"Yahoo Chief Operating Officer Daniel L. Rosensweig insists the company has the highest standards. "Users can put their trust in us because that is what we're built on," he says."
What Rosenzweig fails to mention is that Yahoo, like most companies, will take advantage of that trust to the furthest extent they can get away with.
Trust us because we say our foundation is trust? I don't think so.
How about "Trust us because we take steps to prevent adware, not support it."
Or, "Trust us because we will never piggyback software and settings changes onto downloads from us that you choose to install."
Or, "Trust us because it's not in our financial interest to do bad things to you."
Unfortunately, none of these three possibilities are true... and until they are, I will not trust Yahoo farther than I can throw them.
When did those portable DVD players hit that price point, in comparison to release of the PSP?
Also, the cheapest model is not indicative of the market in general. Look at feature sets, like battery life and resolution. Look at brand value, reliability, etc.
The distinction is between revealing a method and promoting its use. In the example, someone is telling someone where they can go to illegally download a copy of a copyrighted item. There is a specific reference to an illegal transaction.
It doesn't make sense for it to be illegal -- but the law is the law.
Or, the companies suing could bribe an official to make sure it doesn't get dropped. Who do you think has more cash available??? Think it's Baidu? Dream on...
"If these turn out to be true, they will have all kinds of social implications. If money, when used to buy healthy food and later exposure to educational materials and schooling, really will make little Jonny smarter, what does that say about society's obligation to feed and educate the poor around the world and at home?
"
Well, does providing the resources to maximize intelligence increase the quality of life for the individual, and for society as a whole?
Quality of life is really what it's all about, IMO. If we can take care of basic needs, then happiness is next. And, as they say, ignorance is bliss.
So, my answer is, give us food and shelter, then make us as dumb as possible./sarcasm off
And, of course, they get to be on anti-rejection drugs for the rest of their lives. This is a major motivation for the medical industry, since the pharmaceuticals industry just LOVES people who are on maintenance prescriptions.
/rant off
I'm sure the researchers have the patient's best interests in mind, but that may not be their primary motivation. I just feel that researching transplants, in this case, may not be as beneficial as researching cultured skin, or skin growth stimulant methods.
"If next year everyone is able to do 14 digit long divison in their head then.. yes I would say we're smarter unless we've given up something for that."
What if it takes much longer to do the calculation? If I can do two 14-digit calculations in the time you can do one, doesn't that make me smarter?
"If I were so fucking smart that I wouldn't need a calculator to do calculations (without extra practicing ofcourse)"
Wouldn't it be smarter to use all that practice time to do something else? Like, to learn something that can't be done on a calculator?
FTA:"He [Liang Dong, VP of Marketing -- Baidu] was reported to have met several music company executives Wednesday to discuss copyright issues, the Standard cited a source as saying, adding the goal was to "cooperate and make a platform for legal music downloads."
Liang said the discussions were "positive.""
This is the recording industry leaning on Baidu to come to terms with them. I'll bet if Baidu puts methods of discouraging illegal filesharing in place, and encourages legal (read: revenue-producing) downloads, the lawsuits will be dropped or settled out of court for a pittance.
Same MO as the earlier article today about the RIAA possible dropping huge settlement demands against Grokster et al.
Sure, but Flynn himself speculates[1] that his results are not necessarily due to increased intelligence, rather increased aptitude for the kind of intelligence tested by IQ tests -- abstract problem solving.
There are a host of other possible causes of the Flynn effect, but extrapolating IQ to intelligence in general is problematic.
If we were to measure intelligence as the ability to adapt and thrive to our environments, as in my OP, then we wouldn't see the Flynn effect, I'd bet. Practical problem-solving would be more important to adaptation than abstract problem-solving, in the earlier half of the 20th century.
The problem with the Flynn effect is that we're measuring intelligence by limited criteria.
I'll repeat myself: "The ideal is that we can all pay attention to issues and work on resolution, without resorting to exaggeration."
The ideal, not the reality. I was answering the OP's question of why certain commentors are referred to as shrill, not discussing the merits of being shrill.
Furthermore, I was referring to the attitude of many serious politicos, not my own opinion of the matter.
"You say this as if arguments or ideas gain attention in our society on the merits of their content alone."
No, I say this is the ideal, which is why sometimes people who exaggerate and scream are referred to as shrill.
