Blackberry is rumoured to consider selling their handset division
So, Blackberry, after changing their name to Blackberry would no longer be making or selling... Blackberrys.
That's right, and it makes sense. They tried to get Lenovo to buy them in 2013, and that didn't pan out, because of IP issues. Now, if they sold just the handset division and the brand name, they could resurrect the Research in Motion brand, and emphasize their services division, which they've been beefing up via acquisitions.
In other words, they want to do with their phones what IBM did with their laptops. Get rid of a low-margin hardware business with high inventory requirements and concentrate on high-margin services.
Having lived it first-hand from both sides of the gender divide, I'm not exactly in a position to argue the point, because I find that my decision-making process takes into consideration the feelings of those involved a lot more now. It might be because I'm more able to detect the cues, or that everyone - of both sexes - is more open to communicating their emotional state to me (which is definitely true), or that I'm now "permitted" to include that data in any analysis. Or, as my personal troll (APK, the HOSTS file guy) keeps reminding everyone here, it's just the estrogen destroying my brain:-)
But seeing as I have a personal bias, I have to disqualify myself as to which is the better approach. I'm much more comfortable making decisions now, because I feel I'm getting a broader base of information on which to base any decision, and it's so much better now because anything can be discussed - even feelings - without having to worry about "what someone might think."
I will say this, though. When it comes to making heavily emotional decisions, men generally tend to do worse. Suicide - 3x to 10x worse. Murder. Stalkers. Violent assaults. Men lead women in all these categories. So many men try so hard to deny their emotions (possibly because they don't want to be seen as weak or wrong) that when it leaks out, it's like a gusher. Everyone ends up losing.
But which is better? That depends on the people and the situation, same as it always has.
one of the world’s top neuroscientists, Antonio Damasio, profiled his patient, Elliott, one of his most well-known cases. Formerly a successful businessman, model father and husband, Elliott suffered from ventromedial frontal lobe damage as a result of a tumor and subsequent surgery for removal.
Following his operation, Elliot dispassionately reported to Damasio that his life was falling apart. While still in the 97th percentile for IQ, Elliot lacked all motivation. His marriage collapsed as did each new business he started. Damasio found Elliott an “uninvolved spectator” in his own life, “He was always controlled. Nowhere was there a sense of his own suffering, even though he was the protagonist. I never saw a tinge of emotion in my many hours of conversation with him: no sadness, no impatience, no frustration.”
It was clear to Damasio that as a result of his surgery, Elliot was incapable of making decisions, “Elliott emerged as a man with a normal intellect who was unable to decide properly, especially when the decision involved personal or social matters.” Even small decisions were fraught with endless deliberation: making an appointment took 30 minutes, choosing where to eat lunch took all afternoon, even deciding which color pen to use to fill out office forms was a chore. Turns out Elliott’s lack of emotion paralyzed his decision-making.
statistically speaking (well, at least according to several large surveys), most women actually do prefer male authority in the work-place.
The stats you linked to pointed to a strong age bias. While the difference in preference was only a couple of percent for young respondents, it leaned further and further towards men in each of the older groups. It's the same thing as in science - for a new paradigm to be accepted, you often have to wait for the old guard to die off.
If half of your "crew" is eating half a portion while the other is spending so many calories they are losing weight despite eating more - they are not doing the same work.
You don't lose weight exercising "brain power" alone.
Women of the same weight as men have a 5-10% lower basal metabolic rate (and that bmr typically accounts for 60-70% of your total energy expended - source).
Now throw in smaller women and larger men, and the difference can easily be 50%. That is sufficient to explain why the women got along on smaller portions.
Coming from a male a suggestion to send an all female crew cause they "eat less" and have smaller muscles would smack of "as long as men are around to open doors for them, women can do almost everything a man can" veiled misogyny.
There's a big difference between "a suggestion to send an all female crew cause they eat less and have smaller muscles" and "as long as men are around to open doors for them, women can do almost everything a man can".
