Something bothers me about the nature of civil suits and monetary awards in this country.
Why is it that we make it a habit of running off with as much money as we possibly can from a lawsuit?
The purpose of suing for this sort of stuff should be twofold: 1) to regulate company action by means of threat and penalty AND 2) reparations. Nowhere in those two clauses do I find any justification for "screwing the other guy over because he did it to me first."
It seems to me that few suits are about that anymore. While its true that you are entitled to sue if a company takes advantage of you, often times the rabidity with which "wronged" plaintiffs style their demands leads me to wonder if they are simply taking advantage of the momentary shift in power.
In that scenario, it's no longer about punishing the one who took advantage of you because he could. It's about turning around and taking full advantage of him, because now you can.
Looks like I'm already picking up language habits from the show.
I recently started using the term "frack(ing)" as a substitute for the notorious four letter phenomenon. I really had no clue where I picked it up and assumed it was a popular term.
Anyway, I was reading the blog and to my utmost amazement, here's what I found:
Why "frack"? Where did the idea come from to make this the new F-word? Not that I don't like it, I find it amusing."
It's straight out of the original series. I dropped many other terms from the old show like "centon" (a unit of measurement) and "yahren" (year) because I felt they distracted from the mood I was trying to create and they sounded a bit silly to my ear. There was something elegantly lovely about "frak," however. There's nothing like being able to say my favorite four letter word on TV over and over again and I salute Glen Larson for giving the joys of frakking up, frakking off, not giving a frak, and frakking-A to the masses.
Well, now I know where I picked it up, and now I know not to say it too much in public:)
That makes it my #2 favorite SciFi word (after grok).
Yeah, SciFi fridays make up the bulk of my TV viewing time per week.
I'm glued to the TV from 11 PM to 2 AM (EST) watching Stargate, Stargate Atlantis, and Battlestar Galactica.
Other than that, only times I watch TV are if I manage to catch The Daily Show during the weekdays, or if there's something interesting on C-SPAN on Sundays (I'm a history/political science major, go figure).
Re:Ripping off Ayn Rand... sort off
on
Blink, Take 2
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
"I'm not conciously trying to decide each and every word I am typing (and mispelling - yes, I know)."
Hmm...not so sure about that. How could anyone misspell the word "arise" unless they were doing it deliberately? Looks like your example is bust:0
I hope that means you're lying - the alternative is rather scary:)
Oh and in response to your actual comment...Wouldn't there be some theoretical point at which you would actually start automizing these assessments? So, before you've automized such things, you would consciously look at someone's hair, nose size, height, hair color, facial expression, neatness, etc. in order to develop opinions about them? Only time this could happy is childhood...and, well, I don't know about that;)
Anyway, it reminds me of Hume's explanation for the emergence of cause and effect relationships - mainly, the habit of associating two things together (remember, Hume said that all knowledge comes from experience, as opposed to say Descartes who thought that the mind was the source of all knowledge).
Pretty little problem...
on
Blink, Take 2
·
· Score: 2, Funny
"When I finished this book I was impressed. Then I blinked -- and realized that I was taken in by its surface attractiveness. After the initial glamour wore off, I was left deeply unsatisfied."
Maybe Gladwell was banking on people learning to trust their first instincts after reading his book.
Since you obviously chose to second guess your first assessment of the book, it's pretty clear that you didn't pick up on Gladwell's meaning.
It's irrelevant whether or not your second assessment is more correct than your first - how dare you second guess yourself after reading through an entire book that tells you how great your instincts are!
Looks like you're in a fix there, buddy;)
( Yes, I'm being facetious...thanks for the review I'll now second guess my planned decision to buy this book)
"When I multiply numbers together, I see two shapes. The image starts to change and evolve, and a third shape emerges. That's the answer. It's mental imagery. It's like maths without having to think."
I don't understand. There is nothing intrinsic in the number 2 and the number 5 that will tell you what they will equal when they are multiplied.
The way we arrive at the solution is extrinsic, namely in the form of the operator (multiplication in this instance).
