I'm glad we have scientists that brand speed and then sell it to people for profit, legally.
Wish they did it with cocaine and weed too, I'm sure we can find an excuse WHY it's a good idea.
Or you know do actual science and make decisions based on that...
Just invent another imaginary illness, or "condition".
The science is there. Feel free to publish your own studies if you have information not already presented.
"parents have no idea that lurking behind their kids' screens and phones are a multitude of psychologists, neuroscientists, and social science experts who use their knowledge of psychological vulnerabilities to devise products that capture kids' attention for the sake of industry profit."
We all know this is happening, but there's very little you can do about it.
And before you jump on your high horse, I went to school with kids who had parents that tried to protect them from TV, McDonalds, Coke etc (the parenting horrors of the 70's) and those kids had no friends. So the options are lose/lose. Be socially isolated, or be manipulated by big business. The latter is less bad in my opinion as a parent.
Current technologies could produce hunter killer robots, but it would require teams of engineers years of development and billions of dollars to approach the Black Mirror level of inventiveness and adaptation in killing people.
It doesn't have to be the exact level of Black Mirror to be terrifying, the Boston Dynamics robot dog with a built-in ballistic weapon and an accurate motion sensor is enough. And all of that already exists.
this is probably off topic, forgive me for that if you can but why on god's green earth would we want to give up on the dimension of texture and gradient in UI? also sharp corners make UI feel very unfriendly and unnuanced.
Because styles and tastes change. We all used to like skinny jeans, then we liked flared jeans, then we like skinny jeans again, then we like baggy jeans, now we're back to skinny jeans. Don't go acting all surprised when non-skinny jeans are the next big thing...
You realize this "more open" here means only that phone will potentially come without google apps like Chrome, but instead with some weird "$manufacturer browser" and "$manufacturer mail" instead, right?
I don't use Chrome or Gmail now so this is not a problem for me.
You as a user will not be getting any real benefits, those will go to manufacturers and carriers as you will be stuck with all the crapware they install in the same way you are now.
I don't buy carrier phones so don't get any of that either. Your experience must be different from mine, the only crapware I have is the Google stuff bundled with Android. I'd happily pay $10 not to have that which if everyone did too would still be enough to keep Google's Android division profitable.
Well, since you simply referenced "You didn't build that" and didn't actually state your point...
Obama already said it better than I could. And what he said doesn't much with your claim.
Technically, you didn't argue anything. You simply stated "I disagree".
Even the best capitalist in the world (which ironically right now is Jeff Bezos) still depends on centralised infrastructure and services to make money. And that needs to be paid for by everyone, even Jeff Bezos knows that.
You have taken the extreme view that contributing to common service is identical to theft. An extreme claim which will need some extreme evidence to support.
No-one can "multitask". Some people can serially mono-task, switching from one to the other frequently. But you cannot convince your brain to do two tasks that are not pure repetition at the same time, and even when that works, the error rate goes up considerably.
This is still multitasking. I had to write multitasking code way way back when I was at school, and multitasking is just the ability to put one task on hold while performing a part of another task, then switching back between the two. ie serially mono-tasking, but breaking a task into micro-operations and performing them non-contiguously.
Human multitasking is identical to machine multitasking albeit much slower.
Statement from Google pretty much confirms the EU is correct in that Google is forcing its services to lock out the market and make money. Personally I have no problems if Android doesn't remain free and it means a couple of dollars more on the cost of my devices, would happily trade that for a more open environment.
This! What would an non-free Android license cost per device $1? $10? My last phone was $1400, I'll happily pay $10 extra to not have to put up with this shit.
You know that just repeating a claim doesn't make it any more true?
So the insistence that one should just cut the bottoms off their pockets and accept any and all financial encumbrances, simply because some government yoohoo thinks they should be able to use them like a piggy bank...Bullshit, first to last.
That's an interesting interpretation. And it only reconfirms my original claim, that you are arguing something different to me.
Correct, they are criminals. They steal, that is their crime, this is my principled position.
You may feel a slight sting. That's principle fucking with you. Fuck principle. Principle only hurts, it never helps.
Jokes aside, I prefer outcomes to principles. You can have as much freedom and democracy as you like on paper, but if that means people can't get healthcare, education or their own place to live then your principles are broken.
You do realize that it is pretty easy to have corruption if the ref can call for the clock to be stopped any time he wants, and much less opportunity if he cannot, don't you?
