I don't know why people are so concerned about it...
Historically, it's how trolls go about building their karma so they're not always posting -1. Personally, I refuse to step that low. I make some legitimate posts, *then* troll.;)
Do these clowns even *have* a PR department? I can understand if they asked Legal and theirs is probably run by Goebbels himself. So I get the "shock and awe" angle there. But I'd have to think that a decent PR department would see the ways this is going to go "kabloooie!" right in their faces. I mean, suing children and dead people? Great way to gain credibility.
Hey, I didn't say they were *dumb* to concentrate on margin over quantity. There are certainly perils on both sides. For Apple, the peril is that they must constantly convince consumers that they are worth more, that you should bother spending that much on a computer. That means that quality must be kept constantly high, and in the 90s when that wasn't the case, they suffered. Dell, on the other hand, has to keep constant pressure on their suppliers and maintain top efficiency of their entire operation. So it's not like there's a right answer there.
I do tend to agree with your points. The funny issue to me is that of status. I think a lot of Mac users would admit it. They love that it makes them some sort of exclusive minority. They love to think that they're smarter/better than PC users. And I think that this is usually an effect they're aware of.
As far as the margin vs. volume dilemma - some companies try to do both, with (say) a high-end and low-end brand. That has the risk of brand dilution, as you allude to with the status thing, but it can be pulled off (Gap/Old Navy, for instance).
Oh, and for what it's worth, I own a powerbook. However, I do not drink the kool-aid. I do not deify Jobs. I don't read the rumor sites. All I wanted was a unix box that made a good laptop that would also run MS Office. And I still think Apple makes the best machines that satisfy that. The old-school Mac-heads drive me nuts.
"There's no reason this should be true to the extent of the current price differentials. The hardware on both Apple and Dell machines is standard 3rd party hardware. "
Even if they get it from exactly the same sources, Dell will get it cheaper because of the volumes they purchase. Dell negotiates with its suppliers kind of like Walmart does. But the biggest reason is that Apple still cares more about margin than market share.
I got this same reply when I posted a similar opinion on the original story. No, we're *not* crazy conspiracy theorists that think the moon landings were faked, etc...
I didn't say you were loony, just that, by definition, if you don't believe their assertion, you're not going to believe their evidence since you'll not have the opportunity to question its provenance.
Evidence is in fact the *only* thing we want shown, words are not enough.
And the problem with that is that the only evidence that is completely unequivocal is a plane in a million pieces. Which I believe we'll all agree should be avoided.
At this point I'll take it for granted that there are lots of crazy bastards intent on blowing us up. Given the situation in Palestine, I'll believe that there are a serious number that are crazy enough to blow themselves up in the process. I'll also assume that there are a fair number of people in the Muslim world who have the expertise and creativity to make bombs, combined with the inclination to blow us up. The fact that this has not yet succeeded must be ascribed to some measure of skill on the part of the world's intelligence services, because it sure isn't the morons running the xray detectors.
Well, since you're contrary, I doubt you'd believe their evidence if they showed it to you. Shouldn't one be glad that no bombs have managed to blow up any planes? Nor have, evidently, any bombs made it onto planes since Reed?
By the way, I was flying yesterday. Internationally. It wasn't a big deal, you just throw your toiletry bag in your checked baggage. It might be minimally annoying for those with no checked baggage. At that point, check your toiletry bag and everyone gets a laugh.
To me, the most annoying thing was not being able to have a bottle of water, but fountains are common in most airports.
Right. I'd assume these guys accounted for the tendency of a rotating body to form an oblate spheroid, and that the moon's current orbit can't account for the degree of its oblacity (if that's a word). Thus it would need to have exhibited some more violent orbit in the past.
wrong-o. I'm a low maintenance guy married to a low-maintenance girl. No hair product in our house. I'd rather marry a girl who looks good straight out of bed than one who takes 3 hours to look decent.
Re:What will make KDE the perfect desktop...
on
KDE 3.5.4 Released
·
· Score: 1
So upgrade to a 10GB HDD and don't fret. I could see worrying about KDE's (or gtk's) massive memory footprint, but who cares about HDD space anymore?