But if it's extrinsic, I don't understand what the author of the article means by "instinct" and "shapes" and that sort of thing. As far as I can understand, the only explanation would be the ability to compute those operations at much higher speed, then any "non-savant."
If that's the case, then, theoretically, would there not be a limit associated with the physical properties of the nervous system that would cap out at a certain number of such operations per unit time? So theoretically might we not be able to test such a thing by running him through a long list of operations? That'll let us know if he's really just making those calculations really, really fast, or if he really is viewing the mathematics in such a fundamentally different way (something I find rather unsettling).
Then again, how would we design such a test? I fear that the number of operations we can demand his brain to perform per unit time will be limited by his powers of cognition (i.e. by the time he reads/hears all the stuff he needs to hear, we'll already be beyond that critical operating time interval).
Eh, I think I come off as somewhat difficult to understand. Oh well, I wanted to make sure my question appeared in the main thread of discussion (rather than being posted after most people have moved on).
Aye, I agree. I think that this reviewer is simply targetting the wrong audience. The blurb about the lack of a DVD player making the eMac obselete was especially amusing, since I'm having no problems making do with the lack of a DVD burner (heck, I don't even need to burn many CDs for backup).
One thing I really don't understand, however. Who buys an entry level Mac? I understand why the Mac is a valuable type of desktop computer, when it comes to graphics design and video editing, in addition to the stable Mac OS for that sort of thing. The thing is, any advantages the Mac would seem to have over the PC lie in the realms of programming and editing, and that requires more than an entry level computer. So while I can understand someone buying a top-of-the-line Mac, and I can understand people buying entry-level PCs loaded with Windows XP (or later fitted with Linux, whatever), I can't understand the uses of entry level eMacs.
What does it take to make one of these go off underwater?
I wonder.
Anyone know the details on why it is safer under several hundred tons of water? I'm not arguing the fact, but I am curious as to whether or not these can ever be a threat while being underwater.
"there must be a motive for this, some sort of expected gain, or why?"
To quote the NY Times article, "The intent, say people who are aware of the company's strategy, is to lower its vulnerability to Microsoft by adding businesses that are "sticky" - in other words, businesses that create strong customer loyalty or are hard to switch away from."
"is widely presumed that Internet users who find a search service that is better than Google's will be willing to defect."
Thus, it seems to me that Google is attempted to make the leap from a "very cool and useful search engine that you access from your web browser" to an integral part of your workstation. Becoming the latter will inspire greater user loyalty.
Wouldn't the speed of the search be influenced mostly be the capabilities of your own computer?
I haven't seen the code for either the client or the windows find utility, however I would expect that not too much can be done about your problems in there.
That is to say, Google's utility won't cut your search time to 20 minutes just because they have better code.
Then again, you never know with Microsoft...maybe the code is just that bad.
Well, the one thing that jumps out in my mind is this.
Imagine you are in a large building on a college campus. You are walking down the hall, and pass by a classroom. The room number is marked in black letters on a plaque, 246. Under the room number is a semacode.
You take out your cellphone, and take a snapshot (read: scan) the semacode. Your cellphone loads up the appropriate URL, giving you information about the room.
Through the website, you find out what the room is used for, who the technicians / professors are using the room, what the class schedule for the room is, when the professor has open office hours, who is responsible for maintenance of the room, what the phone extension in the room is, etc. And you get a bunch of links to follow from there.
All of that information available in an instant.
Of course, there is the issue of the ubiquity of this type of technology, but if it does become very popular, this is a very real accomplishment.
Employ the same type of situation in a museum display, perhaps or art or rocks.
I think it has a pretty amazing potential, but only if it's adopted widescale. If not, then its just one of those cool things that you brag about to your friends, and after that nobody cares.
Well, I know for a fact that there were several thousand detainees in the Tri-State area about a year ago who were being held for months without even being charged. I think that qualifies as a violation of habeas corpus.
Then there was an additional throng who had been ordered deported two or three months previously, but who were still being held.
The ACLU is not challenging the FBI's ability to request ISP customer data from suspected criminals or other shady figures.
