I don't choose my beliefs, I take in information and beliefs form in my brain. The information I've taken in has led me to taking a position that Jesus was a cool dude and that while there are many things that can be learned from the Bible, it is neither an end all be all source of information nor is it above being misused by someone with an agenda. I also believe Dr. Pepper tastes better than 7-Up. These are my beliefs, but they were not choices.
Right, we all have interests and many of us are also obsessive about them. I've known a lot of girls who like horses, but if you see a girl's "my other car is a horse" bumper sticker before you even meet her, it could be off putting. We like to learn things about people in a certain order, even if it means having to establish the most basic level of common ground beforehand.
No, but you are likely to make a different impression mentioning your love of whole grain pepper right off the bat. When people ask what someone is in to they generally expect common answers like movies, sports, traveling... not much else really. Niche interests aren't exactly shameful, but there is a certain weight that comes with them. If a person has too specific an interest, like rice carving or riding Harley Davidsons (and only Harley Davidsons durn it!) there's a feeling that you may never truly understand that person if you have no interest in their interest. Don't say you like comic books, say you like movies. And when they ask what movies you like, say you like the ones based on comic books (and the more faithful the better). If they have half a brain they'll hardly be surprised to find you do, in fact, also like comic books.
Even if they did know more (and it's pretty apparent they didn't), asking the most basic of questions is essential to the type of piece they were doing. The point of educating them beforehand would just to be to make them look smarter than they are. Since they didn't know more, and didn't expect their average audience member to know more than them, doing the piece as a group learning experience probably made sense.
Thank you, I was waiting for someone to say that. Do you know that it's true? I think everyone thought it was an odd thing to say, but even at 14 I thought "hmmm... I guess he's only reading the telemetry". Kind of reminds me of the way BP photo-shopped their gulf disaster response to show them watching the same footage we were seeing at home, because obviously they would all be watching the oil spewing constantly to remind them of what they were trying to stop. The idea that it takes hundreds of people to put a shuttle into the air and not all of them are going to be watching it launch because they are too busy launching it seems to be lost on the majority of people who think there's nothing more to anything than the most exciting or glamorous aspects that happen to make for good TV.
I think it's obvious that real world violence is the primary cause of violent media. These violent acts shouldn't be allowed to happen in a world where impressionable young writers and producers might be influenced to produce violent fiction.
I would assume it comes from fetching. You make a motion while throwing something and the dog looks to see where what you threw went. Make the motion without throwing anything, which is a bit like pointing, and the dog will still look. Cats look at your hand wondering whether you are about to drop a treat for them, the finger sticking out makes no difference.
"Most animals don't even know to look at where we are pointing at." Someone (perhaps it was you?) brought this up in the last "cats vs. dogs"discussion and since I didn't comment then, I will comment now. Pointing is a learned non-verbal communicative act. A finger is not a laser pointer, and there is no reason why looking at the finger itself is wrong or should be used as a mark of low intellect. I won't bother with whether dogs are born knowing this or learn it while playing fetch and other games with humans, but will point out that dogs with this skill have historically been valued by hunters over ones that don't have this skill. A cat may not recognize the position of your fingers as a specific instruction as most cats tend to just watch any object in motion. Cats' and dogs' respective behavior has much to do with how we tend to play with them, which in turn is a reflection on how we have traditionally exploited them to our advantage.
Then you haven't thought it about it enough. Arcade games are generally winnable, and the value of your initial fee increases with skill. Those high scores on games like Donkey Kong and Pac-Man are achieved on a single credit. You aren't buying the entertainment, but rather an opportunity to be entertained. No amount of money will guarantee you get to the second board of Donkey Kong, yet one quarter is all it takes to play through the entire game.
The only goal of Farmville is to increase your credits through a repetitive mechanic so that you can buy items that either serve little more than a decorative function or temporarily speed up/eliminate some aspect of the repetitive play (so you may earn money for the useless items in less time). People spend real money because the game is not actually fun to play, yet having a colorful personalized farm others can visit holds some strange appeal to them. You don't pay to play Farmville, you pay to avoid having to play it.
You listed mainly the typical "red state" outdoor activities. Though I'm in WV, I live in a college town and most of my female friends are left-of-center. In addition to biking, hiking, and caving (and that's just in the Summer) don't forget to include going to festivals and gatherings such as Bonaroo or Burning Man among the things people may consider outdoor activities when describing themselves. Actually, it seems the activities you listed are the interests women claim when they want men to believe they would be a fun person to hang out with. A lot of men around this state do hunt and fish or ride dirt bikes and not many women want to be thought of as someone who would get in the way of those things. If most of your real interests are things you do indoors and alone that's probably how you will spend most of your time. I'd expect a high percentage of people on/. have the personality trait that, while they would, in theory, like to do those things, many can't tear themselves away from their work-spaces for fear of wasting valuable personal time on single-tasking leisure pursuits.
