Google and MS are businesses that do far more than what Craig's list does.
Well, ok, but you have to admit that single-handedly destroying the newspaper business model is pretty impressive. Not too many people can say they've collapsed an industry.
The most annoying thing, is when the problem happens and you call Dell up they are always - please reinstall the operating system. I know it isn't the operating system, I can reproduce it in the bios. But they still persist in believing it is the OS (and yes, they are trying to blame Microsoft, this case, purely Dell's problem).
*clickity clickity* "Ok, I've reinstalled the operating system." I think there was a Dilbert about this.
I'm not saying that I don't understand your point of view. I do. I find it extremely irritating that I have to adjust to what are essentially flaws in the human character.
That being said, you really need to accept that these flaws do in fact exist. It's not something you can argue your way around. If someone tells you that they are offended by, for example, a picture of Michelle Obama where she's made to look like an ape, you need to accept that.
You need to decide whether or not you will allow yourself to feel empathy for another person's point of view.
I could say something that most people would infer as being racist without realizing or intending it to be such because language is funny like that. Does that make what I said racist?
No, that would make you a boorish ass. Part of fluency in any language is a grasp of the subtle nuances that they all possess. Take a look at some of the 'engrish' sites out there to see examples of technically correct english that hilariously gets it wrong.
Your argument is familiar, and it gets trotted out on such occasions as when someone complains that they can't use the word "niggardly". You need to ask yourself which is more important; being technically correct or not horribly insulting a group of people.
This is a great example of how you can be drawn into a ridiculous point of view by following a literal train of thought.
You're trying to argue away deeply ingrained symbolism by saying that it's an optional quality. It isn't. You cannot separate the object from the message.
Of course I'll probably be modded down for saying so, because debates on Apple stories are won by whoever has mod points (which is never me, incidentally), and not who speaks the facts.
Actually you'll probably be modded down for continually posting whiney little rants.
Division of Vertebrate Zoology, American Museum of Natural History, New York, New York
Department of Ecology, Evolution, and Environmental Biology, Columbia University, New York, New York
Sackler Institute for Comparative Genomics, American Museum of Natural History, New York, New York
There're a lot of people who stand to lose a lot of money if climate change is proved to have non-anthropogenic origins.
I see this floated around as one of the reasons scientists might have for cooking the books. In fact, I think it's the main reason.
It always strikes me as an odd thing to say about a group of people who have literally placed their professional reputation above their income in terms of priority. Yes, you do read about the occasional researcher who is caught out. It does happen. However, this is usually followed by ostracism and the loss of an entire career, not to mention the tainting of their previous body of work.
I believe that it's always important to ask yourself 'who benefits' and 'what's the motivation', which you apparently are doing here. I would, however, invite you to apply the same process to the people giving you this information.
Satellite temperatures are better for climate purposes because ground stations temperatures also pick up heat radiated from the ground and other buildings.
Well, I did say that you can't generalize too much. Your location and the amount of readily available food will make a huge difference. Someone living a more primitive lifestyle in the north will have different opportunities than a group of people living in a steamy PNG jungle.
and while we're not degreed anthropologists I think we have a better handle on hunter gatherer societies than they do.
That's sort of an ill-informed statement. You're comparing an in-depth knowledge of one mode of living with a broader view of many different lifestyles. You would certainly have different insights than a pure academic, but you also have to remember that a lot of these researchers spend years or even decades out in the field. Do their experiences count less because they write them down?
I've really gotten into flint knapping recently, did you have the need or opportunity to do any sort of stone work? How far did you push the traditional lifestyle?
If by widespread you mean "in all the textbooks", then yes.
While it's true that you can't generalize too much when comparing societies living in different environments, you're forgetting that we still have (or, had until quite recently) several hunter-gatherer societies to actually study firsthand. This isn't speculation on prehistoric activity (although there's plenty of evidence there, too), it's based on observation and communication.
But then you sound like you're more informed than the average person in regard to anthropology, so I'm wondering what you're basing your statement on. Particularly the "myth" part, since I have several studies sitting on my bookshelf right now that relate direct experience to the contrary.
I'm not sure why you equate a strong point of view with trustworthiness. A better metric would be to judge by past accuracy or honesty.
You don't have to agree with something to trust it. As an example, compare Fox News to The Economist. Both have a (from my point of view) very conservative slant, but one is manifestly more trustworthy than the other.
The position is a salary based position so the 'free' work you refer to is more task driven.
Sure, it's just a task that takes all day. If your wife only puts in 8 hours she's obviously not a teacher.
"may not access or download material from the Internet except for legitimate educational reasons" seems to be pretty clear to me.
"Staff may also use school equipment and networks for professional development and personal use which is both reasonable and appropriate to the school environment. This applies whether the equipment is owned or leased either partially or wholly by the school, and used on or off the school site."
I don't disagree regarding your take on bias at the BBC, but your links could be a little more robust. Wanting to see "both sides" of an anti-poverty campaign, global warming, and multiculturalism doesn't strike me as an intelligent argument for bias.
Slashdot Mirror
It was the best of times, it was the blurst of times? Stupid monkey!
Google and MS are businesses that do far more than what Craig's list does.
Well, ok, but you have to admit that single-handedly destroying the newspaper business model is pretty impressive. Not too many people can say they've collapsed an industry.
The most annoying thing, is when the problem happens and you call Dell up they are always - please reinstall the operating system. I know it isn't the operating system, I can reproduce it in the bios. But they still persist in believing it is the OS (and yes, they are trying to blame Microsoft, this case, purely Dell's problem).
*clickity clickity* "Ok, I've reinstalled the operating system." I think there was a Dilbert about this.
