Well, to clarify, it was somebody's OLD VHS tape, that they had recorded some soap opera on. Not an item sold at Amazon for sure, and just as suspicious as floor tiles.
There's no verification because I could be lying, as far as Amazon knows.
It's impossible to verify, but this kind of stuff happens all the time. I personally once had an order shipped from Amazon arrive with somebody's old VHS tape in the box instead of the new DVD I ordered. Amazon immediately corrected the problem, but that sort of thing is scary when it happens since you're afraid the company is going to think you're trying to get a free product.
It seems incredible of Best Buy to just assume that the customer is in the wrong. Why would he need TWO terabytes anyway? One terabyte ought to be enough for anybody.
I'm not remotely jealous of fancy cars. I do not need more 'powertrain options'. My Civic gets me where I want to go.
Diesel cars like they have in Europe could be nice, but if the price of diesel fuel increases much more it won't be worth it.
Love of technology for its own sake is great -- don't get me wrong. But if a given nation's consumers as a whole decide that they don't need a particular technological advance, they aren't automatically wrong or ignorant. It's important not only to have technological development, but for it to be in the right direction.
Yeah, it's a bunch of whiz-bang crap without any real value. The prime example is the "MP4 Watch". Besides apparently not supporting MP4 (but who really knows, at this low level of journalism) it's stupid in the first place. It's not like it's hard to make a crappy little MP3 player, glue some straps to it, and call it a "watch". Whoopdy-do.
Yes, this is a mistake of modern religion -- attaching God to the so-far missing bits of science, and turning Him into a "God of the gaps". That's partially because they feel a need to make specific statements about God, like "He did this" or "He said that" or "this is what He wants".
Far better to let God dissolve, like sugar in water, invisible but still there. A sort of carrier signal for reality. But then I guess you wouldn't have much of a foundation for bashing gays.
Why wouldn't MMS ever happen? Not the biggest thing, but still more useful than the POS weather applet. And not likely that big of a deal to implement.
With the SMS client obviously at such an early stage of development I don't see how we could predict future features.
Well, as an iPhone owner (and, apparently, a Certified Fanboi(tm)), it's plainly obvious that the software wasn't finished in June and is still not finished. While the core features work well for the most part, any iPhone owner can name a dozen obvious omissions off the top of their head. MMS, copy/paste, SMS to multiple recipients, Safari stability, etc, etc. Not to mention an RPN mode for the Calculator;)
I'm personally happy to have the device now, as it's extremely useful in a variety of ways (hence the fanboi status). But an SDK is only one of many things that are a tad overdue.
That's partially because, despite what the people posting here would have you believe, the economics prize is awarded by the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences -- the same organization that awards the prizes in physics and chemistry. It was established and funded by a grant from the Swedish central bank, but the bank does NOT determine the laureates.
From the Nobel Peace Prize press release, I quote:
"Extensive climate changes may alter and threaten the living conditions of much of mankind. They may induce large-scale migration and lead to greater competition for the earth's resources. Such changes will place particularly heavy burdens on the world's most vulnerable countries. There may be increased danger of violent conflicts and wars, within and between states."
The prize in medicine is also not restricted to those who actually cure disease -- it can also be awarded to those who find ways to prevent disease.
The logic here is that the destruction of resources caused by climate change would lead to global conflict, so preventing climate change would prevent war. And world leaders will never make the commitments necessary to resolve the problem unless the electorate is informed.
There might be reasons to disagree with this logic, but I don't think it should be dismissed out of hand.
So he asks for a computer that does what he wants, and you want to give him one that does what he tells it to do? Something is wrong with this picture.
No, that is obviously not the case. Here you are using broad, population-based statistics to make individual choices for everyone. This is completely irrational.
Yes, diet and exercise can reduce the risk of heart disease, but it's a mistake to think this is the best choice for everyone. Perhaps most people would be better off, but some would hurt themselves exercising, some seriously. Some would (ironically) worsen some latent heart defect. Some would go too far and die from exercise. That's statistics for you.
As for diet, sure, lots of people could be better off. But McDonald's is cheap; some people couldn't afford the extra food costs of eating right, and could damage their finances, leading to stress and possibly heart disease. Many people use junk food itself to control stress (instead of, say, heroin) and it's possible that the food does less damage than the stress would. (Some of these people have much more stressful lives than J. Random Privileged Slashdotter.)
My point is that medical research is a tremendous boon to our society, even if it sometimes mostly benefits people who have made individual choices that differ from yours, even if some of those are simply mistakes. I think your classification of heart failure as "preventable" with a throwaway line about fast food belittles that.
