And then you have to update all the accounts that use that address. And then there's knowing that some people will fail to update their address book even though you've told them. Documents and emails that you've sent out previously will still have your old address on and you know that somebody is going to use one of those emails to reply to with something important. Updating your email account can be a right pain.
Yeah. Urging people to use your product is so totally illegal.
Are you joking? When Microsoft used their dominance in the desktop OS market to make Internet Explorer the default browser they were found guilty of breaking Anti Trust laws. This is similar in principle - use dominance in one area (ad supported email accounts) to promote business in a different area (browser technology). There are indeed laws that make it "so totally illegal" to promote your product at the expense of others.
... which is probably why Google recommended Firefox alongside Chrome, because otherwise they would have recommended just Chrome.
I think Google's main aim is to get people off the IE series, they care less about which browser replaces it for the time being. After all, Google are major funders of the Mozilla project giving them a lot of say so in how it is set up and the direction it goes in (e.g. that Google is the default search option in Firefox is at their request).
its so antitrust that win2k doesnt support ie6. i suppose microsoft is reeking of 'antitrust' against itself too....
you were SO enthusiastic to drop a knee jerk comment, you havent even read the 2 people replied to the parent did you.
And you are so eager to 'correct' someone that you didn't think you're comment through at all (or proof-read for grammar). It is IE7 that is not supported on Win2k, IE6 works fine (well, as fine as it does anywhere.;) ). So you are wrong on your basic point. However, what I think you are trying to say is that IE7 doesn't work on Win2k and that this is somehow in contradiction to what I said. It isn't, though I invite you to explain how. Google is telling people to stop using IE6 and move to either Firefox or Chrome (which also isn't supported on Win2k, as it happens). Notable as a glaring omission is Google's rival's browser IE7. Google are using their influence in one area (ad-supported email accounts) to promote their products in a different market (browsers) at cost to their rival's product. That's anti-trust.
Please don't accuse me of knee-jerk responses. My post is more accurate than yours and reasoned through well-enough, I hope.
Yeah. Stinks of anti-trust. I can well imagine the condemnation if Hotmail subscribers were being told to ditch Firefox and go to IE7. IE7 being a more natural progression for users of IE6 due to familiarity.
No the moral of the story is if Microsoft's actions are even potentially open to not being condemned (i.e. preventing the loss of billions of dollars of revenue), then tack on a completely separate story just in case.
If you read my post, you'll see that I was castigating the person who said she was a bitch (amongst other things) for making assumptions without any evidence. And your criticism of me is that I should be making assumptions? Rather a flawed criticism.
So, your entire post was a waste, you're still wrong, and now you look pathetic for making stupid arguments that don't even address the point in question.
You've just demonstrated a fundamental lack of awareness of what the point in question is, so I'll not be too bothered if you think I don't address it. Also, chill.
Nice try though, and by nice try I mean, you're incredibly fucking stupid.
Except in cooperative games there's no location and no ownership. A social order based on merit, not a pecking order based on who's footing the paycheck.
Which can precisely be the problem if the natural, merit-based pecking order is at odds with the imposed hierarchy. I've known enough managers that found themselves in the difficult position of being the natural second fiddle to some of those they were supposed to be managing. One of them handled it well in paying great attention to what they were told and learning rapidly. The other was so well respected for the areas that they were more suitable to lead on that it wasn't an issue. The rest of them all handled it by being complete arseholes to their staff.
Work is an unnatural hierarchy most of the time. There is none of the evening out of status over time that occurs in natural groups. The loop of feedback is distorted by power (in both directions). That is why it is often best to keep a strict boundary between the work and life, unless one wants to consider your manager your superior in your social life as well.
. As a bonus, you'll have paid for your attorney's next vacation, and possibly retirement (providing one fewer attorney to worry about if only for a while)
LOL! Love the way you keep an eye on the bigger picture!:D
People who can rationalize unjustified physical contact and who also happen to posess an excitable, emotional disposition combined with poor logic skills frighten and disgust me.
