Good advice. You don't need to "know who you are" before you go. College is a great place to find yourself while acquiring useful stuff like credits and friends. The first year curriculum is similar for all majors.
I love labels. It is such a relief not having to decide which folder to stick something in.
If you can't deal with the label metaphor, think of them as being folders and that archive means put it in the folder with that label and file it away out of sight. When you want to find it, just pull out the folder labeled whatever, except the folder doesn't really exist, gmail just grabs everything that you filed with that label and gives it to you when you ask. The nice thing is that you can file something into more than one label/catagory/tag/folder.
Or you can think of it as a snapshot of a search. But that's not quite as good. I have GMail filters set up to automatacally label stuff as it comes in, then when I look at it, I can file it away without rethinking what folder/label it belongs in (unless I want to).
If you can handle tagging on sites such as del.icio.us or Flickr.com, you can handle labels if you think of them as tags. Of course tags themselves can be thought of as either catagories, subjects, or sometimes both.
I know these aren't really tips, I think the first thing you need to do is to devise a metaphor that you can adapt to if it doesn't seem to be one you use naturally.
I always thought that curiosity and scientific advancement went hand in hand. If these aliens are so advanced, then wouldn't they be inclined to be curious about other species?
They are probably very curious, but what makes you think they'd be curious about a silly species that keeps sending them dots? It is possibly that they already know all about us anyway. When we probe rats in the lab, do we tell them all about our culture while we do it? Of course not, we just keep them isolated in their little cages and don't tell them anything that's not part of the controlled experiment.
It appears that they ask the application to identify itself and if it isn't iTunes 4.7, it won't download. Sort of reminds me of those websites that checked to make sure you were running IE. That led to other browsers acquiring the ability to misidentify themselves. If that's so, it'll only take a week.
Now what we need is for Slashdot to verify that the user isn't someone who's going to run off and tell Apple.
But does the DRM have anything to do with the fact that my older CD players will not play any CD where I burn a mix from a playlist? I'd really like an answer to this one:) If so, I may check out DVDJon's program.
Nothing at all. The technology has changed. Home burned CD's didn't exist when your CD player was designed. Newer designs are backward compatible. Maybe it's time you bought yourself an ipod like everyone else.
Thanks to the portability of Debian and its advanced package management tools, making her new Mac look like her old PC took only an hour or so.
that sounds like sacrilige. I hope the old PC was running Debian and the new setup was double boot. But, then the Jobs co writes at least as much scary legal shit as the Gates gang. So maybe he's doing the right thing.
That is such a lame excuse, it makes me angry when you try to use it. Obviously, locking a kid up or isolating him from the real world is difficult. It is also bad parenting. If that is your true opinion, please don't breed.
Good parenting is preparing your child while he is still young so that proper moral behaviour is instinctive whenever he does meet up with people who would have him believe that GTA is reality and murder is okay. Studies have shown that normal kids can distinguish between reality and fantasy well before that age, and even atheists teach their kids that murder is wrong. This isn't obscure knowledge.
Normal people would do better in an invite only system, especially if they only invite friends and friends of friends. Even then, a system to track who is inviting whom would be needed to discover the dual-identity trolls who are able to maintain a "nice" identity. I've ruminated over this ever since one of my identities invited the other into GMail. BTW, I'm not a troll, but even good people like to be anonymous at times.
The money-maker's store will say that the two items break even at best, they're not there to provide kosher foods or DVDs, but to make a profit, and so Mrs. Potolsky and Mr. Davidson will be written off.
That's so incredibly naive, it's not even an oversimplification. The value of Mrs. Potolsky and Mr. Davidson as customers to the store depends on much more than their purchase of any particular product. If Mrs. Potolsky buys $100 worth of stuff every week, the loss on the $2 jar of Kosher pickles is worth it. It is sort of a personal loss leader. If the grocer didn't have the pickles, she'd go spend her $100/week somewhere else that did. The old fashioned grocer remembers who his good customers are, and now the new fangled grocers are using loyalty cards for the same purpose.
