Oh yes.. I forgot that getting an education instead of going to jail for petty crimes or even - heavens beware - having success is considered treason on tghe black race....
Marriage may be a terrible metric, but study after study has proven that the best place for a child to grow up is in a stable home with a mother and a father looking after them. That sounds oddly familiar. Almost like it used to be a standard arrangement to have children in...
Yes. But where is that situation tied to marriage?
"Loving&caring family" and "Marriage" aren't synonyms.
The FBI was there almost immedeatly but it took hours to get a laptop?
Somehow this doesn't sound right. (As the whole story does. Not untrue, but like either some detail is missing or something behind the scenes went really wrong)
On the other hand, suitable or not, AMC could simply ban the use and/or wearing of Glass-like devices. (there are more to come)
Google Glass is a camera (among other things).
When worn it invariably points at whatever the wearer is looking at.
Which is the very reason why you wouldn't want to watch a pirated movie recorded with glass. The camera should stay fixed ion the screen and NOT moving with the wearers head....
And such an incident should definitly NOT take for hours - espescially if scanning the glass memory is offered immedeatly. (more or less voluntarily)
This is one of those situations that just proves that technology just moves too fast and what really should have happened was that AMC should have had the user put a piece of plastic over the camera part of the Glass device and tell them if they see it powered on while the movie is on they will be escorted from the premises.
That would have been slightly less dumb and an action you probably could agree on.
An *informed* and sensible descision would have come to the conclusion that he cant be a movie pirate because: a) no one wants to see some shaky screener. I refused to watch those even back then when it was cool to collect movies from eDonkey. No movie ever was worth getting a headache from watching it just to save those few bucks. b) anyone who wants to record the movie would have at least TRIED to hide the camera. at the moment, GoogleGlass is the most expensive and most obvious way to make everyone notice the camera. (hmmm, perhaps the theater staff fell for a decoy and the guy with the ACTUAL camera was sitting besides the Glass-Guy...) c) (it would have taken a Google serach for that, but I'm talking about informed descisions:) Video recording drains the Glass battery after a few minutes.
To sum it up: That device is simply not suitable to record a movie in a theater. For the reasons listed above.
On the other hand, suitable or not, AMC could simply ban the use and/or wearing of Glass-like devices. (there are more to come)
Well, believe it or not, (probably not if you're from the US) but school can be quite relaxed if students are past legal drinking age.
I don't know how other schools handles it, but ours had a tradition of out-of-school meetings/party/BBQ with students and teachers during the last two years of school. Not too exciting if you know that we were around 19/20 then and a legal age of 18 for alcohol consumption.
That includes dropping those multiple choice tests. Those are fine for surveys and Who wants to be a Millionaire, but don't give any insight into a students abilities.
Many people use "like" as a way to bookmark and share pages, just as they use "friend" as a way to give a person (they may not like) access.
Whether this is misuse by users or misuse by FB is a valid question.
If people use feature A to emulate feature B, it's the users who do the redefining.
Others may or may not join that redefinition, but you can't force to or blame anyone for not joining doing so or not being aware that others are using some feature in a redefined way.
To take an extreme case, if the only way to open a browser window in some operating system were to click on a button labeled "I love microsoft", I would consider that a to be user interface that deceptively collects 'I love" clicks. On the other hand if this were just one of a wide number of ways to achieve the same functionality it would be different.
In any case, I'm not blaming FB, but it seems they have created a situation where people might be tempted to sue.
People would either think that there is no way to open a web browser and (finally) run to Linux in flocks as it does NOT force them to commit perjury to surf the web.
So, this boils down to the question why so many people are using fb despite the missing features "bookmark" and "follow without like"?
there is no dislike option, there is no funny option.
people dont use the "Like" to mean i like that. people have "Like" 'd people dying or getting injured.
well, people are jerks all the time. And that's why I never "liked" someones death. I don't want to look like one.
But that's a good example. Let's stick to it for a while, If only for the sake of the argument.
So, if "liking" someones death means sympathy or grief, what does that tell us about the number of people that liked the news about Bin Ladens death? Is it a like or not? If it can mean both, it means nothing. Why would a meaningless button be there?
Well... here's the point: Everyone likes to be part of a majority. (c.f. bandwaggon effect in elections) So no matter if you loved or hated Michael Jackson, seeing a million likes for his death will feel like approval to your "like"
Slashdot Mirror
If I had to see that that often, I'd consider moving.
You don't happen to have a friend called Taylor Durden?
Oh yes.. I forgot that getting an education instead of going to jail for petty crimes or even - heavens beware - having success is considered treason on tghe black race....
Marriage may be a terrible metric, but study after study has proven that the best place for a child to grow up is in a stable home with a mother and a father looking after them. That sounds oddly familiar. Almost like it used to be a standard arrangement to have children in ...
Yes. But where is that situation tied to marriage?
"Loving&caring family" and "Marriage" aren't synonyms.
considering that Samsung replaces 90% of the core apps a normal user expects on their phone, what Samsung did feels already like a fork.
https://plus.google.com/+Marqu...
