First of all, this will accomplish something... namely it gets the message across to developers that when you're developing for Mac, you're developing for OS X, get on the ball.
Why is this bad? OS 9 development has stopped. New computers won't be able to boot into 9. If you are currently running OS 9 on your computer, who is taking that away from you? This isn't a retroactive declaration that Apple is coming in and removing OS 9 from your computers.
If you are running OS 9 and like it, then you're all set. If you want to run some OS 9 apps still, classic mode isn't going anywhere. And if your favorite software can't run in classic mode and doesn't have an OS X version, then this action might be just the nudge needed to get your OS X version.
Let's say a group with a stated interest in getting to F, does A, then B, then C, it is fair to assume they are trying to get to F.
It's fair to assume anything. It sure doesn't prove F in any way. (In fact, it's impossible to prove F when you assume F.)
To say that they are not because some websites refute the possibility of a slippery slope is ignoring all actual evidence that it may be taking place.
No, it isn't. Pointing out a logical fallacy means being dissatisfied with the amount of evidence and/or logical progression. It doesn't mean the facts that are presented are ignored. Claiming that something is a fallacy does not refute it, it indicates the conclusion has not been proven.
That is how things work, if you want to get a population to accept something they would never accept outright (free speech outlawed, gun confiscation, PPV, DRM, etc) you have to do it slowly. I do not understand people who believe that this is somehow impossible or a logical falicy just as much as I cannot believe people who always assume that it is taking place. Both approaches ignore the specific situation and are both logical falicies. [sic]
Just because this is a way something *can* happen, or even if it is the best way to make something happen, doesn't prove it is happening or will continue to happen. If you think it is happening in this situation, provide evidence! Is that such a horrible thing? It is certainly *not* a "fallacy" to point out a logical leap, whether you believe it is or not.
You need to understand the difference between saying something false/wrong (what you believe I accuse you of), and saying something unsubstantiated (what I actually think you did).
It is bad practice to just accept something because it seems like a sure thing. Why do you think the scientific method and legal procedure are so important?
Either way, all it proves is people do not like having that used against them.
You are mistaken. There is a use for recognising fallacies.
The reason it is a fallacy is not because it can't be true.
Look carefully at the meaning of the slippery slope fallacy.
It indicates a logical leap from an initial true statement, without providing evidence of the intermediate steps. So saying "there is a slippery slope fallacy in that statement" doesn't mean "that statement is false" or "that statement can be ignored", it means "you need the intermediate steps between your premise and your conclusion of what will happen."
See the difference?
Support your logical leap by filling in the blanks and then your argument is sound. How would A lead to B?
"We found a dreamcast hidden in a corner of the server room, who knows where it came from or how long it's been here. Maybe it's an internal job? Who knows."
or
"We found Bob's dreamcast on his desk hooked up to the server. It's probably been hacking since he brought it in 3 weeks ago. When he comes into work tomorrow morning we'll have him arrested."
I rented some of the Sopranos DVDs, and in one of the episodes of the second season, they specifically clarified the meaning so that it was wrong.
One of the mobsters was talking about computer break-ins to do illegal activities and said something like "what do you call those guys... crackers?" and another mobster corrected him: "hackers."
Moe: "Okay, everybody tuck your pants into your socks!"
Re:Are they really buying??
on
Spam Doesn't Work?
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
Additionally, it's important that some people believe it is effective. It could end up being a big waste of time, and the spammer would eventually discover this. But not until they have contributed to a few thousand spams.
People have been getting involved in pyramid schemes too, but it doesn't mean they work. It means some subset of foolish people believe they will.
Spam may in fact work, but just because it is out there doesn't prove this, IMO.
Just because he was an important general naturally doesn't mean he'd be a good president. And he was, in fact, awful IMO. This is not the first time that the people improperly awarded a good general with the presidency. It also happened with Ulysses S Grant. And he was a drunk that had tons of corruption all over the place.
