Social networking sites are not an ancillary thing to some, but increasingly a part of people's social lives, by which they share experiences with their friends, keep up to date, arrange events and make new friends.Why should work suppress someones social life outside of working hours, or even before they even apply for the job as you say?
I've occasionally remarked that the nice thing about UNIX systems, in comparison to Windows ones, is that when I tell my UNIX box to do something it doesn't bother me with questions, it just does what I tell it to. The downside to this is that when I tell my UNIX box to do something, it doesn't bother me with questions, it just does what I tell it to do.
That's an extremely interesting post. I have never heard that take on things before now. It sounds good and I'd be interested if you have any sources you can point to for further reading / verification. One thing that occurs to me with the above, is that one of the concerns of the advisors in Russia would be that the USSR couldn't afford to create such a system even if the technology was available. They had already expended vast resources on simply keeping up with the US in terms of missiles (however stupid that sounds given the destructive capacity of even one nuclear missile). I wonder if that might have been a factor.
However, in voting for a third party, he is voting against the two party system which is the problem. Increasing the share the vote received by third parties reduces the consequences of the two party equilibrium. You'll never get a third choice so long as you keep accepting one of the first two you're offered.
To some extent, all this notion of binding politicians to their election pledges is treating the symptom of a larger problem - lack of choice. When you are offered two similar (by European standards) people and given only an option of picking one or the other, particularly when political affiliation is such a dwelled on part of people's identity, how much consequence is there really for the candidate that breaks promises.
Two things need to happen: One, US citizens need to be willing to vote for third party candidates. Two, they need to stop pretending that it's somehow weak or wrong to change their minds so that they can say: "I think I'm going to vote for a different party this year because they're more in line with my beliefs this time around." This "I am an X" proudness needs to stop because it's shamelessly taken advantage of.
I didn't realise that a good diet was the exclusive preserve of the Caucasian. Okay, they might have a better diet in the US in general, but I'm pretty sure that's just economic. I think Cerebus the Aardvark put it best: "Rich men are usually rich men first, and whatever else they might be second."
When are people going to learn to assess politicians and parties on their actions, rather than their promises? Those that might have really introduced change have already been weeded out. Vote for the puppet of your choice, folks.
Knives are this month's hysteria in the UK. That's not to say there isn't a problem with knife use in the UK. And it isn't to say that videos on YouTube can't be used for intimidation of specific people and so should be removed in such cases. But one day, the media suddenly went into a feeding frenzy, police chiefs were trotting out their most ridiculous arrays or seized weapons (including a photo of a Star Trek replica weapon at one point) and Home Secretaries were trying to look all grave and serious talking about the knife epidemic sweeping our nation.
It may be a serious issue. But it's definitely something that Labour are trying to use for political gain and as a fear stick.
I didn't distort anything. You said it was a joke for Microsoft to include African or Indian people in their ad. But there are many African and Indian users of Windows so why exclude them? I haven't seen many Macs in Africa quite frankly.
And I don't know why you raised a distinction over piracy. It doesn't even make a difference to the point of the ad if someone has a pirated copy or not - they're still Windows users not any other sort. If you really feel that the "percentage of Windows OS installed that are pirated copies" makes a difference, I'd actually say that per person, there are more pirated copies of Windows floating around the UK and the USA than there are in most African countries. After all, you need the hardware to run it on. And that's another area in which Microsoft can emphasise their inclusiveness with this ad. The collage of people showed a much wider range of income brackets than you would expect with a Mac. If you have a little cybercafe in a less populous part of North Africa, you're not going to be filling it with Macs, it's going to be Windows machines.
So please don't falsely accuse me of distorting your meaning. I responded to exactly what you said.
What part of: "I'm not going to debate this. Its a perception and with people perception is 90% truth" Did you fail to understand?
Well, perhaps he's writing for the benefit of the thousands of us out here reading the comments. If you state your case you have to expect people to point out any flaws in it and saying you don't care to debate it any further isn't going to stop people doing so just because you don't feel like defending your case against them.
