Good thing, too. I got one (as a gift; wouldn't have picked it out for myself) and while it was still an iPod and therefore totally decent, I couldn't get Apple support for it when it went wonky, and HP support was crap, like usual. I can't wait for this one to really die so I can justify going and getting myself a new one.
You mean to say that the last time you traveled by air was 7 years ago, and you're expecting things to be the same now? "Getting anal" doesn't even begin to describe the changes that have happened.
I wouldn't call it spoon-feeding, if it's done in a controlled fashion. There are plenty of teachers who don't give their students enough guidance on how to solve problems -- they just throw problems at them and essentially expect them to suss out everything on their own. There's something to be said for "And this is how you correctly do this" rather than "Here, have fun, figure it out for yourself!"
I don't know about the US, but here in Spain, you always have to show your ID if you're using a credit or a bank card. It doesn't matter whether you have signed it or not. I can't imagine just being able to walk into a store and hand someone a credit card, when the store has no way of confirming that it is yours.
I would guess not -- it is the patient's right to discuss not only what has happened to them, but to choose how much of the treatment they underwent to make public. After all, there's the question of degree. If the patient says, "I had this procedure and I'm not happy with it," is it then okay for the doctor to go into intense detail about the procedure?
As I see it, and I don't know how the law sees it, she has the right to say she's unhappy with the job he did. "This is what happened and here's the result and I don't recommend this doctor" is a little different from "OMFG HE IZ A POOPYHEAD AND A SATANIST AND PPLZ SHOULD HANG HIM!!!"
That aside, you have a good point. I've used Wikipedia often when working on various projects -- however, typically I only use it as a jumping-off point. It's great for that; the well-cited entries in particular are very helpful for pointing toward usable, citable sources, but the articles themselves are, IMHO, inadmissible in any kind of serious writing.
The problem with the sponsored communities is that you wind up with potential conflicts. For example, what happens to a LiveJournal community based around fanworks? Can the corporate sponsor pressure LiveJournal's staff to have the fan community banned? What about an anti-[fill in the company] community? If I start a "We Hate Walmart" community, can Walmart make LJ ban me? These are the sorts of concerns people are having about sponsored communities.
Also, there are concerns about not being able to distinguish between a sponsored community and a user-created community, and having sponsored communities included in searches with no way to filter them out. However, the possibility of users getting shafted by sponsors holding the LJ staff's reins is probably the most serious concern -- one that, if no addressed, will probably lose LiveJournal a ton of support.
Speaking as a 20-year-old, who grew up with technologically illiterate but deeply suspicious parents, I find myself really perplexed with parents who try and rigorously control their children's internet access. How did I learn about online pedophiles? I had a guy try to solicit me in a chatroom. I learned what to look out for, and started acting accordingly.
There's no teacher like experience, and as long as you keep control on a few things (ie, don't turn him loose with both the Internet and a credit card at the same time) I think you won't run into too many problems, unless he's already got issues.
"I just would have a hard time putting that much credence in a group of people who believe that all 'bad' things are not real, but are lies."
Theologically speaking, it's actually far more complex than that, and within the complexity it becomes a lot more understandable. I'm not saying that you should believe it, I'm just stating that by oversimplifying, you're making it sound a lot more bizarre than it actually is.
Speaking as a former Christian Scientist (born and raised, and my entire family still follows that faith) and a current religion student, there is plenty of far weirder shit out there than Christian Science.
Beh. Why support either of them?
on
Online Revenge
·
· Score: 1
So where's the buyer's proof of his claims? He could have gotten those photos from just about anywhere. We shouldn't be cheering either of them, because they're both equally wrong.
Seller: sounds like a scam artist. Kill with fire.
Buyer: meeting a wrong with a wrong. Extortionist, and that stuff doesn't actually have to be of the seller in order to make his life hell, not to mention he was stupid enough to fall for the damn scam in the first place. Kill with fire too.
Porn doesn't destroy relationships. People destroy relationships. What is innately wrong or damaging about a picture of a naked human body? Nothing. It's when one partner or the other gets all freaked out about it -- that's when there's a problem, and ten to one that problem already existed, and porn merely provided an outlet.