No, the ruling goes for 9 states in the west, not just California.
mark
Re:So why couldn't they just call it Dissent?
on
Minority Report
·
· Score: 2
Well I think a minority report is more of an official thing than just "dissent". It's a formal statement of one's dissent. At least that's my take.
mark
Re:Could someone just please explain...
on
Minority Report
·
· Score: 5, Informative
Is this a serious question? I'll answer in any case. We're not talking about racial minorities here, if that's your thinking. A minority report is this:
"After a majority of members of a committee agree on its report (majority report), members who disagree with the majority may write a dissenting report. This is called a minority report. Both reports are then submitted to the full meeting of the Assembly (i.e., the plenary) where the minority report may (by majority vote of the plenary) become its majority report."
Apple made a loss last year and in its previous year only made 750 million, that is not so good for a computer company, Dell made $1.2 billion and $2.2 billion in the same periods.
I don't understand the comparison. Apple and Dell are the only computer manufacturers that have made it through the crash. Okay, great. How is Apple dying or faltering or anything else?
OK so AAPL revenues grew from 1998 to 2000, but they crashed in 2001 and in 1998.
Apple had a massive overhaul in 1998. This is when all the old stuff started going out, and the new was coming in. They completely streamlined their operation. After that transition, Apple has been performing quite efficiently. So what? Again, how does this indicate one way or the other about Apple today?
While many computer manufacturers have been firing employees by the thousands, Apple let 50 employees go. Honestly, say what you will about Apple, it's been pretty widespread thinking that Apple is chugging along pretty darn well.
On the contrary, the iPod can sell for a much higher percentage markup for good design than a computer can.
Now you are just making this up. Yes, in theory, anything's possible. Just because, in your opinion, an iPod can have a greater profit margin doesn't make it so (and in fact it isn't so).
The iPod retails for $500 which is about $200 higher than competing products from the likes of Archos - and the price differential is maintained after inevitable retail discounts.
More like $100. But this is irrelevant. Just because the iPod retails for $100 more than an Archos product doesn't mean that Apple makes an extra $100 on that device. In fact, it is extremely unlikely. You are ignoring things like superior design and materials. The iPod syncs with firewire, which also charges the iPod at the same time. The Archos runs on batteries. I won't get into it all. The point is, Apple just plain isn't making a huge profit on these things compared to their computers. It doesn't matter if you can construct a theoretical world where this would be possible.
You just piled so much FUD on top of what you originally wrote that if you continue I'm going to have to hire part-time help in order to shovel it all.
Apple could have rescued the company by switching from being just a computer company with a stagnant and declining market share to an intelligent device company. But it can't do that if they tie their new products to trying to save their old one.
Yes, they are on the brink of collapse, aren't they? Better abandon ship before it's too late!
Thank you for the insight, Elmer FUD. Apple is doing just fine at the moment.
trying to boost sales of Mac by tying the iPod to it was a real clueless move in the first place.
Was it? It sure sweetens the whole package. But do you really think they make money from it? I'd bet the profit margin on the iPod is very slim, whereas the profit margin on a PowerMac is larger than the retail price of the iPod (in any case, much larger). They would need to sell many many iPods to get the same profit as they would make if they pushed one person over to owning a Mac. And "converting" someone to the Mac is more valuable than just the monetary amount as well. Once the person has a Mac, they are probably going to buy more Apple products.
Apple is looking out for the long term, and placing a few more iPod sales at such high importance is IMO shortsighted.
I don't think anyone is ever going to buy a Mac just to use an iPod.
No. But would they buy a Mac for the great Powerbook plus an iPod? And OS X? And the iApps? Etc etc. Don't you see that the iPod is just one small piece in this total user experience that attracts people to the product?
Although the article states the current bills as a "boon to swindlers" because the bills are hard to distinguish, I disagree. I know the difference between a 1, 5, 10, etc. If you're too stupid to be able to distinguish your money, you deserve to have it stolen.
Yes, I suppose if you are too stupid to have good eyesight, you deserve to lose your money. Honestly, I am embarrassed by the number of Americans that have said "Look at the number you IDIOT." Why is it so hard to realize that coloring money makes it *easier*? Maybe you are a master at telling our money apart at a glance and have great vision. Good for you. How is this an argument against changing the color?
Do you honestly believe that entire countries that have trouble with our money are just too foolish to get it? Maybe we who live here have adapted with what we have. Is it some sign of weakness-- is adding color for "babies" or what?
When color is added to US currency, I fully expect the value of the dolor to drop because it will no longer have the bold, simple 2 color scheme.
