That is just unfair. I found reading his post about watching someone play a video game of baseball to be WAY more entertaining than an actual baseball game.
To be fair, the fact that Android is on all of the major carriers while Apple isn't, is part of the open vs. closed equation. So, you explained why a lot of people are choosing open instead of closed.
You are right that most people don't know or care about open vs. closed. That doesn't mean that they don't make decisions based on it. Your example of availability is a perfect one.
So, whether Android or iPhone takes the market will be due to many factors, and one of them will be open vs. closed. Even if no one says it out loud. (Of course not only will some people say it out loud, they will incorrectly claim that it is the end all be all deciding factor.)
I was talking to my mail man a couple of years ago, and he was telling me about a mail carrier that had just been arrested for stealing Netflix movies. He said that they found over 300 Netflix movies in the mans home when they arrested him. The point is that while much of the processing is done by machines, there is still plenty of opportunities for humans to be involved. Whether Gamefly is treated differently or not, is a different matter.
That being said, I would be looking closely at Gamefly myself if I were the USPS. While I don't know how much of the problem is with the USPS or not, I do know that Gamefly handling is either very poor, or fraudulent. My experience is that even when games are sent back together, they generally don't "arrive" at the same time. There seems to be a general pattern. If two games are mailed back at the same time, one always arrives a day or two later. It seems unlikely that this is something the USPS could be having on accident. If 3 games are sent back, 2 will generally show up first, and the 3rd will show up a few days later. With 4, it seems to split as 2 and 2.
While I am willing to consider that they just get separated in the mailing process, it seems a bit too consistent of separation for it to be an accident. That being said, on the rare occasion that I have lost a mailing envelope, or it was too damaged to use for a return, I have done the standard procedure of putting two disks in a single envelope. When I have done this, the games almost always "arrive" on different days.
Gamefly has gotten better over the last couple of years, but they still clearly have poor handling internally. Of course, poor handling by Gamefly and poor handling by USPS are not necessarily mutually exclusive.
So your changing the argument. Who ever said they knew anything about the class before they attended? These are freshman and sophomores attending college.
We are discussing requiring ALL students to attend EVERY class, so it isn't a question of whether one student doesn't know the material, and thus will get value from attending. It is a question of whether any students do know the material, and the the class is a time (and thus money) drain for no good reason. So, to answer your question... No one said that any of the students knew the material before attending the class. Why? Because it is a self evident truth that there will be some people that know the material before entering the class. I know I have personally had that experience, and have seen other students that not only know the material, but were more familiar with the material than the teacher.
Say what? So your basically saying the assembly line concept is less efficient than building cars by hand... I get it. Quality vs Quantity. Unless you can fund a full staff of professors with benefits...riiighhtt.....good luck with that. Your looking at the picture in hindsight. Your comparing human beings who have the ability to change their lives through teachers with mere fruits and vegetables; the top of the food chain with the bottom. Don't confuse a human with fruits and vegetables although I know some of them are out there.
No, I am comparing the product of classroom instruction with other products. Your Quality vs. Quantity comment makes no sense and is totally non sequitur.
I was talking about getting your money's worth out of the professor, not the class.
No, you are talking about using up a resource for no purpose so that you can feel like you got your money's worth. If you already know the material, listening to a professor repeat information that you already know is not getting anything of value out of the professor. Sitting in class sessions that you already know to get value out of the professor makes as much sense as buying extra stuff so that you can fill your garbage can to the brim so that you can get value out of the garbage company. Using a service, and getting value out of it are two totally different things.
What the hell do you think he's doing when he goes to class?! He's doing this out of the goodness of his heart and after class he toils in the mill to earn a living? HE'S EARNING A LIVING WHEN HE TEACHES CLASS.
Great, so you agree that you were wrong, and he does not have something better to do with his life.
Further more saying he's like the rest of the population is just down right insulting. He went through 30 years of school to say he's like the rest of the population. WOW! say that to your professor the next time.
Wow is right. I don't know if you are an arrogant asshole professor, or some kind of toadie. Either way, that class mentality is part of the problem with education. There are plenty of people in this world that do things for 30 years. So, yes. Professors are just like the rest of the population. The only reason I would refrain from telling a professor that is if they were in a position to abuse their authority by giving me a bad grade or failing me because I didn't bow to their highly unethical behavior.
So a freshman is supposed to call the shots being 18 all he MUST know everything! We all have dreams of grandeur.
