago and they keep calling me to give me "free" basic cable in order to pad their subscriber numbers and get more ad money. I always find it amusing when the person on the phone can't believe that I don't want "free" cable. I tell them I get everything I need over the internet and down't want cable. If they offer it to you, don't take it. It'll just prolong the life of an obsolete business model. I can only assume Comcast will eventually take the next next step and *require* you to have cable if you use broadband. If and when that happens I hope there is a firestorm of lawsuits...
The day I say something like that is the day I die.
But you already did, just in different words.
Oh, damn! You're right! I've turned into a technology fuddy-duddy and I didn't even know it! Thanks so much for giving me a chance to stay cool by buying into the hype machine! Haha.
"Meh."
I'm envisioning you leaning over, adjusting your glasses, and then leaning back and waving your hand. "When you've been around long as I have Sonny, you don't earn no favors by being all excitable".
Haha. The day I say something like that is the day I die.
Did you ever look at your parents when you were young and wondered when you'd get to that point where your thought patterns would switch from "cool" to "what we've got is good enough, dagnabbit" and you'd be officially old? Congrats, you're there. Its not a set age, its a state of mind.
Are there going to be problems with these? Sure. Will they be clunky and not good to start with? Of course. Is it the start of "something new", possibly something awesome? Most definitely. Sorry you won't be along for the ride.
Meh. When it's "something awesome" I might be interested. Right now it's clunky and stupid. Teens and college kids have time to put up with clunky and stupid for some marginal benefit. I don't.
The last thing I want is to be more plugged in. I don't want things popping up in my field of vision unbidden either. I am obviously not their target market. Maybe teens and college kids will love it. To me it's a total fail.
I couldn't agree more. Well said all around. I especially agree with this part:
"The easiest solution I see is to raise taxes on the upper class while reducing taxes on the lower and middle classes, so that the people that benefit the most from our current system pay more towards maintaining that system. (but I only care about reducing the the rate at which income inequality is growing. As far as I care it can be income-neutral to the government, or even income-negative)."
I wonder what the tax rate would need to be for the 1% to pay 99% of the tax. I don't think it's possible but it'd be nice to see a slider that showed the tax rates as you zero out taxes for increasing income brackets.
Slashdot is not responsible for the comments on articles but they are responsible for the titles of posts and what was described in this article is not remotely close to patent trolling. It's how patent infringement cases are handled in the best possible way. Not everyone who exercises his or her patent rights is a troll.
Why not take a step back and say, "Why do these women want to be like these models?". They want the popularity and ego satisfaction that goes along with looking like those models. The fact that their self-worth is based on the opinions of other anonymous people is the problem. It's their parents' job to redirect them to base their self-worth on more objective criteria. In other words the researchers have cause and effect backwards. These women already have low self-worth and think looking like anorexic models will make them better because people with low self-worth always think being popular makes them better. The fact that it's anorexic models is arbitrary. In other places and times it was Rubenesque models. It's a moral problem and as usual people want to find a short-cut to dealing with moral struggle by imposing censorship. Censorship doesn't solve the problem. It just forces the issue to manifest in another way.This research is worthless. Actual it's even worse than that. It's positively harmful.
P.S. You also see the inverse, being anti-popular (i.e. pick your "counter-culture" movement of choice) is seen as giving self-worth. It's all the same. The point is to make being popularity irrelevant to self-worth.
I am talking about real inflation, the real money printing that causes it and the increase of prices that is coming to USA due to it, though it was able to severely delay that by exporting all of that inflation (specifically because the printed money leaves the country to buy foreign goods, where it is accumulated).
Real inflation, the kind of inflation that should have been used as deflater to the fake GDP numbers (GDP has been shrinking in USA for over 20 years, not growing, and in all cases, GDP is 70% spending of imported goods, and there are bail outs and military spending there too). Real inflation, which is the real tax on everybody holding US denominated assets.
Real inflation, the way it was calculated during Nixon, when simple 4% was enough for the gov't to set wage and price controls (misguidedly, as all economic and fiscal things gov'ts do). It was calculated without substitutions and hedonics, without reverse engineering the numbers to fit the narrative.
Or real inflation as calculated from rise of commodity prices (and no, it's not 'speculation', that's a cop out for the gov't inflating its money, buying its own debt, there are always 2 people in each transaction - one buy, one selling).
Real inflation, which does not need to see increase in wages, that's Keynesian nonsense. Wages don't increase because there is nothing manufactured.
Are you familiar with the concept of relative value? You know, the underpinning of modern economics?
Interesting how much of the world is interested in our politics.
Several years ago, I was walking around Porvoo, Finland, taking pictures. I talked to a few teenagers doing skateboard tricks. In their perfect English, they were very curious how we could have elected Bush II twice. It's all they wanted to talk about.
They were probably interested because it directly impacts them. It's something I think our politicians don't think about enough. If we decide to go start a few wars around the world we bring all of our allies with us whether they like it or not.
Apple has too many US DOLLARS, that's its problem. With 15% inflation it is insane to keep savings in that currency, they need to come up with a diversification strategy. However paying dividends to shareholders is also a very reasonable suggestion.
Too many eggs in one basket, I'd look at completely different businesses (agriculture, mining, but obviously not in US, it's too dangerous, there will be more nationalisation and more taxes and more inflation and other types of theft by government).
They definitely need to diversify out of their own bonds, which are dollar denominated though. Again - buying up some mining businesses, joint venture into energy, metals, agriculture.
15% inflation? What are you talking about?
culture, not a cash hoard. I'm sure the management of Apple have enough self-control not to go on a spending bender.