The tone of the post you are replying to is very far from overly emotional and excitable. The logic is actually good and well supported. The composition is well-thought out.
Very noble of you. But everyone else I know who pirates music and movies does so with an appreciation for no longer having to buy the product. And I know quite a lot of people who pirate.
Amen. And what's with "Techies have a serious communication problem. They believe in free without copyright, right to pirate, etc, etc."
I've been known to write the odd device driver amongst other things, so I reckon I've earnt the title of techie (if I want it). I don't agree with abolition of copyright or a "right to piracy" and nor do many other people working in the field of IT. Don't pretend to talk for others. And communication problem? Says who? You think that the government not having overturned copyright is due to proponents not having communicated their desires well enough? Could it not be because some disagree that this is a good thing?
The difficulty in recognising intelligence might be even greater than you suggest above. I once read a comic book called the Invisibles in which a question was proposed - how would a civilisation far more advanced than our own communicate with us? It was a rhetorical question in the context, the implication being that it would not engage us as individuals, but as a society as a whole - e.g. it could introduce memes, technologies and knowledge to our species. Imagine the difficulty of humanity when the alien creature(s) declined or did not perceive at all our attempts at individual communication, responding only in the form of species-wide communiques. Would be a bit of a humbler for presidents and prime ministers.:)
We wont know what difficulties we might face in communicating with a different intelligent species, but it could be immensely productive finding out.
It's a shame this AC is AC and consequently appears lower than myself karma-wise. The points are well put. Seizing on a reference to Nazism and saying "Godwin's Law" as if it ends an argument, as a means of avoiding confronting the points made, does not mean you clicked some "I Win" button on the Internet. Who really cares that you choose not to discuss something any further because a reference to Nazism was made? It's no more legitimate than you simply saying "you're wrong 'cause I say so and I'm not going to talk anymore."
I see by the verbosity of your response that I touched a nerve. Try to work it out in therapy.
I see by the brevity of yours you prefer not to engage the poster's actual arguments and prefer to rely on taunts. This in response to some people disagreeing with you in an online forum! Your response, scaled down, is worse than the OP throwing her notebook at her manager. She had just had her employment and source of income terminated by someone who disliked her religious position and responded to that person with something orders of magnitude less damaging (unless she's a ninja and can kill people with notebooks). You're getting well-explained criticism and responding with abuse and character attacks.
You weren't there, know neither person and cannot support comments like "were probably canned for being a bitch." You should consider whether you may have spoken a bit too glibly and move on.
The person who threw the notebook had just had their job taken from them whist those less deserving kept theirs, for the not sharing his employer's religious beliefs. I would consider on the balance of wrongs done to each other, that outweighs throwing a notebook and spouting off by several orders of magnitude. One might even consider throwing a notebook (not generally the most dangerous of objects) and some verbal abuse a pretty mild response to an action that probably caused significant life upheaval and financial loss. I wasn't there, the poster I was replying to wasn't there. But a pretty bold statement was made by that poster nonetheless.
We should selectively breed some octopi for greater life span. They are beautiful and fascinating creatures and it would be wonderful if we had some longer lived ones to watch and spend time with.
Out of curiosity, what did your links say at the time you posted them? The second one now comes up with nothing and the first gives only a brief reference to someone having been a member of the Church of Scientology since before starting the company.
Meditiation does *not* need a religious basis, though many religions incorporate meditation into their practices. However, even without religious context, it is wrong to demand that employees should participate in mental training exercises. Employment must be based on whether the employee does their work, not on how they choose to think.
All that said, even if something can't be explicitly required, working in an environment that is filled with members of the Church of Scientology and where the management consists of such, must cause problems to the free people who would be under pressure and intimidation from the rest.
If someone has never done any serious meditiative or spiritual practice before, then the mental states it is possible to induce in oneself will probably come as quite a shock and quite possibly be a very profound moment. But when people aren't aware that such mental states can be achieved through a variety of religious, spiritual or even purely psychological frameworks, then it's all too easy for some unscrupulous organisation to get that person to believe the experiences are tied to that organisation, that they possess some hidden truth.
