I'm still waiting for a reasonable catalog of games for the GC, and now it's going to be obsolete. I can't even find what GC games there are on the shelves of my game shop. If backward compatibility isn't a feature of the new console, I won't be buying it.
That's not why drugs are illegal and you know it. The drug laws are based upon a certain view of moral/ethical issues not because of the public health consequences. You're just arguing the public health aspect now because you know you can't win the argument on the moral/ethical issues.
Surely the problem here is _what_ was communicated, not the medium that was used to communicate it? If these things had been arranged via a pay telephone it wouldn't be the anonymity that pay telephones allow that would need to be controlled?
"What I will say is that the idea that the teacher should keep up with you is somewhat ludicrous, especially in these days of over filled classrooms and underpaid teachers. No school can teach everyone individually at their speed of learning it isn't possible."
I sympathize with what you're getting at here, but mho is that another way of saying this (and the danger involved in this kind of thinking) is that were so busy doing a bad job educating everyone that we don't have time to do a good job educating anyone. And my experience in group learning situations, from nursery through university is that the speed that gets picked is either that of the slowest child in the class or of a mythical average child: they never say "we're going to teach at the speed of the fastest child in the class and everyone else is going to have to try and keep up." Whether you think this is good or not probably depends on where you fall on the curve, but it does seem wrong to value the slowing down of the fastest learners.
"What has EA gained by delaying their responsibility?"
If they have a responsibility, which is as doubtful as the AOL having a responsibility for something that is said in one of their chatrooms, and if what the prof is reporting is real and not just someone winding him up, and if EA actually has any useful information other than the name on the avatar's account, then presumably they've gained nothing in that particular case. But in general what they gain is the ability to provide a service that they would not be able to provide if they had to run down every detail that might be criminal, figure out if it's real, tie it to a person, and report it to law enforcement. Off the top of my head, it seems that people "confess" all kinds of illegal things in chatrooms (assaults, rapes, sodomies, thefts, etc.) and that, if the provider is responsible for reporting all of this to the police, chatrooms will simply not exist anymore. Can you imagine how this would work on, say, X-Box live? Would you have someone online listening to all the conversations, reporting anything that seems IRL suspicious while people are shooting each other with imaginary railguns?
All EA has is this guy's word (RTFA if you don't believe me) that he's talked to this avatar and that this avatar has told him that in real life he's done something bad. It's impossible that EA logs chats or has any means of investigating the claim. They're supposed to turn a paying customer in to the cops just because -another paying customer says so!-
What they've gained by "delaying their responsiblity" is the presumption of innocence for everyone using their service.
EA's not responsible for reporting anything. If the kid (RTFA if you don't know what I'm talking about) confessed to this philosophy prof that he'd beaten up his sister in a mall, it wouldn't be the mall's responsibility to tell the police. Just because EA supplied the software which enabled this kid to communicate with this prof. doesn't saddle them with any responsibility to do anything...
The prof, otoh, might have some legal duty to contact the authorities, but I don't think it's obvious that he does.
What are you thinking? The post above me expresses a completely legitimate, mainstream european view...
(btw, it's hard to know just how backward 'local culture' can be unless you've experienced it first-hand. It's not like in America-restaurants are open from 12-2 and 6-9. McDonald's does brisk business in many places because it's the _only_ place that's open at certain times, and that's not at all a bad thing.)
Plus, if it weren't for McDonalds and Starbucks, foreign tourists wouldn't have anywhere to use the bathroom...
apologies. Didn't get that you're not advocating such a situation, merely claiming that it's good for apple. Well, I agree, so disregard what I just said.
You really believe that it's better for the consumer (it's obviously better for the seller) for _no one_ to get a discount, than for some people to shop around and get a better price, and that others will feel bad about the price they got? With respect, that is completely absurd.
"Third, consistant pricing lets consumers buy without worrying that they're missing out on some great deal."
This is true until you realize that consistent pricing in this case is going to mean "consistently high." What you seem to be saying is that the fact that customers can't shop around for a better price is compensated for by the fact that they will feel emotionally better that no one else got a lower price either, which is absolute twaddle. Wouldn't you, as a consumer, rather have _a chance_ at a lower price coupled with the possibility of nuerotic regret at not having gotten the best price? Would you really rather have that situation than a chance at a lower price? Perhaps we should abolish marriage--you never know but that you might've done better; better not to have the chance at all...
My bias is anti-atkins (I tried it for a month, lost about ten pounds, felt terrible, and adopted a more reasonable calorie-counting diet which has lost me another 20 pounds), but the claim that the high-protein diets can cause permanent kidney damage is rubbish. It's just something that everyone repeats--there aren't any studies proving a link.
That said, Atkins works, and it almost certainly works because you are lowering calories and the fat and protein that you're eating is helping to suppress your appetite. When I was on the diet, I ate sirloin steaks for breakfast and lunch, because that's what I like to eat. But by four in the afternoon I was feeling pretty full and after some meaty dinner I wouldn't have eaten over about 1800-2000 calories on an average day (2700 maintains my weight).
IMHO the uncontested "man who understands the most" about low-carb diets is Lyle Mcdonald. Google his name or "ketogenic diet" and you'll find everything you want to know. Not that that'll simply stop people saying that it's bad for your kidneys, but whatever.
Slashdot Mirror
Mrs. Banjobear informs me that Paprika flavoured crisps taste just like American "Barbecue"-flavoured, in case anyone cares.
Ummm., that's not flamebait, given that the next 15 posts below this one all say essentially the same thing.