Again, you resort to personal insults. And wrt comparing me to the temperance movement - where have I said that nobody should ever swear? Oh, that's right - I never did. But they should be aware of the consequences, because (1) you never know who may be listening, and (2) it's not a substitute for real communications, especially when almost every sentence contains one or more obscenities. It's noise, a distraction, effectively lowering the signal to noise ratio.
Look through the entire thread. My original post on how swearing isn't necessary is at +5. You tried to attack it by claiming that words are just words, and managed only a +3. Given the default for logged-in posters is a +2, 3x as many people found my point to be valid as compared to yours.
I guess not too many people impressed with you insulting people just because you disagree with them. So keep on with your silly maunderings. The votes are in, and you lost:-)
However I'd argue in a truly remote environment where no external help is to be had, that the raw strength a few very fit males could provide could be useful in an emergency.
Power tools. Everything from screwdrivers to come-alongs to chain blocks to robotic arms.
And of course the added benefit of not having crews making babies at the worst possible time. On a one-way mission (say to Mars) there's no reason the all-female crew couldn't just bring along frozen sperm and produce the first generation of Martians.
The solution to yet another init system is to support even more init systems?
If systemd needs to die, then say so. Give the reasons why, then fork it if necessary. We've got enough problems supporting different not-invented-here stuff in too many distros already.
65,000 people don't belong in any dessert. That's clearly unsanitary.
[_] Shhhh... it's made from soylent green:-)
[_] Well, we had to find a new use for all those zombie parts coming on-stream thanks to ebola.
[_] "You got people in my dessert!" "You got dessert in my people!"
[_] It's Burning Man. They'll eat anything.
[_] You know our slogan - "it's real people food?" Well, what did you expect?
[_] You're right - there's not enough people in the dessert. Everyone knows 640k should be enough.
[_] At Burning Man, people desert YOU (probably because of the smell after the first few days...)
"I want a mumble mumble mumble and a mumble mumble mumble - no make that mumble mumble mumble..."
"Mumble mumble mumble?"
Morale of the story - get your lazy ass out of the car if you want your "fat food" fast.
The real reasons for two lines into one:
1. Once they have your order, they have you. Don't matter how long the queue takes - you're already psychologically invested, stuck in the line. Welcome to the Hotel California fast food queue;
2. Those awful speaker systems - combined with language barriers in much of Canada - mean that sometimes just getting the order will jam up the line. I think they must buy their speakers from the same company that sells P.A. systems to the Metro.
It's a myth that Sugar causes diabetes. I'm so tired of that FUD being spread around.
There is no direct link between sugar and diabetes. Sugar causes weight gain and obesity, which can lead to diabetes.
I have a sister who has never been overweight. She has type 2 diabetes. Insulin resistance (type 2) is caused by the body being repeatedly forced to produce high levels of insulin - such as her 2 liters a day Pepsi habit - over a lifetime. Those May Wests and chocolate bars didn't help. So, her tissues developed resistance to her body's insulin, and now she has to take pills to help her tissues utilize the insulin she produces.
Same story with one of my nephews, who was always a bit skinny, but guzzled soft drinks all his life.
Ask any endocrinologist. Type two diabetics come in all shapes and sizes.
Given that type 2 diabetes represents more than 90% of all diabetes, we really need to cut the crap (including soft drinks). There was a time when soft drinks weren't a regular part of lunch or supper meals. Now people are drinking them at breakfast.
What I'm waiting for is a legal definition of what a troll is.
The actual case that caused all this was someone else behaving like a troll, and their daughter defending it, and getting trolled herself. FTFA:
Grayling cited the case of Chloe Madeley, the daughter of television presenters Richard Madeley and Judy Finnigan, who was trolled after she defended her mother’s remarks about the convicted rapist Ched Evans.
Finnigan said Evans, who was released from prison last week after serving half of a five-year sentence for raping a 19-year-old woman, should be allowed to resume his career as a footballer because his rape had not been violent and he had not caused “any bodily harm”. Chloe Madeley faced rape threats on social media after she defended her mother’s remarks.
