That's sort of what I was thinking. Why is it sad of what happened to these companies. Sure - they were once good companies that did some very great things in industry. But, they didn't keep up with the industry, didn't prevail against competitors, etc, so they fell. That's how business and capitalism works. Maybe my response is harsh, but I most definitely don't feel sad or sorry for any of those businesses.
You know, like when you want a science book, you went to a science book store. And when you wanted a book by a british author, you called a british book store.
Actually, I just go to Amazon. Find it all there.
And, I don't want Google returning results that are more Google-centric unless those results are truly the best. If you are searching for MSDN documentation, it should come in any general engine that you use.
I was in a guild on Mannoroth that was doing end-game (this was back in BC) and the guild leader was a woman. Her husband was the raid leader. I have never seen a better run, better played guild. The speed that we progressed through instances was a testament to their leadership and how well the guild listened to orders and focused.
Oh yeah...she knew how to play her class, too. That guild was the only reason I stayed with the game so long.
So, wait, if I understand you correctly, your solution is...give up?
I agree with many of the posters here in that we shouldn't force younger generations into something if they're not interested or not particularly talented in that area. For example, I will never be a physicist. It doesn't interest me and I'm most definitely not good at it. However, we should most definitely not give up on trying to introduce these topics to children and teenagers. If I had never had a friend of mine sit down and let me play a video game on his computer (complete with DOS), I would have never even known that world existed. Heck, if someone had just said, "You are going to learn about computers," I might have hated it too. But, when presented in the right way, I learned to love working with computers and it is now what I do for a living as well as a hobby.
Sure, there are many kids out there who aren't interested in much of anything other who is dating who, or what the latest fashion is. But, there are also many individuals who are excited and passionate about engineering, math, science, computing, business, literature, music, etc. We need to encourage those children so they can share their talents and help to improve the world. Just giving up is so absolutely defeatist I can't even get my brain around that type of thinking.
Not stopping there, there is at least one major study [slashdot.org] that shows no significant link between cellphones and cancer -- not just a lack of any confirmation.
Your quote reminds me of a very excellent movie that (sort of) brings up this exact same topic. Check out Thank You for Smoking. It's also a pretty good movie, too.
Seems far superior to this Etherpad in every sense of the word.
Technically speaking, Wave is superior (I've used both). However, what makes Etherpad so popular is that it is easier to use. As of this time, Wave is still in Alpha mode, and while I get it, many tech friends who have tried to use it really don't understand the applicability of the software. They don't see it as a much better way to collaborate. They still want to stick to traditional e-mail for organization (which I hate, particularly when conversation threading and search is not available in e-mail).
So, Wave = Technically Stronger; Etherpad = Usability is Stronger. Add the good parts of the two together, and you get a much better project overall.
No. All it shows is that software is NOT what Google is selling. Software is not Google's product. As such, they are very happy to release it as open source. It puts a good face on Google, makes the development community happy, and gets more developers working on the platform. Remember, Google sells advertisements. That is their product. Their goal is to "organize the world's information." These two things go hand-in-hand, but Google will not be able to do either if they try to maintain total control over everything they acquire. Thus, open sourcing software and giving away products freely that used to generate money for another company is a very viable strategy.
Even to the point of hiring contractors to take pictures of your house (from the "street" of course).
I wish I had mod points to mark you flamebait for this just for how you stated this.
Creating maps where you can actually view the street that you are going to be going to is only a natural extension of what had already existed. I remember wanting a feature like this the first time I heard about MapQuest. I'm glad Google went ahead and did it. It's not like Google is saying, "Bill_the_Engineer LIVES HERE!" Your comment is akin to someone from the 1700's saying, "Mapmaker John is violating your privacy by creating a MAP where he marks ROADS that lead right to your house!!!"
Heh...you're very right about this. I don't know if you've ever heard of PostSecret, an art project where people send in postcards of their deepest, darkest secrets to be published. Well, while this is fairly anonymous, there is also a PostSecret Facebook site. So, I jumped on their one time and every freaken teenager from here to Timbuktu was posting secrets up on the message board. These secrets were attached to their name. There one a few that particularly scared me, and some I couldn't decide whether or not the person was just trying to get attention or if what they were typing was true.
The concern for privacy is definitely waning in younger generations.
...and who listens to some exec when he says, "Use another company because I say so!" and doesn't think for themselves.
There are privacy concerns with Google. Understandable. There are also privacy concerns with Bing.