Yes, a freshman IS supposed to call the shots concerning his education. The claim that a normally functioning adult calling the shots on their own education and knowing what is best for themselves is dreams of grandeur, can only mean that you don't know what that term means.
Whether the professors time costs money or not does not make sitting through a class on subject matter you already know valuable. As with many products in the world, you often buy a package that includes more than you need. This reduces the cost by allowing greater efficiency in producing the product. Sometimes this means that there is that one bottle of lemon ice tea that you hate in the case of Snapple that you buy. Sometimes that means that there is liver at the buffet where you are eating. Sometimes that means that the road two block over, you never drive on.
Claiming that attendance in a class that you don't need should be required so that you "get your money's worth", is just as logical as claiming that driving on every road in town should be required so that you "get your money's worth".
I am sure the professor has better things to do with his time than to force a bunch of freshman to learn the material.
No he doesn't. Earning a living is clearly the best use of his time. If it wasn't, then he wouldn't be their. No, doubt, university professors are like the rest of the population, and would like to not have to show up to work. But just like a telephone does not offer value every second that it is available for use, neither does a classroom. And just like the telephone operator needs to show up to work so that they are there IF you need them, so does the professor.
Sitting through a class that does not educate you is NOT getting your money's worth. It is throwing good money after bad. This mentality that sitting in a classroom IS the value of school is just bizarre.
and also because it disrespects them to not show up to their classes.
That is total BS. Any teacher that claims that is an arrogant ass. It is because they feel that you are there for their benefit, and not the other way around. Skipping a class in school is as disrespectful to a teacher to the exact same degree that skipping a haircut is disrespectful to a barber.
I don't see why I would necessarily have to go to class if I knew the material.
It is necessary because the first 13 years of school in the US is based on showing up. Actually learning anything is secondary at best. The population has been trained for generations that attendance is what matters. Is it any surprise that this mentality seeps into what should be higher education?
They also increase the danger for themselves and every other law enforcement officer. Between the crimes I have personally witnessed police officers commit, the 'explanations' I have had off duty police give me for why it is OK for police to commit crimes, and witnessing police officers superior and colleges cover up crimes committed by their fellow police, I have to assume that in any physical altercation I witness between the police and anyone else, is a rogue cop.
I might be convince otherwise with evidence, but lacking evidence beyond two men in a conflict, the only rational assumption is that the person you know is a member of an organization that openly commits crimes as an matter of practice is the aggressor, and the person that you don't know commits crimes is the victim.
When the police allow members of their organization to run amok, they loose the support of the populous. That puts every officer in more danger.
Reading email at home means that I get to spend all day almost every day with my son, cut 12 hours a week of commuting off of my work week, can take off in the middle of the day to run all sorts when I need to, can even run a television in the background while I work. That doesn't even mention that I could work in my underwear if I choose.
Working at home is not inherently bad. Taking the stance that work should NEVER enter the home is just as bad as people who work at the office all day, and then come home and work at home most of the night.
My employer knows that he could call me at 2 in the morning and ask me to drive the 70 miles to the office, and I would hurry to do it. Of course, if he did do that, the reason I would hurry is because he would never do that unless there was a REALLY good reason for it (which has never happened). Both my attitude and his is why I have worked for the same employer for over a decade.
Then the obvious solution is for MS to ship an h.264 codec for XP. There cannot be more work to make a decoder for XP than there is to support it in Win7, and if they are distributing it for XP anyway, there isn't a license issue. So, there is no excuse for embedding the video decoder in the browser as opposed to the OS itself.
Which is how you explain to your wife why you need a couple of girl friends on the as well. After all, you are just making sure that her health isn't compromised by your necessary health regiment.
That problem is definitely not restricted to I.T. It is pretty much standard operating procedure for any industry where the customer is at the mercy of the supplier, and many industries where they are not.
but rather bans toys distributed with meals that exceed nutritional limits (485 Calories, 600 mg sodium).
That's no better. Calories are not evil. Calories are good. You eat food for calories. Some kids will be over eating with 485 calories in a meal, and some kids (as well as adults) would not be eating enough at 485 calories a meal. And what does sodium have to do with obesity? Sure, you might carry a few extra pounds of water weight if you eat a lot of salt, but it definitely is not causing an obesity problem. The biggest problem with McDonald's is the sugar drinks and sugar french fries. Even if people eat at home with no toy, it won't solve the problem of people guzzling down sugar drinks like the "Fitness Waters" being sold, and eating balls of sugar like potatoes, the the while patting themselves on the back and sneering at those lesser people eating "unhealthy" food at McDonald's.
