No, there's no app for that. Would you ever trust Apple with your money? I can imagine what threads on the Mac forums would be like:
"OMG guys I put my money in an iBank and I can't withdraw!" Duh, retard! To withdraw you just press command+shift+W! "Yeah, but then it wants me to download iTunes and set up an account before I can do anything else!" Hey, if you don't like the ease and convenience of Apple, you can just go back to sucking Steve Ballmer's dick! Geez, take some time to LEARN how to do it the Apple way...
Windows 95 was a trully innovative operating system. It allowed the convenience of use normally afforded only to those who had bought a Mac since 1986.
What is this? Some kind of parody of everything that's wrong with America? Is the developer supposed to come out from behind the curtain and say, "you idiots! This was a test! You weren't supposed to actually approve this thing!"?
I thought donations counted as gifts and so weren't taxed? Naive me, I guess.
In any case, yes, this is perfectly normal: governments throwing up bizarre barriers hobbies and businesses that have no grounding in concern for the public. The only question is whether you count this "normality" as an argument for or against this kind of thing. Are you only upset at Philly because it hits too close to home, or because you oppose things like this generally?
Sure. And a game company is not taking advantage of a war to make extra profit; it's simply focusing on its core mission of developing engaging games with themes people care about, and one thing they care about is the ongoing war.
Let me guess: When a newspaper (back in the good ol' days) sold Extra! editions of a day's newspaper because of developments in a war, is that "war profiteering"? Or, I don't know... maybe just telling people up-to-date information they want to know about?
There is a fundamental difference between wine and cables. Cables have technical specifications, if they operate within those parameters which can be tested and measured objectively then they are good cables. Any branding or subjective opinion on top of that is superfluous. While wine has specific knowns about it (vintage, origin, etc.) those objective facts don't make it good or bad.
But nobody can distinguish these objective facts! That puts them in the same category as trying to discern cables beyond their technical specs.
Good or bad is in the mouth of the taster.
More like the mind of the taster. It would be one thing if you had a consistent set of subjective preferences. It's quite another when your preferences change day by day in a way that mimicks random number tables (as happens here).
All I have said and continue to say is that it is possible to enjoy wine for the taste, and if you don't ("[all] wine tastes like sour acetone"), that remains your personal problem, either because your exposure is too limited OR because it's just not something you're disposed to like.
Yep, that's it: I've tried the full wine spectrum, taking advice from oenophiles, and never enjoyed drinking a single one... but I just must have "limited exposure". No, I tried the alternate hypotheses: I actually asked these wine lovers if, judging on taste only, they would rather drink a cheap milkshake or their favorite wine. Not only do they answer "milkshake", they reveal that such a comparison had never even occurred to them.
There is a *lot* more going on here than taste, and to pretend that taste is an important, or even remotely relevant factor in deciding what the best wines are, is a pure delusion. People drink wine to get the psychoactive effects while pretending to be refined so they can fit in with the kewl kidz.
And you don't like Monster cables, therefore you think everybody else shouldn't like them either, and if they continue to like it anyway, they're rationalizing. GFY.
See, we can go round and round like this. But when all is said and done, neither the audiophiles, nor the oenophiles can actually show that their ability to distinguish different levels of "quality" is any more than guesswork.
Sorry, Turtle, but that is rationalization. You can keep defending it against all reason, or you admit when the data don't support your claims.
Spoken like somebody who has never used a good cable, or maybe you just don't like music. For my part I have had cheap mp3 players that I have loved, and $800 sound systems that I wanted to love (when something is more expensive you do *want* to like it) but in fact hated. Point being, price doesn't correlate with taste, and I rarely buy anything I know any background for so there is no prejudice there.
If you don't like the sound of complex music generally, that's just your problem, but don't assume it cannot be enjoyed for its quality by others.
Quite frankly, I'm not at at all surprised that rankings of sound systems would change under lab tests even with the same audiophiles testing them. Taste for music is very tied to mood. People tend not to want to listen to the same machine all the time, even when it's something they like.
***
See? Audiophiles can rationalize too. You're not alone in this skill, just better at marshaling your powers of rhetoric to come up with arguments for a pre-determined conclusion.
Subjective is fine. Subjectivity that changes the next fucking day so badly that it looks like a random number table... is not. That's self-delusion, not a "taste for wine". And it represents 99% of wine drinkers.
