Bottom line: a large company that is in the business of making money will NEVER offer incentives to their customers that causes them to lose money somehow. That's bad business.
This is an extremely broad statement. By your logic coupons would not exist. They do. Simply put, the insurance company wants to charge the right rates to the right person. The company that does that most efficiently will have the lowest costs, and therefore the lowest premiums with the same margin providing the best service to the public.
Please STAY THE F*CK IN MY CAR (and those of the people that I choose to group my insurance risks with).
No tinfoil here I just cant stand direct marketing... trade you key tags for grocery stores with your friends
So what you're saying is, instead of hearing from Radio Shack, you want to hear from Radio Shack AND Bed, Bath, and Beyond. Instead of getting coupons for Hungry Man you want them for Lean Cuisine and Tampax?
I love direct marketing. Privacy is useful only for acts that are criminal, shameful, and romantic. If you're a criminal, you deserve it. If you're ashamed, get over it. And if it's personal, well, you need to figure out that everyone else is much more concerned about their own lovelife rather than yours.
This already happens to a large extent. People can self-select their own outlet from among the multide of news sources, and therefore do not EVER get the full story... just the one they like.
Thus the further polarization of American politics.
Go to the second row in the same casino, your odds will decrease by 6%. Go four rows back in the same casino, and you will walk out 60% poorer than you walked in.
This is a poor argument. Wouldn't the casino want the more often played machines paying the worst? A casino is going to keep the 103% payouts near the back door behind the keno lounge. I'd keep the 96% payouts right near the front door. The amount of advertising is irrelevant. 6% more advertising vs 6% more realized revenue. I think I'll take the latter.
In reality, with the new electronic chips, everything changes rapidly enough that this strategy would not work either way.
Feep
Re:Yes, I play, a lot.
on
Geeks and Poker?
·
· Score: 2, Informative
2. Second piece of advice, never play for money online. Just don't. Don't do it.
The main reason not to play online is collusion. You can get eaten alive by two players who know each other but pretend not to. It happens. Everywhere.
It only works for half... but it works great on that half!!! How is that a good filter at all?
No, it works PERFECTLY on that half.
Important distinction. Now instead of needing need to troll through for spam yourself to generate the Bayesian filter you can set this to automatically generate your Bayesian filter. Not only would this be easier, but it would reduce false negatives/positives by 50%.
Most conservatives argue that we need everything to be private becuase it is more cost-effective. But I ask you, when you're shopping for something, do you always buy the absolute cheapest generic product, or do you spend an extra few cents for better quality?
If you do buy the generic, it's probably because you're unemployed.
You've brilliantly pinpointed the exact problem with bigger government. Government is a monopoly enforced by men with guns. The private sector allows choice.
Oh wait they did do that. How come I don't hear sudden stories about massive car thefts with remote devices that can do what the manufacturer does? Or cars that won't start because they are receiving an incorrect kill signal? Oh yeah, because in the effort to make things easier car companies took the time to make them secure.
I understand that most criminals can break into cars in a few seconds. That is why there is such a huge aftermarket for security devices... alarms and such.
Perhaps you don't work in the auto industry. If you worked in the auto industry you would probably care more, and therefore hear of it. Conversely, you probably wouldn't hear about too many computer viruses. My therapist wife has no idea about computer security, but can talk for hours about changes in therapeutic models. In fact, she has far MORE awareness of car theft than computer viruses.
It's a lot easier than these card counting shenanigans and the casinos are at liberty to throw out whoever they want from their property.
People who start out winning make the best losers in the long term. People who start out losing usually don't come back much on their own. Kick out people who win at first and the casinos will lose the best customers.
The FUN of these games is that ANYONE regardless of status in the REAL world can become someone great.
Right, so you mean paying $2K for a system, $40/month for a fast broadband connection, and having 60 hours a week of free time is available to ANYONE regardless of status in the REAL world?
I was listening to music one day in my office. Someone who could hear my music asked what I was listening to. I said Rush. She approved. Later that day she started talking to me about Rush Limbaugh. It was only then I realized that, when I said I was listenting to Rush, she thought I said I was listening to Rush Limbaugh.