Wow, now that's an extreme stance. I *really* doubt this. Other countries have money that looks like no other. Our money isn't famous and worth a lot because it is known for being green... it's the other way around.
If you take the stance that single color->easier counterfitting is baseless, how can you then make the claim that multi-color->downfall of the dollar? Which one is probably closer to reality?
I am also American, and I can agree that I generally can recognize the bills pretty quickly and don't have much trouble.
However, I think we have all had times when we accidentally hand a 5 instead of a one when we're trying to gather the money really fast, or when we can't quite remember if we had just handed a 10 or a 20 to the cashier. If the 10 was blue and the 20 was red, it would be easier to recall that information.
Perhaps you (meant generally) can count American money quickly. Do you really think that it wouldn't be faster if the bills were more distinct?
While the money DOES look different, having different colors and sizes for each bill makes it even easier. Why should it just be "not too difficult if you are used to it" when it can be easy for all? Is there some good reason to avoid it?
Imagine if all the coins were the same size and color, and just had big numbers on them. Sure, we could tell them apart, but it sure sounds like a pain in the ass, doesn't it?
That's where Europeans are coming from. We Americans have just adapted to this pain-in-the-ass paper money.
mark
Re:Yeah, we think highly of foreigners here.
on
Greenbacks No More
·
· Score: 2
In other monetary systems (and I'm thinking idly of the Italian currency before the Euro totally took over), the various denominations were also slightly different in size.
This is actually true of just about everywhere in Europe, pre- and post-Euro.
How easy is it to remap keys in Mac OS X? ... I'm not looking for any huge modifications, but I will not buy a laptop if I cannot have the caps lock button act as control...
I'm not sure about full keyboard re-mapping, but for your caps lock woes, there's uControl.
It took me about 2 hours to figure out how to turn that crap off too.
Yeah. I spent a while trying to get rid of it, and was able to get rid of it in the Start menu... then I had to figure out how to get rid of it in Word (wasted a while looking for a "personalization in applications" system preference for a while).
Now, if I have to work with someone's computer that has this turned on (like other people in my office), then suddenly I don't know where anything is.
Horrible. As bad as the leveled tabs that switch rows around when you click on them.
For instance the new option in MS Office Apps that default hides infrequently used Menu options and toolbar icons.
You have just mentioned what is IMO one of the worst interface "features" I have ever seen.
Not only does this "feature" cause menu items to be moved around which is a bad thing, but it also makes me either forget where less-frequently-used options are, or they fall off the radar completely. There have been many times where there will be a feature in Word that I never use, or almost never use, but seeing it there in the menu every day, I know it is there if I want it. Or maybe I just want to do "mail merge" once every few months. I don't want to search around for it. Or, if I start using certain features less, and others more, I don't want the menus to change!
Needless to say I turned this off. Maybe some people like it, but I don't understand how. It's another symptom of Microsoft software, especially Word, being very intrusive... it's great unless you don't want to do with it thinks you want to do. Then it's a pain in the ass!
In the subject, always use "I". Use of "me" and "myself" is always wrong. If you're including yourself in a group it's "The group and I" ("I and the group" is fine, but emphasizes your role which is sometimes impolite). In the direct object, always use "me", unless the subject is "I".
The problem is, if these people had any comprehension for subject and direct object, they wouldn't be making those mistakes.
Just remember to drop the other part of the group. If you are wondering about "Bob and I", take out Bob to see if it is I, me, or myself.
Surely even an intelligent monkey can follow that!
Slashdot Mirror
First of all, this will accomplish something... namely it gets the message across to developers that when you're developing for Mac, you're developing for OS X, get on the ball.
Why is this bad? OS 9 development has stopped. New computers won't be able to boot into 9. If you are currently running OS 9 on your computer, who is taking that away from you? This isn't a retroactive declaration that Apple is coming in and removing OS 9 from your computers.
If you are running OS 9 and like it, then you're all set. If you want to run some OS 9 apps still, classic mode isn't going anywhere. And if your favorite software can't run in classic mode and doesn't have an OS X version, then this action might be just the nudge needed to get your OS X version.
mark
You need to understand the difference between saying something false/wrong (what you believe I accuse you of), and saying something unsubstantiated (what I actually think you did).
