Nope. But I'd like to use it to point out that you can't simply say "the church" and expect you are going to cover everybody, as if they are all one happy family that believe basically the same thing and have for 2000 years.
For some reason, every time I try to draw a distinction, I am typically accused of being nitpicky and just playing semantics.
But really, it'd be like assuming that all Democrats or Republicans (or Conservatives or Liberals) believe the same thing. And if you call yourself a Democrat, you must believe the exact same things that Harry Reid does; and if you argue you don't, and that he is a "different" Democrat, you're obviously playing semantics with me. I don't know much about European countries' political parties, or I'd give a suitable example...
And, incidentally, I don't think the "church" (can I at least refer to it as the Roman Catholic Church, since that's what it was back then, and distinguish it from a generic "Christian church" label? Don't forget the RCC wanted to kill dissenting Christian "church" leaders, too...) spread a myth. I think they spread blatant lie as a way to make money. Incidentally, the Bible even speaks about false teachers as being in it for the money, greed, etc.
Is it any coincidence that the medical profession was once closely linked to the idea [thinkquest.org] that all illness was caused by immoral behavior?
Interestingly enough, in the Old Testament, Job's three friends made this mistake and were actually reprimanded for it. Calamity and "bad stuff" (including illness) does not, even in the Old Testament, mean judgment from God for immoral behavior.
Oh stop with the morals and ethics stuff. I should be able to do whatever I want to do, regardless of what I promised or said I'd do or what is good for my relationships with other people or what is good for other people. And, by the way, all this corporate and political corruption is really getting on my nerves, why can't they be good, ethical, moral, scientific, non-hypocritical promise-keeping citizens like me?
Ah, yes. There was corruption in government in the years 2001 to 2008. 1992 to 2000 and 2008-???, on the other hand, are free from corruption...
Anyway, politics aside; yes, the ability to fake ethics and morals works pretty well, I suppose. But morals and ethics definitely help when dealing with services. For example, if I run a home-computer-repair thing, I am guessing most of my customers are going to think much more highly of me if I am moral and ethical when I deal with them, try to get them good rates, etc. It may even improve my standing and gain more customers. "Hey, you can trust this guy, he's the real deal and helps a lot, but doesn't overcharge you like the Geek Squad."
That's just an example off the top of my head that I've had a small amount of experience with.
Re:Who actually cares about the "good" ratings?
on
Gaming the App Store
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
I think both. I find that the more specific they are about things I'm interested in, the more it turns out that's actually a good description about the product. Both negative and positive reviews can be faked for various reasons.
Probably because I dared to say anything good about Vista.
XP x64 was indeed awful, not recommended by anyone I knew, etc. I ran it just to try it. Driver issues (even "supported" drivers) weren't very rare. Plus, the system's disk IO eventually almost ground to a halt. I never did find out why, but it's only happened in XP x64 and it only showed up after about a month of using it.
XP x64 was awful. Don't use it. Vista x64 is way better than XP x64.
Windows 7 x64 seems to run quite smoothly. I haven't run into a 32 bit application (driver, yes; application, no) that I can't run. Granted, I don't run a ton, but several old games a few apps (like Sibelius).
Correct, hardware manufacturers do. Windows doesn't. Presumably, Linux should be trying to optimize for hardware, too, right?
Granted, there are some things somewhat out of their control, like ATI or nVidia drivers.
But on the whole, it doesn't really seem like most "Linux geeks" are particularly interested in things like battery life (or, as someone posted in the xkcd comic, full screen flash video... which I realize is also at least partially an Adobe issue...). Self-included; my old laptop running Ubuntu 9.04 essentially has no battery, it dies the moment the AC adapter is unplugged. And I don't particularly care, hehe.
So in other words, no artist or composer will ever make any money until he is famous enough that people want to pay for it. This means that only rich artists will be able to make a name for themselves...
If we go back to "the way it was," that requires rich patrons. So now only rich patrons have great music. The rest of us don't... hmmmm.
Comparing a MacBook to a PC is not really fair. Hardware specifically designed for the OS... or an OS designed specifically for the hardware... that's not a fair comparison to Windows or Linux and generic PC hardware. As far as I know, Windows does not tailor it's code to all Dell, Lenovo, Gateway, HP, and Asus laptops. Apple tailors OSX to Mac hardware. Perhaps the hardware manufacturers do, but it should be able to go both ways.