On 20 April 2012, the jury returned its verdicts. McDonald was acquitted. Evans was convicted of rape and sentenced to five years imprisonment. Judge Merfyn Hughes QC stated in his sentencing remarks that: "The complainant was 19 years of age and was extremely intoxicated. CCTV footage shows, in my view, the extent of her intoxication when she stumbled into your friend. As the jury have found, she was in no condition to have sexual intercourse. When you arrived at the hotel, you must have realised that.
So:
1. Guy convicted of rape by a jury.
2. TV personality says "should be allowed to resume playing soccer because no bodily harm was done" (original troll)
3. Daughter of troll joins into trolling on her mother's side.
4. People respond to trolling.
No, your ORIGINAL point was that any individual word, by itself, was just meaningless sounds, and doesn't cause harm.
All your attempts to move the goalposts show that your original point was flawed.
You're proving yourself to be a moron. But then you'd already given that impression with the whole avoiding swear words
Wow, just... wow. So, not swearing is now a sign of being sub-intelligent? Do you by comparison hold people with Tourettes in very high esteem based on their use of swear words? Or is it because you lack the self-control to control what comes out of your own mouth, so you feel a need to belittle those who can do better?
Speaking of both self-control and individuality, everyone I know swears. I seem to be the only exception, so it's not because of my immediate environment. It's not from upbringing - my parents swore, and my 5 sisters do as well. It's not from religion - I'm an atheist. Work habits? Nope - every employer and pretty much every male co-worker swore - some of them a LOT. Female co-workers had *much* lower incidences of swearing both on and off the job. And yet, it took me only a week to stop.
Why do people swear? It's an emotional response - it "feels good." So rather than deal with a situation rationally, they respond emotionally. And too often, that emotional response becomes the goal, rather than solving the problem at hand - people just start swearing at each other as debate gets more and more heated, because it makes them feel good. This is a dysfunctional response over the medium and long term, but it "sure feels good" in the short term.
Same excuse that addicts use for any other dysfunctional behavior. But it's still the dysfunctional, immature response for dealing with life's problems.
Note I'm being insulting without using swear words. Equally I could be non-insulting whilst using them. Another nice illustration of my point that it's not the individual words that matter but the meaning conveyed in a specific context.
Nope. Your ORIGINAL point was words by themselves. NO extra context. Single words.
It's funny that only on slashdot could someone be denigrated for refusing to swear. Or not so funny. Kind of lame, really.
Here you go again. I must have hit a real nerve with you. You keep on throwing personal insults, but you continue to dodge the main issue - your hypothesis doesn't carry over into the real world. All the complaining about implied contexts is totally beside the point - the real world IS the context. And I disproved your hypothesis in just a few seconds with multiple real-world examples.
Either admit your hypothesis as originally formulated was weak, or flawed, or did not apply to the real world, or was simply wrong. Your explanations of how you're "still right", coupled with your continued insults at myself and anyone else who disagrees, are simply not going to cut it.
Oh, so now you are saying that experiments are valid only if there is zero context? No specific inputs? No theory to test against? That's not an experiment. That's just someone trying to CYA after having their pet proposition eviscerated in public.
Name a SINGLE experiment that does not have a context, in ANY scientific field. Just one.
Here is your exact proposition, in your words:
Words are just words. Sounds made by a human mouth, to which we've attached a meaning for the purpose of communication. They don't hurt anyone in and of themselves
Pretty plain and easy for anyone to parse.
And so is my rebuttal:
So go up to the every cop you see and say one word to them as loud as you can. "Motherf***er".
And to every woman you see and say "C*nt".
And every man you see and say "C*cksucker"
Let us know how it works. After all, these are single words, without context, in your own words.
Fact: Those are single words. In the real world, they are not just sounds that "don't hurt anyone in and of themselves" You hypothesized something, it failed the real-world test. Either admit the original hypothesis was wrong, or too limited, or that it needs to be adjusted. You know, like scientists are *supposed* to do when their hypothesis fails the real-world test.
The more you try to defend the indefensible by name-calling, the worse you look.
Slashdot Mirror
Blackberry is rumoured to consider selling their handset division
So, Blackberry, after changing their name to Blackberry would no longer be making or selling... Blackberrys.
