I can't find any Toshiba that only comes with a 90 day warranty. The cheapest laptops I can find on Toshiba's website come with at least a 1 year warrenty.
Moreover, Toshiba has one of the smallest malfunction rates of their laptops. Link here.
I don't really get why your against giving a name to way people describe what they think on a given topic. It seems you'd rather everyone explain their ideas in full, even when a single word describing it would do equally well.
I don't think I said that their time has no value. I said that it isn't "valuable", which I meant as their time having low value.
The fact that they choose it over other things could mean either: 1) Watching YouTube is of high value, or 2) Everything else they could be doing at that time is of even lower value than watching YouTube. I tend to think that it's the latter most of the time.
Your scale is arbitrary, so there is no difference between those two things.
Whatever floats your boat, go ahead and do it. My point was not that you shouldn't be allowed for that to be the most valuable thing you can find to do. My point was that, if that is the most valuable thing you can find to do, then your time isn't all that valuable.
Their time isn't valuable to you. You've used your value system to compile a list of things you consider to be of high value, and those who value doing things you consider to be trite, you've reached the conclusion that their time isn't valuable. But the only valid conclusion is that their priorities are different, not their value of their own time.
Actually, I don't think I ever said anybody is "better" than anybody else. Please... read... my... posts... carefully. What we're discussing is how much someone's time is worth to them.
Now, what my example about doctors and lawyers does get at is that the amount people will pay for your talents provides us with a fair barometer of what the rest of society feels is the value of your time.
These are all examples of how a person values someone elses time, not their own. Even then its not a view of how much they think its actually worth, but really more a question of scarcity and need.
Most of the time, individuals have roughly the same estimation of their time's value as the rest of society does
I'll admit, I chuckled when I read this. How do you measure how important someone feels their time is? What are the units?
I always thought school teachers were considered to be of high value to society, but they don't seem to get paid much.
Close, but not exactly. I'm not saying that YouTube isn't valuable to them (Heck, I know some people who think that YouTube is the best reason to have an internet connection). What I said was: their time isn't valuable to them.
You think that watching youtube for enjoyment has no value, but other people feel differently. They CHOOSE to spend their free time watching youtube over other activities, so it HAS to have some value, or else no one would do it.
What I think it all boils down to, is that you do not like it when people find value in things you don't. More so, people shouldn't be able to value something you don't.
Look at the the lives of doctors, lawyers, pilots, skateboarders, hair-stylists, and gas-station attendants and you'll see a clear inverse relationship between how much they are able to bill for their time and the amount of time spent watching YouTube.
Now you're saying a person is better if they make more money. This says a lot.
Breaking story: If you're visiting YouTube, you've already decided that your time isn't valuable.
Your argument is that because you don't consider something to be valuable to you, it can't possibly be valuable to another person.
I read another article where a guy was mad because he couldn't go switch to something else in the 5-6 seconds while a page loads in Safari (probably while he's driving, too).
Now you're just building strawmen.
To be honest, it seems like you don't get why people would want something, so you don't want them to have it.
The entire point of these MS stores is to say F**K YOU APPLE. It is ALL about leveraging Microsoft's vast financial resources to hurt Apple as much as possible. They don't care if they lose huge amounts of money doing it. That is why Zune exists, why their advertising is all about underpricing Macs, why they propose opening stores right next to Apple Retail Stores, and now why they are actively trying to poach Apple Retail Store management.
I think its much simpler then. As you've stated, Microsoft still has a the majority of the OS market. While I'm sure they consider Apple a future threat, they really aren't big enough to be their main concern. Microsoft is probably more worried about falling behind in search engines then what will happen with Apple in the next 10 years.
This is most likely exactly what it looks like, Microsoft is trying to get experienced managers for their stores. Another commenter had it right, they are selling a lifestyle, similar to how Apple stores sell an image. The stores are similar in nature (I'm not saying they won't compete with each other) so hiring managers that ran Apple stores would be a good hire.
As a side note, I don't see whats wrong with what Microsoft is doing. They are offering managers more money for a very similar job. There are risks associated with making such a move, but I think that it's a win if the employees end up better off.
I have to agree with the BWCA suggestion. Used to go there with my father when I was in high school (mid-90's). The first day was the roughest, but after that you adjust quickly to the physical aspect of it, and the lack of technology. Its very refreshing to cleanse the system of overexposure to EM and computers.
If you want to get away from EM I'd suggest you stay out of view of the sun:\
The new part is loving and forgiving if there is repentance which means a turning away from the sinful lifestyle. Homosexuality, like adultery is explicitly spoken against as something that would keep you out of heaven in both the old and new parts.