Face it, folks: wine tastes like sour acetone. You drink it to get drunk or relaxed or less inhibited. Get over yourselves.
Largely correct, but I should add that, in the language of the streetwise, a murder will still bring down a lot more heat than a rape, even when there's a living witness in the latter case. That is, they throw more resources at a case when someone's dead or gone missing than if someone comes in claiming to have undergone a horrific rape. So, more of the possible evidence proving your guilt will be found for a murder.
This doesn't refute the general point, but it does show that the incentives don't always favor killing the victim when the sentences are equal, even assuming a purely self-interested criminal.
Yes, but doesn't the law also have some concept of "sufficiently advance stupidity is indistinguishable from intent"? Like if I go around shooting out car windows and accidentally pick one with a person in it and kill them, I can be charged with murder or manslaughter, despite the fact that I did not *intend* to kill anyone, just vandalize cars.
There is this level of sanity in the legal system, right?
Okay, point taken. Per the sibling comment, it may just be that US radio stations suck a lot more others in the anglosphere. Thus my reaction to someone broadly proclaiming her love of broadcast radio...
Okay, I don't advocate being different just for the sake of being different from the masses. I consider that to be just as much of an error. I was, however, criticizing the opposite mistake, of liking something without independently judging whether it's good or not, simply from social pressures. If you want to tolerate it out of apathy, fine, I can't argue, as I do the same.
But to stand up and protest about how much you "really" *love* this stuff, like it's some kind of respectable position? That's what I don't get.
Think of it this way: what if someone said, "Hey, there need to be more one-handed interface options so I can stroke my dick with the other hand, which I spend half my free waking time on"? Would I feel superior to them? No. But I'd certainly question why they're flaunting that aspect of them, like they should feel proud of that preference somehow.
Yes, they do have the breathalyzer here, and that's what confused me the most. My neighbor claimed that he only had one drink, and so really wanted a chance to take a test like that, but the officers refused it the whole time, because he seemed so dopey. So yeah, I was pretty skeptical that there would be no chemical test, but then, police in the USA, and certainly Texas, do seem to get away with a lot of crap.
Hold on -- I didn't say it was useless. If you're easily amused, then broadcast radio is definitely the thing for you. Heck, I even listen to it, not because it's good (I have to keep changing stations because of how often they get to something unbearable) but because I haven't bothered to configure my car to take input from my smartphone or put my CDs in.
I'm simply questioning why someone would actually want to stand up and be counted as someone who actually likes broadcast radio, as if it's a fucking badge of honor.
If you like broadcast radio, great. It's just, you know, shouldn't you be wearing a trenchcoat and sunglasses or something?
Duhhh I'm a consumer! I like all those funny thingz those personalities say on FM radio! Their just so clever with everything they think of! Where do they get that insightful information? And how do they know the same ten songs, all new, that I want to hear? Oh oh oh! Gotta be cultured, I think I'll listen to this classical station!
Durrrr Buy buy buy! Consume consume consume! What they've provided for me is good enough! I've gotta keep spending!
How the fuck can you enjoy broadcast radio and have an IQ above 80?
There could be. For all I know, he just made up the fact that he was still awaiting trial, as well as the exculpatory details that would lead him to want to take it to trial (claiming he had the flu, which made him sound dopey, and how there never was a chemical test the whole time he was in the presence of law enforcement). But he said something about how there would be more restrictions on him before trial if he didn't do this, according to an agreement his lawyer worked out.
And being Hispanic didn't help, even though he's a well-educated Peruvian, which the cops may not realize is different from Mexican.
I'm in Texas, and a neighbor was arrested for DUI (and never given a chance to take a chemical test to determine his intoxication level). Before his case even got to trial, he had to use an ignition lock. Worse, if its battery runs out, you're stranded -- not just limited to low speeds, but stopped entirely.
I had no idea they could do that before a conviction!
Slashdot Mirror
No, there's no app for that. Would you ever trust Apple with your money? I can imagine what threads on the Mac forums would be like:
"OMG guys I put my money in an iBank and I can't withdraw!"
Duh, retard! To withdraw you just press command+shift+W!
"Yeah, but then it wants me to download iTunes and set up an account before I can do anything else!"
Hey, if you don't like the ease and convenience of Apple, you can just go back to sucking Steve Ballmer's dick! Geez, take some time to LEARN how to do it the Apple way...
