No need to continue. Those are all good examples of the kind of stuff I'm asking about, congratulations. Care to address my questions?
Companies are required to pay for any "problems" before the fact via comp insurance. It seems to me it would be more appropriate to have compensation exist on a case by case basis, as agreements between employer/employee. Basically, a company could offer life/disability insurance as part of an overall compensation package at appropriate levels.
I'm curious, why is the employer always liable for any dangers related to a job? Why is some CEO or HR person in an IT company any more knowledgable about carpal tunnel than anyone else? Why are they expected to be?
Maybe the real ethical violation is people getting paid for an injury they most likely knew was possible.
There are lots of people of all races everywhere that are "good" at basketball.
However, it's pretty damn hard to deny that black people in the US only make up less than 13% of the population, but 80? (some very high)% of NBA/NCAA basketball players.
Some/much of that may be social/economic/cultural reasons. Different people are different. Different types of people are different. Perhaps there is no physical reason for black people excelling in Bball, but maybe there is a genetically physical reason.
The problem with PC is, it immediately and irrationally excludes the possibility that genetics may play some role in a variety of things. Any average observer can see that genetics plays a role in physical traits, such as shape of nose, eyes, hair color/texture, skin color, some diseases, etc. Why is it so absurd a possibility that genetics may play a role in height, strength, intelligence (gasp!), or any other human trait that may not be immediately observable. Why is it that genetics are only allowed to play a role in traits we consider to be "unimportant".
Perhaps the reason is that people (especially PC people IMHO) tend to judge the quality of a person's soul/character based on some of those qualities, especially intelligence.
You seem like a reasonably intelligent person. Through the course of examining whether genetics would predispose a person to be better-than-average at a particular task, one should consider the evidence at hand. For us, we aren't conducting any sort of scientific study, we are simply examining some evidence available to us, specifically, the makeup of basketball teams in relation to the distribution of different types of people in the regular population.
You took the position that, to make any assumption/deduction that there might be some genetic trait that helps in doing the "basketball" task, which runs in higher percentages in black people, is in your words "lame-brained". I pointed out, in my own sarcastic way, that there is some pretty good evidence to suggest that idea might not be so "lame-brained", based on the makeup of the NBA (and for our purposes we can throw in the NCAA) compared to the makeup of the general population. Your response was to try and discredit that evidence with the fact that there is ONE GOOD Chinese player in the NBA. (Ok, apparently there are two...I'm not much of a basketball fan) An anomoly does not discredit a general truth, or an entire set of evidence contrary to that anomoly. As I said, you seem like a reasonably intelligent person, so you probably already know that. That leads me to the question, why would he act so irrationally?
The only answer I can think of, is that he is pursuaded by PC/liberal (not sure what to really call them) ideals. That behavior isn't limited to you of course, but it's unfornate. Any time rational thinking is interfered with by emotion, especially on a large scale, it's sad.
Back to the argument of whether there is some genetic reason for the makeup of basketball compared to the general population.
Black people make up something like 12.7% of the population, as of the last national census, yet make up a hugely disproportionate percentage of bball players (and other athletes). I can't really think of a good reason for this. Is it because non-black people (hispanic, white, asian, indian, etc) aren't interested in sports? Given the extremely high salaries one can earn from PLAYING, that seems unlikely. Is it because of socio/economic reasons? Possibly, in fact I would say that certainly plays a role. But of all "poor" people in the country, I wonder what percentage are black. I would bet my last dollar, that percentage is still a lot lower than the percentage of black people that make up NBA/NCAA basketball players. If true, that would mean there is some reason OTHER than economic reasons (being poor). We're running out of possiblities.
Anyone can see that top athletes are hugely over represented by dark faces. I don't have a problem with that. What I do have a problem with is that we aren't allowed to talk about it, or ponder reasonably about WHY that is the case.
The fact that you would use the ONE Chinese person in the NBA as proof of the opposite is not only retarded, but should be clear evidence that your argument is based entirely on what is politically correct rather than "what is".
lame-brained argument about how...blacks make good basketball players.
Um..hello? Have you watched a basketball game in the last 50 years?
And incidentally, just because a person may really enjoy playing games, does not automatically mean that person is also interested in making games enough that he would go to all the trouble to get to that point.
I'm curious, does anyone know how they "test against traffic analyzers"
I thought google adsense inserts ads that match site content. Are they building entire sites with relavent content, then testing generated clicks/revenues for that site? And I thought Google only rebuilds indexes every so often, which affect the likely hood that a person would find your site at all. Wouldn't it take a while for a site to really start generating interest, even if it were highly relavent to a search?