No. Because right now (and I don't watch soccer much so feel free to correct this if it's wrong) no-one seems to know how much extra time there is or for why. The ref just decides on his own with no oversight or accountability. With other sports I watch with independent time keepers, there is absolutely no confusion.
Several million people are watching, including the league ref management..."
Yet none of them seem to know. I watched a game at the pub and asked some soccer fans how much extra time would be added and none of them could explain it. Doesn't sound like a great system
Even with your magical system of signals to call for the start and stop of the clock, you see refs calling for time to be put back on the clock because it was started by mistake, or because a call he just made cancelled a play that consumed time. It always seems to be at the most critical times in the game when the clock gets "fixed" this way. It's not this perfect system you seem to think it is.
I'm not guessing at this. Every other sport has this magic and it works better.
The blades aren't retired until they are either hit by a lightning strike (in which case they can't be counted upon to dissipate the next one) or they are physically damaged. Either way, re-using them is right out.
You could re-use them as something else, maybe.
I was assuming it would be standard maintenance practice. ie When a machine is beyond economic repair, you don't dump the whole machine you only dump the broken piece, then salvage all the good bits for your parts bin.
Sure users could post everything to FB2 as well as FB - but why would they? It's twice the effort,
I don't think you understand the Social Media users these days. Based on my anecdotal experience of working for a 'cool' youth retail head office with a dedicated social media team, and the owner of two heavy social media teenagers I can assure that if you had 50 social media apps, they would post shit 50 times to ensure no-one missed out on what they have to share. Ultimately 50 is not sustainable so the uncool ones would die a natural death. I believe that FB has past it's peak hype point so is ripe for an FB2 to usurp it (or at least steal a good chunk of its market)
Think of Tinder, how did that network start? Or Airbnb? Or Tidal? It's always tough to get off the ground, but this is why you mimic the FB experience (easy to setup and attract new users) but spend a shit ton on marketing it as the next big thing. Teenagers are only interested in new shiny, not ten year old shiny, even if it's the exact some thing just in a different colour, they will give it a go. Hell, make one of the Kardashians the CEO and you'll get 10 million customers on day one.
.
Those who benefit the most DO contribute the most.
Or do you think things like property ownership and massive, multi-tier employment IN NO WAY contribute to society?
How many people does Amazon employ directly?
How many people at their partners, service providers, and downstream business adjuncts do they employ indirectly?
How much money does their simple EXISTENCE pump into the economy?
You seem to be arguing something different to what I was.
The you_didn't_build_that speech doesn't mean you don't get to benefit from your hard work. Bezos is the most wealthiest capitalist of the modern era and he was an Obama supporter. How does that fight in with your angry Fox News everything Obama does is bad routine?
This is the first time out with VAR. We should not expect them to have it perfect yet.
Other sports have had video adjudication for years, and it's still fucked. You need to accept that referees are human and will make mistakes too, and just watch for the love of the game not the accuracy of the decisions.
This is why I prefer watching amateur sports. Pure enjoyment of the game, less precious fuckwits.
Soccer (football) is a decent sport. However, it would be MUCH improved if the lame offside rule were removed. This way an attacker can be waiting down towards the goal, receive a kick and score. Also, there wouldn't be these stupid calls where the person was offside by six inches and they take a free kick.
Get rid off-sides, and goalies. I'd pay to see that game.
PS calling it "soccer" means you are not in touch with the football world, as there is only one country that calls it that way (retaining the name "football" for a game played mostly by holding and throwing the ball)
1. I've lived in four separate countries, none of which are the USA, and all of which call the game Soccer.
2. Football is a historic term used to describe ball games played on foot, not played with the foot.
It does. It's just that you're looking at an unofficial clock, which means unofficial. The official clock is on the wrist of the on-field official.
I watch a bit of sport, but gave up on soccer years ago because of the girly behaviour. In every football code I know they use independent time keepers which the match broadcast displays so there is no confusion. When the referee wants the official time stopped he has a signal and the time keeper stops the clock. Same again to switch it back on.
Allowing a ref to have some unknown ability to control the time is just opening up the door to corruption.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't care how perfectly well you've set up your experiment. 13 people does not a respectable sample size make.
Because you said so? Feel free to tell us which part of this you disagree with: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
We should know better.
Yes, yes we should....
I'm glad we have scientists that brand speed and then sell it to people for profit, legally. Wish they did it with cocaine and weed too, I'm sure we can find an excuse WHY it's a good idea.
Or you know do actual science and make decisions based on that...
Just invent another imaginary illness, or "condition".
The science is there. Feel free to publish your own studies if you have information not already presented.