"Sometimes screaming is the only way to be heard.
"
But does screaming to be heard actually resolve the problem? No.
But, anyway, thanks for taking that one sentence out of context and not bothering to read the text surrounding it, or the original post.
FTA: "Intelligence, as it impacts the economist Valderrama, is our capacity to adapt and thrive in our own environment."
If you do not change your intelligence-measuring criteria, then yes, we is more dumber.
If you use this definition of intelligence, and you change your measuring criteria to fit the current environment, then no, we have not lost any measure of intelligence.
Am I less smart because I can no longer do 14-digit long division in my head, like I did when I was young? No. Am I smarter because I approximate it and don't waste my time figuring it out? Maybe. Am I smarter because I use the calculator because there is less risk of error? Almost definitely.
We use technology because it makes us smarter. Maybe not as smart with traditional measuring sticks, but more capable of completing today's real-world tasks.
"If you don't like the machines, then use a freaking paper ballot!!!!!
We still use paper ballots in our town. You mark it.. bring it to a machine... the machine registeres where it is placed. Done.
"
What if you are not offered the option of a paper ballot at the polling place? What if paper ballots are not counted unless the voting is 'close'? Who defines 'close'?
What about all the people who are unaware of the security/vote fraud issues?
"And who's having trouble with these machines??? Liberal towns!!! If you don't like/trust them... get rid of them. You still vote don't you?
"
Yes, I vote, but unfortunatly, the voting machine replacements were not on the ballot. And they were enacted by an administration that was already in office. And in most places, the voting commissioner is not elected anyway.
Also, we're all having trouble with these machines. Just because liberal towns are the most likely to raise the issue before the press, their legislatures, and the people, doesn't mean that your podunk conservative town doesn't have a problem. Because any system that allows the potential for massive election fraud is a problem -- your problem, my problem, everyone's problem.
"Why are the handful of people who identify problems and try to get them solved "shrill"? "
Because of the method and tone of the discussion. Shrill, in this usage, means "betraying some strong emotion or attitude in an exaggerated manner." Obviously, shrill is generally a subjective descriptor.
Many pundits and bloggers use a shrill manner to draw attention to themselves and their arguments -- Limbaugh, Coulter, Franken, etc.
The reason being shrill is looked down upon by a lot of serious politicos is that the message can be overwhelmed by the tone -- if the argument needs to be shrill to get attention, how valid can the argument be?
"Because you don't get things fixed thinking like that." [re: 'going along to get along']
Although shrillness can draw attention to an issue, it won't get anything solved either. The ideal is that we can all pay attention to issues and work on resolution, without resorting to exaggeration.
"Two UMD movies sold 100,000 units within two months. By contrast, one of the earliest DVD releases, Air Force One, took nine to achieve the same goal."
This comparison is not relevant.
First, the DVD player was a single-function appliance, and had to be adopted before people would buy one. The PSP was released as a game platform, so it was adopted by many more people.
Second, the DVD competed with a tech that already had very deep market saturation -- videocassettes. Early adopters had already invested in laser-discs and been burned. Adoption of DVD players was slower due to these factors. The PSP, on the other hand, competes (in re: movies) with portable DVD players, which do not have as deep market saturation.
"DVD and ticket sales are on the decline, Hollywood needs a new source of revenue while they pick up the pieces, and PSP's handheld UMD format is turning into the glowing solution"
Except of course, that the UMD format is not a new source of revenue. It is a new distribution method for an old source of revenue -- movie titles for portable video players.
The reason that UMD-format sales of selected movies have been high? Because the titles released are targeted to the same market as the PSP. Why doesn't the article reference the top-selling DVDs sold within the first few months of sale?
The reason people pay high prices for UMD-format movies? Because it beats paying $400 for a portable DVD player that (1) serves no other function and (2) takes up even more space in the pocketbook/bookbag/tote/man-purse.
I understand that disfigurement, even cosmetic, can be debilitating physically and psychologically.
While loss of facial skin is disfiguring, it can be treated by transplants from the patient's own body, which is much safer.
I think the "face transplant" they are referring to involves also replacing ligature and muscles, which would be of great use -- imagine not being able to chew, create facial expressions, or speak. I am curious, however, if the costs and risks are truly worth it. I think there are plenty of ways that this research money could have been used that would be of greater benefit.
