What they mean by "slump" is not that there are no successful films, but overall there are not an 'acceptible' number of sucessful films. Sure, Spider -Man/Shrek/PotC may gross huge sums, but compared with the big-budget flops....they are losing. I have no sympathy for the movie producers/companies about this problem. The last movie I went to go see in theaters was Hitch-hiker's Guide to the Galaxy, and that was only because one of my all-time favorite emcees, Mos Def, played a starring role. This partially because I'm a broke college student, and also because there hasn't been a movie that I felt deserved my money (even though I did see Hotel Rwanda, and House of the Flying Daggars before HHGG). Cool trailers don't do it for me, they all have those. "Reviewers" don't phase me, as their tastes don't match mine and they generally are coerced into liking crap. Instead, I wait for people I trust to see it before me and enjoy it OR wait for it on DVD (even though then the film has to fight for my money versus the comparatively wide selection of independent films in this college town).
So in short, Hollywood has enough blockbusters and too many overpriced action films that flop (because they suck and are uninventive).
According to dictionary.com "informative" means:
1: tending to increase knowledge or dissipate ignorance
2: serving to instruct of enlighten or inform
3: providing or conveying information
I suppose strictly speaking the post conveyed information, but it neither was relevant nor important. In accords with the first definiton it seems to CAUSE ignorance by focusing on an ad hominem attack on the previous poster's spelling and hoping to infer something about the post's actual content. Hopefully the AC is from somewhere other than the U.S., so we (in the U.S.) can claim we are spreading something. It's these sorts of posts that cause one to loose faith in humanity.
What is interesting in the privacy fears arguments is that they generally use some sort of slippery slope argument..."Well what if they use 'context-sensitive' pricing" yadda yadda yadda. I must say there is something intuitively enticing about such arguments, but from a logical point of view they are mush. There are REAL worries about privacy and people who are using these sorts of arguments are undermining the actual problems. Rather than resorting to flights of fancy about the possibilities of some evil corporation selling our precious data, we ought to be spending much more time analyzing the ACTUAL consequences of certain programs/policies/etc.
I find no problems with context-sensitive advertising. It helps the company target the consumer more specifically. It helps the consumer not be bothered with ads for things that they would never buy, e.g. a bachelor buying tampons. This could help weed out the incredible amount of trash that gets advertised these days, like those god-awful "this program does not guarantee you to get rich, but guess what? I DID!" commercials.
Of course other posters have brought up problems with this sort of advertisements, like getting bombarded with Girls Gone Wild ads on late night Comedy Central, but this sort of problem slowly fades into irrelevancy if the people creating these user profiles actually spend time forming relevant categories that do indeed divide the audience into useful segments. If figured out all 18-25 year old males do not like the same things and are not tempted into buying the same items, then they would suddenly become much more effective in their ad placement. While guys watching TechTV or SciFi may be lonely geeks, they also know how to use the interweb to solve their porn needs so Girls Gone Wild videos are pointless for them.
So the people complaining need to understand that these sorts of problems are not inherent in the system being set up, but the lazy creators/programmers/ad-executives that do not feel like putting in quality time to make a quality product.
While the body of your message seems fine, the title does not seem to make much sense. You are not frustrated at Firefox, or you ought not be. You ought to be frustrated at the designers of the multimedia pages you are visiting. I have problems logging into my school's blackboard site with Firefox (although it works with the Mozilla browser), but I do not necessarily blame the Firefox programmers.
Rather than waste more space with my personal problems with Firefox, the one big beef I have with the thing is it troublesome update/reinstall/extensions process. I know I ought to uninstall the old version before I reinstall, but I really don't feel like spending my time installing all the extensions I use after installation. Fix that and Firefox would be A+ in my book.
Technically, 2 and 3 in the world rankings of GDP would be the European Union and China, with their combined GDP ousting the U.S. by $7,162,000,000,000. I think it's fair to include the EU as relevent since you phrased it as "economic power" and not as countries. Goodday sir.
