Are the Democrats wishy-washy? Hell yeah. However, I'd rather not see them adopt the same tactics that the Republicans use. Agreed, but you have to admit that Dems scare reeeeeaally easily.
Very insightful post. The scientific study is preliminary, it seems. The main 'conclusion' is that liberals and conservatives seem to think differently. I don't think one is necessarily better than the other, though I am proud of my squishy brain. Haha. I cherish people who can be the deciders when necessary, and I think that oftentimes it is for the best. I think that choosing a bad decider is far more risky than choosing a bad powder puff in most situations.
One thing I gather from this study is that conservatives tend to have more faith in themselves than liberals do, but this is probably not a secret to anyone who reads and is not dead. Faith is a big conservative thing.
On faith, however...
I take major issue with many Christian people. I took my ex-girlfriend to test drive a car, and the lady was dishonest, evasive, etc. She talked about Christ and these people and how they were 'Good Christians' and she was trying to sell a car with a blown head gasket that had been in a pretty freaking serious car accident. Oh, and the passenger door didn't open, and it leaked assesful of oil, and she was still asking 200 over blue book value for a car in 'Good' condition. And my ex called ahead and asked about how many owners, and she lied. She didn't mention the door not opening, and the pictures online hid the crash damage.
And then the freaking lady tells us to go check out this car lot, because this guy will take care of us, because he's a 'Good Christian.' I mean, ick, lady. Where the hell did she get her values? Because I really pray she didn't get them from the Bible. No pun intended. Plus, my friend Rob purchased a car from a company called 4Him car sales. Oh. Fucking. Really. People do not sell cars for the Lord. They just don't. They stick God's name on shit so that actual good and gullible Christians think they are a real live good Christian, too. I am stopping ranting now, because I'm getting off-topic.
About the Liberals, I agree. I liked Howard Dean, because he actually stuck to his guns before and while he was running. But luckily, the Democrats are good enough at self-sabotage that they brought him down. We've got some Dems in the primaries who are going to lose because they have real ideas that they can maintain over the period of a week. It's a freaking problem.
I have many issues with liberals in general, and I could really go for this fabled 3rd candidate of which you speak, as I'm sure could many many Americans. As far as fitting that all into a soundbite, he could classify himself as a real Humanist, and pay some asshole (they're very useful. I have one) to come up with some neat tag lines like everybody else does, right?
You've got to remember that these voters are just simple farmers. These are people of the land. The common clay of the new West. You know... morons. Since you and I are arguing against the same people, I feel it is my duty to comment that I think that you're being extremely harsh, and seem to think that formal education and exposure to city life somehow make a person smart. I tend to think that people who enjoy thinking and processing information are to be esteemed, regardless of their level of education--or even IQ.
Even an intellectually slow person--if he is one to think as long as he needs to--is better off than the intelligent hair-triggered cocksure suit. In computers, the speed of the processor will not compensate for sloppy programming.
My father always says that while he doesn't mind shaking a whore's hand, he feels the unquenchable desire to wash his hands after touching the hand of a politician. And I can't say I disagree.
Being educated doesn't mean you're not stupid, a point Greg Graffin seems to miss. Being uneducated doesn't mean you're stupid. If one man works to become a chemical engineer before deciding to live in hermitage in the mountains, and another just goes straight to the hermitage, who's smarter?
One question would be, who and where did they get the subjects and how did they decide who is liberal and conservative? Was it self described? Actually, blackness as an ethnicity is often self-described. I don't have the reference material, but I remember a young girl who was forced by the school to choose an ethnicity when one parent was white and one was black. We can't let these people walk around uncategorized.:-)
But on me having the answers and "buying into" the study, I've just been exercising my troll-response muscles. I know there were 'liberal' trolls up the tree, but I was moved (the Lord selected me, rather) to respond to the one I did.
Another question would be, I see that they have equated more brain noise with liberals and more accurate results with liberals but have they showed that more brain activity means more accurate results? They have not conclusively shown this, it appears. The correlation is data. However, I don't think it has to do with education, since M vs W is very much a pattern recognition exercise, and they use this type of thing on children's IQ tests.
Why was W selected as a test parameter when GW Bush is the root of all evil for a lot of liberals. This is right out there on the edge of crazy, but I have admit I put my time in there, too. They chose M and W because they are inverted forms of the other, probably to encourage the knee-jerk reaction.
