The OP is likely confused by the difference between Liability insurance and Comp/Coll insurance. It has been a few years since I was extensively in the inusrance industry, but it was not uncommon for companies to offer very low liability insurance (the kind of insurance you must have) and very high Comp/Coll insurance (the kind of insurance you should have on any vehicle you value). I even saw a few companies where the cost cost of Comp/Coll on a $6000 bike was $14000 a year. This was because they did not really want to do Comp/Coll on motorcycles, but knew that many people would be required to get the comp/coll due to a loan. So, they priced the insurance so that only the stupid would buy it.
This is why the current the current crop of hybrid cars annoy me. Just give me an electric car with a plug for the power source. I can go all electric when I'm local, and drop in the ethonol/petrol for a long trip. When Mr. Fusion becomes available, I don't need a new car. Just a new power module.
What do you mean? We ran out in the 70's. Don't you remember the rationing and long lines? After all, there wouldn't have been an even/odd license plate policy if we were not on the verge of being completely out of oil right?
When I was in college, there were groups going around telling women that "you may just not know you were raped." They had a clear goal of blurring the line between the words "rape" and "regret". It is nieve to believe that EVERY woman who claims rape really was raped. If it wasn't, we wouldn't need courts. Just a woman pointing a finger, and the man could be hauled off to jail.
I really hope that you do truly mean "in unrelated news", because it would sound really dumb if your saying that not getting eaten by a bear at 40 would somehow slow your speed of learning from birth to the age of 14.
We are talking about 14-18 year olds. the gp is right. If your kid at 18 years old, cannot properly choose how to eat, they are either retarded, or you have failed as a parent.
It wasn't that long ago that at 14, you were an adult, and not only would you be choosing what you were going to eat, but what your child was going to eat too. That went on for thousands of years. The fact is that just a few generations ago, at 14 years old you were an adult, and now, 18 year olds are just kids who can't even decide what to eat for lunch by themselves. This must be explainable by something. Don't use the "life is more complex" now argument, because when 14 year olds were adults, if you made mistakes and planted crops at the wrong time, or picked the wrong spot to build your own home, you and your family died. Life is much, much easier now.
So, it leaves us with the question. Has your genetic code degraded in the last few generations to the point that it takes 4 or 5 more years to reach adult intellegence? I know mine hasn't.
I want to try my hand...
Let say that the bandwidth is like a hose. You rent one piece and you buy another, which are your connection to the internet, and your personal router. You take this hose and hook it up to a public waterline (the internet). You then leave the other end out on the street. I don't think their is a court in country that would convict you for taking a drink from that hose. I don't think that there are even many people that would say it was even rude to take a drink from that hose.
Now, if you put a sign up that said. "Please don't drink from my hose. It is for private use only.", SOME people might consider it rude to drink from it, but I doubt that you would find a court that would convict over it.
If you put a lock on the end of that hose, and someone came along and picked that lock to drink from your hose, you probably could find a court that would convict, and most people would see a problem with that.
If someone found out that if they blew three times into the hose, it would turn a nozzel, and start drawing water out of your personal water tank that is used to supply your house, and they proceded to drain your tank, or harm it in any way, everyone would see that as a problem, and most assuradly a court would convict.
Of course while the court would convict, and everyone would agree that that person was wrong in what they did, you would also get lambasted over how much of an idiot you were for not putting a lock on the end of a hose that is both connect to your personal water tank and has an end out on the street where anyone can access it.
At least one core for voice recognition. Every user could benifit from voice recognition, which today is not really proctical due to processing limitations, even if the whole computer is dedicated to the task.
One core just for UI. Right now background programs can interfer with the UI. I run into UI slowdowns on a regular basis because of heavy tasks.
At least one core for media. You may not allways be processing video, but when you do, even for playback, you do not want your UI to bog down, or your voice recognition to stop working.
one for other tasks. You need at least one processor to run the various programs that are not consuming a whole core for themselves.
There are 4 or 5 cores necessary, and we haven't even started on gaming or virtualization. There are lots of tasks in the home that would be great for a computer, but the level of processing is so far below what is needed that it simply isn't practical to even try.
I'm not going to create a "logical argument". I'm just going to tell you to go read the other branch of this thread. The GP is still trying to argue that certain toys have predetermined uses, and that this prevents you from imagining other uses.
