Aren't the studios already paid via the subscriber fee? If so, advertisements are just a way for them to make extra money and it's not our job to make them money. It's their job to produce programming that'll keep us watching, so they'll inturn make money.
You have to give reason to question first. If you're on task there's no reason to monitor you or question occasional cell phone usage.
I'm not referring to people who stay on the phone, I was simply commenting on alternatives to the company phone, when making personal phone calls -- if you're paranoid about being monitored.
How would anyone know rather you're using the company phone or your cell phone? All they know is you're on the phone, right? So, unless you work in an open area I don't see how it'd be a problem.
My favorite irony is that it won't be long before I can have my home VOIP route my calls to my office phone over the internet. So am I using the phone? the computer? both? and it would be a bit harder, but not impossible, to track that.
I think it only starts a new "conversation" when someone changes the subject. But that's pretty much an indication that the topic has changed, IMO. So I have no problem with that, either.
Plus, I'd much rather it be automated because I'd hate to have to go through and separate and label everything individually myself.
I rarely use Gmail because, compared to other services, it is easier to lose something in Gmail as it "tries" to organize them according to its criteria and ends up jumbling them into clumps scattered all over the place so you can't find anything without using "search mail". The great spam filter and the high storage limit are great, however.
I guess I just don't see how when Gmail groups them based on subject. So, instead of 10-15+ different links dispersed throughout, there's just the one, with all of the previous discussions conveniently attached to it.
I'd say the "old" way is more accurate than the standard or preferred. Especially, "preferred."
Google revolutionized email, IMO. I rarely used email before because it was too easy to lose something when everything was scattered all over the place. Now, with labels and threads, everything functions almost like a personal message board.
That's definitely more attractive and easier to use.
I rarely use self-checkout. And then only when there's absolutely no line and I have less than 5/6 items. Otherwise, until I get a discount/noticeable savings for doing it myself, a cashier is going to ring up my stuff.
Plus, often times EVERYBODY is in the self-checkout. Making that line WAY longer than the regular lines.
But these self-checkouts are sprouting up everywhere. Even my local library has adopted this policy -- I'm definitely waiting for a few lazy a-holes to get laid off. There I admittedly prefer it since I can avoid sh!tty customer service.
Certainly they don't have the wealth of resources, nor the notoriety, that traditional news outlets have at their disposal. But, if we are to rely on a set few why have any diversity or variety?
CNN slanted their news for years, something they only admitted to after 9/11. That's just one incident, there are many.
So, just because they have the big bucks doesn't mean they have (y/)our interest at heart. In the end the news corps are after the bottom line: money.
They promote agendas -- both their own and what they decide the public wants/needs to hear. Why should a few self appointed know-it-alls control the gateway to information? The foundation of our culture/society?
IMO there's nothing bad about adding other voices to the fray. Readers/Viewers should always be skeptical, regardless of if it's some anonymous/no-name blogger (who may be on the frontline) or some giant news corp (who may have some financial/political interest coloring their view of some tragedy/event).
Additionally, typically, the major news corps don't allow for user comments to their articles or broadcasts. Sometimes discussion helps with analysis. (Thank God for the Internet.)
I do this with Blockbuster. I had one set (3) of movies from late January until early April, just sitting there. (I moved in Feb.)
I ultimately canceled but signed back up when I saw the offer for 1 free in-store rental a week (I previously had the 2 monthly). Now I MAKE myself rent a movie on the weekend so in the end I'm getting my money's worth, regardless.
I like the online rentals since I can just compile a list of stuff I'd like to eventually see. There's never been any movie on DVD that I just had to see. If I wanted to see it that bad I would have went to the theater.
This is not the case for the US media, though they generally make claims of being unbiased. There's nothing wrong with alternative sources, at least then it's more likely that you're getting the full story.
I really love Firefox, and I'd definitely appreciate a spell checker, but I'm going to check out Opera tonight because I hate waiting nearly 30 seconds for it to open. (IE7 is even worse with closing tabs--takes like 5-10 seconds. . . well, maybe 2/3 but it feels like a minute.) There should be an option to start with Windows, or something.
I've viewed http://www.linux.org/ but I doubt I can successfully install it without causing irreparable damage, so I won't risk it--if it ain't broke. . .
Most people are not going to go to these extremes. Windows works out of the box. This is how it has to be.