The HP Vista-Linux comparison is better.
I have not yet seen your "plenty of anecdotal evidence," I guess.:)
I think a better explanation is this: Linux's developers are not particularly interested in long battery life.
Example: pat your head and rub your stomach. I see that as two different actions going on at the same time, requiring simultaneous muscle movement. You, on the other hand, could see it as one complex action, thus it's not "multi-tasking" but a "single task."
Nope, I don't make a survey of society. Neither does he. So, I responded to his survey of one with my survey of one. I'd say that's a valid response to the original argument.
It's not useless if one person finds it useful. Unless we are taking a postmodernist approach to a public item or service's usefulness, which won't work too well...
NRP or NPR? I'm not sure which you meant. I'm not a huge fan of NPR. Anyways, I typically listen to classical music, and there are two stations near me that play it. I also listen to rock or country occasionally, and I grant that it's hard to find good ones there.... lots of channel surfing. I like talk radio and listen to it occasionally. I also listen to jazz stuff and recently found a good station that plays the more traditional big band stuff that I like, as well as other "old" jazz styles. Not a fan of newer fusion-ish stuff.
I mostly listen to classical music. When I try to find contemporary rock-ish style music, you're right... hard to find good stuff. Same with jazz. I found an "oldies" jazz station recently though. Good stuff.
any people would consider the upgrade from Windows 6.0 to Windows 6.1 to be a service pack, too.
Therefore it must be true!
In fact, many people would consider Window 6.0 to be unusable by itself.
I've used it. It is usable. I haven't even had it crash yet. I don't particularly like it, actually, and like "Windows 6.1" much better, but "Windows 6.0" is very usable.
But Microsoft charges for upgrades from 6.0 to 6.1, unless you bought 6.0 after a certain date.
So, based on the very reliable sources of People Who Dislike Microsoft Out of Principle (PWDMOP) who say that Windows 7 (6.1) is just a service pack to Vista (Windows 6.0), we should conclude that Microsoft is charging money for an upgrade that should be called a service pack. We should also sarcastically refer to it as Windows 6 and Windows 6.1, because Microsoft should not be masking the version number by giving it easy to remember names. As opposed to Mac, which has no marketing schemes or lingo and gives just the plain facts, no hype, and certainly doesn't want to take your money, and only does so because it absolutely has to.
Dripping with sarcasm, obviously. I don't particularly like Microsoft anymore than Apple. But having used every desktop and server Windows version since Windows 95, with the exception ME (blech) and those referred to as Windows NT (I used 2000, 2003, and 2008 though), I have found Vista to be tolerable (and the x64 version was way better than XP x64) and Win 7 RC/RTM to be quite decent, so far.
I've also found, before "stupid MS fanboy" accusations fly, Ubuntu to be pretty decent, though I still have problems with ATI (blah) and some sound issues (PulseAudio didn't work so hot for me). I don't particularly like Fedora. OpenSuSE 10.1 and 10.3 were decent; I didn't like 11.0 much. I dislike KDE 4 and much preferred KDE 3.6. I like Gnome for the most part but miss some features of KDE. I am annoyed by Internet Explorer. Etc.
Obviously you are being somewhat facetious... but here is my question: why is it these "clinics" and "addiction help" things never make you do something constructive in your time? Kayaking is fun. Of course it's fun to not be on the internet to kayak. But why not, say... work on something? Maybe... chop wood? I don't know, I'm sure one could creatively come up with something productive to do instead of basically paying for a vacation without internet.
Plus, if it was productive, it would subsidize the cost.
So someone who's born into a poor family made a poor lifestyle decision? Gee, I guess people should choose better parents.
You're right. It's time for the US Government to stop this! Poor people should not be allowed to have children!
Or something?
Either that, or the parents are actually responsible for their kids, not the government. I'm not sure the government is supposed to take over parenting just because the parents don't have the money... or don't want to spend the money... or are plain irresponsible...
It's hard to figure out just have much of the "social nanny" the government should be. Unfortunately, when you start saying that the government should be protecting kids from irresponsible parents (as in poor, which I'm not completely sure I have an issue with), it seems like you also start getting a ton of more problems... like people relying on it (why work?), or the government starting to interfere with other things. Like homeschooling, teaching religion, teaching about "alternate lifestyles," or not teaching "correct" science. Or whatever. Just because the government things it is "bad" for the child doesn't mean it's bad, does it?
