Yeah, Amazon isn't liable for the tax, but the subsidiaries are, and because they are more than 51% owned by Amazon, accounting rules dictate that all income and expense be reported on Amazon's income statement. That's how the IRS will see it I'm sure. 'nuff said
American Enterprise Institute seems convinced that the lawsuit was "meritless" and will result in no payment for the legal counsel opposing Take-Two." Interesting that AEI, the epitome of the neo-con agenda didn't like the verdict. Anyone else struck by this? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Enterprise_Institute
In other news, it'd be GREAT if the scummy lawyers didn't get paid, or if they got paid on contingency and get a percentage of the overall "winnings". (this is typical of class action suits)
'Most of our competitors were very poorly run. They did not understand how to bring in people with business experience and people with engineering experience and put them together... They did not think about software in this broad way. They did not think about tools or efficiency. They would therefore do one product, but would not renew it to get it to the next generation.' I know he was speaking of, and recalling, the past. But I still think it's interesting that he chose to use the past tense verbs here, exclusively.
I happen to think Gates did contribute a business discipline to IT when none was present, but I often wonder if he's really starting to feel the heat from competition today, now (especially as he's stepping out from msft completely). He should.
Have you seen some of the tech the military is dreaming up? THAT is the frontier of IT... yes, they readily engage academia, but what successful cutting edge organization doesn't? I'm not sure I understand your point. Outsourcing military research projects to academics somehow proves that vets are suitable researchers? Or do you mean all those basic research grants paid for by the military? No, it points to the fact that there has to be SOME kind of technical capability in the military to get results that they get. They also have to have the people who can run and modify things in house when the academics leave.
Yes, but deliver what exactly? Delivering presupposes some kind of task that was set by someone, a goal if you like. What if the goal is nebulous and there are no clear metrics to start with? Improve search. They're absolutely fine, as good as, probably better than average. I should mention I work in a software development shop for a fortune 100 company. It's a good company to work for and we can attract the best employees - maybe you're seeing something I do not.
...military people work in a very hierarchical environment, which is the complete opposite of the highly egalitarian and informal environment that R&D is usually conducted in. People who thrive in one type of environment don't tend to do well in the other. Foot soldiers? Sure. In their highly skilled IT departments? I dunno... I've never served, but I kinda doubt it, based on what I've seen.... oh, wait a minute, I'm just remembering one dude... yeah this guy was ex-navy and a total, absolute f'ing twit, worst I've ever worked with, in fact -- but he was the exception, not the rule.
What a load of bullshit... (I'm sorry, I'm not being personal here, but I'm calling it as I see it)
Have you seen some of the tech the military is dreaming up? THAT is the frontier of IT... yes, they readily engage academia, but what successful cutting edge organization doesn't?
I've worked with many former military people and I tend to be impressed with their self discipline and ability to deliver... they are by no means automatons. In fact, they are usually the people who have the balls to speak up when a project goes south, and are willing to put the work in (and cut the fat) when others are too timid.
I'd be surprised if you've actually worked with a military person in IT, or perhaps you don't know who on your team has been in the military.
Lastly, on top of the obvious flaw in your logic, by your assumptions, you're clearly shitting on the heads of those that have served the US to the best of their ability. It's your choice, but I think it's a bad one. Whenever I interview I give deference to the people who have served, and I've never been disappointed.
God Damnit, WTF?! Posting a contrary opinion kills my fucking karma, when they mod my EVERY SINGLE COMMENT redundant. Can't they handle and defend their own viewpoints??!/. is full of fucking hypocrites! I bet whichever asshole modded me down has a "real problem" with censorship too. UGH!!!
I swear, to fix meta-moderation, they should focus more on the negative mods than positive ones. How many times have spam/flame emails been modded insightful, vs non-conforming opinions being censored? Anyway, I'm sure you don't care, I just needed to vent.../rant
Aw, dammit... I had this pretty awesome multi-paragraph reply to your post, but the slashcode just ate it, and I don't feel like retyping it.
My basic point though was that I grudgingly accepted your definition, but took issue with the fact that Paul seems to think that we can neglect our military obligations and somehow it won't affect our economic position. Military and economics are inexorably linked.
You are missing the point. If you've just invented the internal combustion engine -- your invention still has value, even if you haven't mounted it into a car yet.
This tech facilitates major graphics advancements. It's a POC
Hmm, I can't say I know anything about Pinochet and Friedman (other than what I just read). But my bias is in favor of Friedman, from what I've read and seen of him on other topics -- I'd like to know your source for that; there's always a possibility of crazy things.
Fiat is far from perfect, government thinks they can pull value out of their asses, but they're just contributing to a system of inefficiencies. (Gold bugs call it a house of cards, pyramid scheme.. I don't think it's nearly that bad)
Meh, yeah... I've actually browsed that article. There are more than monetarist thoughts out there, but they're all fringe elements. Putting them all together implies that the competing ideas are on equal standing with one another... they're not. Milton Friedman based economics rules the day, and has for decades. Witness the fact that every major (maybe even every minor) country has a central bank based system.