If it's a simple matter of pre-installing or even including a CD (as opposed to brokering some deal with MS) I don't see why companies like Dell don't offer this as an option. Especially since they're supposedly so customized, it seems like it'd be easy to list and provide alternative OSs. "Add for free" or "included in price" would attract a lot of people.
Outside of businesses and govt agencies (including schools), I don't see home users "needing" Windows. But if most programs aren't created to run on multiple platforms that only adds to the problem and continued dependency on MS.
That is the fault of the companies producing software, not MS. That's what I call laziness.
If all of these OS are free why aren't they more readily available? I'm sure it would cut the cost of PCs by at least a few hundred dollars.
I purchased my laptop at Fry's earlier this year and I don't recall any alternative, except Mac. Everything else had Windows. I doubt the other retailers (Circuit City, Best Buy) do any better considering Fry's is supposed to be so technology oriented, on the cutting edge.
With the new Windows Vista coming out people will have to get used to a new UI so there's no reason why, IMO, more PCs can't be made available with these alternative OSs.
"I'm only asking that you adit the possiblity that the some people will not be 100% aware of what lurks beneath the surface of their own waking minds."
I cannot admit to that because I don't believe it. What adult does not know their sexual orientation, or even limitations? This is not the same as food taste or preconceived notions. Sexuality is a primary function--so, anyone totally oblivious to their sexuality, I agree, is likely susceptible to this, among other things.
Generally veteran officers man these teams, not newbies. So any pervert hell bent on moving up the ranks will wait some while but will most likely be weeded out before making it through. But, I admit that it's not an impossibility, just an extreme unlikelihood.
MS does not produce all of a product or service, nor are they superior, according to you.
So, is iPod a monopoly in the EU? Is Google? Are they next on the hit list? This could have a "chilling effect" on technological innovation, when those at the forefront are continuously punished for success.
I am not a MS advocate, this all just seems dirty to me. They built their OS and they build complimentary software to accompany it. Naturally their stuff works seamlessly on their stuff. They shouldn't be limited in what they want their OS to be, especially when those enhancements benefit consumers.
Even if MS has a majority and you want your product to work on something consumers already have access to. It is still their product and you should consider yourself lucky, IMO. Otherwise, build your own OS. I know I would purchase an alternative, if the price was good. I don't own a Mac because their laptops were significantly higher to the PC/Windows versions. But I would have considered a laptop with say Linux preinstalled or any other functioning OS if it were easily obtainable. There's no reason MS should be practically the only option. That's the real disservice to consumers.
You are comparing humans to animals. But, unlike animals, human females do not go into heat and it is some while before you even know she's actually pregnant. As is often the case in the animal kingdom, in general. As you might have noticed, monogamy is rather rare.
Anyways, it isn't a "cold" analysis, it's simply a stupid one with absolutely no basis in science. There is no male animal, that I know of (that isn't also a bonded mate), that will disregard any willing/available female. Excluding most human males.
Do you actually know any cops? These are different kind of people. Typically law abiding, generally moral. Not that there aren't corrupt cops but if someone has to monitor this I think they are more equipped to do so than your average Joe.
But, back to the original issue: most people have no pedophilia tendencies thus few if any would be turned by viewing such images. It would be the equivalent of making people gay, as I mentioned.
Human females are capable of bearing children for some 20-30 years. There's no need to get in early. Especially considering the burden that may place on a child's body.
Animals mature for a reason, it is at the end of puberty when child bearing is most natural. Not during the starting phases.
The same way infants have teeth but are not yet ready for solid foods.
As for sex being a "wasted effort" for men and women, I simply have no comment.
Actually, using your example, it would mean taking all nuclear weapons and stockpiling them in one centralized location for monitoring. Of course people/nations could make new weapons, which would then be added to the pile. Ultimately resulting in zero nuclear weapons--excepting that huge cache.
Of course if Iran controlled that pile there'd be cause for alarm.
In this situation, with kiddie porn, if the ISPs compiled a list of known sites and blocked them, and blocked all new as discovered, it would eventually result in a near end to all kiddie porn distribution on the net.
Regardless of how much gay porn I watched, over whatever period of time, I would not in the end be gay. I assure you.