In general, I have no problem with money making schemes as long as they provide a useful service to all people affected, not just the schemer. In this case, that would be site visitors, advertisers and Google itself.
According to Bill, who commented on Buff's personal blog, It looks like Mesothelioma is at about $51. Asbestos at $16 and Asbestosis at $4. I suspect that normal market forces will eventually cause schemes such as this to be "honest". Some people need an asbestos aggregator. When the keyword asbestos becomes less valuable, aggregators will jump on another, but remember, this scheme depends on the fact that some people Google on asbestos (or a mispelling of it) and do not take the initiative to set up an alert.
Also, I'm going to post an entry giving my first impressions of the results of the experiment in a few hours. A lot of people have questions, and I have some interesting observations. Stay tuned.
- - by Michael Buffington on February 9, 2005 09:05 AM
I'm not posting the links. I am in no way affiliated with this site, but I do find it interestinig and am curious to read his analysis.
In the comments, Bill, who professes to have an interest in "cash pumps", informs readers that "It looks like Mesothelioma is at about $51. Asbestos at $16 and Asbestosis at $4.
Did you see how long my post was? Can you imagine how much longer it would have been if I had detailed every possibility?
Yes, I am aware that overgeneralization can be a problem, but these sorts of attitudes are what we use to divide up in our little groups. Generalizations can be very helpful as long as we are mindful of the variations that don't fit the model.
"Good" and "benevelent" are vey subjective terms anyway. Although, I can imagine a world without men, I think we are better off with both men and women.
Why Government needs Families
on
State of the Union
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Outside of this particular time and place, I don't think marriage has much at all to do with romantic love. It has always been primarily about responsibility for those other people who are your family. Marriage doesn't even have to be voluntary. It is nice if the people entering into a marriage relationship have a romantic interest in each other, it makes the bond stronger, but it is entirely optional. Frankly, the government doesn't care if you love each other just as long as you relieve the government of the burden of taking care of you, your spouse, or your kids. Some needs can be satisfied by the government, the marketplace, and other institutions, but quite a few people think marriage is better at it than such methods as government paying women so they can afford to stay home and have kids, or government deciding your course of medical treatment instead of your "next of kin", or government "disciplining" young men in correctional institutions because their fathers did not feel obligated to take on this task themselves.
I am old fashioned enough to think that fathers are better at some parenting tasks than mothers. Women may not need men, but children need fathers. But, then families are as diverse as individuals. What works for one family might not work at all for another. If they don't have fathers, they can have an extended family with uncles and grandfathers. That is what makes families so ideal for raising young people. Parents have much more in common with their kids both culturally and genetically than government bureaucrats. If anyone is going to understand a confused young person, it is much more likely to be his parent than a jailer or a social worker.
Individuals are not always able to do it all for themselves and free markets, governments and other such institutions don't always work as well as the family. Historically, parents are responsible for their children when young and children are responsible for their parents when old. Also, historically, people who enter into marriage assume certain responsibilities towards each other (and any children they may raise). These responsibilities can be considered a contract although different societies assign different legal interpretations to this contract. When marriages are weak, people must get their needs satisfied in other ways. Sometimes it's the government, sometimes it's the marketplace. I don't simply mean sex, I mean advocacy for someone who is not conscious, I mean financial support when one doesn't have their own income, I mean procreation and any other project that is better done with a partner than alone.
For extreme conservatives, government IS the family. The family is the oldest form of government, much older than monarchy, theocracy, and especially demococracy. A good family is a benevelent dictatorship, something that is very hard to achieve outside of a family. So conservatives are for anything that enables families to take care of themselves, leaving governments and other nonfamily institutions as a last resort. Many people recognize that not all families are very good at support of their more needy members. While conservatives might prefer that government fix the family (or allow the church to fix it), liberals think it is better for the government to step in and take its place. I, like most people, am somewhere in the middle. There really are some lousy families, but if you treat all individuals who need help as though they come from lousy families, people from good families might turn to outsiders when it might actually be better for everyone for them to get help from the family.