You know, it's interesting that we've gone back to the notion that every disease someone can get (from heart failure to cancer) is once again assumed to be that person's fault. We had a pretty good run there where it was just a tragedy when someone experienced organ failure and the doctors and researchers who could extend their life were seen as heroes. Now we're back to this stupid myth that almost every disease is preventable, if only you were a better person. And it's just as disgusting as it was 50 years ago.
Get the flu? Should've washed your hands. Diabetes? Forget genetics, it's because you ate too much. I swear, one of these days some disease will be correlated with oxygen intake and we'll be told to breathe less. In reality, lifestyle plays a small to moderate part in a handful of diseases, but I guess if we admitted that people could get sick without some moral failing we'd have to admit that we live in an imperfect world where we will always need medicine, and medical research. No amount of dieting, exercise, or evolution will ever change that.
Re:What is this crazy tags thing?
on
Ask Rob Malda
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
The followup question to this is: since the tagging system seems to be a complete failure even when restricted to a small subset of users, what hope remains for its future evolution? At this point, why not just shut it down and give up?
By 'failure', I mean that the tags we see are generally ridiculously useless (like a "science" tag on a story in the Science section) or otherwise simply degenerate ("haha" seems to be the most common tag). It's hard to imagine what purpose the system would serve even if people were honest with it. Further, the idea of tagging comments as a future moderation system now seems completely horrible.
Randi absolutely DOES have the money. This is a documented fact.
The rest of your post is immune to facts, especially since your argument is essentially that there is more to truth than facts. You can have your imaginary world if you really want it. But don't go around telling lies about people.
Randi's challenge is much harder than that -- you have to be able to HEAR the difference in a blind test. Delicate instruments can tell one cable from another pretty well, but the only way to prove that one sounds better is to do a listen. A blind listen, of course, to eliminate psychology.
It's just they are balanced by a higher percentage of rational educated people
That is true enough... us Texans do drive through Oklahoma on occasion, on our way to places north. Otherwise I'm afraid y'all would be more like South Dakota.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, to clarify, it was somebody's OLD VHS tape, that they had recorded some soap opera on. Not an item sold at Amazon for sure, and just as suspicious as floor tiles.
There's no verification because I could be lying, as far as Amazon knows.
It's impossible to verify, but this kind of stuff happens all the time. I personally once had an order shipped from Amazon arrive with somebody's old VHS tape in the box instead of the new DVD I ordered. Amazon immediately corrected the problem, but that sort of thing is scary when it happens since you're afraid the company is going to think you're trying to get a free product.
It seems incredible of Best Buy to just assume that the customer is in the wrong. Why would he need TWO terabytes anyway? One terabyte ought to be enough for anybody.
I'm sorry to say, you aren't thinking very clearly if you missed the part that the poster put in bold. I'll quote it again for you:
Anyone using more than 5 GB per line in a given month is presumed to be using the service in a manner prohibited above
I'm not remotely jealous of fancy cars. I do not need more 'powertrain options'. My Civic gets me where I want to go.
Diesel cars like they have in Europe could be nice, but if the price of diesel fuel increases much more it won't be worth it.
Love of technology for its own sake is great -- don't get me wrong. But if a given nation's consumers as a whole decide that they don't need a particular technological advance, they aren't automatically wrong or ignorant. It's important not only to have technological development, but for it to be in the right direction.
Yeah, it's a bunch of whiz-bang crap without any real value. The prime example is the "MP4 Watch". Besides apparently not supporting MP4 (but who really knows, at this low level of journalism) it's stupid in the first place. It's not like it's hard to make a crappy little MP3 player, glue some straps to it, and call it a "watch". Whoopdy-do.
Yes, this is a mistake of modern religion -- attaching God to the so-far missing bits of science, and turning Him into a "God of the gaps". That's partially because they feel a need to make specific statements about God, like "He did this" or "He said that" or "this is what He wants".
Far better to let God dissolve, like sugar in water, invisible but still there. A sort of carrier signal for reality. But then I guess you wouldn't have much of a foundation for bashing gays.
Why wouldn't MMS ever happen? Not the biggest thing, but still more useful than the POS weather applet. And not likely that big of a deal to implement.
With the SMS client obviously at such an early stage of development I don't see how we could predict future features.
Well, as an iPhone owner (and, apparently, a Certified Fanboi(tm)), it's plainly obvious that the software wasn't finished in June and is still not finished. While the core features work well for the most part, any iPhone owner can name a dozen obvious omissions off the top of their head. MMS, copy/paste, SMS to multiple recipients, Safari stability, etc, etc. Not to mention an RPN mode for the Calculator ;)
I'm personally happy to have the device now, as it's extremely useful in a variety of ways (hence the fanboi status). But an SDK is only one of many things that are a tad overdue.
