Ok, Captain Expert. Pagerank is awful, and that's why Google is not useful to anyone. And these people trying to apply it to what organisms eat other organisms -- not, as you seem to think, to what restaurants are better than others -- is completely moronic as well, since the quality of the organisms' meals are more important than what organisms depend on what other organisms and to what extent, which these poor mislead people are paying attention to.
In short, gosh, I guess I'm the troll and you're the poor victim. Gee whiz, sorry for tricking you like that.
funded by a tax on everyone for the benefit of everyone
Is this, strictly speaking, true? I thought you had to pay a yearly television license fee based on the number of TVs you own. No TV, no fee. (Which creates problems of its own, including the necessity of sending around TV detector vans to make sure no one's hiding an unlicensed TV. I'm thinking it would in fact be better if it were a simple universal fee and be done with it...)
About 60 million people in the UK, sample size of 1,176, confidence interval of 96% gives a margin of error of 2.99%. So, it's 96% likely that they got within 2.99% of the right answer (to the question of how many people admit to it).
I hate seeing this "that's too small a sample size" objection to every single study, from people who clearly don't know enough about how sample sizes work.
Sounds like the solution is to engineer the ability to grow slabs of pure standalone muscle. No pain, no consciousness -- no animal at all; just tissue.
I've never really understood why so many Slashdotters have this attitude about hosted services. Perhaps they are local IT folks for smaller companies, and fear for their jobs?
It's the same reason Slashdot has:
such a large component of libertarians
every tech/science story hit with a slew of +5ed comments questioning the basic underlying premise of the research and/or machinery
every story about a study tagged with "correlationisnotcausation"
etc.
...and that reason is that code-hackers, having succeeded in something most people find impossible, go on to generalize that they must simply be hypercompetent, and therefore anything done by others must be questionable by comparison. Thus, hosted services, being run by mere mortals, can't be as good as something set up by one's own brilliant self.
I was waiting for someone to mention Intel's sound mark. They really seem to be ballbusters about including it whenever Intel is mentioned, even in ads by other companies. However, I'm convinced that they bought the tune of it from Jack In The Box's 1980s ad campaign (the yuppie one, from before they brought Jack back). Seems like it disappeared from Jack In The Box right around the same time Intel started theirs.
Ok. It's pretty clear by now that you're just a troll, saying whatever necessary, in particular ignoring whatever necessary, to suck me in to your endless pointless babble.
Yes? ACORN was busing people in. From where? In PA? And making themselves visible by wearing ACORN shirts? Gosh, how awful. Not like those patriotic Big Corporations busing paid employees from one state to another, and telling them to "rattle them" and "get in their faces" and not to wear company logos or anything else to give them away.
Yeah but the reporters and managers are almost-all registered Democrats. So the bias leans toward their own personal views which support more and more government programs. Never once will you hear a CNN or MSNBC report about making government smaller
So unless they push your agenda, they're biased? And none of that is contrary to what I said, which is that their bosses are all fat-cat CxOs, and their bosses' biases figure at least as much as their own. Not to mention that there's an entire network cultivated specifically for the purpose of pushing right-wing viewpoints (their initials are Fox News).
>>>Why do conservative Americans fear giving the state the 'power' to provide decent healthcare, but embrace giving the state the power to indefinitely detain and torture people who are accused of no crime?
I don't know where you're quoting from, but that wasn't me.
And now we have another man in office who is like a Second Bush. Different policies yes, but still the same personality type - "If you're not with us then you're against us," to quote his predecessor.
Are you joking? For example, during this whole health care debate, he (and the rest of the Democrats) have been reaching out, trying to engage the Republicans in honest debate, and getting nothing for their troubles but their hands bitten. The Republicans have, on multiple occasions, gone on the record as saying they don't care what's in the final bill, they don't care what concessions they get, they don't care what effect they're having on the public. They just want to "break the President" and make those bad ol' DemonCraps lose, so they can get more points for themselves. It's sickening team sports for political ends -- "not with us, so against us", to put it your way. The Democrats have bent over backward to the point of spinal injury trying to work with the other side. How you can sit there and make a statement like that, contrary to all reality, is an amazing tribute to your ability to see things the way you want, regardless of input.
C: Pay for it yourself, the same way you paid for that $30,000 Lexus or SUV. This is the option I and about 20 million other Americans use (mostly professionals 40 and under). Now maybe you think we're foolish, but this IS a free country and we should be free to be "fools" if that's what we want.
"Foolish" doesn't begin to describe that position. Do you think, if you worked two jobs your whole life, and saved every last penny, living like a pauper till you retired, that you could afford the millions you might be on the hook for the first time you got hit by a car, walking down the street? That's not foolish, that's mathematically idiotic.
