If it's (hyper)inflation you spend it as soon as possible before it loses value until it collapses like the reichmark in 1920s germany or just recently the zimbabwean dollar. If it's stagflation you hoard it as money is increasing in value. What you're missing here is that somewhere, real value is produced. Imagine that there's 100$ total and there's 10 foobars, the only goods to trade so each is worth $10. Now there's a foobar maker, which produces another foobar - there's now 100$ and 11 foobars and the new market price is 9$. Who's earned value? The people sitting on a 10$ bill. Now imagine how well it works if everyone wants to sit on their 10$ bill.
So what's the solution? To print money, they print one more 10$ bill and suddenly there's 110$ total and 11 foobars and the money market works. Of course they can fall to the temptation and print more money than actual growth, say 110$ and 10 foobars, meaning you can sell a foobar for 11$.
If we keep making more foobars with the same amount of resources, then the price should come down over time. Eventually you should be able to take the $10 you earned and get two foobars instead of one. But by printing more money the government is taking all of the productivity gains for themselves.
And do we really need them to keep the financial system going? That is, do we need to keep the price of foobars at $10 to keep people from sitting on money? Absolutely not! If somebody out there is selling foobar-makers it always makes more sense to buy the foobar-maker than to sit on your money.
And what about people consuming foobars? They will always prefer to consume now rather than later. Would you rather have an ipod/house/car now or 10 years from now? You can keep the money supply constant, let prices fall, and the difference between the price of a car now, and the price 10 years from now is offset by the fact that you don't have to go without a car for 10 years.
And that's the policy that makes sense anyway. We shouldn't be forcing people to buy cars now OR to wait 10 years to buy a car. They should make those decisions like they make every other monetary decision, based on what provides them the most value.
Can you please help me fix this! Every time I boot up a box pops up telling me that I have errors on my computer and I need this software to fix the errors. How do I get rid of the errors?
First, I didn't mean to imply that that RoR philosophy and Java are incompatible. Some of the ideas could be adopted by a Java framework with some success, but here are some RoR ideas that make it fit well with Ruby, but not Java.
Convention over configuration. This is a main tenet of Ruby, but not Java.
Simply syntax that leads to code that does what it says it does in English. That's hard to do in Java.
Everything is an object. (Ex. 5.times or 7.days). This allows Rails to put more tools at your fingertips and make code that reads better.
Things like comprehensive unit testing (and code coverage monitoring) simply aren't possible in a Rails environment.
Actually unit testing is a focus of Rails and the framework that Rails provides for testing is quite good. Also Ruby Coverage is a tool that generates HTML reports including coverage statistics. Certainly Java does have more supporting tools right now, but apparently RoR has more than you know of.
All in all I agree with you, RoR needs a better environment to run in, and is behind Java in certain areas. However, in many respects it is ready for enterprise development, evidenced by some of the large projects already made in it. The reason so many people are excited about RoR is that is inherently better than J2EE in many respects due to the nature of Ruby vs. Java. Sure, Java environments may steal some ideas from RoR, but the whole framework is an idealogically good fit for Ruby; and it's not for Java.
Here's one: find enough skeletons in the ground that clearly show man evolving from nothing. If evolution really happened, then they should be there. If man was created much like he is now (I suspect and the evidence supports that he was created larger and better than he is now), then those skeletons would not be there.
There you can now falsify ID.
I believe a portion of the public (many of whom are here) understand that SCO's case is ridiculous. Really it's just the extent of the ridiculousness that's being sealed off right now.
The part of the public that doesn't understand the case is not going to read these documents anyway. This would however allow experts to analyze the case more effectively, which will in turn benefit the general public's understanding of the case. All in all though, you've got to be in favor of these documents being opened up.
You must be in bad shape if selling your first license in a country garners a headline. And 20 to 30 organisations worldwide? Is that supposed to lend merit to SCO's case. This just shows that there are still idiots out there, even at the corporate level.
Remember some people still have large collections of movies in VHS format. I don't think they are going to rush out to re-buy all of these movies on DVD. Also DVD Recorders are starting to gain in popularity, but they are still a lot more expensive than VHS decks. VHS is still the most economical way to record.
I think we have to applaud them on this move. The current regulations and allotments of the FCC are severely holding back wireless technology in the US. If only a few antiquated technologies were put out to pasture we could have high-speed wireless connections that weren't line-of-site and whose ranges weren't severely hampered. Not to mention a slew of other ideas that can't make it off the ground because existing (mis)uses of spectrum don't allow enough bandwidth for innovation.
