I remember taking some Microsoft certification tests. Now mind you that in order to pass, you must answer things the Microsoft way regardless of whether they were correct or not. Several of the questions on their programming tests involved user interfaces. Invariably, there would be a couple questions on using animated assistants. Now, the correct answer is to never use an animated assistant. But, being a Microsoft test if you saw "animated assistant", that was the Microsoft choice. After failing the first test, I learned "turn the brain off when entering the exam room and turn it on when you leave". Never failed a Microsoft test after that.
Population is not necessarily the same as market size. I am not up enough on Iran economics to know how many printers they have in use or would have demands for. I doubt however that they would come close to the per capita hardware expenditures that we have in the United States. Add into that equation the fact that I would think Iran would have an anti-West bias and I don't know that Iran is that attractive of a market given the penalties associated with trying to tap it.
I've been reading through "The Audacity of Hope" by Barrack Obama. I am not a huge Obama supporter, but figure it would be good to read through the then-presidential-hopeful and now President elect's thoughts. One thing that impressed me is how Barrack identifies the "I'm right an will ridicule everyone who disagrees with me" mentality as the single most harmful element of political discourse today. He has a great point. take a look at Slashdot. Out of 100 "disagreement" threads, how many are actually civil? How many have folks listening to the other point of view?
I know I am guilty of this.
Your post did nothing to advance discourse. It was simply a poor attempt at humor and making fun of a belief system. Yeah, I know.... this is Slashdot. But for some reason I'm having a Don Quixote complex today and felt like pointing this out.
I think Occam's razor fits just right here. If we don't need a zillion universes, why would we say they exist?
Because the odds of 1 universe getting created that has the right properties for any complex systems to exist are beyond astronomical. The odds of something as complex as solar systems even less likely. And things as complex as life even more remote.
So, basically in that case you are stuck with two matters of faith. The anthropic principle or a creator. Neither is provable through the scientific method.
If you can demonstrate that there are an infinite number of universes each with its own laws of physics, then you remove this layer of faith.
Now, having said that, I have never understood how each universe has separate laws of physics as opposed to multiple universes with all the same law. It does not make a whole lot of sense to me. But then again, I am not a string theorist
Because evolution has hard wired us to want to procreate and pass on our genes? And for the vast majority of our existence on this planet, that has required a relationship? At least for the past couple hundred million of years.
"More recently, to beg the question has been used by some to mean "to raise the question", or "the question really ought to be addressed". [7] An example of such a use would be, "This year's budget deficit is half a trillion dollars. This begs the question: how are we ever going to balance the budget?" Although proponents of the traditional meaning will criticize this formally incorrect usage, it has nonetheless come into widespread use and in informal contexts may actually be the more common use of the term. The phrases circular reasoning, circular logic, and circular arguments have come to be used in places where logicians would tend to use "beg the question"."
So, it would appear that language changes over time.
Thanks for the clarification. Your post was +4 informative, and all I could think is "WTF". I was wondering if I was missing something obvious. Apparently the only thing I missed was that you have to have non-functioning brain cells to moderate.
I played violent games all my life, I haven't killed or hurt anyone.
I love this superficial analysis. It is like family members who tell me that they have never work seat belts but have never gotten hurt in a wreck. (Ya always need a car analogy to make a point)
I don't know what the reality is about video games and violence. Is there no causation at all? Are there at-risk kids who should not be playing? Are there age limits and maturity limits? Do violent games combine with other influences to increase violent behavior? Should violent games be avoided altogether?
The fact is I don't know. I have my suspicions that it lies somewhere between my first and second question, but that is only my gut.
And this is why we fund studies. I believe strongly in science to help us progress as a society. I also believe that you must base your beliefs on facts, not your prejudices. Fifteen years ago I would have told you that porn causes objectification of women and leads to violence against them. A number of studies have indicated otherwise, and I have abandoned this viewpoint.
I am open on the violent video game issue as well. Let the studies continue, wait for the evidence to point one way or another. But if you are already closed to answers different that your preconceptions, then you opinions are worthless.
In all honesty, I am an Obama supporter solely because I hate what the Republicans have become. "Conservatism" has become low taxes, high spending and screw the next generation. The Dems are marginally better in my mind. This will be my first time voting for a Dem president though I have voted third party.
