The kind that recognizes that everyone has limitations, and once you have made an honest effort to reach as high as you can, continued striving above your limitations benefits no one.
I think a big part of the problem is that in the drive to encourage people to go to college etc we have artifically heaped scorn and shame on lots of honest jobs, jobs that need to get done and that a lot of people are well suited for.
Realists will never be as popular as they are right.
I've noticed that as of late some searches will return a sponsered link at the top of the page above the results (as opposed to the standard list of sponsered links off to the right of the page).
The first few times I mistook the sponsered link for the top result, although it is labeled as such and has a light blue background (although on my monitor at least the blue is almost indistinguishible from the white background).
How long have they been doing this?
This doesn't happen for all searches either, just some, examples are "yellow pages" "dell" "coffee".
Lol, it would be like going into a bacholor's frig and seeing several boxes of chinese. Open each one up and you never know quite what you will find, something tasty, or some unbelievable funk.
I can imagine waking up after a 10 year space flight and as the pods whish open to have to see who among them "went bad", not a pleasant thought.
Not true, hard bristles more efficiently and consistently transfer force from your hand to the abrasive particles. Soft bristles absorb much more of the peaks in applied pressure (as you move your hand) by bending more.
If you've ever clearned a scummy shower or tub, you know how neither a hard bristle nor soft bristle brush does crap without some scouring powder, and that the hard bristle is vastly quicker and more agressive with abrasive than a soft bristle.
Actually toothpaste is an abrasive, which is why it works so well at polishing off the scratches. The main non water ingredient in any toothpaste is hydrated silica, or sand. This is also why dentists tell you to use a soft bristle brush and not brush too hard because if you really grind the paste you can damage the enamel.
Oh don't get me wrong, I also think this control method stinks and will never go anywhere, but it will be for the reasons you just mentioned, not because it's too tiring. I could see it maybe in some highly specialized settings with a custom UI for the job, but it will never gain any traction as a general interface.
It is and it isn't. Anytime you try doing some physical activity you are unaccustomed to there will be an adaptation period where you experience fatigue and soreness. Once your muscles have adapted though you hardly notice it at all.
If you never take the stairs, try walking down 8 or 10 flights of stairs, the next day your calves will be thrashed, but if you do it every day you won't even notice it a bit.
Or try mixing concrete by hand, uber hard labor if it's not something you're used to, but run of the mill for people that do it regularly.
Holding your hands in the air isn't exactly hard labor lol, although I suspect we'd also do it standing just like they did in the movies, the kinematics of moving your arms and hands is very different standing than it is sitting.
Don't overread the particular "contract." Their half is they will supply content that is of interest to you, your half is you will consider their advertising pitch. If you went to the site and all there were was ads and no content, that would be a violation. The actual content of the ad and the traits of the company are a separate and distinct set of expectations (another contract if you will).
So to answer your question, are advertisers trustworthy? Well yes, in the sense that they deliver the tv shows and web content you are expecting. If you use the content and don't watch the ads though, you are being untrustworthy.
We're not talking about absolute characteristics here, just characterizing the nature of individual transactions/interactions.
And when you google the definition of fire wall the definition is spits back to you as the first one applies in all situations right?
Social contract has a very specific meaning in political theory, that has nothing to do with the discussion here. In this thread we're just talking about the implied agreements that exist about how people will behave that allow them to interact with strangers every day. That is, in social situations we have expectations, expectations that do not have to be met, but life's a lot easier when they are.
When you ask someone the time, they don't have to tell you the correct time, they could tell you something completely wrong, but most of the time they will give you what you ask. Or if someone asks to cut in front of you in the checkout line because they only have one item, you don't expect them to whistle and have their kid come running up with a full to the brim shopping cart. There's no laws involved here, no legal repercussions, but there's definately expectations, those epectations are the social contracts we live under.
A website provides content free of charge, but expects you to be exposed to their ads. If you don't want to see the ads, be honest about it and skip the website.
You're taking too much of a short term view and just looking at individual interactions. Yes on any given interaction you would be better off taking advantage of the other person. On any given visit to a website or watching a TV program, you would be far better off to block to the commercials. But your life doesn't consist of single, one time only encounters.
Rather you have to deal with those same people and entitities over and over. So frequently you're better off to see how your actions will impact things over the long run.
Social contracts can survive a certain amount of freeloading (people who ignore their half of the implied agreement), but when too many people start doing it, it breaks down and we're all worse off as a result.
I'm not telling you shouldn't freeload, since most people don't, you can get away with it. But if you think it isn't corrosive to the glue holding things together you're wrong.
The thing advertisers don't seem to get is that you don't sell products by annoying the hell out of people.
And why is frequently difficult for them to "get it"? Could it be because they see little or no decline in viewership of their content when the introduce these obnoxious adds due to many of their visitors using blocking technologies that allow them be spared the advertising? If more people recognized the social contract and stopped using the content, it would serve as the natural brake it should on overzealous advertising, instead of the arms race we have now with ordinary users as the casualties.
Why? Because you have control over your own behavior. If you want to base your behavior on the misdeeds of others, society isn't going to be able to stop you most of the time. In the end it's your choice.
