Policies are put in place for a reason and an individual thinking they can act outside of the policy could risks losing their job. And a company thinking they can be fascist about everything risks losing their employees.
Although you could start using Safari, I have found a better compromise.
I use Firefox for day to day browsing. But every so often, when I find the need to view the sublime smiley face image in all its glory, I fire up Safari for just that. It serves my needs, since I really only need to see the smily image maybe once a day or so.
Given that its from a living thing anyway, it seems like if breaking down hydrogen and oxygen in mass had any survival benefit, natural selection would have figured it out already.
Obviously, caution is always needed in genetic tinkering, but still....I think the knee jerk "OMG its going to zap all our oceans!" is unwarranted.
yes, that probably has to do with the fact that google has earned the trust of many people by their past good behaviour. It is not in the least bit irrational that people factor this in, and therefore are more likely to conclude that google is not acting maliciously in this case.
If google does enough things that shifts the balance the other way (same goes for microsoft), people will take this into account as well. This is how humans operate, and it makes plenty of sense.
I imagine you do the same with people you know, and in general, it works for you. If someone has consistantly done things that are in your interest, you are more likely to heed their advice when they say "trust me on this one". Do you consider this irrational?
I'm aware. I have a mac, and a (non apple) two button mouse.
Still annoys me when I use someone else's mac. Also annoys me that a lot of things don't support it, or that you can't do things like right-drag a file and get the context menu when you release.
And I care about things like that less for me (only been a mac user for 2 years) than for others (had my life savings in apple stock for 6 years). I think they'd have a much better market share if they wouldn't be so stubborn about everything having to be different, apparently to make long time mac users feel special and elite.
People always cite studies on "new users". How many mac users are new computer users, vs. how many are new *mac* users?
I agree about mac guy. I kinda like him, I think he's right for the part, and not particularly smug or a jerk about his superiority. But the pc guy is right for the part too, and he is funnier... but only likeable in a "feel sorry for him because he's such a pathetic loser" sort of way.
I think a more meaningful metric for how much harm was done was how many people were exposed to the article. If only 500 people visited it in that year, that's pretty much equivalent to a more prominent "bad article" that was only up for 10 minutes, if 500 people visited it during those 10 minutes.
If it doesn't come from the vestigial genetic code for rear fins or rear legs, it's pretty unlikely for fins to just appear out of nothing. It would probably take 100's of millions of years for that kind of change to take place. In fact it would probably just never happen. Evolution (by natural selection, as opposed to intelligent design) just doesn't work that way.
That said, if the "vestigial" fins had a use for the dolphins, and a lot of individuals had them, they could be selected for and "evolve back", so to speak.
Its obviously not in their interest to incorrectly block google images. All it will do is make people not trust the phishing stuff, and turn it off. Incomptent maybe, but they aren't stupid enough to think that people would just stop using google images when they get blocked and use msn instead.
If hope that life existed on Mars is the major reason for your research, you aren't being a scientist.
Scientists are human and are allowed to have motivations. They shouldn't let it bias their work, of course, but still. If hope for finding something interesting and exciting got them into science, and keeps them at it, that's fine.
Also, who restricted this to scientists? You don't have to be a scientist to be interested in whether there had been life on mars or not.
I think the way "bad" is used in the article means "disappointing to those hoping for profoundly interesting and exciting news".
Very good point. Its kind of hard to define the concept of "better" without humans. Better for the animals? Maybe, in the sense that there might be more of them. Better for the plants? Well, they don't have brains so I have a hard time seeing how they care one way or the other. Better in some Darwinian sense? This guy didn't really seem to think through his premise.
I think you are wrong. You can tell by the way they look when they move quickly (bright, rich color smeared across the image), as well as from the light they shine on things.
They basically look the way neon lights look when photographed....washed out where they are brightest. Not the way they look when you see them in real life.
I always figured if you really looked at a real lightsaber, instead of being, say, pink in the middle, they'd really look intense burn-your-retinas red, like looking at the little red lights on the underside of your mouse.
I'm not sure I'd pay $49,000 for a tv just for that purpose, but it's the best one I could think of. I'd certainly pay that much for a lightsaber though.
so let me get this straight. You want to murder someone for commiting a murder? That makes you (or the state, rather) just as bad.
Well, imprisonment of innocent people is bad too (say, if you took someone and held them by force in your basement), but most of us agree that imprisonment of people (by society) is justified in many cases.
By your logic any punishment is wrong (even fines), since it would be wrong to apply that punishment to an undeserving person.
You know, even murderers can be rehabilitated. I've met a guy who killed his wife. He spend 8 years in prison and now he's out being a productive member of society. So long as he has a community of support, he won't commit another.
So he's a productive member of society, but his wife is still dead. If the only reason for imprisonment is rehabilitation, how do you discourage people from murdering people in the first place? If you don't beleive in the power of punishment as a deterrent, what do you do, just teach people to be nice to each other?
"within their rights" does not mean "not uncool". And it is within my rights to complain, loudly, about things that are simply uncool.
BTW, I don't believe for a moment Yahoo did this on purpose to hurt the competition. They are smart enough to know that that would backfire 100 times worse than any competitive advantage they get.
I challenge everyone to take 80% of the time they spend complaining about Microsoft and devote it to something else such as contributing to an OSS project.