It's kind of implied isn't it? The article says the SiteKey will display information specified before hand by the user. You would have to know who the user is (usually done by logging on) to know what information to display.
Incidentally, Ghandi had help of a different nature. A man he apparently referred to as "patriot of patriots". Ghandi's non-violence brought attention to India, but the destabalization of the British empire, as a result of WW2, along with an active military/violent independence movement within India had a large impact in phycially removing Britain from India and the subsequent independence of India.
Hmm...my experience has been different. All the bullies I've ever run into will continue to beat the crap out of you. If, on the other hand, you were to hit back, and harder, they would tend to stop, or if a fight ensued, at least not start a fight on another day.
But that's just my experience. Bullies, by definition, like to pick on the weak (like most criminals). If you demonstrate strenth, they will find an easier target.
I agree. I'm from central arkansas and remember this trial. I remember thinking that there didn't seem to be enough information to make me think they were guilty, I was a junior in high school at the time. But it wasn't until after seeing Paradise Lost that I realized the real crime that had occured (the trial).
No need to be a dick. It's generally considered common knowledge around these parts that catfish in large lakes can get as big as a volkswagon. Usually told in a similar vane of "what divers have seen". Of course, it could just be a wives tale. There are plenty of reasonably sized catfish, so I'm not sure why anyone would go to the trouble of actually trying to catch.
While I think New Line was certainly playing dirty, it seems to me that he did receive what was in the contract. There was nothing in his contract to prevent New Line from selling the rights to subsidiaries of Time Warner. Given the detail of these types of contracts, perhaps this could have been prevented within the contract itself by adding something about "..including all profits made from any subsidiaries of Time Warner...".
The idea that New Line sold some rights for under market value, would seem to violate a fiduciary responsibility, if such existed. As someone else pointed out, could I sue my employer for not charging enough for our services?
However, I think the best statement in the article was "diminishing returns". In case someone doesn't know what that is, it's when each incremental input, returns marginally less.
For example, lets give a rating to graphics, just to be able to quantify it. So, if you go from the earliest games to the next gen, lets say graphic quality goes from a 1 to a 2. The overall game play/quality benefits lets say by jumping from a 5 to a 10 (all other things being equal). Then lets say you move the graphics from a 2 rating to a 3. The gameplay benefits by moving to a 14. Same graphical improvment, but only 4 points of gameplay improvment this time.
I think that was the point of TFA. The graphics are getting better, but the imporovement, at this point, is only having a marginal affect on gameplay. To improve gameplay (which is the ultimate goal), it seems that resources at some point, would be better spent on other factors: overall design, user control, etc.
I just installed Fedora on an older 700 Mhz Celeron w/ 64MB of memory. It runs horribly slow (or rather, the Gnome desktop does). This is my first time to install linux for actual use. I intend to use this machine as a file server for backups of important data.
I expect it to run ok after it's all setup and running without Gnome, but is there a better desktop app that's less of a memory hog (I'd like to be able to use the GUI interface while setting it up)? Similarly, given the limited machine resources, what's the best performing distro?
The feature is only being included because IE is slipping in the browser share market.
Umm...and? I think there is some implied meaning in the above statement, but I'm not sure what it is. Isn't that what companies do? If they see trends in the market shift towards certain features/needs/wants of consumers, they respond with providing consumers with what they want.
It's at least worth a footnote, that when China's economy started growing the last 10 years or so, was about the same time they started instituting policies that made the economy less socialist and more of a free-market.
Um, those "investors" are the owners. What you are suggesting is that the owner(s) of a company get nothing, so that the "workers" can get more. Typical from someone who will only ever be a worker. Owner's feel differently.
arkansas. Honestly, I don't know how much a gallon of milk cost, it was just an example...
Two reason for this: First, it's something I buy rarely, so when I do buy it I don't pay much attention to the price. I compare brands, but never remember prices. Second, I hardly ever do the above, since my wife does most of the shopping.:)
My position is to respect the degree to which an individual (or company) does give. It's hard to judge someone elses need and further, how much is "too much" to have. Giving is good. But to what degree should one go to give? Is it ok, for example, if I were making good money and trying to retire (through savings/investments) when I'm 30? That money I could give away, and presumably be ok in the short term. (I don't really have that kind of money, I'm just speculating) How much money is it ok for a company to have in reserve to provide security for the insecure future?
I think those are all personal questions, which only you can answer. And it's no more ok for me to say "you give to much" than to say "you don't give enough".
