Not eating the food that's on TV commercials. Yes, I'm serious. Yes, it matters to children. It says something about your family's affluence.
As I said in my post above, children are horrible to one another and will exclude based on income and race if they're not taught explicitly that there's very little difference between one another.
It's purely regional. If you go to metropolitan areas with very high population density and lower median income, or agricultural areas, ya, you will see what you describe. But you make it sound as though it's (1) a problem and (2) literally everywhere.
I grew up in Riverside County in California and graduated high school in 2000. Every city over 40,000 had at least 2 high schools-- one for the higher-income side of town and one for everyone else. The "everyone else" high school had a preponderance of Black/Latino and the other had a preponderance of White/Asian.
I, being poor, Mexican, and smart, sought intra-district transfers for myself to go to the white schools. Everyone knew they offered the better educational opportunities. It made life difficult for me, socially, but I had a couple great teachers that would consistently remind me "It will all be over by 2000... you'll graduate, go to college, and never look back!"
And unfortunately, this post isn't modded up as informative specifically because you're the one of whom the question has been asked and you provided all the information asked of you. =)
Thanks for taking the time to respond regardless of how you were modded. It's genuinely appreciated.
I wasn't making a point or a statement. I actually say in my post "I'm asking out of genuine curiosity. I may just be behind the times." I'm not one for making insinuations or attempting to read between the lines.
That's likely due to income. Taco Bell has some of the cheapest fast food in the nation and it's, well, fast! Food quality and nutrients notwithstanding, if you and your spouse have 3 kids and are working multiple minimum wage jobs, you're not likely going to want to cook proper home-made food every night nor could you likely afford better fast food.
As an aside, is it OK to refer to people as "illegals" and their children as "anchor babies"? Being Mexican-American, I enjoy torturing white people when they refer to my ethnicity. One week I'll be "Hispanic", and the next will be "Latino", "Mexican", "Mexican-American", or "Chicano", but I'm yet to hear, from anyone, that it is commonly acceptable to refer to someone as an "illegal" and their children as "anchor babies".
I'm asking out of genuine curiosity. I may just be behind the times.
Illegal Immigrant in my mind says that the person is in the country illegally and plans to stay. An "Illegal" sounds like the person illegally exists. "Anchor babies" sounds like the people had children in the country for the express intent of using immigration policy to preserve their own residence. It's without love for the child.
Most, if not all, cultures on this planet use food as a method of identity. If you went to China or Japan or France and still only sought out American-style food, you would likely be outcast. It's the same in America... especially for children! What recent immigrant children have to endure in the realm of food-mockery is genuine./remembers bringing tamales to school in elementary school//remembers watching my Chinese friend bring dried fish and rice.///kids are horrible and get away with it.
From the report (http://www.ericsson.com/res/docs/2011/silicon_valley_brochure_letter.pdf):
"To date in 2011, 35 percent of US Android/iPhone users interact with non-voice applications on their smartphones before getting out of bed. The most common activity here is checking Facebook â" 18 percent of social networking users log in while their heads are still on the pillow."
That can easily mean that people turn off their alarms in bed. 18% of SOCIAL NETWORKING USERS log in while in bed.
Buttons provide tactile response about location and success of triggering a function. Both aspects are quite useful for things like accessibility, but I still prefer the knowledge of having hit a button on a cell phone keypad or qwerty over the use of a touchscreen where I have to constantly be looking at what I'm typing.
The summary suggests that the problem is new people being hired without minimum experience to stay afloat and takes a turn to suggest that it's the new person's fault. Let's look at the whole picture:
1) New person graduated college, student loans require paying off and thus a job. If you won't hire the kid, who will?
2) HR is held to a variety of Key Performance Indicators (KPI) and will typically only report discrete numerical measurable stats because that's all upper management cares about or "has time for". Time employed at company, time to post opening, time to interview, number of candidates interviews, time to hire, and time to start are all the relevant KPIs. There is no common KPI that says, "Sufficiently experienced to work with group" or "number of quality projects verified" because those measure the value of the candidate and not the HR department. So the HR department has to fight for its own funding survival and thus gets things wrong frequently in the corporate world.HR is measured the wrong way and they shift their focus to the measurement.
3) Careers are learning environments. If you hire someone that already knows everything for a position that is not management, he will soon be leaving you for a management or higher paying position.The adequately and overqualified will very frequently just take "jobs" just to stay afloat financially and continue to seek work that pays more and is more challenging. This is where highering "young and dumb" can be an advantage. They are eager to learn, eager to please, and loyal.
As a long-time subscriber to SOE games, I can say that I am just flat-out disappointed.
It's not just anger, it's not just disbelief... it's disappointment. As if I just found out that my kid is the bully at school, steals lunch money, and spouts hate speech.