Of course, your post is an admition of being wrong. When you pull out the 'prove that the poster means what he says' argument, you are obviously on shaky ground. Can you imagine how threads would go if we actually asked everybody if they meant what they said? Lets see....
Poster1: "We're not debating Plato here."
Poster2: Do you really mean that we are not debating Plato?
Poster1: Yes.
Poster2: Do you really mean yes? I don't want to misunderstand.
Poster1: Do you really mean you don't want to misunderstand?
Poster2: Yep.
Poster1: Do you really mean yep? Because if you don't, my entire rebuttle will be void.
Poster2: Do you really mean that your entire rebuttle will be void? It's important to be clear you know.
Poster1: Do you really mean that it is important to be clear?
etc... etc... etc...
The only effective way to carry on a conversation is to accept that people mean what they say, and when you call them on it, for them to tell you that you misunderstood. That is not what happened here. The GP made a bizarre and incorrect statement. I called him on it, and he continued to defend his position. I know it is hard to believe that the GP really does mean what he said, but he is sticking to it.
As for the blank pages. If you write 10 pages of new material, you have come up with new stuff. Whether you spend that time imagining what one specific character looks like, and spend all 10 pages describing him, or you simply say he is "Luke Skywalker" and spend 10 pages describing the specific space craft he is flying, you still have crated 10 pages of new material. That is why, until you have imagined everything that can be imagined, starting with source material does not in any way limit imagination.
"How much more possiliby do you invite if you got rid of the boards altogether"
The same could be said of your box or stick. Either source material limits you, or it does not. The answer of course is that it does not.
"By contrast, the stick has limitless possibility. It wasn't built to be a rifle, therefore it doesn't fail to live up to my expectations. Likewise as the sword or magical staff. It's not an obvious contradiction to my imagination. It can't fail in its role because it *has* no pre-defined role. "
A stick is a stick and a robot is a robot. The pre-defined role you speak of is an illusion. It is not a characteristic of the toy, but of you. There is only a pre-defined role if choose to accept it. You have arbitrarily decided that one inanimate object can be imagined to have different properties but another can not. This makes absolutly no sense whatsoever.
"why should I do all that work?"
What?!?!?!?! Basically your saying that you will/did only use your imagination when there was no other choice. The whole point was to play and imagine. It's not work. If you couldn't and still can't figure that out, you have bigger problems.
"How much more possiliby do you invite if you got rid of the boards altogether?"
Exactly the same amount as if you got rid of your stick
Basically it comes down to this. As a child you had a limited imagination. When you grew up and became an adult, you didn't want to admit that it was you that was the limitation, so you blamed the toy. You now have a choice. Continue to blame inanimate objects for having attributes and stay in denial, or realize that you missed something, realize that there are no limits on imagination, and open a whole new world for yourself. I guarentee you that no matter what source material you start with, or how well fleshed out that source material is, or how much of the source material you choose to accept or deny, you will never have imagined everything that can be imagined with it.
I understand your point of view. My point of view is that you seem to have an extreamly limited imagination if yo believe that. You say
"the cardboard refridgerator box has no scneario-specific features to ignore"
In this you are absolutly wrong. You have to overcome the scenerio-specific feature that is is a box designed to hold a refriderator. You seem to be able to cope with that. Why can you not cope with ignoring that the robots legs don't bend in the middle. Maybe you could expand yourself if the first thing you did when you picked up an action figure is to pretend that it is a stick. Whamo! You now have an action figure with the exact same potential as a stick.
"There is simply a greater realm of possibility when you have blank pages."
This myth, worded in many different ways is just plain silly. The entire premise of that idea requires not only there to be a hard physical limit to imagination, but that limit must also be within a humans grasp. I'm not buying it.
"You don't have to follow the rules"
You know, you can make new rules. In high school we used to play Risk. When we had too many players, we would just add more boards. This wasn't in the rules, but we just used our imagination to move past what the corp. overlords told us. At times we would have up to thee boards and 15 players.
"I like action figures and still have some to this day, but they certainly aren't a fountain of imaginative play."
Go back and read the GP. He at 30 believes that action figures have only predetermined uses. You claimed that because he believed that at 8 he isn't an idiot. Well, my response was that he didn't just believe it at 8. He believes it at 30. You see the real problem is that the GP tried to say that if the toy is corporate manufactured, it cannot be used in any way not predetermined by the corp. overlords. He implied that playing with sticks and puddles are inherently better. This is certainly pretentious, and if he believes it, he certainly has limited mental capabilities.