Adderall, while increasingly popular, has long been familiar among college students. It's a medically pure variant of methamphetamine.
You are confusing amphetamine with methamphetamine.
They are different things....
"parents have no idea that lurking behind their kids' screens and phones are a multitude of psychologists, neuroscientists, and social science experts who use their knowledge of psychological vulnerabilities to devise products that capture kids' attention for the sake of industry profit."
We all know this is happening, but there's very little you can do about it.
And before you jump on your high horse, I went to school with kids who had parents that tried to protect them from TV, McDonalds, Coke etc (the parenting horrors of the 70's) and those kids had no friends. So the options are lose/lose. Be socially isolated, or be manipulated by big business. The latter is less bad in my opinion as a parent.
Current technologies could produce hunter killer robots, but it would require teams of engineers years of development and billions of dollars to approach the Black Mirror level of inventiveness and adaptation in killing people.
It doesn't have to be the exact level of Black Mirror to be terrifying, the Boston Dynamics robot dog with a built-in ballistic weapon and an accurate motion sensor is enough. And all of that already exists.
I suggest you watch the Black Mirror episode 'Metalhead'. That is our future right there.
this is probably off topic, forgive me for that if you can but why on god's green earth would we want to give up on the dimension of texture and gradient in UI? also sharp corners make UI feel very unfriendly and unnuanced.
Because styles and tastes change. We all used to like skinny jeans, then we liked flared jeans, then we like skinny jeans again, then we like baggy jeans, now we're back to skinny jeans. Don't go acting all surprised when non-skinny jeans are the next big thing...
What I'm saying is that business owners should not be arbitrarily used as a bottomless piggy bank.
And no-one has ever claimed this. Or do you have citations of anyone credible making this claim?
After that, who the fuck should have the right to tell them they don't contribute 'enough"?
We the people... You may have heard that phrase somewhere previously....
+1
You realize this "more open" here means only that phone will potentially come without google apps like Chrome, but instead with some weird "$manufacturer browser" and "$manufacturer mail" instead, right?
I don't use Chrome or Gmail now so this is not a problem for me.
You as a user will not be getting any real benefits, those will go to manufacturers and carriers as you will be stuck with all the crapware they install in the same way you are now.
I don't buy carrier phones so don't get any of that either. Your experience must be different from mine, the only crapware I have is the Google stuff bundled with Android. I'd happily pay $10 not to have that which if everyone did too would still be enough to keep Google's Android division profitable.
Well, since you simply referenced "You didn't build that" and didn't actually state your point... Obama already said it better than I could. And what he said doesn't much with your claim. Technically, you didn't argue anything. You simply stated "I disagree".
Even the best capitalist in the world (which ironically right now is Jeff Bezos) still depends on centralised infrastructure and services to make money. And that needs to be paid for by everyone, even Jeff Bezos knows that.
You have taken the extreme view that contributing to common service is identical to theft. An extreme claim which will need some extreme evidence to support.
No-one can "multitask". Some people can serially mono-task, switching from one to the other frequently. But you cannot convince your brain to do two tasks that are not pure repetition at the same time, and even when that works, the error rate goes up considerably.
This is still multitasking. I had to write multitasking code way way back when I was at school, and multitasking is just the ability to put one task on hold while performing a part of another task, then switching back between the two. ie serially mono-tasking, but breaking a task into micro-operations and performing them non-contiguously. Human multitasking is identical to machine multitasking albeit much slower.
Statement from Google pretty much confirms the EU is correct in that Google is forcing its services to lock out the market and make money. Personally I have no problems if Android doesn't remain free and it means a couple of dollars more on the cost of my devices, would happily trade that for a more open environment.
This! What would an non-free Android license cost per device $1? $10? My last phone was $1400, I'll happily pay $10 extra to not have to put up with this shit.
No. No I'm not.
The "you didn't build that" speech was bullshit.
You know that just repeating a claim doesn't make it any more true?
So the insistence that one should just cut the bottoms off their pockets and accept any and all financial encumbrances, simply because some government yoohoo thinks they should be able to use them like a piggy bank...Bullshit, first to last.
That's an interesting interpretation. And it only reconfirms my original claim, that you are arguing something different to me.
Game Over? Was this written by a twelve year old? TFA certainly sounds like it was....
Correct, they are criminals. They steal, that is their crime, this is my principled position.
You may feel a slight sting. That's principle fucking with you. Fuck principle. Principle only hurts, it never helps.