"A problem that I don't expect all of this to sort out is that unlike most other infrastructure required for the daily function of the USA (roads, water mains, sewers, airways, seaways, canals & rivers, and others) Telecommunications and Power Distribution are still owned by private companies wholly and completely on a local monopoly basis. "
Except, of course, that water supplies and sewers are often local monopolies as well. Airways are not even infrastructure; they are a space whose use is regulated by the government. Seaways are often maintained by local NGOs (like the Port Authority of NY & NJ), even if they are quasi-governmental.
Asking government to step in and either control infrastructure themselves, or to set up an NGO with sole control, is a bad idea -- even if maintenance and operation is farmed out. Because some technologies, like Telco, have a large barrier to entry, it makes sense for government to regulate a natural monopoly. However, Telco is slowly becoming less dependent on physical infrastructure, and so the barrier to entry is disappearing.
The problem with centralizing telco infrastructure is that you get stuck with current tech. If telco A develops a more efficient infrastructure, telcos B and C will adopt, even if not in direct competition with telco A.
IMO, the only time government should be in the business of managing and developing infrastructure is if it is impossible for private industry to do so.
Finally: "Please hold on the free-market ideology--it obviously didn't fix the problem now did it?"
Except, of course, that the free-market ideology was never applied to the telco industry. Regulated local monopoly != free market. If you mean prior to the inception of public power and telecommunications, the conditions were totally different -- the barriers to entry were sky-high, and there was little private financing available for uncertain ventures.
"Instructions are given in a way that reflects the fact that there are multiple ways to achieve the same outcome; the authors do not attempt to foist "the only way" to accomplish something upon the reader."
Do the authors discuss the relative benefits and drawbacks of each method? Do they discuss when it is and isn't appropriate for each? More info on this would be helpful.
"Readers do not go for very many pages before it is time to be at the keyboard again, harnessing the power of muscle memory to reinforce the material presented."
This is not muscle memory. This can be called learning through use. If the reader were to repeat the intended action 5,000 times, then maybe it could be called muscle memory.
My impression from the review is that the book will:
Give me the basics of Emacs use, and how they differ sometimes on different platforms;
Give me mnemonics to memorize keyboard shortcuts;
Show me multiple ways of doing some things;
Show me how to use basic Emacs with different languages, in some common situations.
So, my understanding from reading the review is that this is an fairly thorough introduction to Emac use that is easy to understand and doesn't bother with extraneous material.
Thanks for the info. In that case 6.0 = D (for most school systems), so this would be "barely passing."
The "6 out of 10" should be modified, then, to "6 out of 10, where average is 7.5"
Re:Looks... pretty much the same as everything els
on
Review: Darkwatch
·
· Score: 1
People buy games with better graphics, even if they are derivative of older titles.
There is a lot less hype about games where the improvement is in gameplay and/or plot. You can easily impress people with screenshots and demos; it's harder to get people to buy games that require playing the whole game to understand its advantages.
Controls are sluggish. Levels and enemies are repetitive. Game is short, so plot is ineffective. Dialogue is sub-par.
Graphics are ok, but don't push any limits.
Levels and enemies are repetitive.
The characters are pretty good.
The setting is different from other FPSs.
6 out of 10? "Cool! Six-shooters and skeletons!" Almost every other part of the review was negative. What does this game offer that makes it better than average?
If you say that you "can only recommend it to someone specifically looking for a shooter with a western or horror theme," doesn't it deserve a rating of 3/10? Or is an "average" game worth 8/10?
"Create some sort of graft system to reward file sharers who only share the crap they want to make people listen to, you know free tennis shoes if you fill your sight with nothing but Jessica Simpson"
I have no problem filling my sight with Jessica Simpson... it's my hearing that doesn't like her.
I'm surprised that recording industry doesn't pay people to promote 'illegal' filesharing of new albums... oh wait. They have. Through third parties, so they could claim ignorance.
Slashdot Mirror
"Yahoo Chief Operating Officer Daniel L. Rosensweig insists the company has the highest standards. "Users can put their trust in us because that is what we're built on," he says."
What Rosenzweig fails to mention is that Yahoo, like most companies, will take advantage of that trust to the furthest extent they can get away with.
Trust us because we say our foundation is trust? I don't think so.