The details -- under 5.5% win for Obama (half way between your 3 and my 8), I send you a $20. Over 5.5%, the reverse. Alternatively, the winner can set the loser's sig for six months. Winner's choice. I'd probably choose the sig as I wouldn't want to give out postal information to some nut case on the internet;)
From Gallup's web site: Gallup Daily Gallup Daily: Obama Maintains Edge Over McCain Advantage among likely voters three to seven points October 29, 2008 Barack Obama continues to hold an edge over John McCain in Gallup Poll Daily tracking, up by 49% to 46% using the traditional likely voter model and 51% to 44% using the expanded model.
So, three percent looking at the numbers you want to look at.
From Rasmussen "Prior to today's update, Obama had been ahead by four-to-eight points every single day for 33 straight days. During that 33-day stretch, Obama's voter support had stayed between 50% and 52% every day while McCain was in the 44% to 46% range. It will take another day or so to determine whether today's numbers reflect a lasting change or statistical noise."
So, you are right, today Rasmussen is showing a 3% lead today. However, the trend has been larger.
"The saddest part of all of this is that the press has done a horrible job this election. Most of the press is practically humping Obama's leg, and I can't believe that he only has a 4% lead considering it. THAT is the real story this election, why does a person who has all the money, all the free press proclaiming him Messiah, all the wonderful articles in the NYT manage only a 4% "lead"."
Where are you getting this 4% lead from? Almost every poll I see shows an 8% - 12% lead for Obama, and a 2:1 Electoral Vote lead.
I follow what you are saying. However, the "right" is trying to use these types of laws as the reason for the foreclosure crisis we are in now. I can tell you that the bank I worked for obeyed those laws and did not make one subprime loan. If you look at the stock market, a lot of banks are not going through the same crashes as the National City's, Key's and other large banks. These are the ones that did not fall into the trap of "give a loan to anyone who is still breathing, and a few who aren't"
These "good" banks were subject to the same laws as the ones in trouble. So, pointing to fair lending laws as the culprit is bogus.
Another point, the Fair Credit Lending Act requires banks to take into consideration the borrower's ability to pay back loans. Can anyone tell me how that is possible with the "no income verification/no asset verification" loans? It seems to me that the feds are not enforcing the laws they have on the books. Having worked on some of the software systems for the mortgage area of a regional bank, I can tell you that was a requirement. Loans couldn't go through until someone certified that they saw copies of W-2's, 1040's and bank statements. Clearly this is a requirement, but some banks skated right by. There are a group of auditors who should be shot. Right after the CEOs who got their 8 figure payouts.
Ummmmmm. No, they weren't. I worked for a bank for nearly a decade, and amazingly enough didn't get caught up in the subprime fiasco. I do not know where this lie started. Banks are required to make a certain percentage of their loans in depressed areas, and are required to prove that they are not discriminatory in lending. This does not equate to the massive spate of 125% LTV loans, no proof of income loans, and blindly purchasing portfolios of loans.
Please stop letting Rush and Fox news think for you.
If the personal has ethical problems with something and is coming here to ask "should I do it or not", then he has some bigger issues.
The fact is, this is a very borderline case at best. Not industrial espionage, not theft. Screen scraping is what is being brought up. Questionable practice? Maybe. Stupid idea. Definitely.
The other fact is that if the original poster brings up his objections in writing, that the manager is very likely to back down. You can go in with your refusal, and feel all good about yourself, but there are better ways to go about it.
Kinda funny how this thing has bounced up and down in the modding category. I never once said I supported the idea of property confiscation, or applying it to internet activities... just a pause for reflection.
I forget the term, but there are laws on the books that state that if you are a landlord, and you continually have tenants who engage in criminal activity that the authorities can confiscate the house. It is a slow process, but the point is that if you own the property that you have some responsibility in insuring that it isn't being used for purposes that are harmful to society.
On a similar note, email is great for lifting others up. A few years ago, I got promoted to a mid-level grunt, and worked a lot more with other business units. In big organizations, units don't play nice with other units. On the few occasions, someone went out of their way to provide good service and actually be helpful, their boss got an email letting them know. Maybe two or three emails a year, but those folks are the ones who are going to get the bigger raise and have chances at promotions.
Unfortunately, 95% of all emails about people are complaints. Do your job well, and the best you can hope for is to be ignored. I have personally tried to reverse that now that I am a low-level manager. I can't change the world, but I can influence my dusty corner of it.
Slashdot Mirror
And there is about zero substantiation. No unnamed sources. No evidence.
Slashdot -- speculation for nerds and rumors that matter.
And 'Bob' is 'boB' backwards. Eerie!
I remember taking some Microsoft certification tests. Now mind you that in order to pass, you must answer things the Microsoft way regardless of whether they were correct or not. Several of the questions on their programming tests involved user interfaces. Invariably, there would be a couple questions on using animated assistants. Now, the correct answer is to never use an animated assistant. But, being a Microsoft test if you saw "animated assistant", that was the Microsoft choice. After failing the first test, I learned "turn the brain off when entering the exam room and turn it on when you leave". Never failed a Microsoft test after that.
First 2009 post (eastern time zone)?
Population is not necessarily the same as market size. I am not up enough on Iran economics to know how many printers they have in use or would have demands for. I doubt however that they would come close to the per capita hardware expenditures that we have in the United States. Add into that equation the fact that I would think Iran would have an anti-West bias and I don't know that Iran is that attractive of a market given the penalties associated with trying to tap it.
That is insightful? You would never want your password to be "interpreted" by the program.
I've been reading through "The Audacity of Hope" by Barrack Obama. I am not a huge Obama supporter, but figure it would be good to read through the then-presidential-hopeful and now President elect's thoughts. One thing that impressed me is how Barrack identifies the "I'm right an will ridicule everyone who disagrees with me" mentality as the single most harmful element of political discourse today. He has a great point. take a look at Slashdot. Out of 100 "disagreement" threads, how many are actually civil? How many have folks listening to the other point of view?
I know I am guilty of this.
Your post did nothing to advance discourse. It was simply a poor attempt at humor and making fun of a belief system. Yeah, I know.... this is Slashdot. But for some reason I'm having a Don Quixote complex today and felt like pointing this out.
Thank God we have someone like you who, through only reading a Slashdot summary, can point out all the holes in his logic.
I think Occam's razor fits just right here. If we don't need a zillion universes, why would we say they exist?
Because the odds of 1 universe getting created that has the right properties for any complex systems to exist are beyond astronomical. The odds of something as complex as solar systems even less likely. And things as complex as life even more remote.
So, basically in that case you are stuck with two matters of faith. The anthropic principle or a creator. Neither is provable through the scientific method.
If you can demonstrate that there are an infinite number of universes each with its own laws of physics, then you remove this layer of faith.
Now, having said that, I have never understood how each universe has separate laws of physics as opposed to multiple universes with all the same law. It does not make a whole lot of sense to me. But then again, I am not a string theorist
Because evolution has hard wired us to want to procreate and pass on our genes? And for the vast majority of our existence on this planet, that has required a relationship? At least for the past couple hundred million of years.
From your link:
"More recently, to beg the question has been used by some to mean "to raise the question", or "the question really ought to be addressed". [7] An example of such a use would be, "This year's budget deficit is half a trillion dollars. This begs the question: how are we ever going to balance the budget?" Although proponents of the traditional meaning will criticize this formally incorrect usage, it has nonetheless come into widespread use and in informal contexts may actually be the more common use of the term. The phrases circular reasoning, circular logic, and circular arguments have come to be used in places where logicians would tend to use "beg the question"."
So, it would appear that language changes over time.
Thanks for the clarification. Your post was +4 informative, and all I could think is "WTF". I was wondering if I was missing something obvious. Apparently the only thing I missed was that you have to have non-functioning brain cells to moderate.
(haven't had mod points in over a year).
6 week long summer holidays in a caravan without a computer.
I am having convulsions now, thank you very much you insensitive clod.
I don't get why they keep beating this horse...
I played violent games all my life, I haven't killed or hurt anyone.
I love this superficial analysis. It is like family members who tell me that they have never work seat belts but have never gotten hurt in a wreck. (Ya always need a car analogy to make a point)
I don't know what the reality is about video games and violence. Is there no causation at all? Are there at-risk kids who should not be playing? Are there age limits and maturity limits? Do violent games combine with other influences to increase violent behavior? Should violent games be avoided altogether?
The fact is I don't know. I have my suspicions that it lies somewhere between my first and second question, but that is only my gut.
And this is why we fund studies. I believe strongly in science to help us progress as a society. I also believe that you must base your beliefs on facts, not your prejudices. Fifteen years ago I would have told you that porn causes objectification of women and leads to violence against them. A number of studies have indicated otherwise, and I have abandoned this viewpoint.
I am open on the violent video game issue as well. Let the studies continue, wait for the evidence to point one way or another. But if you are already closed to answers different that your preconceptions, then you opinions are worthless.
In all honesty, I am an Obama supporter solely because I hate what the Republicans have become. "Conservatism" has become low taxes, high spending and screw the next generation. The Dems are marginally better in my mind. This will be my first time voting for a Dem president though I have voted third party.