The question now is, did you get confused by the thread, or do you believe that a 30 year old of normal intelligence can honestly believe that no unapproved games can be played with action figures?
No, its because "because the GP at" 30 "years old didn't possess the life experience and mental framework to rise above pervasive marketing, peer pressure, and peer envy, he's obviously an idiot."
No, your logic must be hindered if you can possibly come to the conclusion that an action figure (doll if you will) has all of it's actions predefined. It shows a distinct lack of imagination, and poor reasoning skills.
I may think I'm really smart, but I have no illusions that make me think a 30-year-old who is incapable of accomplishing a task that I easily handled at 8, has a fully functional mind.
Or, were you just being pretentious by implying that those who like toys that are mass manufactured are somehow not as good as you? You wouldn't be one of those people would you?
"Are my analytical skills impoverished because I ran around in the woods and played with sticks instead of playing the living room with shiny, plastic transformers?"
Given the statement:
"I remember being bored to tears by He-Man and G.I. Joe figures that required no imagination -- everything they did was pre-determined."
and
"I did *want* those toys that other kids had -- but when I got them, I certainly couldn't play with them. They were much to boring. They just sat on the shelf as models. That's really what they are."
That brings up the question... Will Bush be declared a war criminal when this all shakes out. I don't think that it takes a leap of logic to come to the conclusion that he is. The other question will be whether the "I was just following orders" will hold more water when US war criminals are being tried any better than when the war criminals were German.
Slashdot Mirror
Plus a monopoly requires control by a single (you know mono) entity. Linux is not controlled by a single entity. Thus not a monopoly.
When I looked in my local Fry's add and saw that I can buy a brand new computer for $150, I realized that computers have become commodities.
"Then please explain MS's 95% marketshare versus Apple's 5%?"
Piracy.
How about just putting the Linux binaries on the same disk as the Windows disk. It is the media that takes up most of the CD anyways.
The OP is likely confused by the difference between Liability insurance and Comp/Coll insurance. It has been a few years since I was extensively in the inusrance industry, but it was not uncommon for companies to offer very low liability insurance (the kind of insurance you must have) and very high Comp/Coll insurance (the kind of insurance you should have on any vehicle you value). I even saw a few companies where the cost cost of Comp/Coll on a $6000 bike was $14000 a year. This was because they did not really want to do Comp/Coll on motorcycles, but knew that many people would be required to get the comp/coll due to a loan. So, they priced the insurance so that only the stupid would buy it.
This is why the current the current crop of hybrid cars annoy me. Just give me an electric car with a plug for the power source. I can go all electric when I'm local, and drop in the ethonol/petrol for a long trip. When Mr. Fusion becomes available, I don't need a new car. Just a new power module.
What do you mean? We ran out in the 70's. Don't you remember the rationing and long lines? After all, there wouldn't have been an even/odd license plate policy if we were not on the verge of being completely out of oil right?
When I was in college, there were groups going around telling women that "you may just not know you were raped." They had a clear goal of blurring the line between the words "rape" and "regret". It is nieve to believe that EVERY woman who claims rape really was raped. If it wasn't, we wouldn't need courts. Just a woman pointing a finger, and the man could be hauled off to jail.
I really hope that you do truly mean "in unrelated news", because it would sound really dumb if your saying that not getting eaten by a bear at 40 would somehow slow your speed of learning from birth to the age of 14.
We are talking about 14-18 year olds. the gp is right. If your kid at 18 years old, cannot properly choose how to eat, they are either retarded, or you have failed as a parent.
It wasn't that long ago that at 14, you were an adult, and not only would you be choosing what you were going to eat, but what your child was going to eat too. That went on for thousands of years. The fact is that just a few generations ago, at 14 years old you were an adult, and now, 18 year olds are just kids who can't even decide what to eat for lunch by themselves. This must be explainable by something. Don't use the "life is more complex" now argument, because when 14 year olds were adults, if you made mistakes and planted crops at the wrong time, or picked the wrong spot to build your own home, you and your family died. Life is much, much easier now.
So, it leaves us with the question. Has your genetic code degraded in the last few generations to the point that it takes 4 or 5 more years to reach adult intellegence? I know mine hasn't.