The more the government interferes, the more dangerous it can become, IMO. Reliance on the government is bad. May be if the government had, say, a WORK program. Sort of like happened, in some times in history, in prisons. But just giving free food seems ridiculous and just a good way to get people to depend on the government to feed them. Why not put them to work? Give "government handouts" in return for an 8 hour work day. That would be a far better use of taxpayer money. It may even get people to realize the government isn't supposed to simply give them free food because they don't feel like working. Well, get the people that need to realize that, I know there are plenty of those that actually can't work
Next part of rant: what is bad for a child? Is poverty actually bad? Starving is. Is not having TV bad? Is living in a small house bad? Should everyone have the luxury of a large house or large apartment? When what actual poverty is is not defined, it can be kinda bad, IMO. I'm not really opposed to government giving food. I'm very opposed to government giving money for the same reason I don't particularly think giving money to a homeless guy is a good idea: I have no idea what they use it for.
Example: if someone is starving or out of a job, applies for unemployment or whatever, and promptly spends it on drugs, drink, women, or whatever.. tell me, why should the government give him more money? It shouldn't, IMO. But that's hard to track.
And there's the issue. Tracking/enforcement of social programs...
Regarding "US health care system," I think it's pretty instructive to ask the question - where do people go when they want the best health care. As in, the best that money can buy... not cheap, but the best. As far as I know, that is still typically the US, and some scattered specialists around (UK, Japan...). But if you're talking about the best, newest research, etc... universities in the US tend to be where it's happening, apparently.
Slashdot Mirror
But I didn't read the TOS, they were too long, therefore I can't be held to them. ;)
Nope. But I'd like to use it to point out that you can't simply say "the church" and expect you are going to cover everybody, as if they are all one happy family that believe basically the same thing and have for 2000 years.
For some reason, every time I try to draw a distinction, I am typically accused of being nitpicky and just playing semantics.
But really, it'd be like assuming that all Democrats or Republicans (or Conservatives or Liberals) believe the same thing. And if you call yourself a Democrat, you must believe the exact same things that Harry Reid does; and if you argue you don't, and that he is a "different" Democrat, you're obviously playing semantics with me. I don't know much about European countries' political parties, or I'd give a suitable example...
And, incidentally, I don't think the "church" (can I at least refer to it as the Roman Catholic Church, since that's what it was back then, and distinguish it from a generic "Christian church" label? Don't forget the RCC wanted to kill dissenting Christian "church" leaders, too...) spread a myth. I think they spread blatant lie as a way to make money. Incidentally, the Bible even speaks about false teachers as being in it for the money, greed, etc.
Is it any coincidence that the medical profession was once closely linked to the idea [thinkquest.org] that all illness was caused by immoral behavior?
Interestingly enough, in the Old Testament, Job's three friends made this mistake and were actually reprimanded for it. Calamity and "bad stuff" (including illness) does not, even in the Old Testament, mean judgment from God for immoral behavior.
Oh stop with the morals and ethics stuff. I should be able to do whatever I want to do, regardless of what I promised or said I'd do or what is good for my relationships with other people or what is good for other people. And, by the way, all this corporate and political corruption is really getting on my nerves, why can't they be good, ethical, moral, scientific, non-hypocritical promise-keeping citizens like me?
[/sarcasm]
Ah, yes. There was corruption in government in the years 2001 to 2008. 1992 to 2000 and 2008-???, on the other hand, are free from corruption...
Anyway, politics aside; yes, the ability to fake ethics and morals works pretty well, I suppose. But morals and ethics definitely help when dealing with services. For example, if I run a home-computer-repair thing, I am guessing most of my customers are going to think much more highly of me if I am moral and ethical when I deal with them, try to get them good rates, etc. It may even improve my standing and gain more customers. "Hey, you can trust this guy, he's the real deal and helps a lot, but doesn't overcharge you like the Geek Squad."
That's just an example off the top of my head that I've had a small amount of experience with.
I think both. I find that the more specific they are about things I'm interested in, the more it turns out that's actually a good description about the product. Both negative and positive reviews can be faked for various reasons.