The most you would have paid will always be more than the most you were willing to pay. Don't know why but it is. Could be that given a second chance to pay more we again wouldn't. But because we believe that we actually would have paid more when assuming that it would have changed the outcome favorably we then regret not going with the higher amount before.
If I cut in front of you in line and buy the last of an item you intended to purchase, I am only causing you a neutral outcome. But it is still rude.
Notice that people care somewhat less when they are sniped by a bidder who did at one time themselves have a winning bid, than when sniped by a bidder who showed no interest before the closing moments. This is because we use the number of bids and distinct bidders to gauge interest in an item when determining our own max bids. It's not logical (mostly because of sniping) but if I see bidding has slowed on an item with numerous bidders unwilling to go markedly higher than the current amount I can assume that the final price will be within that same ballpark. When there are fewer bidders taking turns having the highest bid, it is likely that one will wait until the very end to actually input their highest bid, which will generally be significantly more than their previous highest bid.
My last name is O'Leary and over the past 5 years web sites have not gotten any better, and arguably have gotten worse, at handling the apostrophe in my last name
Help me Slashdot, you're my only hope.
I can understand all of these programmers failing to anticipate Gaelic names, but Klingon too?
Unless this God character doesn't provide proof for or against his existence. Then the only people who'd believe in him would be those who would prefer that he exists. Since atheists have no proof of his non-existence, God can infer from their belief in his non-existence that they have no desire for him to exist. Based on that reasoning, he'd only be letting them into heaven to punish them.
The white and black stones imply as much. I think the choose your own adventure aspect comes into play with a lot of shows like this. How will it be initially received? Is there a point in setting up such an elaborate drama if you're only getting a season and a half? There were probably other ways to end the show should it have went three or even just two seasons, but that's not assuming that they didn't have some kind of story for either the characters or the island. The island stuff could have been cut way down without showing less of the characters' relationships and vice versa.
I think the point is whether or not a distinctly new work is created by the use of the previously created material. I disagree with the Verve outcome because the song uses an excerpt from "The Last Time" recording to a create a new work that any reasonable person would never mistake for being by The Rolling Stones. When Disney lost their copyright defense against "The Air Pirates" it was because despite visual similarities, their were too many differences between them for one to be mistaken for the other. No one could read a Disney comic and think it was The Air Pirates.
If Helene Hegemann were a student and plagiarized another person's work to save herself the effort, or to demonstrate a false knowledge of the material, that would obviously be wrong. However, it seems that she created a new work with a legitimate right to exist in its own right, as determined by both sales and acclaim. Many songs which use samples are also unique works, as any fan of Hip-Hop or Beck or the Beastie Boys would tell you. Requiring permission to use an excerpt or sample runs the risk of denying the rest of us the resultant work, should permission be denied or be prohibitively expensive. I personally quite like DJ Dangermouse's "The Grey Album", and could never mistake it for The Beatles or Jay-Z, but yet it is an illegal work nonetheless. I think the Hip-Hop genre as a whole was much better before samples had to be cleared.
If a work is entirely plagiarized, it would likely prove redundant (such as with a plagiarized term paper on a generic topic) and be forgotten anyway. Her book doesn't seem to fall into this category.
Archive the data on a couple old Amigas. Place the Amigas on one side of the room (A 2000 and a 4000) and locate your primary computer opposite of them. Then proceed to archive both Amigas' harddrives to your primary machine via floppy disk. When you start to find the workout becoming less challenging, begin moving the Amigas farther away, perhaps even to the bathroom. If even this starts becoming effortless, limit yourself to one diskette. Oh, and don't forget the 2000's other SyQuest cartridge in the box I provided.
That's the view I've always held. Think of the number of properties we encounter daily without granting permissions to. You can get a McDonalds jingle in your head without even asking, yet can't reproduce it without permission. I say anything that is part of my life experience becomes fair game in the same sense that celebrities have to accept parody as the price for being in the public eye. If my uncle drives a VW and I decide to make a movie about my uncle, I shouldn't have to ask VW to allow me to use their car. By selling to the public they have inavoidably put certain properties of into the public doamin.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't choose my beliefs, I take in information and beliefs form in my brain. The information I've taken in has led me to taking a position that Jesus was a cool dude and that while there are many things that can be learned from the Bible, it is neither an end all be all source of information nor is it above being misused by someone with an agenda. I also believe Dr. Pepper tastes better than 7-Up. These are my beliefs, but they were not choices.
