See where I said, "You're correct." I understand why yyyy-mm-dd works better. The poster to who I was responding tried to explain why it worked better and it was nonsensical and foolish - never even coming close to being the actual reason why yyyy-mm-dd sorting is more valuable.
"Actually, neither m-d-y nor d-m-y are good for that. y-m-d is the simplest way to sort by date when you are naming files, that way they're all sorted by year first, then month, then day."
You're correct but your explanation doesn't come even remotely close to being a reasonable argument. You stated that yyyy-mm-dd is the most simple because...wait for it....it is then sorted by year, then by month, then by date. THis isn't a reason as to why that is simpler, it is merely a description of the mechanism of sorting the described structure.
You can make just as invalid argument for mm-dd-yyyy - "that way they're all sorted by month first, then day, then year." Your logic needs some work.
How's that? You're going to a brick and mortar store and renting. The employees are going to get paid the same amount whether you take out 1 or 100 movies in a week. The electricity is going to cost the same amount as well. And at any one time you've only got 2 movies out. So the fact that you have those 2 movies is preventing them from renting them to another customer but that fact remains constant regardless of how many times you swap those movies. Where is the loss to Blockbuster because of quick turnaround?
Obviously with Netflix, turnaround involves postage so there's a hit for them there.
"How does ignoring the color of someones skin make me a fool? Seriously, the reply to this should be priceless..."
Because there are cultural differences between races of people. Instead of taking a Pollyanna view that we're all the same, understand that a person's race does affect how they see the world and their place in it.
"Oh yes, they are just soooo lazy. Actually, most teachers are hard working. What teachers do you know? Both of my parents are teachers and they usually go in to work around 7 in the morning and don't get back until 5 or 6 at night. I have worked for 3 different schools through tech consultant jobs and dealt with a lot of teachers -- almost every teacher I met seemed like the hard-working type with a "make the world better"-esque goal in life. Oh yeah, it's just sooooooooooo hard for teachers to get fired -- actually, it's VERY easy for teachers to get fired (if they're not doing their job). Once they have been doing their job, they get tenure... then their job security is much more firm... however, the trade-off of long hours and low appreciation just to get tenure and then get... more low pay is not worth it (you don't have to be an economics major to realize that -- also, yes, there is NO fucking debating that their pay is low -- I, with a bachelors degree, would make more money the first year of a job than my parents currently make [they've both been working at the same school for over 30 years, both have masters degrees, and are both department heads])."
Forgot to address this: you cited anecdotal evidence to support a generalization. This shows you're not smart. Based on this fact, I'd say your parents probably get paid what they deserve. After all, it's their genes that made a moron such as yourself.
"I DON'T care what people do for entertainment purposes"
Then shut up.
"It's not about entertainment when someone gets paid over a million dollars per point"
Why isn't it about entertainment anymore? You just make this statement without any reasoning. Athletes are paid what the market will provide. Quit your whining.
"Envy? No, I'm glad I'm not a stupid (what's the average SAT/ACT score of the average baseball/basketball player?), drug-enhanced, overpaid dolt. Bitterness? Yes, because I think it's stupid that entire populations (not just America, the whole world [think of all the crazy World Cup stories, locking spouses in closet so you can watch a game or running into a burning house so you can grab your t.v. to finish watching the rest of a match is STUPID]) are so amazed by sports that they don't see a problem in paying millions to people who contribute nothing to the world (they play a fucking GAME -- kids play games for FUN!) while people that are intelligent and pour their lives into their profession (teachers, social workers, doctors, etc) are paid poorly (well, maybe not doctors)."
Teachers? I've seen plenty that are just there to get their paycheck and let their union protect them from being fired. But we'll leave that aside. Why do you care what people enjoy for entertainment purposes? And, since you care so much, what's entertaining you that is so much better and delivers so much more benefit to the world?
I assume that for track and field events, you'd also like to see the hurdles lowered so that everyone can jump over them and not just those jerks that have trained for the event?
I prefer those who are deficient are brought up rather than dropping everyone else down to match them.
"As far as the means to afford it comment, that was just to highlight the high cost of the system not my own personal wealth. I will refrain from stating that I can afford something from now on as not to offend those over 30 still living in their parents basements, playing MMOG's all day, posting on slashdot to make up for their lack of female interaction. If I have offended your people I apologize."
Pathetic trolling attempt. When you decide you want to have a discussion, learn to use the language properly and drop the insults. Until then you are nothing but a corporate shill to me.
