That's why Second Life money is as valuable as "real" money, except that the exchange rate might be volitile. However, a real chair still has more intrinsic value than a Second Life chair. It's harder and more expensive to replicate, and even materials like wood are more scarce than the no-material that goes into replicating the chair.
But give them credit - the iPod was initially Mac-only, Firewire-only, and had no music store attached to it, and it started out fine. Sure, opening the flood gates with Windows + iTunes really propelled it, but this is the first edition.
Yes, but that was years ago. Over those past few years, the bar has been raised by... well, the iPod. If Microsoft wants an "iPod killer", they should be working on something that does at least as much.
Some people (my 3 year old nephew) claim that Communists killed Jesus. This is patently false, because Jesus was killed and ressurected years before Communism was invented.
You're just cherry-picking. I'm sure there are lots of arguments that the communists killed Jesus, and you're only arguing with your 3 year-old nephew's argument.
Well I'm not sure who actually read the article the original "debunker" wrote, but he didn't claim that temperatures weren't getting warmer. Rather, his argument was that the problem was over-hyped, the impact human activity was having on global temperature was being exaggerated, and the measures that have been suggested were largely misguided.
You can argue that he's wrong anyway, but he wasn't saying that temperatures weren't rising.
Re:About the 'Digg fraud' campaign...
on
The Zune Cometh
·
· Score: 1
"For example, Murphey has been working to create rumors of an imminently available new "video iPod," apparently in an effort to try to get iPod buyers to hold off on their purchases and perhaps consider the Zune."
It does seem a bit paranoid, but it isn't necessarily as ridiculous as it sounds. As weird as it sounds, spreading rumors about a new video iPod could actually damage the hype around the iPod. People hold off buying, sales numbers drop, media stories circulate about how the iPod is failing, questioning whether they aren't cool anymore. Meanwhile, Microsoft releases an "iPod" of their own (most people don't know the difference between "an MP3 player" and "an iPod"). Their "iPod" looks similar to early mock-ups of the video iPod, and they hype the fact that it plays video. Nevermind the iPod already plays video, too, because it's all marketing.
I'm not saying this is happening or that it's not paranoid to claim it's happening, because I didn't even RTFA, but it's not outside the bounds of what a company might try. Even if it was a bad marketing choice, aren't we ready to attribute some level of incompetence to Microsoft?
The problem with doing either of those things is that they could be hard to read and/or confusing. If you're dealing with customers, you don't want them to get confused, fed up, and not buy your product/services.
Personally, I think the only way to handle it is to keep everyone's personal e-mail address off of the web page, and use generalized e-mail address like "sales@your-domain.com", "contact@your-domain.com", or "support@your-domain.com". Have it be someone's job to review incoming e-mail to these addresses, understanding that the vast majority of incoming mail might be spam. Of course, you could add some sort of obfuscation to these addresses, but what's the point-- like spammers couldn't just guess "contact@your-domain.com"?
Except that Microsoft is relying on our government to enforce its patents and copyrights, all of which is supposed to be for the public good. If Microsoft is going to break the rules and show disdain for the public good, and they really want the government to stay out of it, then how about they stay all the way out of it and stop enforcing Microsoft's IP?
I know we sometimes get into a mode of thinking where "capitalism" is used to justify an attitude of corporate entitlement. Still, I think it's worth noting all of the benefits we, the people, through our government, have afforded companies like Microsoft beyond what raw capitalism dictates. Since Microsoft has used these benefits to our detriment, making it impossible in some cases to stop using Microsoft software, it's easy to argue that we, the people, ought to act through our government again to rectify the situation.
These questions or pictures again need to be either automatically generated or generated by humans. If automatically generated, they would need to follow a pattern, and so the challenge would then be on the spammers to identify the pattern and train their bots to read the pattern and respond appropriately.
If, on the other hand, they're generated by humans, it would be expensive to generate each one, and so they'd be limited in number. Therefore the spammers simply go about collecting each one, identifying them, and they've broken the system.