Eric Schmidt's quote not only said, "perhaps you shouldn't be doing [bad things]" but also "privacy with search engines in general [is a farce]." This is nothing new! People just want to warhgrhable over it so they have something to talk about during the day. There really is nothing all that new here. Do you think you're not already tracked around the internet in the first place? Thinking anything different would only be fooling yourself.
So, Facebook's mission isn't to provide a friendly place for friendly people to connect and gee, they just want to make enough money to keep the doors open and break even.
This just in, a company exists to make money, even at the expensive of its customers. News at 11.
Seriously, anybody who thinks any company (and I mean a company as a whole - not necessarily its individuals) is not about making money at all times (or about putting on a good face so they eventually make more money, etc) is just fooling themselves.
But, it wasn't. Facebook notified that there would be "stronger privacy changes and improvements to better help control your information." Nothing was ever said about, "We're going to make some information available whether you like it or not." And, that's crap.
What you should be really asking yourself is why you care so much.
Oh, I don't really. I mean, it stinks that he did those things because he put such a good face on the sport of golf and got people excited about it. That's awesome that he did that, but now it will be marred by his actions with these woman. But, other than that, I don't care - people screw up and make bad decisions. It's what we're good at.
What I do care about is how dismissive Knara seemed of what it means to be married (by saying his only mistake was to get married). Whether its Tiger or somebody who is unknown, in my opinion, those vows should mean something. That is something that concerns me very much.
Say what you will about Tiger Woods, the only thing he did wrong was get married.
I don't know if you're trolling or what, but I'll bite.
Quite honestly, yes, Tiger probably should not have married. It was a mistake (although, probably more of a mistake for his wife), especially considering how many women he apparently wanted to sleep with. However, it is a decision that he made. Nobody marched him down the aisle at gunpoint. He chose to do it. And, once he did that, then his whole life changed which set him up for many other mistakes (so far, 5 of them, if the news/rumors are all true).
Your line of logic basically says, "You're only responsible for one mistake and not responsible for anything after that," which is absolutely wrong. If someone slams their car into a pedestrian and then drives away, their mistake doesn't stop with just hitting someone. It's now a Hit & Run. Each decision that Tiger made led to other decisions. He just kept making bad ones. Repeatedly.
There is another reason fewer women reach the top, though: although the average intelligence of men and women is about the same, the variance is significantly higher in men. So women are right: if somebody does something really dumb then it probably was a man. But the other side of that coin, which women tend not to like so much, if that if somebody does something really smart, that probably was a man too
This isn't so much in variation of intelligence I wouldn't think. Rather, men are, typically, much bigger risk takers. Therefore, they are willing to put themselves out there for something. This is why, when something really dumb is done, it's a man (AKA, he took a big risk and failed) and when something really smart is dumb, it's a man who took a big risk and succeeded. It has nothing to do with intelligence - there are smart men and smart women and dumb men and dumb women. There are just a gazillion other factors that go into the equation.
Not chasing half-second nipslips because 4 uptight housewives in Idaho get snippy about their kids seeing something they don't want them to see, after they're supposed to be in bed and asleep already.
Except, it was the halftime show. Even if the kids lived on the east coast, it would only be about 9:45 at the latest. That's not that late.
All of this in a theater. And it doesn't say if they rented it out exclusively, meaning there were other paying patrons trying to watch the movie
No. If it doesn't say they rented it out exclusively, it means that you don't know if there were other paying patrons. There may have been, there may not have been. If there were, I agree that this would have been annoying. But, your conclusion does not follow your first statement.
Maybe they aren't overselling their bandwidth. Maybe they are selling their bandwidth fine and someone is going past what the ISP said they would offer to them and, as such, they limit the user.
Well, the average person would understand what you meant (which is why you were modded +5 Funny). And, I did too...I just wanted to respond. However, in the case of your sentence, their didn't specifically refer to the first OR the second - it had to be inferred.
I actually laughed at your joke, though.;-) It was good.
Slashdot Mirror
Of course, he was a dumbass, and didn't do any real damage, but he got as far as getting his little bomb to go off.
When I read this statement, I first took it as a euphemism until I realized what you were talking about. (Maybe it still applies?)
That's sort of what I was thinking. Why is it sad of what happened to these companies. Sure - they were once good companies that did some very great things in industry. But, they didn't keep up with the industry, didn't prevail against competitors, etc, so they fell. That's how business and capitalism works. Maybe my response is harsh, but I most definitely don't feel sad or sorry for any of those businesses.