I know that the people I know, personally, in SOE (devs, community relations) didn't have control over this, but some people at most levels had to know.
First, thanks for the information on the fallacy. =D
Second, When Timmy helps Granny across the street, he may not be doing it for his own good feeling. He may specifically be doing so Granny doesn't get trip or get hit by a car. If that's the case, if Timmy acts specifically for the well-being of Granny, he is definitely being altruistic.
And I would disagree, as you note, that instinct can instill altruism because instinct does not allow for choice. Ant or bees sacrificing themselves for the hive are not acting on the decision to help others. Our personification of "... for the hive" is a misnomer they are reacting to stimulus without genuine *care* or consideration for others. It's just short of mathematical.
The common and fashionable sentiment is "Anonymous is a scapegoat for the Sony Conspiracy" or "Sony just needs a scapegoat for their failure..." when the defense of Anonymous should be exactly as you stated: It's not their MO.
Anonymous, to date, has shown itself to be mischievous (sometimes malicious) and extremely precise in their targeting. They have never represented themselves to be a for-profit hacking crew and they're smart enough to know that such actions are hurting the innocent users more than the company. Thus, the copying of millions of accounts' financial information cannot rationally be tied to them on history alone.
I really don't think Anonymous did this and I think Sony just needs *a* target of blame ASAP. In my opinion, anonymous is a *scapegoat of convenience*, given their vocal opposition to the modding community.
Tinfoil Hat Time: Maybe a for-profit hacking crew executed this attack knowing Anonymous would be target #1, thus giving them sufficient smoke screen. Hmmm...
Altruism describes decisions to help others for the sake of helping that person. It's irreducible in concept.
The robots are helping each other due to developed "instinct" to preserve accumulated improvements through further generations, not for genuine care for the well-being other robot in and of itself. This is not altruism.
Article states bad predictions for easy win
on
Tech That Failed To Fail
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
Article says the following products/concepts succeeded when they were predicted to fail.
1) iPod (Portable Digital Media Player) 2) Internet 3) Personal Computer 4) Television 5) Google (Minimalist Internet Interfacing, unobstructive advertising) 6) Android, iPhone (Smartphones)
Anyone who predicted the failure of the above was obviously WAY too far removed from the target audience to be worth his/her salt.
1) Portable Digital Media Player -- This was an obvious predictable survivor. The first realistic portable music device was the cassette player (Sony Walkman, notably). It was a hit and widely emulated. Then came the portable CD player (Sony Discman, notably). It was a hit and widely emulated. It was better than the cassette player because it offered higher-quality sound and greater convenience (if at the initial cost of "skipping" risk). Then came the MP3 player-- a device that stored CD-quality music on flash memory. It had no moving parts and great battery life. Apple then put forth the iPod (early iterations had moving parts) which was a fashion smash hit. Its staying power came from the need for the next step in portable music evolution and, surprisingly, because of its unforeseeable status as a fashion accessory.
2) The internet, even at its earliest incarnation, was a means of connecting people of similar minds and interests for communication. Advances in communication always survive and this advance combined the opportunity for well-thought letter-style communication at telephone speed. Furthermore, it became a marketplace for wares and a means of education. Yes, and adult entertainment. Its survival was a no-brainer.
3) Whoever said the PC wouldn't survive did not understand what a PC nor what digital computing was. It's the same as someone saying "books" would not survive because the person didn't understand that paper could transmit information beyond the death of a writer.
4) Television... jeez. People love entertainment. Jokes, stories, gossip, games, races, drama, fantasy -- all were hits on stage, in person, and in books. The person who said TV wouldn't last had no understanding of people.
5) Google survived initially because while everyone was annoying users with massive front-page bloat and forceful marketing/advertising, Google was simple. Google provided what the intelligent and focused internet user market wanted- a simple and efficient search engine. Word of their apparent search honest spread like wildfire and thus came the demise of the all-encompassing "web portal".
6) Smartphones survive for a few reasons: the popularity of social exhibitionism/voyeurism, new generation reliance on internet connectivity to provide solutions, and the wow-factor of touchscreens and pretty UIs. They will continue to survive so long as the touchscreen remains the best affordable visual interface... though I'd really prefer the return of buttons... they just work.
Slashdot Mirror
Ahhh... I see.
"I don't know how it works for kids..."
Why not? Weren't you a kid at one time?
Not eating the food that's on TV commercials. Yes, I'm serious. Yes, it matters to children. It says something about your family's affluence.
As I said in my post above, children are horrible to one another and will exclude based on income and race if they're not taught explicitly that there's very little difference between one another.
Bwahahahah!
It's purely regional. If you go to metropolitan areas with very high population density and lower median income, or agricultural areas, ya, you will see what you describe. But you make it sound as though it's (1) a problem and (2) literally everywhere.
