Any professional salesperson knows people inherently want to please others, so they are more willing to say 'yes,' than 'no.' It is well-known that among experimental subjects, there is a strong will to please the experimenter (see milgram, etc.) so it is unsurprising that the results show an absurdist tilt.
It's like walking up to a stranger and asking, "do you like my hair this way?" Of course, most people will say, "yes."
I used it!
on
KDE Turns 19
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
My first permanent Linux installation (permanent in the sense that I wound up keeping and using it instead of Windows) was Caldera Open Linux 1.0. which shipped with KDE-1.0. Finding its limitations quickly, I moved to Red Hat 6.2 (KDE 1.1) and compiled each new KDE release from source until v. 3. I then switched to Knoppix and Mepis (Debian), still using KDE. I now use 4.x on Mint-14.04-3. For a short time, I tried XFCE, but returned to the integration of KDE.
KDE still looks and acts pretty much the same now as it used to, just moreso.
bc I worked in marketing and I find what they say believable (only bulk, unidentified demographic data is needed, which I opt out of just in case.) Their motives are not "questionable" to me; I have no question about allowing companies to make a profit and continue to provide a useful service. I have more questions about a company without an obvious money stream.
That would be data one gives permission to collect, IIR the installation setup correctly. Uncheck the box, and it says no information will be harvested. Are they lying?
I don't use an ad blocker at all; I use a tracker blocker. If Bild doesn't have a tracker, it can feed me ads, if I go there, which I have never done, BTW.
Ghostery, the plugin i use, winds up killing most of the ads, anyway, but I have no bad conscience about blocking those who would track me even if "do not track" is enabled.
Aaah, I can tell you're a young one.... 'Tis the sign of another tech bubble, all of it. It's a replay of 1997-2000, but in a different mix. Now, google plays the part of Microsoft; Mozilla is alter-Netscape, trying to catch up; and Girls is Bizarro-Friends.
As Mark Twain famously said, "History doesn't repeat itself, but it rhymes."
I can see a movie once and then see it over and over again without further charge. It's called memory. Let the MPAA try to use night vision to find me memorizing stuff.
I hope I am not misrepresenting your argument. ConEd lied about Tesla's application for its own gain ("We cannot make an electric chair out of DC"). Scientists who temporarily threw Lamarck's insight onto the trashbin of history did so for their own gain, too, even if for tenure or popularity rather than financial gain.
BTW. I was against RICO from the start, and continue to be outraged at the outlandish uses to which it is being put. It's the old Lenny Bruce routine: every sin is three: you planned it, you did it, and you liked it. Three charges under RICO are likely to be plead down to one where only one charge might be defended.
Randall, this is an old discussion by now; nonetheless your response interests me. Is there really a difference between outlawing organizations acting on behalf of unaccepted (or unacceptable, or downright unique) ideas and scientists doing the same individually? Do we have to wait for flames to break out when we already have seen smoke?
I understand your view of history is different from mine. In truth and with due respect, I cannot say I am right without room for doubt, nor can I accept your view without reservation.
Wrong or "wrong" is subject to interpretation and sometimes future revision.
A scientist named Lamarck was once persecuted for suggesting if each generation exercised their right arms, eventually the trait would be passed on to future generations. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Your European car's software, if it is newer than the 2000 model year, is updated automatically by satellite. One would have to disconnect the battery and *never use the vehicle* to keep it from being so updated.
Mechanics know this; google seems not to, for some reason.
"Illegal evidence" is that which is gathered by methods outside the constitution, i.e., through a search without a warrant, etc. The adjective "illegal" does not refer to the evidence itself, but the manner it was obtained.
Re:Day late, and a dollar short as usual
on
Google Changes Logo
·
· Score: 1
Why? I don't use google, so I would have had to wait twelve or more hours to see it, instead of reading it here right now, opening a new tab, and navigating to google. I've used duckduckgo for many years, but I do think I see a difference in the logo, now that you draw my attention to it. (yawn.)
The release was written in Neuspeak, invented first for banks and hotels in the mid-twentieth century.
In neuspeak, "for your convenience" really means "for our profit."
"For your safety" means "For our convenience."
Neuspeak is spreading slowly to other industries, as well, but its form and syntax were perfected when used on a sign on a shuttered bank office in Sycamore, Ohio, which read: "For your convenience, this branch is closed."
"When in the course of human events...." ads become too onerous, rebellions break out. The "consumers" of news (as if news can be "used up" somehow) are rebelling against too many and too invasive ads.
It was easier to find the information I wanted on the internet before the media companies filled all google's top spots with commercial products instead of the student/hobbyist stuff that was there before.
This argument looks like a copyright infringer claiming copyright doesn't exist because the music, photo, whatever passed through a computer where it was deconstructed into ones and zeros, making it data, which is not able to be copyrighted.
Like the parents-murdered who threw himself on the mercy of the court as an orphan.
As the digital world quickly grows – from 4.4 zettabytes of digital data created in 2013 to an expected 44 zettabytes by 20204 – 3D XPoint technology can turn this immense amount of data into valuable information in nanoseconds. For example, retailers may use 3D XPoint technology to more quickly identify fraud detection patterns in financial transactions; healthcare researchers could process and analyze larger data sets in real time, accelerating complex tasks such as genetic analysis and disease tracking.
The final sentence quoted, I feel, should have "and government agencies seeking to search ever-larger datasets." amended.
Of course, no technological advance comes without danger of government overreach.
