We use Windows XP on a few machines primarily used for research, and we've patched with little difficulty. All of our hardware has worked fine.
However, the machines run a very specific set of programs with little "internet" contact. XP-SP2 seems mostly to provide "buffer" for Netziens surfing around on unprotected machines having little 'net experience, which, lets all be fair, is a disasterous situation.
Bottom line, however, is that Windows XP, or any other operating system, can't stop people from doing ignorant things. Most of these things are *ignorant*, and not stupid - people who don't know proper procedures can't be expected to suddenly abide by them.
Not to beat a dead horse, but Real as a company seem to have some of the worst standards out there in terms of how they treat their customers.
Especially if, by customers, you mean "People who have been duped into installing Real's software package and can't seem to get rid of it."
I'm not so naive as to expect Realplayer to ask if it wants to uninstall every time it runs, but essentially, Real Networks lives off of cheap-shots, parlor tricks, and ignorance. I installed Real on a friend's computer *LAST NIGHT* and I still had to scroll down in the preferences box, past lots of UNCHECKED items, to get to the list of CHECKED items (previously hidden by the unchecked list) which say "Do you want Real to send you lots of annoying crap?"
Come now. That's not being open to your customers, that's being duplicitous and cheap. This guy should realize that.
We all can play the shooters with the arrow keys. We just have to slide the keyboard over. The advantage of using "WASD" is the large amount of auxiliary characters present on *all* keyboards. Because of the way keyboards are designed, virtually all of them have space-bars for a thumb-key and shift or control for a pinky key, along with another row of easy-access keys above and a bunch of keys to the left and right.
Arrows are usually hidden in all sorts of different places on keypads (especially laptops), and someplace aren't present at all.
His manuscripts weren't "burned" because they were found "mean", they were burned because they were found untrue. Do a google search. He's highly regarded as a champion of the revisionist movement.
Making it out as if this man was a victim of evil, rightwing censorship is a crime against the very principles you're trying to fight for.
Censorship isn't right - and I agree with that - but there's a line between censorship and denouncing things that just aren't true.
I don't like responding to these kinds of Posts, but this time, I'll be serious.
On the absolutely absurd presumption that they didn't use Zyklon-B, exactly what happened to the 12 million people (including 6 million Jews)? Killed in other ways?
Perhaps your point wasn't to sound antisemetic or revisionist, though the tone of your post certainly seems that way. What gives?
Suppose the large majority of your company is made of "Aversive" racists - whites who don't admit that they're racist but harbor racist tendancies, while not believing themselves to be true racists- and that these Aversive racists find it difficult to work with Blacks in a one-on-one situation. They find themselves overcompensating and being uncomfortable in the situation, even though they believe that they're not racists. Because of these racial biases, the Aversively Racist whites usually have lower productivity when working with black employees.
Now suppose we take a black employee and pair him up with other employees in five seperate projects. Blacks make up a very small portion of the workforce, and so are more likely to be paired first with Aversive racists than they are with other Blacks or with non-racists. Because of this statistical inequity, and because productivity is lower in the majority of his cases (even though it has nothing to do with him!), in a Meritocracy, which is what you're advocating, this black employee will look worse than any of his Aversive Racist coworkers (who have a greater percentage chance to work with other whites and thus suffer a very marginal performance decrement).
I'm not sure if I've explained this correctly, but essentially, these experiments have been done by a researcher named John Dovidio, in an attempt to explain to people who "don't seem to get it" why a Meritocracy just *doesn't work* unless you have an ideal population.
Simulations can be designed to train soldiers to take unneccessary or life-threatening risks so long as they involve a high amount of simulated payout and little or no punishment for simulated failure.
I seriously wouldn't be surprised if this is the way simulators are used to train soldiers.
I'm not trying to say that the Military has no regard for human life, but it's no secret that military operations are often valued in terms of numbers of soldiers killed per objective gained. Convincing young kids that they're supposed to risk their life for any intermediate goal is difficult, but not impossible (note that it's now "the country" young men risk their lives for, not "securing the powerplant" or "capturing person X". No one wants to be told that they're giving their life for a small piece of the puzzle.).
Making it easier to convince these soldiers by pre-simulating rewarding scenarios based on risk-taking may make soldiers more compliant.
His policies prevent these facilities from being used in new stem cell research, stem cells which cannot be used in human trials and cannot be used to fully complete many experiments.
should read...
His policies prevent these facilities from being used in new stem cell research, forcing them to use stem cells which cannot be used in human trials and cannot be used to fully complete many experiments.
My version: "...he doesn't support scientific research on most stemcells..."