Wouldn't this imply that just recognizing the W could be because they have had a lot of practice in separating GHB (George Herbert walker bush) from GWB (George Walker Bush) in the rants about how evil he is? And could the extra brain activity be misrepresenting of the hatred and bagged emotions that GW brings around? I mean they were looking at the portion of the brain that deals with conflict. Bah. I say that conservatives should be pretty goddamn good at identifying a W as well, what with their framed thank you pictures and bumper stickers and whatnot.
But from a relative perspective, they claim 4.9 times as many liberals would register this activity to achieve a 2.2 times accuracy increase. If we were to assign value to this in a random fashon without all the answers to the questions I asked (and probable a lot more), it would mean that the Accurate conservatives used less effort to achieve accurate results and the liberal have to spend a disproportionate level of brain activity to achieve small levels of accuracy. I think that twice the accuracy for a little more brainpower is worth it. We've got pretty good brains. And actually, I think before I do lots of things, and I'm doing fairly well for myself. Of course, thinking has precluded opportunities in gay nude modeling and land development, and I know some people who have done one or the other, and they have some more money than me. So I suppose not thinking MAY very well be the key to solving all this hard work.
I don't think either of us have enough details to makes accurate predictions over the study. To quote the researcher, "Maybe it suggests one reason why they tend not to get along." Fraught with ambiguity this guy. Must be a fucking liberal.:D
They are usually Some people get to be know for starting political fights for the sake of shouting their views and demanding that they are right. Dude, not when I was talking to my boss, and he voted to reelect the fucker in spite of the fact that he was lying. I asked him if it bothered him that [long list of shit], and I provided references that he never looked at. His response was mostly along the lines of, "Well..." We're still friends, and I never dogged him.
On another note, I live in Florida, and it took him 15 minutes to leave work, vote, and come back. He is, you might have guessed, rich. My ex-girlfriend lived in a rich neighborhood, and it took her 30 minutes. I voted early in a black neighborhood, and it took me 2 hours. It took
Considering that majority voters will vote for people who hold common beliefs, I do not see an issue with that. I'm assuming you're talking about morals vs. policies. The problem with this is that people will go by the politician's professed morals, without ever trying to distinguish whether the person is guided by them. Like GWB, beloved target that he is, saying he's a Christian when, in actuality, he takes none of the normal actions one could expect of a Christian. Like saving the black people after Katrina (which I know was highly politicized by both sides rather than someone just flying in their private jet down to make an actual physical difference). Or lying, cheating, ignoring questions, pilfering and plundering our nation, etc. Dick Cheney shot someone in the face, my God. Sure, an accident. Sure. But still, it's certainly in line with their track record. I wouldn't put it past him AT ALL, would you?
this is one of the problems Democrats seemed to have, they can't connect with the people, the voters. I think the problem Democrats have is they are fucking spineless douche-holes. They really really could benefit by applying a FEW of the Republic Party's techniques such as sticking to your message, not changing your mind based on press, actually making a commitment to do something, etc. They could work a little harder to get people like Bill Maher and Kurt Vonnegut considered more typical liberals than Michael Moore (the hot dog hog liberal) or Tim Robbins (helloooo, pompous scorn--in John Lennon glasses, no less).
The Democrats have a much bigger problem than not holding commonly-held beliefs, Sally. I notice liberals have less a pack loyalty than the conservatives. Which is possibly related to the M, W findings. But it's a big deal. There are a lot of liberals who won't vote for a candidate because of hypocrisy, which doesn't seem quite the case for conservatives, unfortunately. Conservatives are much more likely to lean towards a candidate because he doesn't look like he likes homosexuals. Which, interestingly enough, backfires quite often. Maybe if they didn't scare homos into a life of lies and deceit, they'd have a better grasp on how to identify one.
For the record, I don't intend my crude language to in any way indicate that I dislike homosexuals. I like them fine, as long as they don't vote against themselves in one way or another.
and this means that conservatives have difficulties to gasp changes and understand new ideas (nothing new here).
No, it means that they find button pushing more interesting and worthwhile of effort.