These competing theories are intellectual backwaters. Also consider the fact that whoever is editing that page may (and IMO probably does) have a bias against fiat currency policies.
So if being anti-establishment is sexy to you, those competing theories will probably ring true because they are heavily against the current grain. But in terms of current economic thought, they're not worth much.
Eh, I dunno. Where did you hear there's not a consensus on the cause of the Great Depression? I think it's pretty well been attributed to mis-actions on the Fed's part (at least in the mainstream of economics) -- though as you say other factors did contribute, but not nearly to the extent of the Fed's misaction.
My confession is that I'm not an economist, but I follow business regularly and consider myself to know something about economics.
Anyway, my line of thought is that "overproducing" on a major scale (a scale large enough to create the Great Depression) is impossible. The situation was one of "under-demand". The lack of demand was caused by the reckless policy of the fed of the 30s which refused to help the banks out of the pickle (they created for themselves) in order to teach them a lesson - the Fed was also not as liquid then. Through mismanagement of (an admittedly, relatively new) agency, they caused 25% unemployment and IMO contributed significantly to WWII ever taking place.
This is why I find the economic hawks talking about how the fed is fixed, we should go back to a gold standard, blah, blah, blah so irritating. Their opinions have very little basis in fact. Economics prior to going to fiat currency were many times more destructive and non-productive as ANYTHING the Fed has ever cooked up (except, perhaps the Great Depression). Markets, by definition, swing to excess and without quasi-political office oversight (read: Fed) markets will go nuts. No, markets do not have some kind of inalienable right to go nuts... it causes massive unemployment, unspeakable social issues, and world wars -- this is why the Fed was created.
If you know very little about economics, let me tell you... listen to what the gold standard folks have to tell you, then reject it, because it makes no sense based on economic history.
I agree with jfengel. It's always amazing to me when an interesting story is posted and we get a researcher who has actually worked on the project posting to/.
"practically be murder" Practically? I think it surely would be... in fact if murdering a human is more serious than "murdering" a dog or horse or whatever... it would perhaps be even worse than murdering a human.
What does having this simulation on a peta-computer do that having just a super-fast computer look at something for a longer time period not do? In other words... how did having a faster computer help you accomplish your goals when the challenges to this type of things are mostly software related?
And if this type of processing power made you able to simulate something as complicated as vision now... wouldn't it be logical to assume even FASTER computers in the future would make it easier to create an AI -- or at least vastly better forms of intelligent systems? Seems like a straight forward extrapolation to me.
I've wondered this too, but I don't think the concept of "work packets" would work too well in this type of thing... brains require real time processing to truly be brains. Just my WAG though...
Slashdot Mirror
Why???
He always struck me as a pot head intellectual type; smoking will make you look pretty old. Here he is on the Colbert report, he seems really cool...
http://blog.ted.com/2008/02/aubrey_de_grey_2.php
Yeah, Amazon isn't liable for the tax, but the subsidiaries are, and because they are more than 51% owned by Amazon, accounting rules dictate that all income and expense be reported on Amazon's income statement. That's how the IRS will see it I'm sure. 'nuff said
Err sorry, to be more accurate I'd say AEI didn't like the case being brought at all. Seems as though they settled and there was no verdict.
In other news, it'd be GREAT if the scummy lawyers didn't get paid, or if they got paid on contingency and get a percentage of the overall "winnings". (this is typical of class action suits)
Yeah, they sound so yummy... like tator tits. How can anyone have a problem with that?
(Paraphrasing from my very foggy memory)
I happen to think Gates did contribute a business discipline to IT when none was present, but I often wonder if he's really starting to feel the heat from competition today, now (especially as he's stepping out from msft completely). He should.
hehe, point taken :)
...military people work in a very hierarchical environment, which is the complete opposite of the highly egalitarian and informal environment that R&D is usually conducted in. People who thrive in one type of environment don't tend to do well in the other. Foot soldiers? Sure. In their highly skilled IT departments? I dunno... I've never served, but I kinda doubt it, based on what I've seen.What a load of bullshit... (I'm sorry, I'm not being personal here, but I'm calling it as I see it)
Have you seen some of the tech the military is dreaming up? THAT is the frontier of IT... yes, they readily engage academia, but what successful cutting edge organization doesn't?
I've worked with many former military people and I tend to be impressed with their self discipline and ability to deliver... they are by no means automatons. In fact, they are usually the people who have the balls to speak up when a project goes south, and are willing to put the work in (and cut the fat) when others are too timid.
I'd be surprised if you've actually worked with a military person in IT, or perhaps you don't know who on your team has been in the military.