Slashdot Mirror
No, but you don't account for the real costs, which primarily are monitoring (listening in on) the call.
For real, that's the other side's argument.
Any professional salesperson knows people inherently want to please others, so they are more willing to say 'yes,' than 'no.' It is well-known that among experimental subjects, there is a strong will to please the experimenter (see milgram, etc.) so it is unsurprising that the results show an absurdist tilt.
It's like walking up to a stranger and asking, "do you like my hair this way?" Of course, most people will say, "yes."
My first permanent Linux installation (permanent in the sense that I wound up keeping and using it instead of Windows) was Caldera Open Linux 1.0. which shipped with KDE-1.0. Finding its limitations quickly, I moved to Red Hat 6.2 (KDE 1.1) and compiled each new KDE release from source until v. 3. I then switched to Knoppix and Mepis (Debian), still using KDE. I now use 4.x on Mint-14.04-3. For a short time, I tried XFCE, but returned to the integration of KDE.
KDE still looks and acts pretty much the same now as it used to, just moreso.
bc I worked in marketing and I find what they say believable (only bulk, unidentified demographic data is needed, which I opt out of just in case.) Their motives are not "questionable" to me; I have no question about allowing companies to make a profit and continue to provide a useful service. I have more questions about a company without an obvious money stream.
That would be data one gives permission to collect, IIR the installation setup correctly. Uncheck the box, and it says no information will be harvested. Are they lying?
Got a link?
wtf?
I don't use an ad blocker at all; I use a tracker blocker. If Bild doesn't have a tracker, it can feed me ads, if I go there, which I have never done, BTW.
Ghostery, the plugin i use, winds up killing most of the ads, anyway, but I have no bad conscience about blocking those who would track me even if "do not track" is enabled.
End of Story!
It was Fritz Perls IIRC who remarked, "Of what benefit is it to adapt to a psychotic culture?"
Just asking....
Aaah, I can tell you're a young one.... 'Tis the sign of another tech bubble, all of it. It's a replay of 1997-2000, but in a different mix. Now, google plays the part of Microsoft; Mozilla is alter-Netscape, trying to catch up; and Girls is Bizarro-Friends.
As Mark Twain famously said, "History doesn't repeat itself, but it rhymes."
I can see a movie once and then see it over and over again without further charge. It's called memory. Let the MPAA try to use night vision to find me memorizing stuff.
I hope I am not misrepresenting your argument. ConEd lied about Tesla's application for its own gain ("We cannot make an electric chair out of DC"). Scientists who temporarily threw Lamarck's insight onto the trashbin of history did so for their own gain, too, even if for tenure or popularity rather than financial gain.
BTW. I was against RICO from the start, and continue to be outraged at the outlandish uses to which it is being put. It's the old Lenny Bruce routine: every sin is three: you planned it, you did it, and you liked it. Three charges under RICO are likely to be plead down to one where only one charge might be defended.
Randall, this is an old discussion by now; nonetheless your response interests me. Is there really a difference between outlawing organizations acting on behalf of unaccepted (or unacceptable, or downright unique) ideas and scientists doing the same individually? Do we have to wait for flames to break out when we already have seen smoke?
I understand your view of history is different from mine. In truth and with due respect, I cannot say I am right without room for doubt, nor can I accept your view without reservation.
A scientist named Lamarck was once persecuted for suggesting if each generation exercised their right arms, eventually the trait would be passed on to future generations. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
A scientist named tesla's story is more famous. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Never trust orthodoxy without corroboration and reflection, not prosecution.
M'mmm, an exception. Sorry. Next time I'll say "most".
Your European car's software, if it is newer than the 2000 model year, is updated automatically by satellite. One would have to disconnect the battery and *never use the vehicle* to keep it from being so updated.
Mechanics know this; google seems not to, for some reason.
"Illegal evidence" is that which is gathered by methods outside the constitution, i.e., through a search without a warrant, etc. The adjective "illegal" does not refer to the evidence itself, but the manner it was obtained.
Why? I don't use google, so I would have had to wait twelve or more hours to see it, instead of reading it here right now, opening a new tab, and navigating to google. I've used duckduckgo for many years, but I do think I see a difference in the logo, now that you draw my attention to it. (yawn.)
Yes. But Ralph Nader is now just too old to fight....
The release was written in Neuspeak, invented first for banks and hotels in the mid-twentieth century.
In neuspeak, "for your convenience" really means "for our profit."
"For your safety" means "For our convenience."
Neuspeak is spreading slowly to other industries, as well, but its form and syntax were perfected when used on a sign on a shuttered bank office in Sycamore, Ohio, which read: "For your convenience, this branch is closed."
"When in the course of human events...." ads become too onerous, rebellions break out. The "consumers" of news (as if news can be "used up" somehow) are rebelling against too many and too invasive ads.
It was easier to find the information I wanted on the internet before the media companies filled all google's top spots with commercial products instead of the student/hobbyist stuff that was there before.
Since the metaphorical book is longer than can be read in a human lifetime, the ending is meaningless. We'll never know for sure.
This argument looks like a copyright infringer claiming copyright doesn't exist because the music, photo, whatever passed through a computer where it was deconstructed into ones and zeros, making it data, which is not able to be copyrighted.
Like the parents-murdered who threw himself on the mercy of the court as an orphan.
IANAL, etc.
The final sentence quoted, I feel, should have "and government agencies seeking to search ever-larger datasets." amended.
Of course, no technological advance comes without danger of government overreach.