You have no actual evidence that, if God does exist, he doesn't like homosexuality. All you have is one book written by humans
Suicide is illegal in this country. Why? You don't hurt anyone else. But you cause harm to yourself, in this case ending your life. In the case of homosexuality you cause harm to yourself, in this case eternal separation from God. I personally see that as even more dramatic harm than ending your life. So, while it doesn't directly affect me I will not encourage a behavior which I believe causes irreparable and permanent harm to the one doing it. I will instead try to help discourage people from it. That may be by voting for a law prohibiting it or it may be by trying to convince someone my position is correct. If the law allows them to marry persuasion is my only tool left and I'll use it. Until then I'll try to use the law.
You are of the opinion that homosexuality is harmful. If, however, you wish to live in a free country, then as long as a person is not causing you harm, you cannot punish them for living differently.
If you don't like the way Slashdot runs why don't you go make your own website with blackjack and hookers? In fact, forget the website and the blackjack.
If your cognitive processes are the result of an undirected physical process, then I have no more reason to believe anything you say than I do to take the advice of a moose or a lichen or an asteroid. A priori, your absolutely correct. Thats why we try all 3 and find which one gets us what we want, which is the information that can better help us make accurate predictions.
In fact, according to the metaphysical theory of scientific materialism Haha, the metaphysical theory of scientific materialism... sounds useful
it is essentially impossible for you to reason accurately about reality, since the ability to do so is not an adaptive trait, as GA experiments have shown. Ok, so your claiming that a creatures ability to make accurate predictions about the world around it won't help it survive? That sounds real reasonable
But it does cause babies. This is why, and I'm explicitly pointing it out this time, married couples would use birth control; to enjoy sex without the babies.
He holds no legal authority outside a few blocks in Rome. He is the head of a faith that teaches chastity outside of marriage, but so is the Dalai Lama. He meant that he forbids condoms period, even for married couples (But good job changing the subject)
Would the laws of physics or biology be different if evolution had never been invented? Never been invented? If we never came up with that theory, we would still wonder why we need a new flu shot every year to stay inoculated.
Would bacteria multiply differently and sometimes make us sick as often or less so, if we did not think about how they came to be supposedly, millions of years ago? Evolution is looking at how organisms change. They are still changing, therefore its still useful.
Let those who wish to argue the merits of evolution or ID get together outside of the science classroom and move over to the philosophy department. Since when were these two things mutually exclusive? (And since when was ID a scientific theory?)
Why can't we teach science how it works TODAY without getting into arguments how things came to be the way they are Because evolution is very much in effect today.
How about a law that mandates the separation of science and evolution, similar to the separation of church and state. Because its a scientific theory. And like all other scientific theories, its based on reason and observed phenomena. You reject the methodology behind evolution, you reject the methodology of all science.
Atheists may not believe in the supernatural aspect of religion, I understood the op to mean that the mere idea that there is no god, is a religion. Which of course is not true. One could pursue it with religious zeal, but then atheism is a religion just like a pickle fetish is.
but nevertheless have some overriding, consuming passion which qualifies as a religion. Why can you magically assume all people who believe there is no god do so religiously? There is absolutely nothing that tells us you need to be an atheist with any zeal. You could be completely non devoted to that belief, just like any other.
Users of Apple or computers and less so Linux fans are often accused of religious fervor. For some it is sports. In short, any consuming passion can assume religious overtones. This goes for ANY belief. The main point I'm trying to make is that Christianity is a religion, and does not depend upon how one pursues it. Atheism is like all other non religious beliefs, in that one could make a religion out of it (just like you could with a pickle fetish) but it in itself is not a religion.
Some people are religious Christians, some people are religious drunks, and, if you don't believe that science can be a religion, you have not tried to discuss facts with someone who has a pet theory. Just because someone has a pet theory in no way makes it a scientific one, so that really doesn't apply.
Atheism may be a religion for some people: it depends on whether they are atheists because they don't see the need for anything else or because they are against religion. In that sense, atheism in general isn't a religion, but people may be religious about atheism. Maybe thats what the op intended, but its not what I thought he meant.
Science does require faith for the same reason that accepting the Bible as describing spiritual events requires faith: people do not, for the most part, directly experience the things they read about or are told. No! You would believe a scientific theory because the reasons presented are based on observable phenomena. If your experience tells you otherwise and you could try and recreate the events. For the Bible, stories are presented in which events happen that go against our experiences (miracles and whatnot) and your told to believe them. You may believe them on how you feel, but you can't use logic and experiment to verify them.
Sure, in theory, you could reproduce the Michelson-Morley experiment, but have you? Of course its impossible for you to reproduce every scientific test. However, individuals are doing small subsets so they can be tested again. Thats why people specialize in a specific field, they go over those old experiments, what they mean, and come up with new ones. The main difference is that you COULD reproduce it, so if something seems incredulous you can repeat. This is something you can NOT do with religion.