Either way, it's like an arms race. The people blocking the spammers are just trying to stay one step ahead of the spammers.
Let's not forget that most consumers want turnkey solutions.
That being said, I don't know the current situation, but it's true that Microsoft has (at least in the past) offered better deals to OEMs who don't market their "empty" or Linux-based computers, even if they offer it.
Apparently there was some deal where the OEM got a better price if other operating systems weren't offered, or if they were on-request only, configured to use Windows by default, or some such thing. Different levels of Microsoft loyalty got different price-breaks. If anything like that is going on currently, I think Microsoft should be prohibited from continuing that behavior.
However, I think part of the issue is still that Microsoft is selling Windows to OEMs very cheaply, and most people want Windows machines (or don't even know there is an option). I think you don't see "empty" or Linux machines because the demand is small.
I thought computer geeks liked being called "geeks". Some consider it ok to call nerds "nerds" too. Both terms are sometimes used in a context where you're just noting that someone is smart, or that they're interested in things like computers and Star Trek. I call myself a "computer geek" at times, and when I meet a computer geek who's smarter than me, i call that person an "uber-geek"-- which is meant to indicate that I'm not as good of a geek as that person is.
Not so much on the dorks, though. For some reason, dorks still don't like being called "dorks". The sportos, motorheads, sluts , bloods , waistoids , dweebies , dickheads are still undecided on what they want to be called.
Or how about changing neither, since I haven't seen a compelling reason to upgrade yet? If it's easier to handle one IT disruption rather than two, it would certainly be even easier to deal with no disruptions.
Ok, I understand that you're fresh out of college, so you don't understand what's happening. Hopefully we can enlighten you. First, nobody cares about your GPA. Not in the least. Second, everyone starts at the bottom.
So you might be asking yourself, why did I get that degree? Well, though everyone starts at the bottom, not everyone moves up at the same pace. If you really are smart, educated, resourceful, creative, and willing to work hard, you'll probably find opportunities open up as your resume fills out. If you're lacking in these regards, a degree won't fix it for you. Either way, you'll need experience.
Not only that, but one story was about bots being behind and increase in spam, while the other is about bots being behind an incease in spam. Totally different topics.
Remember FL in 2000? Paper ballots... are those punched ALL the way through or not?
Even with that bit of stupidity, paper is probably far more reliable and accurate. What, you think that the people who can't figure out how to punch a hole in a piece of paper are going to have an easier time operating a computer?
debunk
verb [ trans. ] expose the falseness or hollowness of (a myth, idea, or belief) : the magazine that debunks claims of the paranormal. reduce the inflated reputation of (someone), esp. by ridicule : comedy takes delight in debunking heroes.
In fact, they even have "to poke holes in" listed as a synonym of "debunk" in my thesaurus.
In order to "debunk" an idea, it doesn't require that you prove the opposite idea, but only that you expose the idea to be less solid than it is otherwise represented. And generally, in science, it's required that people offer rigorous proof of a positive statement, but not that we offer proof of negatives.
If I want to make a scientific claim that there are invisible pink unicorns on Mars, and offer "proof", then it doesn't fall on you to disprove the possibility of these unicorns, but only to expose that my "proof" isn't solid. If I respond by saying, "Well, invisible pink unicorns are a complicated phenomenon," it doesn't strengthen my evidence.
If you offer what's supposed to be scientific evidence and someone knocks out your support, don't complain that they're poking holes. Explain why the objections to your support aren't valid, or else come up with new support. But "poking holes" is a valid form of "debunking".
I think thanks are in order for some of the open source projects run by sanctimonious elitists, too. Not that dealing with sanctimonious elitists aren't a PITA to deal with, but hey, if you're going to be a PITA, then thanks for at least being a PITA that makes free software.
I'm not saying you can't have a fuzzy proof, but you also have to be able to respond to critics. In physics, sometimes the numbers can speak for themselves, but if all you have is a fuzzy proof then you need to have better argumentation, and a clear account of what conclusions are and are not valid. If the best you can do is tell critics that, "you can poke holes in anything," then what you're doing no better than astrology.