The problem with rulings like this is that they have a chilling effect on investigative reporting. If you're happy to have reporters cowering in fear of doing any real digging on a story, fine then. But the press is about the only true check we as citizens have on the power of government and if we defang them...well, if you think the Patriot Act is bad, as BTO would say, "You ain't seen nothin' yet.
There's a false dichotomy if I ever saw one. Requiring reporters to follow the same laws that the rest of us do does not lead to a police state. Journalists aren't supermen, they don't get diplomatic immunity. Why should some reporter have extra rights compared to a regular guy simply because of his job? the 1st Amendment says no restriction of speech OR press. I can talk - why don't I get equal protection? Speaking of "equal protection," giving reporters some sort of immunity would break that, and that would be unconstitutional.
In other words: write what you want. But if you want to use that as an excuse to break laws that I would get thrown in jail for, don't expect kid glove treatment.
Nothing is stopping you from paying for support if you want to. The flexibility of Free/Open Source Software is that if you don't want to pay for support, you don't have to.
Yes, I know the mantra. But we're talking about the real-world here. Most companies want to buy their support contracts from the software vendor, and they want to buy them from companies that smell like "real" companies to them. Someone established, who's been around a while. Red Hat passes that test. I'm not aware of any company supporting Ubuntu that does.
This coming from the same general crowd that claims that Linux on the desktop is going to take over Windows in "just a few years." This goes firmly in the "wishful thinking" category.
One reason that Ubuntu will never be accepted: they don't offer the things that make beancounters sleep well at night. They don't have an "enterprise edition." They give it away for free - it can't be any good, right?
Ultimately, Red Hat targets corporate clients. Ubuntu doesn't. And it's not like that's bad!
By making it a distance, you're simply helping out the people who choose vehicles that consume more gasoline per mile driven. If anything, it should be a set number of gallons, that way the more the people with the more efficient cars can get further on their tax free gas. It wouldn't hurt if the person with the monster SUV and the 5 mile commute cuts back too.
You're right, that's what I was trying to get at and brain-cramped. I was thinking 5000 miles@25 mpg = 200 gallons tax refunded Forgot to put that part.;)
Can you explain to me why we need a sliding scale? The gas-guzzler drivers are already buying more fuel and thus paying more tax. Do you like having the government tell you what and how to drive? Do you want to penalize contractors, limousine companies, and boat owners for buying a vehicle that meets their needs?
1) The reason is presumably for the same reason that we have a progressive income tax scheme? Although one thing no one takes into account is people who make the choice to live near their jobs. A person with a Hummer and a 5 mile commute uses less gas than a person with a Prius and a 50 mile commute. I think people should get a 50% refund on say, 5000 miles worth of gas tax on their income tax return. That way, people who don't drive much, or drive efficient cars, or both, get rewarded.
2) Just because it's a business doesn't mean they can't make environmentally better choices. And if all businesses have to do it, then the competitive playing field isn't altered.
3) No one makes anyone own a boat. You don't need a recreational boat. That's definitely the sort of luxury item that should be taxed way more than the little bit of gas that some poor sap uses to get to work in his Corolla.
4) This is exactly the kind of problem that requires government to solve. Not many people are willing to sacrifice much for the environment if they know no one else will. But many people are OK with it if they know that everybody has to do it, and it will have a real result. In this case, the private sector can't solve the problem. The alternative is a disgusting environment. Notice that fuel economy in cars really only increases when the government mandates it - fuel economy in cars has decreased over the last 20 years, which is asinine.
Wowzers. You worked at NASA! A government agency with over a dozen facilities located across the continental US and abroad. I'm sure, of course, that you worked at all of them, and had the security clearance to get into any of these facilities. I'm also sure that you were privy to all levels of research at all branches that was happening at NASA at all times.
"basic research for the sheer joy of science" - your tax dollars at work, kids!
I'm assuming that's better than you - who have worked at 0 NASA installations and aren't even a scientist?
Ever work at NASA? I have. And I didn't work on anything even *remotely* military. Nor do most people. Not even things with military applications.
Are there connections between the NASA and the military? Of course, and this has never been denied. However, the vast majority of the scientists at NASA perform basic research for the sheer joy of science.