(By the way, how dare you suggest I drive an SUV. What did I ever do to you?)
That's the whole reason the 1776 revolution happened - to gain individual liberty to run your own life.
Not even close. We fought the revolution because we were a colony, and being treated like a sponge to be squeezed, by the King and the British corporations alike -- second-class humans who didn't get a say in the process. This conservative myth that we all wanted to be Davy Crockett, and the British were forcing us to take part in a society instead is worse than revisionist history -- it's self-serving tripe.
Finally, I see you didn't say a word about that poll I pointed you toward. I guess 77% in favor makes no impression either, but I guess I shouldn't be surprised...
Are they free to bait-and-switch? Free to advertise falsely? Free to do any number of other unethical business practices? No. Because we live in a fucking society, and no, they do not get to do whatever they fucking want.
I don't know how you're getting that I think I "have a right" to something someone has made. (Unless, of course, we're talking about copyrights, which should pass to the public domain after 7/14 years, as the founders intended.) Perhaps you simply conflate the attitudes of everyone you disagree with into one big ball of "I hate that". Simplistic thinking from simplistic minds, possibly?
Now you want people worthy of being despised, it's those -- like you -- who think there are no rules, and whatever a corporation wants to do should be allowed, regardless of public good. "End of story."
I know people around here love car analogies, but yours is false. If you buy a car with more features, you aren't just getting additional functionality. You're getting additional physical machinery, additionally installed and integrated into a larger physical machine. If you buy Photoshop Elements, you're getting the exact same thing, but with a bit flipped.
A true car analogy would be that your car comes with a DVD/GPS/supercomputing/teledildonics console, power brakes, and heated sun visors, but there's a long vehicle-specific code you have to type in to a little keypad or else none of that works. And you have to pay big bucks to get that code.
Further, to assert that a practice is acceptable because it is a common in marketing is like saying that sucker-punching people in the face is acceptable because total douchebags commonly do it.
- Civil Liberties? The writing was on the wall before Obama was in office, he voted for that FISA bill or whatever the hell it was.
Well, I can see you're paying really close attention.
My question is, why hasn't Obama received the kind of criticism Bush did? But, to be fair, I think he's starting to get it.
He isn't -- he's getting much more. Republicans continually whip up Tea-Birther crap about birth certificates and seekrit mooslim and socialist and ad nauseam; they oppose every single thing he does purely because he's doing them; they create a de facto requirement for bills to pass by supermajority every time, by unfailingly attempting filibusters; and his own progressive base (of which I'm a member) is constantly on his ass to straighten up and fly right too. And this is only seven months in. Now you tell me how Bush had any of that. Go on, tell me.
Slashdot Mirror
That's the saddest part of all.
Clearly, he knows something we don't.
I can't begin to tell you how awesome that would look. It would be terrible for astronomy, of course -- blocking the view -- but still.
Huh -- I never realized poor Sergey Brin got screwed on that deal.
<eyeroll />
Ok, Captain Expert. Pagerank is awful, and that's why Google is not useful to anyone. And these people trying to apply it to what organisms eat other organisms -- not, as you seem to think, to what restaurants are better than others -- is completely moronic as well, since the quality of the organisms' meals are more important than what organisms depend on what other organisms and to what extent, which these poor mislead people are paying attention to.
In short, gosh, I guess I'm the troll and you're the poor victim. Gee whiz, sorry for tricking you like that.
Do you have a point? Or did you just use the mention of the term "Pagerank" to come in here and randomly slag off Google?
A few centuries at current usage rates? Or at a rate sufficient to replace current and future fossil fuels?
You still have to mine for fuel.
Couldn't have said it better myself.
This, by the way, is why certifications are almost worse than useless.
Is this, strictly speaking, true? I thought you had to pay a yearly television license fee based on the number of TVs you own. No TV, no fee. (Which creates problems of its own, including the necessity of sending around TV detector vans to make sure no one's hiding an unlicensed TV. I'm thinking it would in fact be better if it were a simple universal fee and be done with it...)
Oh, and agreed about the Beeb rockin'.
So it's your contention that no one would lie when asked if they file-share? Really?
No, it's not.
http://www.raosoft.com/samplesize.html
About 60 million people in the UK, sample size of 1,176, confidence interval of 96% gives a margin of error of 2.99%. So, it's 96% likely that they got within 2.99% of the right answer (to the question of how many people admit to it).
I hate seeing this "that's too small a sample size" objection to every single study, from people who clearly don't know enough about how sample sizes work.
Sounds like the solution is to engineer the ability to grow slabs of pure standalone muscle. No pain, no consciousness -- no animal at all; just tissue.
By massive corporate profits, of course.
Not to mention, there's about half the sky you're never going to see.
That's awesome! Can I give it the Mega Millions Lottery as a parameter?