Would you think differently if they were viewing swimsuit models, porn, or slashdot
I doubt he would. What you do is your business. If you cannot stay focused in classroom/lecture hall because the person in front of you is playing a game or searching Google for 'Jenna Jameson fucked hard' then you need to reassess your academic goals. I choose not to bring my laptop because it is merely a distraction for me. I do this because I value the classroom experience. If someone else feels like doing whatever in class, then so be it. As long as it isn't unreasonably distracting.
Copyright GC/ I&R
P.O. Box 70400
Southwest Station
Washington, DC 20024-0400 #-Double space
To whom it may concern: #-Double space
Body #-Double space
Seperated by double spaces
#-Double space
Sincerely, #-Triple space (for signature)
Print Name
Return Address Seperating by single spaces
True most corporations are cold and heartless scum of the Earth, but at least Apple(TM) tries to be minimally cool. They are looking out for their own interests, as is to be expected, but they have also figured out what is in the interests of the consumer coincidentally meshes up with the interests of the company (surprise!).
It is extremely possible to be the "victum" of something and yet bear responsiblity for what happened to you
No doubt even in the most extreme cases the victim bears some responsibility, but that does not work to justify the actions of the other person. The person I was responding to seemed to take the position that if the worker-bee at the store didn't check the package then it is their fault for the fraud. Yes the retailer should train their employees to take reasonable steps against fraud but that is a long ways away from being able to blame them for the fraud.
If anything, getting ripped off was just as much the retailer's fault for not checking.
Similarly, if you get robbed it's your fault because surely you know there are thieves out there and yet you did not lock up your possessions enough to keep them out! Oh how I love blaming the victim!
If you don't see anything wrong with that, then you're a person that I wouldn't want as a friend.
Oh no, I see something wrong with it but that wrong does not cancel out the original fraud. If a friend wants me to have their back when they act like a moron then they need to think again. I am not going to stand complacent of some wrong just because you are my friend. Being fair goes both ways.
How exactly is it worse? The friend committed fraud and the poster did not agree with fraud so he turned him in. I would like to hear your explanation for this though.
I really can't understand how people can justify this to themselves.
Generally they think something along the lines of: I am more important than anyone else, so I can do whatever I want to get what I want. See people have this uncanny ability to rationalize any 'bad' things they may do. Then they come to actually believe it!
As a poor analogy, metal furnature layed out in the open will never assemble itself by the force of gravity. One of many complications is that gravity doesn't produce the torque needed to fasten nuts and bolts.
I do hope that you mistakenly used this 'poor analogy', because it seems to me like a recasted Watchmaker Analogy.
It defies all physics and mathematics.
Again I hope just a miswording because I don't think 'defy' is being properly used. So evolutionary theory is contradictory to physics and math? Or is it just not explained properly?
It is wrong to deny that we have 'faith' in the future of science to come up with an explanation and pretend that our science has nothing to do with 'faith'.
I am pleased to see that you put faith in scare-quotes, because it seems you recognize the problem the term gives rise to. I don't think the 'faith' people have in reason or logic is the same type 'faith' religious people have. The 'faith' I have in logic is one purely of practicality. I have studied it enough to be sure that it will give me a proper inference based on an agreed upon set of axioms (further reading). The axioms are not something one goes around challenging all willy-nilly, but they have withheld over 2,000 years of challenges and that says something (YMMV on what that says). Now the faith of religious people is often challenged (e.g. faith of Christians vs. faith of Muslims vs. faith of Jedi Knights), and has given some people enough of a reason to just drop the axioms of their faith.
It is not a religious issue for everybody but a strictly philosophical and scientific one.
