What I am saying is that there is no proof that God exists whatsoever. Until evidence is found to prove a/your/any God exists, it does not exist in our scope of knowledge.
Moreover, when debating the existence of something, it is on the believer to provide evidence when non exist. If evidence supports that something does exist, it is on the denier to discredit that said evidence. Now if you want to say that we just have not found the proof that God exists yet, that will not work either. You can only believe in it 'in theory' until it is proven. Sane people do not worship theories.
So it could be that Gen X, Y, Z etc. are getting to progressively more self-centered and showing increasingly less fiscal responsibility (it would explain the housing crisis). First, they are not being self-centered, which implies greedy selfishness. They are instead, individuals concerned about their own rights as they are finding out what they mean to them for the first time(most).
Unrelated to that notion is your claim of fiscal responsibility the youth currently lacks. Now your claim is 100% bogus, unfounded, and just plain irresponsible. The current youth of the nation has very little do to with the subprime mortgage mess. In reality, it is Gen X was much more involved in the events that led to the current crisis. That said, it is not any generations fault, but instead our deteriorating culture and society that does not live within their means.* That problem transcends generations and instead of Gen Y causing it(in part even) as you claim, they actually have to burden the consequences of the problem more than anyone else.
As our dollar weakens, Wall Street frets, and we come to terms with rapid inflation, Gen Y will take center stage as we work to avoid a recession.
*The problem is much more complex as you probably know. While people are responsible for the horrible loans they took out, they cannot be held solely responsible. Some blame lies with the lenders who should have never made the bad loans to begin with. Also, the housing market is not local to America either, much of the EU, including Britain, are experiencing similar slow downs in their housing markets.
Actually I do, but I was just trying to generalize the technology. Same thing if I said The Pirate Bay cant be killed, it would just move domains/servers to escape harassment. Of course it is much more complicated, but the idea is taking what made that technology work where it was and recreate/copy it under a different name so to speak. For example, Napster 'moved/changed' into Kazaa/Morpheus - the technology and core theory was the same, but it was just in a different spot.
What way did bittorrent go exactly? My 'torrent use' has not been effected in the least from anything the RIAA or bittorrent themselves have done. As for usenet, even if it is shut down, only the name will take a hit. The whole community will reorganize 3 days later at a new domain, the same community, and a new vigor of secrecy. I mean really, the RIAA cannot do anything to stop us(Us being geeks/nerds). No matter what they do, we change our ways, improve our position against them(RIAA), and continue to do what we want, share files. Darknets and private trackers are already commonplace because of the RIAA - it just goes to show that the only thing that can control what the community does is the community itself.
They do not know any better, it is as simple as that really. They either do now know other options exist, think the service is the same, or for many they are to lazy to break their ties with AOL thinking they will lose their email, aim, and other things AOL gives them.
I have asked numerous people why they still have AOL over the years and almost all of them said that they have had it for so long that they are uncomfortable changing for whatever reason. AOL does a great job locking its customers into its systems and making it seem counter-intuitive to switch.
You limited your scope to manned space exploration/environments for advancement, but used the whole range of past advancements as your example of past progress.
In fact, you are quite mistaken. In the past 30 years, we have not had any major human engineering feats (for example: Shuttles, satellites, ISS, etc.) compared to the previous decades leading up to the lunar landings. Instead, we have integrated technology and scientific advancements into new space age. Products of this are ever present in our everyday lives. From GPS and weather forecasts to discoveries of black holes, dark matter, the processes which power our Sun and every other star. While you do not translate these to significant advancements, I certainly do. Only in recent decades have we been able to see, gather data, and learn about objects in deep space. I would like to see Spirit and Opportunity as major successes as well as the current progress being made in our search for life in our own solar system.
There perspective we have gained through these advancements has splintered funding into numerous different fields. Where back in the 60's we knew much less about our universe which limited the amount of things we would want to spend money on doing, like landing on the moon. Today though, you find people wanting to spend money on proving super massive black holes exist, monitoring our own Suns magnetic fields, and searching for life on other planets.