What it is challenging is the fact that under the PATRIOT Act of 2001, the FBI can now do this "without a judge's approval."
"The ACLU lawsuit contends that the USA Patriot Act...expanded the FBI's power to use national security letters by deleting parts of an earlier law requiring that there be some suspicion that the subject of the probe was linked to spying or terrorism."
Thus, in the past the FBI had to go to a court and get approval before they received authorization to access all this data. Now, however, they don't need to show any reasonable suspicion. That's what the ACLU is arguing.
I agree. What's even more annoying is those two way plans that work like walkie talkies. In such a situation, not only do you have to listen to the person talking but also their companion over the phone.
" when I want to listen in, I only hear half of the conversation "
Trust me, unless you are with a friend who's talking to another friend, you really don't.
However, I've come to realize the value of a unique ringtone. Often, when a cell phone goes off, everyone is pulling their phone out of their pocket, thinking Is it mine?. If your ringtone is different from the norm, then you can sit their with a smug smile on your face whilst others are checking their phones.
Using only plain ringtones, its rather difficult to be able to have a somewhat unique ringtone. Having musical ringtones makes that option much more accessible.
Still, I would much prefer to have short musical scores rather than long rings. And I agree, it is annoying, but I think of it as a necessary evil if I want my own ringtone.
If someone can think of another way to allow for seemingly endless variety in ringtones, I'd take that option any day.
Slashdot Mirror
Something bothers me about the nature of civil suits and monetary awards in this country.
Why is it that we make it a habit of running off with as much money as we possibly can from a lawsuit?
The purpose of suing for this sort of stuff should be twofold: 1) to regulate company action by means of threat and penalty AND 2) reparations. Nowhere in those two clauses do I find any justification for "screwing the other guy over because he did it to me first."
It seems to me that few suits are about that anymore. While its true that you are entitled to sue if a company takes advantage of you, often times the rabidity with which "wronged" plaintiffs style their demands leads me to wonder if they are simply taking advantage of the momentary shift in power.
In that scenario, it's no longer about punishing the one who took advantage of you because he could. It's about turning around and taking full advantage of him, because now you can.
Looks like I'm already picking up language habits from the show.
:)
I recently started using the term "frack(ing)" as a substitute for the notorious four letter phenomenon. I really had no clue where I picked it up and assumed it was a popular term.
Anyway, I was reading the blog and to my utmost amazement, here's what I found:
Why "frack"? Where did the idea come from to make this the new F-word? Not that I don't like it, I find it amusing."
It's straight out of the original series. I dropped many other terms from the old show like "centon" (a unit of measurement) and "yahren" (year) because I felt they distracted from the mood I was trying to create and they sounded a bit silly to my ear. There was something elegantly lovely about "frak," however. There's nothing like being able to say my favorite four letter word on TV over and over again and I salute Glen Larson for giving the joys of frakking up, frakking off, not giving a frak, and frakking-A to the masses.
Well, now I know where I picked it up, and now I know not to say it too much in public
That makes it my #2 favorite SciFi word (after grok).
Yeah, SciFi fridays make up the bulk of my TV viewing time per week.
I'm glued to the TV from 11 PM to 2 AM (EST) watching Stargate, Stargate Atlantis, and Battlestar Galactica.
Other than that, only times I watch TV are if I manage to catch The Daily Show during the weekdays, or if there's something interesting on C-SPAN on Sundays (I'm a history/political science major, go figure).
"I'm not conciously trying to decide each and every word I am typing (and mispelling - yes, I know)."
Hmm...not so sure about that. How could anyone misspell the word "arise" unless they were doing it deliberately? Looks like your example is bust
I hope that means you're lying - the alternative is rather scary
Oh and in response to your actual comment...Wouldn't there be some theoretical point at which you would actually start automizing these assessments? So, before you've automized such things, you would consciously look at someone's hair, nose size, height, hair color, facial expression, neatness, etc. in order to develop opinions about them? Only time this could happy is childhood...and, well, I don't know about that
Anyway, it reminds me of Hume's explanation for the emergence of cause and effect relationships - mainly, the habit of associating two things together (remember, Hume said that all knowledge comes from experience, as opposed to say Descartes who thought that the mind was the source of all knowledge).