That's funny, because I would teach my kid that sour cream and butter ARE food, and potatoes are not food. Potatoes are candy, not much better than Pixie Sticks.
I agree with your tactics, even if I disagree your examples. Of course, one of us is right about what if food, and one of us is wrong. Better that we each try our method, and find out which is right (or if it even matters), than the government decide for us, and be wrong.
One must conclude that youthful obesity is being driven by other factors than happy meal toys.
How about the current mentality that if the sugar is complex, then it not only isn't sugar, but is health food. Then there is the current mentality that you just need to count the number of calories put in your mouth, and the number of calories burned via exercise, because people now seem to think that every body digests and utilizes food in some magical 100% efficient way.
Of course, it could also be due to the fact that "obesity" is generally defined by the BMI which is simply wrong. So, maybe there are so many obese kids because various people found it politically convenient to define healthy people as "obese".
That movie was a total joke. It was an out right lie. It's real simple. They were trying to claim that eating McDonald's for a month was making his liver fail? Seriously? There are only two explanations for that claim. 1) He was already seriously ill when he started, or 2) His illness was faked.
Given that I personally heard him admit to faking scenes in his TV show, and claiming that it was his right to do so, I would put my money on it being a fake. Super Size Me was a completely blatant lie, and it is sad that there are people naive enough to believe it. Of course, it's hip to hate McDonald's, so it doesn't surprise me that people do.
The problem is that what is healthy eating and what is abuse is so topsy turvy that the Government can only makes things worse. Just look at how much money the Government spends trying to convince people to eat a primarily sugar diet. Then when they have success at it and people start getting fatter, they point at the fat people and say "See! They didn't eat enough sugar!"
Parents are routinely told to try to rationalize with their 2 year olds, because a quick swat on the bottom is "abuse". So instead of making a quick and clear connection between bad behavior and discomfort, parents try to abstract their punishment out to a point that the kids just don't make the connection. They are told that if they keep the child's discomfort mental, they can abuse them as much as they want with a pat on the back for 'good parenting'.
Slashdot Mirror
That is just unfair. I found reading his post about watching someone play a video game of baseball to be WAY more entertaining than an actual baseball game.
To be fair, the fact that Android is on all of the major carriers while Apple isn't, is part of the open vs. closed equation. So, you explained why a lot of people are choosing open instead of closed.
You are right that most people don't know or care about open vs. closed. That doesn't mean that they don't make decisions based on it. Your example of availability is a perfect one.
So, whether Android or iPhone takes the market will be due to many factors, and one of them will be open vs. closed. Even if no one says it out loud. (Of course not only will some people say it out loud, they will incorrectly claim that it is the end all be all deciding factor.)
Very good, now explain why women have lower conviction rates than men for the same crimes....
I was talking to my mail man a couple of years ago, and he was telling me about a mail carrier that had just been arrested for stealing Netflix movies. He said that they found over 300 Netflix movies in the mans home when they arrested him. The point is that while much of the processing is done by machines, there is still plenty of opportunities for humans to be involved. Whether Gamefly is treated differently or not, is a different matter.
That being said, I would be looking closely at Gamefly myself if I were the USPS. While I don't know how much of the problem is with the USPS or not, I do know that Gamefly handling is either very poor, or fraudulent. My experience is that even when games are sent back together, they generally don't "arrive" at the same time. There seems to be a general pattern. If two games are mailed back at the same time, one always arrives a day or two later. It seems unlikely that this is something the USPS could be having on accident. If 3 games are sent back, 2 will generally show up first, and the 3rd will show up a few days later. With 4, it seems to split as 2 and 2.
While I am willing to consider that they just get separated in the mailing process, it seems a bit too consistent of separation for it to be an accident. That being said, on the rare occasion that I have lost a mailing envelope, or it was too damaged to use for a return, I have done the standard procedure of putting two disks in a single envelope. When I have done this, the games almost always "arrive" on different days.
Gamefly has gotten better over the last couple of years, but they still clearly have poor handling internally. Of course, poor handling by Gamefly and poor handling by USPS are not necessarily mutually exclusive.
So your changing the argument. Who ever said they knew anything about the class before they attended? These are freshman and sophomores attending college.
