Just wait until Amazon starts offering a showroom. That is when local shops will really be screwed. Brick & Mortar Stores keep complaining that customers use them as showrooms and then order from Amazon. Eventually someone is going to realize that customers want a showroom and to order online. If a store only needed to display items and answer questions, the variety of products they could display would be dramatically increased. The amount of staff would be reduced. Loss prevention would be massively simplified, as you would only have floor models. The store wouldn't even need to handle money. A line of self serve internet kiosks for ordering and they would be good to go. The only problem is getting the company to see how a showroom increases sales online.
His calculation is even using the very low mileage of 15k miles. Use a more mid range value of 30k miles and you are in the 5 year break even point. Nice.
The point is that the human body adjusts itself to the amount of sugar it is expecting. If you put in way more sugar than you can process, you will get a sugar high. Giving a name to the reason for a sugar high doesn't invalidate it's existence.
If you can't tell the difference between, Coke, Pepsi, and generic store brand cola, your palate is dead. If you don't like any of them, that is fine, but to claim that the only difference is advertising shows a great deal of ignorance.
You do realize that people who diagnose and treat ADHD are generally considered vile scumbags who drug and abuse children for convenience and profit. Right? Saying that you are or were one of these people doesn't really give you credibility.
Absolutely untrue. My healthiest way of eating is almost entirely carnivorous. When I am watching my weight I have almost no sugar in my diet. Sitting down and eating a high sugar meal most certainly gives me a sugar high. Enough of one that I wouldn't drive under those conditions.
A study following the examples you gave would most certainly not show the "sugar" thing to be 100% confirmation bias. It would show that at best there is enough confirmation bias that taking most parents word for it is useless.
Of course, using an alternate method of making the kids hyper also invalidates the study. If you fed a room full of people decaf coffee, telling them that it was caffeinated, but slipped them meth without telling them, it wouldn't prove that caffeine doesn't make many people jittery.
You joke, but knowing how to decipher SMS speak into regular English is a more useful skill than learning to translate Old English into regular English. Shakespeare is an Old English equivalent of Southpark. Entertaining in it's time. Loaded with low brow comedy. Frequently carries a message. Just not that important in the long run.
If you had any real imagination, you wouldn't be leaning on someone else's writing as a crutch. Why bother imagining a battle or love affair when you can open a book and be spoon fed the story.
The complain that video removes imagination, while implying that writing does not is a big helping of "My shade of grey is better than your shade of grey".
That is the dirty secret of classic literature. Most of it just isn't that good.
I don't think the point of making kids read Shakespeare is to increase reasoning skill. I think that they are made to read it because the people assigning it think it is great literature. They assume that it is their own failing that they don't find it very good, so they either work hard at convincing themselves it is good, or they just fake it. It is like the Emperor's New Clothes.
The point is that the Mac has never been a product that most people want. Apple has made money on the Mac, but a claim that it is a product "That people want" is over stating the product. Steve was able to sell expensive computers to a minority of people. I would say that Jobs almost entirely relied on 'clever little business strategies'. What most people want has been Windows boxes.
No, it isn't that difficult. Virtually every single insurance policy does it already. It is the deductible. Does anyone here have a health insurance policy without a deductible?
For there to be more people in absolute numbers who like Windows than people who like MacOS/OSX, only 1 in 9 computer users have to like it.
The fact that you saw flaws in Windows OSes, doesn't mean that people didn't like them. Some people disliking an OS while others like it is not only possible, it is reality.
Historically, in absolute numbers, there are more people that like Windows than like MacOS. People loved Windows 3.1. People loved XP. People loved 2000. People love 7. There are a higher percentage of OSX users that love OSX than Windows users who love Windows, but that is because everyone who doesn't care, uses Windows, and corporations use Windows.
I am typing before thinking this out, so please take it for what it is, but perhaps the solution is for an RFC to be created for a 'standard' advertisement tag. If Google and Mozilla could agree on it, advertising could be made much less intrusive. The browsers could get real aggressive on things like third party cookies and at the same time, they could make the path of least resistance to be a more discreet advertisement.
You are endorsing the kind of racism that is even worse for minorities. You see, the statement
The problem is that you cause people fitting the pattern without actually doing something wrong to be targeted as well. Think of it as discrimination against minorities. For example, think of it as discrimination against non-criminals in a certain race group. That is the real problem, discrimination against certain groups because of characteristics that are not their fault. The results will be that these people are intimidated, have their personal integrity and privacy violated, while doing nothing wrong whatsoever.
only needs to be dropped to include all of us. Believe it or not, white people DO get abused by the police as well. When a white person complains about this, they generally get the equivalent of "shut up whitey, you are the oppressor." This doesn't make things better for minorities, it shuns potential allies. Possibly more allies than in the group who is shunning them. And why do they shun these potential allies? Because of the color of their skin. Madness.
PROTIP: If a white person feels that they have the same problem you feel you have, and want to help you end the problem, take the help.
That is why I expect government agencies to be against auto drive cars. Just think of the funding they will lose when no one is committing traffic violations.
Slashdot Mirror
I feel sorry for people that feel they must relinquish the comic book phase of their life.
