It's very common in Milwaukee with the Brewers, or at least it was over ten years ago, the last time I went (I don't care for baseball. I prefer to watch a game in which things actually occur.)
That's the standard way to get away with lying - say something that is true only in one particular narrow context, and then repeat it incessantly without repeating the context, to people who hadn't heard the original context. When someone calls you on it, you can get all indignant and accuse them of taking your statement out of context, when actually you're the one removing the context and they're just calling you on it.
Advertising isn't about telling the truth (or lying), its about selling.
And "selling" does not require "lying". I have every right to get mad at someone who is lying to me and others. Absolutely. Being in advertising does not absolve you of the responsiblity to be an honest person. If you believe it does, then I say, respectully, up yours.
If the license they use is not compatable with use in an open source tool, and their system ends up taking off, then the end result is that all people using open source e-mail clients will be misidentified as "spammers" and thus unable to send e-mail to people who do participate in this system.
Are you unable to see what's bad about that - cutting all open source out of the use of e-mail - so that this once open standard gets nicely hijacked and "owned" by MS?
A civil offense is still a violation of the law, that law being the law that enforces contracts. The only difference between a civil offense and a criminal one is that the plaintiff is not the government.
I think you underestimate the magnitude of the change necessary. Altering whom is eligible to be a voter is a puny little change compared to altering the entire system of what those voters are actually doing with their votes.
This post is reasonable. The original one, that implied there was something superstitious or wrong with people thinking light is safer than darkness, was absurd.
No. That quote just shows that Churchill failed to understand that over time politics always drifts away from conservatism (given that the term "conservative" means "doing things the same way as before", this makes sense - things are always less like they were before than they used to be, pretty much by definition.) So what happens is that liberals automatically become conservatives as they grow older if they just stay the course and never change a single opinion. What happens is that the meaning of the labels drifts.
I think we need to get people over this notion that they are safer in the light
Why? Being deprived of a sense *does* make things more dangerous. If you don't believe me, then put on a blindfold and try to run around in an unfamiliar area.
It's not an attitude problem. It's a learned evolutionary fear based on a good rational reason.
Not all of this light on this map comes from lamps spilling light upward to the sky. If a streetlamp shines down on a concrete street, that concrete will reflect a large amount of light back up. Lights near water will show up better than lights away from water, for much the same reason. Using this map as an indicator that light is being wasted in ares that show up brightly isn't accurate.
Also, don't forget that you're looking at the light from the wrong side. Streetlights are supposed to illuminate downward, not upward. So one streetlight might be blocked by a canopy of treetops above, while another isn't, and the people who made them don't care about this difference. Cities in deserts and plains will show up brighter on the map than ones in forested areas, even if they are actually giving off just as much light on the ground.
No, the poster was subconsiously telling a good point:
Usability/= lack of control
(Usability is divided by lack of control and stored back into itself)
In other words, the more lack of control, the smaller the usability becomes.
The poster was being a rude ass, because while the points he made about usability were true, the points he made about the parent's ignorace were bullshit. The parent post had been about interfaces that were bad precisely because they took control away from the user.
There are a large number of poeple developing software now who think that more options equals more confusion and therefore everyone should do things the default way and like it. Unfortunately, Miguel is one of them, and that's why the new Gnome sucks.
You claimed people didn't care that much about color accuracy and precision.
And further down:
I'll try one more time: why do you think higher color precision is a bad idea?
I invite you to re-read my previous posts. I refuse to be bullied into defending claims I've already conceeded.
I am only still claiming that this SPECIFIC TYPE of color precision (>8 bits) doesn't matter. There are other types that I've alredy conceeded do matter, so stop lying about that.
Your claim that you can tell the difference between the two nearest colors in 8-bit accurace is a claim I do not believe. I could believe a random slashdot poster, or the people I personally showed the test to in person, who cannot see which is which.
even now you can buy products with higher precision.
The examples you showed were not examples of this kind of precision.
Keeping trolls from laughing isn't my goal. Keeping bullshit from spreading is. Thats' why lies must be opposed, regardless of the motivation of the liar
Stop telling me I'm failing at something I already told you I'm not even trying to do in the first place.
It was a demostration of the degree to which people care about color accuracy, a counter to your claim that no one cares.
That claim was never made. The claim I *DID* make was that nobody would care about the KIND of color accuracy that would come from having more than 8 bits. This monitor isn't even an example of that anyway.
The fact that people see differently is exactly why 8 bits isn't enough
No. The kind of extra accuracy you would get from extra bits per sample doesn't affect that problem in the slightest. A 16-bit sample of the same wavelength of light as the 8-bit sample doesn't change the fact that that's not going to be the right wavelength of light to use in the first place for a lot of poeple (which is the sort of difference in people's vision that was under discussion).
I did concede already that representing the spectrum with more than three wavelength samples (MRYGCB versus RGB) is useful given that not everyone has receptors that see the same three colors. But this idea that those samples need to be more than 8 bits each, is something I'm just not buying into because the fact that the difference from one human to the next makes that level of precision moot. It's like wasting your time carefully measuring a piece of wood you want to cut, down to the last millimeter, but then cutting it with a handaxe anyway.