In this vein of reasoning (thanks for digging the groove for me to glide along so easily), it means conservatives read about something (study, presidency, war), and think, "man, I'd be good at that!" then get there, and they get explained what they have to do, and about 3 minutes into it, they start doing a poor job, even though they committed to it and they're getting paid. They think things like, "boy, this is hard work!" and "you can't be expected to be accurate all the time."
For example. Think before you troll. I'm not even really into the liberal/conservative social split we have going in our culture. But as another posted pointed out, Conservatives seem to be pretty good at reconciling being a gay-bashing homosexual. Yes, there are things that are detestable about liberals, but we've got the neo-cons, the page-fucker, the anonymous gay sex guy, and my republican acquaintances are completely steadfast in their support of 'their' people, even when they can provide zero reason.
A great rationalization I've heard goes something like this: Guy 1: Do you agree with Bush's policies? Republican voter: I agree with his morals Guy 1: Yes, but what about his policies? Republican voter: I believe he's a very moral man.
I shit you not, a real conversation I've overheard. This goes far from condemning all republicans, but I've heard things in exactly the same spirit that are exactly as shocking from lots and lots of people.
Again, think before you troll, please. You upset me.:)
So you are saying the networks we got here in EU are untested running on non standard stuff?
No, I'm saying the Apple didn't test it on EU networks, possibly. Plus, billing is done differently by different companies. And if the way Apple and AT&T handled dropped connections (oh, data's free, it's not a problem) doesn't apply to EU networks, then they would possibly conflict. Also, if Apple and AT&T worked on a non-ubiquitous way of handling errors, then it would make sense (judging from its non-ubiquitousness) that not everyone would implement the same methodology.
Looky:
1. Newcomer to cell phone market makes a cell phone 2. Tons of people say it's hard making cell phones, that they have no faith in the newcomer 3. The newcomer does very well, and there are no problems 4. Woops, the newcomer just charged someone $4800 for no good reason
Also, didn't Apple say that one of the reasons to stick with network lockdown is to not have to support various networks?
it WOULD be worse. However, it could be a compatibility glitch with the iPhone and a foreign network. Incompatibilities with untested networks don't seem that far-fetched to me.
But really, it'll be interesting to see how this is PR'd, since Apple's stuff is supposed to Just Work. How can you argue with someone who is upset that your stuff in fact didn't Just Work? Not that it's an unreasonable mistake to be made by a product developer (it's hard to test for EVERYTHING), but Apple's reputation is a little on the liberal side (so sayeth Machiavelli), and therefore they've got to maintain, maintain.
If the international data plan charges $24 per 20MB, and they got a bill for $4800, that means the 3 phones, while turned off, downloaded a total of around 4GB. WTF?
I am not an expert on this, but it's conceivable that if they were traipsing about the countryside (with 3 iphones--sheesh), that the iPhone just FAILED to transfer 4GB. It would depend on how the network metered the service, of course, but it sounds like a possibility to me.
Can anyone with any background in this either back me up or refute me all to hell?
My point of view is that polygraphs and other "lie detectors" can detect neither truth nor belief. Any discussion that assumes polygraphs have any diagnostic capability helps to perpetrate the myth of their efficacy and is therefore a disservice to the world. I think you were GGP. I noticed afterwards that I'm pretty sure I left out a G. I agree with you. But what the person was saying was exactly what I see you saying: That lie detectors are flawed.
The point that I still think you may be missing is that while a polygraph is neither a lie detector NOR a belief detector, a person's belief in what they're saying would alter the physiological response that the person is having, essentially masking it as a "truthful" response for a polygraph operator. If, in fact, the polygraph works at all.
Whatever, I had way too much time to kill yesterday. Cheers.:-)
It's reasonable to think a lie detector can detect your intention to lie
I agree with your post, but I think from this, you didn't get what I was saying. I was saying that it's NOT reasonable to hold the following two beliefs simultaneously:
1. A polygraph can detect my intention to lie. 2. A polygraph cannot detect my belief in what I am saying.
And that was my main argument with GP poster. He seemed to be ridiculing the other person's argument based on semantics. He said that a lie detector detects lies, and not beliefs, to which I reply, "mrHRms?!211?S????PPHHHH!!!?"