If you don't believe in social contracts, are you seriously suggesting that everytime we interact with other people where there are expectations for how we will each interact, we need to draw up legal documents and involve lawyers?
Cooperation and trust are used for all those thousands of little "transactions" we perform every day with the people around us and for the sake of efficiency and because the stakes are rarely high we almost never break out formal contracts.
You don't have to be a cooperative or trustworthy person, but society runs a lot smoother when the majority of people exhibit these characteristics.
If you don't agree to subject yourself to the advertising, the appropriate course of action in a social contract situation is to not use the content that comes with the advertising. Of course social contracts are nonbinding, but there are deleterious effects if ignored. If more people observed their half of the social contract we wouldn't have the escalating arms race that has created this mess we have today.
Unfortunately you don't get to pick and choose human nature, we're stuck with it. If particular systems of government lead to predictable outcomes that are bad, than I think you can make a pretty solid argument that that system is also bad, even if the outcomes contradict stated goals and principles of that system.
Point me to a communist society that actually hued to "communist principles" for more than a couple years instead of devolving into statist authoritarianism and I will reconsider.
In making the film, was it ever a consideration to create a film that will appeal to people who have never read the books or heard the radio broadcasts? In making adaptations from literary works, especially ones with rich, stand alone universes, much time is spent on exposition of material that is well known to anyone who has read the works. While needed for people unfamiliar with the milieu, exposition rarely makes for riveting entertainment. But then again, so many people have read the books or heard the broadcasts, who actually makes the decision? It it just left up to the screen adaptor?
Are you aware of any hashes that don't depend on invariable inputs? I don't know of any biometric measures that are used for security that can be measured with any reasonable hope of invariance.
That's not really the issue, that's like telling someone to dispute the credit charge for someone who took their beloved dog to the vet and now the vet won't take your calls or return your dog.
The reason we age is because there is no selection mechanism for longevity.
Not true, several people have suggested selection mechanisms for longevity. And it seems reasonable that they exist, even if the proposed ones are not those responsible. Why? Because we are capable of living decades after our fertility has ended. A small number of people with a trait and it can be argued that it nonselected, but when it is true of almost everyone in the population that argument becomes untenable. Unless by longevity you meant living forever.
The wording is similar but very different meaning. I can't say as I am familiar with a common saying that conveys that precise message, but if there was one, it would probably be something like:
The mush in your bowl is still better than the donuts on someone else's plate.
Slashdot Mirror
The kind that recognizes that everyone has limitations, and once you have made an honest effort to reach as high as you can, continued striving above your limitations benefits no one.
I think a big part of the problem is that in the drive to encourage people to go to college etc we have artifically heaped scorn and shame on lots of honest jobs, jobs that need to get done and that a lot of people are well suited for.
Realists will never be as popular as they are right.
I loved both movies, very entertaining.
I've noticed that as of late some searches will return a sponsered link at the top of the page above the results (as opposed to the standard list of sponsered links off to the right of the page).
The first few times I mistook the sponsered link for the top result, although it is labeled as such and has a light blue background (although on my monitor at least the blue is almost indistinguishible from the white background).
How long have they been doing this?
This doesn't happen for all searches either, just some, examples are "yellow pages" "dell" "coffee".
Lol, it would be like going into a bacholor's frig and seeing several boxes of chinese. Open each one up and you never know quite what you will find, something tasty, or some unbelievable funk.
I can imagine waking up after a 10 year space flight and as the pods whish open to have to see who among them "went bad", not a pleasant thought.
Not true, hard bristles more efficiently and consistently transfer force from your hand to the abrasive particles. Soft bristles absorb much more of the peaks in applied pressure (as you move your hand) by bending more.
If you've ever clearned a scummy shower or tub, you know how neither a hard bristle nor soft bristle brush does crap without some scouring powder, and that the hard bristle is vastly quicker and more agressive with abrasive than a soft bristle.
Actually toothpaste is an abrasive, which is why it works so well at polishing off the scratches. The main non water ingredient in any toothpaste is hydrated silica, or sand. This is also why dentists tell you to use a soft bristle brush and not brush too hard because if you really grind the paste you can damage the enamel.
Oh don't get me wrong, I also think this control method stinks and will never go anywhere, but it will be for the reasons you just mentioned, not because it's too tiring. I could see it maybe in some highly specialized settings with a custom UI for the job, but it will never gain any traction as a general interface.
It is and it isn't. Anytime you try doing some physical activity you are unaccustomed to there will be an adaptation period where you experience fatigue and soreness. Once your muscles have adapted though you hardly notice it at all.
If you never take the stairs, try walking down 8 or 10 flights of stairs, the next day your calves will be thrashed, but if you do it every day you won't even notice it a bit.
Or try mixing concrete by hand, uber hard labor if it's not something you're used to, but run of the mill for people that do it regularly.
Holding your hands in the air isn't exactly hard labor lol, although I suspect we'd also do it standing just like they did in the movies, the kinematics of moving your arms and hands is very different standing than it is sitting.
Don't overread the particular "contract." Their half is they will supply content that is of interest to you, your half is you will consider their advertising pitch. If you went to the site and all there were was ads and no content, that would be a violation. The actual content of the ad and the traits of the company are a separate and distinct set of expectations (another contract if you will).