I grew up in Riverside County in California and graduated high school in 2000. Every city over 40,000 had at least 2 high schools-- one for the higher-income side of town and one for everyone else. The "everyone else" high school had a preponderance of Black/Latino and the other had a preponderance of White/Asian.
I, being poor, Mexican, and smart, sought intra-district transfers for myself to go to the white schools. Everyone knew they offered the better educational opportunities. It made life difficult for me, socially, but I had a couple great teachers that would consistently remind me "It will all be over by 2000... you'll graduate, go to college, and never look back!"
And unfortunately, this post isn't modded up as informative specifically because you're the one of whom the question has been asked and you provided all the information asked of you. =)
Thanks for taking the time to respond regardless of how you were modded. It's genuinely appreciated.
I wasn't making a point or a statement. I actually say in my post "I'm asking out of genuine curiosity. I may just be behind the times." I'm not one for making insinuations or attempting to read between the lines.
You're also not a Mexican child in a public school surrounded by white children.
Ignoring as a child is a bit more difficult than ignoring as an adult.
I hear that!
That's likely due to income. Taco Bell has some of the cheapest fast food in the nation and it's, well, fast! Food quality and nutrients notwithstanding, if you and your spouse have 3 kids and are working multiple minimum wage jobs, you're not likely going to want to cook proper home-made food every night nor could you likely afford better fast food.
As an aside, is it OK to refer to people as "illegals" and their children as "anchor babies"? Being Mexican-American, I enjoy torturing white people when they refer to my ethnicity. One week I'll be "Hispanic", and the next will be "Latino", "Mexican", "Mexican-American", or "Chicano", but I'm yet to hear, from anyone, that it is commonly acceptable to refer to someone as an "illegal" and their children as "anchor babies".
I'm asking out of genuine curiosity. I may just be behind the times.
Illegal Immigrant in my mind says that the person is in the country illegally and plans to stay. An "Illegal" sounds like the person illegally exists. "Anchor babies" sounds like the people had children in the country for the express intent of using immigration policy to preserve their own residence. It's without love for the child.
So, ya... is that normal?
Most, if not all, cultures on this planet use food as a method of identity. If you went to China or Japan or France and still only sought out American-style food, you would likely be outcast. It's the same in America... especially for children! What recent immigrant children have to endure in the realm of food-mockery is genuine. /remembers bringing tamales to school in elementary school //remembers watching my Chinese friend bring dried fish and rice. ///kids are horrible and get away with it.
Or...
"hmmm felt a few drops, should we stop walking the dogs and turn around?"
"Nah, a walk in the rain would be nice. Especially with you."
*swoon*
From the report (http://www.ericsson.com/res/docs/2011/silicon_valley_brochure_letter.pdf):
"To date in 2011, 35 percent of US Android/iPhone users interact with non-voice applications on their smartphones before getting out of bed. The most common activity here is checking Facebook â" 18 percent of social networking users log in while their heads are still on the pillow."
That can easily mean that people turn off their alarms in bed. 18% of SOCIAL NETWORKING USERS log in while in bed.
Completely different from the summary.
I wonder if their survey population included only those who use Facebook via a smart phone and not "all Android and iPhone users".
I'd also like to know what kind of question they used to derive such a conclusion.
"Have you ever..." and "Do you regularly..." are often interchanged in marketing surveys for this very purpose.
This kills me, too.
"Let's synergize our incentivization submittals so we may provide service of excellence to our patrons!" /vomit
Well, am I?
Buttons provide tactile response about location and success of triggering a function. Both aspects are quite useful for things like accessibility, but I still prefer the knowledge of having hit a button on a cell phone keypad or qwerty over the use of a touchscreen where I have to constantly be looking at what I'm typing.
The summary suggests that the problem is new people being hired without minimum experience to stay afloat and takes a turn to suggest that it's the new person's fault. Let's look at the whole picture:
1) New person graduated college, student loans require paying off and thus a job. If you won't hire the kid, who will?
2) HR is held to a variety of Key Performance Indicators (KPI) and will typically only report discrete numerical measurable stats because that's all upper management cares about or "has time for". Time employed at company, time to post opening, time to interview, number of candidates interviews, time to hire, and time to start are all the relevant KPIs. There is no common KPI that says, "Sufficiently experienced to work with group" or "number of quality projects verified" because those measure the value of the candidate and not the HR department. So the HR department has to fight for its own funding survival and thus gets things wrong frequently in the corporate world.HR is measured the wrong way and they shift their focus to the measurement.
3) Careers are learning environments. If you hire someone that already knows everything for a position that is not management, he will soon be leaving you for a management or higher paying position.The adequately and overqualified will very frequently just take "jobs" just to stay afloat financially and continue to seek work that pays more and is more challenging. This is where highering "young and dumb" can be an advantage. They are eager to learn, eager to please, and loyal.