I want to try my hand... Let say that the bandwidth is like a hose. You rent one piece and you buy another, which are your connection to the internet, and your personal router. You take this hose and hook it up to a public waterline (the internet). You then leave the other end out on the street. I don't think their is a court in country that would convict you for taking a drink from that hose. I don't think that there are even many people that would say it was even rude to take a drink from that hose.
Now, if you put a sign up that said. "Please don't drink from my hose. It is for private use only.", SOME people might consider it rude to drink from it, but I doubt that you would find a court that would convict over it.
If you put a lock on the end of that hose, and someone came along and picked that lock to drink from your hose, you probably could find a court that would convict, and most people would see a problem with that.
If someone found out that if they blew three times into the hose, it would turn a nozzel, and start drawing water out of your personal water tank that is used to supply your house, and they proceded to drain your tank, or harm it in any way, everyone would see that as a problem, and most assuradly a court would convict.
Of course while the court would convict, and everyone would agree that that person was wrong in what they did, you would also get lambasted over how much of an idiot you were for not putting a lock on the end of a hose that is both connect to your personal water tank and has an end out on the street where anyone can access it.
You mean by removing the 'repetative' from the repetative strass injury?
Or you could just periodically switch between a mouse and a track ball.
As the old joke goes...
Patient: "Doctor, Doctor, It hurts when I do this!"
Doctor: "Then don't do that."
At least one core for voice recognition. Every user could benifit from voice recognition, which today is not really proctical due to processing limitations, even if the whole computer is dedicated to the task.
One core just for UI. Right now background programs can interfer with the UI. I run into UI slowdowns on a regular basis because of heavy tasks. At least one core for media. You may not allways be processing video, but when you do, even for playback, you do not want your UI to bog down, or your voice recognition to stop working. one for other tasks. You need at least one processor to run the various programs that are not consuming a whole core for themselves. There are 4 or 5 cores necessary, and we haven't even started on gaming or virtualization. There are lots of tasks in the home that would be great for a computer, but the level of processing is so far below what is needed that it simply isn't practical to even try.
Exactly.
Which also solves the non-stop whinning about where the flying cars are. They are at Target for about a $1.
I'm not going to create a "logical argument". I'm just going to tell you to go read the other branch of this thread. The GP is still trying to argue that certain toys have predetermined uses, and that this prevents you from imagining other uses.
Of course, your post is an admition of being wrong. When you pull out the 'prove that the poster means what he says' argument, you are obviously on shaky ground. Can you imagine how threads would go if we actually asked everybody if they meant what they said? Lets see....
Poster1: "We're not debating Plato here."
Poster2: Do you really mean that we are not debating Plato?
Poster1: Yes.
Poster2: Do you really mean yes? I don't want to misunderstand.
Poster1: Do you really mean you don't want to misunderstand?
Poster2: Yep.
Poster1: Do you really mean yep? Because if you don't, my entire rebuttle will be void.
Poster2: Do you really mean that your entire rebuttle will be void? It's important to be clear you know.
Poster1: Do you really mean that it is important to be clear?
etc... etc... etc...
The only effective way to carry on a conversation is to accept that people mean what they say, and when you call them on it, for them to tell you that you misunderstood. That is not what happened here. The GP made a bizarre and incorrect statement. I called him on it, and he continued to defend his position. I know it is hard to believe that the GP really does mean what he said, but he is sticking to it.
As for the blank pages. If you write 10 pages of new material, you have come up with new stuff. Whether you spend that time imagining what one specific character looks like, and spend all 10 pages describing him, or you simply say he is "Luke Skywalker" and spend 10 pages describing the specific space craft he is flying, you still have crated 10 pages of new material. That is why, until you have imagined everything that can be imagined, starting with source material does not in any way limit imagination.
"How much more possiliby do you invite if you got rid of the boards altogether" The same could be said of your box or stick. Either source material limits you, or it does not. The answer of course is that it does not.
"By contrast, the stick has limitless possibility. It wasn't built to be a rifle, therefore it doesn't fail to live up to my expectations. Likewise as the sword or magical staff. It's not an obvious contradiction to my imagination. It can't fail in its role because it *has* no pre-defined role. "
A stick is a stick and a robot is a robot. The pre-defined role you speak of is an illusion. It is not a characteristic of the toy, but of you. There is only a pre-defined role if choose to accept it. You have arbitrarily decided that one inanimate object can be imagined to have different properties but another can not. This makes absolutly no sense whatsoever.