Strong ethics and morales will get you nowhere in this world kids.
This appears to partially depend on (1) where you want to go and (2) what industry you are traveling in.
Sometimes, strong ethics and morals (not morales :) ) are necessary to get anywhere.
Probably because I dared to say anything good about Vista.
XP x64 was indeed awful, not recommended by anyone I knew, etc. I ran it just to try it. Driver issues (even "supported" drivers) weren't very rare. Plus, the system's disk IO eventually almost ground to a halt. I never did find out why, but it's only happened in XP x64 and it only showed up after about a month of using it.
If you have a text editor that supports variable width fonts, yes; you can write code in Trebuchet!
MacAffee?
XP x64 was awful. Don't use it. Vista x64 is way better than XP x64.
Windows 7 x64 seems to run quite smoothly. I haven't run into a 32 bit application (driver, yes; application, no) that I can't run. Granted, I don't run a ton, but several old games a few apps (like Sibelius).
Correct, hardware manufacturers do. Windows doesn't. Presumably, Linux should be trying to optimize for hardware, too, right?
Granted, there are some things somewhat out of their control, like ATI or nVidia drivers.
But on the whole, it doesn't really seem like most "Linux geeks" are particularly interested in things like battery life (or, as someone posted in the xkcd comic, full screen flash video... which I realize is also at least partially an Adobe issue...). Self-included; my old laptop running Ubuntu 9.04 essentially has no battery, it dies the moment the AC adapter is unplugged. And I don't particularly care, hehe.
So in other words, no artist or composer will ever make any money until he is famous enough that people want to pay for it. This means that only rich artists will be able to make a name for themselves...
If we go back to "the way it was," that requires rich patrons. So now only rich patrons have great music. The rest of us don't... hmmmm.
Comparing a MacBook to a PC is not really fair. Hardware specifically designed for the OS... or an OS designed specifically for the hardware... that's not a fair comparison to Windows or Linux and generic PC hardware. As far as I know, Windows does not tailor it's code to all Dell, Lenovo, Gateway, HP, and Asus laptops. Apple tailors OSX to Mac hardware. Perhaps the hardware manufacturers do, but it should be able to go both ways.
The HP Vista-Linux comparison is better.
I have not yet seen your "plenty of anecdotal evidence," I guess. :)
I think a better explanation is this: Linux's developers are not particularly interested in long battery life.
s/cool/geeky/g
That's a matter of interpretation.
Example: pat your head and rub your stomach. I see that as two different actions going on at the same time, requiring simultaneous muscle movement. You, on the other hand, could see it as one complex action, thus it's not "multi-tasking" but a "single task."
Things are getting fuzzy...
I'm curious. How do you propose the above "content producer" make a living in order to continue producing content?
Nope, I don't make a survey of society. Neither does he. So, I responded to his survey of one with my survey of one. I'd say that's a valid response to the original argument.
It's not useless if one person finds it useful. Unless we are taking a postmodernist approach to a public item or service's usefulness, which won't work too well...
NRP or NPR? I'm not sure which you meant. I'm not a huge fan of NPR. Anyways, I typically listen to classical music, and there are two stations near me that play it. I also listen to rock or country occasionally, and I grant that it's hard to find good ones there.... lots of channel surfing. I like talk radio and listen to it occasionally. I also listen to jazz stuff and recently found a good station that plays the more traditional big band stuff that I like, as well as other "old" jazz styles. Not a fan of newer fusion-ish stuff.
I mostly listen to classical music. When I try to find contemporary rock-ish style music, you're right... hard to find good stuff. Same with jazz. I found an "oldies" jazz station recently though. Good stuff.
Meh, +1 Funny, iGuess.
any people would consider the upgrade from Windows 6.0 to Windows 6.1 to be a service pack, too.
Therefore it must be true!
In fact, many people would consider Window 6.0 to be unusable by itself.
I've used it. It is usable. I haven't even had it crash yet. I don't particularly like it, actually, and like "Windows 6.1" much better, but "Windows 6.0" is very usable.
But Microsoft charges for upgrades from 6.0 to 6.1, unless you bought 6.0 after a certain date.
