It isn't something to be either; it's something to do, which is an entirely different type of goal. For the question of "what should I strive to be?" I have yet to hear a better answer or come up with one myself... not even when I was 16 and knew everything.
While it might reduce by a marginal amount the likelihood of the account being compromised, the potential consequences would be profoundly greater. That's a poor trade-off.
Several years ago, the pretty-damn-good and carefully-guarded common password that I used for buying things from sites such as Amazon, eBay, iTunes, etc. - reasonably well-run, reputable companies - was compromised somehow. (I have other different passwords that I use for message boards, others for banking, others for work-related accounts, etc.) Just dealing with that small breach was a serious hassle; if my financial institutions, e-mail, or privileged accounts had been involved, it could've been disastrous. Thank-you, but Do Not Want.
A single person can protect themselves with $75k, and maybe be able to have enough money in case their wife gets sick
I don't know many single people who've had to pay for a wife's illness. {grin}
or their parents get sick, or to have kids go to a good school in a safe neighborhood
Well, my parents are capable of taking care of their own needs (why would you assume otherwise?), and alarmist news articles notwithstanding there are good schools that you don't have to pay for, in safe neighborhoods. I go past a few them every day on my commute to work.
Less than this amount and even the most basic level of security needs wont be met.
You keep making these assertions, but they simply aren't borne out by my experience or the experience of anyone I know, to say nothing of published cost-of-living statistics. Sure, the whole system might fall apart in the coming decades, but in the present, employer-sponsored health insurance, retirement investments, and government assistance (SSI, Medicare), combined with an income roughly half of this poverty line you imagine, can provide for a comfortable, secure lifestyle. It won't pay for a home in a gated community, dinners out, and the best private schools, but those aren't "the basic level of security needs".
My dad has a mantra that he's repeated over the years: "Happy, Healthy, Wise, Wealthy." Those are the things he wants to be, and in that order of priority. By his own standards, he's been pretty successful. (Me? Working on it. Doing better at #2 and (arguably) #3 than the others.)
Is someone asking you to be "impressed" or "astonished" by this? Try "interested" or "amused" (because it's beer). It's just anecdote about how early humans developed primitive medicine, stumbling by blind luck into something that they surely didn't understand, but modern science has confirmed as medically effective.
If a substance is potent enough to have an effect on your health, it's a drug, and is subject to regulation by the FDA.
This reasoning is about as sound as "Of course marijuana is bad for you: it's illegal!"
Until last year tobacco was not regulated by the FDA, and I'm pretty sure the active ingredient in it was known to be "potent enough to have an effect on your health" even way back in the dark ages of 2008. To say nothing of caffeine, which is not regulated by the FDA as a drug but as a food ingredient or dietary supplement... like an "herbal".
The more expensive stuff isn't as sweet, and probably has higher alcohol content.
This isn't necessarily true; there are some very sweet and expensive wines. It all depends on the variety. Alcohol content doesn't correlate with sweetness either. But the cheap wines are usually crafted for sweetness; it makes them more "accessible".
It doesn't taste much at all. The various brews and distillations that contain it are what (in the opinion of some) taste bad. In my experience the carrier with the least flavor of its own (or most easily masked) is vodka.
That's one reason I prefer liquor when actually trying to get drunk -- you don't have to drink as much liquid with alcohol in it.
But the alcohol is a much higher percentage of what you're drinking. Again demonstrating that it isn't the ethanol you dislike, but the carrier.
You're describing the difference between perception and reality. The industry today has chased after adult readers because they're the ones with money... to the neglect of kids. Most comics published today are not appropriate for children under 10, and a majority aren't appropriate for children under 13. But most of the population still thinks of the medium as suitable only for children. In the wake of Wertham's campaign under the Code, it was effectively true for a couple decades; there were no comics for grown-ups (outside of head shops). The public's perception is starting to catch up to reality as more movies based on mature-readers comics like 300 and Watchmen and have been made, but it's still about 30 years out of date.
By the way, DC has a small but high-quality line of kids' comics in their "Jonny DC" line. Strongly recommended.
Yes, it is important to give Wertham his due props, because he did contribute positively to his community and our society in many ways. He was precisely the kind of complex shades-of-grey character that the Code prevented later comic book writers from depicting in their work.
While it's true that necessity is the mother of a great deal of creative invention, there are a great many stories which simply could not be threaded through the eye of the needle which is the Comics Code.
The Code did more than just say things like "no boobs" and "no decapitations". It dictated which points of view could be expressed. A writer couldn't write a story which questioned the authority of the police. A writer couldn't do a story which expressed the idea that maybe crime does pay. These were specifically disallowed. The Code even declared entire topics off-limits. You couldn't write a story about drug use... pro or con. (The first mainstream comics to defy the Code were about the dangers of drug use.) You couldn't write a story expressing an opinion about homosexuality, because the subject couldn't even be mentioned. At best you might be able to fashion a Star-Trek-like metaphor for the topic you wanted to comment on, but that kind of vagueness leaves your point open to misinterpretation or just going over people's heads, which makes for a weaker story, not a stronger one.