[citation needed]
The FBI was there almost immedeatly but it took hours to get a laptop?
Somehow this doesn't sound right. (As the whole story does. Not untrue, but like either some detail is missing or something behind the scenes went really wrong)
What does this tell us about your digestive system?
It's as common as apple.
FOR FOOD!
It is not a common word for computer or computer games.
Google Glass is a camera (among other things).
When worn it invariably points at whatever the wearer is looking at.
Which is the very reason why you wouldn't want to watch a pirated movie recorded with glass. The camera should stay fixed ion the screen and NOT moving with the wearers head....
And such an incident should definitly NOT take for hours - espescially if scanning the glass memory is offered immedeatly. (more or less voluntarily)
This is one of those situations that just proves that technology just moves too fast and what really should have happened was that AMC should have had the user put a piece of plastic over the camera part of the Glass device and tell them if they see it powered on while the movie is on they will be escorted from the premises.
That would have been slightly less dumb and an action you probably could agree on.
An *informed* and sensible descision would have come to the conclusion that he cant be a movie pirate because:
a) no one wants to see some shaky screener. I refused to watch those even back then when it was cool to collect movies from eDonkey. No movie ever was worth getting a headache from watching it just to save those few bucks.
b) anyone who wants to record the movie would have at least TRIED to hide the camera. at the moment, GoogleGlass is the most expensive and most obvious way to make everyone notice the camera. (hmmm, perhaps the theater staff fell for a decoy and the guy with the ACTUAL camera was sitting besides the Glass-Guy...)
c) (it would have taken a Google serach for that, but I'm talking about informed descisions:) Video recording drains the Glass battery after a few minutes.
To sum it up: That device is simply not suitable to record a movie in a theater. For the reasons listed above.
On the other hand, suitable or not, AMC could simply ban the use and/or wearing of Glass-like devices. (there are more to come)
How many of them will look like Yul Brynner?
Well, user control based on passwords should be implemented easier for those than for any conventional thermostat.
Well, believe it or not, (probably not if you're from the US) but school can be quite relaxed if students are past legal drinking age.
I don't know how other schools handles it, but ours had a tradition of out-of-school meetings/party/BBQ with students and teachers during the last two years of school. Not too exciting if you know that we were around 19/20 then and a legal age of 18 for alcohol consumption.
Or as my english teacher said as she poured everyone another Johnny Walker: Drink up! That's liquid culture!
I hate to agree to agree to generalizations like that, but things like this add to that point.
Do we really need a word to imply betrayal of ones heritage just by becoming successful and escaping the ghetto?
Solution: Better and less predictable tests.
That includes dropping those multiple choice tests. Those are fine for surveys and Who wants to be a Millionaire, but don't give any insight into a students abilities.
And all of them driving in the wrong lane!
I lost you somewhere around the point where you linked a youtube account to administrate a condo.
Yes. But usually under the guise of a GoogleApps account.
Normal people don't care about technology. That's why his "gearhead" labels work.
That whole idea would immedeatly sound silly if you used another subject: What about "Yahoo Sports!" but not geared towards "jocks" but "normals"?
Would your friends son have found out about that blog without Google? Would he have been able to take any actions against that blog?
Many people use "like" as a way to bookmark and share pages, just as they use "friend" as a way to give a person (they may not like) access.
Whether this is misuse by users or misuse by FB is a valid question.
If people use feature A to emulate feature B, it's the users who do the redefining.
Others may or may not join that redefinition, but you can't force to or blame anyone for not joining doing so or not being aware that others are using some feature in a redefined way.
To take an extreme case, if the only way to open a browser window in some operating system were to click on a button labeled "I love microsoft", I would consider that a to be user interface that deceptively collects 'I love" clicks. On the other hand if this were just one of a wide number of ways to achieve the same functionality it would be different.
In any case, I'm not blaming FB, but it seems they have created a situation where people might be tempted to sue.
People would either think that there is no way to open a web browser and (finally) run to Linux in flocks as it does NOT force them to commit perjury to surf the web.
So, this boils down to the question why so many people are using fb despite the missing features "bookmark" and "follow without like"?
there is no dislike option, there is no funny option.
people dont use the "Like" to mean i like that. people have "Like" 'd people dying or getting injured.
well, people are jerks all the time. And that's why I never "liked" someones death. I don't want to look like one.
But that's a good example. Let's stick to it for a while, If only for the sake of the argument.
So, if "liking" someones death means sympathy or grief, what does that tell us about the number of people that liked the news about Bin Ladens death? Is it a like or not? If it can mean both, it means nothing. Why would a meaningless button be there?
Well... here's the point: Everyone likes to be part of a majority. (c.f. bandwaggon effect in elections) So no matter if you loved or hated Michael Jackson, seeing a million likes for his death will feel like approval to your "like"
That's a newssite. Something completly different.
No, I'm not the original anonymous poster and you don't have any clue about my current timezone.
And thousands celebrities have been bought to look into a camera and endorse some stupid product. That doesn't make it any less of an endorsement.