That's right, and it makes sense. They tried to get Lenovo to buy them in 2013, and that didn't pan out, because of IP issues. Now, if they sold just the handset division and the brand name, they could resurrect the Research in Motion brand, and emphasize their services division, which they've been beefing up via acquisitions. In other words, they want to do with their phones what IBM did with their laptops. Get rid of a low-margin hardware business with high inventory requirements and concentrate on high-margin services.
Having lived it first-hand from both sides of the gender divide, I'm not exactly in a position to argue the point, because I find that my decision-making process takes into consideration the feelings of those involved a lot more now. It might be because I'm more able to detect the cues, or that everyone - of both sexes - is more open to communicating their emotional state to me (which is definitely true), or that I'm now "permitted" to include that data in any analysis. Or, as my personal troll (APK, the HOSTS file guy) keeps reminding everyone here, it's just the estrogen destroying my brain :-)
But seeing as I have a personal bias, I have to disqualify myself as to which is the better approach. I'm much more comfortable making decisions now, because I feel I'm getting a broader base of information on which to base any decision, and it's so much better now because anything can be discussed - even feelings - without having to worry about "what someone might think."
I will say this, though. When it comes to making heavily emotional decisions, men generally tend to do worse. Suicide - 3x to 10x worse. Murder. Stalkers. Violent assaults. Men lead women in all these categories. So many men try so hard to deny their emotions (possibly because they don't want to be seen as weak or wrong) that when it leaks out, it's like a gusher. Everyone ends up losing.
But which is better? That depends on the people and the situation, same as it always has.
Anecdotal evidence isn't proof. You should know this.
I do. That's why I wrote "Ask any endocrinologist. Type two diabetics come in all shapes and sizes. "
We also know that women tend to use more emotion in judgement than men. In fact women use emotion all the time quite, and quite differently from men.
Please check this out. Emotions are used by both sexes in making decisions.
one of the world’s top neuroscientists, Antonio Damasio, profiled his patient, Elliott, one of his most well-known cases. Formerly a successful businessman, model father and husband, Elliott suffered from ventromedial frontal lobe damage as a result of a tumor and subsequent surgery for removal.
Following his operation, Elliot dispassionately reported to Damasio that his life was falling apart. While still in the 97th percentile for IQ, Elliot lacked all motivation. His marriage collapsed as did each new business he started. Damasio found Elliott an “uninvolved spectator” in his own life, “He was always controlled. Nowhere was there a sense of his own suffering, even though he was the protagonist. I never saw a tinge of emotion in my many hours of conversation with him: no sadness, no impatience, no frustration.”
It was clear to Damasio that as a result of his surgery, Elliot was incapable of making decisions, “Elliott emerged as a man with a normal intellect who was unable to decide properly, especially when the decision involved personal or social matters.” Even small decisions were fraught with endless deliberation: making an appointment took 30 minutes, choosing where to eat lunch took all afternoon, even deciding which color pen to use to fill out office forms was a chore. Turns out Elliott’s lack of emotion paralyzed his decision-making.
So build the hab inside the water tank.
the correct answer to space travel is obvious, its dwarfs
They're ewoks, you ignorant clod!
statistically speaking (well, at least according to several large surveys), most women actually do prefer male authority in the work-place.
The stats you linked to pointed to a strong age bias. While the difference in preference was only a couple of percent for young respondents, it leaned further and further towards men in each of the older groups. It's the same thing as in science - for a new paradigm to be accepted, you often have to wait for the old guard to die off.
If half of your "crew" is eating half a portion while the other is spending so many calories they are losing weight despite eating more - they are not doing the same work. You don't lose weight exercising "brain power" alone.
Women of the same weight as men have a 5-10% lower basal metabolic rate (and that bmr typically accounts for 60-70% of your total energy expended - source).
Now throw in smaller women and larger men, and the difference can easily be 50%. That is sufficient to explain why the women got along on smaller portions.