So what? If they want you to do the debugging for them via this method then it is up to us, the users, to satisfy that. If you do not want a part of it then do not participate. It is as simple as that. If there are people out there that are willing to look and submit bugs then the program is a success to Microsoft and that is all that matters here, how it helps Microsoft. Remember though, that is not a bad thing, it is just business.
Everyone is quick to dream up what technology like this could yield, but we are far from being able to apply this technology into anything truly useful.
We have an unimaginable amount of information on the brain anatomy and biology, but no real idea on how the brain works at a fundamental level. That information is vital to being able to make intelligent technology that can actually make use of stuff like is discussed in TFA. I am sure many have already read it, but there is a great book on the subject called On Intelligence by Jeff Hawkins. It talks about the study of the brain and why current attempts to create AI are doomed to failure.
Anyways, I thought I should mention the book as it opened my eyes and gave me great insight into the industry and our very remarkable brains.:)
The people who have no idea about about extensions and plugins(the average user), are the people who want the anti-fishing features. Being the more advanced user, it is far easier for you to turn it off than it is for the average user to seek, install, and maintain(update) a plugin.
I would agree that it is annoying for me as well though - I do not need the help of the browser to ward off phishing, especially at the cost of a performance hit. That said, Firefox is not a pet project of the geek world anymore. FF is aggressively seeking the mind and market share of the everyday user, so they must produce a product those users want. Outside of security, what is the real benefit of abandoning IE6 and more importantly IE7? Pages rendering correctly/standard compliance is not an issue with the average user, not in the least. So that only really leaves security, interface/usability, and I suppose can throw in the great extension selection as a motivator to switch as well. This is a move in the direction of better security to offer its users who value it.
Or maybe he just misplaced the index card with that boilerplate on it. Why would you go out of the way to mention something that was, as you stated, not even touched on in the article. Vevendi did not elude to this point, so why would you even mention it in that light? You are only serving to put words in others peoples mouths which could only contribute to complicate the message being delivered here. You are introducing doubt only because you think you know what Vevendi really meant to say? Please do us all a favor and leave your personal opinion about what a conglomerate organization is 'really thinking' and let us interpret the reported facts and form our own opinions.
If I am doing something serious wrong with my Firefox, then it is not my fault. I am using the browser no differently then thousands and thousands of other users. I visit dozens of websites a day, opening and closing tabs regularly while online. That simple use causes the memory to run rampant. Maybe it is the extensions, either way, FF should not allow an extension to compromise the integrity of the memory allocation on my machine. That is assuming an extension is the main issue. I do not believe to be true since I have a cocktail of extensions on this machine while my laptop has only a few, yet both have the same performance issues. I have one machine with a clean and updated FF install, no extensions, and I still see this problem, though not as often since it does not see regular use compared to my other machines.
This is long overdue and is the cause of my biggest gripe with Firefox. Without a couple vital extensions related to my work, I would have ditched FF for IE7 because of this issue. I absolutely hate having to Force quit the.exe in order to save my session tabs and free up the memory. Every single machine I use (3 desktops, 1 laptop) has to be forced down on a nearly daily basis if not more, in order to keep the memory available for other applications.
Someone who pays $3 can look just as good as the guy who pays $300, but it is hard to do. There are a ton of styles and fashion trends and the one you are picking on is generally a hipster look. This is the thrift store look, where people buy clothes that are made to look cheaper, older, and more worn. Some people actually get some or all of their clothes at the thrift store, while most pay a high price to have the brand they are buying manufacture that look for them.
Fashion and style are not the same thing. All the styles in the world are rolled up into what we call 'fashion'. If the hipsters start wearing scarfs, then scarfs are 'in fashion' and are now a part of the overall fashion scene. To create a style, people pick out different fashion trends and everything together gives you a style. Now trend-setters are the fashion people who try new and unique things and sometimes they catch on in the overall fashion scene.