So the you realize it's a joke - or another load of royal M$ BS - when they portray Indians and Africans in that commercial.
India is about to land an explorer on the Moon and I don't know what computer systems you think are predominantly used by most African nations but I'm reasonably confident in stating that it's not Macs. So you tell me why it's "bullshit" that there should be Indian or African people in that ad shown as Windows users.
Because what confused the hell out of me was "And for anyone who ever used to watch the British TV show in which these characters appeared together (before they turned into computers)".
The characters of "Mac" and "PC" in the adverts were essentially the same characters that the actors played in "Peep Show," a series which preceded the ads. The character played by the PC actor was a boring and rather sad loser. His friend (only through lack of options, really), was a tosser who thought he was God's Gift and was pretty mean to him. Thus for anyone who used to watch this series, they have indeed seen these characters before and thus the ad campaign is flawed for such people. Apple may be trying to present PC as boring, but they also present Mac as a waster and a tosser.
And no, it's seriously unlikely to get a mainstream US showing due to lack of moral overtones, lack of tastefulness and aforementioned lack of laugh track. You should track it down and try it and then you'll see what I mean about the ads.
I always thought the basic message of the "I'm a Mac/PC" ads was that PCs inhibit your ability to get things done and Macs make it easier. [...]
I can't see how you got the reverse out of those ads.
Quite easily in my case. The very first adverts began with "PC" saying things like I can do spreadsheets, I can create a pie chart and "Mac" responding with "yeah, but I can play your favourite music and let you create image collections to show your friends" etc. The message was strongly about usefulness vs. "fun." (I've inverted 'fun' because it's the Apple definition, not mine - I like spreadsheets). I think one of the latest ones had "Mac" saying how he could run MS Office just as well as a PC, but this didn't really counter the overall message and was factually innaccurate as well. My favourite ad of this kind was the Linux one: Link
Personally I don't think you can draw a hard line between whether the adverts stereotyped the computers or their users. For me, the latter seemed quite obvious and I have no doubt that many others took things the same way. After all - the Apple ads played extensively from the very start on what the computers were used for. If that's not an extension of their users then you'll be hard pushed to find something that is.
And for anyone who ever used to watch the British TV show in which these characters appeared together (before they turned into computers), the message is even further removed from what Apple presumably intend, because the character that became the Apple was an absolute arsehole to people.
They did do a fair job. It's half just brand awareness and half sending the message that PCs are used by a vast array of different people - which they are. The Apple ad was insulting to PC users (for those that cared). The Windows ad actually takes a higher moral ground in that it doesn't say anything negative about Apples. It just says 'we're here and we're used by a lot of different people.' The posters here acting so hysterically outraged and crying what a terrible advert this is would be saying the same or worse about any advert Windows released. It's not going to re-write the world of advertising, but it's not the mind-scarring horror that people here are acting like it is.
For me, it's possibly a better advert than the Apple ones, the basic message of which I took to be: Macs are designed for goofing around showing off your photos, and PCs are for actually getting anything done.
At the time of writing, all of these links (yours and the GPs) are simply timing out with no response from the server. A quick look up showed that several of them are just aliases for the original wikileaks site. Not all though. Slashdotted or DOS'd by Sinister Forces?
We need a torrent of this. The beauty of a torrent is the way demand increases availability. Someone must have it and can put a torrent up.
Anonymous is doing this entirely to feed their own egos.
Anonymous most likely are doing this because they got lucky. I would guess hack attempts are made at a number of public and political figures. If they have a successful strike, then I'd expect them to run with it. I wouldn't overplay the deliberateness of this.On the other hand if a possible vice- or actual president is daft enough to have unencrypted emails floating round a public system, then it's hardly surprising those emails surface. And anyone can be Anonymous - that's it's greatest strength (even more so than the technical competence of some of its members).
Now if they have found that she was conducting official business through private email accounts and was doing so to avoid scrutiny, then that is interesting.
You are correct. It is tragic and painful to anyone with a soul. Unfortunately, that's what happens.