I'm still waiting for a reasonable catalog of games for the GC, and now it's going to be obsolete. I can't even find what GC games there are on the shelves of my game shop. If backward compatibility isn't a feature of the new console, I won't be buying it.
wocka wocka!
That's not why drugs are illegal and you know it. The drug laws are based upon a certain view of moral/ethical issues not because of the public health consequences. You're just arguing the public health aspect now because you know you can't win the argument on the moral/ethical issues.
Surely the problem here is _what_ was communicated, not the medium that was used to communicate it? If these things had been arranged via a pay telephone it wouldn't be the anonymity that pay telephones allow that would need to be controlled?
I'm just shy. ;-o
I sympathize with what you're getting at here, but mho is that another way of saying this (and the danger involved in this kind of thinking) is that were so busy doing a bad job educating everyone that we don't have time to do a good job educating anyone. And my experience in group learning situations, from nursery through university is that the speed that gets picked is either that of the slowest child in the class or of a mythical average child: they never say "we're going to teach at the speed of the fastest child in the class and everyone else is going to have to try and keep up." Whether you think this is good or not probably depends on where you fall on the curve, but it does seem wrong to value the slowing down of the fastest learners.
Not when there are more tens in the deck than low cards.
If I were a mod, I'd mod you up to 5 for that article, even if it was probably off-topic. :-)
I don't think that GPS is necessary for this; Japanese already has had distance left in the race, current speed, etc., all in real time for years.
"What has EA gained by delaying their responsibility?" If they have a responsibility, which is as doubtful as the AOL having a responsibility for something that is said in one of their chatrooms, and if what the prof is reporting is real and not just someone winding him up, and if EA actually has any useful information other than the name on the avatar's account, then presumably they've gained nothing in that particular case. But in general what they gain is the ability to provide a service that they would not be able to provide if they had to run down every detail that might be criminal, figure out if it's real, tie it to a person, and report it to law enforcement. Off the top of my head, it seems that people "confess" all kinds of illegal things in chatrooms (assaults, rapes, sodomies, thefts, etc.) and that, if the provider is responsible for reporting all of this to the police, chatrooms will simply not exist anymore. Can you imagine how this would work on, say, X-Box live? Would you have someone online listening to all the conversations, reporting anything that seems IRL suspicious while people are shooting each other with imaginary railguns? All EA has is this guy's word (RTFA if you don't believe me) that he's talked to this avatar and that this avatar has told him that in real life he's done something bad. It's impossible that EA logs chats or has any means of investigating the claim. They're supposed to turn a paying customer in to the cops just because -another paying customer says so!- What they've gained by "delaying their responsiblity" is the presumption of innocence for everyone using their service.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/3307743.stm
EA's not responsible for reporting anything. If the kid (RTFA if you don't know what I'm talking about) confessed to this philosophy prof that he'd beaten up his sister in a mall, it wouldn't be the mall's responsibility to tell the police. Just because EA supplied the software which enabled this kid to communicate with this prof. doesn't saddle them with any responsibility to do anything... The prof, otoh, might have some legal duty to contact the authorities, but I don't think it's obvious that he does.
" On the other hand, the same applies to prostitution." Again, why do you care? And why does anyone not a member of that culture deserve a vote?
What are you thinking? The post above me expresses a completely legitimate, mainstream european view... (btw, it's hard to know just how backward 'local culture' can be unless you've experienced it first-hand. It's not like in America-restaurants are open from 12-2 and 6-9. McDonald's does brisk business in many places because it's the _only_ place that's open at certain times, and that's not at all a bad thing.) Plus, if it weren't for McDonalds and Starbucks, foreign tourists wouldn't have anywhere to use the bathroom...
apologies. Didn't get that you're not advocating such a situation, merely claiming that it's good for apple. Well, I agree, so disregard what I just said.
You really believe that it's better for the consumer (it's obviously better for the seller) for _no one_ to get a discount, than for some people to shop around and get a better price, and that others will feel bad about the price they got? With respect, that is completely absurd.
"Third, consistant pricing lets consumers buy without worrying that they're missing out on some great deal." This is true until you realize that consistent pricing in this case is going to mean "consistently high." What you seem to be saying is that the fact that customers can't shop around for a better price is compensated for by the fact that they will feel emotionally better that no one else got a lower price either, which is absolute twaddle. Wouldn't you, as a consumer, rather have _a chance_ at a lower price coupled with the possibility of nuerotic regret at not having gotten the best price? Would you really rather have that situation than a chance at a lower price? Perhaps we should abolish marriage--you never know but that you might've done better; better not to have the chance at all...
My bias is anti-atkins (I tried it for a month, lost about ten pounds, felt terrible, and adopted a more reasonable calorie-counting diet which has lost me another 20 pounds), but the claim that the high-protein diets can cause permanent kidney damage is rubbish. It's just something that everyone repeats--there aren't any studies proving a link. That said, Atkins works, and it almost certainly works because you are lowering calories and the fat and protein that you're eating is helping to suppress your appetite. When I was on the diet, I ate sirloin steaks for breakfast and lunch, because that's what I like to eat. But by four in the afternoon I was feeling pretty full and after some meaty dinner I wouldn't have eaten over about 1800-2000 calories on an average day (2700 maintains my weight). IMHO the uncontested "man who understands the most" about low-carb diets is Lyle Mcdonald. Google his name or "ketogenic diet" and you'll find everything you want to know. Not that that'll simply stop people saying that it's bad for your kidneys, but whatever.