You ought to separate your philosophical objections and scientific ones. If you want to critique science in terms of philosophy then I'd suggest moving to sticky topics like causality and induction rather than intentionality (which I am assuming is your beef with evolution). These arguments are important, but they have their place (and that isn't in the high school intro science classroom). Those of us who get angry with the Creationists are not (for the most part) saying their so-called critiques are stupid or something scientists need to deal with, but that if they were really interested in challenging anything they wouldn't be doing it in a high-school level science class. The fact they want to present high school students with material that is relevant in advanced-undergraduate or graduate classes does seem to show some insincerity on their part.
It's perfectly possible that this may be just the same 'thing' described differently.
Good, now go forth and spread the word. Science and religion speak different languages. There is no conflict. Actually, there's nothing to see here. Come on people, just move along.
Pardon my ignorace, but I thought the principle of 'irreducible complexity' was just an appeal to ignorance. "Hey guys, this is so complex that we can't figure out a way that it could have just EVOLVE. So ____." ____ = insert whatever the hell you want to because it surely doesn't matter. I view 'Irreducible complexity' as analagous to just throwing your arms up in the air with disguist because you can't understand something.
How does ID challenge evolution in "a new way"? Scientists have been and will continue to critique evolutionary theory to see if it correctly explains what needs to be explained. So what is ID bringing to the table? Other than a bunch of incoherent shouting of course.
I don't know if I'd deem it worthless. Induction does raise some interesting thoughts, like the Base Rate Fallacy or Simpson's Paradox. But that's just me...
I assume by 'pure' logic you mean deduction? So induction is out? Damn, and I spent a whole semester working on Bayes' Theorum and those damned green emeralds for nothing? =(
Slashdot Mirror
What they mean by "slump" is not that there are no successful films, but overall there are not an 'acceptible' number of sucessful films. Sure, Spider -Man/Shrek/PotC may gross huge sums, but compared with the big-budget flops....they are losing. I have no sympathy for the movie producers/companies about this problem. The last movie I went to go see in theaters was Hitch-hiker's Guide to the Galaxy, and that was only because one of my all-time favorite emcees, Mos Def, played a starring role. This partially because I'm a broke college student, and also because there hasn't been a movie that I felt deserved my money (even though I did see Hotel Rwanda, and House of the Flying Daggars before HHGG). Cool trailers don't do it for me, they all have those. "Reviewers" don't phase me, as their tastes don't match mine and they generally are coerced into liking crap. Instead, I wait for people I trust to see it before me and enjoy it OR wait for it on DVD (even though then the film has to fight for my money versus the comparatively wide selection of independent films in this college town).
So in short, Hollywood has enough blockbusters and too many overpriced action films that flop (because they suck and are uninventive).
+1 Informative? WTF?
According to dictionary.com "informative" means:
1: tending to increase knowledge or dissipate ignorance
2: serving to instruct of enlighten or inform
3: providing or conveying information
I suppose strictly speaking the post conveyed information, but it neither was relevant nor important. In accords with the first definiton it seems to CAUSE ignorance by focusing on an ad hominem attack on the previous poster's spelling and hoping to infer something about the post's actual content. Hopefully the AC is from somewhere other than the U.S., so we (in the U.S.) can claim we are spreading something. It's these sorts of posts that cause one to loose faith in humanity.
What is interesting in the privacy fears arguments is that they generally use some sort of slippery slope argument..."Well what if they use 'context-sensitive' pricing" yadda yadda yadda. I must say there is something intuitively enticing about such arguments, but from a logical point of view they are mush. There are REAL worries about privacy and people who are using these sorts of arguments are undermining the actual problems. Rather than resorting to flights of fancy about the possibilities of some evil corporation selling our precious data, we ought to be spending much more time analyzing the ACTUAL consequences of certain programs/policies/etc.
I find no problems with context-sensitive advertising. It helps the company target the consumer more specifically. It helps the consumer not be bothered with ads for things that they would never buy, e.g. a bachelor buying tampons. This could help weed out the incredible amount of trash that gets advertised these days, like those god-awful "this program does not guarantee you to get rich, but guess what? I DID!" commercials.