I think oftentimes people will hold a belief X ("Polygraph detects lies") without examining it, then when presented with an argument about that singularly defined concept (the polygraph), they will refute the argument ("A person's belief in oneself affects the outcome of a polygraph") with a non sequitur ("Polygraphs can't detect belief") without ever applying the same scrutiny to their initial belief X that they applied to the opponent argument.
GP maintained that a polygraph detects lies, but doesn't choose to examine HOW it detects a lie physiologically or how a polygraph could possibly contain a definition for the concept "lie" that would be measurable by a machine. At the same time, GP attacked the idea that one's belief in one's lie would affect the outcome of a polygraph test, because the machine couldn't possibly contain a definition for the concept "belief" that would be measurable by a machine. Furthermore, GP failed to acknowledge that believing in what one says ("Santa is real"--a child) makes the statement not a "lie" by any measurable physiological phenomena.
IMO, a lie detector test amounts to a statement by the defendant. Yes, except they should just leave the polygraph machine disconnected. We should just have a machine that randomly flashes lights, beeps, and plays a recording that says, "LIAR!!" really loud. That'll help convict some bastards, too.
The presumption that the clause is useful, i.e. that the use of a lie detector has some relationship to whether the subject's belief, is implicit in its having included it in the statement.
Do you know what a polygraph tests? It tests variance in body stress incurred by answering certain questions when compared to control questions (that the tester knows the answer to), BLEARGH!
Therefore, it would make sense that the person's belief would make a difference. A polygraph does not detect lies. It detects body stress indicators, and the person interprets them. By what you've posted, it seems like you think that while it's preposterous to believe that a machine could possibly detect your belief, it's pretty reasonable that it can detect your intention (to lie).
You can refer to subpoenas in a court proceeding, as well as just about every other filing. If you couldn't do that, you'd never be able to bring a charge for malicious prosecution. Well, maybe I didn't really know that after all.:-)
Ok, now that I've trolled in another post, I'm wondering if the folks trying to get him kicked out of the Bar could enter the subpoena ITSELF as evidence of JT's unfitness to practice law.
I know from my dealings with a lawyer due to a negligent, threatening, [expletive deleted] landlord that there are certain parts of the legal process that are not admissible as evidence as court. I'm not sure where all that extends, but I know it covers at least part of pre-trial settlement communication.
I curse your name, my landlord, I curse your name (as soon as the case is settled).
/To be more accurate, companies are interested in whether there are people who would ditch gaming (or at least that company's games) in order to ditch Windows OK, well let's help them count. I've got 2 people right here, including myself. (this could take a long time)
APPLIES TO
Microsoft Outlook 2000 Standard Edition
Microsoft Outlook 2002 Standard Edition
Microsoft Outlook 98 Standard Edition
Microsoft Outlook 97 Standard Edition
I had Office XP SP1, and now I know why she got cut off at 1.82GB, except her computer exhibited the same behaviour as if I had just hit 2gb. And, I may add, you'll notice that it's an issue in Office 2000. Also, the fact that they changed it to a lockdown at 1.82 GB, rather than just throwing up a message that let you save your ass, is still kind of fucking weird.
And, to further address the "providing support for all their 10 year old software" troll, here's a reference to product support lifecycle for Office 2003, which states that they will support it "until users start adopting" 2007. The actual number is Jan 18th, 2009. 2 years after the successor is quite reasonable, given the nature of the application. http://office.microsoft.com/en-us/products/HA10229 4401033.aspx#3
Now, given that one can infer from MS's own actions (in addition to regular old logic) that it would be reasonable to support Outlook for 2 years past the subsequent release, it's odd that sometime between 2003 and 2005, MS didn't port back some patch that made 2002 less broken. But that's obviously not something they're interested in.
no, asshole, it's an issue that existed BEFORE service packs, and wasn't fixed in the release of the service packs. It existed in outlook 2000, and they released 2 or 3 service packs, and outlook 2002, 3 more service packs, several "fix" tools, and then finally office 2003.
So no, I'm one of those trolls who thinks that people shouldn't just fuck their corporate customers and leave them out in the cold to deal with their goddamn issues.
Slashdot Mirror
Are the Democrats wishy-washy? Hell yeah. However, I'd rather not see them adopt the same tactics that the Republicans use.
Agreed, but you have to admit that Dems scare reeeeeaally easily.
You guys? What the fuck are you talking about? Just because I detest what the Republic party is currently doing doesn't make me a liberal.