The reason we assume Sun causes, and not merely corellates with skin damage is because of our prior knowledge, and subjective interpretation of data.
Which is precisely why I *don't* like the claim that lack of numerical skill is being caused by lack of language to describe numbers based on nothing more than a correlation. That prior knowlege and extra logic to show the cause is missing. It is blatantly obvious to me that a culture's language will not have words for things the culture doesn't ever bother with. So if a culture doesn't count numbers, that will cause that culture to never develop words for them.
In reality, it's probably not a simple one-way cause-effect, but a cycling feedback look where both the language and the culture cause each other.
Given how many people were Catholic in the areas under Nazi occupation, I have a hard time believing that the Nazis were just randomly rounding up all the catholics they could find. That would pretty have been the majority of the population of Poland, for example. Not to mention Italy. I really doubt that it was a matter of going after Catholics explicitly (Hitler himself was raised as a Catholic). It was probably more of a matter of going after people for other reasons, and it just so happens that a large portion of the population of countries under Nazi occupation was Catholic. Even if the criterion was something as random as "everyone wearing blue on tuesday", you'd still end up with a larger number of Catholics than anything else.
The other problem with those figures is that the groups overlap. Sum up the percentage of all the jews, gypsies, catholics, socialists, and homosexuals that were killed and you'll get a figure much higher than 100%. Someone could be a Homosexual, a Socialist, and a Catholic all at once.
You missed the point entirely - the objection I have to the story isn't that it assumes a cause exists. It's that it assumes which direction it goes. Your blisters and the sun analogy is flawed because there you can see which happened first - the blisters never precede the sun exposure - it's always the other way around. But with this tribe, unless you can look back in time and figure out which came first - their language or their numerical confusion, you can't figure out which of the two was the cause and which was the effect.
Slashdot Mirror
It's very common in Milwaukee with the Brewers, or at least it was over ten years ago, the last time I went (I don't care for baseball. I prefer to watch a game in which things actually occur.)
What turned it into a lie is that this context was not mentioned in the advertising. It just nebuously referred to the research report.
That's the standard way to get away with lying - say something that is true only in one particular narrow context, and then repeat it incessantly without repeating the context, to people who hadn't heard the original context. When someone calls you on it, you can get all indignant and accuse them of taking your statement out of context, when actually you're the one removing the context and they're just calling you on it.
Advertising isn't about telling the truth (or lying), its about selling.
And "selling" does not require "lying". I have every right to get mad at someone who is lying to me and others. Absolutely. Being in advertising does not absolve you of the responsiblity to be an honest person. If you believe it does, then I say, respectully, up yours.
it's not just a Microsoft problem - all marketing people are evil.
This was an example of advertising, which is not exactly the same thing as marketing. In a way, marketing and advertising are opposites of each other:
Advertising: Look at what your product line has, then try to get the marketplace to want it.
Martketing: Look at what the marketplace wants, then try to get your products to provide it.
If the license they use is not compatable with use in an open source tool, and their system ends up taking off, then the end result is that all people using open source e-mail clients will be misidentified as "spammers" and thus unable to send e-mail to people who do participate in this system.
Are you unable to see what's bad about that - cutting all open source out of the use of e-mail - so that this once open standard gets nicely hijacked and "owned" by MS?
A civil offense is still a violation of the law, that law being the law that enforces contracts. The only difference between a civil offense and a criminal one is that the plaintiff is not the government.
Not only that, but "tailgate" doesn't even have to imply "football". Baseball games, which occur during the peak of summer, also have tailgating.
I think you underestimate the magnitude of the change necessary. Altering whom is eligible to be a voter is a puny little change compared to altering the entire system of what those voters are actually doing with their votes.
This post is reasonable. The original one, that implied there was something superstitious or wrong with people thinking light is safer than darkness, was absurd.
No. That quote just shows that Churchill failed to understand that over time politics always drifts away from conservatism (given that the term "conservative" means "doing things the same way as before", this makes sense - things are always less like they were before than they used to be, pretty much by definition.) So what happens is that liberals automatically become conservatives as they grow older if they just stay the course and never change a single opinion. What happens is that the meaning of the labels drifts.
I imagine it probably looks even better from orbit. Those few lucky people who have gotten to go into space have seen something very special.
I think we need to get people over this notion that they are safer in the light
Why? Being deprived of a sense *does* make things more dangerous. If you don't believe me, then put on a blindfold and try to run around in an unfamiliar area.
It's not an attitude problem. It's a learned evolutionary fear based on a good rational reason.
Not all of this light on this map comes from lamps spilling light upward to the sky. If a streetlamp shines down on a concrete street, that concrete will reflect a large amount of light back up. Lights near water will show up better than lights away from water, for much the same reason. Using this map as an indicator that light is being wasted in ares that show up brightly isn't accurate.