In short, as well as all the very negative techniques Scientology uses, it mixes in a few that ought to be useful and beneficial to the practitioner and tells them Scientology is the only route to these.
Slashdot Mirror
And then you have to update all the accounts that use that address. And then there's knowing that some people will fail to update their address book even though you've told them. Documents and emails that you've sent out previously will still have your old address on and you know that somebody is going to use one of those emails to reply to with something important. Updating your email account can be a right pain.
Are you joking? When Microsoft used their dominance in the desktop OS market to make Internet Explorer the default browser they were found guilty of breaking Anti Trust laws. This is similar in principle - use dominance in one area (ad supported email accounts) to promote business in a different area (browser technology). There are indeed laws that make it "so totally illegal" to promote your product at the expense of others.
I think Google's main aim is to get people off the IE series, they care less about which browser replaces it for the time being. After all, Google are major funders of the Mozilla project giving them a lot of say so in how it is set up and the direction it goes in (e.g. that Google is the default search option in Firefox is at their request).
And you are so eager to 'correct' someone that you didn't think you're comment through at all (or proof-read for grammar). It is IE7 that is not supported on Win2k, IE6 works fine (well, as fine as it does anywhere. ;) ). So you are wrong on your basic point. However, what I think you are trying to say is that IE7 doesn't work on Win2k and that this is somehow in contradiction to what I said. It isn't, though I invite you to explain how. Google is telling people to stop using IE6 and move to either Firefox or Chrome (which also isn't supported on Win2k, as it happens). Notable as a glaring omission is Google's rival's browser IE7. Google are using their influence in one area (ad-supported email accounts) to promote their products in a different market (browsers) at cost to their rival's product. That's anti-trust.
Please don't accuse me of knee-jerk responses. My post is more accurate than yours and reasoned through well-enough, I hope.
Yeah. Stinks of anti-trust. I can well imagine the condemnation if Hotmail subscribers were being told to ditch Firefox and go to IE7. IE7 being a more natural progression for users of IE6 due to familiarity.
No the moral of the story is if Microsoft's actions are even potentially open to not being condemned (i.e. preventing the loss of billions of dollars of revenue), then tack on a completely separate story just in case.
If you read my post, you'll see that I was castigating the person who said she was a bitch (amongst other things) for making assumptions without any evidence. And your criticism of me is that I should be making assumptions? Rather a flawed criticism.
You've just demonstrated a fundamental lack of awareness of what the point in question is, so I'll not be too bothered if you think I don't address it. Also, chill.
I'm sorry you feel that way.
Which can precisely be the problem if the natural, merit-based pecking order is at odds with the imposed hierarchy. I've known enough managers that found themselves in the difficult position of being the natural second fiddle to some of those they were supposed to be managing. One of them handled it well in paying great attention to what they were told and learning rapidly. The other was so well respected for the areas that they were more suitable to lead on that it wasn't an issue. The rest of them all handled it by being complete arseholes to their staff.
Work is an unnatural hierarchy most of the time. There is none of the evening out of status over time that occurs in natural groups. The loop of feedback is distorted by power (in both directions). That is why it is often best to keep a strict boundary between the work and life, unless one wants to consider your manager your superior in your social life as well.
LOL! Love the way you keep an eye on the bigger picture! :D
The tone of the post you are replying to is very far from overly emotional and excitable. The logic is actually good and well supported. The composition is well-thought out.
Very noble of you. But everyone else I know who pirates music and movies does so with an appreciation for no longer having to buy the product. And I know quite a lot of people who pirate.
Amen. And what's with "Techies have a serious communication problem. They believe in free without copyright, right to pirate, etc, etc."
I've been known to write the odd device driver amongst other things, so I reckon I've earnt the title of techie (if I want it). I don't agree with abolition of copyright or a "right to piracy" and nor do many other people working in the field of IT. Don't pretend to talk for others. And communication problem? Says who? You think that the government not having overturned copyright is due to proponents not having communicated their desires well enough? Could it not be because some disagree that this is a good thing?