If outsiders make it very easy to go outside of the family for help, then the family has no need to exist and may go away. Likewise, for people who do not have a functional family, depriving them of a means to form one makes no sense either. In the issue of gay marriages, pro family and pro gay marriage advocates are on the same side if a more modern term such as civil unions can be accepted by all. This is not a liberal issue at all. It is just a new twist on the conservative notion of solving problems by encouraging the formation of strong family units.
By requiring a license to marry, they effectively took away the power of the churches to deny a legal marriage and gave it to the government. That's when it ceased being a religous activity in so many minds. Sure, we don't want churches denying couples the right to marry, but as a practical matter, they can't since starting a church in the USA isn't very hard, as long as you have a spiritual purpose and aren't into it for the money, and even that is debatable.
The government taking over the power to marry and deny marriage has devalued marriage more than anything Britany and the gays might have done. Indeed, it may have created the Hollywood or Las Vegas marriage by demoting the church marriage and all that premarital counseling to an optional activity. A pastor can refuse to marry a couple, but the clerk in the courthouse simply wants your money and evidence of a blood test.
I am not the one who defined marriage as having both a legal and spiritual component. That has been with humans for hundreds, maybe thousands of years. Although in American law, it has only been about 100 years due to our strong interest in separation of church and state. I think the legal benefits are the price paid for government to get involved in the marriage business.
Many people would call your secular ceremony a civil union precisely because it has no spiritual significance. It was the government that decided to give legal benefits to legally married people that it withholds from single people and other couples. Personally, I believe most people are better off paired up. Atheists, homosexuals, and even pink elephants benefit from being in a loving relationship.
Why haven't the gay rights activists attempted to revive the Equal Rights Amendment? Until that is ratified, it is legal for the government to discriminate along sexual lines whenever it would like. If men and women are equal under the law, then the government would be required to recognize same sex heads of households as having the same rights as different sex heads of households.
Few people object to people loving other people, and what adults do in bedrooms is private. But, marriage, as it exists today has both legal and spiritual aspects and Bush's authority is only over the government. If the government redefines marriage to only mean the implied legal contract between two people who form a household, it ignores the additional meanings beyond the legal contract.
If you carefully reread my comment, you will notice that I did not disagree with his position on gay marriage. But, he has no chance of bringing anyone to his side by insinuating that the only reason people would disagree with him is that they are stupid. That they "believe bullshit" from a "brain damaged monkey running around and throwing shit." He said nothing that indicates that he respects the intelligence of those who disagree with him. Even if they are wrong and stupid, which they aren't, you aren't going to change their minds with that kind of talk.
My position, which shouldn't matter since I was not disagreeing (or agreeing) with you (or him) is that the government should get out of the marriage business completely and that legal protections should exist for all committed living arrangements whether the adult family members have sex with each other or not (two spinsters who care for each other, for instance, but aren't physically intimate). Whether the union is also blessed by the church is another matter completely. I assume he was asking for legal recognition and protection by the government and not the blessing of a church. Bush is a government leader.
If that's your strongest argument, you aren't going to convince anyone who doesn't already agree with you.
I'm not saying you are wrong, just your argument isn't worth crap and I'm wondering how it got modded insightful. Someone must have confused it with inciteful.
The clerk at Kroger actually encouraged me to use the card without filling out the paperwork. They still benefit from tracking your purchases even if they don't know who you are. Just knowing that John Doe #45321 buys both beer and carrots every weekend is of some use to them.
Slashdot Mirror
Good advice. You don't need to "know who you are" before you go. College is a great place to find yourself while acquiring useful stuff like credits and friends. The first year curriculum is similar for all majors.