Eat my balls.
Oh, and yes, lied under oath about a blowjob. The Bush administration won't submit to speaking under oath. How would that have gone for Billy?
Very insightful post. The scientific study is preliminary, it seems. The main 'conclusion' is that liberals and conservatives seem to think differently. I don't think one is necessarily better than the other, though I am proud of my squishy brain. Haha. I cherish people who can be the deciders when necessary, and I think that oftentimes it is for the best. I think that choosing a bad decider is far more risky than choosing a bad powder puff in most situations.
One thing I gather from this study is that conservatives tend to have more faith in themselves than liberals do, but this is probably not a secret to anyone who reads and is not dead. Faith is a big conservative thing.
On faith, however...
I take major issue with many Christian people. I took my ex-girlfriend to test drive a car, and the lady was dishonest, evasive, etc. She talked about Christ and these people and how they were 'Good Christians' and she was trying to sell a car with a blown head gasket that had been in a pretty freaking serious car accident. Oh, and the passenger door didn't open, and it leaked assesful of oil, and she was still asking 200 over blue book value for a car in 'Good' condition. And my ex called ahead and asked about how many owners, and she lied. She didn't mention the door not opening, and the pictures online hid the crash damage.
And then the freaking lady tells us to go check out this car lot, because this guy will take care of us, because he's a 'Good Christian.' I mean, ick, lady. Where the hell did she get her values? Because I really pray she didn't get them from the Bible. No pun intended. Plus, my friend Rob purchased a car from a company called 4Him car sales. Oh. Fucking. Really. People do not sell cars for the Lord. They just don't. They stick God's name on shit so that actual good and gullible Christians think they are a real live good Christian, too. I am stopping ranting now, because I'm getting off-topic.
About the Liberals, I agree. I liked Howard Dean, because he actually stuck to his guns before and while he was running. But luckily, the Democrats are good enough at self-sabotage that they brought him down. We've got some Dems in the primaries who are going to lose because they have real ideas that they can maintain over the period of a week. It's a freaking problem.
I have many issues with liberals in general, and I could really go for this fabled 3rd candidate of which you speak, as I'm sure could many many Americans. As far as fitting that all into a soundbite, he could classify himself as a real Humanist, and pay some asshole (they're very useful. I have one) to come up with some neat tag lines like everybody else does, right?
You've got to remember that these voters are just simple farmers. These are people of the land. The common clay of the new West. You know... morons.
Since you and I are arguing against the same people, I feel it is my duty to comment that I think that you're being extremely harsh, and seem to think that formal education and exposure to city life somehow make a person smart. I tend to think that people who enjoy thinking and processing information are to be esteemed, regardless of their level of education--or even IQ.
Even an intellectually slow person--if he is one to think as long as he needs to--is better off than the intelligent hair-triggered cocksure suit. In computers, the speed of the processor will not compensate for sloppy programming.
My father always says that while he doesn't mind shaking a whore's hand, he feels the unquenchable desire to wash his hands after touching the hand of a politician. And I can't say I disagree.
Being educated doesn't mean you're not stupid, a point Greg Graffin seems to miss. Being uneducated doesn't mean you're stupid. If one man works to become a chemical engineer before deciding to live in hermitage in the mountains, and another just goes straight to the hermitage, who's smarter?
I'd like to see you make food grow from dirt.
Thank you.
One question would be, who and where did they get the subjects and how did they decide who is liberal and conservative? Was it self described? :-)
:D
Actually, blackness as an ethnicity is often self-described. I don't have the reference material, but I remember a young girl who was forced by the school to choose an ethnicity when one parent was white and one was black. We can't let these people walk around uncategorized.
But on me having the answers and "buying into" the study, I've just been exercising my troll-response muscles. I know there were 'liberal' trolls up the tree, but I was moved (the Lord selected me, rather) to respond to the one I did.
Another question would be, I see that they have equated more brain noise with liberals and more accurate results with liberals but have they showed that more brain activity means more accurate results?
They have not conclusively shown this, it appears. The correlation is data. However, I don't think it has to do with education, since M vs W is very much a pattern recognition exercise, and they use this type of thing on children's IQ tests.
Why was W selected as a test parameter when GW Bush is the root of all evil for a lot of liberals.