"why should I do all that work?"
What?!?!?!?! Basically your saying that you will/did only use your imagination when there was no other choice. The whole point was to play and imagine. It's not work. If you couldn't and still can't figure that out, you have bigger problems.
"How much more possiliby do you invite if you got rid of the boards altogether?"
Exactly the same amount as if you got rid of your stick
Basically it comes down to this. As a child you had a limited imagination. When you grew up and became an adult, you didn't want to admit that it was you that was the limitation, so you blamed the toy. You now have a choice. Continue to blame inanimate objects for having attributes and stay in denial, or realize that you missed something, realize that there are no limits on imagination, and open a whole new world for yourself. I guarentee you that no matter what source material you start with, or how well fleshed out that source material is, or how much of the source material you choose to accept or deny, you will never have imagined everything that can be imagined with it.
Ahh... those were the days... G.I. Joe and Barbie made to the same scale....
I understand your point of view. My point of view is that you seem to have an extreamly limited imagination if yo believe that. You say
"the cardboard refridgerator box has no scneario-specific features to ignore"
In this you are absolutly wrong. You have to overcome the scenerio-specific feature that is is a box designed to hold a refriderator. You seem to be able to cope with that. Why can you not cope with ignoring that the robots legs don't bend in the middle. Maybe you could expand yourself if the first thing you did when you picked up an action figure is to pretend that it is a stick. Whamo! You now have an action figure with the exact same potential as a stick.
"There is simply a greater realm of possibility when you have blank pages."
This myth, worded in many different ways is just plain silly. The entire premise of that idea requires not only there to be a hard physical limit to imagination, but that limit must also be within a humans grasp. I'm not buying it.
"You don't have to follow the rules"
You know, you can make new rules. In high school we used to play Risk. When we had too many players, we would just add more boards. This wasn't in the rules, but we just used our imagination to move past what the corp. overlords told us. At times we would have up to thee boards and 15 players.
"I like action figures and still have some to this day, but they certainly aren't a fountain of imaginative play."
That is your limitation. Not the toys.
Go back and read the GP. He at 30 believes that action figures have only predetermined uses. You claimed that because he believed that at 8 he isn't an idiot. Well, my response was that he didn't just believe it at 8. He believes it at 30. You see the real problem is that the GP tried to say that if the toy is corporate manufactured, it cannot be used in any way not predetermined by the corp. overlords. He implied that playing with sticks and puddles are inherently better. This is certainly pretentious, and if he believes it, he certainly has limited mental capabilities.
The question now is, did you get confused by the thread, or do you believe that a 30 year old of normal intelligence can honestly believe that no unapproved games can be played with action figures?
No, its because "because the GP at" 30 "years old didn't possess the life experience and mental framework to rise above pervasive marketing, peer pressure, and peer envy, he's obviously an idiot."
No, your logic must be hindered if you can possibly come to the conclusion that an action figure (doll if you will) has all of it's actions predefined. It shows a distinct lack of imagination, and poor reasoning skills.
I may think I'm really smart, but I have no illusions that make me think a 30-year-old who is incapable of accomplishing a task that I easily handled at 8, has a fully functional mind.
Or, were you just being pretentious by implying that those who like toys that are mass manufactured are somehow not as good as you? You wouldn't be one of those people would you?
"Are my analytical skills impoverished because I ran around in the woods and played with sticks instead of playing the living room with shiny, plastic transformers?"
Given the statement:
"I remember being bored to tears by He-Man and G.I. Joe figures that required no imagination -- everything they did was pre-determined."
and
"I did *want* those toys that other kids had -- but when I got them, I certainly couldn't play with them. They were much to boring. They just sat on the shelf as models. That's really what they are."
I'm going to have to say yes.
That brings up the question... Will Bush be declared a war criminal when this all shakes out. I don't think that it takes a leap of logic to come to the conclusion that he is. The other question will be whether the "I was just following orders" will hold more water when US war criminals are being tried any better than when the war criminals were German.
"waiting queue line 2 days just to get a box of powdered milk,"
No, in USA, you wait 5 hours in line just for piece of paper that say you can drive car!