Now your personal style is the expression you make with your clothes, accessories, and hair. You have your general style, whatever it is, and you build on that with things like shoes, belts, hair styles, hats, etc to create your own personal style. A lack of self expression could comes off as bland, but not necessarily bad. On the other hand, a complete lack of fashion tends to look like you have no self respect or you just do not care about what other people think. Either way, if you have no fashion sense, people are going to see you are a boring and uninteresting person on the surface. While it may be superficial, that is life and it is far from a new development. How you present yourself to the world matters because people are judging you based on appearance till they have something else to go on.
There is no such thing as a perfect candidate. The only way to get someone in office that agrees with everything you do is to run yourself. While Ron Paul may not have the same views on abortion, he is right on the money with other issues that are more important to me.
Prioritize what matters to you the most and find the candidate that satisfies the most important issues to you. You have to find the happy medium between what you get and what you give.
He does not support the telco in their endeavor to extend their monopolies into other markets. It is a vote to against the monopolies, not a vote for restricting what private companies can or cant do. Hopefully that came out right, but these votes, especially with Ron Paul, often mean more than what you may get from reading it at a glance. He was supporting the free market here where it could look as if he is doing the complete opposite.
Ron Paul is not for 'net neutrality' because he believes that if the government prevented business from regulating the Net, then it would unfairly jeopardize their freedom (See: Right) to do so.
While the evolution analogy/application is works to a degree, you are neglecting the real issue here. It was not this managers position to take that risk, especially without running it by corporate first. Look, I agree, some risks are good and generally, I agree with your comment pretty much down to the T. That said, it still was not this persons call in the least. He was/is not in a position to quantify and then take on that additional risk. If he wants to play with money like that he needs to be doing with his own money, or in a position that welcomes that thought process. That is reserved for investment banking and a few other specialized jobs though. GameStop store manager is not one of those.
Should thinking like that be rewarded? Sure, but you better not determine it worthwhile and enact it yourself without first checking with the people who's money you are playing with.
You are correct, doing the program might do the things you say, being increasing sales, publicity, and positive branding. Let me stress might here - of course you can never be certain any program will work one way or another. That said, that brings me to the part where you are wrong.
This was a horrible program all things considered. All three things you say this program could do; increase sales, publicity, and positive branding, all can be done via traditional marketing. I am 100% sure GameStop has a marketing budget which has these same 3 goals in mind, but in a much better cost:risk ratio. GameStop wants to get the most return on its investment into increase sales, publicity, and positive branding. They have probably done research as to get the most return for the least risk, a common practice throughout economics. Violating the programs designed as a result of that research makes the research worthless and compromises the forecastable success of that location.
Agreed. Dell was just an attempt at a well known brand here on/. though - nothing more than that. I own a Dell laptop and am rather pleased with it thus far.
While I agree with him on this, it is wrong to tell people to steal when you are a role model like he is. I suppose he justified stealing his music by explaining the situation with prices and record labels, but that does not make it right. What next, the CEO from Dell gets leaves and tells everyone that the computers they are buying are way overpriced and that people should try to steal them instead of paying that price? That is a slippery slope obviously. Instead, he should instruct people not to buy it at the price it is and let the people, themselves, figure out how they want to go about not paying for it.
The correct thing it do here is vote with your dollar - do not pay the prices if they upset you. That said, stealing the goods instead of paying for them is not voting with your dollar, it is stealing. See how that works?
Ok I get the first part. Spying on our own citizen is bad, agreed, signed. Now can you explain why it is bad that it gets sold to corporations?
Also, they should not be ashamed of creating the technology, but ashamed of how it is used if it is wrong. That is like saying inventing the plane was bad because it would be used to fight wars. Bad example perhaps, but you get the idea.