What's so wrong with Javascript? Overused, yes, but not bad. Otherwise I'd shuffle it around a bit, put spammers at the top, and add virus writers in general, Microsoft Windows (particularly pre-Windows XP SP2), IE6, Netscape 4, and ISPs that block port 25 and 80. Oh, and that Fark "HA HA" guy, 'cause I've seen him say "HA HA! I broke the internets!!!!11!eleventy!"
I plan on open sourcing my daily schedule. In this way, everyone gets to decide what I have for breakfast, what kind of shampoo I use, what kind of clothes to wear, and where I work.
I don't know if you meant to make this point, but I have to say, "good point". If you were really open-sourcing yourself, wouldn't that mean that you'd have to allow others the right to edit you? Not edit your writings or anything else, but edit you?
Until I have access to your source code, and I can alter it how I'd like in order to scratch an itch, you aren't truly "free" are you?
Sure, sure, you can pick holes in something that's true. No argument there. I just wouldn't want it implied that we aren't permitted to question something because "it's just poking holes".
It just seemed to me that, even if he is cherry-picking the examples he wants to call into question, that's fairly valid. Anyone mounting a preliminary argument will attack the opposing position first at its weakest points. It simply isn't sufficient to complain that your opposition isn't being fair-- you have to prove him wrong. You need to argue, point for point. If you can't do that or aren't willing to do that, then you'd better hope that your theory is a point of faith rather than science.
The basics of Newtonian physics are far less complex and much more testable than are the basics of climatology. Therein is the problem.
I'll say. It seems to me that, if you'd like people to accept a theory that is complex and hard to test, it doesn't put extra responsibility on people believe you more readily. It wouldn't make sense, right? Like, I say to you, "I have this theory, but it's too complicated for you to understand, and I can't test it," it seems to me that I should have to work harder to prove it. I should have to be *more* vigilant about sealing the holes people poke in my theory, not less so.
I mean, lets put the shoe on the other foot: intelligent design. If I were a proponent of intelligent design (I'm not, nor do I disbelieve global warming), it wouldn't be sufficient to exclaim, "You can't disprove my theory!" It also wouldn't be sufficient for me to reply to all criticisms with "you're just poking holes and cherry-picking what you want to respond to!" If I really want to claim that I have a *scientific* theory, I'd better be willing to respond to all arguments and evidence with arguments and evidence of my own.
I was thinking about this, and also wondering if there might be a distinction in the actions taken. Maybe you're a "minor-attracted adult" until you actually *do* something, at which point you become a pedophile. So maybe it's like the distinction between "someone with homicidal thoughts" vs. "a murderer". I don't know, though, because I'm a little frightened to google for "minor-attracted adults". Who knows what's going to come up, or what list it might put me on?
The difference is, no one is censoring your ability to speak about fire, discuss your feelings about fire, or make political arguments about the dangers of fire. It's a very fine line, but shouting "FIRE!" in a crowded theater amounts to more than speech. The anticipated result to yelling fire in a crowded theater is not comparable to any result you could gain from a normal discussion, but is more comparable to actually firing a gun near a herd of cattle while children play nearby or chasing people with machetes.
I don't know if the attack was so excellent. We have to get our information from some sort of public source (newpaper/TV/journal) or do the research ourselves. Very few people have the know-how and resources to do much research themselves, and even if you do have those resources, you can't research everything fully. Therefore, our choices are to trust some sort of publicly published material, or else ignore the situation altogether.
Poking holes is easy, and so it's sufficient for scientists to come to a best guess? Umm... I thought scientists were supposed to poke holes in theories until they found one that was bullet-proof, and avoid "best guesses" that weren't sufficiently supported. When people noted that the speed of light was constant, did people complain, "Oh, well poking holes in Newtonian physics is easy!" and stick with the old theories?
No, partially because picking holes in Newtonian physics was not easy, because Newton was a good scientist with a sensible theory. And poking holes was a good thing to do all the way up until someone came out with a better theory. Now we try to poke holes in general relativity.