"The PS3 isn't even out yet. Theres no way to say if its going to be worth the extra money or not until you can actually see a product.. You wouldn't buy a car or shirt based on specifications, would you? Usually you take a test drive, or try it on..."
My point was merely that there is a difference between being able to afford something and seeing the need to buy it. The poster who I was responding to seemed to be implying that because he/she can afford the PS3, that was a reason to buy it.
"Thanks to slashdot, I'm starting to see how companies are getting away with selling you absolute crap -- you people choose to buy it before it hits the store shelf.."
Why do you direct that as a reply to me? I've decided not to buy a PS3 because I believe it is overpriced for a video game console and I do not like Sony's corporate practices.
Why is it that every comment you've posted with your account is a defense of Sony's practices? Frankly, at this point, it doesn't look like the PS3 will even compete in the marketplace. If that is the case, the games are going to be few and far between. The best that Sony and you can hope for is that the PS3 carves out a nice chunk of the market (nowhere near the dominance that was enjoyed with the PS2).
Given that it's probably not going to be The Platform, I'd rather not support the company that was at the heart of the whole rootkit fiasco. Sony's treated their customers like criminals in the past. Those who go back for more, in my opinion, are encouraging that type of behavior.
I'll be buying a Wii.
And stating that you have "the means to afford it" just makes it look like you don't actually have the means to afford a PS3 (and will be having your parents buy it for you) and that you don't understand the value of money. I can afford a PS3. I can afford plenty of things. Just because you can afford it, doesn't mean you should buy it. Tampons are priced to move but I have no use for them just as I have no use for a PS3.
"I have no doubt that in the end the PS3 will outsell the 360 and the Wii will at least come close to matching it, but it's going to take a couple of years for them to reach the price points and develop the game libraries that 360 has a head start on."
And I have no doubt that the PS3 is going to be a disaster for Sony. It's nice that we're so doubtless - isn't it? So, what's the wager friend?
"Honestly, if you can't imagine a scenario involving a short streak of bad luck that will deprive you of money and easy transportation you simply lack an imagination."
Clever insult there. Here's one back for you to try on: bad luck is the excuse of losers. Sorry, I've got an excellent imagination but I'm also intelligent enough to be prepared for unfortunate circumstances. Spend less time coming up with these scenarios and more time being responsible. I feel like I'm arguing with my kid here.
The rest of your post is more nonsense from someone who is irresponsible and grabbing at straws. I won't dignify it any more than that.
Let's remember what the original comment was stating. It said that it is quite easy to sink to the same level as a homeless person easily.
"Because other than that one scenario there is simply no way you could ever become separated from your keys/wallet."
That's not the point that was being made. The point was that you could lose your keys and wallet in such a manner that you appeared to onlookers to be homeless. Now let's examine your other examples...
"I mean, nobody's ever been mugged, or pickpocketed, or had their stuff lifted while at the beach or pool"
All instances where the police would be called. I wouldn't appear homeless if I went into a store and asked them to call the police because I was just robbed.
"or dropped it in a gutter or off a dock"
This has happened to you? I have never dropped my valuables into the gutter or off a dock. You sound like a cartoon character.
"or left it in their other pants, or on the table at a restaurant, or lost it while jogging in the park"
Left it in their other pants? Now are we talking about keys or a wallet at this point? If we are talking about just leaving my wallet in my other pants - then I still have the keys and can just drive home. If we are talking about just the keys, then I still have my wallet and can get money to call for a friend to pick me up. If we are talking about both (and you used "it" to represent the wallet/keys combination in singleton) then how did I lock my house on the way out the door? Are you proposing that I left my keys and wallet in a pair of pants and didn't lock my house or that I left my keys and wallet in a pair of pants that are somehow outside of my home? Very interesting hypothesis but I don't think I'll fall victim to that scenario anytime soon. Further problems arise when analyzing your restaurant and jogging example because of the imprecise word "it" that you have chosen to use. (Honestly, try to be a bit more precise in any future replies.)
"or had their car stolen...."
Again, that's an instance where the police would be phoned. I won't appear homeless if my car is stolen and I want to call the police.
My main point was that as a responsible, intelligent, well-off citizen, the line that separates me from the homeless is quite well-defined and there are no set of circumstances that could occur that would lead me to be mistaken for one of them. You've outlined nothing that contradicts that.