Does anyone else remember playing Master of Orion, and finding a planet, where the info-box says "Ultra rich, heavy-G".
I always thought that sounded like a nickname for a gangsta rapper.
Windows 95 was a trully innovative operating system. It allowed the convenience of use normally afforded only to those who had bought a Mac since 1986.
What is this? Some kind of parody of everything that's wrong with America? Is the developer supposed to come out from behind the curtain and say, "you idiots! This was a test! You weren't supposed to actually approve this thing!"?
Crap! Now I've got to look up the value of the automatic litterbox my brother got me so I can pay taxes on it!
I think I prefer cat crap to IRS crap.
I thought donations counted as gifts and so weren't taxed? Naive me, I guess.
In any case, yes, this is perfectly normal: governments throwing up bizarre barriers hobbies and businesses that have no grounding in concern for the public. The only question is whether you count this "normality" as an argument for or against this kind of thing. Are you only upset at Philly because it hits too close to home, or because you oppose things like this generally?
Aye, there's the rub.
Sure. And a game company is not taking advantage of a war to make extra profit; it's simply focusing on its core mission of developing engaging games with themes people care about, and one thing they care about is the ongoing war.
Let me guess: When a newspaper (back in the good ol' days) sold Extra! editions of a day's newspaper because of developments in a war, is that "war profiteering"? Or, I don't know ... maybe just telling people up-to-date information they want to know about?
You're an idiot, but sadly, not alone.
There is a fundamental difference between wine and cables. Cables have technical specifications, if they operate within those parameters which can be tested and measured objectively then they are good cables. Any branding or subjective opinion on top of that is superfluous. While wine has specific knowns about it (vintage, origin, etc.) those objective facts don't make it good or bad.
But nobody can distinguish these objective facts! That puts them in the same category as trying to discern cables beyond their technical specs.
Good or bad is in the mouth of the taster.
More like the mind of the taster. It would be one thing if you had a consistent set of subjective preferences. It's quite another when your preferences change day by day in a way that mimicks random number tables (as happens here).
All I have said and continue to say is that it is possible to enjoy wine for the taste, and if you don't ("[all] wine tastes like sour acetone"), that remains your personal problem, either because your exposure is too limited OR because it's just not something you're disposed to like.
Yep, that's it: I've tried the full wine spectrum, taking advice from oenophiles, and never enjoyed drinking a single one ... but I just must have "limited exposure". No, I tried the alternate hypotheses: I actually asked these wine lovers if, judging on taste only, they would rather drink a cheap milkshake or their favorite wine. Not only do they answer "milkshake", they reveal that such a comparison had never even occurred to them.
There is a *lot* more going on here than taste, and to pretend that taste is an important, or even remotely relevant factor in deciding what the best wines are, is a pure delusion. People drink wine to get the psychoactive effects while pretending to be refined so they can fit in with the kewl kidz.
Get over yourself.
And you don't like Monster cables, therefore you think everybody else shouldn't like them either, and if they continue to like it anyway, they're rationalizing. GFY.
See, we can go round and round like this. But when all is said and done, neither the audiophiles, nor the oenophiles can actually show that their ability to distinguish different levels of "quality" is any more than guesswork.
Sorry, Turtle, but that is rationalization. You can keep defending it against all reason, or you admit when the data don't support your claims.
Spoken like somebody who has never used a good cable, or maybe you just don't like music. For my part I have had cheap mp3 players that I have loved, and $800 sound systems that I wanted to love (when something is more expensive you do *want* to like it) but in fact hated. Point being, price doesn't correlate with taste, and I rarely buy anything I know any background for so there is no prejudice there.
If you don't like the sound of complex music generally, that's just your problem, but don't assume it cannot be enjoyed for its quality by others.
Quite frankly, I'm not at at all surprised that rankings of sound systems would change under lab tests even with the same audiophiles testing them. Taste for music is very tied to mood. People tend not to want to listen to the same machine all the time, even when it's something they like.
***
See? Audiophiles can rationalize too. You're not alone in this skill, just better at marshaling your powers of rhetoric to come up with arguments for a pre-determined conclusion.
Subjective is fine. Subjectivity that changes the next fucking day so badly that it looks like a random number table ... is not. That's self-delusion, not a "taste for wine". And it represents 99% of wine drinkers.
Face it, folks: wine tastes like sour acetone. You drink it to get drunk or relaxed or less inhibited. Get over yourselves.