I assert that ACs don't count for Godwin'ing.
As a long-time subscriber to SOE games, I can say that I am just flat-out disappointed.
It's not just anger, it's not just disbelief... it's disappointment. As if I just found out that my kid is the bully at school, steals lunch money, and spouts hate speech.
I know that the people I know, personally, in SOE (devs, community relations) didn't have control over this, but some people at most levels had to know.
Ouch, guys. Ouch.
(http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQngiRrhTv_0WdVtJjX3aUV8a4o7zuyAY_CTUwHPpFdmtZ9_897&t=1)
First, thanks for the information on the fallacy. =D
Second, When Timmy helps Granny across the street, he may not be doing it for his own good feeling. He may specifically be doing so Granny doesn't get trip or get hit by a car. If that's the case, if Timmy acts specifically for the well-being of Granny, he is definitely being altruistic.
And I would disagree, as you note, that instinct can instill altruism because instinct does not allow for choice. Ant or bees sacrificing themselves for the hive are not acting on the decision to help others. Our personification of "... for the hive" is a misnomer they are reacting to stimulus without genuine *care* or consideration for others. It's just short of mathematical.
I actually don't understand what you mean.
So very this. I'd mod you up if I could.
The common and fashionable sentiment is "Anonymous is a scapegoat for the Sony Conspiracy" or "Sony just needs a scapegoat for their failure..." when the defense of Anonymous should be exactly as you stated: It's not their MO.
Anonymous, to date, has shown itself to be mischievous (sometimes malicious) and extremely precise in their targeting. They have never represented themselves to be a for-profit hacking crew and they're smart enough to know that such actions are hurting the innocent users more than the company. Thus, the copying of millions of accounts' financial information cannot rationally be tied to them on history alone.
I really don't think Anonymous did this and I think Sony just needs *a* target of blame ASAP. In my opinion, anonymous is a *scapegoat of convenience*, given their vocal opposition to the modding community.
Tinfoil Hat Time: Maybe a for-profit hacking crew executed this attack knowing Anonymous would be target #1, thus giving them sufficient smoke screen.
Hmmm...
Altruism describes decisions to help others for the sake of helping that person. It's irreducible in concept.
The robots are helping each other due to developed "instinct" to preserve accumulated improvements through further generations, not for genuine care for the well-being other robot in and of itself. This is not altruism.
Awww, shucks. =\
Article says the following products/concepts succeeded when they were predicted to fail.
1) iPod (Portable Digital Media Player)
2) Internet
3) Personal Computer
4) Television
5) Google (Minimalist Internet Interfacing, unobstructive advertising)
6) Android, iPhone (Smartphones)
Anyone who predicted the failure of the above was obviously WAY too far removed from the target audience to be worth his/her salt.
1) Portable Digital Media Player -- This was an obvious predictable survivor. The first realistic portable music device was the cassette player (Sony Walkman, notably). It was a hit and widely emulated. Then came the portable CD player (Sony Discman, notably). It was a hit and widely emulated. It was better than the cassette player because it offered higher-quality sound and greater convenience (if at the initial cost of "skipping" risk). Then came the MP3 player-- a device that stored CD-quality music on flash memory. It had no moving parts and great battery life. Apple then put forth the iPod (early iterations had moving parts) which was a fashion smash hit. Its staying power came from the need for the next step in portable music evolution and, surprisingly, because of its unforeseeable status as a fashion accessory.
2) The internet, even at its earliest incarnation, was a means of connecting people of similar minds and interests for communication. Advances in communication always survive and this advance combined the opportunity for well-thought letter-style communication at telephone speed. Furthermore, it became a marketplace for wares and a means of education. Yes, and adult entertainment. Its survival was a no-brainer.
3) Whoever said the PC wouldn't survive did not understand what a PC nor what digital computing was. It's the same as someone saying "books" would not survive because the person didn't understand that paper could transmit information beyond the death of a writer.
4) Television... jeez. People love entertainment. Jokes, stories, gossip, games, races, drama, fantasy -- all were hits on stage, in person, and in books. The person who said TV wouldn't last had no understanding of people.
5) Google survived initially because while everyone was annoying users with massive front-page bloat and forceful marketing/advertising, Google was simple. Google provided what the intelligent and focused internet user market wanted- a simple and efficient search engine. Word of their apparent search honest spread like wildfire and thus came the demise of the all-encompassing "web portal".
6) Smartphones survive for a few reasons: the popularity of social exhibitionism/voyeurism, new generation reliance on internet connectivity to provide solutions, and the wow-factor of touchscreens and pretty UIs. They will continue to survive so long as the touchscreen remains the best affordable visual interface... though I'd really prefer the return of buttons... they just work.