Either way, getting rid of the small number of spaces to being with only helps other, more important issues more than it hurts the parking issue. Personally, I always park at Chili's unless I am going to the other end of Mill, either way it is not a looong walk.
I no longer live in Tempe, though I do visit very often. I resided there for about 4 years, but now I call Downtown Phoenix home.
Slashdot Mirror
Wrong.
What I am saying is that there is no proof that God exists whatsoever. Until evidence is found to prove a/your/any God exists, it does not exist in our scope of knowledge.
Moreover, when debating the existence of something, it is on the believer to provide evidence when non exist. If evidence supports that something does exist, it is on the denier to discredit that said evidence. Now if you want to say that we just have not found the proof that God exists yet, that will not work either. You can only believe in it 'in theory' until it is proven. Sane people do not worship theories.
Unrelated to that notion is your claim of fiscal responsibility the youth currently lacks. Now your claim is 100% bogus, unfounded, and just plain irresponsible. The current youth of the nation has very little do to with the subprime mortgage mess. In reality, it is Gen X was much more involved in the events that led to the current crisis. That said, it is not any generations fault, but instead our deteriorating culture and society that does not live within their means.* That problem transcends generations and instead of Gen Y causing it(in part even) as you claim, they actually have to burden the consequences of the problem more than anyone else.
As our dollar weakens, Wall Street frets, and we come to terms with rapid inflation, Gen Y will take center stage as we work to avoid a recession.
*The problem is much more complex as you probably know. While people are responsible for the horrible loans they took out, they cannot be held solely responsible. Some blame lies with the lenders who should have never made the bad loans to begin with. Also, the housing market is not local to America either, much of the EU, including Britain, are experiencing similar slow downs in their housing markets.
No - I am sure. 100% sure.
Context defined.
You'll see my use of 'the' instead of 'a' as a clue. 'The' was defined already in my post as geeks and nerds. Hope that helps!
Actually I do, but I was just trying to generalize the technology. Same thing if I said The Pirate Bay cant be killed, it would just move domains/servers to escape harassment. Of course it is much more complicated, but the idea is taking what made that technology work where it was and recreate/copy it under a different name so to speak. For example, Napster 'moved/changed' into Kazaa/Morpheus - the technology and core theory was the same, but it was just in a different spot.
What way did bittorrent go exactly? My 'torrent use' has not been effected in the least from anything the RIAA or bittorrent themselves have done. As for usenet, even if it is shut down, only the name will take a hit. The whole community will reorganize 3 days later at a new domain, the same community, and a new vigor of secrecy. I mean really, the RIAA cannot do anything to stop us(Us being geeks/nerds). No matter what they do, we change our ways, improve our position against them(RIAA), and continue to do what we want, share files. Darknets and private trackers are already commonplace because of the RIAA - it just goes to show that the only thing that can control what the community does is the community itself.
They do not know any better, it is as simple as that really. They either do now know other options exist, think the service is the same, or for many they are to lazy to break their ties with AOL thinking they will lose their email, aim, and other things AOL gives them.
I have asked numerous people why they still have AOL over the years and almost all of them said that they have had it for so long that they are uncomfortable changing for whatever reason. AOL does a great job locking its customers into its systems and making it seem counter-intuitive to switch.
You limited your scope to manned space exploration/environments for advancement, but used the whole range of past advancements as your example of past progress.
In fact, you are quite mistaken. In the past 30 years, we have not had any major human engineering feats (for example: Shuttles, satellites, ISS, etc.) compared to the previous decades leading up to the lunar landings. Instead, we have integrated technology and scientific advancements into new space age. Products of this are ever present in our everyday lives. From GPS and weather forecasts to discoveries of black holes, dark matter, the processes which power our Sun and every other star. While you do not translate these to significant advancements, I certainly do. Only in recent decades have we been able to see, gather data, and learn about objects in deep space. I would like to see Spirit and Opportunity as major successes as well as the current progress being made in our search for life in our own solar system.
