Simple: you defer to a trusted panel of experts, not to mass opinion.
two problems: "trusted" and "expert". both of those are completely subjective. or maybe you have the secret: a mathematical formula that allows one to objectively rate a person's musical judging abilities? neat.
it boils down to the same thing. mass opinion is choosing what experts (aka critics) they consider worthy, and people generally choose an "expert" when it reinforces how they already feel about something.
yes, we know you love google and own a bunch of stock, but relax and read the comment first. nobody said google wasn't a household name when it comes to serch.
Or American Idol informing people of what good music is. You really have to wonder if Amazon found this book and said "this is a really good book" or if they said "find me a book that will translate well to the big screen."
sorry, american idol is popular because a lot of people enjoy it. how would you define "good" music, if it's not by popularity? is it perhaps defined by the opinions of you and your friends? if anything, "good music" is completely subjective and therefore an oxymoron if you try to apply it generally.
and by the way, american idolist don't even write their own music. they are just doing karaoke of previously popular music. they aren't defining music in any way. it's just a singing contest.
and who cares if they picked a book based on how well it xlats into a movie. if they are trying to produce a movie, that seems like a good idea.
this is what qualifies as insightful on/.? the question wasn't "what", it was "how". the what is obvious. e.g., i think everyone would agree that it'd be a good thing to increase our habitable real estate. that hard part is how to do it in a climate of budget problems and non-coperative governments.
right, because we all know that in a company with almost 40k workers and 8 levels of management that it's so very possible for john doe developer to affect the company's direction. and, no one ever said they were talented, but you can rarely track a product's failure to direct incompetence by the grunt workers.
the same factors that lead to it destroying the Earth and/or human life thereon might well lead to the same outcome in our planetary colonies.
yes, but not all at the same time. think of life on a larger scale. instead of there being hundreds of countries, there are hundreds of colonies. some may destroy themselves. some won't. new ones will be founded. no problem.
space is big. it's big enough to give a solar system to islam, and one to the christian right, and one to atheists, and one to vegans, etc. and when each of these groups break into factions, there's enough solar systems for each of those factions. and on and on.
Or is it all right for a food package to put "peanut free" on food that does contain peanuts? I'm not talking about a bag of peanuts either... Candy that nominally does not contain peanuts often is "contaminated" by nearby candy producing lines.
right, and in response, most every type of candy or bakery item now says "may contain peanuts" just to cover their asses. no, i don't have a point.
if i implied "inconceivable", that's not what i meant. i meant unlikely. the scenario this guy has painted is unlikely.
what's more likely? the lawyers screwed up in a way that will get them disabarred, and instead of backing off / correcting their problem, they actualy highlight the issue by filing suit against the fellow... or, that this guy isn't telling the whole story. lawyers screw up, but out of self interest they also avoid actions that will make get them banned from law practive forever. whatever amount of money they stand to make isn't worth that risk.
their suit against him must have some basis. do you think they are going to say to the judge "hey this guy won't sign this and we want him to, can you make him please?" there's *probably* more to it than that.
like i said earlier, the truth is going to be somewhere between the two sides of the story. it always is.
right, and we'd never be able to come up with any examples where the plaintiff has not be truthful. if you don't believe me, why don't you go and do some research on it?
i really don't get the logic where this guy writes a letter and states his innocence, and it therefore becomes true. maybe you'd like it to be true. and maybe you hate lawyers. try to separate that from the facts presented so far by this guy, in this forum, which are none. is it so hard to fathom the possibility that he DID make a verbal agreement, then backed out when we saw how much harassment he was going to take for it? a lot of people file silly lawsuits, what's your proof that this guy was any different? even if a verbal agreement is not binding in this case (i have no idea, is it?), that doesn't make him innocent of his original intent.
another way to look at it is that all HE has to do is NOTHING. if he never signed anything, if he never made any other sort of legally binding agreement, then he has no problem.
the idea that they could force him to be a plaintiff when he never agreed to is, to say the least, far-fetched. i think there's something more to the story.
Well, fortunately for everyone whether you believe him or not is irrelevant. I am pretty sure that every state requires that attorneys obtain an agreement in writing with a client. I know for a fact that California requires it. Either they have a written agreement or not. There is no middle ground. His intentions are completely irrelevant. The signed agreement is the only relevant issue of fact. If they cannot provide proof of one, then there is no dispute of fact.
okay i guess this wasn't clear to you. i believe that lawyers need signatures. i don't believe his account is 100% accurate / truthful. just because the guy writes a letter and tells everyone that he didn't have an agreement / etc. with these lawyers, doesn't make it true, right? this is just his account. it's not proof of anything.
seriously, the guy is having is life ruined over this. he has a pretty good motivation to say anything he can to get the apple lovin' public off his back.
i don't believe him. i guess anything is possible, but the idea that not one but TWO lawyers would screw up to this extent is unfathomable to me. lawyers live by dotting i's and crossing t's. am i to believe they forgot to even get his signature before filing the suit?
like most things, the truth is probably somewhere in between the two sides of the story.