The difficulty in recognising intelligence might be even greater than you suggest above. I once read a comic book called the Invisibles in which a question was proposed - how would a civilisation far more advanced than our own communicate with us? It was a rhetorical question in the context, the implication being that it would not engage us as individuals, but as a society as a whole - e.g. it could introduce memes, technologies and knowledge to our species. Imagine the difficulty of humanity when the alien creature(s) declined or did not perceive at all our attempts at individual communication, responding only in the form of species-wide communiques. Would be a bit of a humbler for presidents and prime ministers.
We wont know what difficulties we might face in communicating with a different intelligent species, but it could be immensely productive finding out.
It's a shame this AC is AC and consequently appears lower than myself karma-wise. The points are well put. Seizing on a reference to Nazism and saying "Godwin's Law" as if it ends an argument, as a means of avoiding confronting the points made, does not mean you clicked some "I Win" button on the Internet. Who really cares that you choose not to discuss something any further because a reference to Nazism was made? It's no more legitimate than you simply saying "you're wrong 'cause I say so and I'm not going to talk anymore."
Hmmm.... Looking at recent human governments I have one thing to say: "I VOTE FOR THE OCTOPUS!"
So she does. But I suspect she'd just think of me as a creature with no personality and far too many arms.
(though that is only half-right).
I see by the brevity of yours you prefer not to engage the poster's actual arguments and prefer to rely on taunts. This in response to some people disagreeing with you in an online forum! Your response, scaled down, is worse than the OP throwing her notebook at her manager. She had just had her employment and source of income terminated by someone who disliked her religious position and responded to that person with something orders of magnitude less damaging (unless she's a ninja and can kill people with notebooks). You're getting well-explained criticism and responding with abuse and character attacks.
You weren't there, know neither person and cannot support comments like "were probably canned for being a bitch." You should consider whether you may have spoken a bit too glibly and move on.
Regards,
H.
The person who threw the notebook had just had their job taken from them whist those less deserving kept theirs, for the not sharing his employer's religious beliefs. I would consider on the balance of wrongs done to each other, that outweighs throwing a notebook and spouting off by several orders of magnitude. One might even consider throwing a notebook (not generally the most dangerous of objects) and some verbal abuse a pretty mild response to an action that probably caused significant life upheaval and financial loss. I wasn't there, the poster I was replying to wasn't there. But a pretty bold statement was made by that poster nonetheless.
We should selectively breed some octopi for greater life span. They are beautiful and fascinating creatures and it would be wonderful if we had some longer lived ones to watch and spend time with.
Out of curiosity, what did your links say at the time you posted them? The second one now comes up with nothing and the first gives only a brief reference to someone having been a member of the Church of Scientology since before starting the company.
Rottweillers and chihuahuas are both dogs, but I know which one I'd rather got its teeth into me. I think that's the point that's being made.
You don't have to be crazy to join a cult, just vulnerable. And that's all of us at some point.
Knowing neither person, your willingness to make an assumption one way or the other says more about you than it does about anyone else.
Meditiation does *not* need a religious basis, though many religions incorporate meditation into their practices. However, even without religious context, it is wrong to demand that employees should participate in mental training exercises. Employment must be based on whether the employee does their work, not on how they choose to think.
All that said, even if something can't be explicitly required, working in an environment that is filled with members of the Church of Scientology and where the management consists of such, must cause problems to the free people who would be under pressure and intimidation from the rest.
If someone has never done any serious meditiative or spiritual practice before, then the mental states it is possible to induce in oneself will probably come as quite a shock and quite possibly be a very profound moment. But when people aren't aware that such mental states can be achieved through a variety of religious, spiritual or even purely psychological frameworks, then it's all too easy for some unscrupulous organisation to get that person to believe the experiences are tied to that organisation, that they possess some hidden truth.
In short, as well as all the very negative techniques Scientology uses, it mixes in a few that ought to be useful and beneficial to the practitioner and tells them Scientology is the only route to these.