So, in this context, it is true that the US has gone from loved to hated in the span of 17 days. Everything that has happened since the beginning of the war has strengthened the radical elements of the Lebanese government (like it or not, Hezbollah is part of the Lebanese gov't and represents 45% of the population). Every civilian killed was proof that everything that the radicals have been saying about the "Zionists" and the "Imperialist American Dogs" was true.
I must have missed it when America fired rockets into Lebanon? I assume we're hated for not getting involved? Damned if you do, damned if you don't - if we try to get involved where we don't belong, people get pissed. If we don't, people get pissed.
After Syria had been kicked out...
As far as that goes, Syria may have been kicked out, but Hezbollah sure as shit wasn't.
I don't know why anyone would mod the parent as flamebait. Think about it for a moment. During any time in U.S. history can you think of any other president about which such comments have been raised? We want to blame the guy in charge for the stte of affairs, but in this case, many of the changes we've seen have been directly related to the over-reaction to terrorist threat... cues taken from Bush himself. But there's more to it than that I think. But it certainly seems to have started at the top.
Yes. The attorney general's office during Kennedy's administration (his brother, RFK, was the attorney general) wiretapped anyone they felt like. Hoover also did the same over a wide time span. As far as overreaction to a terrorist threat...how about putting the American Japanese population in camps during WWII?
Things happening "now" always seem more unique, rare, extreme, good, and/or bad than they really are. In reality, Bush isn't even close to being the first to abuse executive privelege. Doesn't make it right, but don't make it out to be some singular event in the history of the presidency, as it's not.
They qualify as stupid because the phrase makes no sense when they screw it up
Wow, you really are an arrogant jackass. I'll assume you never make any mistakes?
That's a matter of debate. You can be smart in some respects and stupid in others. I assume you have examples of people smart in a narrowly-defined focus (e.g. a particular science) that you don't consider to be stupid. I consider people like that to be stupid in general, but smart in a narrowly-defined way, in the same way an autistic child might be unable to speak but have a near eidetic memory. The existence of such people does nothing to contradict my opinion that people getting basic communication wrong.
That theory isn't backed up by psychological research at all. I know a lot of people, for instance, who are very smart - in MANY ways - but can't spell. They are not stupid. Why don't you find a psychologist and tell him your "theory" that anyone who uses an idiom incorrectly is either stupid, or at best, a savant? God, that's a joke. Take psych 101 at least, preferably abnormal psych. You're so far off, on something so obvious, that by your own logic you'd have to be, well, stupid and ignorant.
If I were to perform some armchair psychology, I'd question why you're so incredibly insecure that spelling/grammar/idiomatic pedantry - which requires no intelligence or creativity - gives you such a hard-on. Is it because you really aren't that intelligent?
I offered my experience and said that it suggested a particular conclusion. Perhaps if there were some people, or even one person that I'd seen using that phrase sarcastically, then it might make sense to reach a different conclusion. But 100% of the time no sarcasm is in use, so I stand by my statement: "the overwhelming evidence is that they are simply stupid and ignorant".
So you're on the record as saying that almost everyone who's incorrectly used the prase in question is stupid and ignorant? Because while that wouldn't make you stupid, it would certainly qualify as ignorance. Many people who speak/write with incorrect spelling, grammar, or logically incorrect idioms aren't stupid. I could offer you a number of examples but I expect the point would be lost.
Slashdot Mirror
Wh nt, t wrkd fr th Gyptns.
Historically, it's how trolls go about building their karma so they're not always posting -1. Personally, I refuse to step that low. I make some legitimate posts, *then* troll. ;)
Yeah, I'm just guessing that the choppers of today are just slightly more complicated than those of the old days.
Do these clowns even *have* a PR department? I can understand if they asked Legal and theirs is probably run by Goebbels himself. So I get the "shock and awe" angle there. But I'd have to think that a decent PR department would see the ways this is going to go "kabloooie!" right in their faces. I mean, suing children and dead people? Great way to gain credibility.