If you're not worried about the system being used to look for terrorists, imagine it being used to look for tax fraud or illegal gun ownership. Then decide if you want this system in place.
hmmm. those are just as illegal as terrorism, and probably more damaging to the nation overall. so, i don't get your point.
the apple has a slower processor (but it's dual core), 1/2 the HD space, and it's $100 more. and also, the dell comes w/ a 17" flat panel, keyboard, and mouse.
love your mac. there are a lot of reasons. i'm typing this from a powerbook. but please, be honest with yourself about the cost.
well that's easy. this is about sponsored links, and google makes money from the companies that sponsor the links. i doubt that google knows these sites are dangerous, and they aren't going to go out of their way to find out.
don't flatter yourself. laws that disallow indoor smoking have nothing to do with saving you from yourself. is has to do with saving other people from you. it's about second hand smoke.
look. if they find an dvd, no worries. if they find 1000 DVDs, they'll probably look into it. pretty easy to tell. consider the size and weight of the package.
seriously folks, get back to me when you find law enforcement spending millions of dollars to find and play every single DVD shipped through fedex, and get back to me when fedex accepts massive shipping delays and massive losses because of this. it ain't gonna happen.
but yeah, i enjoy a good paranoid fantasy as much as the next guy.
how is this different from MSFT making IE the default browser when you install windows? you can change it after the fact, but they do not give you the option at install time to choose a variety of browsers. the reason why MSFT got spanked is because they were preventing users (in various direct and non-direct ways) from using other browsers, not because they simply made IE the default.
seems like if it's okay for the browser, it's okay for the search engine.
i agree, the switching to windows idea is absurd. however, so is the putting OSX on generic boxes idea. apple is a hardware company. OSX is about selling apple hardware. the amount of money they could make from selling OSX licenses for non-apple hardware is peanuts compared to what they make selling their hardware.
how many people would continue to pay a premium for apple's hardware if they could get a PC w/ OSX for less than $500? some would, but a large % would not.
not to mention that headaches it would cause apple to support generic PC hardware. the fact that apple limits / controls supported hardware is a huge factor in OSX's success.
Slashdot Mirror
Simple: you defer to a trusted panel of experts, not to mass opinion.
two problems: "trusted" and "expert". both of those are completely subjective. or maybe you have the secret: a mathematical formula that allows one to objectively rate a person's musical judging abilities? neat.
it boils down to the same thing. mass opinion is choosing what experts (aka critics) they consider worthy, and people generally choose an "expert" when it reinforces how they already feel about something.
sorry.
yes, we know you love google and own a bunch of stock, but relax and read the comment first. nobody said google wasn't a household name when it comes to serch.
Or American Idol informing people of what good music is. You really have to wonder if Amazon found this book and said "this is a really good book" or if they said "find me a book that will translate well to the big screen."
sorry, american idol is popular because a lot of people enjoy it. how would you define "good" music, if it's not by popularity? is it perhaps defined by the opinions of you and your friends? if anything, "good music" is completely subjective and therefore an oxymoron if you try to apply it generally.
and by the way, american idolist don't even write their own music. they are just doing karaoke of previously popular music. they aren't defining music in any way. it's just a singing contest.
and who cares if they picked a book based on how well it xlats into a movie. if they are trying to produce a movie, that seems like a good idea.
sheesh.
Ooh, and little things to hold open your eyelids and ears...
you can open and close your ears? neat.
this is what qualifies as insightful on /.? the question wasn't "what", it was "how". the what is obvious. e.g., i think everyone would agree that it'd be a good thing to increase our habitable real estate. that hard part is how to do it in a climate of budget problems and non-coperative governments.
If there are hundreds of *qualified* people out there, I'd like to see them.
that's irrelevant. the issue is with the direct and explicit courting of h1b workers ... at some advantage to the employer no doubt.
right, because we all know that in a company with almost 40k workers and 8 levels of management that it's so very possible for john doe developer to affect the company's direction. and, no one ever said they were talented, but you can rarely track a product's failure to direct incompetence by the grunt workers.
And before anyone says the battery is "sealed inside", so what?
what happens to that fantastic apple warranty if i replace my own battery? that's the difference.
so why not recommend people not buy anything else with lithium ion batteries in it in the UK?
there are different qualities of batteries, regardless of the manufacturer.