Jokes aside, I prefer outcomes to principles. You can have as much freedom and democracy as you like on paper, but if that means people can't get healthcare, education or their own place to live then your principles are broken.
You do realize that it is pretty easy to have corruption if the ref can call for the clock to be stopped any time he wants, and much less opportunity if he cannot, don't you?
No. Because right now (and I don't watch soccer much so feel free to correct this if it's wrong) no-one seems to know how much extra time there is or for why. The ref just decides on his own with no oversight or accountability. With other sports I watch with independent time keepers, there is absolutely no confusion.
Several million people are watching, including the league ref management ..."
Yet none of them seem to know. I watched a game at the pub and asked some soccer fans how much extra time would be added and none of them could explain it. Doesn't sound like a great system
Even with your magical system of signals to call for the start and stop of the clock, you see refs calling for time to be put back on the clock because it was started by mistake, or because a call he just made cancelled a play that consumed time. It always seems to be at the most critical times in the game when the clock gets "fixed" this way. It's not this perfect system you seem to think it is.
I'm not guessing at this. Every other sport has this magic and it works better.
The blades aren't retired until they are either hit by a lightning strike (in which case they can't be counted upon to dissipate the next one) or they are physically damaged. Either way, re-using them is right out.
You could re-use them as something else, maybe.
I was assuming it would be standard maintenance practice. ie When a machine is beyond economic repair, you don't dump the whole machine you only dump the broken piece, then salvage all the good bits for your parts bin.
Sure users could post everything to FB2 as well as FB - but why would they? It's twice the effort,
I don't think you understand the Social Media users these days. Based on my anecdotal experience of working for a 'cool' youth retail head office with a dedicated social media team, and the owner of two heavy social media teenagers I can assure that if you had 50 social media apps, they would post shit 50 times to ensure no-one missed out on what they have to share. Ultimately 50 is not sustainable so the uncool ones would die a natural death. I believe that FB has past it's peak hype point so is ripe for an FB2 to usurp it (or at least steal a good chunk of its market)
Think of Tinder, how did that network start? Or Airbnb? Or Tidal? It's always tough to get off the ground, but this is why you mimic the FB experience (easy to setup and attract new users) but spend a shit ton on marketing it as the next big thing. Teenagers are only interested in new shiny, not ten year old shiny, even if it's the exact some thing just in a different colour, they will give it a go. Hell, make one of the Kardashians the CEO and you'll get 10 million customers on day one. .
Yeah. And Obama was DEAD WRONG.
Those who benefit the most DO contribute the most.
Or do you think things like property ownership and massive, multi-tier employment IN NO WAY contribute to society?
How many people does Amazon employ directly? How many people at their partners, service providers, and downstream business adjuncts do they employ indirectly? How much money does their simple EXISTENCE pump into the economy?
You seem to be arguing something different to what I was.
The you_didn't_build_that speech doesn't mean you don't get to benefit from your hard work. Bezos is the most wealthiest capitalist of the modern era and he was an Obama supporter. How does that fight in with your angry Fox News everything Obama does is bad routine?
This is the first time out with VAR. We should not expect them to have it perfect yet.
Other sports have had video adjudication for years, and it's still fucked. You need to accept that referees are human and will make mistakes too, and just watch for the love of the game not the accuracy of the decisions.
This is why I prefer watching amateur sports. Pure enjoyment of the game, less precious fuckwits.
i.e. a game in which nothing much happens.
So the same as regular soccer then?
Soccer (football) is a decent sport. However, it would be MUCH improved if the lame offside rule were removed. This way an attacker can be waiting down towards the goal, receive a kick and score. Also, there wouldn't be these stupid calls where the person was offside by six inches and they take a free kick.
Get rid off-sides, and goalies. I'd pay to see that game.
PS calling it "soccer" means you are not in touch with the football world, as there is only one country that calls it that way (retaining the name "football" for a game played mostly by holding and throwing the ball)
1. I've lived in four separate countries, none of which are the USA, and all of which call the game Soccer.
2. Football is a historic term used to describe ball games played on foot, not played with the foot.
It does. It's just that you're looking at an unofficial clock, which means unofficial. The official clock is on the wrist of the on-field official.
I watch a bit of sport, but gave up on soccer years ago because of the girly behaviour. In every football code I know they use independent time keepers which the match broadcast displays so there is no confusion. When the referee wants the official time stopped he has a signal and the time keeper stops the clock. Same again to switch it back on.
Allowing a ref to have some unknown ability to control the time is just opening up the door to corruption.