Ugh, I did those links wrong and forgot to preview.
Sorry. Popular sites that use tags are http://flickr.com/ and http://del.icio.us/
I love labels. It is such a relief not having to decide which folder to stick something in.
If you can't deal with the label metaphor, think of them as being folders and that archive means put it in the folder with that label and file it away out of sight. When you want to find it, just pull out the folder labeled whatever, except the folder doesn't really exist, gmail just grabs everything that you filed with that label and gives it to you when you ask. The nice thing is that you can file something into more than one label/catagory/tag/folder.
Or you can think of it as a snapshot of a search. But that's not quite as good. I have GMail filters set up to automatacally label stuff as it comes in, then when I look at it, I can file it away without rethinking what folder/label it belongs in (unless I want to).
If you can handle tagging on sites such as del.icio.us or Flickr.com, you can handle labels if you think of them as tags. Of course tags themselves can be thought of as either catagories, subjects, or sometimes both.
I know these aren't really tips, I think the first thing you need to do is to devise a metaphor that you can adapt to if it doesn't seem to be one you use naturally.
I always thought that curiosity and scientific advancement went hand in hand. If these aliens are so advanced, then wouldn't they be inclined to be curious about other species?
They are probably very curious, but what makes you think they'd be curious about a silly species that keeps sending them dots? It is possibly that they already know all about us anyway. When we probe rats in the lab, do we tell them all about our culture while we do it? Of course not, we just keep them isolated in their little cages and don't tell them anything that's not part of the controlled experiment.
It appears that they ask the application to identify itself and if it isn't iTunes 4.7, it won't download. Sort of reminds me of those websites that checked to make sure you were running IE. That led to other browsers acquiring the ability to misidentify themselves. If that's so, it'll only take a week.
Now what we need is for Slashdot to verify that the user isn't someone who's going to run off and tell Apple.
But does the DRM have anything to do with the fact that my older CD players will not play any CD where I burn a mix from a playlist? I'd really like an answer to this one :) If so, I may check out DVDJon's program.
Nothing at all. The technology has changed. Home burned CD's didn't exist when your CD player was designed. Newer designs are backward compatible. Maybe it's time you bought yourself an ipod like everyone else.
Thanks to the portability of Debian and its advanced package management tools, making her new Mac look like her old PC took only an hour or so.
that sounds like sacrilige. I hope the old PC was running Debian and the new setup was double boot. But, then the Jobs co writes at least as much scary legal shit as the Gates gang. So maybe he's doing the right thing.
That is such a lame excuse, it makes me angry when you try to use it. Obviously, locking a kid up or isolating him from the real world is difficult. It is also bad parenting. If that is your true opinion, please don't breed.
Good parenting is preparing your child while he is still young so that proper moral behaviour is instinctive whenever he does meet up with people who would have him believe that GTA is reality and murder is okay. Studies have shown that normal kids can distinguish between reality and fantasy well before that age, and even atheists teach their kids that murder is wrong. This isn't obscure knowledge.
This seems like something someone would have the brains to automate. OSDN does have some computer nerds on its staff, doesn't it?
The trick is having a trusted relationship with anonymous strangers. If all you know is what you see in his posts, how do you know he is trustworthy?
Normal people would do better in an invite only system, especially if they only invite friends and friends of friends. Even then, a system to track who is inviting whom would be needed to discover the dual-identity trolls who are able to maintain a "nice" identity. I've ruminated over this ever since one of my identities invited the other into GMail. BTW, I'm not a troll, but even good people like to be anonymous at times.
The money-maker's store will say that the two items break even at best, they're not there to provide kosher foods or DVDs, but to make a profit, and so Mrs. Potolsky and Mr. Davidson will be written off.