I was told I could play my radio at a reasonable volume between the hours of 11am and 1pm. Also I seem to have lost my stapler and I also did not get any cake last time there was a birthday and I could poison you all and burn the building down and I will too.
Or you've been hacked in which case you won't have an access record anyway if the hacker did their job right.
Yes, quite superior to a honeypot, in every way.
It's not superior it's a tool. You wouldn't want to ignore any tool, would you? Any of the above things are REASONABLE flags for you to have a look-see... maybe not get crazy, but at least look around.
Would you NOT want to know about flaw in your software?
Would you NOT want to know about the nosy employees and whether they had a legitimate reason or a pattern of snoopiness?
Would you NOT want to know about hackers if they don't "do their job right"?
Oh I see, you'd prefer to setup a honeypot and congratulate yourself on how clever you are.
But if a company makes money, then everyone* profits!
*Your definition of everyone may vary from that of the US Senate and Large Corporations
You're right, not EVERYONE, just: shareholders, installers, salesmen, technicians, other employees, actors, taxpayers (can't tax a stolen signal), and those who have the integrity to pay for what they consume. In short, people going about their business who will honor contracts with those around them. It DOESN'T include people who steal TV signals or sell devices explicitly for doing so.
Again, I was responding in the vein of the original poster's argument, nothing more and nothing less. Whether I believe in creation or evolution is irrelevant to the fact that the original argument contained logical fallacies. In fact, your post SUPPORTS mine in that it further points out inaccuracies in the original line of thinking.
At this point I'm thinking the original post was a damn good troll.
What is this based on? Have there been such studies, or is this a case of 'people who don't have kids help others take care of theirs' ?
Purely a proposal of my diseased mind as far as I know. The similar idea about suicide I did read and was proposed by a "respected source" though I can't recall it. My wife is a mental health professional so this kind of stuff is always being discussed or lying around in journals.
The main reason that I can see to avoid polygamy is for the pure and simple reason of simplicity. If you have children and you are married to 3 spouses (4 parents) then who takes care of the children LEGALLY? If the kid gets in trouble who is ultimately responible (until they are 18).
Then you get to the question of multiple multiple marriages. Imagine if you had 3 spouses and each of your spouses had 3 spouses. Then things get really unclear as to responsability for the children, property, vehicle ownership, etc...
Remove the additional monetary complications the government places on marriage:
Who's responsible for the kids? The two genetic parents.
Who's responsible for the property? Whoever is on the title.
Tax code might get confusing? It's already bad now. Simplify it and stop buying votes with deductions and credits.
In essence, marriage is over-regulated now. Let's de-regulate it and make it more free. The only thing I would mandate is some sort of pre-nuptial agreement. Doesn't matter what it says as long as both parties have their eyes open.
As an aside, I am happily married to a member of the opposite sex and I didn't sign a pre-nup... so what's my ideas worth anyways!??:)
Re:ADD Version
on
The Red Queen
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
I do, however, find it unfortunate when a rational debate about the subject becomes marred by name-callers when unpopular opinions are expressed. Even if you still come to a conclusion different from mine, you should at least be open to considering another's opinion. Referring to those who believe homosexuality is wrong as "bigots" tends to show a lack of openness to reason.
I agree with you completely when speaking of foul-language, but the ideas expressed clearly met the exact definition of bigot. After all, if those ideas don't, what does? When is it ok to use the term? I don't think the term applies to you, since I think you appear somewhat more discerning.
I took the exact assumptions the poster used (Evolution is true, therefore...) and (Creation is true, therefore...) and refuted them. To have done differently would have been significantly off topic. I have ALL SORTS of problems with evolution that are not relevant to the logical fallacies exposed in the original post and I honestly doubt the original poster is interested in that sort of discussion.
Slashdot Mirror
If they are so "censored" how come we can read them??!
How come when I read them there are half-a-dozen links for "additional reading"?
I think someone is unclear on the meaning of censorship.
Bottom line: a large company that is in the business of making money will NEVER offer incentives to their customers that causes them to lose money somehow. That's bad business.
This is an extremely broad statement. By your logic coupons would not exist. They do. Simply put, the insurance company wants to charge the right rates to the right person. The company that does that most efficiently will have the lowest costs, and therefore the lowest premiums with the same margin providing the best service to the public.
