I have a little rule: I don't ask soldiers how to setup my SQL database, and I don't ask douche-bag geeks how to fight a war.
Since when do the soldiers get a say in how the war is fought? Pentagon bureaucrats do that, at least in the USA. Unless you're insinuating that there's no such thing as a douchebag in the Pentagon. But that strains the imagination...
How do you or Mobile1UP know that Sony wasn't planning on porting Lemmings to iPhone/iPad/Android? Firstly, you don't.
I'm not taking issue with the rest of your comment, but this right here is textbook intellectual dishonesty. It is positively non-obvious that if someone outside of Sony can do ALL of these ports in 36 hours, submit them to the publishers, etc, then there were no reasonable barriers for Sony to do so. Ergo, no plans, as such a plan would have been trivially executed by a single developer - possibly even an unpaid intern.
Your comment is equivalent to asking how we know the sun will set today or rise tomorrow, how we know our next breath won't be filled with molten lava, or how we know we aren't living trapped inside some Romulan Holodeck. We don't know any of these things, but we don't really need to spend a lot of time worrying about them either. Common sense, FTW.
So you pay 9.99, and then still have ads on top of it?
Absurd.
This seems true, however at present, Hulu does ads in 'the right way'. They're exceedingly brief, rarely if ever over thirty seconds, and there's exactly one of them at any given time. An hour long show will play less than half a dozen.
I'd prefer ads done in this way and a lower cost, then a higher cost with no ads at all.
It does lead to perceiving stuff differently, in as much as missing you're missing a whole information channel from the input. Which can lead to some wildly inadequate remarks at times. But otherwise basically, if you prick us, we still bleed, same as anyone else. Being told to fuck off still hurts like it hurts anyone else, for example. And expecting rejection is, far as I can tell, still expecting rejection. I'm certainly not immune to that. Just not being able to tell when I said something that offended, didn't mean I didn't notice some kids avoided me in school, for example. If anything, for a long while it just made it seem even more unfair for lack of a logical reason why they're avoiding me or trying to basically chase me off.
Now tell me if I'm being nit-picky here, but you seem to have phrased the difference in exactly what I was referring to:
me - fearing rejection
you - expecting rejection
Expecting it is one thing. You probably will not get that job you applied for, and it will suck to have to keep looking. Fear, however, is more along the lines of thinking they're all going to have a great laugh at your expense, right in front of you.
By your colorblind example, it follows that the experience in general wouldn't be as painful, at least in the moment. You might not perceive the cues that you were failing miserably, nor suffer the panic of trying to fix it and seeing that fail as well.
It isn't so much finding the audience for success as it is finding one to avoid horrible emotional suffering.
Maybe I'm not explaining myself well, but that was essentially what I was driving at...
Dude, I'm an aspie...I mean, really. You want to talk to someone. They want to talk to someone. Some even desperately. I'm obviously missing something, because to me it sounds like the problem is its own solution. Surely if you're that badly in need of social interaction, you can tolerate another willing interlocutor for an hour or two even if their personality isn't exactly bride/groom class. What _is_ preventing it?
My understanding of the spectrum disorders, from learning to care for my son, is that you folks don't necessarily perceive and/or feel things the same way most other people do. If you'd agree with that, then chances are your confusion comes from your condition. They might likely fear the pain of rejection and/or disappointment MORE than they are suffering under the desperation of being alone. Because if they try and fail, they're alone and desperate and unable to fix it. Trying would remove their hope, should they fail.
From what I understand, you'd be blessed to never have to grapple with these kinds of absurd doubts that the rest of us are ruled by...
And if I've assumed incorrectly, I apologize in advance.
Umm... So why don't these people use them, then? I must be missing something very obvious there.
You've overlooked the conversational polarity. Everyone in the 'senior center' crowd wants to conduct 'positively charged' conversations. 'My' problems, 'my' grandkids, etc, etc, etc. They're looking for a listener, even if just a polite one, any 'negatively charged' individual will do. Anyway, the positive-positive conversations tend to be non-starters.