That's so incredibly naive, it's not even an oversimplification. The value of Mrs. Potolsky and Mr. Davidson as customers to the store depends on much more than their purchase of any particular product. If Mrs. Potolsky buys $100 worth of stuff every week, the loss on the $2 jar of Kosher pickles is worth it. It is sort of a personal loss leader. If the grocer didn't have the pickles, she'd go spend her $100/week somewhere else that did. The old fashioned grocer remembers who his good customers are, and now the new fangled grocers are using loyalty cards for the same purpose.
In general, I have no problem with money making schemes as long as they provide a useful service to all people affected, not just the schemer. In this case, that would be site visitors, advertisers and Google itself.
According to Bill, who commented on Buff's personal blog, It looks like Mesothelioma is at about $51. Asbestos at $16 and Asbestosis at $4. I suspect that normal market forces will eventually cause schemes such as this to be "honest". Some people need an asbestos aggregator. When the keyword asbestos becomes less valuable, aggregators will jump on another, but remember, this scheme depends on the fact that some people Google on asbestos (or a mispelling of it) and do not take the initiative to set up an alert.
I'm not posting the links. I am in no way affiliated with this site, but I do find it interestinig and am curious to read his analysis.
In the comments, Bill, who professes to have an interest in "cash pumps", informs readers that "It looks like Mesothelioma is at about $51. Asbestos at $16 and Asbestosis at $4.
I just paid a visit to Asbestos Blog. Quite a few slashdotters have been there and left their insightful comments.
For those who care, it was generated using typepad and has a single pixel gif to track visitors.
Did you see how long my post was? Can you imagine how much longer it would have been if I had detailed every possibility?
Yes, I am aware that overgeneralization can be a problem, but these sorts of attitudes are what we use to divide up in our little groups. Generalizations can be very helpful as long as we are mindful of the variations that don't fit the model.
"Good" and "benevelent" are vey subjective terms anyway. Although, I can imagine a world without men, I think we are better off with both men and women.
Outside of this particular time and place, I don't think marriage has much at all to do with romantic love. It has always been primarily about responsibility for those other people who are your family. Marriage doesn't even have to be voluntary. It is nice if the people entering into a marriage relationship have a romantic interest in each other, it makes the bond stronger, but it is entirely optional. Frankly, the government doesn't care if you love each other just as long as you relieve the government of the burden of taking care of you, your spouse, or your kids. Some needs can be satisfied by the government, the marketplace, and other institutions, but quite a few people think marriage is better at it than such methods as government paying women so they can afford to stay home and have kids, or government deciding your course of medical treatment instead of your "next of kin", or government "disciplining" young men in correctional institutions because their fathers did not feel obligated to take on this task themselves.
I am old fashioned enough to think that fathers are better at some parenting tasks than mothers. Women may not need men, but children need fathers. But, then families are as diverse as individuals. What works for one family might not work at all for another. If they don't have fathers, they can have an extended family with uncles and grandfathers. That is what makes families so ideal for raising young people. Parents have much more in common with their kids both culturally and genetically than government bureaucrats. If anyone is going to understand a confused young person, it is much more likely to be his parent than a jailer or a social worker.
Individuals are not always able to do it all for themselves and free markets, governments and other such institutions don't always work as well as the family. Historically, parents are responsible for their children when young and children are responsible for their parents when old. Also, historically, people who enter into marriage assume certain responsibilities towards each other (and any children they may raise). These responsibilities can be considered a contract although different societies assign different legal interpretations to this contract. When marriages are weak, people must get their needs satisfied in other ways. Sometimes it's the government, sometimes it's the marketplace. I don't simply mean sex, I mean advocacy for someone who is not conscious, I mean financial support when one doesn't have their own income, I mean procreation and any other project that is better done with a partner than alone.
For extreme conservatives, government IS the family. The family is the oldest form of government, much older than monarchy, theocracy, and especially demococracy. A good family is a benevelent dictatorship, something that is very hard to achieve outside of a family. So conservatives are for anything that enables families to take care of themselves, leaving governments and other nonfamily institutions as a last resort. Many people recognize that not all families are very good at support of their more needy members. While conservatives might prefer that government fix the family (or allow the church to fix it), liberals think it is better for the government to step in and take its place. I, like most people, am somewhere in the middle. There really are some lousy families, but if you treat all individuals who need help as though they come from lousy families, people from good families might turn to outsiders when it might actually be better for everyone for them to get help from the family.