Even if you are very skeptical, you cannot ever verify ever bit of scientific knowledge you depend on. Depend on the scientific knowledge for what? I don't need a belief in anything for my lights to turn on when I flip a switch. I don't need to understand the science of my car to operate it.
but there are fundaments that are the same, and, even with religion, one should not blindly trust everything one is handed. The fundamental basis for religious beliefs and scientific beliefs are different, as the definitions clearly indicate. In other words, science bases its theories on logic and observed phenomena, while religion bases its beliefs on, well, could be anything thats not that. Notice I've never said which one was better, or which one you should follow or the way in which its followed.
That is why it is important to study and explore, to figure out what has meaning to you. I have never said anything to the contrary
But in the end, meaning is where it is at; the rest fills time. No offense, but that is very vague and I don't find it very meaningful
I'll bite
and to deny that Athiesm is not a form of religion is false. Either you don't know the definition of atheism or you don't know the definition of religion.
from http://www.answers.com/religion&r=67
Religion: Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.
Atheism from http://www.answers.com/atheism&r=67
Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods.
Even Evolution takes faith. Again, you obviously don't know the definition of science and faith.
from http://www.answers.com/faith&r=67 Faith:
Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence.
From Wikipedia on scientific method:
It is based on gathering observable, empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning
you see, your oldtimey notions of integrity and civil responsibility are gone! It's a new thing, a new age of ME! Back in my day sonny, we cared about people... and by care, I mean we sepereated them by race.
an audience that spends nearly $200B of disposable cash according to marketing estimates thrown out in some of the magazines I've seen. You need to factor how many people have to buy the cd. The $200B has to buy how many millions of copies of that 1 cd?
The fact that you didn't like one of the options for getting the show neither legitimizes your infringement of the Constitutionally defined rights of the copyright holder, nor eliminates the myriad other options for obtaining the show. Your justification is weak sauce, sir. The problem copyrights are trying to solve, is a way to compensate people who's work has a large initial cost, but very small distribution costs. And, the cost of distribution is so low now, its basically free (not really, but close enough). The system works by allowing the original author to be the sole distributor, and able to sell it as he will. And the author obviously can't make money giving it away, he charges an amount that will garner him the most profit (which is to say, not reaching the equilibrium of supply and demand.)
Normally with capitalism, when someone is not distributing a good efficiently, someone else steps in. This is not allowed, as it wouldn't be fair to the person who actually made the work. So in the end, the solution is to artificially limit the availability of a good in order to ensure profitability.
An economic systems purpose is to distribute wealth, and ours artificially limits the distribution because we have yet to come up with a decent way to compensate those who produce goods with a large initial cost and a low distribution cost. So I think we need to come up with a way to compensate those who make goods with a high initial cost for the time they put in, and not artificially limit the number of goods distributed.
If you arm-wrestle against a human, they will:... (b) usually not purposefully break your arm. So this machine purposely breaks your arm? No wonder its getting recalled...
Slashdot Mirror
Those ideas did not come from Christianity, nor are they exclusive to it.
Have you looked at Khan Academy? http://www.khanacademy.org/
I can't find any Toshiba that only comes with a 90 day warranty. The cheapest laptops I can find on Toshiba's website come with at least a 1 year warrenty.
Moreover, Toshiba has one of the smallest malfunction rates of their laptops. Link here.
If this were true, it wouldn't require a label, and people wouldn't feel the need to badge themselves with that label on slashdot.
Lack of evidence is hardly the only criteria for 'delusions', yet this dogmatic rhetoric belies the intention to assert your faith onto others.
If you look at the definition of religion, and the definition of atheism, its clear that atheism is not a religion.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/religion
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/atheist
I don't really get why your against giving a name to way people describe what they think on a given topic. It seems you'd rather everyone explain their ideas in full, even when a single word describing it would do equally well.
Your scale is arbitrary, so there is no difference between those two things.
Whatever floats your boat, go ahead and do it. My point was not that you shouldn't be allowed for that to be the most valuable thing you can find to do. My point was that, if that is the most valuable thing you can find to do, then your time isn't all that valuable.
Their time isn't valuable to you. You've used your value system to compile a list of things you consider to be of high value, and those who value doing things you consider to be trite, you've reached the conclusion that their time isn't valuable. But the only valid conclusion is that their priorities are different, not their value of their own time.
Actually, I don't think I ever said anybody is "better" than anybody else. Please... read... my... posts... carefully. What we're discussing is how much someone's time is worth to them. Now, what my example about doctors and lawyers does get at is that the amount people will pay for your talents provides us with a fair barometer of what the rest of society feels is the value of your time.
These are all examples of how a person values someone elses time, not their own. Even then its not a view of how much they think its actually worth, but really more a question of scarcity and need.
Most of the time, individuals have roughly the same estimation of their time's value as the rest of society does
I'll admit, I chuckled when I read this. How do you measure how important someone feels their time is? What are the units?