Your version: "You are wrong on at least one account, he does not support federal funding for new stem cell research. You can use all your private funds on new stem cell lines, or you can write a federal grant to use the existing lines."
Read mine. Read yours. Where's the conflict?
I'm not sure what you do for a living, so I can't make assumptions, but if you worked in a research facility, you'd understand that almost all facilities these days, whether in a school or otherwise, get money that comes from the government. His policies prevent these facilities from being used in new stem cell research, stem cells which cannot be used in human trials and cannot be used to fully complete many experiments. Essentially, it's an incredible blow to scientific research.
Realize that private research money on a line of research that could have such wide-spread Quality of Life changes for so many people (See The *Pope* for an example!) is an absurd idea, especially considering the amount of research that gets funded in this country by the government.
Stem Cell research is an *important* thing. It is not a key issue, but it is certainly an issue that gives good insight into the candidate.
You know, every once in a while, I read a comment on slashdot which interests me. The parent may be one of them.
These guys, these "hackers", or "crackers", or whatever you want to call them, they aren't doing the right thing. But they think they are.
They truly believe that George Bush is a threat to the security of them and their children (assuming they aren't Mountain Dew Sterile by now), and desperately need to get him out of power. They've listened to him before, but don't want to give him the opportunity to speak now. They're willing to act without the broad support of the American Public, instead, as a rogue group to strike out against what they believe to be an unelected leader who's doing a very poor job. They're done trying to find evidence against him, they just want him out, and out now.
I mean - (and I know, this is a strettttttttch) - this isn't all that different from the way the Republican Party conducted the war in Iraq. Essentially, they had it listening to stories about how Saddam might be reforming and about how the weapons programs were over - he was bad, and we don't like bad people, and that was that. Thousands of people believe in this. Constructing biased data to fit a skew hypothesis is frighteningly easy with enough data to work with.
Maybe we need to look at this as not as sad statement on this one particular group, but a sad statement on American culture. There *is* data, there *is* evidence, and we should *never* start ignoring it because we have an agenda to push.
The worst part about something like this is that the neo-left needs to be a group that places evidence and facts before ideology.
Listening to Bush speak and extracting information - he supports pre-emptive war, he doesn't support scientific research on most stemcells, his education and domestic policy are faltering - this type of information is what should drive the left to vote for another candidate. The "he's wrong before I've even heard his views" stance is the *worst* way to go about creating a democracy, in fact, it's the best way to silence one.
Democracy is dependant on everyone getting the facts. Interpretations of the facts are tricky, but creating your own set of facts is downright wrong. Silencing speech, in any way, is the first step towards the ideological mess that the "faith-based" Republican party finds themselves in right now: creating facts to fit beliefs about misguided assumptions.
"If you disagree with someone or some group's actions/beliefs"... first requires that you listen to that group's actions or beliefs. I hope - *hope* - that we can get this message across.
Just look at the quote. Microsoft originally said, "the limitations helps [those pitiful wastes of resources who use our software] stay organized and reduces confusion."
Maybe Street Fighter: The Movie? Or something of that ilk?
I hate watching movies where I can't suspend disbelief, if that makes sense. I mean, if a movie doesn't make the characters or plot believable, there's not much point in watching it.
Also, I suspect expectation has much to do with this thread. I was told The Talented Mr. Ripley was a COMEDY before I saw it, and it was probably the least funny movie ever made in the history of the world ever.
How does this compare to, say, a country, such as Germany post-WWI, where Inflation reached astronomical levels and currency was literally worth less than the paper on which it was printed?
What's different about a country "folding", as opposed to a "company"?
Slashdot Mirror
Noticeably
Untested
Kinetic
Yellow
Undercarriage
Low-Riding
Antigravity
Rocket
Absolutely false concerns.
We run Norton Antivirus and Firefox side by side, with no trouble whatsoever.
While I'm not doubting that someone stupid might have done such a thing, Norton certainly wasn't the root of the problem.
Oh well. Guess I should just stop my research now, since these guys have the Science IgNobel just about wrapped up.
We use Windows XP on a few machines primarily used for research, and we've patched with little difficulty. All of our hardware has worked fine.
However, the machines run a very specific set of programs with little "internet" contact. XP-SP2 seems mostly to provide "buffer" for Netziens surfing around on unprotected machines having little 'net experience, which, lets all be fair, is a disasterous situation.
Bottom line, however, is that Windows XP, or any other operating system, can't stop people from doing ignorant things. Most of these things are *ignorant*, and not stupid - people who don't know proper procedures can't be expected to suddenly abide by them.