Right, we all have interests and many of us are also obsessive about them. I've known a lot of girls who like horses, but if you see a girl's "my other car is a horse" bumper sticker before you even meet her, it could be off putting. We like to learn things about people in a certain order, even if it means having to establish the most basic level of common ground beforehand.
No, but you are likely to make a different impression mentioning your love of whole grain pepper right off the bat. When people ask what someone is in to they generally expect common answers like movies, sports, traveling... not much else really. Niche interests aren't exactly shameful, but there is a certain weight that comes with them. If a person has too specific an interest, like rice carving or riding Harley Davidsons (and only Harley Davidsons durn it!) there's a feeling that you may never truly understand that person if you have no interest in their interest. Don't say you like comic books, say you like movies. And when they ask what movies you like, say you like the ones based on comic books (and the more faithful the better). If they have half a brain they'll hardly be surprised to find you do, in fact, also like comic books.
You're just mad that the World Series is always won by an American team.
Even if they did know more (and it's pretty apparent they didn't), asking the most basic of questions is essential to the type of piece they were doing. The point of educating them beforehand would just to be to make them look smarter than they are. Since they didn't know more, and didn't expect their average audience member to know more than them, doing the piece as a group learning experience probably made sense.
Thank you, I was waiting for someone to say that. Do you know that it's true? I think everyone thought it was an odd thing to say, but even at 14 I thought "hmmm... I guess he's only reading the telemetry". Kind of reminds me of the way BP photo-shopped their gulf disaster response to show them watching the same footage we were seeing at home, because obviously they would all be watching the oil spewing constantly to remind them of what they were trying to stop. The idea that it takes hundreds of people to put a shuttle into the air and not all of them are going to be watching it launch because they are too busy launching it seems to be lost on the majority of people who think there's nothing more to anything than the most exciting or glamorous aspects that happen to make for good TV.
I referred to it as just that today. I was in 8th grade and we had a snow day. One of my friends called me right after it happened.
I think it's obvious that real world violence is the primary cause of violent media. These violent acts shouldn't be allowed to happen in a world where impressionable young writers and producers might be influenced to produce violent fiction.
I would assume it comes from fetching. You make a motion while throwing something and the dog looks to see where what you threw went. Make the motion without throwing anything, which is a bit like pointing, and the dog will still look. Cats look at your hand wondering whether you are about to drop a treat for them, the finger sticking out makes no difference.
"Most animals don't even know to look at where we are pointing at." Someone (perhaps it was you?) brought this up in the last "cats vs. dogs"discussion and since I didn't comment then, I will comment now. Pointing is a learned non-verbal communicative act. A finger is not a laser pointer, and there is no reason why looking at the finger itself is wrong or should be used as a mark of low intellect. I won't bother with whether dogs are born knowing this or learn it while playing fetch and other games with humans, but will point out that dogs with this skill have historically been valued by hunters over ones that don't have this skill. A cat may not recognize the position of your fingers as a specific instruction as most cats tend to just watch any object in motion. Cats' and dogs' respective behavior has much to do with how we tend to play with them, which in turn is a reflection on how we have traditionally exploited them to our advantage.
Then you haven't thought it about it enough. Arcade games are generally winnable, and the value of your initial fee increases with skill. Those high scores on games like Donkey Kong and Pac-Man are achieved on a single credit. You aren't buying the entertainment, but rather an opportunity to be entertained. No amount of money will guarantee you get to the second board of Donkey Kong, yet one quarter is all it takes to play through the entire game. The only goal of Farmville is to increase your credits through a repetitive mechanic so that you can buy items that either serve little more than a decorative function or temporarily speed up/eliminate some aspect of the repetitive play (so you may earn money for the useless items in less time). People spend real money because the game is not actually fun to play, yet having a colorful personalized farm others can visit holds some strange appeal to them. You don't pay to play Farmville, you pay to avoid having to play it.
You listed mainly the typical "red state" outdoor activities. Though I'm in WV, I live in a college town and most of my female friends are left-of-center. In addition to biking, hiking, and caving (and that's just in the Summer) don't forget to include going to festivals and gatherings such as Bonaroo or Burning Man among the things people may consider outdoor activities when describing themselves. Actually, it seems the activities you listed are the interests women claim when they want men to believe they would be a fun person to hang out with. A lot of men around this state do hunt and fish or ride dirt bikes and not many women want to be thought of as someone who would get in the way of those things. If most of your real interests are things you do indoors and alone that's probably how you will spend most of your time. I'd expect a high percentage of people on /. have the personality trait that, while they would, in theory, like to do those things, many can't tear themselves away from their work-spaces for fear of wasting valuable personal time on single-tasking leisure pursuits.