Coming from a male a suggestion to send an all female crew cause they "eat less" and have smaller muscles would smack of "as long as men are around to open doors for them, women can do almost everything a man can" veiled misogyny.
There's a big difference between "a suggestion to send an all female crew cause they eat less and have smaller muscles" and "as long as men are around to open doors for them, women can do almost everything a man can".
Again, you resort to personal insults. And wrt comparing me to the temperance movement - where have I said that nobody should ever swear? Oh, that's right - I never did. But they should be aware of the consequences, because (1) you never know who may be listening, and (2) it's not a substitute for real communications, especially when almost every sentence contains one or more obscenities. It's noise, a distraction, effectively lowering the signal to noise ratio.
I guess not too many people impressed with you insulting people just because you disagree with them. So keep on with your silly maunderings. The votes are in, and you lost :-)
However I'd argue in a truly remote environment where no external help is to be had, that the raw strength a few very fit males could provide could be useful in an emergency.
Power tools. Everything from screwdrivers to come-alongs to chain blocks to robotic arms.
And of course the added benefit of not having crews making babies at the worst possible time. On a one-way mission (say to Mars) there's no reason the all-female crew couldn't just bring along frozen sperm and produce the first generation of Martians.
The solution to yet another init system is to support even more init systems?
If systemd needs to die, then say so. Give the reasons why, then fork it if necessary. We've got enough problems supporting different not-invented-here stuff in too many distros already.
"instead of having them wait either a very short time if they arrive when ice is available or a long time when ice is sold out."
If they're sold out, the waiting time in line falls to zero.
Say welcome to our cannibalistic PETA overlords.
65,000 people don't belong in any dessert. That's clearly unsanitary.
[_] Shhhh ... it's made from soylent green :-)
...)
[_] Well, we had to find a new use for all those zombie parts coming on-stream thanks to ebola.
[_] "You got people in my dessert!" "You got dessert in my people!"
[_] It's Burning Man. They'll eat anything.
[_] You know our slogan - "it's real people food?" Well, what did you expect?
[_] You're right - there's not enough people in the dessert. Everyone knows 640k should be enough.
[_] At Burning Man, people desert YOU (probably because of the smell after the first few days
"Mumble mumble mumble?"
Morale of the story - get your lazy ass out of the car if you want your "fat food" fast.
The real reasons for two lines into one:
1. Once they have your order, they have you. Don't matter how long the queue takes - you're already psychologically invested, stuck in the line. Welcome to the Hotel California fast food queue;
2. Those awful speaker systems - combined with language barriers in much of Canada - mean that sometimes just getting the order will jam up the line. I think they must buy their speakers from the same company that sells P.A. systems to the Metro.
Sure the latency is bad - but look at it this way - you get to snack on the transport layer while waiting for the next pigeon-packet :-)
It's a myth that Sugar causes diabetes. I'm so tired of that FUD being spread around.
There is no direct link between sugar and diabetes. Sugar causes weight gain and obesity, which can lead to diabetes.
I have a sister who has never been overweight. She has type 2 diabetes. Insulin resistance (type 2) is caused by the body being repeatedly forced to produce high levels of insulin - such as her 2 liters a day Pepsi habit - over a lifetime. Those May Wests and chocolate bars didn't help. So, her tissues developed resistance to her body's insulin, and now she has to take pills to help her tissues utilize the insulin she produces.
Same story with one of my nephews, who was always a bit skinny, but guzzled soft drinks all his life.
Ask any endocrinologist. Type two diabetics come in all shapes and sizes.
Given that type 2 diabetes represents more than 90% of all diabetes, we really need to cut the crap (including soft drinks). There was a time when soft drinks weren't a regular part of lunch or supper meals. Now people are drinking them at breakfast.
What I'm waiting for is a legal definition of what a troll is.
The actual case that caused all this was someone else behaving like a troll, and their daughter defending it, and getting trolled herself. FTFA:
Grayling cited the case of Chloe Madeley, the daughter of television presenters Richard Madeley and Judy Finnigan, who was trolled after she defended her mother’s remarks about the convicted rapist Ched Evans.
