Microsoft shortens Windows name

  • Thread starter Thread starter Yousuf Khan
  • Start date Start date
If we permit the assumption that the vast majority of people are morons,
Click to expand...

I think the governemnt classified morons as ones that didn't score at
least 100 on an IQ test. I don't know what percentage of the population is
that scored this, but I'm sure it's low. OTOH, you don't have to be a
classified moron to be stupid, and I classify about 90% of the people to
be this. A recent survey showed that 80% of people were considered
incompetant in their jobs.
our entire legal system goes away, based as it is upon a jury of
ordinary people. It is a common, elitist attitude that "the masses are
asses", however experience will show that this is most definitely not
true.
Click to expand...

And our entire legal system should go away. You got idiots determing the
fate of some poor smuck that 's on trial. Prosecutors that don't give a
shit if the person is innocent or not because it's not in their interest
to loose a case, and I could go on and on, but since 90% of the peole
wouldn't understand it, I won't.
The average person is, well, average. About half of the people are
dumber than that and about half smarter.
Click to expand...
And the average person is stupid, so what.
Try polling a random selection of, say, 20 people. Ask them what
they
think would most likely happen if a person spilled hot coffee in their
lap.
Click to expand...
You'd probably get 2 people that would ask what the temp of the coffee
was, and all kinds of responses from the others.
And note that nobody claimed that "consumers were not aware that
coffee
was so hot that it could produce burns". What was claimed was that
consumers were not aware that coffee from McDonald's was so much hotter
than the standard coffee serving temperature that a spill could cause
third degree burns requiring hospitalization for eight days. And this
wasn't just claimed, it was backed up with evidence.
Click to expand...
But I'll bet that even most of the morons would have taken off the sweat
pants immediatly after spilling it rather than just let it continue to
burn them even though the senses were numbed after the intitial shock of
the hot liquid. Damn, idiots piss me off sometime. Are you are getting
alfly close to that catagory.
 
In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips Wes Newell said:
I think the governemnt classified morons as ones that didn't
score at least 100 on an IQ test.
Click to expand...

Nope. The IQ test was set up with average=100 and std.dev=15.
IIRC Results have drifted somewhat, with US pop'n average a little
lower (98) and std.dev a bit higher (16). Disability <~70.
you don't have to be a classified moron to be stupid, and I
Click to expand...

Never confuse ignorance with stupidity. The former can be
easily cured. Stupidity is forever.
classify about 90% of the people to be this. A recent survey showed
that 80% of people were considered incompetant in their jobs.
Click to expand...

Done by whom, against what standards? Sounds like it was done
to prove a point, not discover knowledge. Rhetoric, not science.
And our entire legal system should go away. You got idiots
determing the fate of some poor smuck that 's on trial.
Click to expand...

You have a better idea? Trial by judge alone perhaps?
You are free to request it.
And the average person is stupid, so what.
Click to expand...

Perhaps _you_ consider the average person stupid.
No-one can stop you from your elitism. Personally,
I consider the average person ... average!
But I'll bet that even most of the morons would have taken off
Click to expand...

Actually, jumping out of the vehicle and pulling the wet material
away from the skin would have been quicker and reduce burning.
But it isn't always possible with seatbelts, autolocking and
doors hemmed in. Pulling sweatpants off while seated in a car
isn't always easy/quick, especially for an elderly lady.
Damn, idiots piss me off sometime.
Click to expand...

I usually find anger interesting, revealing and comical.

-- Robert
 
Nope. The IQ test was set up with average=100 and std.dev=15.
IIRC Results have drifted somewhat, with US pop'n average a little
lower (98) and std.dev a bit higher (16). Disability <~70.
Click to expand...

Robert is correct. I vaguely remembered the classifications, so... (ain't
the web wunnerful?): http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Mental_retardation

WAIS IQ classifications used in 1958:

IQ 1958 WAIS IQ terms Post PC terms
<20 Idiot Profound mental retardation
20-49 Imbecile Severe mental retardation
50-69 Moron Mild mental retardation
70-79 Borderline deficiency Borderline deficiency


Never confuse ignorance with stupidity. The former can be easily
cured. Stupidity is forever.


Done by whom, against what standards? Sounds like it was done to prove
a point, not discover knowledge. Rhetoric, not science.
Click to expand...

You've never heard of the Peter Principle? ;-)
You have a better idea? Trial by judge alone perhaps? You are free to
request it.
Click to expand...

The defendant isn't.
Perhaps _you_ consider the average person stupid. No-one can stop you
from your elitism. Personally, I consider the average person ...
average!


Actually, jumping out of the vehicle and pulling the wet material away
from the skin would have been quicker and reduce burning. But it isn't
always possible with seatbelts, autolocking and doors hemmed in. Pulling
sweatpants off while seated in a car isn't always easy/quick, especially
for an elderly lady.
Click to expand...

So perhaps McD's should refuse to sell coffee to anyone with an AARP
membership? Somehow I don't think that'll fly.
 
In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips keith said:
http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Mental_retardation

IQ 1958 WAIS IQ terms Post PC terms
<20 Idiot Profound mental retardation
20-49 Imbecile Severe mental retardation
50-69 Moron Mild mental retardation
70-79 Borderline deficiency Borderline deficiency
Click to expand...