"When I finished this book I was impressed. Then I blinked -- and realized that I was taken in by its surface attractiveness. After the initial glamour wore off, I was left deeply unsatisfied."
Maybe Gladwell was banking on people learning to trust their first instincts after reading his book.
Since you obviously chose to second guess your first assessment of the book, it's pretty clear that you didn't pick up on Gladwell's meaning.
It's irrelevant whether or not your second assessment is more correct than your first - how dare you second guess yourself after reading through an entire book that tells you how great your instincts are!
Looks like you're in a fix there, buddy
( Yes, I'm being facetious...thanks for the review I'll now second guess my planned decision to buy this book)
"When I multiply numbers together, I see two shapes. The image starts to change and evolve, and a third shape emerges. That's the answer. It's mental imagery. It's like maths without having to think."
I don't understand. There is nothing intrinsic in the number 2 and the number 5 that will tell you what they will equal when they are multiplied.
The way we arrive at the solution is extrinsic, namely in the form of the operator (multiplication in this instance).
But if it's extrinsic, I don't understand what the author of the article means by "instinct" and "shapes" and that sort of thing. As far as I can understand, the only explanation would be the ability to compute those operations at much higher speed, then any "non-savant."
If that's the case, then, theoretically, would there not be a limit associated with the physical properties of the nervous system that would cap out at a certain number of such operations per unit time? So theoretically might we not be able to test such a thing by running him through a long list of operations? That'll let us know if he's really just making those calculations really, really fast, or if he really is viewing the mathematics in such a fundamentally different way (something I find rather unsettling).
Then again, how would we design such a test? I fear that the number of operations we can demand his brain to perform per unit time will be limited by his powers of cognition (i.e. by the time he reads/hears all the stuff he needs to hear, we'll already be beyond that critical operating time interval).
Eh, I think I come off as somewhat difficult to understand. Oh well, I wanted to make sure my question appeared in the main thread of discussion (rather than being posted after most people have moved on).
The code better be Java.
Aye, I agree. I think that this reviewer is simply targetting the wrong audience. The blurb about the lack of a DVD player making the eMac obselete was especially amusing, since I'm having no problems making do with the lack of a DVD burner (heck, I don't even need to burn many CDs for backup).
One thing I really don't understand, however. Who buys an entry level Mac? I understand why the Mac is a valuable type of desktop computer, when it comes to graphics design and video editing, in addition to the stable Mac OS for that sort of thing. The thing is, any advantages the Mac would seem to have over the PC lie in the realms of programming and editing, and that requires more than an entry level computer. So while I can understand someone buying a top-of-the-line Mac, and I can understand people buying entry-level PCs loaded with Windows XP (or later fitted with Linux, whatever), I can't understand the uses of entry level eMacs.
Would be funny if they put PC Magazine on that list.
I guess that means we can no longer blame people for not RTFA - hey, it could be illegal!
Maybe now they can actually serve real buffalo wings at Pizza Hut.
"Does a humanzee really have a soul? Should they be granted "human rights"?"
More importantly, can they run Linux?
What does it take to make one of these go off underwater?
I wonder.
Anyone know the details on why it is safer under several hundred tons of water? I'm not arguing the fact, but I am curious as to whether or not these can ever be a threat while being underwater.
BTW: IANAT.
"there must be a motive for this, some sort of expected gain, or why?"
To quote the NY Times article, "The intent, say people who are aware of the company's strategy, is to lower its vulnerability to Microsoft by adding businesses that are "sticky" - in other words, businesses that create strong customer loyalty or are hard to switch away from."
"is widely presumed that Internet users who find a search service that is better than Google's will be willing to defect."
Thus, it seems to me that Google is attempted to make the leap from a "very cool and useful search engine that you access from your web browser" to an integral part of your workstation. Becoming the latter will inspire greater user loyalty.