Slashdot Mirror
Good thing, too. I got one (as a gift; wouldn't have picked it out for myself) and while it was still an iPod and therefore totally decent, I couldn't get Apple support for it when it went wonky, and HP support was crap, like usual. I can't wait for this one to really die so I can justify going and getting myself a new one.
Unless they have gotten anal since 2000?!
You mean to say that the last time you traveled by air was 7 years ago, and you're expecting things to be the same now? "Getting anal" doesn't even begin to describe the changes that have happened.
I wouldn't call it spoon-feeding, if it's done in a controlled fashion. There are plenty of teachers who don't give their students enough guidance on how to solve problems -- they just throw problems at them and essentially expect them to suss out everything on their own. There's something to be said for "And this is how you correctly do this" rather than "Here, have fun, figure it out for yourself!"
When I flew with British Air in 2002, they had touchscreen/telephones in each seat. Made the intercontinental flight much less boring.
I don't know about the US, but here in Spain, you always have to show your ID if you're using a credit or a bank card. It doesn't matter whether you have signed it or not. I can't imagine just being able to walk into a store and hand someone a credit card, when the store has no way of confirming that it is yours.
I would guess not -- it is the patient's right to discuss not only what has happened to them, but to choose how much of the treatment they underwent to make public. After all, there's the question of degree. If the patient says, "I had this procedure and I'm not happy with it," is it then okay for the doctor to go into intense detail about the procedure?
As I see it, and I don't know how the law sees it, she has the right to say she's unhappy with the job he did. "This is what happened and here's the result and I don't recommend this doctor" is a little different from "OMFG HE IZ A POOPYHEAD AND A SATANIST AND PPLZ SHOULD HANG HIM!!!"
Woo, fellow Wahoo!
That aside, you have a good point. I've used Wikipedia often when working on various projects -- however, typically I only use it as a jumping-off point. It's great for that; the well-cited entries in particular are very helpful for pointing toward usable, citable sources, but the articles themselves are, IMHO, inadmissible in any kind of serious writing.
The problem with the sponsored communities is that you wind up with potential conflicts. For example, what happens to a LiveJournal community based around fanworks? Can the corporate sponsor pressure LiveJournal's staff to have the fan community banned? What about an anti-[fill in the company] community? If I start a "We Hate Walmart" community, can Walmart make LJ ban me? These are the sorts of concerns people are having about sponsored communities.
Also, there are concerns about not being able to distinguish between a sponsored community and a user-created community, and having sponsored communities included in searches with no way to filter them out. However, the possibility of users getting shafted by sponsors holding the LJ staff's reins is probably the most serious concern -- one that, if no addressed, will probably lose LiveJournal a ton of support.
Speaking as a 20-year-old, who grew up with technologically illiterate but deeply suspicious parents, I find myself really perplexed with parents who try and rigorously control their children's internet access. How did I learn about online pedophiles? I had a guy try to solicit me in a chatroom. I learned what to look out for, and started acting accordingly.
There's no teacher like experience, and as long as you keep control on a few things (ie, don't turn him loose with both the Internet and a credit card at the same time) I think you won't run into too many problems, unless he's already got issues.
"I just would have a hard time putting that much credence in a group of people who believe that all 'bad' things are not real, but are lies."
Theologically speaking, it's actually far more complex than that, and within the complexity it becomes a lot more understandable. I'm not saying that you should believe it, I'm just stating that by oversimplifying, you're making it sound a lot more bizarre than it actually is.
Speaking as a former Christian Scientist (born and raised, and my entire family still follows that faith) and a current religion student, there is plenty of far weirder shit out there than Christian Science.
So where's the buyer's proof of his claims? He could have gotten those photos from just about anywhere. We shouldn't be cheering either of them, because they're both equally wrong. Seller: sounds like a scam artist. Kill with fire. Buyer: meeting a wrong with a wrong. Extortionist, and that stuff doesn't actually have to be of the seller in order to make his life hell, not to mention he was stupid enough to fall for the damn scam in the first place. Kill with fire too.
Porn doesn't destroy relationships. People destroy relationships. What is innately wrong or damaging about a picture of a naked human body? Nothing. It's when one partner or the other gets all freaked out about it -- that's when there's a problem, and ten to one that problem already existed, and porn merely provided an outlet.