No, you go there because other people seeking hookups are going there as well. This is also why you're paying more for their drinks - because your contemporaries are doing likewise, and you don't want to stand out in a negative way.
'Everyone else' is interested in 'picking up chicks', too. You wouldn't necessarily exclude that kind of advice unless you weren't thinking of competing with this type of person.
If 'everyone else' is catching bass with watermelon lures, you don't whip out the nightcrawlers - unless you're not after bass.
Along this line, make sure you put it where it can be easily covered up. My former employer had a strict no-tattoo policy, and since 'inked' isn't yet a protected status, they got away with it, too.
It's almost baffling that the "oh, think of the children" crowd doesn't want this. I would think it would be of their interest to "force" (which I doubt could ever happen) adult companies to use the.xxx domains to allow this "dirty content" to be easily censored, and create a "red light district" of the internet, which you could just easily block with a simple wildcard filter. Fortunately, most of the censors are idiots and would rather put their head in the sand than acknowledge it exists and there is no way to get rid of it, since there will always be demand.
What baffles me is how some of you tend to think the internet is controlled by a single filter. Can you not imagine a kids computer in the living room with '.xxx' blocked and one in the bedroom without such limitations?
OF COURSE there will always be demand. But segregation of this type allows for something the customer very much wants in the way of limits via age, appropriate setting, etc.
Compare to strip clubs - I really don't care if city ordinances require them to be out in the boonies - people who want to go there typically are willing to travel to where they are, as long as there is SOME place they're allowed to be, and most importantly, that the people who obviously aren't interested in attending such locations keep their noses out of what goes on there/
You jumped from government powers to individual choice and back to government. Why?
Just because your employer blocks.xxx, it doesn't mean your government will do so. Or if it does, may I recommend you emmigrate to a country with freedom of speech.
Really you want a default null tld so Slashdot.org would just be slashdot. I don't care where a site is based, whether it's for profit or not. I want to just type:
slashdot ubuntuforums bbc
etc and not try and guess/remember whether they're:.com.net.org.co.uk.org.uk
etc etc. The distinction is meaningless to me.
The distinction doesn't exist solely to help you mentally organize sites. It exists because DNS reads from right to left, and it has to start somewhere. Otherwise there would be no way to organize them.
Hopefully, this is a sign that our policies are not dictated by the "Think of the children" crowd.
To be honest, this could easily be made to be pro 'think of the children'. If suddenly it is designed that porn sites are to have the.xxx domain name then you can easily put on a very basic (even just OS Parental Controls) to just refuse to load.xxx domains. Its 'thinking of the children' as suddenly porn sites are easily identifiable and blockable since they all (in theory) be.xxx domains (like how most governments sites are expected to be.gov)
And I'd think that even the porn people would be on board with this. The kinds of people that want porn blocked in certain situations are the same kinds that are willing to pay for it in other, more private situations.
Slashdot Mirror
I have a little rule: I don't ask soldiers how to setup my SQL database, and I don't ask douche-bag geeks how to fight a war.
Since when do the soldiers get a say in how the war is fought? Pentagon bureaucrats do that, at least in the USA. Unless you're insinuating that there's no such thing as a douchebag in the Pentagon. But that strains the imagination...
How do you or Mobile1UP know that Sony wasn't planning on porting Lemmings to iPhone/iPad/Android? Firstly, you don't.
I'm not taking issue with the rest of your comment, but this right here is textbook intellectual dishonesty. It is positively non-obvious that if someone outside of Sony can do ALL of these ports in 36 hours, submit them to the publishers, etc, then there were no reasonable barriers for Sony to do so. Ergo, no plans, as such a plan would have been trivially executed by a single developer - possibly even an unpaid intern.