The Code's overriding principle was that all comics should be suitable for children. It was tantamount to requiring that all movies in cinemas be rated G or PG. That wasn't just a challenge to storytellers' creativity, it was an assault on it. You simply cannot write a sophisticated, nuanced story about complex themes, on an adult reading level under the Code. Because kids couldn't handle that.
If you want writers who "look at both sides of a situation", read a newspaper. Most good writers of fiction have an actual point of view, and use their writing to express it. They shouldn't have to work around a system which declares their point of view impermissible, or the topics they wish to explore off-limits.
You're probably right that Office for Mac isn't a test-bed for technology to use in the Windows version, and you are correct that its developers aren't part of the Office-for-Windows development team. But the Mac Business Unit is hardly an "external organization". I'm not sure where it is in the corporate hierarchy this year, but it's headquartered at their Redmond campus, where yes: they get funny looks as they carry their MacBooks around. By the way, Excel was not ported to the Mac; it went the other way around: Excel for Mac pre-dated Excel for Windows by a couple years (delayed by the development of... Windows).
What I find exceedingly obnoxious is when I do purchase something and for weeks afterwards I'll get promotions for similar things, if not the same exact altogether. I'm curious to know how effective this sort of thing actually is.
If it's for a car (which even consumption-mad Americans only replace once a year or so) probably not very. If it's for an item you might buy fairly frequently, but only when you think of it (like the pizza adverts that have been stalking me lately), it's probably quite effective.
The publicity has to be pretty damn bad (Bhopal-/Valdez-/Deepwater-level bad) for the negative associations to trump the value of simple name recognition. After reading the story above I am now aware of exactly one company that provides ferry service between northwest France and the south of England. If I ever find myself in Portsmouth with a desire to get to Caen, that name will come back to me, probably without me remembering why I know it.
I find it a bit amusing. A couple months ago I ordered a pizza online from Pizza Shack. For the next few weeks I kept seeing adverts for Pizza Shack everywhere, including my own GoogleAd-using site.* Last month I had a coupon for Papa Fred's so I ordered one from them. The pizza adverts suddenly changed to Papa Fred's. This weekend I looked up the phone number of my local MahJong franchise (which doesn't take online orders). Guess whose banner advert I'm seeing in the window next to this one....
*This is a little frustrating because I'd rather see the adverts that my visitors are seeing, to give me a sense of their experience on the site... I know, I know... that's missing the point of targeted advertising.
Slashdot Mirror
I was disappointed that the bear-in-the-woods analogy involved neither shit nor the Pope, but it was insightful nonetheless.
It can also act as a laxative, leading to anal leakage.
That doesn't fit the rhyme or the meter. :)
It isn't something to be either; it's something to do, which is an entirely different type of goal. For the question of "what should I strive to be?" I have yet to hear a better answer or come up with one myself... not even when I was 16 and knew everything.
That's what she said!
While it might reduce by a marginal amount the likelihood of the account being compromised, the potential consequences would be profoundly greater. That's a poor trade-off.
Several years ago, the pretty-damn-good and carefully-guarded common password that I used for buying things from sites such as Amazon, eBay, iTunes, etc. - reasonably well-run, reputable companies - was compromised somehow. (I have other different passwords that I use for message boards, others for banking, others for work-related accounts, etc.) Just dealing with that small breach was a serious hassle; if my financial institutions, e-mail, or privileged accounts had been involved, it could've been disastrous. Thank-you, but Do Not Want.
I don't know many single people who've had to pay for a wife's illness. {grin}
Well, my parents are capable of taking care of their own needs (why would you assume otherwise?), and alarmist news articles notwithstanding there are good schools that you don't have to pay for, in safe neighborhoods. I go past a few them every day on my commute to work.
You keep making these assertions, but they simply aren't borne out by my experience or the experience of anyone I know, to say nothing of published cost-of-living statistics. Sure, the whole system might fall apart in the coming decades, but in the present, employer-sponsored health insurance, retirement investments, and government assistance (SSI, Medicare), combined with an income roughly half of this poverty line you imagine, can provide for a comfortable, secure lifestyle. It won't pay for a home in a gated community, dinners out, and the best private schools, but those aren't "the basic level of security needs".
My dad has a mantra that he's repeated over the years: "Happy, Healthy, Wise, Wealthy." Those are the things he wants to be, and in that order of priority. By his own standards, he's been pretty successful.
(Me? Working on it. Doing better at #2 and (arguably) #3 than the others.)
Getting a master's involves neither training nor a god.
Maybe the NYT article doesn't mention centralized login because such an obviously bad idea?
Why am I not surprised to read that the gaming industry is struggling with how to handle splattering blood in 3D.
Which isn't what you said. Thanks for "admitting" your mistake and correcting yourself.
Is someone asking you to be "impressed" or "astonished" by this? Try "interested" or "amused" (because it's beer). It's just anecdote about how early humans developed primitive medicine, stumbling by blind luck into something that they surely didn't understand, but modern science has confirmed as medically effective.