There perspective we have gained through these advancements has splintered funding into numerous different fields. Where back in the 60's we knew much less about our universe which limited the amount of things we would want to spend money on doing, like landing on the moon. Today though, you find people wanting to spend money on proving super massive black holes exist, monitoring our own Suns magnetic fields, and searching for life on other planets.
So what? If they want you to do the debugging for them via this method then it is up to us, the users, to satisfy that. If you do not want a part of it then do not participate. It is as simple as that. If there are people out there that are willing to look and submit bugs then the program is a success to Microsoft and that is all that matters here, how it helps Microsoft. Remember though, that is not a bad thing, it is just business.
Everyone is quick to dream up what technology like this could yield, but we are far from being able to apply this technology into anything truly useful.
:)
We have an unimaginable amount of information on the brain anatomy and biology, but no real idea on how the brain works at a fundamental level. That information is vital to being able to make intelligent technology that can actually make use of stuff like is discussed in TFA. I am sure many have already read it, but there is a great book on the subject called On Intelligence by Jeff Hawkins. It talks about the study of the brain and why current attempts to create AI are doomed to failure.
Anyways, I thought I should mention the book as it opened my eyes and gave me great insight into the industry and our very remarkable brains.
The people who have no idea about about extensions and plugins(the average user), are the people who want the anti-fishing features. Being the more advanced user, it is far easier for you to turn it off than it is for the average user to seek, install, and maintain(update) a plugin.
I would agree that it is annoying for me as well though - I do not need the help of the browser to ward off phishing, especially at the cost of a performance hit. That said, Firefox is not a pet project of the geek world anymore. FF is aggressively seeking the mind and market share of the everyday user, so they must produce a product those users want. Outside of security, what is the real benefit of abandoning IE6 and more importantly IE7? Pages rendering correctly/standard compliance is not an issue with the average user, not in the least. So that only really leaves security, interface/usability, and I suppose can throw in the great extension selection as a motivator to switch as well. This is a move in the direction of better security to offer its users who value it.
If I am doing something serious wrong with my Firefox, then it is not my fault. I am using the browser no differently then thousands and thousands of other users. I visit dozens of websites a day, opening and closing tabs regularly while online. That simple use causes the memory to run rampant. Maybe it is the extensions, either way, FF should not allow an extension to compromise the integrity of the memory allocation on my machine. That is assuming an extension is the main issue. I do not believe to be true since I have a cocktail of extensions on this machine while my laptop has only a few, yet both have the same performance issues. I have one machine with a clean and updated FF install, no extensions, and I still see this problem, though not as often since it does not see regular use compared to my other machines.
Actually... it kinda is :)
.exe in order to save my session tabs and free up the memory. Every single machine I use (3 desktops, 1 laptop) has to be forced down on a nearly daily basis if not more, in order to keep the memory available for other applications.
This is long overdue and is the cause of my biggest gripe with Firefox. Without a couple vital extensions related to my work, I would have ditched FF for IE7 because of this issue. I absolutely hate having to Force quit the
Someone who pays $3 can look just as good as the guy who pays $300, but it is hard to do. There are a ton of styles and fashion trends and the one you are picking on is generally a hipster look. This is the thrift store look, where people buy clothes that are made to look cheaper, older, and more worn. Some people actually get some or all of their clothes at the thrift store, while most pay a high price to have the brand they are buying manufacture that look for them.
Fashion and style are not the same thing. All the styles in the world are rolled up into what we call 'fashion'. If the hipsters start wearing scarfs, then scarfs are 'in fashion' and are now a part of the overall fashion scene. To create a style, people pick out different fashion trends and everything together gives you a style. Now trend-setters are the fashion people who try new and unique things and sometimes they catch on in the overall fashion scene.