Nothing "just happens." Or do you think that nearly a hundred thousand people dying doesn't really have a cause, it's just "what happens."
Many innocent people died in the US Revolutionary War. Many more died in the US Civil War. Were their lives worth it? I'm afraid I must say yes.
So many wrongs happen in the world because someone decides that someone else's life is "worth it." What do you think those people would say if they could be asked? Isn't the person whose life it is the most entitled to say whether their life is worth giving up for something or not? Seriously - try and answer that question.
Does the Jewish descendant of a holocaust survivor think that the millions that died fighting the Nazis were worth it?
It might upset your sense of post-action rationale, but the murder of Jewish people in Nazi controlled areas was not the motivating factor for either the UK or the USA to get involved in the war. The US didn't even know that there was systematic genocide going on until Allied forces started pushing their way into Germany. If you honestly believe that either that or the US occupation of Iraq is about protecting ethnic groups then you need to be reading some more factual history books.
Slashdot Mirror
Social networking sites are not an ancillary thing to some, but increasingly a part of people's social lives, by which they share experiences with their friends, keep up to date, arrange events and make new friends.Why should work suppress someones social life outside of working hours, or even before they even apply for the job as you say?
I've occasionally remarked that the nice thing about UNIX systems, in comparison to Windows ones, is that when I tell my UNIX box to do something it doesn't bother me with questions, it just does what I tell it to. The downside to this is that when I tell my UNIX box to do something, it doesn't bother me with questions, it just does what I tell it to do.
That's an extremely interesting post. I have never heard that take on things before now. It sounds good and I'd be interested if you have any sources you can point to for further reading / verification. One thing that occurs to me with the above, is that one of the concerns of the advisors in Russia would be that the USSR couldn't afford to create such a system even if the technology was available. They had already expended vast resources on simply keeping up with the US in terms of missiles (however stupid that sounds given the destructive capacity of even one nuclear missile). I wonder if that might have been a factor.
However, in voting for a third party, he is voting against the two party system which is the problem. Increasing the share the vote received by third parties reduces the consequences of the two party equilibrium. You'll never get a third choice so long as you keep accepting one of the first two you're offered.
Mate - I ain't disputing it. :)
To some extent, all this notion of binding politicians to their election pledges is treating the symptom of a larger problem - lack of choice. When you are offered two similar (by European standards) people and given only an option of picking one or the other, particularly when political affiliation is such a dwelled on part of people's identity, how much consequence is there really for the candidate that breaks promises.
Two things need to happen: One, US citizens need to be willing to vote for third party candidates. Two, they need to stop pretending that it's somehow weak or wrong to change their minds so that they can say: "I think I'm going to vote for a different party this year because they're more in line with my beliefs this time around." This "I am an X" proudness needs to stop because it's shamelessly taken advantage of.
I didn't realise that a good diet was the exclusive preserve of the Caucasian. Okay, they might have a better diet in the US in general, but I'm pretty sure that's just economic. I think Cerebus the Aardvark put it best: "Rich men are usually rich men first, and whatever else they might be second."
When are people going to learn to assess politicians and parties on their actions, rather than their promises? Those that might have really introduced change have already been weeded out. Vote for the puppet of your choice, folks.
Ain't that just like an american, to bring guns to a knife discussion.
Knives are this month's hysteria in the UK. That's not to say there isn't a problem with knife use in the UK. And it isn't to say that videos on YouTube can't be used for intimidation of specific people and so should be removed in such cases. But one day, the media suddenly went into a feeding frenzy, police chiefs were trotting out their most ridiculous arrays or seized weapons (including a photo of a Star Trek replica weapon at one point) and Home Secretaries were trying to look all grave and serious talking about the knife epidemic sweeping our nation.
It may be a serious issue. But it's definitely something that Labour are trying to use for political gain and as a fear stick.
I didn't distort anything. You said it was a joke for Microsoft to include African or Indian people in their ad. But there are many African and Indian users of Windows so why exclude them? I haven't seen many Macs in Africa quite frankly.