You know, like when you want a science book, you went to a science book store. And when you wanted a book by a british author, you called a british book store.
Actually, I just go to Amazon. Find it all there.
And, I don't want Google returning results that are more Google-centric unless those results are truly the best. If you are searching for MSDN documentation, it should come in any general engine that you use.
we'd all have to board planes naked (you could strangle someone with the elastic band from your underwear!)
They still wouldn't let me board the plane as security would quickly realize I could still strangle people...
I was in a guild on Mannoroth that was doing end-game (this was back in BC) and the guild leader was a woman. Her husband was the raid leader. I have never seen a better run, better played guild. The speed that we progressed through instances was a testament to their leadership and how well the guild listened to orders and focused.
Oh yeah...she knew how to play her class, too. That guild was the only reason I stayed with the game so long.
So, wait, if I understand you correctly, your solution is...give up?
I agree with many of the posters here in that we shouldn't force younger generations into something if they're not interested or not particularly talented in that area. For example, I will never be a physicist. It doesn't interest me and I'm most definitely not good at it. However, we should most definitely not give up on trying to introduce these topics to children and teenagers. If I had never had a friend of mine sit down and let me play a video game on his computer (complete with DOS), I would have never even known that world existed. Heck, if someone had just said, "You are going to learn about computers," I might have hated it too. But, when presented in the right way, I learned to love working with computers and it is now what I do for a living as well as a hobby.
Sure, there are many kids out there who aren't interested in much of anything other who is dating who, or what the latest fashion is. But, there are also many individuals who are excited and passionate about engineering, math, science, computing, business, literature, music, etc. We need to encourage those children so they can share their talents and help to improve the world. Just giving up is so absolutely defeatist I can't even get my brain around that type of thinking.
Not stopping there, there is at least one major study [slashdot.org] that shows no significant link between cellphones and cancer -- not just a lack of any confirmation.
Your quote reminds me of a very excellent movie that (sort of) brings up this exact same topic. Check out Thank You for Smoking. It's also a pretty good movie, too.
Seems far superior to this Etherpad in every sense of the word.
Technically speaking, Wave is superior (I've used both). However, what makes Etherpad so popular is that it is easier to use. As of this time, Wave is still in Alpha mode, and while I get it, many tech friends who have tried to use it really don't understand the applicability of the software. They don't see it as a much better way to collaborate. They still want to stick to traditional e-mail for organization (which I hate, particularly when conversation threading and search is not available in e-mail).
So, Wave = Technically Stronger; Etherpad = Usability is Stronger. Add the good parts of the two together, and you get a much better project overall.
No. All it shows is that software is NOT what Google is selling. Software is not Google's product. As such, they are very happy to release it as open source. It puts a good face on Google, makes the development community happy, and gets more developers working on the platform. Remember, Google sells advertisements. That is their product. Their goal is to "organize the world's information." These two things go hand-in-hand, but Google will not be able to do either if they try to maintain total control over everything they acquire. Thus, open sourcing software and giving away products freely that used to generate money for another company is a very viable strategy.
And before entering the dark, scary cave*, the father was heard yelling, "LEEEEEEEEEEEEEROOOOOOOOOYYYYYYYYYYY SSSSSMIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIITH!"
* Yeah, you know what I'm talking about.
Hearing loss from loud sounds is more likely due to damage to the hair cells in the cochlea than nerve damage.
But, I have all sorts of hair growing out my ears. Why can't I hear!?
Even to the point of hiring contractors to take pictures of your house (from the "street" of course).
I wish I had mod points to mark you flamebait for this just for how you stated this.
Creating maps where you can actually view the street that you are going to be going to is only a natural extension of what had already existed. I remember wanting a feature like this the first time I heard about MapQuest. I'm glad Google went ahead and did it. It's not like Google is saying, "Bill_the_Engineer LIVES HERE!" Your comment is akin to someone from the 1700's saying, "Mapmaker John is violating your privacy by creating a MAP where he marks ROADS that lead right to your house!!!"
Give me a break.
Heh...you're very right about this. I don't know if you've ever heard of PostSecret, an art project where people send in postcards of their deepest, darkest secrets to be published. Well, while this is fairly anonymous, there is also a PostSecret Facebook site. So, I jumped on their one time and every freaken teenager from here to Timbuktu was posting secrets up on the message board. These secrets were attached to their name. There one a few that particularly scared me, and some I couldn't decide whether or not the person was just trying to get attention or if what they were typing was true.