This may seem like a bad joke, but do you think they read him his Miranda Rights?
Also, faculty have suggested opening large boxes of roaches and mosquitos, and never, ever, ever calling the Exterminator.
For realism's sake.
Not to beat a dead horse, but Real as a company seem to have some of the worst standards out there in terms of how they treat their customers.
Especially if, by customers, you mean "People who have been duped into installing Real's software package and can't seem to get rid of it."
I'm not so naive as to expect Realplayer to ask if it wants to uninstall every time it runs, but essentially, Real Networks lives off of cheap-shots, parlor tricks, and ignorance. I installed Real on a friend's computer *LAST NIGHT* and I still had to scroll down in the preferences box, past lots of UNCHECKED items, to get to the list of CHECKED items (previously hidden by the unchecked list) which say "Do you want Real to send you lots of annoying crap?"
Come now. That's not being open to your customers, that's being duplicitous and cheap. This guy should realize that.
DVDs are smallish, those big black things are laser discs.
Stop trying to squash them in your hardware, and everything will work out fine.
...dance? ...Meet women?
I mean, a nightclub is an essentially dark room with flashing lights and some music where you're free to go dance with girls anonymously.
It's all a self-esteem thing. Just go dance. You'll enjoy it.
We all can play the shooters with the arrow keys. We just have to slide the keyboard over. The advantage of using "WASD" is the large amount of auxiliary characters present on *all* keyboards. Because of the way keyboards are designed, virtually all of them have space-bars for a thumb-key and shift or control for a pinky key, along with another row of easy-access keys above and a bunch of keys to the left and right.
Arrows are usually hidden in all sorts of different places on keypads (especially laptops), and someplace aren't present at all.
Nothing to do with handedness, just standardness.
His manuscripts weren't "burned" because they were found "mean", they were burned because they were found untrue. Do a google search. He's highly regarded as a champion of the revisionist movement.
Making it out as if this man was a victim of evil, rightwing censorship is a crime against the very principles you're trying to fight for.
Censorship isn't right - and I agree with that - but there's a line between censorship and denouncing things that just aren't true.
I don't like responding to these kinds of Posts, but this time, I'll be serious.
On the absolutely absurd presumption that they didn't use Zyklon-B, exactly what happened to the 12 million people (including 6 million Jews)? Killed in other ways?
Perhaps your point wasn't to sound antisemetic or revisionist, though the tone of your post certainly seems that way. What gives?
Here's a situation I want you to consider.
Suppose the large majority of your company is made of "Aversive" racists - whites who don't admit that they're racist but harbor racist tendancies, while not believing themselves to be true racists- and that these Aversive racists find it difficult to work with Blacks in a one-on-one situation. They find themselves overcompensating and being uncomfortable in the situation, even though they believe that they're not racists. Because of these racial biases, the Aversively Racist whites usually have lower productivity when working with black employees.
Now suppose we take a black employee and pair him up with other employees in five seperate projects. Blacks make up a very small portion of the workforce, and so are more likely to be paired first with Aversive racists than they are with other Blacks or with non-racists. Because of this statistical inequity, and because productivity is lower in the majority of his cases (even though it has nothing to do with him!), in a Meritocracy, which is what you're advocating, this black employee will look worse than any of his Aversive Racist coworkers (who have a greater percentage chance to work with other whites and thus suffer a very marginal performance decrement).
I'm not sure if I've explained this correctly, but essentially, these experiments have been done by a researcher named John Dovidio, in an attempt to explain to people who "don't seem to get it" why a Meritocracy just *doesn't work* unless you have an ideal population.
Does this make sense?
Heh. No.
But it's a good point.
Simulations can be designed to train soldiers to take unneccessary or life-threatening risks so long as they involve a high amount of simulated payout and little or no punishment for simulated failure.
I seriously wouldn't be surprised if this is the way simulators are used to train soldiers.
I'm not trying to say that the Military has no regard for human life, but it's no secret that military operations are often valued in terms of numbers of soldiers killed per objective gained. Convincing young kids that they're supposed to risk their life for any intermediate goal is difficult, but not impossible (note that it's now "the country" young men risk their lives for, not "securing the powerplant" or "capturing person X". No one wants to be told that they're giving their life for a small piece of the puzzle.).
Making it easier to convince these soldiers by pre-simulating rewarding scenarios based on risk-taking may make soldiers more compliant.
Well, buying SUN would be the first step towards taking over the Solar System, right?
The earth is so overdone these days. Why not go *big* and *creative*?
Interesting point.
s /brannon.html
More interesting, to me, as a cog psych person, is that birds and monkeys can do a numerocity discrimination.