Please STAY THE F*CK IN MY CAR (and those of the people that I choose to group my insurance risks with).
Thanks.
No tinfoil here I just cant stand direct marketing ... trade you key tags for grocery stores with your friends
So what you're saying is, instead of hearing from Radio Shack, you want to hear from Radio Shack AND Bed, Bath, and Beyond. Instead of getting coupons for Hungry Man you want them for Lean Cuisine and Tampax?
I love direct marketing. Privacy is useful only for acts that are criminal, shameful, and romantic. If you're a criminal, you deserve it. If you're ashamed, get over it. And if it's personal, well, you need to figure out that everyone else is much more concerned about their own lovelife rather than yours.
This already happens to a large extent. People can self-select their own outlet from among the multide of news sources, and therefore do not EVER get the full story... just the one they like.
Thus the further polarization of American politics.
Go to the second row in the same casino, your odds will decrease by 6%. Go four rows back in the same casino, and you will walk out 60% poorer than you walked in. This is a poor argument. Wouldn't the casino want the more often played machines paying the worst? A casino is going to keep the 103% payouts near the back door behind the keno lounge. I'd keep the 96% payouts right near the front door. The amount of advertising is irrelevant. 6% more advertising vs 6% more realized revenue. I think I'll take the latter. In reality, with the new electronic chips, everything changes rapidly enough that this strategy would not work either way. Feep
2. Second piece of advice, never play for money online. Just don't. Don't do it.
The main reason not to play online is collusion. You can get eaten alive by two players who know each other but pretend not to. It happens. Everywhere.
It is [horrible].
it was quite responsive when you touched the right spot on the plastic, but when not staring at the keyboard there was no feedback
Too bad the touchpad wasn't on the screen LIKE ON THE TV SHOW.
Sorry, sorry, I don't really care that much but I mean come on really, you just aren't bloody paying attention.
This sounds cool, but how does this work with a mailing list that you subscribe too?
How do the spammers know the addresses of your co-workers?
It only works for half... but it works great on that half!!! How is that a good filter at all?
No, it works PERFECTLY on that half.
Important distinction. Now instead of needing need to troll through for spam yourself to generate the Bayesian filter you can set this to automatically generate your Bayesian filter. Not only would this be easier, but it would reduce false negatives/positives by 50%.
Most conservatives argue that we need everything to be private becuase it is more cost-effective. But I ask you, when you're shopping for something, do you always buy the absolute cheapest generic product, or do you spend an extra few cents for better quality?
If you do buy the generic, it's probably because you're unemployed.
You've brilliantly pinpointed the exact problem with bigger government. Government is a monopoly enforced by men with guns. The private sector allows choice.
Each month I'm continuing to have to tap into more and more of my home equity just to keep the bills paid.
Here's an idea:
1. Live within your means.
2. Save a significant part of your income.
3. Profit!!
Really is a government that raises your taxes and spends it on welfare going to help you with your costs?
NextEdit is a very simple (php based) web editor. It can do content areas as well as entire page edits.
:)
Designed _exactly_ for the not-quite-computer-iterate.
And yes, I did work on it...
You are an Apple Apologist.
Hmmmm, what happens if your house catches fire ?
Come on, this'll never happen. I live in San Diego!
Oh wait they did do that. How come I don't hear sudden stories about massive car thefts with remote devices that can do what the manufacturer does? Or cars that won't start because they are receiving an incorrect kill signal? Oh yeah, because in the effort to make things easier car companies took the time to make them secure.
I understand that most criminals can break into cars in a few seconds. That is why there is such a huge aftermarket for security devices... alarms and such.
Perhaps you don't work in the auto industry. If you worked in the auto industry you would probably care more, and therefore hear of it. Conversely, you probably wouldn't hear about too many computer viruses. My therapist wife has no idea about computer security, but can talk for hours about changes in therapeutic models. In fact, she has far MORE awareness of car theft than computer viruses.
It's a lot easier than these card counting shenanigans and the casinos are at liberty to throw out whoever they want from their property.
People who start out winning make the best losers in the long term. People who start out losing usually don't come back much on their own. Kick out people who win at first and the casinos will lose the best customers.
The FUN of these games is that ANYONE regardless of status in the REAL world can become someone great.