Now, I understand why space travel is so important to so many people. It's motivated by the desire for immortality albeit an impersonal one. The seeming irrationality of the obsession with space travel makes sense now. Thanks.
I hope that some of the network/systems analysis companies out there are taking accurate notes about the state of what's accessible via IPv6 and IPv4. I think we'll see an interesting sort of "avalanche" graph when we reach the tipping point. Or not -- perhaps there will be enough dual-stack that we'll just have a slow deathmarch of sites available by IPv4, with a few less year after year?
But to step back and wax lyrical about the whole problem, the reason that IPv6 hasn't taken hold yet is because it just hasn't gotten enough of an IPv6-only install base clamouring for support on their popular websites.
Having major websites and hardware manufacturers on board is an important piece of the puzzle, but it's nothing compared to money. Get enough people inconvenienced that they will take their eyes and their money elsewere (directly, or through advertising revenue on sites, etc...), and every site that cares about their viewership will hop on the IPv6 train. Of course, this means that Bob's website that features his personal Banana Sticker Collection might not get IPv6 support until his ISP drags him to an IPv6 address, kicking and screaming all the way.
That whole idea a year or two ago about putting out a big zip file of porn, but only available on IPv6, was kind of a hoot. AFAIK it never came to fruition, but I liked the creative thinking there. Has anyone else had any crazy good (or just crazy) suggestions about how to spur IPv6 adoption?
It could easily be said the other way around, right? Until content providers start using IPv6 ISPs won't hand out IPv6 addresses to the end-users. It's the classic chicken-egg problem. No, what really made this day come is that ISPs cannot buy anymore addresses and cannot grow unless they do. Sure they could do CGN or a bunch of other things but they have enough drawbacks and are sufficiently different from an operational perspective to make the expense of adopting IPv6 reasonable.
" and flip-flop on any issue where new evidence causes him to modify his position"
If there's one aspect of the political system that mystifies me, it's this. One of the very definitions of intelligence is the ability to take information and make conclusions. Obviously new information can lead to new conclusions. Yet in politics, even a hint of a politician displaying intelligence by changing his stance after new information and it's the political kiss of death. So instead we get politicians who will stick to their beliefs despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary. So why are we pushing so hard to support political figures who don't demonstrate intelligence and tossing aside the ones that do?
Because in the United States many people believe that good leadership comes from good character rather than intelligence. If you change behavior then what you did previously was wrong and if it was wrong then you don't have good character. Why do people fall back on good character? Because they don't know enough about the issues to know who is right. It's the same reason people fall back on ideology. It's easier to have an a priori litmus test than to figure out enough about how the world works in order to make rational decisions. That's not to say that they are all lazy or stupid. Both political parties work hard at making sure the criteria we use to elect people to office is something they can easily control and manipulate. In fact most of their policies and propaganda are designed for one purpose, maintaining power.
Decisions based merely on results, divorced from ethics and morality can bring disastrous results. Think how quickly we could advance medicine if we started experimenting on humans unchecked, or how "safe" we could be if we lived in a police state. I put safe in quotes because we might be safe from terrorists and other boogeymen, but we wouldn't be safe from the police state.
That's true when you only consider one-dimension but most results have implications for many dimensions. As long as your criteria for success are sufficiently diverse then you aren't likely to have these kinds of problems. For example, we might be able to deploy high speed light rail everywhere we want to in five years, if cost were not an issue. The additional dimensions may be ethical or moral but need not be.
Hopefully good for all of that scrutiny.
Out of the kindness of their heart? To placate someone's body image issues? Please. Which one sells better? I guess it's more complicated than that... You'd have to control for the clothes. You'd need to have virtual and real models wear the same clothes at different times.
The only way to validate the model is to apply it and see if it works. The problem with hish risk disasters is that they don't happen all that often so it's hard to validate the model. I mean sure you can special case it to death to get it to predict "the Columbia disaster, Hurricane Katrina and the World Trade Center collapse" but if you special case it too much it loses predictive ability for similar but not identical events.
True, but, despite the /. summary, the article really isn't about predicting events so much as trying to assess the level of uncertainty around the results o fteh model. By quantifying the uncertainty you can better use the results to decide what to do. Essentially, you want to be able to say "I think this will be the outcome, but I am only so sure about the accuracy of my prediction." It's not really about predicting the future (in the sense of "what event will occur" but what will happen if x occurs and how certain am I about that result.
Yeah, I hate to go all Taleb but that doesn't make sense from a Black Swan point of view. The catastrophes outside the model are always the worst catastrophes because they are outside the model.
The only way to validate the model is to apply it and see if it works. The problem with hish risk disasters is that they don't happen all that often so it's hard to validate the model. I mean sure you can special case it to death to get it to predict "the Columbia disaster, Hurricane Katrina and the World Trade Center collapse" but if you special case it too much it loses predictive ability for similar but not identical events.
The reason there is so much "uncertainty" (not for me but many others) around climate change is that it is practically a singular event that'll occur 50-100 years in the future. Of course the models can be validated as we go but how much validation is enough? When it's too late?
Communism, Maoism, and Stalinism are all very similar. Corporatism couldn't be more different from capitalism. It's like trying to describe white by saying it is black, or describing one degree off left by saying it is right.
They aren't and you're wrong.
That isn't capitalism, it's Crony Capitalism. Our political class has become so corrupt they can't even see the problem.
This isn't communism. It's Maoism. It's Stalinism. Get it? Theoretical ideals go out the window when they hit reality. Any ideology that denies reality is doomed to failure, not to mention embittering its adherents or resulting in significant cognitive dissonance and rationalization.