Yeah, that might help.
The most you would have paid will always be more than the most you were willing to pay. Don't know why but it is. Could be that given a second chance to pay more we again wouldn't. But because we believe that we actually would have paid more when assuming that it would have changed the outcome favorably we then regret not going with the higher amount before.
If I cut in front of you in line and buy the last of an item you intended to purchase, I am only causing you a neutral outcome. But it is still rude. Notice that people care somewhat less when they are sniped by a bidder who did at one time themselves have a winning bid, than when sniped by a bidder who showed no interest before the closing moments. This is because we use the number of bids and distinct bidders to gauge interest in an item when determining our own max bids. It's not logical (mostly because of sniping) but if I see bidding has slowed on an item with numerous bidders unwilling to go markedly higher than the current amount I can assume that the final price will be within that same ballpark. When there are fewer bidders taking turns having the highest bid, it is likely that one will wait until the very end to actually input their highest bid, which will generally be significantly more than their previous highest bid.
Things were so futuristic back then.
My last name is O'Leary and over the past 5 years web sites have not gotten any better, and arguably have gotten worse, at handling the apostrophe in my last name Help me Slashdot, you're my only hope.
I can understand all of these programmers failing to anticipate Gaelic names, but Klingon too?
But even when it comes to ethnic cleansing, ethnicity will frequently trump religion as an excuse for the atrocity.
If you want a single thing to blame warmongering on, then blame human ambition - that's about as close as you'll ever get to an explanation.
You kind of have to admire the power of religion to unite people of diverse ethnicities under a common faith.
Unless this God character doesn't provide proof for or against his existence. Then the only people who'd believe in him would be those who would prefer that he exists. Since atheists have no proof of his non-existence, God can infer from their belief in his non-existence that they have no desire for him to exist. Based on that reasoning, he'd only be letting them into heaven to punish them.
The white and black stones imply as much. I think the choose your own adventure aspect comes into play with a lot of shows like this. How will it be initially received? Is there a point in setting up such an elaborate drama if you're only getting a season and a half? There were probably other ways to end the show should it have went three or even just two seasons, but that's not assuming that they didn't have some kind of story for either the characters or the island. The island stuff could have been cut way down without showing less of the characters' relationships and vice versa.
If nothing else, I'm entertained by your superfluous apostrophe.
I think the point is whether or not a distinctly new work is created by the use of the previously created material. I disagree with the Verve outcome because the song uses an excerpt from "The Last Time" recording to a create a new work that any reasonable person would never mistake for being by The Rolling Stones. When Disney lost their copyright defense against "The Air Pirates" it was because despite visual similarities, their were too many differences between them for one to be mistaken for the other. No one could read a Disney comic and think it was The Air Pirates. If Helene Hegemann were a student and plagiarized another person's work to save herself the effort, or to demonstrate a false knowledge of the material, that would obviously be wrong. However, it seems that she created a new work with a legitimate right to exist in its own right, as determined by both sales and acclaim. Many songs which use samples are also unique works, as any fan of Hip-Hop or Beck or the Beastie Boys would tell you. Requiring permission to use an excerpt or sample runs the risk of denying the rest of us the resultant work, should permission be denied or be prohibitively expensive. I personally quite like DJ Dangermouse's "The Grey Album", and could never mistake it for The Beatles or Jay-Z, but yet it is an illegal work nonetheless. I think the Hip-Hop genre as a whole was much better before samples had to be cleared. If a work is entirely plagiarized, it would likely prove redundant (such as with a plagiarized term paper on a generic topic) and be forgotten anyway. Her book doesn't seem to fall into this category.
Archive the data on a couple old Amigas. Place the Amigas on one side of the room (A 2000 and a 4000) and locate your primary computer opposite of them. Then proceed to archive both Amigas' harddrives to your primary machine via floppy disk. When you start to find the workout becoming less challenging, begin moving the Amigas farther away, perhaps even to the bathroom. If even this starts becoming effortless, limit yourself to one diskette. Oh, and don't forget the 2000's other SyQuest cartridge in the box I provided.
That's the view I've always held. Think of the number of properties we encounter daily without granting permissions to. You can get a McDonalds jingle in your head without even asking, yet can't reproduce it without permission. I say anything that is part of my life experience becomes fair game in the same sense that celebrities have to accept parody as the price for being in the public eye. If my uncle drives a VW and I decide to make a movie about my uncle, I shouldn't have to ask VW to allow me to use their car. By selling to the public they have inavoidably put certain properties of into the public doamin.
I think the "newsworthiness" of this article is that Rush appealed to Apple on his show.