We are discussing requiring ALL students to attend EVERY class, so it isn't a question of whether one student doesn't know the material, and thus will get value from attending. It is a question of whether any students do know the material, and the the class is a time (and thus money) drain for no good reason. So, to answer your question... No one said that any of the students knew the material before attending the class. Why? Because it is a self evident truth that there will be some people that know the material before entering the class. I know I have personally had that experience, and have seen other students that not only know the material, but were more familiar with the material than the teacher.
Say what? So your basically saying the assembly line concept is less efficient than building cars by hand... I get it. Quality vs Quantity. Unless you can fund a full staff of professors with benefits...riiighhtt.....good luck with that. Your looking at the picture in hindsight. Your comparing human beings who have the ability to change their lives through teachers with mere fruits and vegetables; the top of the food chain with the bottom. Don't confuse a human with fruits and vegetables although I know some of them are out there.
No, I am comparing the product of classroom instruction with other products. Your Quality vs. Quantity comment makes no sense and is totally non sequitur.
I was talking about getting your money's worth out of the professor, not the class.
No, you are talking about using up a resource for no purpose so that you can feel like you got your money's worth. If you already know the material, listening to a professor repeat information that you already know is not getting anything of value out of the professor. Sitting in class sessions that you already know to get value out of the professor makes as much sense as buying extra stuff so that you can fill your garbage can to the brim so that you can get value out of the garbage company. Using a service, and getting value out of it are two totally different things.
What the hell do you think he's doing when he goes to class?! He's doing this out of the goodness of his heart and after class he toils in the mill to earn a living? HE'S EARNING A LIVING WHEN HE TEACHES CLASS.
Great, so you agree that you were wrong, and he does not have something better to do with his life.
Further more saying he's like the rest of the population is just down right insulting. He went through 30 years of school to say he's like the rest of the population. WOW! say that to your professor the next time.
Wow is right. I don't know if you are an arrogant asshole professor, or some kind of toadie. Either way, that class mentality is part of the problem with education. There are plenty of people in this world that do things for 30 years. So, yes. Professors are just like the rest of the population. The only reason I would refrain from telling a professor that is if they were in a position to abuse their authority by giving me a bad grade or failing me because I didn't bow to their highly unethical behavior.
So a freshman is supposed to call the shots being 18 all he MUST know everything! We all have dreams of grandeur.
Yes, a freshman IS supposed to call the shots concerning his education. The claim that a normally functioning adult calling the shots on their own education and knowing what is best for themselves is dreams of grandeur, can only mean that you don't know what that term means.
Claiming that attendance in a class that you don't need should be required so that you "get your money's worth", is just as logical as claiming that driving on every road in town should be required so that you "get your money's worth".
I am sure the professor has better things to do with his time than to force a bunch of freshman to learn the material.
No he doesn't. Earning a living is clearly the best use of his time. If it wasn't, then he wouldn't be their. No, doubt, university professors are like the rest of the population, and would like to not have to show up to work. But just like a telephone does not offer value every second that it is available for use, neither does a classroom. And just like the telephone operator needs to show up to work so that they are there IF you need them, so does the professor.
Sitting through a class that does not educate you is NOT getting your money's worth. It is throwing good money after bad. This mentality that sitting in a classroom IS the value of school is just bizarre.
Only if the point is to make sure the students are educated.
and also because it disrespects them to not show up to their classes.
That is total BS. Any teacher that claims that is an arrogant ass. It is because they feel that you are there for their benefit, and not the other way around. Skipping a class in school is as disrespectful to a teacher to the exact same degree that skipping a haircut is disrespectful to a barber.
I don't see why I would necessarily have to go to class if I knew the material.
It is necessary because the first 13 years of school in the US is based on showing up. Actually learning anything is secondary at best. The population has been trained for generations that attendance is what matters. Is it any surprise that this mentality seeps into what should be higher education?
If the electricity is supplied in exchange for that commercial instead of cash, you can be that a lot of people would jump at the offer.
That or go see a physio who can charge him for his time at a rate that will allow him to give the patient a "Free" Wii.
They also increase the danger for themselves and every other law enforcement officer. Between the crimes I have personally witnessed police officers commit, the 'explanations' I have had off duty police give me for why it is OK for police to commit crimes, and witnessing police officers superior and colleges cover up crimes committed by their fellow police, I have to assume that in any physical altercation I witness between the police and anyone else, is a rogue cop.