But by that logic, the only codec anyone could ever use is MP3, and we would keep using it just about forever. Is that really the best result?
As always, they are in the most widely-used format that isn't MP3 -- the very standard AAC.
There are some players out there that won't play AAC, but they are hard to find these days.
That's partially because, despite what the people posting here would have you believe, the economics prize is awarded by the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences -- the same organization that awards the prizes in physics and chemistry. It was established and funded by a grant from the Swedish central bank, but the bank does NOT determine the laureates.
34 seconds on my iPhone (on EDGE). Maybe you live somewhere with poor AT&T service?
From the Nobel Peace Prize press release, I quote:
"Extensive climate changes may alter and threaten the living conditions of much of mankind. They may induce large-scale migration and lead to greater competition for the earth's resources. Such changes will place particularly heavy burdens on the world's most vulnerable countries. There may be increased danger of violent conflicts and wars, within and between states."
http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/2007/press.html
The prize in medicine is also not restricted to those who actually cure disease -- it can also be awarded to those who find ways to prevent disease.
The logic here is that the destruction of resources caused by climate change would lead to global conflict, so preventing climate change would prevent war. And world leaders will never make the commitments necessary to resolve the problem unless the electorate is informed.
There might be reasons to disagree with this logic, but I don't think it should be dismissed out of hand.
So he asks for a computer that does what he wants, and you want to give him one that does what he tells it to do? Something is wrong with this picture.
Silly... obviously the question is NOT "When will this happen?" Without time there is no "when", and no "happen", and no "will". Only "this".
Should this research be correct, the only question left will be: "This?" Now and always and forever, this?
everyone would benefit from taking such actions
No, that is obviously not the case. Here you are using broad, population-based statistics to make individual choices for everyone. This is completely irrational.
Yes, diet and exercise can reduce the risk of heart disease, but it's a mistake to think this is the best choice for everyone. Perhaps most people would be better off, but some would hurt themselves exercising, some seriously. Some would (ironically) worsen some latent heart defect. Some would go too far and die from exercise. That's statistics for you.
As for diet, sure, lots of people could be better off. But McDonald's is cheap; some people couldn't afford the extra food costs of eating right, and could damage their finances, leading to stress and possibly heart disease. Many people use junk food itself to control stress (instead of, say, heroin) and it's possible that the food does less damage than the stress would. (Some of these people have much more stressful lives than J. Random Privileged Slashdotter.)
My point is that medical research is a tremendous boon to our society, even if it sometimes mostly benefits people who have made individual choices that differ from yours, even if some of those are simply mistakes. I think your classification of heart failure as "preventable" with a throwaway line about fast food belittles that.
You know, it's interesting that we've gone back to the notion that every disease someone can get (from heart failure to cancer) is once again assumed to be that person's fault. We had a pretty good run there where it was just a tragedy when someone experienced organ failure and the doctors and researchers who could extend their life were seen as heroes. Now we're back to this stupid myth that almost every disease is preventable, if only you were a better person. And it's just as disgusting as it was 50 years ago.
Get the flu? Should've washed your hands. Diabetes? Forget genetics, it's because you ate too much. I swear, one of these days some disease will be correlated with oxygen intake and we'll be told to breathe less. In reality, lifestyle plays a small to moderate part in a handful of diseases, but I guess if we admitted that people could get sick without some moral failing we'd have to admit that we live in an imperfect world where we will always need medicine, and medical research. No amount of dieting, exercise, or evolution will ever change that.
The followup question to this is: since the tagging system seems to be a complete failure even when restricted to a small subset of users, what hope remains for its future evolution? At this point, why not just shut it down and give up?
By 'failure', I mean that the tags we see are generally ridiculously useless (like a "science" tag on a story in the Science section) or otherwise simply degenerate ("haha" seems to be the most common tag). It's hard to imagine what purpose the system would serve even if people were honest with it. Further, the idea of tagging comments as a future moderation system now seems completely horrible.
UbuntuDupe, all that you have proven is that those who are not listening hear little.
Randi absolutely DOES have the money. This is a documented fact.
The rest of your post is immune to facts, especially since your argument is essentially that there is more to truth than facts. You can have your imaginary world if you really want it. But don't go around telling lies about people.
Randi's challenge is much harder than that -- you have to be able to HEAR the difference in a blind test. Delicate instruments can tell one cable from another pretty well, but the only way to prove that one sounds better is to do a listen. A blind listen, of course, to eliminate psychology.
Uh-huh... because only real go-getters are watching TV in the middle of the day when The Price is Right comes on.
It's just they are balanced by a higher percentage of rational educated people
That is true enough... us Texans do drive through Oklahoma on occasion, on our way to places north. Otherwise I'm afraid y'all would be more like South Dakota.