I challenge you to only participate in discussions that are interesting to you and that you consider worthy.
Slashdot Mirror
A free market is a beautiful thing.
Although you could start using Safari, I have found a better compromise.
I use Firefox for day to day browsing. But every so often, when I find the need to view the sublime smiley face image in all its glory, I fire up Safari for just that. It serves my needs, since I really only need to see the smily image maybe once a day or so.
Apple should indeed listen to you. You might have the answer as to why the iPod has been such a flop.
Given that its from a living thing anyway, it seems like if breaking down hydrogen and oxygen in mass had any survival benefit, natural selection would have figured it out already.
Obviously, caution is always needed in genetic tinkering, but still....I think the knee jerk "OMG its going to zap all our oceans!" is unwarranted.
yes, that probably has to do with the fact that google has earned the trust of many people by their past good behaviour. It is not in the least bit irrational that people factor this in, and therefore are more likely to conclude that google is not acting maliciously in this case.
If google does enough things that shifts the balance the other way (same goes for microsoft), people will take this into account as well. This is how humans operate, and it makes plenty of sense.
I imagine you do the same with people you know, and in general, it works for you. If someone has consistantly done things that are in your interest, you are more likely to heed their advice when they say "trust me on this one". Do you consider this irrational?
I'm aware. I have a mac, and a (non apple) two button mouse. Still annoys me when I use someone else's mac. Also annoys me that a lot of things don't support it, or that you can't do things like right-drag a file and get the context menu when you release. And I care about things like that less for me (only been a mac user for 2 years) than for others (had my life savings in apple stock for 6 years). I think they'd have a much better market share if they wouldn't be so stubborn about everything having to be different, apparently to make long time mac users feel special and elite. People always cite studies on "new users". How many mac users are new computer users, vs. how many are new *mac* users?
So I've been using computers for 20 years. Why should I like the one button mouse again?
...or something? Call me shallow but I'd like to look at some pictures.
I agree about mac guy. I kinda like him, I think he's right for the part, and not particularly smug or a jerk about his superiority. But the pc guy is right for the part too, and he is funnier ... but only likeable in a "feel sorry for him because he's such a pathetic loser" sort of way.
I think a more meaningful metric for how much harm was done was how many people were exposed to the article. If only 500 people visited it in that year, that's pretty much equivalent to a more prominent "bad article" that was only up for 10 minutes, if 500 people visited it during those 10 minutes.
If it doesn't come from the vestigial genetic code for rear fins or rear legs, it's pretty unlikely for fins to just appear out of nothing. It would probably take 100's of millions of years for that kind of change to take place. In fact it would probably just never happen. Evolution (by natural selection, as opposed to intelligent design) just doesn't work that way.
That said, if the "vestigial" fins had a use for the dolphins, and a lot of individuals had them, they could be selected for and "evolve back", so to speak.
explained by incompetence.
Its obviously not in their interest to incorrectly block google images. All it will do is make people not trust the phishing stuff, and turn it off. Incomptent maybe, but they aren't stupid enough to think that people would just stop using google images when they get blocked and use msn instead.
Also, who restricted this to scientists? You don't have to be a scientist to be interested in whether there had been life on mars or not.
I think the way "bad" is used in the article means "disappointing to those hoping for profoundly interesting and exciting news".
Very good point. Its kind of hard to define the concept of "better" without humans. Better for the animals? Maybe, in the sense that there might be more of them. Better for the plants? Well, they don't have brains so I have a hard time seeing how they care one way or the other. Better in some Darwinian sense? This guy didn't really seem to think through his premise.
I think you are wrong. You can tell by the way they look when they move quickly (bright, rich color smeared across the image), as well as from the light they shine on things.
They basically look the way neon lights look when photographed....washed out where they are brightest. Not the way they look when you see them in real life.
If they can't figure out a way to profit from this, too freakin bad for them.
I always figured if you really looked at a real lightsaber, instead of being, say, pink in the middle, they'd really look intense burn-your-retinas red, like looking at the little red lights on the underside of your mouse.
I'm not sure I'd pay $49,000 for a tv just for that purpose, but it's the best one I could think of. I'd certainly pay that much for a lightsaber though.
True. And I am not necessarily for or against the death penalty. I am, however, against dumb logic, hence my post.
People get arrested for murder every day, but they aren't discussed on slashdot. The Reiser FS is why it is relevant here.
By your logic any punishment is wrong (even fines), since it would be wrong to apply that punishment to an undeserving person. So he's a productive member of society, but his wife is still dead. If the only reason for imprisonment is rehabilitation, how do you discourage people from murdering people in the first place? If you don't beleive in the power of punishment as a deterrent, what do you do, just teach people to be nice to each other?
"within their rights" does not mean "not uncool". And it is within my rights to complain, loudly, about things that are simply uncool.
BTW, I don't believe for a moment Yahoo did this on purpose to hurt the competition. They are smart enough to know that that would backfire 100 times worse than any competitive advantage they get.
No, he claimed it was "sensationalist", and in a later post "debunked", and used a creationist site as backing.
We know the story is old, but it is not debunked.
Well, from a Malthusian perspective, the population is always going to increase to capacity regardless. Personally I think it is a separate problem.
Al's post is 4 days old, and he posted it on the myspace page in the post.