So, based on the very reliable sources of People Who Dislike Microsoft Out of Principle (PWDMOP) who say that Windows 7 (6.1) is just a service pack to Vista (Windows 6.0), we should conclude that Microsoft is charging money for an upgrade that should be called a service pack. We should also sarcastically refer to it as Windows 6 and Windows 6.1, because Microsoft should not be masking the version number by giving it easy to remember names. As opposed to Mac, which has no marketing schemes or lingo and gives just the plain facts, no hype, and certainly doesn't want to take your money, and only does so because it absolutely has to.
Dripping with sarcasm, obviously. I don't particularly like Microsoft anymore than Apple. But having used every desktop and server Windows version since Windows 95, with the exception ME (blech) and those referred to as Windows NT (I used 2000, 2003, and 2008 though), I have found Vista to be tolerable (and the x64 version was way better than XP x64) and Win 7 RC/RTM to be quite decent, so far.
I've also found, before "stupid MS fanboy" accusations fly, Ubuntu to be pretty decent, though I still have problems with ATI (blah) and some sound issues (PulseAudio didn't work so hot for me). I don't particularly like Fedora. OpenSuSE 10.1 and 10.3 were decent; I didn't like 11.0 much. I dislike KDE 4 and much preferred KDE 3.6. I like Gnome for the most part but miss some features of KDE. I am annoyed by Internet Explorer. Etc.
I listen to the radio.
Why is it that because you don't listen to the radio, it is useless?
Radio is cool. It's completely free and I can find really good music on it. For free. No payments necessary to Verizon, AT&T, T-Mobile, or Sprint.
Obviously you are being somewhat facetious... but here is my question: why is it these "clinics" and "addiction help" things never make you do something constructive in your time? Kayaking is fun. Of course it's fun to not be on the internet to kayak. But why not, say ... work on something? Maybe ... chop wood? I don't know, I'm sure one could creatively come up with something productive to do instead of basically paying for a vacation without internet.
Plus, if it was productive, it would subsidize the cost.
So someone who's born into a poor family made a poor lifestyle decision? Gee, I guess people should choose better parents.
You're right. It's time for the US Government to stop this! Poor people should not be allowed to have children!
Or something?
Either that, or the parents are actually responsible for their kids, not the government. I'm not sure the government is supposed to take over parenting just because the parents don't have the money... or don't want to spend the money... or are plain irresponsible...
It's hard to figure out just have much of the "social nanny" the government should be. Unfortunately, when you start saying that the government should be protecting kids from irresponsible parents (as in poor, which I'm not completely sure I have an issue with), it seems like you also start getting a ton of more problems... like people relying on it (why work?), or the government starting to interfere with other things. Like homeschooling, teaching religion, teaching about "alternate lifestyles," or not teaching "correct" science. Or whatever. Just because the government things it is "bad" for the child doesn't mean it's bad, does it?
The more the government interferes, the more dangerous it can become, IMO. Reliance on the government is bad. May be if the government had, say, a WORK program. Sort of like happened, in some times in history, in prisons. But just giving free food seems ridiculous and just a good way to get people to depend on the government to feed them. Why not put them to work? Give "government handouts" in return for an 8 hour work day. That would be a far better use of taxpayer money. It may even get people to realize the government isn't supposed to simply give them free food because they don't feel like working. Well, get the people that need to realize that, I know there are plenty of those that actually can't work
Next part of rant: what is bad for a child? Is poverty actually bad? Starving is. Is not having TV bad? Is living in a small house bad? Should everyone have the luxury of a large house or large apartment? When what actual poverty is is not defined, it can be kinda bad, IMO. I'm not really opposed to government giving food. I'm very opposed to government giving money for the same reason I don't particularly think giving money to a homeless guy is a good idea: I have no idea what they use it for.
Example: if someone is starving or out of a job, applies for unemployment or whatever, and promptly spends it on drugs, drink, women, or whatever.. tell me, why should the government give him more money? It shouldn't, IMO. But that's hard to track.
And there's the issue. Tracking/enforcement of social programs...
[/rant]
Regarding "US health care system," I think it's pretty instructive to ask the question - where do people go when they want the best health care. As in, the best that money can buy... not cheap, but the best. As far as I know, that is still typically the US, and some scattered specialists around (UK, Japan...). But if you're talking about the best, newest research, etc... universities in the US tend to be where it's happening, apparently.