By the way, the existing telephone and media companies love the fact that this situation is hampering new innovations. Only time will tell if the UK's decision is a step in the right direction, but at least it's a step.
The article makes a bold statement that it doesn't really back up. While Google does have the largest market share in web search and will be taking some of the share of desktop search soon, that's a long way from taking over the desktop. And an even farther stretch from making Microsoft's OS obsolete.
How is this insightful? Sounds like a troll to me.
Honestly though, Debian is great and DEB's are more stable technology than RPM's, but they are also a lot harder to build and that's why there are less of them. It's still easier to deal with a few dependencies in binaries than to deal with them in source form because the author of a package wouldn't take the time to make a.deb.
Also how up to date is Debian's distro? It is very stable (and I use it on certain servers), but a lot of the packages are somewhat behind. Cut RedHat a little slack. It is also a lot better than it used to be.
The big factor that they can't take into consideration with their statistical analysis is the change in Bush's opponent. In 2000 the race was against Gore and in 2004 against Kerry. How can statistical analysis of one race be accurately used to predict the outcome of a different race? It can't. That's just bad statistics. Otherwise we wouldn't have had another election. What would be the point since Bush won the last election?
I believe he hit the nail on the head with the death penalty question. Sure it's frustrating when you die and lose experience (and thus time). But shouldn't death be at the very least frustrating. If it isn't then why do I care about protecting my character.
I do, however, think there is a happy medium. Games such as Nethack, where death is permanent and final, scare me into not putting too much commitment into a character because the next key I hit could berieve me of my character. While this does make every choice I make intense, I don't want my games to be like real life where death actually causes pain (because you put so much effort into a character only to lose it). I think the experience penalty is good compromise.
I'm not sure where or what you hunt, but in my experience that is simply not the case. I hunt whitetail deer in the woods of the Applachian Mountains. There are many times when I can watch a deer for several minutes, know exactly what it is, have plenty of "good shots," but never have a clear enough view to get a good picture.
This happens because you can only see parts of the deer at a time, while the rest is behind a tree. But that doesn't mean you can't see the deer's head (to know whether it's a shooter), then wait for it to walk forward enough to get a clear shot at it's vitals.
I'm sure what you're saying might be the case in certain areas, but it's definitely not the case here.
Joel is definitely no PHB (pointy haired boss). You will think that many of his insights are just plain common sense and that is correct. The problem is that too many times management will not use common sense and they need someone like Joel to point it out to them.
I'm Joel's collections made it into dead tree form as that will lend them some more credibility. Good reading.
Raimi has commented on this before (because fans keep bugging him to do another in the series). The reason he hasn't done it before is that no one would finance the movie because it would probably not make money until it came out on dvd (if then). Raimi has plenty of money himself. In case you haven't noticed, he's directed a few hits since Evil Dead/AoD . . . Spiderman, Spiderman 2, The Gift, and The Quick and the Dead to name a few.
Picture this. God creates the universe. That means all of the rules that govern the universe and everything in it. So why would He have to be a part of it? If it was a system that He built, then I would not expect him to be made out of the things in the system (matter). Therefore, His existence can not be explained by the rules of the system He created.
Saying "God did it," really just means that the universe could not have started itself based upon the rules we have in this system, so therefore something outside of the system must have started. You have to think outside of this box.
Still though, 6 billion would make the average speed slightly less than half that of light. Increasing this number by a couple of factors isn't going to change the magnitude of the required speed that much.
Are we basing the age of the universe on the farthest things out there we can find and how long it would take them to get there?
From what I can remember, we think that the universe is about 6 billion or so years old and started in a central place. If what I just said is even remotely correct (please, correct me if I'm wrong), then how did these galaxies get so far away. Have we been traveling away from each other at some single digit factor of the speed of light since the conception of the universe? Can someone please explain this to me?
Most models for polling are based on a 95% probability (or confidence) that the results reflect the actual population within the stated error. The errors I have been seeing this year are about 3-4%, which is way too high to place any confidence in given the closeness of the race. Also, there is a 1 in 20 chance that the results do not reflect the population at all.
Also I heard earlier that approx. 17,000 ballots were thrown out in '96 when voter turnout was much less. So 19,000 sounds about right.
Some time tomorrow post as usual to something. I give the highest probability that has ever existed (more than my toast landing butter-side down) that it will get trolled several times with "I thought you said . .."