Your comment is equivalent to asking how we know the sun will set today or rise tomorrow, how we know our next breath won't be filled with molten lava, or how we know we aren't living trapped inside some Romulan Holodeck. We don't know any of these things, but we don't really need to spend a lot of time worrying about them either. Common sense, FTW.
Netflix doesn't have everything, but when they do they don't have the "last 5 episodes only" thing that Hulu has on the current season.
Didn't even read the SUMMARY, did you?
My wife asserts that Hulu's back-season catalog is the same as Netflix. Has anyone done or seen a comparison of the two?
So you pay 9.99, and then still have ads on top of it?
Absurd.
This seems true, however at present, Hulu does ads in 'the right way'. They're exceedingly brief, rarely if ever over thirty seconds, and there's exactly one of them at any given time. An hour long show will play less than half a dozen.
I'd prefer ads done in this way and a lower cost, then a higher cost with no ads at all.
It does lead to perceiving stuff differently, in as much as missing you're missing a whole information channel from the input. Which can lead to some wildly inadequate remarks at times. But otherwise basically, if you prick us, we still bleed, same as anyone else. Being told to fuck off still hurts like it hurts anyone else, for example. And expecting rejection is, far as I can tell, still expecting rejection. I'm certainly not immune to that. Just not being able to tell when I said something that offended, didn't mean I didn't notice some kids avoided me in school, for example. If anything, for a long while it just made it seem even more unfair for lack of a logical reason why they're avoiding me or trying to basically chase me off.
Now tell me if I'm being nit-picky here, but you seem to have phrased the difference in exactly what I was referring to:
me - fearing rejection
you - expecting rejection
Expecting it is one thing. You probably will not get that job you applied for, and it will suck to have to keep looking. Fear, however, is more along the lines of thinking they're all going to have a great laugh at your expense, right in front of you.
By your colorblind example, it follows that the experience in general wouldn't be as painful, at least in the moment. You might not perceive the cues that you were failing miserably, nor suffer the panic of trying to fix it and seeing that fail as well.
It isn't so much finding the audience for success as it is finding one to avoid horrible emotional suffering.
Maybe I'm not explaining myself well, but that was essentially what I was driving at...
Dude, I'm an aspie...I mean, really. You want to talk to someone. They want to talk to someone. Some even desperately. I'm obviously missing something, because to me it sounds like the problem is its own solution. Surely if you're that badly in need of social interaction, you can tolerate another willing interlocutor for an hour or two even if their personality isn't exactly bride/groom class. What _is_ preventing it?
My understanding of the spectrum disorders, from learning to care for my son, is that you folks don't necessarily perceive and/or feel things the same way most other people do. If you'd agree with that, then chances are your confusion comes from your condition. They might likely fear the pain of rejection and/or disappointment MORE than they are suffering under the desperation of being alone. Because if they try and fail, they're alone and desperate and unable to fix it. Trying would remove their hope, should they fail.
From what I understand, you'd be blessed to never have to grapple with these kinds of absurd doubts that the rest of us are ruled by...
And if I've assumed incorrectly, I apologize in advance.
Umm... So why don't these people use them, then? I must be missing something very obvious there.
You've overlooked the conversational polarity. Everyone in the 'senior center' crowd wants to conduct 'positively charged' conversations. 'My' problems, 'my' grandkids, etc, etc, etc. They're looking for a listener, even if just a polite one, any 'negatively charged' individual will do. Anyway, the positive-positive conversations tend to be non-starters.
There's always thing like pen & paper gaming or LAN parties ant the like. Us geeks have our get-togethers and meet-n-greets just like everyone else.
You missed the 'of a certain age' part. No one wants to be 'that old dude' on the RPG scene.
Plus you dont got here for conversation...
No, you go there because other people seeking hookups are going there as well. This is also why you're paying more for their drinks - because your contemporaries are doing likewise, and you don't want to stand out in a negative way.
Your second point doesn't follow the first.