Now your personal style is the expression you make with your clothes, accessories, and hair. You have your general style, whatever it is, and you build on that with things like shoes, belts, hair styles, hats, etc to create your own personal style. A lack of self expression could comes off as bland, but not necessarily bad. On the other hand, a complete lack of fashion tends to look like you have no self respect or you just do not care about what other people think. Either way, if you have no fashion sense, people are going to see you are a boring and uninteresting person on the surface. While it may be superficial, that is life and it is far from a new development. How you present yourself to the world matters because people are judging you based on appearance till they have something else to go on.
There is no such thing as a perfect candidate. The only way to get someone in office that agrees with everything you do is to run yourself. While Ron Paul may not have the same views on abortion, he is right on the money with other issues that are more important to me.
Prioritize what matters to you the most and find the candidate that satisfies the most important issues to you. You have to find the happy medium between what you get and what you give.
He does not support the telco in their endeavor to extend their monopolies into other markets. It is a vote to against the monopolies, not a vote for restricting what private companies can or cant do. Hopefully that came out right, but these votes, especially with Ron Paul, often mean more than what you may get from reading it at a glance. He was supporting the free market here where it could look as if he is doing the complete opposite.
Other technology votes by Paul: Source
While the evolution analogy/application is works to a degree, you are neglecting the real issue here. It was not this managers position to take that risk, especially without running it by corporate first. Look, I agree, some risks are good and generally, I agree with your comment pretty much down to the T. That said, it still was not this persons call in the least. He was/is not in a position to quantify and then take on that additional risk. If he wants to play with money like that he needs to be doing with his own money, or in a position that welcomes that thought process. That is reserved for investment banking and a few other specialized jobs though. GameStop store manager is not one of those.
Should thinking like that be rewarded? Sure, but you better not determine it worthwhile and enact it yourself without first checking with the people who's money you are playing with.
Right and Wrong.
You are correct, doing the program might do the things you say, being increasing sales, publicity, and positive branding. Let me stress might here - of course you can never be certain any program will work one way or another. That said, that brings me to the part where you are wrong.
This was a horrible program all things considered. All three things you say this program could do; increase sales, publicity, and positive branding, all can be done via traditional marketing. I am 100% sure GameStop has a marketing budget which has these same 3 goals in mind, but in a much better cost:risk ratio. GameStop wants to get the most return on its investment into increase sales, publicity, and positive branding. They have probably done research as to get the most return for the least risk, a common practice throughout economics. Violating the programs designed as a result of that research makes the research worthless and compromises the forecastable success of that location.
Agreed. Dell was just an attempt at a well known brand here on /. though - nothing more than that. I own a Dell laptop and am rather pleased with it thus far.
While I agree with him on this, it is wrong to tell people to steal when you are a role model like he is. I suppose he justified stealing his music by explaining the situation with prices and record labels, but that does not make it right. What next, the CEO from Dell gets leaves and tells everyone that the computers they are buying are way overpriced and that people should try to steal them instead of paying that price? That is a slippery slope obviously. Instead, he should instruct people not to buy it at the price it is and let the people, themselves, figure out how they want to go about not paying for it.
The correct thing it do here is vote with your dollar - do not pay the prices if they upset you. That said, stealing the goods instead of paying for them is not voting with your dollar, it is stealing. See how that works?
Ok I get the first part. Spying on our own citizen is bad, agreed, signed. Now can you explain why it is bad that it gets sold to corporations?
Also, they should not be ashamed of creating the technology, but ashamed of how it is used if it is wrong. That is like saying inventing the plane was bad because it would be used to fight wars. Bad example perhaps, but you get the idea.
Printer Friendly version of the article that is one page instead of 5.
Either way, getting rid of the small number of spaces to being with only helps other, more important issues more than it hurts the parking issue. Personally, I always park at Chili's unless I am going to the other end of Mill, either way it is not a looong walk.
I no longer live in Tempe, though I do visit very often. I resided there for about 4 years, but now I call Downtown Phoenix home.