Slashdot Mirror
If it's (hyper)inflation you spend it as soon as possible before it loses value until it collapses like the reichmark in 1920s germany or just recently the zimbabwean dollar. If it's stagflation you hoard it as money is increasing in value. What you're missing here is that somewhere, real value is produced. Imagine that there's 100$ total and there's 10 foobars, the only goods to trade so each is worth $10. Now there's a foobar maker, which produces another foobar - there's now 100$ and 11 foobars and the new market price is 9$. Who's earned value? The people sitting on a 10$ bill. Now imagine how well it works if everyone wants to sit on their 10$ bill.
So what's the solution? To print money, they print one more 10$ bill and suddenly there's 110$ total and 11 foobars and the money market works. Of course they can fall to the temptation and print more money than actual growth, say 110$ and 10 foobars, meaning you can sell a foobar for 11$.
If we keep making more foobars with the same amount of resources, then the price should come down over time. Eventually you should be able to take the $10 you earned and get two foobars instead of one. But by printing more money the government is taking all of the productivity gains for themselves.
And do we really need them to keep the financial system going? That is, do we need to keep the price of foobars at $10 to keep people from sitting on money? Absolutely not! If somebody out there is selling foobar-makers it always makes more sense to buy the foobar-maker than to sit on your money.
And what about people consuming foobars? They will always prefer to consume now rather than later. Would you rather have an ipod/house/car now or 10 years from now? You can keep the money supply constant, let prices fall, and the difference between the price of a car now, and the price 10 years from now is offset by the fact that you don't have to go without a car for 10 years.
And that's the policy that makes sense anyway. We shouldn't be forcing people to buy cars now OR to wait 10 years to buy a car. They should make those decisions like they make every other monetary decision, based on what provides them the most value.
Can you please help me fix this! Every time I boot up a box pops up telling me that I have errors on my computer and I need this software to fix the errors. How do I get rid of the errors?
First, I didn't mean to imply that that RoR philosophy and Java are incompatible. Some of the ideas could be adopted by a Java framework with some success, but here are some RoR ideas that make it fit well with Ruby, but not Java.
Things like comprehensive unit testing (and code coverage monitoring) simply aren't possible in a Rails environment.
Actually unit testing is a focus of Rails and the framework that Rails provides for testing is quite good. Also Ruby Coverage is a tool that generates HTML reports including coverage statistics. Certainly Java does have more supporting tools right now, but apparently RoR has more than you know of.
All in all I agree with you, RoR needs a better environment to run in, and is behind Java in certain areas. However, in many respects it is ready for enterprise development, evidenced by some of the large projects already made in it. The reason so many people are excited about RoR is that is inherently better than J2EE in many respects due to the nature of Ruby vs. Java. Sure, Java environments may steal some ideas from RoR, but the whole framework is an idealogically good fit for Ruby; and it's not for Java.
Here's one: find enough skeletons in the ground that clearly show man evolving from nothing. If evolution really happened, then they should be there. If man was created much like he is now (I suspect and the evidence supports that he was created larger and better than he is now), then those skeletons would not be there. There you can now falsify ID.
Does this mean that Bill Gates no longer considers your computer to be his?
I believe a portion of the public (many of whom are here) understand that SCO's case is ridiculous. Really it's just the extent of the ridiculousness that's being sealed off right now.
The part of the public that doesn't understand the case is not going to read these documents anyway. This would however allow experts to analyze the case more effectively, which will in turn benefit the general public's understanding of the case. All in all though, you've got to be in favor of these documents being opened up.
You must be in bad shape if selling your first license in a country garners a headline. And 20 to 30 organisations worldwide? Is that supposed to lend merit to SCO's case. This just shows that there are still idiots out there, even at the corporate level.
Remember some people still have large collections of movies in VHS format. I don't think they are going to rush out to re-buy all of these movies on DVD. Also DVD Recorders are starting to gain in popularity, but they are still a lot more expensive than VHS decks. VHS is still the most economical way to record.
Dying yes, but not dead yet.
I think we have to applaud them on this move. The current regulations and allotments of the FCC are severely holding back wireless technology in the US. If only a few antiquated technologies were put out to pasture we could have high-speed wireless connections that weren't line-of-site and whose ranges weren't severely hampered. Not to mention a slew of other ideas that can't make it off the ground because existing (mis)uses of spectrum don't allow enough bandwidth for innovation.
By the way, the existing telephone and media companies love the fact that this situation is hampering new innovations. Only time will tell if the UK's decision is a step in the right direction, but at least it's a step.
The article makes a bold statement that it doesn't really back up. While Google does have the largest market share in web search and will be taking some of the share of desktop search soon, that's a long way from taking over the desktop. And an even farther stretch from making Microsoft's OS obsolete.