Lastly, on top of the obvious flaw in your logic, by your assumptions, you're clearly shitting on the heads of those that have served the US to the best of their ability. It's your choice, but I think it's a bad one. Whenever I interview I give deference to the people who have served, and I've never been disappointed.
I would respond with a good retort, but I fear being modded down. I've flip flopped... RON PAUL RULEZ!
(there, is that what you wanted to hear mods? ya F'in wankers)
God Damnit, WTF?! Posting a contrary opinion kills my fucking karma, when they mod my EVERY SINGLE COMMENT redundant. Can't they handle and defend their own viewpoints??! /. is full of fucking hypocrites! I bet whichever asshole modded me down has a "real problem" with censorship too. UGH!!!
/rant
I swear, to fix meta-moderation, they should focus more on the negative mods than positive ones. How many times have spam/flame emails been modded insightful, vs non-conforming opinions being censored? Anyway, I'm sure you don't care, I just needed to vent...
Aw, dammit... I had this pretty awesome multi-paragraph reply to your post, but the slashcode just ate it, and I don't feel like retyping it.
My basic point though was that I grudgingly accepted your definition, but took issue with the fact that Paul seems to think that we can neglect our military obligations and somehow it won't affect our economic position. Military and economics are inexorably linked.
You are missing the point. If you've just invented the internal combustion engine -- your invention still has value, even if you haven't mounted it into a car yet.
This tech facilitates major graphics advancements. It's a POC
Hmm, I can't say I know anything about Pinochet and Friedman (other than what I just read). But my bias is in favor of Friedman, from what I've read and seen of him on other topics -- I'd like to know your source for that; there's always a possibility of crazy things.
This is what he had to say on the subject...
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/commandingheights/shared/minitextlo/int_miltonfriedman.html#10
See 'On His Role in Chile Under Pinochet'
Fiat is far from perfect, government thinks they can pull value out of their asses, but they're just contributing to a system of inefficiencies. (Gold bugs call it a house of cards, pyramid scheme.. I don't think it's nearly that bad)
Meh, yeah... I've actually browsed that article. There are more than monetarist thoughts out there, but they're all fringe elements. Putting them all together implies that the competing ideas are on equal standing with one another... they're not. Milton Friedman based economics rules the day, and has for decades. Witness the fact that every major (maybe even every minor) country has a central bank based system.
These competing theories are intellectual backwaters. Also consider the fact that whoever is editing that page may (and IMO probably does) have a bias against fiat currency policies.
So if being anti-establishment is sexy to you, those competing theories will probably ring true because they are heavily against the current grain. But in terms of current economic thought, they're not worth much.
Eh, I dunno. Where did you hear there's not a consensus on the cause of the Great Depression? I think it's pretty well been attributed to mis-actions on the Fed's part (at least in the mainstream of economics) -- though as you say other factors did contribute, but not nearly to the extent of the Fed's misaction.
My confession is that I'm not an economist, but I follow business regularly and consider myself to know something about economics.
Anyway, my line of thought is that "overproducing" on a major scale (a scale large enough to create the Great Depression) is impossible. The situation was one of "under-demand". The lack of demand was caused by the reckless policy of the fed of the 30s which refused to help the banks out of the pickle (they created for themselves) in order to teach them a lesson - the Fed was also not as liquid then. Through mismanagement of (an admittedly, relatively new) agency, they caused 25% unemployment and IMO contributed significantly to WWII ever taking place.
This is why I find the economic hawks talking about how the fed is fixed, we should go back to a gold standard, blah, blah, blah so irritating. Their opinions have very little basis in fact. Economics prior to going to fiat currency were many times more destructive and non-productive as ANYTHING the Fed has ever cooked up (except, perhaps the Great Depression). Markets, by definition, swing to excess and without quasi-political office oversight (read: Fed) markets will go nuts. No, markets do not have some kind of inalienable right to go nuts... it causes massive unemployment, unspeakable social issues, and world wars -- this is why the Fed was created.
If you know very little about economics, let me tell you... listen to what the gold standard folks have to tell you, then reject it, because it makes no sense based on economic history.
Water for cars now?
Corn for fuel. Bad idea.
Water in cars... worse.
I agree with jfengel. It's always amazing to me when an interesting story is posted and we get a researcher who has actually worked on the project posting to /.
Many thanks.
LOL. Funny
I'm not too proud to ask a stupid question...
What does having this simulation on a peta-computer do that having just a super-fast computer look at something for a longer time period not do? In other words... how did having a faster computer help you accomplish your goals when the challenges to this type of things are mostly software related?
And if this type of processing power made you able to simulate something as complicated as vision now... wouldn't it be logical to assume even FASTER computers in the future would make it easier to create an AI -- or at least vastly better forms of intelligent systems? Seems like a straight forward extrapolation to me.
/. overlords insist comment goes here
I've wondered this too, but I don't think the concept of "work packets" would work too well in this type of thing... brains require real time processing to truly be brains. Just my WAG though...