This is right out there on the edge of crazy, but I have admit I put my time in there, too. They chose M and W because they are inverted forms of the other, probably to encourage the knee-jerk reaction.
Wouldn't this imply that just recognizing the W could be because they have had a lot of practice in separating GHB (George Herbert walker bush) from GWB (George Walker Bush) in the rants about how evil he is? And could the extra brain activity be misrepresenting of the hatred and bagged emotions that GW brings around? I mean they were looking at the portion of the brain that deals with conflict.
Bah. I say that conservatives should be pretty goddamn good at identifying a W as well, what with their framed thank you pictures and bumper stickers and whatnot.
But from a relative perspective, they claim 4.9 times as many liberals would register this activity to achieve a 2.2 times accuracy increase. If we were to assign value to this in a random fashon without all the answers to the questions I asked (and probable a lot more), it would mean that the Accurate conservatives used less effort to achieve accurate results and the liberal have to spend a disproportionate level of brain activity to achieve small levels of accuracy.
I think that twice the accuracy for a little more brainpower is worth it. We've got pretty good brains. And actually, I think before I do lots of things, and I'm doing fairly well for myself. Of course, thinking has precluded opportunities in gay nude modeling and land development, and I know some people who have done one or the other, and they have some more money than me. So I suppose not thinking MAY very well be the key to solving all this hard work.
I don't think either of us have enough details to makes accurate predictions over the study.
To quote the researcher, "Maybe it suggests one reason why they tend not to get along." Fraught with ambiguity this guy. Must be a fucking liberal.
They are usually Some people get to be know for starting political fights for the sake of shouting their views and demanding that they are right.
Dude, not when I was talking to my boss, and he voted to reelect the fucker in spite of the fact that he was lying. I asked him if it bothered him that [long list of shit], and I provided references that he never looked at. His response was mostly along the lines of, "Well..." We're still friends, and I never dogged him.
On another note, I live in Florida, and it took him 15 minutes to leave work, vote, and come back. He is, you might have guessed, rich. My ex-girlfriend lived in a rich neighborhood, and it took her 30 minutes. I voted early in a black neighborhood, and it took me 2 hours. It took
Considering that majority voters will vote for people who hold common beliefs, I do not see an issue with that.
I'm assuming you're talking about morals vs. policies. The problem with this is that people will go by the politician's professed morals, without ever trying to distinguish whether the person is guided by them. Like GWB, beloved target that he is, saying he's a Christian when, in actuality, he takes none of the normal actions one could expect of a Christian. Like saving the black people after Katrina (which I know was highly politicized by both sides rather than someone just flying in their private jet down to make an actual physical difference). Or lying, cheating, ignoring questions, pilfering and plundering our nation, etc. Dick Cheney shot someone in the face, my God. Sure, an accident. Sure. But still, it's certainly in line with their track record. I wouldn't put it past him AT ALL, would you?
this is one of the problems Democrats seemed to have, they can't connect with the people, the voters.
I think the problem Democrats have is they are fucking spineless douche-holes. They really really could benefit by applying a FEW of the Republic Party's techniques such as sticking to your message, not changing your mind based on press, actually making a commitment to do something, etc. They could work a little harder to get people like Bill Maher and Kurt Vonnegut considered more typical liberals than Michael Moore (the hot dog hog liberal) or Tim Robbins (helloooo, pompous scorn--in John Lennon glasses, no less).
The Democrats have a much bigger problem than not holding commonly-held beliefs, Sally. I notice liberals have less a pack loyalty than the conservatives. Which is possibly related to the M, W findings. But it's a big deal. There are a lot of liberals who won't vote for a candidate because of hypocrisy, which doesn't seem quite the case for conservatives, unfortunately. Conservatives are much more likely to lean towards a candidate because he doesn't look like he likes homosexuals. Which, interestingly enough, backfires quite often. Maybe if they didn't scare homos into a life of lies and deceit, they'd have a better grasp on how to identify one.
For the record, I don't intend my crude language to in any way indicate that I dislike homosexuals. I like them fine, as long as they don't vote against themselves in one way or another.
In this vein of reasoning (thanks for digging the groove for me to glide along so easily), it means conservatives read about something (study, presidency, war), and think, "man, I'd be good at that!" then get there, and they get explained what they have to do, and about 3 minutes into it, they start doing a poor job, even though they committed to it and they're getting paid. They think things like, "boy, this is hard work!" and "you can't be expected to be accurate all the time."