I'm not saying that I don't understand your point of view. I do. I find it extremely irritating that I have to adjust to what are essentially flaws in the human character.
That being said, you really need to accept that these flaws do in fact exist. It's not something you can argue your way around. If someone tells you that they are offended by, for example, a picture of Michelle Obama where she's made to look like an ape, you need to accept that.
You need to decide whether or not you will allow yourself to feel empathy for another person's point of view.
I could say something that most people would infer as being racist without realizing or intending it to be such because language is funny like that. Does that make what I said racist?
No, that would make you a boorish ass. Part of fluency in any language is a grasp of the subtle nuances that they all possess. Take a look at some of the 'engrish' sites out there to see examples of technically correct english that hilariously gets it wrong.
Your argument is familiar, and it gets trotted out on such occasions as when someone complains that they can't use the word "niggardly". You need to ask yourself which is more important; being technically correct or not horribly insulting a group of people.
This is a great example of how you can be drawn into a ridiculous point of view by following a literal train of thought.
You're trying to argue away deeply ingrained symbolism by saying that it's an optional quality. It isn't. You cannot separate the object from the message.
Of course I'll probably be modded down for saying so, because debates on Apple stories are won by whoever has mod points (which is never me, incidentally), and not who speaks the facts.
Actually you'll probably be modded down for continually posting whiney little rants.
Sure, it's all anecdotal, but you know I'm correct.
Ahh, a republican scientist.
the catholics don't have a problem with darwin, and don't believe the earth is 6k years old.
What we need is a publicly owned infrastructure and privately run services.
Division of Vertebrate Zoology, American Museum of Natural History, New York, New York
Department of Ecology, Evolution, and Environmental Biology, Columbia University, New York, New York
Sackler Institute for Comparative Genomics, American Museum of Natural History, New York, New York
They do.
You do realize that the location of these things is near building and stuff, so pretty much not representative of even local temperatures?
Pencil tapping on desk. Looking out a window.
There're a lot of people who stand to lose a lot of money if climate change is proved to have non-anthropogenic origins.
I see this floated around as one of the reasons scientists might have for cooking the books. In fact, I think it's the main reason.
It always strikes me as an odd thing to say about a group of people who have literally placed their professional reputation above their income in terms of priority. Yes, you do read about the occasional researcher who is caught out. It does happen. However, this is usually followed by ostracism and the loss of an entire career, not to mention the tainting of their previous body of work.
I believe that it's always important to ask yourself 'who benefits' and 'what's the motivation', which you apparently are doing here. I would, however, invite you to apply the same process to the people giving you this information.
Satellite temperatures are better for climate purposes because ground stations temperatures also pick up heat radiated from the ground and other buildings.
Sigh.
I believe the main one was not being a petulant cokehead while at the controls of the most powerful organization the world has ever seen.
Actually I think the committee should have awarded the prize to the American voter for finally electing an adult to our highest office.
What? I fail to see how this comment could be seen as offensive by anyone.
Lets see Obama's as well...
I believe the main one was not being a petulant cokehead while at the controls of the most powerful organization the world has ever seen.
Actually I think the committee should have awarded the prize to the American voter for finally electing an adult to our highest office.
Well, I did say that you can't generalize too much. Your location and the amount of readily available food will make a huge difference. Someone living a more primitive lifestyle in the north will have different opportunities than a group of people living in a steamy PNG jungle.
and while we're not degreed anthropologists I think we have a better handle on hunter gatherer societies than they do.
That's sort of an ill-informed statement. You're comparing an in-depth knowledge of one mode of living with a broader view of many different lifestyles. You would certainly have different insights than a pure academic, but you also have to remember that a lot of these researchers spend years or even decades out in the field. Do their experiences count less because they write them down?
I've really gotten into flint knapping recently, did you have the need or opportunity to do any sort of stone work? How far did you push the traditional lifestyle?
If by widespread you mean "in all the textbooks", then yes.
While it's true that you can't generalize too much when comparing societies living in different environments, you're forgetting that we still have (or, had until quite recently) several hunter-gatherer societies to actually study firsthand. This isn't speculation on prehistoric activity (although there's plenty of evidence there, too), it's based on observation and communication.
But then you sound like you're more informed than the average person in regard to anthropology, so I'm wondering what you're basing your statement on. Particularly the "myth" part, since I have several studies sitting on my bookshelf right now that relate direct experience to the contrary.
They have tons of free time. Seriously.
That's so odd, because usually people rely on state police for all sorts of information.
I'm not sure why you equate a strong point of view with trustworthiness. A better metric would be to judge by past accuracy or honesty.
You don't have to agree with something to trust it. As an example, compare Fox News to The Economist. Both have a (from my point of view) very conservative slant, but one is manifestly more trustworthy than the other.
I, not unlike Ceiling Cat, see what you did there. For shame.
Maemo, I meant, not n900.
Quick, what's the iPhone's OS (OSX ARM port) really called?
Anywhere it wants? That's no OS, that's my wife? It REALLY sits around the house? Just don't call it late for dinner?
The position is a salary based position so the 'free' work you refer to is more task driven.
Sure, it's just a task that takes all day. If your wife only puts in 8 hours she's obviously not a teacher.
"may not access or download material from the Internet except for legitimate educational reasons" seems to be pretty clear to me.
"Staff may also use school equipment and networks for professional development and personal use which is both reasonable and appropriate to the school environment. This applies whether the equipment is owned or leased either partially or wholly by the school, and used on or off the school site."
Looks like you didn't read your own link.
I don't disagree regarding your take on bias at the BBC, but your links could be a little more robust. Wanting to see "both sides" of an anti-poverty campaign, global warming, and multiculturalism doesn't strike me as an intelligent argument for bias.