Now, if there were currently some homosexual tendencies or inclinations within me, certainly such activity would bring me out of the closet. As it is, that is not the case. As it is not the case for most of any group to be a pedophile, particularly those individuals who have set themselves into a career of upholding the law. These officers are more likely to become crackheads simply because they have access to it.
Slashdot Mirror
Aren't the studios already paid via the subscriber fee? If so, advertisements are just a way for them to make extra money and it's not our job to make them money. It's their job to produce programming that'll keep us watching, so they'll inturn make money.
You have to give reason to question first. If you're on task there's no reason to monitor you or question occasional cell phone usage.
I'm not referring to people who stay on the phone, I was simply commenting on alternatives to the company phone, when making personal phone calls -- if you're paranoid about being monitored.
How would anyone know rather you're using the company phone or your cell phone? All they know is you're on the phone, right? So, unless you work in an open area I don't see how it'd be a problem.
And whatever happened to that company?
I think it only starts a new "conversation" when someone changes the subject. But that's pretty much an indication that the topic has changed, IMO. So I have no problem with that, either.
Plus, I'd much rather it be automated because I'd hate to have to go through and separate and label everything individually myself.
I'd say the "old" way is more accurate than the standard or preferred. Especially, "preferred."
Google revolutionized email, IMO. I rarely used email before because it was too easy to lose something when everything was scattered all over the place. Now, with labels and threads, everything functions almost like a personal message board.
That's definitely more attractive and easier to use.
I rarely use self-checkout. And then only when there's absolutely no line and I have less than 5/6 items. Otherwise, until I get a discount/noticeable savings for doing it myself, a cashier is going to ring up my stuff.
Plus, often times EVERYBODY is in the self-checkout. Making that line WAY longer than the regular lines.
But these self-checkouts are sprouting up everywhere. Even my local library has adopted this policy -- I'm definitely waiting for a few lazy a-holes to get laid off. There I admittedly prefer it since I can avoid sh!tty customer service.
Certainly they don't have the wealth of resources, nor the notoriety, that traditional news outlets have at their disposal. But, if we are to rely on a set few why have any diversity or variety?
CNN slanted their news for years, something they only admitted to after 9/11. That's just one incident, there are many.
So, just because they have the big bucks doesn't mean they have (y/)our interest at heart. In the end the news corps are after the bottom line: money.
They promote agendas -- both their own and what they decide the public wants/needs to hear. Why should a few self appointed know-it-alls control the gateway to information? The foundation of our culture/society?
IMO there's nothing bad about adding other voices to the fray. Readers/Viewers should always be skeptical, regardless of if it's some anonymous/no-name blogger (who may be on the frontline) or some giant news corp (who may have some financial/political interest coloring their view of some tragedy/event).
Additionally, typically, the major news corps don't allow for user comments to their articles or broadcasts. Sometimes discussion helps with analysis. (Thank God for the Internet.)
I do this with Blockbuster. I had one set (3) of movies from late January until early April, just sitting there. (I moved in Feb.)
I ultimately canceled but signed back up when I saw the offer for 1 free in-store rental a week (I previously had the 2 monthly). Now I MAKE myself rent a movie on the weekend so in the end I'm getting my money's worth, regardless.
I like the online rentals since I can just compile a list of stuff I'd like to eventually see. There's never been any movie on DVD that I just had to see. If I wanted to see it that bad I would have went to the theater.
"law bound to be as impartial as possible"
This is not the case for the US media, though they generally make claims of being unbiased. There's nothing wrong with alternative sources, at least then it's more likely that you're getting the full story.
There is a PDF extension:
https://addons.mozilla.org/firefox/636/
I really love Firefox, and I'd definitely appreciate a spell checker, but I'm going to check out Opera tonight because I hate waiting nearly 30 seconds for it to open. (IE7 is even worse with closing tabs--takes like 5-10 seconds. . . well, maybe 2/3 but it feels like a minute.) There should be an option to start with Windows, or something.
SPAM also comes through IM, at least with Yahoo.
You have entirely too much free time.
Or, simply disable it: Ctrl + Alt + Delete.
I've viewed http://www.linux.org/ but I doubt I can successfully install it without causing irreparable damage, so I won't risk it--if it ain't broke. . .
Most people are not going to go to these extremes. Windows works out of the box. This is how it has to be.
If it's a simple matter of pre-installing or even including a CD (as opposed to brokering some deal with MS) I don't see why companies like Dell don't offer this as an option. Especially since they're supposedly so customized, it seems like it'd be easy to list and provide alternative OSs. "Add for free" or "included in price" would attract a lot of people.