And I don't know why you raised a distinction over piracy. It doesn't even make a difference to the point of the ad if someone has a pirated copy or not - they're still Windows users not any other sort. If you really feel that the "percentage of Windows OS installed that are pirated copies" makes a difference, I'd actually say that per person, there are more pirated copies of Windows floating around the UK and the USA than there are in most African countries. After all, you need the hardware to run it on. And that's another area in which Microsoft can emphasise their inclusiveness with this ad. The collage of people showed a much wider range of income brackets than you would expect with a Mac. If you have a little cybercafe in a less populous part of North Africa, you're not going to be filling it with Macs, it's going to be Windows machines.
So please don't falsely accuse me of distorting your meaning. I responded to exactly what you said.
India is about to land an explorer on the Moon and I don't know what computer systems you think are predominantly used by most African nations but I'm reasonably confident in stating that it's not Macs. So you tell me why it's "bullshit" that there should be Indian or African people in that ad shown as Windows users.
The Mac ads were already an insult to people running Windows. It didn't take until this Microsoft ad to make me think that!
Quite easily in my case. The very first adverts began with "PC" saying things like I can do spreadsheets, I can create a pie chart and "Mac" responding with "yeah, but I can play your favourite music and let you create image collections to show your friends" etc. The message was strongly about usefulness vs. "fun." (I've inverted 'fun' because it's the Apple definition, not mine - I like spreadsheets). I think one of the latest ones had "Mac" saying how he could run MS Office just as well as a PC, but this didn't really counter the overall message and was factually innaccurate as well. My favourite ad of this kind was the Linux one: Link
Personally I don't think you can draw a hard line between whether the adverts stereotyped the computers or their users. For me, the latter seemed quite obvious and I have no doubt that many others took things the same way. After all - the Apple ads played extensively from the very start on what the computers were used for. If that's not an extension of their users then you'll be hard pushed to find something that is.
And for anyone who ever used to watch the British TV show in which these characters appeared together (before they turned into computers), the message is even further removed from what Apple presumably intend, because the character that became the Apple was an absolute arsehole to people.
They did do a fair job. It's half just brand awareness and half sending the message that PCs are used by a vast array of different people - which they are. The Apple ad was insulting to PC users (for those that cared). The Windows ad actually takes a higher moral ground in that it doesn't say anything negative about Apples. It just says 'we're here and we're used by a lot of different people.' The posters here acting so hysterically outraged and crying what a terrible advert this is would be saying the same or worse about any advert Windows released. It's not going to re-write the world of advertising, but it's not the mind-scarring horror that people here are acting like it is.
For me, it's possibly a better advert than the Apple ones, the basic message of which I took to be: Macs are designed for goofing around showing off your photos, and PCs are for actually getting anything done.
Arrrr! I be having a better link than ye!
Pirate Song!
Nor I, but if there be buxom wenches ahoy, I be in!
Arrrr!
I think the mods have said it better than I could.
Timely work Stinerman,
-H.
At the time of writing, all of these links (yours and the GPs) are simply timing out with no response from the server. A quick look up showed that several of them are just aliases for the original wikileaks site. Not all though. Slashdotted or DOS'd by Sinister Forces?
We need a torrent of this. The beauty of a torrent is the way demand increases availability. Someone must have it and can put a torrent up.
Anonymous most likely are doing this because they got lucky. I would guess hack attempts are made at a number of public and political figures. If they have a successful strike, then I'd expect them to run with it. I wouldn't overplay the deliberateness of this.On the other hand if a possible vice- or actual president is daft enough to have unencrypted emails floating round a public system, then it's hardly surprising those emails surface. And anyone can be Anonymous - that's it's greatest strength (even more so than the technical competence of some of its members).
Now if they have found that she was conducting official business through private email accounts and was doing so to avoid scrutiny, then that is interesting.
Link if you have it, please.
Nothing "just happens." Or do you think that nearly a hundred thousand people dying doesn't really have a cause, it's just "what happens."