How about "Trust us because we take steps to prevent adware, not support it."
Or, "Trust us because we will never piggyback software and settings changes onto downloads from us that you choose to install."
Or, "Trust us because it's not in our financial interest to do bad things to you."
Unfortunately, none of these three possibilities are true... and until they are, I will not trust Yahoo farther than I can throw them.
I see a chicken and egg problem. What if our abstract intelligence is increasing, which allows for greater language utility?
When did those portable DVD players hit that price point, in comparison to release of the PSP?
Also, the cheapest model is not indicative of the market in general. Look at feature sets, like battery life and resolution. Look at brand value, reliability, etc.
The distinction is between revealing a method and promoting its use. In the example, someone is telling someone where they can go to illegally download a copy of a copyrighted item. There is a specific reference to an illegal transaction.
It doesn't make sense for it to be illegal -- but the law is the law.
Or, the companies suing could bribe an official to make sure it doesn't get dropped. Who do you think has more cash available??? Think it's Baidu? Dream on...
"If these turn out to be true, they will have all kinds of social implications. If money, when used to buy healthy food and later exposure to educational materials and schooling, really will make little Jonny smarter, what does that say about society's obligation to feed and educate the poor around the world and at home? "
/sarcasm off
Well, does providing the resources to maximize intelligence increase the quality of life for the individual, and for society as a whole?
Quality of life is really what it's all about, IMO. If we can take care of basic needs, then happiness is next. And, as they say, ignorance is bliss.
So, my answer is, give us food and shelter, then make us as dumb as possible.
And, of course, they get to be on anti-rejection drugs for the rest of their lives. This is a major motivation for the medical industry, since the pharmaceuticals industry just LOVES people who are on maintenance prescriptions.
/rant off
I'm sure the researchers have the patient's best interests in mind, but that may not be their primary motivation. I just feel that researching transplants, in this case, may not be as beneficial as researching cultured skin, or skin growth stimulant methods.
"If next year everyone is able to do 14 digit long divison in their head then .. yes I would say we're smarter unless we've given up something for that."
What if it takes much longer to do the calculation? If I can do two 14-digit calculations in the time you can do one, doesn't that make me smarter?
"If I were so fucking smart that I wouldn't need a calculator to do calculations (without extra practicing ofcourse)"
Wouldn't it be smarter to use all that practice time to do something else? Like, to learn something that can't be done on a calculator?
"If I tell you that if you connect to E-mule you can download the same MP3 am I commiting a crime? "
If it's a copyrighted MP3, then yes, yes you are.
Is it just? I don't think so -- but I don't write the laws.
In prison, you'll be 'connecting' to more than E-mule.
FTA:"He [Liang Dong, VP of Marketing -- Baidu] was reported to have met several music company executives Wednesday to discuss copyright issues, the Standard cited a source as saying, adding the goal was to "cooperate and make a platform for legal music downloads."
Liang said the discussions were "positive.""
This is the recording industry leaning on Baidu to come to terms with them. I'll bet if Baidu puts methods of discouraging illegal filesharing in place, and encourages legal (read: revenue-producing) downloads, the lawsuits will be dropped or settled out of court for a pittance.
Same MO as the earlier article today about the RIAA possible dropping huge settlement demands against Grokster et al.
Sure, but Flynn himself speculates[1] that his results are not necessarily due to increased intelligence, rather increased aptitude for the kind of intelligence tested by IQ tests -- abstract problem solving.
There are a host of other possible causes of the Flynn effect, but extrapolating IQ to intelligence in general is problematic.
If we were to measure intelligence as the ability to adapt and thrive to our environments, as in my OP, then we wouldn't see the Flynn effect, I'd bet. Practical problem-solving would be more important to adaptation than abstract problem-solving, in the earlier half of the 20th century.
The problem with the Flynn effect is that we're measuring intelligence by limited criteria.
I'll repeat myself: "The ideal is that we can all pay attention to issues and work on resolution, without resorting to exaggeration."
The ideal, not the reality. I was answering the OP's question of why certain commentors are referred to as shrill, not discussing the merits of being shrill.
Furthermore, I was referring to the attitude of many serious politicos, not my own opinion of the matter.
"You say this as if arguments or ideas gain attention in our society on the merits of their content alone."