Saying that iPod batteries (or anything else about the iPod) last "one year" is complete and total bullshit. Hell, the warranty is one year.
and the warranty is free, right?
the same factors that lead to it destroying the Earth and/or human life thereon might well lead to the same outcome in our planetary colonies.
yes, but not all at the same time. think of life on a larger scale. instead of there being hundreds of countries, there are hundreds of colonies. some may destroy themselves. some won't. new ones will be founded. no problem.
space is big. it's big enough to give a solar system to islam, and one to the christian right, and one to atheists, and one to vegans, etc. and when each of these groups break into factions, there's enough solar systems for each of those factions. and on and on.
right, and in response, most every type of candy or bakery item now says "may contain peanuts" just to cover their asses. no, i don't have a point.
if you market them here, then you are taking $$$ away from Dell, Gateway, Microsoft, etc.
what's more likely? the lawyers screwed up in a way that will get them disabarred, and instead of backing off / correcting their problem, they actualy highlight the issue by filing suit against the fellow ... or, that this guy isn't telling the whole story. lawyers screw up, but out of self interest they also avoid actions that will make get them banned from law practive forever. whatever amount of money they stand to make isn't worth that risk.
their suit against him must have some basis. do you think they are going to say to the judge "hey this guy won't sign this and we want him to, can you make him please?" there's *probably* more to it than that.
like i said earlier, the truth is going to be somewhere between the two sides of the story. it always is.
i really don't get the logic where this guy writes a letter and states his innocence, and it therefore becomes true. maybe you'd like it to be true. and maybe you hate lawyers. try to separate that from the facts presented so far by this guy, in this forum, which are none. is it so hard to fathom the possibility that he DID make a verbal agreement, then backed out when we saw how much harassment he was going to take for it? a lot of people file silly lawsuits, what's your proof that this guy was any different? even if a verbal agreement is not binding in this case (i have no idea, is it?), that doesn't make him innocent of his original intent.
the idea that they could force him to be a plaintiff when he never agreed to is, to say the least, far-fetched. i think there's something more to the story.
Well, fortunately for everyone whether you believe him or not is irrelevant. I am pretty sure that every state requires that attorneys obtain an agreement in writing with a client. I know for a fact that California requires it. Either they have a written agreement or not. There is no middle ground. His intentions are completely irrelevant. The signed agreement is the only relevant issue of fact. If they cannot provide proof of one, then there is no dispute of fact.
okay i guess this wasn't clear to you. i believe that lawyers need signatures. i don't believe his account is 100% accurate / truthful. just because the guy writes a letter and tells everyone that he didn't have an agreement / etc. with these lawyers, doesn't make it true, right? this is just his account. it's not proof of anything.
seriously, the guy is having is life ruined over this. he has a pretty good motivation to say anything he can to get the apple lovin' public off his back.
like most things, the truth is probably somewhere in between the two sides of the story.
If you're not worried about the system being used to look for terrorists, imagine it being used to look for tax fraud or illegal gun ownership. Then decide if you want this system in place.
hmmm. those are just as illegal as terrorism, and probably more damaging to the nation overall. so, i don't get your point.
Now? The "Apple is expensive" crowd is sounding increasingly absurd.
absurd, really? i am sure that this makes you feel better about dumping $2k or whatever on your macbook pro, but it's simply not true.
http://www.cheapstingybargains.com/2006/05/dell_in spiron_e_4/
summary: 15.4" screen, 1.66Ghz dual core, 1GB ram, 40GB HD: $709
http://store.apple.com/1-800-MY-APPLE/WebObjects/A ppleStore.woa/wo/0.RSLID?mco=A71494FA&nclm=iBook
summary: 14.1" screen, 1.42GHz, 512MB, 60 GB: $1299
the apple has a smaller screen, a slower processor, 1/2 the memory, a slightly larger HD, and it costs almost twice as much. wanna talk desktops?
http://www.cheapstingybargains.com/2006/05/dell_di mension_/
summary: 3.0Ghz p4, 512MB, 160GB: $629
http://store.apple.com/1-800-MY-APPLE/WebObjects/A ppleStore.woa/wo/0.RSLID?mco=5FC8A26&nclm=Macmini
summary: 1.67Ghz core duo, 512MB, 80GB HD: $799
the apple has a slower processor (but it's dual core), 1/2 the HD space, and it's $100 more. and also, the dell comes w/ a 17" flat panel, keyboard, and mouse.
love your mac. there are a lot of reasons. i'm typing this from a powerbook. but please, be honest with yourself about the cost.
well that's easy. this is about sponsored links, and google makes money from the companies that sponsor the links. i doubt that google knows these sites are dangerous, and they aren't going to go out of their way to find out.
Let me smoke my cigarette in my bar
don't flatter yourself. laws that disallow indoor smoking have nothing to do with saving you from yourself. is has to do with saving other people from you. it's about second hand smoke.
seriously folks, get back to me when you find law enforcement spending millions of dollars to find and play every single DVD shipped through fedex, and get back to me when fedex accepts massive shipping delays and massive losses because of this. it ain't gonna happen.
but yeah, i enjoy a good paranoid fantasy as much as the next guy.
seems like if it's okay for the browser, it's okay for the search engine.
my guess: if sun cuts 30%, they don't cut 3 out of 10 people from every group. they do it by cutting projects / products.
how many people would continue to pay a premium for apple's hardware if they could get a PC w/ OSX for less than $500? some would, but a large % would not.
not to mention that headaches it would cause apple to support generic PC hardware. the fact that apple limits / controls supported hardware is a huge factor in OSX's success.