Finnigan said Evans, who was released from prison last week after serving half of a five-year sentence for raping a 19-year-old woman, should be allowed to resume his career as a footballer because his rape had not been violent and he had not caused “any bodily harm”. Chloe Madeley faced rape threats on social media after she defended her mother’s remarks.
The impossibility of consent, as proven by video footage:
On 20 April 2012, the jury returned its verdicts. McDonald was acquitted. Evans was convicted of rape and sentenced to five years imprisonment. Judge Merfyn Hughes QC stated in his sentencing remarks that: "The complainant was 19 years of age and was extremely intoxicated. CCTV footage shows, in my view, the extent of her intoxication when she stumbled into your friend. As the jury have found, she was in no condition to have sexual intercourse. When you arrived at the hotel, you must have realised that.
So:
1. Guy convicted of rape by a jury.
2. TV personality says "should be allowed to resume playing soccer because no bodily harm was done" (original troll)
3. Daughter of troll joins into trolling on her mother's side.
4. People respond to trolling.
No, your ORIGINAL point was that any individual word, by itself, was just meaningless sounds, and doesn't cause harm. All your attempts to move the goalposts show that your original point was flawed.
You're proving yourself to be a moron. But then you'd already given that impression with the whole avoiding swear words
Wow, just ... wow. So, not swearing is now a sign of being sub-intelligent? Do you by comparison hold people with Tourettes in very high esteem based on their use of swear words? Or is it because you lack the self-control to control what comes out of your own mouth, so you feel a need to belittle those who can do better?
Speaking of both self-control and individuality, everyone I know swears. I seem to be the only exception, so it's not because of my immediate environment. It's not from upbringing - my parents swore, and my 5 sisters do as well. It's not from religion - I'm an atheist. Work habits? Nope - every employer and pretty much every male co-worker swore - some of them a LOT. Female co-workers had *much* lower incidences of swearing both on and off the job. And yet, it took me only a week to stop.
Why do people swear? It's an emotional response - it "feels good." So rather than deal with a situation rationally, they respond emotionally. And too often, that emotional response becomes the goal, rather than solving the problem at hand - people just start swearing at each other as debate gets more and more heated, because it makes them feel good. This is a dysfunctional response over the medium and long term, but it "sure feels good" in the short term.
Same excuse that addicts use for any other dysfunctional behavior. But it's still the dysfunctional, immature response for dealing with life's problems.
coupled with your continued insults at myself
Note I'm being insulting without using swear words. Equally I could be non-insulting whilst using them. Another nice illustration of my point that it's not the individual words that matter but the meaning conveyed in a specific context.
Nope. Your ORIGINAL point was words by themselves. NO extra context. Single words.
It's funny that only on slashdot could someone be denigrated for refusing to swear. Or not so funny. Kind of lame, really.
Oh, and your "explanation" is just words :-)
Either admit your hypothesis as originally formulated was weak, or flawed, or did not apply to the real world, or was simply wrong. Your explanations of how you're "still right", coupled with your continued insults at myself and anyone else who disagrees, are simply not going to cut it.
Name a SINGLE experiment that does not have a context, in ANY scientific field. Just one.
Here is your exact proposition, in your words:
Words are just words. Sounds made by a human mouth, to which we've attached a meaning for the purpose of communication. They don't hurt anyone in and of themselves
Pretty plain and easy for anyone to parse.
And so is my rebuttal:
So go up to the every cop you see and say one word to them as loud as you can. "Motherf***er".
And to every woman you see and say "C*nt".
And every man you see and say "C*cksucker"
Let us know how it works. After all, these are single words, without context, in your own words.
Fact: Those are single words. In the real world, they are not just sounds that "don't hurt anyone in and of themselves" You hypothesized something, it failed the real-world test. Either admit the original hypothesis was wrong, or too limited, or that it needs to be adjusted. You know, like scientists are *supposed* to do when their hypothesis fails the real-world test.
The more you try to defend the indefensible by name-calling, the worse you look.
After all, they seem to get off on losing.
Don't complain. In this case, there really IS nothing to see here.