How is this insightful? Sounds like a troll to me.
.deb.
Honestly though, Debian is great and DEB's are more stable technology than RPM's, but they are also a lot harder to build and that's why there are less of them. It's still easier to deal with a few dependencies in binaries than to deal with them in source form because the author of a package wouldn't take the time to make a
Also how up to date is Debian's distro? It is very stable (and I use it on certain servers), but a lot of the packages are somewhat behind. Cut RedHat a little slack. It is also a lot better than it used to be.
I'm not sure I'd call it an uphill battle if the best plan their opponents can think up is to use the bathroom trash can to dispose of the documents.
The big factor that they can't take into consideration with their statistical analysis is the change in Bush's opponent. In 2000 the race was against Gore and in 2004 against Kerry. How can statistical analysis of one race be accurately used to predict the outcome of a different race? It can't. That's just bad statistics. Otherwise we wouldn't have had another election. What would be the point since Bush won the last election?
I believe he hit the nail on the head with the death penalty question. Sure it's frustrating when you die and lose experience (and thus time). But shouldn't death be at the very least frustrating. If it isn't then why do I care about protecting my character.
I do, however, think there is a happy medium. Games such as Nethack, where death is permanent and final, scare me into not putting too much commitment into a character because the next key I hit could berieve me of my character. While this does make every choice I make intense, I don't want my games to be like real life where death actually causes pain (because you put so much effort into a character only to lose it). I think the experience penalty is good compromise.
I'm not sure where or what you hunt, but in my experience that is simply not the case. I hunt whitetail deer in the woods of the Applachian Mountains. There are many times when I can watch a deer for several minutes, know exactly what it is, have plenty of "good shots," but never have a clear enough view to get a good picture.
This happens because you can only see parts of the deer at a time, while the rest is behind a tree. But that doesn't mean you can't see the deer's head (to know whether it's a shooter), then wait for it to walk forward enough to get a clear shot at it's vitals.
I'm sure what you're saying might be the case in certain areas, but it's definitely not the case here.
Joel is definitely no PHB (pointy haired boss). You will think that many of his insights are just plain common sense and that is correct. The problem is that too many times management will not use common sense and they need someone like Joel to point it out to them.
I'm Joel's collections made it into dead tree form as that will lend them some more credibility. Good reading.
Raimi has commented on this before (because fans keep bugging him to do another in the series). The reason he hasn't done it before is that no one would finance the movie because it would probably not make money until it came out on dvd (if then). Raimi has plenty of money himself. In case you haven't noticed, he's directed a few hits since Evil Dead/AoD . . . Spiderman, Spiderman 2, The Gift, and The Quick and the Dead to name a few.
We should take this as a gift.
Get a free iPod Photo now (really)
So you're saying the freedom of the press is limited those who own one . . . interesting.
Honestly though, that is rapidly changing with the advent of the Internet.
I use the ulitmatebootcd. It consolidates several good boot floppy images onto one cd, including many free hardware diagnosis programs.
Picture this. God creates the universe. That means all of the rules that govern the universe and everything in it. So why would He have to be a part of it? If it was a system that He built, then I would not expect him to be made out of the things in the system (matter). Therefore, His existence can not be explained by the rules of the system He created.
Saying "God did it," really just means that the universe could not have started itself based upon the rules we have in this system, so therefore something outside of the system must have started. You have to think outside of this box.
Still though, 6 billion would make the average speed slightly less than half that of light. Increasing this number by a couple of factors isn't going to change the magnitude of the required speed that much.
Are we basing the age of the universe on the farthest things out there we can find and how long it would take them to get there?
From what I can remember, we think that the universe is about 6 billion or so years old and started in a central place. If what I just said is even remotely correct (please, correct me if I'm wrong), then how did these galaxies get so far away. Have we been traveling away from each other at some single digit factor of the speed of light since the conception of the universe? Can someone please explain this to me?
Most models for polling are based on a 95% probability (or confidence) that the results reflect the actual population within the stated error. The errors I have been seeing this year are about 3-4%, which is way too high to place any confidence in given the closeness of the race. Also, there is a 1 in 20 chance that the results do not reflect the population at all.
Also I heard earlier that approx. 17,000 ballots were thrown out in '96 when voter turnout was much less. So 19,000 sounds about right.
Some time tomorrow post as usual to something. I give the highest probability that has ever existed (more than my toast landing butter-side down) that it will get trolled several times with "I thought you said . . ."