Certianly, legal obligation to "share" according to someone else's standard begins to smack of communism and many people see your type of position as one who would like to legally force everyone to share according to your standard. So those type of "communism" responses seem somewhat valid as well.
I think *you* should learn about sharing. I do share. What I don't do is get mad at someone else who I don't think shares "enough" (whatever that means this week). Sharing is voluntary and people who think otherwise are usually only interested in sharing when they are on the receiving end of the share.
heartless money grubbers who could afford to pay a decent wage if they wanted too.
As an aside, I find this logic amusing. Because wal-mart could "afford" to pay more, they are heartless bastards if they don't. On the other hand, assuming you "could afford" to pay a little extra for a gallon of milk, and yet still refuse to do so, I'd bet my last dollar you don't apply the same standard to yourself and consider yourself a hearless bastard. Maybe instead of paying $2 a gallon, you should just go ahead and start pitching in an extra buck, eh? Or maybe it's just easy to have "high standards" when it's someone else's money. heh.
I've never met anyone who believes in #1. Anyone who believes #1 doesn't understand science at all. It is not possible for science to prove ID is false. That's the whole point as to why ID isn't part of science. Scientific ideas must be falsifiable. I like to think most people don't fit in your false dichotomy.
Have you been living under a rock? People use evolution all the time to try and "disprove" religion.
#2 is too common in this country because those people believe like you that it is an either or situation.
The fact that, after reading my post, you drew the conclusion that I am in the group of people you refer to, demonstrates either your dimished reading comprehension, or your overall lack of intelligence. Which makes me wonder why I'm even replying...
To be fair, most people (not all perhaps) take one of two positions:
1. Evolution proves $deity doesn't exist.
2. Evolution can't have happened because #1 above simply isn't true.
Personally, as a poster mentioned above, I take the view that generally science explains the thing(s) that god created. Evolution? Maybe, there is some evidence for it and some against. On one hand, its worth further investigation. On the other hand, it shouldn't yet be accepted as much more than a fairly weak theory.
For every person rejecting evolution out of hand to protect against what they perceive as an attack on their religion, there is one who accepts it out of hand to precisely attack religion. Neither parties are right. It's really bad mojo all around.
Slashdot Mirror
No need to continue. Those are all good examples of the kind of stuff I'm asking about, congratulations. Care to address my questions?
Companies are required to pay for any "problems" before the fact via comp insurance. It seems to me it would be more appropriate to have compensation exist on a case by case basis, as agreements between employer/employee. Basically, a company could offer life/disability insurance as part of an overall compensation package at appropriate levels.
for-profit enterprise
Isn't being employed a "for-profit enterprise"? Unless we are talking about volunteer positions...
Is trading your time for money less of an enterprise than when an entire corporation trades it's time for someone elses money?
I'm curious, why is the employer always liable for any dangers related to a job? Why is some CEO or HR person in an IT company any more knowledgable about carpal tunnel than anyone else? Why are they expected to be?
Maybe the real ethical violation is people getting paid for an injury they most likely knew was possible.
There are lots of people of all races everywhere that are "good" at basketball.
However, it's pretty damn hard to deny that black people in the US only make up less than 13% of the population, but 80? (some very high)% of NBA/NCAA basketball players.
Some/much of that may be social/economic/cultural reasons. Different people are different. Different types of people are different. Perhaps there is no physical reason for black people excelling in Bball, but maybe there is a genetically physical reason.
The problem with PC is, it immediately and irrationally excludes the possibility that genetics may play some role in a variety of things. Any average observer can see that genetics plays a role in physical traits, such as shape of nose, eyes, hair color/texture, skin color, some diseases, etc. Why is it so absurd a possibility that genetics may play a role in height, strength, intelligence (gasp!), or any other human trait that may not be immediately observable. Why is it that genetics are only allowed to play a role in traits we consider to be "unimportant".
Perhaps the reason is that people (especially PC people IMHO) tend to judge the quality of a person's soul/character based on some of those qualities, especially intelligence.
You seem like a reasonably intelligent person. Through the course of examining whether genetics would predispose a person to be better-than-average at a particular task, one should consider the evidence at hand. For us, we aren't conducting any sort of scientific study, we are simply examining some evidence available to us, specifically, the makeup of basketball teams in relation to the distribution of different types of people in the regular population.