No, I say this is the ideal, which is why sometimes people who exaggerate and scream are referred to as shrill.
"Sometimes screaming is the only way to be heard. "
But does screaming to be heard actually resolve the problem? No.
But, anyway, thanks for taking that one sentence out of context and not bothering to read the text surrounding it, or the original post.
"Did you score 100 on your IQ test in 1980? Well guess what, by today's standards that's below average. "
Not so. If you were to score 100 on 1980's IQ test today, then fine -- because the average score today on that specific test would be over 100.
By definition, an IQ of 100 on a normalized, current test is the statistical average.
FTA: "Intelligence, as it impacts the economist Valderrama, is our capacity to adapt and thrive in our own environment."
If you do not change your intelligence-measuring criteria, then yes, we is more dumber.
If you use this definition of intelligence, and you change your measuring criteria to fit the current environment, then no, we have not lost any measure of intelligence.
Am I less smart because I can no longer do 14-digit long division in my head, like I did when I was young? No.
Am I smarter because I approximate it and don't waste my time figuring it out? Maybe.
Am I smarter because I use the calculator because there is less risk of error? Almost definitely.
We use technology because it makes us smarter. Maybe not as smart with traditional measuring sticks, but more capable of completing today's real-world tasks.
"If you don't like the machines, then use a freaking paper ballot!!!!!
We still use paper ballots in our town. You mark it.. bring it to a machine... the machine registeres where it is placed. Done. "
What if you are not offered the option of a paper ballot at the polling place? What if paper ballots are not counted unless the voting is 'close'? Who defines 'close'?
What about all the people who are unaware of the security/vote fraud issues?
"And who's having trouble with these machines??? Liberal towns!!! If you don't like/trust them... get rid of them. You still vote don't you? "
Yes, I vote, but unfortunatly, the voting machine replacements were not on the ballot. And they were enacted by an administration that was already in office. And in most places, the voting commissioner is not elected anyway.
Also, we're all having trouble with these machines. Just because liberal towns are the most likely to raise the issue before the press, their legislatures, and the people, doesn't mean that your podunk conservative town doesn't have a problem. Because any system that allows the potential for massive election fraud is a problem -- your problem, my problem, everyone's problem.
"Why are the handful of people who identify problems and try to get them solved "shrill"? "
Because of the method and tone of the discussion. Shrill, in this usage, means "betraying some strong emotion or attitude in an exaggerated manner." Obviously, shrill is generally a subjective descriptor.
Many pundits and bloggers use a shrill manner to draw attention to themselves and their arguments -- Limbaugh, Coulter, Franken, etc.
The reason being shrill is looked down upon by a lot of serious politicos is that the message can be overwhelmed by the tone -- if the argument needs to be shrill to get attention, how valid can the argument be?
"Because you don't get things fixed thinking like that." [re: 'going along to get along']
Although shrillness can draw attention to an issue, it won't get anything solved either. The ideal is that we can all pay attention to issues and work on resolution, without resorting to exaggeration.
"Two UMD movies sold 100,000 units within two months. By contrast, one of the earliest DVD releases, Air Force One, took nine to achieve the same goal."
This comparison is not relevant.
First, the DVD player was a single-function appliance, and had to be adopted before people would buy one. The PSP was released as a game platform, so it was adopted by many more people.
Second, the DVD competed with a tech that already had very deep market saturation -- videocassettes. Early adopters had already invested in laser-discs and been burned. Adoption of DVD players was slower due to these factors. The PSP, on the other hand, competes (in re: movies) with portable DVD players, which do not have as deep market saturation.
"DVD and ticket sales are on the decline, Hollywood needs a new source of revenue while they pick up the pieces, and PSP's handheld UMD format is turning into the glowing solution"
Except of course, that the UMD format is not a new source of revenue. It is a new distribution method for an old source of revenue -- movie titles for portable video players.
The reason that UMD-format sales of selected movies have been high? Because the titles released are targeted to the same market as the PSP. Why doesn't the article reference the top-selling DVDs sold within the first few months of sale?
The reason people pay high prices for UMD-format movies? Because it beats paying $400 for a portable DVD player that (1) serves no other function and (2) takes up even more space in the pocketbook/bookbag/tote/man-purse.
I understand that disfigurement, even cosmetic, can be debilitating physically and psychologically.