The concern for privacy is definitely waning in younger generations.
...and who listens to some exec when he says, "Use another company because I say so!" and doesn't think for themselves.
There are privacy concerns with Google. Understandable.
There are also privacy concerns with Bing.
Eric Schmidt's quote not only said, "perhaps you shouldn't be doing [bad things]" but also "privacy with search engines in general [is a farce]." This is nothing new! People just want to warhgrhable over it so they have something to talk about during the day. There really is nothing all that new here. Do you think you're not already tracked around the internet in the first place? Thinking anything different would only be fooling yourself.
So, Facebook's mission isn't to provide a friendly place for friendly people to connect and gee, they just want to make enough money to keep the doors open and break even.
This just in, a company exists to make money, even at the expensive of its customers. News at 11.
Seriously, anybody who thinks any company (and I mean a company as a whole - not necessarily its individuals) is not about making money at all times (or about putting on a good face so they eventually make more money, etc) is just fooling themselves.
But, it wasn't. Facebook notified that there would be "stronger privacy changes and improvements to better help control your information." Nothing was ever said about, "We're going to make some information available whether you like it or not." And, that's crap.
Crap. There are no flight points near by. WTB summons to Norway.
What you should be really asking yourself is why you care so much.
Oh, I don't really. I mean, it stinks that he did those things because he put such a good face on the sport of golf and got people excited about it. That's awesome that he did that, but now it will be marred by his actions with these woman. But, other than that, I don't care - people screw up and make bad decisions. It's what we're good at.
What I do care about is how dismissive Knara seemed of what it means to be married (by saying his only mistake was to get married). Whether its Tiger or somebody who is unknown, in my opinion, those vows should mean something. That is something that concerns me very much.
Say what you will about Tiger Woods, the only thing he did wrong was get married.
I don't know if you're trolling or what, but I'll bite.
Quite honestly, yes, Tiger probably should not have married. It was a mistake (although, probably more of a mistake for his wife), especially considering how many women he apparently wanted to sleep with. However, it is a decision that he made. Nobody marched him down the aisle at gunpoint. He chose to do it. And, once he did that, then his whole life changed which set him up for many other mistakes (so far, 5 of them, if the news/rumors are all true).
Your line of logic basically says, "You're only responsible for one mistake and not responsible for anything after that," which is absolutely wrong. If someone slams their car into a pedestrian and then drives away, their mistake doesn't stop with just hitting someone. It's now a Hit & Run. Each decision that Tiger made led to other decisions. He just kept making bad ones. Repeatedly.
There is another reason fewer women reach the top, though: although the average intelligence of men and women is about the same, the variance is significantly higher in men. So women are right: if somebody does something really dumb then it probably was a man. But the other side of that coin, which women tend not to like so much, if that if somebody does something really smart, that probably was a man too
This isn't so much in variation of intelligence I wouldn't think. Rather, men are, typically, much bigger risk takers. Therefore, they are willing to put themselves out there for something. This is why, when something really dumb is done, it's a man (AKA, he took a big risk and failed) and when something really smart is dumb, it's a man who took a big risk and succeeded. It has nothing to do with intelligence - there are smart men and smart women and dumb men and dumb women. There are just a gazillion other factors that go into the equation.
Not chasing half-second nipslips because 4 uptight housewives in Idaho get snippy about their kids seeing something they don't want them to see, after they're supposed to be in bed and asleep already.
Except, it was the halftime show. Even if the kids lived on the east coast, it would only be about 9:45 at the latest. That's not that late.
You obviously don't live where I do...
All of this in a theater. And it doesn't say if they rented it out exclusively, meaning there were other paying patrons trying to watch the movie
No. If it doesn't say they rented it out exclusively, it means that you don't know if there were other paying patrons. There may have been, there may not have been. If there were, I agree that this would have been annoying. But, your conclusion does not follow your first statement.
Maybe they aren't overselling their bandwidth. Maybe they are selling their bandwidth fine and someone is going past what the ISP said they would offer to them and, as such, they limit the user.
Well, the average person would understand what you meant (which is why you were modded +5 Funny). And, I did too...I just wanted to respond. However, in the case of your sentence, their didn't specifically refer to the first OR the second - it had to be inferred.
I actually laughed at your joke, though. ;-) It was good.