Wouldn't the speed of the search be influenced mostly be the capabilities of your own computer?
I haven't seen the code for either the client or the windows find utility, however I would expect that not too much can be done about your problems in there.
That is to say, Google's utility won't cut your search time to 20 minutes just because they have better code.
Then again, you never know with Microsoft...maybe the code is just that bad.
I doubt it though.
Ah, but what the public doesn't know is that the government is also testing the Star Wars Alpha Module on May 17th.
Looks to me like the CSXT will earn the honors of having the first vessel destroyed in space combat.
Well, the one thing that jumps out in my mind is this.
Imagine you are in a large building on a college campus. You are walking down the hall, and pass by a classroom. The room number is marked in black letters on a plaque, 246. Under the room number is a semacode.
You take out your cellphone, and take a snapshot (read: scan) the semacode. Your cellphone loads up the appropriate URL, giving you information about the room.
Through the website, you find out what the room is used for, who the technicians / professors are using the room, what the class schedule for the room is, when the professor has open office hours, who is responsible for maintenance of the room, what the phone extension in the room is, etc. And you get a bunch of links to follow from there.
All of that information available in an instant.
Of course, there is the issue of the ubiquity of this type of technology, but if it does become very popular, this is a very real accomplishment.
Employ the same type of situation in a museum display, perhaps or art or rocks.
I think it has a pretty amazing potential, but only if it's adopted widescale. If not, then its just one of those cool things that you brag about to your friends, and after that nobody cares.
In Soviet Russia, the Curtain is behind you.
Sorry, couldn't resist.
You know when I was in middle school they used to always talk about "checks and balances" in the United States government.
The PATRIOT Act is literally bypassing the need for judicial approval in order to get private information about (presumably) law abiding citizens.
So, essentially, its undermining our pretty little system of "checks and balances."
Well, I know for a fact that there were several thousand detainees in the Tri-State area about a year ago who were being held for months without even being charged. I think that qualifies as a violation of habeas corpus.
Then there was an additional throng who had been ordered deported two or three months previously, but who were still being held.
I believe that you misunderstand the situation.
The ACLU is not challenging the FBI's ability to request ISP customer data from suspected criminals or other shady figures.
What it is challenging is the fact that under the PATRIOT Act of 2001, the FBI can now do this "without a judge's approval."
"The ACLU lawsuit contends that the USA Patriot Act...expanded the FBI's power to use national security letters by deleting parts of an earlier law requiring that there be some suspicion that the subject of the probe was linked to spying or terrorism."
Thus, in the past the FBI had to go to a court and get approval before they received authorization to access all this data. Now, however, they don't need to show any reasonable suspicion. That's what the ACLU is arguing.
People still look at me funny when I tell them I've read LOTR thrice.
Or when I carry around a book by Heinlein, or maybe Clarke, or Gibson.
Even though its becoming more accepted, I still wouldn't call it mainstream.
I agree. What's even more annoying is those two way plans that work like walkie talkies. In such a situation, not only do you have to listen to the person talking but also their companion over the phone.
" when I want to listen in, I only hear half of the conversation "
Trust me, unless you are with a friend who's talking to another friend, you really don't.
I agree, those ringtones are damn annoying.
However, I've come to realize the value of a unique ringtone. Often, when a cell phone goes off, everyone is pulling their phone out of their pocket, thinking Is it mine?. If your ringtone is different from the norm, then you can sit their with a smug smile on your face whilst others are checking their phones.
Using only plain ringtones, its rather difficult to be able to have a somewhat unique ringtone. Having musical ringtones makes that option much more accessible.
Still, I would much prefer to have short musical scores rather than long rings. And I agree, it is annoying, but I think of it as a necessary evil if I want my own ringtone.
If someone can think of another way to allow for seemingly endless variety in ringtones, I'd take that option any day.
" The silent i makes a big differnce in pronunciation. "
Really, now? I never would have thought of that, considering that its silent.
The difference between wave and waive can only be determined contextually in verbal conversations.