'Everyone else' is interested in 'picking up chicks', too. You wouldn't necessarily exclude that kind of advice unless you weren't thinking of competing with this type of person.
If 'everyone else' is catching bass with watermelon lures, you don't whip out the nightcrawlers - unless you're not after bass.
I'm not dissing the notion of getting ink, I've got my fair share. But, really? Geek tattoos?? Equations? Chicks won't dig it.
Well, the right kind of chick probably would. But she's equally likely to dig you without the tattoo, too.
dumbkopf! F=mA is obviously a knuckle tattoo!
Along this line, make sure you put it where it can be easily covered up. My former employer had a strict no-tattoo policy, and since 'inked' isn't yet a protected status, they got away with it, too.
And this is true, but I wouldn't tell someone not to wear their wedding ring just because it is superficial.
Of course not, because it can be easily removed. You'd assume they would make that decision for themselves, e.g. after a divorce.
Tattoos - not so much.
Only systems with an enormous volume of users can do that - a local spam filter can't know what's happening to other users elsewhere.
FTFY
Being 'web' doesn't really help, but having a metric butt ton of users would.
Google should make this mandatory to finally kill that $!#$&#$ IE6.
Unless they all simply switch to hotmail, because it 'is the only one that works on my computer'.
Oh come on now, ShakaUVM, clearly I was only joking. I'm sure your mother is a handsome woman. :P
>>The real question is why hexes weren't in use all along.
Because hexes look ugly?
True, but as your birth proves, even ugly things see some use from time to time...
Perhaps, but agreement upon a time and place for pornography happened ages ago. Well before the beginning of said lifetime.
That might be possible, but not in this country, clearly.
It's almost baffling that the "oh, think of the children" crowd doesn't want this. I would think it would be of their interest to "force" (which I doubt could ever happen) adult companies to use the .xxx domains to allow this "dirty content" to be easily censored, and create a "red light district" of the internet, which you could just easily block with a simple wildcard filter. Fortunately, most of the censors are idiots and would rather put their head in the sand than acknowledge it exists and there is no way to get rid of it, since there will always be demand.
What baffles me is how some of you tend to think the internet is controlled by a single filter. Can you not imagine a kids computer in the living room with '.xxx' blocked and one in the bedroom without such limitations?
OF COURSE there will always be demand. But segregation of this type allows for something the customer very much wants in the way of limits via age, appropriate setting, etc.
Compare to strip clubs - I really don't care if city ordinances require them to be out in the boonies - people who want to go there typically are willing to travel to where they are, as long as there is SOME place they're allowed to be, and most importantly, that the people who obviously aren't interested in attending such locations keep their noses out of what goes on there/
This!
You jumped from government powers to individual choice and back to government. Why?
Just because your employer blocks .xxx, it doesn't mean your government will do so. Or if it does, may I recommend you emmigrate to a country with freedom of speech.
Really you want a default null tld so Slashdot.org would just be slashdot. I don't care where a site is based, whether it's for profit or not. I want to just type:
slashdot
ubuntuforums
bbc
etc and not try and guess/remember whether they're: .com .net .org .co.uk .org.uk
etc etc. The distinction is meaningless to me.
The distinction doesn't exist solely to help you mentally organize sites. It exists because DNS reads from right to left, and it has to start somewhere. Otherwise there would be no way to organize them.
Hopefully, this is a sign that our policies are not dictated by the "Think of the children" crowd.
To be honest, this could easily be made to be pro 'think of the children'. If suddenly it is designed that porn sites are to have the .xxx domain name then you can easily put on a very basic (even just OS Parental Controls) to just refuse to load .xxx domains. Its 'thinking of the children' as suddenly porn sites are easily identifiable and blockable since they all (in theory) be .xxx domains (like how most governments sites are expected to be .gov)
And I'd think that even the porn people would be on board with this. The kinds of people that want porn blocked in certain situations are the same kinds that are willing to pay for it in other, more private situations.