Also, don't forget that you're looking at the light from the wrong side. Streetlights are supposed to illuminate downward, not upward. So one streetlight might be blocked by a canopy of treetops above, while another isn't, and the people who made them don't care about this difference. Cities in deserts and plains will show up brighter on the map than ones in forested areas, even if they are actually giving off just as much light on the ground.
No, the poster was subconsiously telling a good point:
/= lack of control
Usability
(Usability is divided by lack of control and stored back into itself)
In other words, the more lack of control, the smaller the usability becomes.
The poster was being a rude ass, because while the points he made about usability were true, the points he made about the parent's ignorace were bullshit. The parent post had been about interfaces that were bad precisely because they took control away from the user.
There are a large number of poeple developing software now who think that more options equals more confusion and therefore everyone should do things the default way and like it. Unfortunately, Miguel is one of them, and that's why the new Gnome sucks.
The Mont Blanc vanished, parts of her landing over 5 km away
Holy living crap! Even the Hiroshima bomb didn't have that kind of power...Oh wait, are we talking about the same "Mont Blanc" here?
You wrote:
You claimed people didn't care that much about color accuracy and precision.
And further down:
I'll try one more time: why do you think higher color precision is a bad idea?
I invite you to re-read my previous posts. I refuse to be bullied into defending claims I've already conceeded.
I am only still claiming that this SPECIFIC TYPE of color precision (>8 bits) doesn't matter. There are other types that I've alredy conceeded do matter, so stop lying about that.
Your claim that you can tell the difference between the two nearest colors in 8-bit accurace is a claim I do not believe. I could believe a random slashdot poster, or the people I personally showed the test to in person, who cannot see which is which.
even now you can buy products with higher precision.
The examples you showed were not examples of this kind of precision.
Keeping trolls from laughing isn't my goal. Keeping bullshit from spreading is. Thats' why lies must be opposed, regardless of the motivation of the liar
Stop telling me I'm failing at something I already told you I'm not even trying to do in the first place.
It was a demostration of the degree to which people care about color accuracy, a counter to your claim that no one cares.
That claim was never made. The claim I *DID* make was that nobody would care about the KIND of color accuracy that would come from having more than 8 bits. This monitor isn't even an example of that anyway.
The fact that people see differently is exactly why 8 bits isn't enough
No. The kind of extra accuracy you would get from extra bits per sample doesn't affect that problem in the slightest. A 16-bit sample of the same wavelength of light as the 8-bit sample doesn't change the fact that that's not going to be the right wavelength of light to use in the first place for a lot of poeple (which is the sort of difference in people's vision that was under discussion).
I did concede already that representing the spectrum with more than three wavelength samples (MRYGCB versus RGB) is useful given that not everyone has receptors that see the same three colors. But this idea that those samples need to be more than 8 bits each, is something I'm just not buying into because the fact that the difference from one human to the next makes that level of precision moot. It's like wasting your time carefully measuring a piece of wood you want to cut, down to the last millimeter, but then cutting it with a handaxe anyway.
The reason we assume Sun causes, and not merely corellates with skin damage is because of our prior knowledge, and subjective interpretation of data.
Which is precisely why I *don't* like the claim that lack of numerical skill is being caused by lack of language to describe numbers based on nothing more than a correlation. That prior knowlege and extra logic to show the cause is missing. It is blatantly obvious to me that a culture's language will not have words for things the culture doesn't ever bother with. So if a culture doesn't count numbers, that will cause that culture to never develop words for them.
In reality, it's probably not a simple one-way cause-effect, but a cycling feedback look where both the language and the culture cause each other.
Same with "orientals" - Asians find the term offensive.
Why? It means "Easterner". If that's offensive than so is them calling us "Westerners", which of course, isn't the slightest bit offensive.
Terms invented to offend are something else entirely. This isn't one of them.
Given how many people were Catholic in the areas under Nazi occupation, I have a hard time believing that the Nazis were just randomly rounding up all the catholics they could find. That would pretty have been the majority of the population of Poland, for example. Not to mention Italy. I really doubt that it was a matter of going after Catholics explicitly (Hitler himself was raised as a Catholic). It was probably more of a matter of going after people for other reasons, and it just so happens that a large portion of the population of countries under Nazi occupation was Catholic. Even if the criterion was something as random as "everyone wearing blue on tuesday", you'd still end up with a larger number of Catholics than anything else.
The other problem with those figures is that the groups overlap. Sum up the percentage of all the jews, gypsies, catholics, socialists, and homosexuals that were killed and you'll get a figure much higher than 100%. Someone could be a Homosexual, a Socialist, and a Catholic all at once.
You missed the point entirely - the objection I have to the story isn't that it assumes a cause exists. It's that it assumes which direction it goes. Your blisters and the sun analogy is flawed because there you can see which happened first - the blisters never precede the sun exposure - it's always the other way around. But with this tribe, unless you can look back in time and figure out which came first - their language or their numerical confusion, you can't figure out which of the two was the cause and which was the effect.
The name is the name of an old D&D character with a string of very bad luck. It's a clue to those whom I want to know who I am.
And "moron" != "inept". They are different things. Ineptitude says nothing about intelligence. For example, Stephan Hawking is quite inept.