This reasoning is about as sound as "Of course marijuana is bad for you: it's illegal!"
Until last year tobacco was not regulated by the FDA, and I'm pretty sure the active ingredient in it was known to be "potent enough to have an effect on your health" even way back in the dark ages of 2008. To say nothing of caffeine, which is not regulated by the FDA as a drug but as a food ingredient or dietary supplement... like an "herbal".
This isn't necessarily true; there are some very sweet and expensive wines. It all depends on the variety. Alcohol content doesn't correlate with sweetness either. But the cheap wines are usually crafted for sweetness; it makes them more "accessible".
It doesn't taste much at all. The various brews and distillations that contain it are what (in the opinion of some) taste bad. In my experience the carrier with the least flavor of its own (or most easily masked) is vodka.
But the alcohol is a much higher percentage of what you're drinking. Again demonstrating that it isn't the ethanol you dislike, but the carrier.
Indicating - once again - that moderation is the healthiest strategy.
Salmonella.
You're describing the difference between perception and reality. The industry today has chased after adult readers because they're the ones with money... to the neglect of kids. Most comics published today are not appropriate for children under 10, and a majority aren't appropriate for children under 13. But most of the population still thinks of the medium as suitable only for children. In the wake of Wertham's campaign under the Code, it was effectively true for a couple decades; there were no comics for grown-ups (outside of head shops). The public's perception is starting to catch up to reality as more movies based on mature-readers comics like 300 and Watchmen and have been made, but it's still about 30 years out of date.
By the way, DC has a small but high-quality line of kids' comics in their "Jonny DC" line. Strongly recommended.
Yes, it is important to give Wertham his due props, because he did contribute positively to his community and our society in many ways. He was precisely the kind of complex shades-of-grey character that the Code prevented later comic book writers from depicting in their work.
While it's true that necessity is the mother of a great deal of creative invention, there are a great many stories which simply could not be threaded through the eye of the needle which is the Comics Code.
The Code did more than just say things like "no boobs" and "no decapitations". It dictated which points of view could be expressed. A writer couldn't write a story which questioned the authority of the police. A writer couldn't do a story which expressed the idea that maybe crime does pay. These were specifically disallowed. The Code even declared entire topics off-limits. You couldn't write a story about drug use... pro or con. (The first mainstream comics to defy the Code were about the dangers of drug use.) You couldn't write a story expressing an opinion about homosexuality, because the subject couldn't even be mentioned. At best you might be able to fashion a Star-Trek-like metaphor for the topic you wanted to comment on, but that kind of vagueness leaves your point open to misinterpretation or just going over people's heads, which makes for a weaker story, not a stronger one.
The Code's overriding principle was that all comics should be suitable for children. It was tantamount to requiring that all movies in cinemas be rated G or PG. That wasn't just a challenge to storytellers' creativity, it was an assault on it. You simply cannot write a sophisticated, nuanced story about complex themes, on an adult reading level under the Code. Because kids couldn't handle that.
If you want writers who "look at both sides of a situation", read a newspaper. Most good writers of fiction have an actual point of view, and use their writing to express it. They shouldn't have to work around a system which declares their point of view impermissible, or the topics they wish to explore off-limits.
You're probably right that Office for Mac isn't a test-bed for technology to use in the Windows version, and you are correct that its developers aren't part of the Office-for-Windows development team. But the Mac Business Unit is hardly an "external organization". I'm not sure where it is in the corporate hierarchy this year, but it's headquartered at their Redmond campus, where yes: they get funny looks as they carry their MacBooks around. By the way, Excel was not ported to the Mac; it went the other way around: Excel for Mac pre-dated Excel for Windows by a couple years (delayed by the development of... Windows).
If it's for a car (which even consumption-mad Americans only replace once a year or so) probably not very. If it's for an item you might buy fairly frequently, but only when you think of it (like the pizza adverts that have been stalking me lately), it's probably quite effective.
The publicity has to be pretty damn bad (Bhopal-/Valdez-/Deepwater-level bad) for the negative associations to trump the value of simple name recognition. After reading the story above I am now aware of exactly one company that provides ferry service between northwest France and the south of England. If I ever find myself in Portsmouth with a desire to get to Caen, that name will come back to me, probably without me remembering why I know it.
That's called "untargetted shotgun advertising".
I find it a bit amusing. A couple months ago I ordered a pizza online from Pizza Shack. For the next few weeks I kept seeing adverts for Pizza Shack everywhere, including my own GoogleAd-using site.* Last month I had a coupon for Papa Fred's so I ordered one from them. The pizza adverts suddenly changed to Papa Fred's. This weekend I looked up the phone number of my local MahJong franchise (which doesn't take online orders). Guess whose banner advert I'm seeing in the window next to this one....
*This is a little frustrating because I'd rather see the adverts that my visitors are seeing, to give me a sense of their experience on the site... I know, I know... that's missing the point of targeted advertising.