Poking valid holes in good science shouldn't be very easy. If your theories can have holes poked in them with little things like "facts" and "statistics", then maybe you should go back to the drawing board.
Slashdot Mirror
Without reward, few will continue to produce in SL.
Oh NO! Whatever will we do if Second Life dies?!
That's why Second Life money is as valuable as "real" money, except that the exchange rate might be volitile. However, a real chair still has more intrinsic value than a Second Life chair. It's harder and more expensive to replicate, and even materials like wood are more scarce than the no-material that goes into replicating the chair.
But give them credit - the iPod was initially Mac-only, Firewire-only, and had no music store attached to it, and it started out fine. Sure, opening the flood gates with Windows + iTunes really propelled it, but this is the first edition.
Yes, but that was years ago. Over those past few years, the bar has been raised by... well, the iPod. If Microsoft wants an "iPod killer", they should be working on something that does at least as much.
Some people (my 3 year old nephew) claim that Communists killed Jesus. This is patently false, because Jesus was killed and ressurected years before Communism was invented.
You're just cherry-picking. I'm sure there are lots of arguments that the communists killed Jesus, and you're only arguing with your 3 year-old nephew's argument.
Well I'm not sure who actually read the article the original "debunker" wrote, but he didn't claim that temperatures weren't getting warmer. Rather, his argument was that the problem was over-hyped, the impact human activity was having on global temperature was being exaggerated, and the measures that have been suggested were largely misguided.
You can argue that he's wrong anyway, but he wasn't saying that temperatures weren't rising.
"For example, Murphey has been working to create rumors of an imminently available new "video iPod," apparently in an effort to try to get iPod buyers to hold off on their purchases and perhaps consider the Zune."
It does seem a bit paranoid, but it isn't necessarily as ridiculous as it sounds. As weird as it sounds, spreading rumors about a new video iPod could actually damage the hype around the iPod. People hold off buying, sales numbers drop, media stories circulate about how the iPod is failing, questioning whether they aren't cool anymore. Meanwhile, Microsoft releases an "iPod" of their own (most people don't know the difference between "an MP3 player" and "an iPod"). Their "iPod" looks similar to early mock-ups of the video iPod, and they hype the fact that it plays video. Nevermind the iPod already plays video, too, because it's all marketing.
I'm not saying this is happening or that it's not paranoid to claim it's happening, because I didn't even RTFA, but it's not outside the bounds of what a company might try. Even if it was a bad marketing choice, aren't we ready to attribute some level of incompetence to Microsoft?
The problem with doing either of those things is that they could be hard to read and/or confusing. If you're dealing with customers, you don't want them to get confused, fed up, and not buy your product/services.
Personally, I think the only way to handle it is to keep everyone's personal e-mail address off of the web page, and use generalized e-mail address like "sales@your-domain.com", "contact@your-domain.com", or "support@your-domain.com". Have it be someone's job to review incoming e-mail to these addresses, understanding that the vast majority of incoming mail might be spam. Of course, you could add some sort of obfuscation to these addresses, but what's the point-- like spammers couldn't just guess "contact@your-domain.com"?
Except that Microsoft is relying on our government to enforce its patents and copyrights, all of which is supposed to be for the public good. If Microsoft is going to break the rules and show disdain for the public good, and they really want the government to stay out of it, then how about they stay all the way out of it and stop enforcing Microsoft's IP?
I know we sometimes get into a mode of thinking where "capitalism" is used to justify an attitude of corporate entitlement. Still, I think it's worth noting all of the benefits we, the people, through our government, have afforded companies like Microsoft beyond what raw capitalism dictates. Since Microsoft has used these benefits to our detriment, making it impossible in some cases to stop using Microsoft software, it's easy to argue that we, the people, ought to act through our government again to rectify the situation.
These questions or pictures again need to be either automatically generated or generated by humans. If automatically generated, they would need to follow a pattern, and so the challenge would then be on the spammers to identify the pattern and train their bots to read the pattern and respond appropriately.