Hey, man, whatever evidence you have to cherry-pick to make you feel like less of an idiot for buying overpriced, sour cleaning agents...
No, no, no, that's not how it goes. It's "Numbers don't lie, but liars sure number [in the billions]!"
You beat me to it. "Secure" and "large city in the middle of a corruption-laden drug war" simply do not go together.
Largely correct, but I should add that, in the language of the streetwise, a murder will still bring down a lot more heat than a rape, even when there's a living witness in the latter case. That is, they throw more resources at a case when someone's dead or gone missing than if someone comes in claiming to have undergone a horrific rape. So, more of the possible evidence proving your guilt will be found for a murder.
This doesn't refute the general point, but it does show that the incentives don't always favor killing the victim when the sentences are equal, even assuming a purely self-interested criminal.
My method of dating accurately is to have us both do a captcha that the other can see before we meet in person. Weeds out a lot of bots that way.
(Someone post the xkcd)
Yes, but doesn't the law also have some concept of "sufficiently advance stupidity is indistinguishable from intent"? Like if I go around shooting out car windows and accidentally pick one with a person in it and kill them, I can be charged with murder or manslaughter, despite the fact that I did not *intend* to kill anyone, just vandalize cars.
There is this level of sanity in the legal system, right?
if there had only been one remaining species of marsupial, would they need explaining?
Yes, because people would keep calling them bears!
Okay, point taken. Per the sibling comment, it may just be that US radio stations suck a lot more others in the anglosphere. Thus my reaction to someone broadly proclaiming her love of broadcast radio...
Okay, I don't advocate being different just for the sake of being different from the masses. I consider that to be just as much of an error. I was, however, criticizing the opposite mistake, of liking something without independently judging whether it's good or not, simply from social pressures. If you want to tolerate it out of apathy, fine, I can't argue, as I do the same.
But to stand up and protest about how much you "really" *love* this stuff, like it's some kind of respectable position? That's what I don't get.
Think of it this way: what if someone said, "Hey, there need to be more one-handed interface options so I can stroke my dick with the other hand, which I spend half my free waking time on"? Would I feel superior to them? No. But I'd certainly question why they're flaunting that aspect of them, like they should feel proud of that preference somehow.
Yes, they do have the breathalyzer here, and that's what confused me the most. My neighbor claimed that he only had one drink, and so really wanted a chance to take a test like that, but the officers refused it the whole time, because he seemed so dopey. So yeah, I was pretty skeptical that there would be no chemical test, but then, police in the USA, and certainly Texas, do seem to get away with a lot of crap.
Hold on -- I didn't say it was useless. If you're easily amused, then broadcast radio is definitely the thing for you. Heck, I even listen to it, not because it's good (I have to keep changing stations because of how often they get to something unbearable) but because I haven't bothered to configure my car to take input from my smartphone or put my CDs in.
I'm simply questioning why someone would actually want to stand up and be counted as someone who actually likes broadcast radio, as if it's a fucking badge of honor.
If you like broadcast radio, great. It's just, you know, shouldn't you be wearing a trenchcoat and sunglasses or something?
Duhhh I'm a consumer! I like all those funny thingz those personalities say on FM radio! Their just so clever with everything they think of! Where do they get that insightful information? And how do they know the same ten songs, all new, that I want to hear? Oh oh oh! Gotta be cultured, I think I'll listen to this classical station!
Durrrr Buy buy buy! Consume consume consume! What they've provided for me is good enough! I've gotta keep spending!
How the fuck can you enjoy broadcast radio and have an IQ above 80?
There could be. For all I know, he just made up the fact that he was still awaiting trial, as well as the exculpatory details that would lead him to want to take it to trial (claiming he had the flu, which made him sound dopey, and how there never was a chemical test the whole time he was in the presence of law enforcement). But he said something about how there would be more restrictions on him before trial if he didn't do this, according to an agreement his lawyer worked out.
And being Hispanic didn't help, even though he's a well-educated Peruvian, which the cops may not realize is different from Mexican.
I'm in Texas, and a neighbor was arrested for DUI (and never given a chance to take a chemical test to determine his intoxication level). Before his case even got to trial, he had to use an ignition lock. Worse, if its battery runs out, you're stranded -- not just limited to low speeds, but stopped entirely.
I had no idea they could do that before a conviction!