...you irrationally, with no valid evidence, praise them...
I said they were useful and helpful
Once again. How is it irrational to proclaim that something is useful based on the fact that it is used by people? Am I to assume that all the users of the product are doing it by accident?
And how is it irrational to suggest that these products are helpful? If the users of these products are using them on purpose, rather than completely by accident, then why are they doing it? To help themselves? Would a more rational assumption be that all the products' users hate themselves and are using the products in order to cause themselves harm?
I guess there needs to be a government-funded study to clear up this up.
There I was expecting some dreadful scientific inquiry, with experiments and all that gobbledygook, but thankfully your assertion has obviated such a necessity. Kohath proclaims: "these products are useful and help people."
Yeah. I guess you live in a world where people spend the time and money to invent things and routinely use things that aren't "useful" and don't "help people".
Proclaiming something as useful and helpful because people use it for their benefit is such a ridiculous stretch. What was I thinking?
These products are useful and help people. But they seem high-tech and hard to understand.
My prediction:
Some publicity-seeking scientist will figure out a way to kill an animal with these materials in some unrealistically large dose or something like that. There will be press reports about the "hidden danger" of these products lurking in your home. The Sierra Club will issue a press release about these products.
Protests. California will ban them. Then they'll get taken off the market.
The actual facts won't matter. If they're not dangerous, it won't matter.
The Sierra Club will use this for fund-raising. The press will give each other awards for their reporting on the "dangers" of these substances.
Folks like me calling for people to think and form their own opinions based on reality will be dismissed as tools of the hated "nanoparticle industry" or some similar ad hominem.
In entry level jobs, they really appreciate it if you even consistently show up on time. Add working hard and trying to do a good job and entry-level doesn't stay entry-level for too long.
And if it's not working out that way, those jobs are really easy to find. Eventually a good employee is appreciated and pay improves.
The pay starts out low. But it's higher than the $0 you get at school. And if you're not appreciated for a while at a job, that's at least no worse than the appreciation you get at school.
---
Dropping out is a bad move. But schools need to change dramatically. And parents and kids in high school need to look for some better alternative. A better school, early graduation of some kind, college classes instead of high school, a private school, home schooling, a charter school, a military school, or something else -- some place with a mission that doesn't involve warehousing kids for tax dollars.
So try to find a better job or try to make your current job better.
My situation isn't really luck. I left an easy, boring, well-paying programming job for a much harder sysadmin job that paid a little less and had worse job security. I tried very hard and volunteered for stuff that I basically didn't know how to do. After a while, I was able to make a lateral move into doing the new work, which I have since mostly figured out how to do. I'm not qualified to do the job, so it's a big challenge every day to get it done as well as someone who is qualified. The new work is enormously complicated, so I doubt I'll get bored very soon.
There's some luck involved, but it's mostly hard work, choices, attitude and determination. Also ability.
If it's any consolation, you likely get paid more than me.
Did they too think that the kidney stone was just a kid trying to skip out on a day of class?
That old trick? Back in my day, we used to give ourselves a lot worse ailments to get out of school. How do you think Typhoid Mary got her nickname? And Hansen's Disease? Hansen had a test that day.
One particularly ingenious kid got cancer to get out of mid-terms. What an amazing stunt! It's been 20 years and he still hasn't had to go back.
This doesn't mean that isolated cities (such as Detroit and Baltimore) that have experienced serious economic problems and urban blight are better than 30 years ago, they are likely worse...
It's only because Republicans have run those towns for the last 30 years. If Democrats had been in power, each of those places would be a paradise of egalitarian progressive idealism.
Our schools suck because parents and communities are willing to blame everything but their own disinterest in education, and therefore do nothing to fix the problem.
Doing nothing is easier. And why should you even try when you can find someone else to blame?
Doesn't everyone know that life is supposed to be extremely easy? No one is supposed to ever have any problems. Things are just supposed to work out the way you want.
When they don't, it's not your fault. It's also not "just the way things work out". Nope. Someone's to blame.
You're supposed to find out who and get even with them by suing them or taxing them or protesting against them or boycotting them or jailing them or stealing from them or fining them or oppressing them or just generally being hateful. It's the new American way.
No one is "forced" to attend their job. People choose to go.
Doing something because you decide to do it is always better than doing something because you're forced even if the two activities are precisely the same.
But you're also providing an excuse for schools to fail. Why even try? Blame the parents.
The schools suck. Is that because of the parents? Let's just say it is. Solutions? The parents aren't going to magically get better.
If the schools don't work because of the deficiencies of the current generation of parents, then the schools don't work. The schools, therefore, have to be changed to something that does work with the current generation of parents. A radical change is in order.
That may not be fair to the schools. Too bad. Continuing to do a bad job year after year isn't fair to the children.
What's wrong with our school system that so many kids prefer working 40 hours a week instead?