While loss of facial skin is disfiguring, it can be treated by transplants from the patient's own body, which is much safer.
I think the "face transplant" they are referring to involves also replacing ligature and muscles, which would be of great use -- imagine not being able to chew, create facial expressions, or speak. I am curious, however, if the costs and risks are truly worth it. I think there are plenty of ways that this research money could have been used that would be of greater benefit.
I think your criteria for whether FPSs are good or not are a little simplistic, and may not apply to all FPS fans. But, FWIW, thanks!
"A problem that I don't expect all of this to sort out is that unlike most other infrastructure required for the daily function of the USA (roads, water mains, sewers, airways, seaways, canals & rivers, and others) Telecommunications and Power Distribution are still owned by private companies wholly and completely on a local monopoly basis. "
Except, of course, that water supplies and sewers are often local monopolies as well. Airways are not even infrastructure; they are a space whose use is regulated by the government. Seaways are often maintained by local NGOs (like the Port Authority of NY & NJ), even if they are quasi-governmental.
Asking government to step in and either control infrastructure themselves, or to set up an NGO with sole control, is a bad idea -- even if maintenance and operation is farmed out. Because some technologies, like Telco, have a large barrier to entry, it makes sense for government to regulate a natural monopoly. However, Telco is slowly becoming less dependent on physical infrastructure, and so the barrier to entry is disappearing.
The problem with centralizing telco infrastructure is that you get stuck with current tech. If telco A develops a more efficient infrastructure, telcos B and C will adopt, even if not in direct competition with telco A.
IMO, the only time government should be in the business of managing and developing infrastructure is if it is impossible for private industry to do so.
Finally: "Please hold on the free-market ideology--it obviously didn't fix the problem now did it?"
Except, of course, that the free-market ideology was never applied to the telco industry. Regulated local monopoly != free market. If you mean prior to the inception of public power and telecommunications, the conditions were totally different -- the barriers to entry were sky-high, and there was little private financing available for uncertain ventures.
"Instructions are given in a way that reflects the fact that there are multiple ways to achieve the same outcome; the authors do not attempt to foist "the only way" to accomplish something upon the reader."
Do the authors discuss the relative benefits and drawbacks of each method? Do they discuss when it is and isn't appropriate for each? More info on this would be helpful.
"Readers do not go for very many pages before it is time to be at the keyboard again, harnessing the power of muscle memory to reinforce the material presented."
This is not muscle memory. This can be called learning through use. If the reader were to repeat the intended action 5,000 times, then maybe it could be called muscle memory.
My impression from the review is that the book will:
Give me the basics of Emacs use, and how they differ sometimes on different platforms;
Give me mnemonics to memorize keyboard shortcuts;
Show me multiple ways of doing some things;
Show me how to use basic Emacs with different languages, in some common situations.
So, my understanding from reading the review is that this is an fairly thorough introduction to Emac use that is easy to understand and doesn't bother with extraneous material.
Am I off base here?
Thanks for the info. In that case 6.0 = D (for most school systems), so this would be "barely passing."
The "6 out of 10" should be modified, then, to "6 out of 10, where average is 7.5"
People buy games with better graphics, even if they are derivative of older titles.
There is a lot less hype about games where the improvement is in gameplay and/or plot. You can easily impress people with screenshots and demos; it's harder to get people to buy games that require playing the whole game to understand its advantages.
Controls are sluggish.
Levels and enemies are repetitive.
Game is short, so plot is ineffective.
Dialogue is sub-par.
Graphics are ok, but don't push any limits.
Levels and enemies are repetitive.
The characters are pretty good.
The setting is different from other FPSs.
6 out of 10? "Cool! Six-shooters and skeletons!" Almost every other part of the review was negative. What does this game offer that makes it better than average?
If you say that you "can only recommend it to someone specifically looking for a shooter with a western or horror theme," doesn't it deserve a rating of 3/10? Or is an "average" game worth 8/10?
"Create some sort of graft system to reward file sharers who only share the crap they want to make people listen to, you know free tennis shoes if you fill your sight with nothing but Jessica Simpson "
I have no problem filling my sight with Jessica Simpson... it's my hearing that doesn't like her.
I'm surprised that recording industry doesn't pay people to promote 'illegal' filesharing of new albums... oh wait. They have. Through third parties, so they could claim ignorance.