Hey, I didn't say they were *dumb* to concentrate on margin over quantity. There are certainly perils on both sides. For Apple, the peril is that they must constantly convince consumers that they are worth more, that you should bother spending that much on a computer. That means that quality must be kept constantly high, and in the 90s when that wasn't the case, they suffered. Dell, on the other hand, has to keep constant pressure on their suppliers and maintain top efficiency of their entire operation. So it's not like there's a right answer there.
I do tend to agree with your points. The funny issue to me is that of status. I think a lot of Mac users would admit it. They love that it makes them some sort of exclusive minority. They love to think that they're smarter/better than PC users. And I think that this is usually an effect they're aware of.
As far as the margin vs. volume dilemma - some companies try to do both, with (say) a high-end and low-end brand. That has the risk of brand dilution, as you allude to with the status thing, but it can be pulled off (Gap/Old Navy, for instance).
Oh, and for what it's worth, I own a powerbook. However, I do not drink the kool-aid. I do not deify Jobs. I don't read the rumor sites. All I wanted was a unix box that made a good laptop that would also run MS Office. And I still think Apple makes the best machines that satisfy that. The old-school Mac-heads drive me nuts.
Even if they get it from exactly the same sources, Dell will get it cheaper because of the volumes they purchase. Dell negotiates with its suppliers kind of like Walmart does. But the biggest reason is that Apple still cares more about margin than market share.
I didn't say you were loony, just that, by definition, if you don't believe their assertion, you're not going to believe their evidence since you'll not have the opportunity to question its provenance.
Evidence is in fact the *only* thing we want shown, words are not enough.
And the problem with that is that the only evidence that is completely unequivocal is a plane in a million pieces. Which I believe we'll all agree should be avoided.
At this point I'll take it for granted that there are lots of crazy bastards intent on blowing us up. Given the situation in Palestine, I'll believe that there are a serious number that are crazy enough to blow themselves up in the process. I'll also assume that there are a fair number of people in the Muslim world who have the expertise and creativity to make bombs, combined with the inclination to blow us up. The fact that this has not yet succeeded must be ascribed to some measure of skill on the part of the world's intelligence services, because it sure isn't the morons running the xray detectors.
By the way, I was flying yesterday. Internationally. It wasn't a big deal, you just throw your toiletry bag in your checked baggage. It might be minimally annoying for those with no checked baggage. At that point, check your toiletry bag and everyone gets a laugh.
To me, the most annoying thing was not being able to have a bottle of water, but fountains are common in most airports.
I'm sure someone has pointed it out by now, but stenography (shorthand) is not the same as steganography.
The mistake is apparently common enough that the first line of the wikipedia entry for steganography says, "Not to be confused with stenography".
True. However, with a sufficiently poor stenographer, the distinction might be a hard one to make.
Right. I'd assume these guys accounted for the tendency of a rotating body to form an oblate spheroid, and that the moon's current orbit can't account for the degree of its oblacity (if that's a word). Thus it would need to have exhibited some more violent orbit in the past.
wrong-o. I'm a low maintenance guy married to a low-maintenance girl. No hair product in our house. I'd rather marry a girl who looks good straight out of bed than one who takes 3 hours to look decent.
So upgrade to a 10GB HDD and don't fret. I could see worrying about KDE's (or gtk's) massive memory footprint, but who cares about HDD space anymore?
Yeah, this isn't fair. Only Nancy-boys who use hair gel get to fix their CDs?
That's OK. This technique isn't even new, it's been done - and better than this - for years. Hell, I do myself.
There's a false dichotomy if I ever saw one. Requiring reporters to follow the same laws that the rest of us do does not lead to a police state. Journalists aren't supermen, they don't get diplomatic immunity. Why should some reporter have extra rights compared to a regular guy simply because of his job? the 1st Amendment says no restriction of speech OR press. I can talk - why don't I get equal protection? Speaking of "equal protection," giving reporters some sort of immunity would break that, and that would be unconstitutional.
In other words: write what you want. But if you want to use that as an excuse to break laws that I would get thrown in jail for, don't expect kid glove treatment.
Yes, I know the mantra. But we're talking about the real-world here. Most companies want to buy their support contracts from the software vendor, and they want to buy them from companies that smell like "real" companies to them. Someone established, who's been around a while. Red Hat passes that test. I'm not aware of any company supporting Ubuntu that does.