When you show up and work 40 hours a week and try to do a good job, people actually appreciate it. They'll even thank you for being helpful and doing a good job. It's rewarding and satisfying. Work is an accomplishment. And they pay you.
No one thanks you for going to school. You're forced to go there. No one appreciates your contributions. There are no rewards. School is a process that a person goes through. No one cares about you at the beginning, in the middle, or at the end of the process.
I don't think a big increase in funding so the teachers can have a lower health-care co-pay is the answer.
c) there is no internal scaler, so those of us with 720p TVs that can't take a 1080p signal can't even play the sole launch gem Resistance: Fall Of Man at 720p, and have to resort to standard def.
If true, this is a useful bit of information. You have just outdone the NY Times.
Do you really think a lot of people reading that would think it meant that it came up with absolutely no cables to hook it up to a TV?
I don't know what people will think. But the article says you can't hook it up to an HDTV with the cables that come with it. What that made me think is "what a bunch of BS; this review sucks".
The article says "Sony inexplicably does not include cables to connect the machine to a high-definition television". That statement is simply false. The composite cable allows you to hook the system up to any modern television.
I didn't say it wasn't relevant. To say "it was annoying that I had to buy a $6 cable for a good HD experience" would be valid and informative, if a little petty. To say "Sony inexplicably does not include cables to connect the machine to a high-definition television" is simply untrue.
I guess I don't share the need to make petty points about Sony's HD message. Some people think that's important for some inexplicable reason.
Who the fuck are you to make up rules about what how a review should be structured? Have you ever written a review for anything? Clearly not!
I just did.
Has the NY Times reviewer ever developed a game console? Clearly not! Who the fuck is he to to make up rules about what features a game console should have and how it should work?
What went wrong with Sony? Why can't they compete anymore?
The complete answer: You believe what you read on the Internet and there's been a lot of biased anti-Sony stories. Therefore, you believe that something went wrong at Sony and they can't compete anymore. If you were more discerning, you might just wait and see whether Sony's strategy with the PS3 works.
(And on the MP3-player front, their content divisions screwed that up because they were afraid anything they'd do would hurt their CD sales.)
Slashdot Mirror
...you irrationally, with no valid evidence, praise them...
I said they were useful and helpful
Once again. How is it irrational to proclaim that something is useful based on the fact that it is used by people? Am I to assume that all the users of the product are doing it by accident?
And how is it irrational to suggest that these products are helpful? If the users of these products are using them on purpose, rather than completely by accident, then why are they doing it? To help themselves? Would a more rational assumption be that all the products' users hate themselves and are using the products in order to cause themselves harm?
I guess there needs to be a government-funded study to clear up this up.
Um, this is "stuff that matters"?
Beating the anti-Sony drum. Hate-Sony, Hate-Sony, Hate-Sony, Hate-Sony...
It's just sad. Get a hobby or something, Zonk.
There I was expecting some dreadful scientific inquiry, with experiments and all that gobbledygook, but thankfully your assertion has obviated such a necessity. Kohath proclaims: "these products are useful and help people."
Yeah. I guess you live in a world where people spend the time and money to invent things and routinely use things that aren't "useful" and don't "help people".
Proclaiming something as useful and helpful because people use it for their benefit is such a ridiculous stretch. What was I thinking?
These products are useful and help people. But they seem high-tech and hard to understand.
My prediction:
Some publicity-seeking scientist will figure out a way to kill an animal with these materials in some unrealistically large dose or something like that. There will be press reports about the "hidden danger" of these products lurking in your home. The Sierra Club will issue a press release about these products.
Protests. California will ban them. Then they'll get taken off the market.
The actual facts won't matter. If they're not dangerous, it won't matter.
The Sierra Club will use this for fund-raising. The press will give each other awards for their reporting on the "dangers" of these substances.
Folks like me calling for people to think and form their own opinions based on reality will be dismissed as tools of the hated "nanoparticle industry" or some similar ad hominem.
hate is not funny. especially when people laugh
Ok, let me get this straight.
The methane gas was coming from an 800-pound gorilla?
In entry level jobs, they really appreciate it if you even consistently show up on time. Add working hard and trying to do a good job and entry-level doesn't stay entry-level for too long.
And if it's not working out that way, those jobs are really easy to find. Eventually a good employee is appreciated and pay improves.
The pay starts out low. But it's higher than the $0 you get at school. And if you're not appreciated for a while at a job, that's at least no worse than the appreciation you get at school.
---
Dropping out is a bad move. But schools need to change dramatically. And parents and kids in high school need to look for some better alternative. A better school, early graduation of some kind, college classes instead of high school, a private school, home schooling, a charter school, a military school, or something else -- some place with a mission that doesn't involve warehousing kids for tax dollars.
So try to find a better job or try to make your current job better.
My situation isn't really luck. I left an easy, boring, well-paying programming job for a much harder sysadmin job that paid a little less and had worse job security. I tried very hard and volunteered for stuff that I basically didn't know how to do. After a while, I was able to make a lateral move into doing the new work, which I have since mostly figured out how to do. I'm not qualified to do the job, so it's a big challenge every day to get it done as well as someone who is qualified. The new work is enormously complicated, so I doubt I'll get bored very soon.