It is bad practice to just accept something because it seems like a sure thing. Why do you think the scientific method and legal procedure are so important?
mark
Yes, it would be much more difficult to discover, but not impossible. And when they did, they'd know just who did it.
That's the part I'm not too keen on.
mark
The reason it is a fallacy is not because it can't be true.
Look carefully at the meaning of the slippery slope fallacy.
It indicates a logical leap from an initial true statement, without providing evidence of the intermediate steps. So saying "there is a slippery slope fallacy in that statement" doesn't mean "that statement is false" or "that statement can be ignored", it means "you need the intermediate steps between your premise and your conclusion of what will happen."
See the difference?
Support your logical leap by filling in the blanks and then your argument is sound. How would A lead to B?
mark
Which would be worse:
"We found a dreamcast hidden in a corner of the server room, who knows where it came from or how long it's been here. Maybe it's an internal job? Who knows."
or
"We found Bob's dreamcast on his desk hooked up to the server. It's probably been hacking since he brought it in 3 weeks ago. When he comes into work tomorrow morning we'll have him arrested."
So you'd be hacking your own company and keeping the dreamcast on your own desk? Remind me to never team up with you for any illegal schemes.
mark
How about thousands of websites?
I can't link to my textbook or something.
mark
mark
I rented some of the Sopranos DVDs, and in one of the episodes of the second season, they specifically clarified the meaning so that it was wrong.
One of the mobsters was talking about computer break-ins to do illegal activities and said something like "what do you call those guys... crackers?" and another mobster corrected him: "hackers."
Anybody else notice this?
This is the info Joe Sixpack gets.
mark
Moe: "Okay, everybody tuck your pants into your socks!"
Additionally, it's important that some people believe it is effective. It could end up being a big waste of time, and the spammer would eventually discover this. But not until they have contributed to a few thousand spams.
People have been getting involved in pyramid schemes too, but it doesn't mean they work. It means some subset of foolish people believe they will.
Spam may in fact work, but just because it is out there doesn't prove this, IMO.
mark
Just because he was an important general naturally doesn't mean he'd be a good president. And he was, in fact, awful IMO. This is not the first time that the people improperly awarded a good general with the presidency. It also happened with Ulysses S Grant. And he was a drunk that had tons of corruption all over the place.
So maybe it's not a good way to go.
mark
No, the ruling goes for 9 states in the west, not just California.
mark
Well I think a minority report is more of an official thing than just "dissent". It's a formal statement of one's dissent. At least that's my take.
mark
Is this a serious question? I'll answer in any case. We're not talking about racial minorities here, if that's your thinking. A minority report is this:
"After a majority of members of a committee agree on its report (majority report), members who disagree with the majority may write a dissenting report. This is called a minority report. Both reports are then submitted to the full meeting of the Assembly (i.e., the plenary) where the minority report may (by majority vote of the plenary) become its majority report."
Basically it is, I believe, a dissenting opinion.
mark
I don't understand the comparison. Apple and Dell are the only computer manufacturers that have made it through the crash. Okay, great. How is Apple dying or faltering or anything else?
Apple had a massive overhaul in 1998. This is when all the old stuff started going out, and the new was coming in. They completely streamlined their operation. After that transition, Apple has been performing quite efficiently. So what? Again, how does this indicate one way or the other about Apple today?
While many computer manufacturers have been firing employees by the thousands, Apple let 50 employees go. Honestly, say what you will about Apple, it's been pretty widespread thinking that Apple is chugging along pretty darn well.
Now you are just making this up. Yes, in theory, anything's possible. Just because, in your opinion, an iPod can have a greater profit margin doesn't make it so (and in fact it isn't so).
More like $100. But this is irrelevant. Just because the iPod retails for $100 more than an Archos product doesn't mean that Apple makes an extra $100 on that device. In fact, it is extremely unlikely. You are ignoring things like superior design and materials. The iPod syncs with firewire, which also charges the iPod at the same time. The Archos runs on batteries. I won't get into it all. The point is, Apple just plain isn't making a huge profit on these things compared to their computers. It doesn't matter if you can construct a theoretical world where this would be possible.
You just piled so much FUD on top of what you originally wrote that if you continue I'm going to have to hire part-time help in order to shovel it all.
mark
Yes, they are on the brink of collapse, aren't they? Better abandon ship before it's too late!