For example. Think before you troll. I'm not even really into the liberal/conservative social split we have going in our culture. But as another posted pointed out, Conservatives seem to be pretty good at reconciling being a gay-bashing homosexual. Yes, there are things that are detestable about liberals, but we've got the neo-cons, the page-fucker, the anonymous gay sex guy, and my republican acquaintances are completely steadfast in their support of 'their' people, even when they can provide zero reason.
A great rationalization I've heard goes something like this:
Guy 1: Do you agree with Bush's policies?
Republican voter: I agree with his morals
Guy 1: Yes, but what about his policies?
Republican voter: I believe he's a very moral man.
I shit you not, a real conversation I've overheard. This goes far from condemning all republicans, but I've heard things in exactly the same spirit that are exactly as shocking from lots and lots of people.
Again, think before you troll, please. You upset me.
No, I'm saying the Apple didn't test it on EU networks, possibly. Plus, billing is done differently by different companies. And if the way Apple and AT&T handled dropped connections (oh, data's free, it's not a problem) doesn't apply to EU networks, then they would possibly conflict. Also, if Apple and AT&T worked on a non-ubiquitous way of handling errors, then it would make sense (judging from its non-ubiquitousness) that not everyone would implement the same methodology.
Looky:
1. Newcomer to cell phone market makes a cell phone
2. Tons of people say it's hard making cell phones, that they have no faith in the newcomer
3. The newcomer does very well, and there are no problems
4. Woops, the newcomer just charged someone $4800 for no good reason
Also, didn't Apple say that one of the reasons to stick with network lockdown is to not have to support various networks?
it WOULD be worse. However, it could be a compatibility glitch with the iPhone and a foreign network. Incompatibilities with untested networks don't seem that far-fetched to me.
But really, it'll be interesting to see how this is PR'd, since Apple's stuff is supposed to Just Work. How can you argue with someone who is upset that your stuff in fact didn't Just Work? Not that it's an unreasonable mistake to be made by a product developer (it's hard to test for EVERYTHING), but Apple's reputation is a little on the liberal side (so sayeth Machiavelli), and therefore they've got to maintain, maintain.
Oh, I thought this was a public service announcement from the drops-suddenly-and-bangs-head-on-coffee-table dept.
Yeah, I hate Chicks With Dicks Aficionado, too. Who the hell do they think they ARE, anyway?
I am not an expert on this, but it's conceivable that if they were traipsing about the countryside (with 3 iphones--sheesh), that the iPhone just FAILED to transfer 4GB. It would depend on how the network metered the service, of course, but it sounds like a possibility to me.
Can anyone with any background in this either back me up or refute me all to hell?
I don't know, the Chinese government says they're sleeping.
My point of view is that polygraphs and other "lie detectors" can detect neither truth nor belief. Any discussion that assumes polygraphs have any diagnostic capability helps to perpetrate the myth of their efficacy and is therefore a disservice to the world.
:-)
I think you were GGP. I noticed afterwards that I'm pretty sure I left out a G. I agree with you. But what the person was saying was exactly what I see you saying: That lie detectors are flawed.
The point that I still think you may be missing is that while a polygraph is neither a lie detector NOR a belief detector, a person's belief in what they're saying would alter the physiological response that the person is having, essentially masking it as a "truthful" response for a polygraph operator. If, in fact, the polygraph works at all.
Whatever, I had way too much time to kill yesterday. Cheers.
I agree with your post, but I think from this, you didn't get what I was saying. I was saying that it's NOT reasonable to hold the following two beliefs simultaneously:
1. A polygraph can detect my intention to lie.
2. A polygraph cannot detect my belief in what I am saying.
And that was my main argument with GP poster. He seemed to be ridiculing the other person's argument based on semantics. He said that a lie detector detects lies, and not beliefs, to which I reply, "mrHRms?!211?S????PPHHHH!!!?"
I think oftentimes people will hold a belief X ("Polygraph detects lies") without examining it, then when presented with an argument about that singularly defined concept (the polygraph), they will refute the argument ("A person's belief in oneself affects the outcome of a polygraph") with a non sequitur ("Polygraphs can't detect belief") without ever applying the same scrutiny to their initial belief X that they applied to the opponent argument.