"That said, have you ever been stuck for cash yourself? It doesn't take much, start with some grubby clothes and need of a shower, say, thanks to some house cleaning your in the middle of; then park in the wrong place for few couple minutes to perform a quick drop off errand, come back and find your car towed with your wallet & cellphone inside --- and instantly you can become reduced to begging for quarters to make a phone call, complete with a 'lame sob story' about how you just need bus fare to get accross town to the impound lot, or quarters to phone some friends to come get you... and you pretty much blend right in."
I don't park illegally and I don't leave my wallet in my car.
"I dont see the reason for insults. If you really think i am a north east liberal faux intellectual, look at my signature."
The reason for the insult is that I believe you are a liar. I do not view signatures and I am not going to change my settings to view whatever it is you think proves that you're not what I think you are.
Your response did nothing to make me believe you're not lying about never having seen a Walmart. Say "look at what I wrote" all you like; I'll still come to the same conclusion.
"Wal-mart didn't have a national presence until recently. I had never seen one in my area until about 4-5 years ago (Washington DC metropolitan area). It was my understanding that they tended to avoid cities when opening a store, instead concentrating on suburban & rural areas."
I guess, based on the responses I am seeing, a lot of people travel very rarely. These things are everywhere. I see them all the time.
"Exactly, why would he lie. So I will assume he has never seen a Walmart. I had not seen a Steinmart until earlier this month when one opened near my home even though I had to sit through endless commercials for the store on cable television. Same for Sonic drive ins I always see commercials for it but I have never heard of one in this area, man I wish they had those around here the food looks good."
Those examples aren't the same. Those are regional entities, not national as Walmart is. A much more apt example is someone claiming to have never seen a McDonalds.
And I think I know why he's pushing this lie. It is the same reason that people go out of their way to tell you they don't own a television or haven't heard of Britney Spears. Present yourself as an intellectual by being ignorant of what you perceive to be for the commoners.
It's a sad ploy for those who aren't intellectual.
"So if this poster doesn't leave Boston, us big city folk don't have much reason to leave the city much, then I could see how he/she has never seen a Walmart."
Come on - do you really believe that he's telling the truth about never having seen a Walmart? I live in NYC. I do not believe I have an unusually active travel schedule and I have seen plenty of Walmarts. We aren't living in colonial America - people travel. I think he lied about never having seen a Walmart. I'm just trying to figure out why.
Slashdot Mirror
See where I said, "You're correct." I understand why yyyy-mm-dd works better. The poster to who I was responding tried to explain why it worked better and it was nonsensical and foolish - never even coming close to being the actual reason why yyyy-mm-dd sorting is more valuable.
You can make just as invalid argument for mm-dd-yyyy - "that way they're all sorted by month first, then day, then year."
Your logic needs some work.
Obviously with Netflix, turnaround involves postage so there's a hit for them there.
Note: I think the post you replied to has got it all wrong but your rebuttal of it is wrong as well.
I prefer those who are deficient are brought up rather than dropping everyone else down to match them.
Given that it's probably not going to be The Platform, I'd rather not support the company that was at the heart of the whole rootkit fiasco. Sony's treated their customers like criminals in the past. Those who go back for more, in my opinion, are encouraging that type of behavior.
I'll be buying a Wii.
And stating that you have "the means to afford it" just makes it look like you don't actually have the means to afford a PS3 (and will be having your parents buy it for you) and that you don't understand the value of money. I can afford a PS3. I can afford plenty of things. Just because you can afford it, doesn't mean you should buy it. Tampons are priced to move but I have no use for them just as I have no use for a PS3.
And what do you mean by "I'm over Nintendo"?
The rest of your post is more nonsense from someone who is irresponsible and grabbing at straws. I won't dignify it any more than that.
My main point was that as a responsible, intelligent, well-off citizen, the line that separates me from the homeless is quite well-defined and there are no set of circumstances that could occur that would lead me to be mistaken for one of them. You've outlined nothing that contradicts that.
If you are telling the truth, try getting out a little more.
Your response did nothing to make me believe you're not lying about never having seen a Walmart. Say "look at what I wrote" all you like; I'll still come to the same conclusion.
And I think I know why he's pushing this lie. It is the same reason that people go out of their way to tell you they don't own a television or haven't heard of Britney Spears. Present yourself as an intellectual by being ignorant of what you perceive to be for the commoners.
It's a sad ploy for those who aren't intellectual.