It's the same reason Slashdot has:
...and that reason is that code-hackers, having succeeded in something most people find impossible, go on to generalize that they must simply be hypercompetent, and therefore anything done by others must be questionable by comparison. Thus, hosted services, being run by mere mortals, can't be as good as something set up by one's own brilliant self.
I was waiting for someone to mention Intel's sound mark. They really seem to be ballbusters about including it whenever Intel is mentioned, even in ads by other companies. However, I'm convinced that they bought the tune of it from Jack In The Box's 1980s ad campaign (the yuppie one, from before they brought Jack back). Seems like it disappeared from Jack In The Box right around the same time Intel started theirs.
Ok. It's pretty clear by now that you're just a troll, saying whatever necessary, in particular ignoring whatever necessary, to suck me in to your endless pointless babble.
I wash my hands of you.
Excellent question.
Yes? ACORN was busing people in. From where? In PA? And making themselves visible by wearing ACORN shirts? Gosh, how awful. Not like those patriotic Big Corporations busing paid employees from one state to another, and telling them to "rattle them" and "get in their faces" and not to wear company logos or anything else to give them away.
So unless they push your agenda, they're biased? And none of that is contrary to what I said, which is that their bosses are all fat-cat CxOs, and their bosses' biases figure at least as much as their own. Not to mention that there's an entire network cultivated specifically for the purpose of pushing right-wing viewpoints (their initials are Fox News).
I don't know where you're quoting from, but that wasn't me.
Are you joking? For example, during this whole health care debate, he (and the rest of the Democrats) have been reaching out, trying to engage the Republicans in honest debate, and getting nothing for their troubles but their hands bitten. The Republicans have, on multiple occasions, gone on the record as saying they don't care what's in the final bill, they don't care what concessions they get, they don't care what effect they're having on the public. They just want to "break the President" and make those bad ol' DemonCraps lose, so they can get more points for themselves. It's sickening team sports for political ends -- "not with us, so against us", to put it your way. The Democrats have bent over backward to the point of spinal injury trying to work with the other side. How you can sit there and make a statement like that, contrary to all reality, is an amazing tribute to your ability to see things the way you want, regardless of input.
"Foolish" doesn't begin to describe that position. Do you think, if you worked two jobs your whole life, and saved every last penny, living like a pauper till you retired, that you could afford the millions you might be on the hook for the first time you got hit by a car, walking down the street? That's not foolish, that's mathematically idiotic.
(By the way, how dare you suggest I drive an SUV. What did I ever do to you?)
Not even close. We fought the revolution because we were a colony, and being treated like a sponge to be squeezed, by the King and the British corporations alike -- second-class humans who didn't get a say in the process. This conservative myth that we all wanted to be Davy Crockett, and the British were forcing us to take part in a society instead is worse than revisionist history -- it's self-serving tripe.
Finally, I see you didn't say a word about that poll I pointed you toward. I guess 77% in favor makes no impression either, but I guess I shouldn't be surprised...
Are they free to bait-and-switch? Free to advertise falsely? Free to do any number of other unethical business practices? No. Because we live in a fucking society, and no, they do not get to do whatever they fucking want.
I don't know how you're getting that I think I "have a right" to something someone has made. (Unless, of course, we're talking about copyrights, which should pass to the public domain after 7/14 years, as the founders intended.) Perhaps you simply conflate the attitudes of everyone you disagree with into one big ball of "I hate that". Simplistic thinking from simplistic minds, possibly?
Now you want people worthy of being despised, it's those -- like you -- who think there are no rules, and whatever a corporation wants to do should be allowed, regardless of public good. "End of story."
I know people around here love car analogies, but yours is false. If you buy a car with more features, you aren't just getting additional functionality. You're getting additional physical machinery, additionally installed and integrated into a larger physical machine. If you buy Photoshop Elements, you're getting the exact same thing, but with a bit flipped.
A true car analogy would be that your car comes with a DVD/GPS/supercomputing/teledildonics console, power brakes, and heated sun visors, but there's a long vehicle-specific code you have to type in to a little keypad or else none of that works. And you have to pay big bucks to get that code.
Further, to assert that a practice is acceptable because it is a common in marketing is like saying that sucker-punching people in the face is acceptable because total douchebags commonly do it.
Well, I can see you're paying really close attention.
He isn't -- he's getting much more. Republicans continually whip up Tea-Birther crap about birth certificates and seekrit mooslim and socialist and ad nauseam; they oppose every single thing he does purely because he's doing them; they create a de facto requirement for bills to pass by supermajority every time, by unfailingly attempting filibusters; and his own progressive base (of which I'm a member) is constantly on his ass to straighten up and fly right too. And this is only seven months in. Now you tell me how Bush had any of that. Go on, tell me.