GP maintained that a polygraph detects lies, but doesn't choose to examine HOW it detects a lie physiologically or how a polygraph could possibly contain a definition for the concept "lie" that would be measurable by a machine. At the same time, GP attacked the idea that one's belief in one's lie would affect the outcome of a polygraph test, because the machine couldn't possibly contain a definition for the concept "belief" that would be measurable by a machine. Furthermore, GP failed to acknowledge that believing in what one says ("Santa is real"--a child) makes the statement not a "lie" by any measurable physiological phenomena.
Which is all GGP was saying.
IMO, a lie detector test amounts to a statement by the defendant.
Yes, except they should just leave the polygraph machine disconnected. We should just have a machine that randomly flashes lights, beeps, and plays a recording that says, "LIAR!!" really loud. That'll help convict some bastards, too.
Do you know what a polygraph tests? It tests variance in body stress incurred by answering certain questions when compared to control questions (that the tester knows the answer to), BLEARGH!
Therefore, it would make sense that the person's belief would make a difference. A polygraph does not detect lies. It detects body stress indicators, and the person interprets them. By what you've posted, it seems like you think that while it's preposterous to believe that a machine could possibly detect your belief, it's pretty reasonable that it can detect your intention (to lie).
See? I KNEW our Precident was a liar!
You can refer to subpoenas in a court proceeding, as well as just about every other filing. If you couldn't do that, you'd never be able to bring a charge for malicious prosecution. :-)
Well, maybe I didn't really know that after all.
or 2GB, in outlook.
(I know I got modded troll, offtopic, and lame for this the other day)
I know from my dealings with a lawyer due to a negligent, threatening, [expletive deleted] landlord that there are certain parts of the legal process that are not admissible as evidence as court. I'm not sure where all that extends, but I know it covers at least part of pre-trial settlement communication.
I curse your name, my landlord, I curse your name (as soon as the case is settled).
/To be more accurate, companies are interested in whether there are people who would ditch gaming (or at least that company's games) in order to ditch Windows
OK, well let's help them count.
I've got 2 people right here, including myself.
(this could take a long time)
thegnu, you got owned, just admit it and then STFU.
p
9 4401033.aspx#3
I don't know, Anonymous Coward, I seem to see you get owned all the time
Right from the horse's mouth, scroll to the bottom and read:
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/296088
APPLIES TO
Microsoft Outlook 2000 Standard Edition
Microsoft Outlook 2002 Standard Edition
Microsoft Outlook 98 Standard Edition
Microsoft Outlook 97 Standard Edition
And check this out, asshole:
http://www.slipstick.com/problems/repair2gbpst.as
I had Office XP SP1, and now I know why she got cut off at 1.82GB, except her computer exhibited the same behaviour as if I had just hit 2gb. And, I may add, you'll notice that it's an issue in Office 2000. Also, the fact that they changed it to a lockdown at 1.82 GB, rather than just throwing up a message that let you save your ass, is still kind of fucking weird.
See here, http://www.brienposey.com/kb/pst_maintenance.asp, that Microsoft is getting better, because at least you don't have to call them for the repair tool anymore. Hrm.
And, to further address the "providing support for all their 10 year old software" troll, here's a reference to product support lifecycle for Office 2003, which states that they will support it "until users start adopting" 2007. The actual number is Jan 18th, 2009. 2 years after the successor is quite reasonable, given the nature of the application.
http://office.microsoft.com/en-us/products/HA1022
Now, given that one can infer from MS's own actions (in addition to regular old logic) that it would be reasonable to support Outlook for 2 years past the subsequent release, it's odd that sometime between 2003 and 2005, MS didn't port back some patch that made 2002 less broken. But that's obviously not something they're interested in.
again, AC, fuck you and your family.
no, asshole, it's an issue that existed BEFORE service packs, and wasn't fixed in the release of the service packs. It existed in outlook 2000, and they released 2 or 3 service packs, and outlook 2002, 3 more service packs, several "fix" tools, and then finally office 2003.
So no, I'm one of those trolls who thinks that people shouldn't just fuck their corporate customers and leave them out in the cold to deal with their goddamn issues.
Bricks are just so goddamn expensive to ship, though...