Thanks for the precise classifications.
You've never heard of the Peter Principle? ;-)
Click to expand...

Certainly! But it operates best in the management ranks,
and they usually aren't 80% of a whole population.
The defendant isn't.
Click to expand...

In a criminal trial (which I inferred from the post above),
the defendant is. I've never heard of a DA demanding a jury.
So perhaps McD's should refuse to sell coffee to anyone
with an AARP membership? Somehow I don't think that'll fly.
Click to expand...

No, just serve it out of a cooler carafe :) For everyone except
"tough as nails" lawsuit haters who get coffee superheated
in a microwave to ~220'F (nice bump when tapped).

-- Robert
 
Thanks for the precise classifications.


Certainly! But it operates best in the management ranks,
and they usually aren't 80% of a whole population.


In a criminal trial (which I inferred from the post above),
the defendant is. I've never heard of a DA demanding a jury.
Click to expand...

We were discussing a civil issue.
No, just serve it out of a cooler carafe :) For everyone except
"tough as nails" lawsuit haters who get coffee superheated
in a microwave to ~220'F (nice bump when tapped).
Click to expand...

220F? That would be a good trick. No, 180F is good enough for this
lawsuit-hater. ;-)
 
In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips keith said:
We were discussing a civil issue.
Click to expand...

We were, and you are correct that if either plantiff or defendant
want a jury trial, they get it. But the wording of the poster to
which I replied ("fate of some poor shmuck") made me think more
of criminal. In most civil trials, no-one's fate is risk.
Perhaps that is wrong. Moral hazard.
220F? That would be a good trick. No, 180F is good enough
for this lawsuit-hater. ;-)
Click to expand...

http://www.phys.unsw.edu.au/~jw/superheating.html
http://www.impi.org/publications/microwaveworld/articles/MWarticle4.html

Water can easily be superheated in a microwave.
When bubble nucleation starts, it can "bump" (expel liquid).

-- Robert
 
Archen said:
We will all pay with unsafe goods, and dangerous doctors if the so called
tort reforms go through.
Click to expand...

I personally don't feel that way and I don't think that has held true
throughout history. I think that if you have a legitimate case you will
be able to go forward with it. I think the subject speaks for itself
and means exactly what it says.
 
Archen said:
We will all pay with unsafe goods, and dangerous doctors if the so called
tort reforms go through.
Click to expand...

Bullsh*t. All doctors, not just "dangerous" ones, have to pay the
outlandish malpractice insurance. Of course, all the costs get
passed-on to the consumer, and their insurance. Someone has to pay
for these lawyers and the ridiculous "punitive damages", and that
someone is the common worker and his company.
 
The said:
I personally don't feel that way and I don't think that has held true
throughout history. I think that if you have a legitimate case you will
be able to go forward with it. I think the subject speaks for itself
and means exactly what it says.
Click to expand...

Not if the "tort reformers" get their way -- they don't recognize _any_
lawsuits not brought _by them_ as nonfrivolous.

I have some personal experience in this matter. When my mother died as
a result of clear healthcare professional negligence, she was in a state
that had passed tort reform. As a result, we were unable to sue her
murderers.
 
chrisv said:
Bullsh*t. All doctors, not just "dangerous" ones, have to pay the
outlandish malpractice insurance. Of course, all the costs get
passed-on to the consumer, and their insurance. Someone has to pay
for these lawyers and the ridiculous "punitive damages", and that
someone is the common worker and his company.
Click to expand...

So you think it's better to leave the dangerous ones alone. I disagree.

Or do you think the dangerous ones have signs on their office doors to
make them easy to identify?
 
chrisv said:
Bullsh*t. All doctors, not just "dangerous" ones, have to pay the
outlandish malpractice insurance. Of course, all the costs get
passed-on to the consumer, and their insurance. Someone has to pay
for these lawyers and the ridiculous "punitive damages", and that
someone is the common worker and his company.
Click to expand...

Ooo ... bad example.

Malpractice insurance is optional, at least in the US, and serves only as a
safety blanket for unqualified so-called professionals.

Consider this alternative - eliminate (read: outlaw) malpractice insurance.
Any "reward" from a malpractice suit is now limited to the assets of the
so-called doctor. If the doctor is not worth his pay (read: quack), he will
abandon the profession because it is no longer profitable. The net result is
a thinning of the herd thereby strengthening the surviving members and the
overall health thereof. It the suit is tossed out, the persons filing the
suit get slapped with all the court costs and legal fees from both sides.

Does malpractice insurance do anything to benefit the consumer? No. The
absence of malpractice insurance does.

As a trickle down effect, the legal system is no longer clogged by so-called
victims chasing after their bite of the apple. Quite possibly the consumer's
cost for medical services get decreased since the doctors no longer pay the
"outlandish" insurance premiums. Yes, the choices for medical services
become limited, but the quality increases.

(And to think this whole OT subject started at the beginning of the month
when Grumble started in on the McD case not being an example of a frivolous
lawsuit. For the record, I didn't start this mess by calling the McD case
frivolous. I don't even think I've used the word "frivolous" in this thread
until this posting, but I've been wrong once before ... or maybe I was just
mistaken that one time.)
 
Back
Top