Thank you for the insight, Elmer FUD. Apple is doing just fine at the moment.
Was it? It sure sweetens the whole package. But do you really think they make money from it? I'd bet the profit margin on the iPod is very slim, whereas the profit margin on a PowerMac is larger than the retail price of the iPod (in any case, much larger). They would need to sell many many iPods to get the same profit as they would make if they pushed one person over to owning a Mac. And "converting" someone to the Mac is more valuable than just the monetary amount as well. Once the person has a Mac, they are probably going to buy more Apple products.
Apple is looking out for the long term, and placing a few more iPod sales at such high importance is IMO shortsighted.
No. But would they buy a Mac for the great Powerbook plus an iPod? And OS X? And the iApps? Etc etc. Don't you see that the iPod is just one small piece in this total user experience that attracts people to the product?
mark
Why not improve when something has been shown to be demonstrably better?
I don't see this as Europeans telling us what to do. It's not like some Americans (who are rational) don't also think this is a good idea.
mark
Yes, I suppose if you are too stupid to have good eyesight, you deserve to lose your money. Honestly, I am embarrassed by the number of Americans that have said "Look at the number you IDIOT." Why is it so hard to realize that coloring money makes it *easier*? Maybe you are a master at telling our money apart at a glance and have great vision. Good for you. How is this an argument against changing the color?
Do you honestly believe that entire countries that have trouble with our money are just too foolish to get it? Maybe we who live here have adapted with what we have. Is it some sign of weakness-- is adding color for "babies" or what?
Wow, now that's an extreme stance. I *really* doubt this. Other countries have money that looks like no other. Our money isn't famous and worth a lot because it is known for being green... it's the other way around.
If you take the stance that single color->easier counterfitting is baseless, how can you then make the claim that multi-color->downfall of the dollar? Which one is probably closer to reality?
mark
I am also American, and I can agree that I generally can recognize the bills pretty quickly and don't have much trouble.
However, I think we have all had times when we accidentally hand a 5 instead of a one when we're trying to gather the money really fast, or when we can't quite remember if we had just handed a 10 or a 20 to the cashier. If the 10 was blue and the 20 was red, it would be easier to recall that information.
Perhaps you (meant generally) can count American money quickly. Do you really think that it wouldn't be faster if the bills were more distinct?
While the money DOES look different, having different colors and sizes for each bill makes it even easier. Why should it just be "not too difficult if you are used to it" when it can be easy for all? Is there some good reason to avoid it?
Imagine if all the coins were the same size and color, and just had big numbers on them. Sure, we could tell them apart, but it sure sounds like a pain in the ass, doesn't it?
That's where Europeans are coming from. We Americans have just adapted to this pain-in-the-ass paper money.
mark
This is actually true of just about everywhere in Europe, pre- and post-Euro.
mark
I'm not sure about full keyboard re-mapping, but for your caps lock woes, there's uControl.
Hope that helps!
mark
Yeah. I spent a while trying to get rid of it, and was able to get rid of it in the Start menu... then I had to figure out how to get rid of it in Word (wasted a while looking for a "personalization in applications" system preference for a while).
Now, if I have to work with someone's computer that has this turned on (like other people in my office), then suddenly I don't know where anything is.
Horrible. As bad as the leveled tabs that switch rows around when you click on them.
mark
You have just mentioned what is IMO one of the worst interface "features" I have ever seen.
Not only does this "feature" cause menu items to be moved around which is a bad thing, but it also makes me either forget where less-frequently-used options are, or they fall off the radar completely. There have been many times where there will be a feature in Word that I never use, or almost never use, but seeing it there in the menu every day, I know it is there if I want it. Or maybe I just want to do "mail merge" once every few months. I don't want to search around for it. Or, if I start using certain features less, and others more, I don't want the menus to change!
Needless to say I turned this off. Maybe some people like it, but I don't understand how. It's another symptom of Microsoft software, especially Word, being very intrusive... it's great unless you don't want to do with it thinks you want to do. Then it's a pain in the ass!
mark
The problem is, if these people had any comprehension for subject and direct object, they wouldn't be making those mistakes.
Just remember to drop the other part of the group. If you are wondering about "Bob and I", take out Bob to see if it is I, me, or myself.
Surely even an intelligent monkey can follow that!
mark