One reason that Ubuntu will never be accepted: they don't offer the things that make beancounters sleep well at night. They don't have an "enterprise edition." They give it away for free - it can't be any good, right?
Ultimately, Red Hat targets corporate clients. Ubuntu doesn't. And it's not like that's bad!
You're right, that's what I was trying to get at and brain-cramped. I was thinking 5000 miles@25 mpg = 200 gallons tax refunded Forgot to put that part. ;)
1) The reason is presumably for the same reason that we have a progressive income tax scheme? Although one thing no one takes into account is people who make the choice to live near their jobs. A person with a Hummer and a 5 mile commute uses less gas than a person with a Prius and a 50 mile commute. I think people should get a 50% refund on say, 5000 miles worth of gas tax on their income tax return. That way, people who don't drive much, or drive efficient cars, or both, get rewarded.
2) Just because it's a business doesn't mean they can't make environmentally better choices. And if all businesses have to do it, then the competitive playing field isn't altered.
3) No one makes anyone own a boat. You don't need a recreational boat. That's definitely the sort of luxury item that should be taxed way more than the little bit of gas that some poor sap uses to get to work in his Corolla.
4) This is exactly the kind of problem that requires government to solve. Not many people are willing to sacrifice much for the environment if they know no one else will. But many people are OK with it if they know that everybody has to do it, and it will have a real result. In this case, the private sector can't solve the problem. The alternative is a disgusting environment. Notice that fuel economy in cars really only increases when the government mandates it - fuel economy in cars has decreased over the last 20 years, which is asinine.
I'm assuming that's better than you - who have worked at 0 NASA installations and aren't even a scientist?
Ever work at NASA? I have. And I didn't work on anything even *remotely* military. Nor do most people. Not even things with military applications.
Are there connections between the NASA and the military? Of course, and this has never been denied. However, the vast majority of the scientists at NASA perform basic research for the sheer joy of science.
I must have missed it when America fired rockets into Lebanon? I assume we're hated for not getting involved? Damned if you do, damned if you don't - if we try to get involved where we don't belong, people get pissed. If we don't, people get pissed.
After Syria had been kicked out...
As far as that goes, Syria may have been kicked out, but Hezbollah sure as shit wasn't.
Yes. The attorney general's office during Kennedy's administration (his brother, RFK, was the attorney general) wiretapped anyone they felt like. Hoover also did the same over a wide time span. As far as overreaction to a terrorist threat...how about putting the American Japanese population in camps during WWII?
Things happening "now" always seem more unique, rare, extreme, good, and/or bad than they really are. In reality, Bush isn't even close to being the first to abuse executive privelege. Doesn't make it right, but don't make it out to be some singular event in the history of the presidency, as it's not.
Wow, you really are an arrogant jackass. I'll assume you never make any mistakes?
That's a matter of debate. You can be smart in some respects and stupid in others. I assume you have examples of people smart in a narrowly-defined focus (e.g. a particular science) that you don't consider to be stupid. I consider people like that to be stupid in general, but smart in a narrowly-defined way, in the same way an autistic child might be unable to speak but have a near eidetic memory. The existence of such people does nothing to contradict my opinion that people getting basic communication wrong.
That theory isn't backed up by psychological research at all. I know a lot of people, for instance, who are very smart - in MANY ways - but can't spell. They are not stupid. Why don't you find a psychologist and tell him your "theory" that anyone who uses an idiom incorrectly is either stupid, or at best, a savant? God, that's a joke. Take psych 101 at least, preferably abnormal psych. You're so far off, on something so obvious, that by your own logic you'd have to be, well, stupid and ignorant.
If I were to perform some armchair psychology, I'd question why you're so incredibly insecure that spelling/grammar/idiomatic pedantry - which requires no intelligence or creativity - gives you such a hard-on. Is it because you really aren't that intelligent?
So you're on the record as saying that almost everyone who's incorrectly used the prase in question is stupid and ignorant? Because while that wouldn't make you stupid, it would certainly qualify as ignorance. Many people who speak/write with incorrect spelling, grammar, or logically incorrect idioms aren't stupid. I could offer you a number of examples but I expect the point would be lost.