So to answer your question, are advertisers trustworthy? Well yes, in the sense that they deliver the tv shows and web content you are expecting. If you use the content and don't watch the ads though, you are being untrustworthy.
We're not talking about absolute characteristics here, just characterizing the nature of individual transactions/interactions.
And when you google the definition of fire wall the definition is spits back to you as the first one applies in all situations right?
Social contract has a very specific meaning in political theory, that has nothing to do with the discussion here. In this thread we're just talking about the implied agreements that exist about how people will behave that allow them to interact with strangers every day. That is, in social situations we have expectations, expectations that do not have to be met, but life's a lot easier when they are.
When you ask someone the time, they don't have to tell you the correct time, they could tell you something completely wrong, but most of the time they will give you what you ask. Or if someone asks to cut in front of you in the checkout line because they only have one item, you don't expect them to whistle and have their kid come running up with a full to the brim shopping cart. There's no laws involved here, no legal repercussions, but there's definately expectations, those epectations are the social contracts we live under.
A website provides content free of charge, but expects you to be exposed to their ads. If you don't want to see the ads, be honest about it and skip the website.
You're taking too much of a short term view and just looking at individual interactions. Yes on any given interaction you would be better off taking advantage of the other person. On any given visit to a website or watching a TV program, you would be far better off to block to the commercials. But your life doesn't consist of single, one time only encounters.
Rather you have to deal with those same people and entitities over and over. So frequently you're better off to see how your actions will impact things over the long run.
Social contracts can survive a certain amount of freeloading (people who ignore their half of the implied agreement), but when too many people start doing it, it breaks down and we're all worse off as a result.
I'm not telling you shouldn't freeload, since most people don't, you can get away with it. But if you think it isn't corrosive to the glue holding things together you're wrong.
The thing advertisers don't seem to get is that you don't sell products by annoying the hell out of people.
And why is frequently difficult for them to "get it"? Could it be because they see little or no decline in viewership of their content when the introduce these obnoxious adds due to many of their visitors using blocking technologies that allow them be spared the advertising? If more people recognized the social contract and stopped using the content, it would serve as the natural brake it should on overzealous advertising, instead of the arms race we have now with ordinary users as the casualties.
Why? Because you have control over your own behavior. If you want to base your behavior on the misdeeds of others, society isn't going to be able to stop you most of the time. In the end it's your choice.
If you don't believe in social contracts, are you seriously suggesting that everytime we interact with other people where there are expectations for how we will each interact, we need to draw up legal documents and involve lawyers?
Cooperation and trust are used for all those thousands of little "transactions" we perform every day with the people around us and for the sake of efficiency and because the stakes are rarely high we almost never break out formal contracts.
You don't have to be a cooperative or trustworthy person, but society runs a lot smoother when the majority of people exhibit these characteristics.
If you don't agree to subject yourself to the advertising, the appropriate course of action in a social contract situation is to not use the content that comes with the advertising. Of course social contracts are nonbinding, but there are deleterious effects if ignored. If more people observed their half of the social contract we wouldn't have the escalating arms race that has created this mess we have today.
Unfortunately you don't get to pick and choose human nature, we're stuck with it. If particular systems of government lead to predictable outcomes that are bad, than I think you can make a pretty solid argument that that system is also bad, even if the outcomes contradict stated goals and principles of that system.
Point me to a communist society that actually hued to "communist principles" for more than a couple years instead of devolving into statist authoritarianism and I will reconsider.
In making the film, was it ever a consideration to create a film that will appeal to people who have never read the books or heard the radio broadcasts? In making adaptations from literary works, especially ones with rich, stand alone universes, much time is spent on exposition of material that is well known to anyone who has read the works. While needed for people unfamiliar with the milieu, exposition rarely makes for riveting entertainment. But then again, so many people have read the books or heard the broadcasts, who actually makes the decision? It it just left up to the screen adaptor?
Very nice article, thanks for the link.
Are you aware of any hashes that don't depend on invariable inputs? I don't know of any biometric measures that are used for security that can be measured with any reasonable hope of invariance.
That's not really the issue, that's like telling someone to dispute the credit charge for someone who took their beloved dog to the vet and now the vet won't take your calls or return your dog.
Some people already are...
http://freegan.info/
I'll get excited when they say what enhancements they are actually selling. Promises of "something better" don't hold much weight.
The reason we age is because there is no selection mechanism for longevity.
i s
Not true, several people have suggested selection mechanisms for longevity. And it seems reasonable that they exist, even if the proposed ones are not those responsible. Why? Because we are capable of living decades after our fertility has ended. A small number of people with a trait and it can be argued that it nonselected, but when it is true of almost everyone in the population that argument becomes untenable. Unless by longevity you meant living forever.
For example:
Grandmother hypothesis
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grandmother_hypothes
The wording is similar but very different meaning. I can't say as I am familiar with a common saying that conveys that precise message, but if there was one, it would probably be something like:
The mush in your bowl is still better than the donuts on someone else's plate.
not many people have the capability of building a laptop