Right, so you mean paying $2K for a system, $40/month for a fast broadband connection, and having 60 hours a week of free time is available to ANYONE regardless of status in the REAL world?
I was listening to music one day in my office. Someone who could hear my music asked what I was listening to. I said Rush. She approved. Later that day she started talking to me about Rush Limbaugh. It was only then I realized that, when I said I was listenting to Rush, she thought I said I was listening to Rush Limbaugh.
I was told I could play my radio at a reasonable volume between the hours of 11am and 1pm. Also I seem to have lost my stapler and I also did not get any cake last time there was a birthday and I could poison you all and burn the building down and I will too.
Or there's a flaw in your software.
Or they were poking around bored.
Or you've been hacked in which case you won't have an access record anyway if the hacker did their job right.
Yes, quite superior to a honeypot, in every way.
It's not superior it's a tool. You wouldn't want to ignore any tool, would you? Any of the above things are REASONABLE flags for you to have a look-see... maybe not get crazy, but at least look around.
Would you NOT want to know about flaw in your software?
Would you NOT want to know about the nosy employees and whether they had a legitimate reason or a pattern of snoopiness?
Would you NOT want to know about hackers if they don't "do their job right"?
Oh I see, you'd prefer to setup a honeypot and congratulate yourself on how clever you are.
But if a company makes money, then everyone* profits!
*Your definition of everyone may vary from that of the US Senate and Large Corporations
You're right, not EVERYONE, just: shareholders, installers, salesmen, technicians, other employees, actors, taxpayers (can't tax a stolen signal), and those who have the integrity to pay for what they consume. In short, people going about their business who will honor contracts with those around them. It DOESN'T include people who steal TV signals or sell devices explicitly for doing so.
So absolutely right you are.
Again, I was responding in the vein of the original poster's argument, nothing more and nothing less. Whether I believe in creation or evolution is irrelevant to the fact that the original argument contained logical fallacies. In fact, your post SUPPORTS mine in that it further points out inaccuracies in the original line of thinking.
At this point I'm thinking the original post was a damn good troll.
What is this based on? Have there been such studies, or is this a case of 'people who don't have kids help others take care of theirs' ?
Purely a proposal of my diseased mind as far as I know. The similar idea about suicide I did read and was proposed by a "respected source" though I can't recall it. My wife is a mental health professional so this kind of stuff is always being discussed or lying around in journals.
The main reason that I can see to avoid polygamy is for the pure and simple reason of simplicity. If you have children and you are married to 3 spouses (4 parents) then who takes care of the children LEGALLY? If the kid gets in trouble who is ultimately responible (until they are 18).
:)
Then you get to the question of multiple multiple marriages. Imagine if you had 3 spouses and each of your spouses had 3 spouses. Then things get really unclear as to responsability for the children, property, vehicle ownership, etc...
Remove the additional monetary complications the government places on marriage:
Who's responsible for the kids? The two genetic parents.
Who's responsible for the property? Whoever is on the title.
Tax code might get confusing? It's already bad now. Simplify it and stop buying votes with deductions and credits.
In essence, marriage is over-regulated now. Let's de-regulate it and make it more free. The only thing I would mandate is some sort of pre-nuptial agreement. Doesn't matter what it says as long as both parties have their eyes open.
As an aside, I am happily married to a member of the opposite sex and I didn't sign a pre-nup... so what's my ideas worth anyways!??
I do, however, find it unfortunate when a rational debate about the subject becomes marred by name-callers when unpopular opinions are expressed. Even if you still come to a conclusion different from mine, you should at least be open to considering another's opinion. Referring to those who believe homosexuality is wrong as "bigots" tends to show a lack of openness to reason.
I agree with you completely when speaking of foul-language, but the ideas expressed clearly met the exact definition of bigot. After all, if those ideas don't, what does? When is it ok to use the term? I don't think the term applies to you, since I think you appear somewhat more discerning.
I took the exact assumptions the poster used (Evolution is true, therefore...) and (Creation is true, therefore...) and refuted them. To have done differently would have been significantly off topic. I have ALL SORTS of problems with evolution that are not relevant to the logical fallacies exposed in the original post and I honestly doubt the original poster is interested in that sort of discussion.