You took the position that, to make any assumption/deduction that there might be some genetic trait that helps in doing the "basketball" task, which runs in higher percentages in black people, is in your words "lame-brained". I pointed out, in my own sarcastic way, that there is some pretty good evidence to suggest that idea might not be so "lame-brained", based on the makeup of the NBA (and for our purposes we can throw in the NCAA) compared to the makeup of the general population. Your response was to try and discredit that evidence with the fact that there is ONE GOOD Chinese player in the NBA. (Ok, apparently there are two...I'm not much of a basketball fan) An anomoly does not discredit a general truth, or an entire set of evidence contrary to that anomoly. As I said, you seem like a reasonably intelligent person, so you probably already know that. That leads me to the question, why would he act so irrationally?
The only answer I can think of, is that he is pursuaded by PC/liberal (not sure what to really call them) ideals. That behavior isn't limited to you of course, but it's unfornate. Any time rational thinking is interfered with by emotion, especially on a large scale, it's sad.
Back to the argument of whether there is some genetic reason for the makeup of basketball compared to the general population.
Black people make up something like 12.7% of the population, as of the last national census, yet make up a hugely disproportionate percentage of bball players (and other athletes). I can't really think of a good reason for this. Is it because non-black people (hispanic, white, asian, indian, etc) aren't interested in sports? Given the extremely high salaries one can earn from PLAYING, that seems unlikely. Is it because of socio/economic reasons? Possibly, in fact I would say that certainly plays a role. But of all "poor" people in the country, I wonder what percentage are black. I would bet my last dollar, that percentage is still a lot lower than the percentage of black people that make up NBA/NCAA basketball players. If true, that would mean there is some reason OTHER than economic reasons (being poor). We're running out of possiblities.
Anyone can see that top athletes are hugely over represented by dark faces. I don't have a problem with that. What I do have a problem with is that we aren't allowed to talk about it, or ponder reasonably about WHY that is the case.
The fact that you would use the ONE Chinese person in the NBA as proof of the opposite is not only retarded, but should be clear evidence that your argument is based entirely on what is politically correct rather than "what is".
lame-brained argument about how...blacks make good basketball players.
Um..hello? Have you watched a basketball game in the last 50 years?
And incidentally, just because a person may really enjoy playing games, does not automatically mean that person is also interested in making games enough that he would go to all the trouble to get to that point.
I'm curious, does anyone know how they "test against traffic analyzers"
I thought google adsense inserts ads that match site content. Are they building entire sites with relavent content, then testing generated clicks/revenues for that site? And I thought Google only rebuilds indexes every so often, which affect the likely hood that a person would find your site at all. Wouldn't it take a while for a site to really start generating interest, even if it were highly relavent to a search?
It's kind of implied isn't it? The article says the SiteKey will display information specified before hand by the user. You would have to know who the user is (usually done by logging on) to know what information to display.
Incidentally, Ghandi had help of a different nature. A man he apparently referred to as "patriot of patriots". Ghandi's non-violence brought attention to India, but the destabalization of the British empire, as a result of WW2, along with an active military/violent independence movement within India had a large impact in phycially removing Britain from India and the subsequent independence of India.
Hmm...my experience has been different. All the bullies I've ever run into will continue to beat the crap out of you. If, on the other hand, you were to hit back, and harder, they would tend to stop, or if a fight ensued, at least not start a fight on another day.
But that's just my experience. Bullies, by definition, like to pick on the weak (like most criminals). If you demonstrate strenth, they will find an easier target.
I agree. I'm from central arkansas and remember this trial. I remember thinking that there didn't seem to be enough information to make me think they were guilty, I was a junior in high school at the time. But it wasn't until after seeing Paradise Lost that I realized the real crime that had occured (the trial).
No need to be a dick. It's generally considered common knowledge around these parts that catfish in large lakes can get as big as a volkswagon. Usually told in a similar vane of "what divers have seen". Of course, it could just be a wives tale. There are plenty of reasonably sized catfish, so I'm not sure why anyone would go to the trouble of actually trying to catch.
I wouldn't eat it.
Just curious. They will eat some pretty nasty things.
While I think New Line was certainly playing dirty, it seems to me that he did receive what was in the contract. There was nothing in his contract to prevent New Line from selling the rights to subsidiaries of Time Warner. Given the detail of these types of contracts, perhaps this could have been prevented within the contract itself by adding something about "..including all profits made from any subsidiaries of Time Warner...".
The idea that New Line sold some rights for under market value, would seem to violate a fiduciary responsibility, if such existed. As someone else pointed out, could I sue my employer for not charging enough for our services?
However, I think the best statement in the article was "diminishing returns". In case someone doesn't know what that is, it's when each incremental input, returns marginally less.