If outsiders make it very easy to go outside of the family for help, then the family has no need to exist and may go away. Likewise, for people who do not have a functional family, depriving them of a means to form one makes no sense either. In the issue of gay marriages, pro family and pro gay marriage advocates are on the same side if a more modern term such as civil unions can be accepted by all. This is not a liberal issue at all. It is just a new twist on the conservative notion of solving problems by encouraging the formation of strong family units.
Would you want to be on the hotseat or would you rather be writing his daily briefing?
By requiring a license to marry, they effectively took away the power of the churches to deny a legal marriage and gave it to the government. That's when it ceased being a religous activity in so many minds. Sure, we don't want churches denying couples the right to marry, but as a practical matter, they can't since starting a church in the USA isn't very hard, as long as you have a spiritual purpose and aren't into it for the money, and even that is debatable.
The government taking over the power to marry and deny marriage has devalued marriage more than anything Britany and the gays might have done. Indeed, it may have created the Hollywood or Las Vegas marriage by demoting the church marriage and all that premarital counseling to an optional activity. A pastor can refuse to marry a couple, but the clerk in the courthouse simply wants your money and evidence of a blood test.
I am not the one who defined marriage as having both a legal and spiritual component. That has been with humans for hundreds, maybe thousands of years. Although in American law, it has only been about 100 years due to our strong interest in separation of church and state. I think the legal benefits are the price paid for government to get involved in the marriage business.
Many people would call your secular ceremony a civil union precisely because it has no spiritual significance. It was the government that decided to give legal benefits to legally married people that it withholds from single people and other couples. Personally, I believe most people are better off paired up. Atheists, homosexuals, and even pink elephants benefit from being in a loving relationship.
Why haven't the gay rights activists attempted to revive the Equal Rights Amendment? Until that is ratified, it is legal for the government to discriminate along sexual lines whenever it would like. If men and women are equal under the law, then the government would be required to recognize same sex heads of households as having the same rights as different sex heads of households.
Few people object to people loving other people, and what adults do in bedrooms is private. But, marriage, as it exists today has both legal and spiritual aspects and Bush's authority is only over the government. If the government redefines marriage to only mean the implied legal contract between two people who form a household, it ignores the additional meanings beyond the legal contract.
If you carefully reread my comment, you will notice that I did not disagree with his position on gay marriage. But, he has no chance of bringing anyone to his side by insinuating that the only reason people would disagree with him is that they are stupid. That they "believe bullshit" from a "brain damaged monkey running around and throwing shit." He said nothing that indicates that he respects the intelligence of those who disagree with him. Even if they are wrong and stupid, which they aren't, you aren't going to change their minds with that kind of talk.
My position, which shouldn't matter since I was not disagreeing (or agreeing) with you (or him) is that the government should get out of the marriage business completely and that legal protections should exist for all committed living arrangements whether the adult family members have sex with each other or not (two spinsters who care for each other, for instance, but aren't physically intimate). Whether the union is also blessed by the church is another matter completely. I assume he was asking for legal recognition and protection by the government and not the blessing of a church. Bush is a government leader.
If that's your strongest argument, you aren't going to convince anyone who doesn't already agree with you.
I'm not saying you are wrong, just your argument isn't worth crap and I'm wondering how it got modded insightful. Someone must have confused it with inciteful.
The clerk at Kroger actually encouraged me to use the card without filling out the paperwork. They still benefit from tracking your purchases even if they don't know who you are. Just knowing that John Doe #45321 buys both beer and carrots every weekend is of some use to them.
Seems like a good spot to plug the movie "Back Draft".