I always thought school teachers were considered to be of high value to society, but they don't seem to get paid much.
Close, but not exactly. I'm not saying that YouTube isn't valuable to them (Heck, I know some people who think that YouTube is the best reason to have an internet connection). What I said was: their time isn't valuable to them.
You think that watching youtube for enjoyment has no value, but other people feel differently. They CHOOSE to spend their free time watching youtube over other activities, so it HAS to have some value, or else no one would do it.
What I think it all boils down to, is that you do not like it when people find value in things you don't. More so, people shouldn't be able to value something you don't.
Look at the the lives of doctors, lawyers, pilots, skateboarders, hair-stylists, and gas-station attendants and you'll see a clear inverse relationship between how much they are able to bill for their time and the amount of time spent watching YouTube.
Now you're saying a person is better if they make more money. This says a lot.
Breaking story: If you're visiting YouTube, you've already decided that your time isn't valuable.
Your argument is that because you don't consider something to be valuable to you, it can't possibly be valuable to another person.
I read another article where a guy was mad because he couldn't go switch to something else in the 5-6 seconds while a page loads in Safari (probably while he's driving, too).
Now you're just building strawmen.
To be honest, it seems like you don't get why people would want something, so you don't want them to have it.
Because they have cosine waves too :-)
Sounds shifty to me
The entire point of these MS stores is to say F**K YOU APPLE. It is ALL about leveraging Microsoft's vast financial resources to hurt Apple as much as possible. They don't care if they lose huge amounts of money doing it. That is why Zune exists, why their advertising is all about underpricing Macs, why they propose opening stores right next to Apple Retail Stores, and now why they are actively trying to poach Apple Retail Store management.
I think its much simpler then. As you've stated, Microsoft still has a the majority of the OS market. While I'm sure they consider Apple a future threat, they really aren't big enough to be their main concern. Microsoft is probably more worried about falling behind in search engines then what will happen with Apple in the next 10 years.
This is most likely exactly what it looks like, Microsoft is trying to get experienced managers for their stores. Another commenter had it right, they are selling a lifestyle, similar to how Apple stores sell an image. The stores are similar in nature (I'm not saying they won't compete with each other) so hiring managers that ran Apple stores would be a good hire.
As a side note, I don't see whats wrong with what Microsoft is doing. They are offering managers more money for a very similar job. There are risks associated with making such a move, but I think that it's a win if the employees end up better off.
I have to agree with the BWCA suggestion. Used to go there with my father when I was in high school (mid-90's). The first day was the roughest, but after that you adjust quickly to the physical aspect of it, and the lack of technology. Its very refreshing to cleanse the system of overexposure to EM and computers.
If you want to get away from EM I'd suggest you stay out of view of the sun :\
The new part is loving and forgiving if there is repentance which means a turning away from the sinful lifestyle. Homosexuality, like adultery is explicitly spoken against as something that would keep you out of heaven in both the old and new parts.
You have no actual evidence that, if God does exist, he doesn't like homosexuality. All you have is one book written by humans
Suicide is illegal in this country. Why? You don't hurt anyone else. But you cause harm to yourself, in this case ending your life. In the case of homosexuality you cause harm to yourself, in this case eternal separation from God. I personally see that as even more dramatic harm than ending your life. So, while it doesn't directly affect me I will not encourage a behavior which I believe causes irreparable and permanent harm to the one doing it. I will instead try to help discourage people from it. That may be by voting for a law prohibiting it or it may be by trying to convince someone my position is correct. If the law allows them to marry persuasion is my only tool left and I'll use it. Until then I'll try to use the law.
You are of the opinion that homosexuality is harmful. If, however, you wish to live in a free country, then as long as a person is not causing you harm, you cannot punish them for living differently.
But it does cause babies. This is why, and I'm explicitly pointing it out this time, married couples would use birth control; to enjoy sex without the babies.
Now I'm curious, what do you think evolution is?
from http://www.answers.com/religion&r=67 Religion: Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.
Atheism from http://www.answers.com/atheism&r=67 Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods. Even Evolution takes faith. Again, you obviously don't know the definition of science and faith. from http://www.answers.com/faith&r=67 Faith: Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence.
From Wikipedia on scientific method: It is based on gathering observable, empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning
I can't make it any clearer, sorry
Normally with capitalism, when someone is not distributing a good efficiently, someone else steps in. This is not allowed, as it wouldn't be fair to the person who actually made the work. So in the end, the solution is to artificially limit the availability of a good in order to ensure profitability.
An economic systems purpose is to distribute wealth, and ours artificially limits the distribution because we have yet to come up with a decent way to compensate those who produce goods with a large initial cost and a low distribution cost. So I think we need to come up with a way to compensate those who make goods with a high initial cost for the time they put in, and not artificially limit the number of goods distributed.
Just my 2 cents.