Of course other posters have brought up problems with this sort of advertisements, like getting bombarded with Girls Gone Wild ads on late night Comedy Central, but this sort of problem slowly fades into irrelevancy if the people creating these user profiles actually spend time forming relevant categories that do indeed divide the audience into useful segments. If figured out all 18-25 year old males do not like the same things and are not tempted into buying the same items, then they would suddenly become much more effective in their ad placement. While guys watching TechTV or SciFi may be lonely geeks, they also know how to use the interweb to solve their porn needs so Girls Gone Wild videos are pointless for them.
So the people complaining need to understand that these sorts of problems are not inherent in the system being set up, but the lazy creators/programmers/ad-executives that do not feel like putting in quality time to make a quality product.
While the body of your message seems fine, the title does not seem to make much sense. You are not frustrated at Firefox, or you ought not be. You ought to be frustrated at the designers of the multimedia pages you are visiting. I have problems logging into my school's blackboard site with Firefox (although it works with the Mozilla browser), but I do not necessarily blame the Firefox programmers.
Rather than waste more space with my personal problems with Firefox, the one big beef I have with the thing is it troublesome update/reinstall/extensions process. I know I ought to uninstall the old version before I reinstall, but I really don't feel like spending my time installing all the extensions I use after installation. Fix that and Firefox would be A+ in my book.
It'd be even easier if they explained why support for those browsers had to be "added". Who knew HTML could be so fickle?
Technically, 2 and 3 in the world rankings of GDP would be the European Union and China, with their combined GDP ousting the U.S. by $7,162,000,000,000. I think it's fair to include the EU as relevent since you phrased it as "economic power" and not as countries. Goodday sir.
would = wouldn't. =/
Date
#-triple space
Copyright GC/ I&R
P.O. Box 70400
Southwest Station
Washington, DC 20024-0400
#-Double space
To whom it may concern:
#-Double space
Body
#-Double space
Seperated by double spaces #-Double space
Sincerely,
#-Triple space (for signature)
Print Name
Return Address Seperating by single spaces
Parent is a liar! It is clearly 446,000 results for "ferrari" on Google images!
Oh the shame you have caused Lord Google...
True most corporations are cold and heartless scum of the Earth, but at least Apple(TM) tries to be minimally cool. They are looking out for their own interests, as is to be expected, but they have also figured out what is in the interests of the consumer coincidentally meshes up with the interests of the company (surprise!).
If you don't see anything wrong with that, then you're a person that I wouldn't want as a friend.
Oh no, I see something wrong with it but that wrong does not cancel out the original fraud. If a friend wants me to have their back when they act like a moron then they need to think again. I am not going to stand complacent of some wrong just because you are my friend. Being fair goes both ways.
what you did is MUCH worse.
How exactly is it worse? The friend committed fraud and the poster did not agree with fraud so he turned him in. I would like to hear your explanation for this though.
It's perfectly possible that this may be just the same 'thing' described differently.
Good, now go forth and spread the word. Science and religion speak different languages. There is no conflict. Actually, there's nothing to see here. Come on people, just move along.
Pardon my ignorace, but I thought the principle of 'irreducible complexity' was just an appeal to ignorance. "Hey guys, this is so complex that we can't figure out a way that it could have just EVOLVE. So ____." ____ = insert whatever the hell you want to because it surely doesn't matter. I view 'Irreducible complexity' as analagous to just throwing your arms up in the air with disguist because you can't understand something.
How does ID challenge evolution in "a new way"? Scientists have been and will continue to critique evolutionary theory to see if it correctly explains what needs to be explained. So what is ID bringing to the table? Other than a bunch of incoherent shouting of course.
I don't know if I'd deem it worthless. Induction does raise some interesting thoughts, like the Base Rate Fallacy or Simpson's Paradox. But that's just me...
I assume by 'pure' logic you mean deduction? So induction is out? Damn, and I spent a whole semester working on Bayes' Theorum and those damned green emeralds for nothing? =(
And Hume's Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion .