Anyone who's studied even a bit of psychology and perhaps some communications will realize male's and female's naturally excel in certain area's and are also drawn to those things.
Maybe you should try thinking, or being knowledgable, before you speak.. er, type about a subject.
Although there are genetic differences (beyond the obvious ones) between men and women, psychology points out that what people like and don't like is based more on what they are introduced and socialized towards.
Socialized to it or not, I still prefer to focus on the standard genetic differences.
People often exchange one form [biomass]of energy for another [electricity, heat, etc]. They do this with things called machines. Sometimes its not the amount of energy that is important as the form it is in....
Wow. Where to even start? Ok, you might not like M$ but these questions do not move open-source (or logical thought) forward at all. And yes, I know I'm going to be modded down for this.
1)If you went to a car dealer and bought a car for $30,000 and you found out it only cost the dealer $3,000 would you feel ripped off? If yes - isn't that what MS does with MS Office?
Ripped off maybe, but I think that would be my fault for being such an ill-informed customer. If let myself get swindled that badly, I deserve to be swindled. Don't expect the person selling you something to do your leg-work.
2) How do you feel about governments spending hundreds of millions of dollars on software in countries where a large percent of the population is homeless and hungry (eg Brazil). Wouldn't the governments be better off spending the money locally on support than importing software from the US?
Ok, so other governments besides the US waste money?? Are you kidding me? But seriously, how can you blame MS for Brazils' (or wherever's) gov't for buying their product? MS sells software, some Gov't buys it. Is MS now required to make sure that the purchase isn't a vast misappropriation of funds? Hell no. Seems like the person buying should be worried about where their money goes more than anyone else.
3) What companies/products are highest on the MS radar? Oracle/IBM/SAP. If you could grind one competitor into the dust which would it be?
Ok, this question starts of reasonable then plunges into trollery. Asking what competitors MS is keeping an eye on could be useful. It might even provide a comparative metric to how big a threat they consider Linux (below SAP, above IBM, whatever). Instead you follow it up with your competitor grinding non-sense which revokes any sensible chance that question would be asked / responded to.
Like they would come out and say "Oh, our current monopolositic practice, *whatever*, is meant to destroy the following companies: 1, 2, 3.
Hopefully you see now why you: 1. Not allowed to be an interviewer. 2. didn't have any questions selected. 3. are myopic and a dumb fan-boy. 4. suck.
Is it journalism and free speech when you violate laws to obtain information?
It was when Upton Sinclair wrote the Junlge. Muck-raking has been a part of Americana for a long time and has been one of the few mitigating factors to corruption in both government and industry.
The concept of not revealing confidential sources isn't some high and mighty ethical concept; in fact, it's a rather selfish one
But making and enforcing laws to protect these poor and suffering corporations is the next great ethical advancement for mankind? Come on. The point of journalists not having to reveal their sources is that it is a benefit to society. Journalists and muck-raking work like police and speeding tickets for businesses instead of drivers- the fear/risk of getting caught keeps one from blatantly ignoring rules.
Why couldn't a company with the name "CLICK YES TO CONTINUE" follow the same steps you did to get a certificate?
I bet if anything, it was easier for them. They are probably part of a adware/malware group who already know how the certificate process works, unlike you who had to fumble through it.
Calm down there bud. Science moves forward by systematically testing ideas- both traditional and seemingly ludicrous. Why wouldn't you want to apply the rigors of science to what people consider paranormal? Only two outcomes available: 1)A superstition is proved to be such 2) The universe/reality is explained a little better
So what is wrong with either outcome?
Just remember, it wasn't too long ago that the world was flat and near instant communication was impossible. Someone has to challenge what is blindly accepted as (un)true
It isn't just a sense of honesty or dishonesty- you can work the numbers legitimately in statistics to prove a point.
Let's say you ran a study and had two possible outcomes:
Null: A is false
2: A is true
Well the difference between the NULL and 2nd effect could be on a vary small order. Perhaps small enough where if I changed the required Alpha level (accepted Type-1 error) from alhpa =.10 to alpha =.05 to get the "correct" answer.
Passwords are only good security for the average user if a malicious person doesn't have physical access to someones machine- anyone can read a sticky-note on the monitor with all of the user's passwords on it!
Even with the judicial process, innocent people get tossed in jail from time to time. It happens.
What a great sense of compassion you got there. Maybe instead of washing our hands of issues like these (Patriot), we could try to fix and minimize them.
The constitution doesn't say what the government should do at all.
It sets up parameters for the government to adhere to.
Constitution mentions nothing of political parties
, special interest groups, etc.
Remember, the constitution doesn't define the government, it limits its' possible constructs. Don't use what the constitution doesn't say as a shield of personal beliefs.
Alot of those soldiers over there are reserves- i.e. they are paid hardly anything a year.
When troops are in a base or training, they get paid very little- not even close to the 2/3 ratio. They are paid much much less. I even knew a soldier who was excited about the war before it started because "I'll finally get paid."
And a big cost that has nothing to do with soldiers is the ammo and weapons deployed. Those bunker busters cost money, you know...
I don't agree with using abortion as a method of birth control either.
That doesn't mean that I don't think abortion should be removed. As bad as you think abortion is, how would society be improved by making people who don't want kids, raise kids? What about people who can't afford them?
Women don't want to use abortion as a method of birth control either, it's costly and the women involved too.
And for the religious ties to marriage, religions just took over control of marriage- they didn't invent them.
Marriage was a way transfer property rights- The father passed his daughter as a possesion to a suitor for some pre-determined compensation.
If the state and church are seperate, why should the state care what the church calls its unions? The state should be able to list them however they want.
Problems that people have with systems are not the peoples fault, period. It's so easy to blame people for not understanding an "intuitive" design, but if something is something is so god-d@mn "intuitive" then it should work without guidance.
Most systems, software, and even web-pages are made without ever being tested or seen by average users till production stages. If any summative testing is even performed before the product goes live, its too late to fix anything! If design changes need to be made, they need to be discovered in the design phases, through prototyping, usability or full fledged testing/experiments, and other HCI methods.
I bet if a prototype of the butterfly ballot had been given to a small number of users (6-10) and these users were told to select one of given the different choices on it, you would see a number of people struggle with selecting the right one even if they did eventually do it correctly. Just because a user can adapt to a poorly designed system doesn't mean it is "intuitive" or fit a user's mental model of how such a system should work.
You suggest that the only reason those 4% of users weren't able to correctly locate their selection is because they are dumb. What if they were in a hurry after using their lunchbreak to vote? What if one of a number of other reasons why they couldn't spend the required time figure out a poor design came up? The only thing dumb here is your assumption.
You also mention how these ballots had been used for years and seem to imply the design is solid. Who cares this ballot has used previously? Precendence doens't improve your design. It appears that in this case, the design flaws went unoticed until an election hung in balance. Improving the design wasn't considered important until after it failed.
Next time you are blaming users for problems, remember not only what your system is intendend to do, but WHO IT IS INTENDED TO SERVE.
Slashdot Mirror
Anyone who's studied even a bit of psychology and perhaps some communications will realize male's and female's naturally excel in certain area's and are also drawn to those things. Maybe you should try thinking, or being knowledgable, before you speak.. er, type about a subject. Although there are genetic differences (beyond the obvious ones) between men and women, psychology points out that what people like and don't like is based more on what they are introduced and socialized towards. Socialized to it or not, I still prefer to focus on the standard genetic differences.
People often exchange one form [biomass]of energy for another [electricity, heat, etc]. They do this with things called machines. Sometimes its not the amount of energy that is important as the form it is in....
1)If you went to a car dealer and bought a car for $30,000 and you found out it only cost the dealer $3,000 would you feel ripped off? If yes - isn't that what MS does with MS Office?
Ripped off maybe, but I think that would be my fault for being such an ill-informed customer. If let myself get swindled that badly, I deserve to be swindled. Don't expect the person selling you something to do your leg-work.
2) How do you feel about governments spending hundreds of millions of dollars on software in countries where a large percent of the population is homeless and hungry (eg Brazil). Wouldn't the governments be better off spending the money locally on support than importing software from the US?
Ok, so other governments besides the US waste money?? Are you kidding me? But seriously, how can you blame MS for Brazils' (or wherever's) gov't for buying their product? MS sells software, some Gov't buys it. Is MS now required to make sure that the purchase isn't a vast misappropriation of funds? Hell no. Seems like the person buying should be worried about where their money goes more than anyone else.
3) What companies/products are highest on the MS radar? Oracle/IBM/SAP. If you could grind one competitor into the dust which would it be?
Ok, this question starts of reasonable then plunges into trollery. Asking what competitors MS is keeping an eye on could be useful. It might even provide a comparative metric to how big a threat they consider Linux (below SAP, above IBM, whatever). Instead you follow it up with your competitor grinding non-sense which revokes any sensible chance that question would be asked / responded to.
Like they would come out and say "Oh, our current monopolositic practice, *whatever*, is meant to destroy the following companies: 1, 2, 3.
Hopefully you see now why you:
1. Not allowed to be an interviewer.
2. didn't have any questions selected.
3. are myopic and a dumb fan-boy.
4. suck.
It was when Upton Sinclair wrote the Junlge. Muck-raking has been a part of Americana for a long time and has been one of the few mitigating factors to corruption in both government and industry.
The concept of not revealing confidential sources isn't some high and mighty ethical concept; in fact, it's a rather selfish one
But making and enforcing laws to protect these poor and suffering corporations is the next great ethical advancement for mankind? Come on. The point of journalists not having to reveal their sources is that it is a benefit to society. Journalists and muck-raking work like police and speeding tickets for businesses instead of drivers- the fear/risk of getting caught keeps one from blatantly ignoring rules.
Why couldn't a company with the name "CLICK YES TO CONTINUE" follow the same steps you did to get a certificate? I bet if anything, it was easier for them. They are probably part of a adware/malware group who already know how the certificate process works, unlike you who had to fumble through it.
1)A superstition is proved to be such
2) The universe/reality is explained a little better
So what is wrong with either outcome?
Just remember, it wasn't too long ago that the world was flat and near instant communication was impossible. Someone has to challenge what is blindly accepted as (un)true
Let's say you ran a study and had two possible outcomes:
Null: A is false
2: A is true
Well the difference between the NULL and 2nd effect could be on a vary small order. Perhaps small enough where if I changed the required Alpha level (accepted Type-1 error) from alhpa = .10 to alpha = .05 to get the "correct" answer.
The easiest way to keep it cool to not run Intel.
Possible Pages & Headlines:
Devil smears monkey semen on Bill Gates' Face!
I'm hard pressed to feel compassion for MCI and their spamming support, even if it is a fraction of their earned income.
Passwords are only good security for the average user if a malicious person doesn't have physical access to someones machine- anyone can read a sticky-note on the monitor with all of the user's passwords on it!
What a great sense of compassion you got there. Maybe instead of washing our hands of issues like these (Patriot), we could try to fix and minimize them.
please don't use "WEP" and "Secured access point" in the same sentence.
The constitution doesn't say what the government should do at all. It sets up parameters for the government to adhere to. Constitution mentions nothing of political parties , special interest groups, etc. Remember, the constitution doesn't define the government, it limits its' possible constructs. Don't use what the constitution doesn't say as a shield of personal beliefs.
offhand == out of hand ?
Alot of those soldiers over there are reserves- i.e. they are paid hardly anything a year. When troops are in a base or training, they get paid very little- not even close to the 2/3 ratio. They are paid much much less. I even knew a soldier who was excited about the war before it started because "I'll finally get paid." And a big cost that has nothing to do with soldiers is the ammo and weapons deployed. Those bunker busters cost money, you know...
I don't agree with using abortion as a method of birth control either. That doesn't mean that I don't think abortion should be removed. As bad as you think abortion is, how would society be improved by making people who don't want kids, raise kids? What about people who can't afford them? Women don't want to use abortion as a method of birth control either, it's costly and the women involved too. And for the religious ties to marriage, religions just took over control of marriage- they didn't invent them. Marriage was a way transfer property rights- The father passed his daughter as a possesion to a suitor for some pre-determined compensation. If the state and church are seperate, why should the state care what the church calls its unions? The state should be able to list them however they want.
Nictone is a stimulant, not a depressant! Why do you think you have to poop right afterwards?
Whatever happened to the Snowdens of yesteryear?
Problems that people have with systems are not the peoples fault, period. It's so easy to blame people for not understanding an "intuitive" design, but if something is something is so god-d@mn "intuitive" then it should work without guidance.
Most systems, software, and even web-pages are made without ever being tested or seen by average users till production stages. If any summative testing is even performed before the product goes live, its too late to fix anything! If design changes need to be made, they need to be discovered in the design phases, through prototyping, usability or full fledged testing/experiments, and other HCI methods.
I bet if a prototype of the butterfly ballot had been given to a small number of users (6-10) and these users were told to select one of given the different choices on it, you would see a number of people struggle with selecting the right one even if they did eventually do it correctly. Just because a user can adapt to a poorly designed system doesn't mean it is "intuitive" or fit a user's mental model of how such a system should work.
You suggest that the only reason those 4% of users weren't able to correctly locate their selection is because they are dumb. What if they were in a hurry after using their lunchbreak to vote? What if one of a number of other reasons why they couldn't spend the required time figure out a poor design came up? The only thing dumb here is your assumption.
You also mention how these ballots had been used for years and seem to imply the design is solid. Who cares this ballot has used previously? Precendence doens't improve your design. It appears that in this case, the design flaws went unoticed until an election hung in balance. Improving the design wasn't considered important until after it failed.
Next time you are blaming users for problems, remember not only what your system is intendend to do, but WHO IT IS INTENDED TO SERVE.