Just wait until Amazon starts offering a showroom. That is when local shops will really be screwed. Brick & Mortar Stores keep complaining that customers use them as showrooms and then order from Amazon. Eventually someone is going to realize that customers want a showroom and to order online. If a store only needed to display items and answer questions, the variety of products they could display would be dramatically increased. The amount of staff would be reduced. Loss prevention would be massively simplified, as you would only have floor models. The store wouldn't even need to handle money. A line of self serve internet kiosks for ordering and they would be good to go. The only problem is getting the company to see how a showroom increases sales online.
His calculation is even using the very low mileage of 15k miles. Use a more mid range value of 30k miles and you are in the 5 year break even point. Nice.
A blast that ignites while the car is still in mid air no less.
Ahh... I am an angry schoolboy because, by your own admission, your job was to abuse children. Gotcha.
The point is that the human body adjusts itself to the amount of sugar it is expecting. If you put in way more sugar than you can process, you will get a sugar high. Giving a name to the reason for a sugar high doesn't invalidate it's existence.
Regular or menthol?
a cheap drink like Coke to stretch a grocery budget
You must have never bought Coke. About the only way you are going to spend more for a drink is if you hit the alcohol isle.
If you can't tell the difference between, Coke, Pepsi, and generic store brand cola, your palate is dead. If you don't like any of them, that is fine, but to claim that the only difference is advertising shows a great deal of ignorance.
Well, what do you expect, it is a common industrial solvent.
You do realize that people who diagnose and treat ADHD are generally considered vile scumbags who drug and abuse children for convenience and profit. Right? Saying that you are or were one of these people doesn't really give you credibility.
Absolutely untrue. My healthiest way of eating is almost entirely carnivorous. When I am watching my weight I have almost no sugar in my diet. Sitting down and eating a high sugar meal most certainly gives me a sugar high. Enough of one that I wouldn't drive under those conditions.
A study following the examples you gave would most certainly not show the "sugar" thing to be 100% confirmation bias. It would show that at best there is enough confirmation bias that taking most parents word for it is useless.
Of course, using an alternate method of making the kids hyper also invalidates the study. If you fed a room full of people decaf coffee, telling them that it was caffeinated, but slipped them meth without telling them, it wouldn't prove that caffeine doesn't make many people jittery.
You joke, but knowing how to decipher SMS speak into regular English is a more useful skill than learning to translate Old English into regular English. Shakespeare is an Old English equivalent of Southpark. Entertaining in it's time. Loaded with low brow comedy. Frequently carries a message. Just not that important in the long run.
If you had any real imagination, you wouldn't be leaning on someone else's writing as a crutch. Why bother imagining a battle or love affair when you can open a book and be spoon fed the story.
The complain that video removes imagination, while implying that writing does not is a big helping of "My shade of grey is better than your shade of grey".
That is the dirty secret of classic literature. Most of it just isn't that good.
I don't think the point of making kids read Shakespeare is to increase reasoning skill. I think that they are made to read it because the people assigning it think it is great literature. They assume that it is their own failing that they don't find it very good, so they either work hard at convincing themselves it is good, or they just fake it. It is like the Emperor's New Clothes.
The point is that the Mac has never been a product that most people want. Apple has made money on the Mac, but a claim that it is a product "That people want" is over stating the product. Steve was able to sell expensive computers to a minority of people. I would say that Jobs almost entirely relied on 'clever little business strategies'. What most people want has been Windows boxes.
No, it isn't that difficult. Virtually every single insurance policy does it already. It is the deductible. Does anyone here have a health insurance policy without a deductible?
For there to be more people in absolute numbers who like Windows than people who like MacOS/OSX, only 1 in 9 computer users have to like it.
The fact that you saw flaws in Windows OSes, doesn't mean that people didn't like them. Some people disliking an OS while others like it is not only possible, it is reality.
So, then why hasn't he been able to sell Macs to the vast majority of people?
Historically, in absolute numbers, there are more people that like Windows than like MacOS. People loved Windows 3.1. People loved XP. People loved 2000. People love 7. There are a higher percentage of OSX users that love OSX than Windows users who love Windows, but that is because everyone who doesn't care, uses Windows, and corporations use Windows.
I am typing before thinking this out, so please take it for what it is, but perhaps the solution is for an RFC to be created for a 'standard' advertisement tag. If Google and Mozilla could agree on it, advertising could be made much less intrusive. The browsers could get real aggressive on things like third party cookies and at the same time, they could make the path of least resistance to be a more discreet advertisement.
The problem is that you cause people fitting the pattern without actually doing something wrong to be targeted as well. Think of it as discrimination against minorities. For example, think of it as discrimination against non-criminals in a certain race group. That is the real problem, discrimination against certain groups because of characteristics that are not their fault. The results will be that these people are intimidated, have their personal integrity and privacy violated, while doing nothing wrong whatsoever.
only needs to be dropped to include all of us. Believe it or not, white people DO get abused by the police as well. When a white person complains about this, they generally get the equivalent of "shut up whitey, you are the oppressor." This doesn't make things better for minorities, it shuns potential allies. Possibly more allies than in the group who is shunning them. And why do they shun these potential allies? Because of the color of their skin. Madness.
PROTIP: If a white person feels that they have the same problem you feel you have, and want to help you end the problem, take the help.
So, babble, babble, babble...babble then?
That is why I expect government agencies to be against auto drive cars. Just think of the funding they will lose when no one is committing traffic violations.