If, on the other hand, they're generated by humans, it would be expensive to generate each one, and so they'd be limited in number. Therefore the spammers simply go about collecting each one, identifying them, and they've broken the system.
Either way, it's like an arms race. The people blocking the spammers are just trying to stay one step ahead of the spammers.
Let's not forget that most consumers want turnkey solutions.
That being said, I don't know the current situation, but it's true that Microsoft has (at least in the past) offered better deals to OEMs who don't market their "empty" or Linux-based computers, even if they offer it.
Apparently there was some deal where the OEM got a better price if other operating systems weren't offered, or if they were on-request only, configured to use Windows by default, or some such thing. Different levels of Microsoft loyalty got different price-breaks. If anything like that is going on currently, I think Microsoft should be prohibited from continuing that behavior.
However, I think part of the issue is still that Microsoft is selling Windows to OEMs very cheaply, and most people want Windows machines (or don't even know there is an option). I think you don't see "empty" or Linux machines because the demand is small.
I thought computer geeks liked being called "geeks". Some consider it ok to call nerds "nerds" too. Both terms are sometimes used in a context where you're just noting that someone is smart, or that they're interested in things like computers and Star Trek. I call myself a "computer geek" at times, and when I meet a computer geek who's smarter than me, i call that person an "uber-geek"-- which is meant to indicate that I'm not as good of a geek as that person is.
Not so much on the dorks, though. For some reason, dorks still don't like being called "dorks". The sportos, motorheads, sluts , bloods , waistoids , dweebies , dickheads are still undecided on what they want to be called.
Or how about changing neither, since I haven't seen a compelling reason to upgrade yet? If it's easier to handle one IT disruption rather than two, it would certainly be even easier to deal with no disruptions.
Ok, I understand that you're fresh out of college, so you don't understand what's happening. Hopefully we can enlighten you. First, nobody cares about your GPA. Not in the least. Second, everyone starts at the bottom.
So you might be asking yourself, why did I get that degree? Well, though everyone starts at the bottom, not everyone moves up at the same pace. If you really are smart, educated, resourceful, creative, and willing to work hard, you'll probably find opportunities open up as your resume fills out. If you're lacking in these regards, a degree won't fix it for you. Either way, you'll need experience.
Not only that, but one story was about bots being behind and increase in spam, while the other is about bots being behind an incease in spam. Totally different topics.
Remember FL in 2000? Paper ballots... are those punched ALL the way through or not?
Even with that bit of stupidity, paper is probably far more reliable and accurate. What, you think that the people who can't figure out how to punch a hole in a piece of paper are going to have an easier time operating a computer?
In fact, they even have "to poke holes in" listed as a synonym of "debunk" in my thesaurus.
In order to "debunk" an idea, it doesn't require that you prove the opposite idea, but only that you expose the idea to be less solid than it is otherwise represented. And generally, in science, it's required that people offer rigorous proof of a positive statement, but not that we offer proof of negatives.
If I want to make a scientific claim that there are invisible pink unicorns on Mars, and offer "proof", then it doesn't fall on you to disprove the possibility of these unicorns, but only to expose that my "proof" isn't solid. If I respond by saying, "Well, invisible pink unicorns are a complicated phenomenon," it doesn't strengthen my evidence.
If you offer what's supposed to be scientific evidence and someone knocks out your support, don't complain that they're poking holes. Explain why the objections to your support aren't valid, or else come up with new support. But "poking holes" is a valid form of "debunking".
I think thanks are in order for some of the open source projects run by sanctimonious elitists, too. Not that dealing with sanctimonious elitists aren't a PITA to deal with, but hey, if you're going to be a PITA, then thanks for at least being a PITA that makes free software.
I'm not saying you can't have a fuzzy proof, but you also have to be able to respond to critics. In physics, sometimes the numbers can speak for themselves, but if all you have is a fuzzy proof then you need to have better argumentation, and a clear account of what conclusions are and are not valid. If the best you can do is tell critics that, "you can poke holes in anything," then what you're doing no better than astrology.