I might be convince otherwise with evidence, but lacking evidence beyond two men in a conflict, the only rational assumption is that the person you know is a member of an organization that openly commits crimes as an matter of practice is the aggressor, and the person that you don't know commits crimes is the victim.
When the police allow members of their organization to run amok, they loose the support of the populous. That puts every officer in more danger.
No.
So, your saying that NBC is a good game?
Reading email at home means that I get to spend all day almost every day with my son, cut 12 hours a week of commuting off of my work week, can take off in the middle of the day to run all sorts when I need to, can even run a television in the background while I work. That doesn't even mention that I could work in my underwear if I choose.
Working at home is not inherently bad. Taking the stance that work should NEVER enter the home is just as bad as people who work at the office all day, and then come home and work at home most of the night.
My employer knows that he could call me at 2 in the morning and ask me to drive the 70 miles to the office, and I would hurry to do it. Of course, if he did do that, the reason I would hurry is because he would never do that unless there was a REALLY good reason for it (which has never happened). Both my attitude and his is why I have worked for the same employer for over a decade.
Then the obvious solution is for MS to ship an h.264 codec for XP. There cannot be more work to make a decoder for XP than there is to support it in Win7, and if they are distributing it for XP anyway, there isn't a license issue. So, there is no excuse for embedding the video decoder in the browser as opposed to the OS itself.
Because it is a just a way to rationalize a vice.
Which is how you explain to your wife why you need a couple of girl friends on the as well. After all, you are just making sure that her health isn't compromised by your necessary health regiment.
That problem is definitely not restricted to I.T. It is pretty much standard operating procedure for any industry where the customer is at the mercy of the supplier, and many industries where they are not.
but rather bans toys distributed with meals that exceed nutritional limits (485 Calories, 600 mg sodium).
That's no better. Calories are not evil. Calories are good. You eat food for calories. Some kids will be over eating with 485 calories in a meal, and some kids (as well as adults) would not be eating enough at 485 calories a meal. And what does sodium have to do with obesity? Sure, you might carry a few extra pounds of water weight if you eat a lot of salt, but it definitely is not causing an obesity problem. The biggest problem with McDonald's is the sugar drinks and sugar french fries. Even if people eat at home with no toy, it won't solve the problem of people guzzling down sugar drinks like the "Fitness Waters" being sold, and eating balls of sugar like potatoes, the the while patting themselves on the back and sneering at those lesser people eating "unhealthy" food at McDonald's.
That's funny, because I would teach my kid that sour cream and butter ARE food, and potatoes are not food. Potatoes are candy, not much better than Pixie Sticks.
I agree with your tactics, even if I disagree your examples. Of course, one of us is right about what if food, and one of us is wrong. Better that we each try our method, and find out which is right (or if it even matters), than the government decide for us, and be wrong.
One must conclude that youthful obesity is being driven by other factors than happy meal toys.
How about the current mentality that if the sugar is complex, then it not only isn't sugar, but is health food. Then there is the current mentality that you just need to count the number of calories put in your mouth, and the number of calories burned via exercise, because people now seem to think that every body digests and utilizes food in some magical 100% efficient way.
Of course, it could also be due to the fact that "obesity" is generally defined by the BMI which is simply wrong. So, maybe there are so many obese kids because various people found it politically convenient to define healthy people as "obese".
"kinda blatantly biased propaganda"???
That movie was a total joke. It was an out right lie. It's real simple. They were trying to claim that eating McDonald's for a month was making his liver fail? Seriously? There are only two explanations for that claim. 1) He was already seriously ill when he started, or 2) His illness was faked.
Given that I personally heard him admit to faking scenes in his TV show, and claiming that it was his right to do so, I would put my money on it being a fake. Super Size Me was a completely blatant lie, and it is sad that there are people naive enough to believe it. Of course, it's hip to hate McDonald's, so it doesn't surprise me that people do.
The problem is that what is healthy eating and what is abuse is so topsy turvy that the Government can only makes things worse. Just look at how much money the Government spends trying to convince people to eat a primarily sugar diet. Then when they have success at it and people start getting fatter, they point at the fat people and say "See! They didn't eat enough sugar!"
Parents are routinely told to try to rationalize with their 2 year olds, because a quick swat on the bottom is "abuse". So instead of making a quick and clear connection between bad behavior and discomfort, parents try to abstract their punishment out to a point that the kids just don't make the connection. They are told that if they keep the child's discomfort mental, they can abuse them as much as they want with a pat on the back for 'good parenting'.