For example, lets give a rating to graphics, just to be able to quantify it. So, if you go from the earliest games to the next gen, lets say graphic quality goes from a 1 to a 2. The overall game play/quality benefits lets say by jumping from a 5 to a 10 (all other things being equal). Then lets say you move the graphics from a 2 rating to a 3. The gameplay benefits by moving to a 14. Same graphical improvment, but only 4 points of gameplay improvment this time.
I think that was the point of TFA. The graphics are getting better, but the imporovement, at this point, is only having a marginal affect on gameplay. To improve gameplay (which is the ultimate goal), it seems that resources at some point, would be better spent on other factors: overall design, user control, etc.
I just installed Fedora on an older 700 Mhz Celeron w/ 64MB of memory. It runs horribly slow (or rather, the Gnome desktop does). This is my first time to install linux for actual use. I intend to use this machine as a file server for backups of important data.
I expect it to run ok after it's all setup and running without Gnome, but is there a better desktop app that's less of a memory hog (I'd like to be able to use the GUI interface while setting it up)? Similarly, given the limited machine resources, what's the best performing distro?
The feature is only being included because IE is slipping in the browser share market.
Umm...and? I think there is some implied meaning in the above statement, but I'm not sure what it is. Isn't that what companies do? If they see trends in the market shift towards certain features/needs/wants of consumers, they respond with providing consumers with what they want.
It's at least worth a footnote, that when China's economy started growing the last 10 years or so, was about the same time they started instituting policies that made the economy less socialist and more of a free-market.
Um, those "investors" are the owners. What you are suggesting is that the owner(s) of a company get nothing, so that the "workers" can get more. Typical from someone who will only ever be a worker. Owner's feel differently.
arkansas. Honestly, I don't know how much a gallon of milk cost, it was just an example...
:)
Two reason for this: First, it's something I buy rarely, so when I do buy it I don't pay much attention to the price. I compare brands, but never remember prices. Second, I hardly ever do the above, since my wife does most of the shopping.
My position is to respect the degree to which an individual (or company) does give. It's hard to judge someone elses need and further, how much is "too much" to have. Giving is good. But to what degree should one go to give? Is it ok, for example, if I were making good money and trying to retire (through savings/investments) when I'm 30? That money I could give away, and presumably be ok in the short term. (I don't really have that kind of money, I'm just speculating) How much money is it ok for a company to have in reserve to provide security for the insecure future?
I think those are all personal questions, which only you can answer. And it's no more ok for me to say "you give to much" than to say "you don't give enough".
Certianly, legal obligation to "share" according to someone else's standard begins to smack of communism and many people see your type of position as one who would like to legally force everyone to share according to your standard. So those type of "communism" responses seem somewhat valid as well.
I think *you* should learn about sharing. I do share. What I don't do is get mad at someone else who I don't think shares "enough" (whatever that means this week). Sharing is voluntary and people who think otherwise are usually only interested in sharing when they are on the receiving end of the share.
heartless money grubbers who could afford to pay a decent wage if they wanted too.
As an aside, I find this logic amusing. Because wal-mart could "afford" to pay more, they are heartless bastards if they don't. On the other hand, assuming you "could afford" to pay a little extra for a gallon of milk, and yet still refuse to do so, I'd bet my last dollar you don't apply the same standard to yourself and consider yourself a hearless bastard. Maybe instead of paying $2 a gallon, you should just go ahead and start pitching in an extra buck, eh? Or maybe it's just easy to have "high standards" when it's someone else's money. heh.
I've never met anyone who believes in #1. Anyone who believes #1 doesn't understand science at all. It is not possible for science to prove ID is false. That's the whole point as to why ID isn't part of science. Scientific ideas must be falsifiable. I like to think most people don't fit in your false dichotomy.
Have you been living under a rock? People use evolution all the time to try and "disprove" religion.
#2 is too common in this country because those people believe like you that it is an either or situation.
The fact that, after reading my post, you drew the conclusion that I am in the group of people you refer to, demonstrates either your dimished reading comprehension, or your overall lack of intelligence. Which makes me wonder why I'm even replying...
To be fair, most people (not all perhaps) take one of two positions:
1. Evolution proves $deity doesn't exist.
2. Evolution can't have happened because #1 above simply isn't true.
Personally, as a poster mentioned above, I take the view that generally science explains the thing(s) that god created. Evolution? Maybe, there is some evidence for it and some against. On one hand, its worth further investigation. On the other hand, it shouldn't yet be accepted as much more than a fairly weak theory.
For every person rejecting evolution out of hand to protect against what they perceive as an attack on their religion, there is one who accepts it out of hand to precisely attack religion. Neither parties are right. It's really bad mojo all around.