The details -- under 5.5% win for Obama (half way between your 3 and my 8), I send you a $20. Over 5.5%, the reverse. Alternatively, the winner can set the loser's sig for six months. Winner's choice. I'd probably choose the sig as I wouldn't want to give out postal information to some nut case on the internet ;)
Will you do the same bet for the 3%?
From Gallup's web site:
Gallup Daily
Gallup Daily: Obama Maintains Edge Over McCain
Advantage among likely voters three to seven points
October 29, 2008
Barack Obama continues to hold an edge over John McCain in Gallup Poll Daily tracking, up by 49% to 46% using the traditional likely voter model and 51% to 44% using the expanded model.
So, three percent looking at the numbers you want to look at.
From Rasmussen
"Prior to today's update, Obama had been ahead by four-to-eight points every single day for 33 straight days. During that 33-day stretch, Obama's voter support had stayed between 50% and 52% every day while McCain was in the 44% to 46% range. It will take another day or so to determine whether today's numbers reflect a lasting change or statistical noise."
So, you are right, today Rasmussen is showing a 3% lead today. However, the trend has been larger.
"The saddest part of all of this is that the press has done a horrible job this election. Most of the press is practically humping Obama's leg, and I can't believe that he only has a 4% lead considering it. THAT is the real story this election, why does a person who has all the money, all the free press proclaiming him Messiah, all the wonderful articles in the NYT manage only a 4% "lead"."
Where are you getting this 4% lead from? Almost every poll I see shows an 8% - 12% lead for Obama, and a 2:1 Electoral Vote lead.
I follow what you are saying. However, the "right" is trying to use these types of laws as the reason for the foreclosure crisis we are in now. I can tell you that the bank I worked for obeyed those laws and did not make one subprime loan. If you look at the stock market, a lot of banks are not going through the same crashes as the National City's, Key's and other large banks. These are the ones that did not fall into the trap of "give a loan to anyone who is still breathing, and a few who aren't"
These "good" banks were subject to the same laws as the ones in trouble. So, pointing to fair lending laws as the culprit is bogus.
Another point, the Fair Credit Lending Act requires banks to take into consideration the borrower's ability to pay back loans. Can anyone tell me how that is possible with the "no income verification/no asset verification" loans? It seems to me that the feds are not enforcing the laws they have on the books. Having worked on some of the software systems for the mortgage area of a regional bank, I can tell you that was a requirement. Loans couldn't go through until someone certified that they saw copies of W-2's, 1040's and bank statements. Clearly this is a requirement, but some banks skated right by. There are a group of auditors who should be shot. Right after the CEOs who got their 8 figure payouts.
Ummmmmm. No, they weren't. I worked for a bank for nearly a decade, and amazingly enough didn't get caught up in the subprime fiasco. I do not know where this lie started. Banks are required to make a certain percentage of their loans in depressed areas, and are required to prove that they are not discriminatory in lending. This does not equate to the massive spate of 125% LTV loans, no proof of income loans, and blindly purchasing portfolios of loans.
Please stop letting Rush and Fox news think for you.
If the personal has ethical problems with something and is coming here to ask "should I do it or not", then he has some bigger issues.
The fact is, this is a very borderline case at best. Not industrial espionage, not theft. Screen scraping is what is being brought up. Questionable practice? Maybe. Stupid idea. Definitely.
The other fact is that if the original poster brings up his objections in writing, that the manager is very likely to back down. You can go in with your refusal, and feel all good about yourself, but there are better ways to go about it.
Kinda funny how this thing has bounced up and down in the modding category. I never once said I supported the idea of property confiscation, or applying it to internet activities... just a pause for reflection.
Continue the mod tug-of-war, gentleman.
I forget the term, but there are laws on the books that state that if you are a landlord, and you continually have tenants who engage in criminal activity that the authorities can confiscate the house. It is a slow process, but the point is that if you own the property that you have some responsibility in insuring that it isn't being used for purposes that are harmful to society.
Apply that to social networking sites and...
How does splitting your email in two help?
Does it, like, give you twice as much protection or something?
Yes. Just like condoms.
On a similar note, email is great for lifting others up. A few years ago, I got promoted to a mid-level grunt, and worked a lot more with other business units. In big organizations, units don't play nice with other units. On the few occasions, someone went out of their way to provide good service and actually be helpful, their boss got an email letting them know. Maybe two or three emails a year, but those folks are the ones who are going to get the bigger raise and have chances at promotions.
Unfortunately, 95% of all emails about people are complaints. Do your job well, and the best you can hope for is to be ignored. I have personally tried to reverse that now that I am a low-level manager. I can't change the world, but I can influence my dusty corner of it.