See Liz Brannon's work at http://www.mind.duke.edu/level2/faculty/affiliate
or Herb Terrace's work at
http://www.apa.org/monitor/jan00/sc4.html
Just some food for thought. Language has been shown to have very little to do with numerocity discrimination in the past by comparative psychologists.
Where do I get my Aero chair?
This was the stock auction. The bankruptcy auction isn't for another few months, at least.
Weren't you alive five years ago? =)
His policies prevent these facilities from being used in new stem cell research, stem cells which cannot be used in human trials and cannot be used to fully complete many experiments.
...
should read
His policies prevent these facilities from being used in new stem cell research, forcing them to use stem cells which cannot be used in human trials and cannot be used to fully complete many experiments.
I'm confused.
My version:
"...he doesn't support scientific research on most stemcells..."
Your version:
"You are wrong on at least one account, he does not support federal funding for new stem cell research. You can use all your private funds on new stem cell lines, or you can write a federal grant to use the existing lines."
Read mine. Read yours. Where's the conflict?
I'm not sure what you do for a living, so I can't make assumptions, but if you worked in a research facility, you'd understand that almost all facilities these days, whether in a school or otherwise, get money that comes from the government. His policies prevent these facilities from being used in new stem cell research, stem cells which cannot be used in human trials and cannot be used to fully complete many experiments. Essentially, it's an incredible blow to scientific research.
Realize that private research money on a line of research that could have such wide-spread Quality of Life changes for so many people (See The *Pope* for an example!) is an absurd idea, especially considering the amount of research that gets funded in this country by the government.
Stem Cell research is an *important* thing. It is not a key issue, but it is certainly an issue that gives good insight into the candidate.
That's because Stem Cell research only really became an issue during the Bush administration.
Government funding accounts for most scientific research these days. Check out federal grant websites and just *look* at the amount of money.
You know, every once in a while, I read a comment on slashdot which interests me. The parent may be one of them.
These guys, these "hackers", or "crackers", or whatever you want to call them, they aren't doing the right thing. But they think they are.
They truly believe that George Bush is a threat to the security of them and their children (assuming they aren't Mountain Dew Sterile by now), and desperately need to get him out of power. They've listened to him before, but don't want to give him the opportunity to speak now. They're willing to act without the broad support of the American Public, instead, as a rogue group to strike out against what they believe to be an unelected leader who's doing a very poor job. They're done trying to find evidence against him, they just want him out, and out now.
I mean - (and I know, this is a strettttttttch) - this isn't all that different from the way the Republican Party conducted the war in Iraq. Essentially, they had it listening to stories about how Saddam might be reforming and about how the weapons programs were over - he was bad, and we don't like bad people, and that was that. Thousands of people believe in this. Constructing biased data to fit a skew hypothesis is frighteningly easy with enough data to work with.
Maybe we need to look at this as not as sad statement on this one particular group, but a sad statement on American culture. There *is* data, there *is* evidence, and we should *never* start ignoring it because we have an agenda to push.
The worst part about something like this is that the neo-left needs to be a group that places evidence and facts before ideology.
Listening to Bush speak and extracting information - he supports pre-emptive war, he doesn't support scientific research on most stemcells, his education and domestic policy are faltering - this type of information is what should drive the left to vote for another candidate. The "he's wrong before I've even heard his views" stance is the *worst* way to go about creating a democracy, in fact, it's the best way to silence one.
Democracy is dependant on everyone getting the facts. Interpretations of the facts are tricky, but creating your own set of facts is downright wrong. Silencing speech, in any way, is the first step towards the ideological mess that the "faith-based" Republican party finds themselves in right now: creating facts to fit beliefs about misguided assumptions.
"If you disagree with someone or some group's actions/beliefs"... first requires that you listen to that group's actions or beliefs. I hope - *hope* - that we can get this message across.
Just look at the quote. Microsoft originally said, "the limitations helps [those pitiful wastes of resources who use our software] stay organized and reduces confusion."
Media kindly substituted in "[users]".
Maybe Street Fighter: The Movie? Or something of that ilk?
I hate watching movies where I can't suspend disbelief, if that makes sense. I mean, if a movie doesn't make the characters or plot believable, there's not much point in watching it.
Also, I suspect expectation has much to do with this thread. I was told The Talented Mr. Ripley was a COMEDY before I saw it, and it was probably the least funny movie ever made in the history of the world ever.
How does this compare to, say, a country, such as Germany post-WWI, where Inflation reached astronomical levels and currency was literally worth less than the paper on which it was printed?
What's different about a country "folding", as opposed to a "company"?