There's some luck involved, but it's mostly hard work, choices, attitude and determination. Also ability.
If it's any consolation, you likely get paid more than me.
Did they too think that the kidney stone was just a kid trying to skip out on a day of class?
That old trick? Back in my day, we used to give ourselves a lot worse ailments to get out of school. How do you think Typhoid Mary got her nickname? And Hansen's Disease? Hansen had a test that day.
One particularly ingenious kid got cancer to get out of mid-terms. What an amazing stunt! It's been 20 years and he still hasn't had to go back.
I could almost physically feel my knowledge improving as I was studying in these classes.
Some of us get that at work.
This doesn't mean that isolated cities (such as Detroit and Baltimore) that have experienced serious economic problems and urban blight are better than 30 years ago, they are likely worse...
It's only because Republicans have run those towns for the last 30 years. If Democrats had been in power, each of those places would be a paradise of egalitarian progressive idealism.
Oh. Wait a sec... Let me look that up again....
But teachers with experience are often reluctant to go to non-union schools.
And that's what school is about, right? The teachers. We should all care sooo much that the schools are working out good for the teachers.
Doing nothing is easier. And why should you even try when you can find someone else to blame?
Doesn't everyone know that life is supposed to be extremely easy? No one is supposed to ever have any problems. Things are just supposed to work out the way you want.
When they don't, it's not your fault. It's also not "just the way things work out". Nope. Someone's to blame.
You're supposed to find out who and get even with them by suing them or taxing them or protesting against them or boycotting them or jailing them or stealing from them or fining them or oppressing them or just generally being hateful. It's the new American way.
No one is "forced" to attend their job. People choose to go.
Doing something because you decide to do it is always better than doing something because you're forced even if the two activities are precisely the same.
You are correct.
But you're also providing an excuse for schools to fail. Why even try? Blame the parents.
The schools suck. Is that because of the parents? Let's just say it is. Solutions? The parents aren't going to magically get better.
If the schools don't work because of the deficiencies of the current generation of parents, then the schools don't work. The schools, therefore, have to be changed to something that does work with the current generation of parents. A radical change is in order.
That may not be fair to the schools. Too bad. Continuing to do a bad job year after year isn't fair to the children.
When you show up and work 40 hours a week and try to do a good job, people actually appreciate it. They'll even thank you for being helpful and doing a good job. It's rewarding and satisfying. Work is an accomplishment. And they pay you.
No one thanks you for going to school. You're forced to go there. No one appreciates your contributions. There are no rewards. School is a process that a person goes through. No one cares about you at the beginning, in the middle, or at the end of the process.
I don't think a big increase in funding so the teachers can have a lower health-care co-pay is the answer.
No way. The Bulgars were robed. I scene it.
Yeah, but the NY Times readership is dropping. Mine is going up :)
BTW
:)
c) there is no internal scaler, so those of us with 720p TVs that can't take a 1080p signal can't even play the sole launch gem Resistance: Fall Of Man at 720p, and have to resort to standard def.
If true, this is a useful bit of information. You have just outdone the NY Times.
(If it's not true, you're tied with them
Do you really think a lot of people reading that would think it meant that it came up with absolutely no cables to hook it up to a TV?
I don't know what people will think. But the article says you can't hook it up to an HDTV with the cables that come with it. What that made me think is "what a bunch of BS; this review sucks".
That's what the article said.
The article says "Sony inexplicably does not include cables to connect the machine to a high-definition television". That statement is simply false. The composite cable allows you to hook the system up to any modern television.
So I guess we should only have reviews from Nintendo, Sony and Microsoft...
Or you could just give up the BS about who is entitled to have an opinion and who isn't.
The HDMI cable complaint is completely relevant.
I didn't say it wasn't relevant. To say "it was annoying that I had to buy a $6 cable for a good HD experience" would be valid and informative, if a little petty. To say "Sony inexplicably does not include cables to connect the machine to a high-definition television" is simply untrue.
I guess I don't share the need to make petty points about Sony's HD message. Some people think that's important for some inexplicable reason.
Who the fuck are you to make up rules about what how a review should be structured? Have you ever written a review for anything? Clearly not!
I just did.
Has the NY Times reviewer ever developed a game console? Clearly not! Who the fuck is he to to make up rules about what features a game console should have and how it should work?
What went wrong with Sony? Why can't they compete anymore?
The complete answer: You believe what you read on the Internet and there's been a lot of biased anti-Sony stories. Therefore, you believe that something went wrong at Sony and they can't compete anymore. If you were more discerning, you might just wait and see whether Sony's strategy with the PS3 works.
(And on the MP3-player front, their content divisions screwed that up because they were afraid anything they'd do would hurt their CD sales.)