What's so wrong with Javascript? Overused, yes, but not bad. Otherwise I'd shuffle it around a bit, put spammers at the top, and add virus writers in general, Microsoft Windows (particularly pre-Windows XP SP2), IE6, Netscape 4, and ISPs that block port 25 and 80. Oh, and that Fark "HA HA" guy, 'cause I've seen him say "HA HA! I broke the internets!!!!11!eleventy!"
I plan on open sourcing my daily schedule. In this way, everyone gets to decide what I have for breakfast, what kind of shampoo I use, what kind of clothes to wear, and where I work.
I don't know if you meant to make this point, but I have to say, "good point". If you were really open-sourcing yourself, wouldn't that mean that you'd have to allow others the right to edit you? Not edit your writings or anything else, but edit you?
Until I have access to your source code, and I can alter it how I'd like in order to scratch an itch, you aren't truly "free" are you?
Sure, sure, you can pick holes in something that's true. No argument there. I just wouldn't want it implied that we aren't permitted to question something because "it's just poking holes".
It just seemed to me that, even if he is cherry-picking the examples he wants to call into question, that's fairly valid. Anyone mounting a preliminary argument will attack the opposing position first at its weakest points. It simply isn't sufficient to complain that your opposition isn't being fair-- you have to prove him wrong. You need to argue, point for point. If you can't do that or aren't willing to do that, then you'd better hope that your theory is a point of faith rather than science.
I'll say. It seems to me that, if you'd like people to accept a theory that is complex and hard to test, it doesn't put extra responsibility on people believe you more readily. It wouldn't make sense, right? Like, I say to you, "I have this theory, but it's too complicated for you to understand, and I can't test it," it seems to me that I should have to work harder to prove it. I should have to be *more* vigilant about sealing the holes people poke in my theory, not less so.
I mean, lets put the shoe on the other foot: intelligent design. If I were a proponent of intelligent design (I'm not, nor do I disbelieve global warming), it wouldn't be sufficient to exclaim, "You can't disprove my theory!" It also wouldn't be sufficient for me to reply to all criticisms with "you're just poking holes and cherry-picking what you want to respond to!" If I really want to claim that I have a *scientific* theory, I'd better be willing to respond to all arguments and evidence with arguments and evidence of my own.
I was thinking about this, and also wondering if there might be a distinction in the actions taken. Maybe you're a "minor-attracted adult" until you actually *do* something, at which point you become a pedophile. So maybe it's like the distinction between "someone with homicidal thoughts" vs. "a murderer". I don't know, though, because I'm a little frightened to google for "minor-attracted adults". Who knows what's going to come up, or what list it might put me on?
The difference is, no one is censoring your ability to speak about fire, discuss your feelings about fire, or make political arguments about the dangers of fire. It's a very fine line, but shouting "FIRE!" in a crowded theater amounts to more than speech. The anticipated result to yelling fire in a crowded theater is not comparable to any result you could gain from a normal discussion, but is more comparable to actually firing a gun near a herd of cattle while children play nearby or chasing people with machetes.
I don't know if the attack was so excellent. We have to get our information from some sort of public source (newpaper/TV/journal) or do the research ourselves. Very few people have the know-how and resources to do much research themselves, and even if you do have those resources, you can't research everything fully. Therefore, our choices are to trust some sort of publicly published material, or else ignore the situation altogether.
Poking holes is easy, and so it's sufficient for scientists to come to a best guess? Umm... I thought scientists were supposed to poke holes in theories until they found one that was bullet-proof, and avoid "best guesses" that weren't sufficiently supported. When people noted that the speed of light was constant, did people complain, "Oh, well poking holes in Newtonian physics is easy!" and stick with the old theories?
No, partially because picking holes in Newtonian physics was not easy, because Newton was a good scientist with a sensible theory. And poking holes was a good thing to do all the way up until someone came out with a better theory. Now we try to poke holes in general relativity.
Poking valid holes in good science shouldn't be very easy. If your theories can have holes poked in them with little things like "facts" and "statistics", then maybe you should go back to the drawing board.