Outside of businesses and govt agencies (including schools), I don't see home users "needing" Windows. But if most programs aren't created to run on multiple platforms that only adds to the problem and continued dependency on MS.
That is the fault of the companies producing software, not MS. That's what I call laziness.
If all of these OS are free why aren't they more readily available? I'm sure it would cut the cost of PCs by at least a few hundred dollars.
I purchased my laptop at Fry's earlier this year and I don't recall any alternative, except Mac. Everything else had Windows. I doubt the other retailers (Circuit City, Best Buy) do any better considering Fry's is supposed to be so technology oriented, on the cutting edge.
With the new Windows Vista coming out people will have to get used to a new UI so there's no reason why, IMO, more PCs can't be made available with these alternative OSs.
"I'm only asking that you adit the possiblity that the some people will not be 100% aware of what lurks beneath the surface of their own waking minds."
I cannot admit to that because I don't believe it. What adult does not know their sexual orientation, or even limitations? This is not the same as food taste or preconceived notions. Sexuality is a primary function--so, anyone totally oblivious to their sexuality, I agree, is likely susceptible to this, among other things.
Generally veteran officers man these teams, not newbies. So any pervert hell bent on moving up the ranks will wait some while but will most likely be weeded out before making it through. But, I admit that it's not an impossibility, just an extreme unlikelihood.
MS does not produce all of a product or service, nor are they superior, according to you.
So, is iPod a monopoly in the EU? Is Google? Are they next on the hit list? This could have a "chilling effect" on technological innovation, when those at the forefront are continuously punished for success.
I am not a MS advocate, this all just seems dirty to me. They built their OS and they build complimentary software to accompany it. Naturally their stuff works seamlessly on their stuff. They shouldn't be limited in what they want their OS to be, especially when those enhancements benefit consumers.
Even if MS has a majority and you want your product to work on something consumers already have access to. It is still their product and you should consider yourself lucky, IMO. Otherwise, build your own OS.
I know I would purchase an alternative, if the price was good. I don't own a Mac because their laptops were significantly higher to the PC/Windows versions. But I would have considered a laptop with say Linux preinstalled or any other functioning OS if it were easily obtainable. There's no reason MS should be practically the only option. That's the real disservice to consumers.
You are comparing humans to animals. But, unlike animals, human females do not go into heat and it is some while before you even know she's actually pregnant. As is often the case in the animal kingdom, in general. As you might have noticed, monogamy is rather rare.
Anyways, it isn't a "cold" analysis, it's simply a stupid one with absolutely no basis in science. There is no male animal, that I know of (that isn't also a bonded mate), that will disregard any willing/available female. Excluding most human males.
Do you actually know any cops? These are different kind of people. Typically law abiding, generally moral. Not that there aren't corrupt cops but if someone has to monitor this I think they are more equipped to do so than your average Joe.
But, back to the original issue: most people have no pedophilia tendencies thus few if any would be turned by viewing such images. It would be the equivalent of making people gay, as I mentioned.
Human females are capable of bearing children for some 20-30 years. There's no need to get in early. Especially considering the burden that may place on a child's body.
Animals mature for a reason, it is at the end of puberty when child bearing is most natural. Not during the starting phases.
The same way infants have teeth but are not yet ready for solid foods.
As for sex being a "wasted effort" for men and women, I simply have no comment.
Actually, using your example, it would mean taking all nuclear weapons and stockpiling them in one centralized location for monitoring. Of course people/nations could make new weapons, which would then be added to the pile. Ultimately resulting in zero nuclear weapons--excepting that huge cache.
Of course if Iran controlled that pile there'd be cause for alarm.
In this situation, with kiddie porn, if the ISPs compiled a list of known sites and blocked them, and blocked all new as discovered, it would eventually result in a near end to all kiddie porn distribution on the net.
Regardless of how much gay porn I watched, over whatever period of time, I would not in the end be gay. I assure you.
Now, if there were currently some homosexual tendencies or inclinations within me, certainly such activity would bring me out of the closet. As it is, that is not the case. As it is not the case for most of any group to be a pedophile, particularly those individuals who have set themselves into a career of upholding the law. These officers are more likely to become crackheads simply because they have access to it.