Corporations will automate the process so they will never 'forget' to pay the buck.
Servers that are powered off because the company is dead and out of business will not, however, execute the automation program.
Also, companies are not the only things that hold copyrights.
Also, I don't think the original idea was to trick the company into forgetting to pay the dollar. Of course, as brilliant as this all might sound, I didn't rtfa:).
he wouldn't be ther first one who did that. The number of people that have a clue about how the business of publishing works is tiny compared to the number of people who want to be published.
Actually wasn't there some negotiation about this where the French ticked off Benjamin Franklin, and he got up from the table and stated "America will never use the metric sytem"? All I can find on Google is him recommending it. Any help with this possible urban legend?
As long as we're boing precise, you should say that your weight is X newtons downward or X newtowns toward the center of gravity of the earth, for example, since, as you note at one point in your statement, it's a vector.
Also, since you mentioned "at sea level", correctly noting that the pull of earth's gravity is different in different places, you need to throw out the "your mass is invariant", unless you eat/drink in a very precise fashion as you go to the bathroom. I imagine the difference between your weight at sea level and atop a mountain is probable a lot less than the difference between your mass before and after a big meal/excretion event.
Also, I'm pretty sure I don't weigh 735.75 newtons at sea level as you suggest.
(The moral of this story is that there is always a bigger pedant out there:).
Actually, I'm secretly hoping that someone will prove me right by pointing out that your weight vector is displaced toward the center of gravity of everything in the universe...
If one mole of C12 gives you 12g from which you can construct 1kg, what's wrong with counting/creating a structure composed of 1/1200 mole, say, and constructing 1kg from it, knowing that it weighs exactly 12/1200g?
Ok, slower this time. How will you know when you have 1/1200th of a mole?
Just to fill in where you speculate on his motive:
I heard Warren Buffet talking one time and he said that he and Bill agreed on the fact that leaving all that money to your kids was a Bad Idea. I don't know if they pointed at the Kennedys specifically, but I remember it that way:). Anyway, the theory was, "leave enough to your kids so that they can do anything, but not so much that they can do nothing.". Buffet said that his kids didn't agree with his theory.
Gates really is planning on giving that money away. I used to believe many bad things about Bill Gates. I certainly saw how bad things were happening as the result of MS dominance. Then I read some very interesting stuff and changed my mind about him as a person.
First, there is that conversation where he is arguing that windows 98 wasn't just a "bugfix release". He says that's a stupid reason to do a realease, that people wouldn't pay for it, they only pay for features. Then the interviewer says something about all the bugs in '95, or in MS software in general, and Gates bristles and say "did you ever here of user error?"--suggesting that there were not bugs, but just people incorrectly using the software and thinking that there are bugs as a result.
That's point 1. Point 2 is something that a Mac advocate (I'll call him Bob, no idea what his real name was) said about a conversation with an MS sales person. Bob's company was going to all-Windows because it solved compatibility issues, eliminating Bob's beloved Macs. Bob mentioned this to the MS sales rep. The rep went ballistic. "Who's telling them that? We're not telling them that!" and I think there was also an assertion that Windows is extremely compatible with other platforms--I could be misremembering that part, but I know that the MS sales person was very peeved at the idea. The point of the article or website was that this Mac advocate had shifted the point of blame in his mind from "MS conspiracy" to "bone-headed tech managers".
Point 3. The anti-trust case. There was a Wired article called "The Truth, the Whole Truth, and Nothing but the Truth", about the anti-trust trial, by a guy who had a lot of access on the condition that he released none of it until after the judge's ruling was out.
In this article, there are a couple of interesting things. One is that he talks to some random engineer in MS's cafeteria, who says "I think everyone's just mad at Bill because he has so much money." But far, far more interesting than that is the fact that, after the legal process gets started and Gates meets with the board, he actually seems to be genuinely in disbelief that it is happening.
I know, I know, he could fake that. Would he fake crying? I don't think so, but that's exactly what he did. I think it might be in the same article that he says something along the lines that the other players just aren't trying hard enough--"If I had AOL's position, or IBM's position, [maybe he names another in here, etc]" that he could knock MS off the top. He really (I think) believed that--that IBM or AOL or maybe even Sun could beat them.
Now, _we_, on the outside, look at that as being ridiculous. But have you ever seen how other people behave around a person with a lot of power? They generally either fear them or fawn over them or fawn over them in fear. That was why I put in the story about the engineer in the cafeteria. Gates was undoubtedly surrounded by people who would do anything to prevent him from knowing about a bug that their department had introduced, etc, etc.
Now, I'm not saying that MS never did anything wrong. But I am saying that, (a) a lot of the fault for the total dominance of MS lies in the way people behaved, like deciding to eliminate all Macs even though the same number of PCs took two to five times as many people to look after them, etc. And (b), even if Bill did engage in and/or sanction things that were illegal given the monopoly, I don't think he ever really believed that he was i
It's true that you can make good money doing something like SAP, but you sort of have to sell your soul to it. I did it for about a year and a half, I was very good at it, etc, etc, but it was really boring. Right now I would like a job in anything, even something boring:). But since I have been out of the market for a while, I am unlikely to be able to get an SAP job. They want to know what the latest implementation job you were on was, stuff like that. They will ask for experience with a specific version, for example.
So basically, if you want to work in it, you have to keep working in it. That is somewhat true in other fields, but I think stuff like SAP is exceptional that way--very closed. Hard to get into, and hard to get back into if you've been out.
Mind you this is not because you can't just jump in and pick right back up--you can. but there's a whole mentality surrounding all the work that says "sorry, you can't come back in". So something along those lines.
...you also have to consider how many ipods/Macs the existence of this service will sell. Not that I'm arguing that it will save the company or anything.
Also, keep in mind that they are planning on having a Windows version out soon, which could tremendously increase the market. If it scales linearly with marketshare, that will be a pretty big number.
The point was that win95 was still dos underneath, and you still had 8.3 filenames in there, they just faked it to make it look like long filenames were supported. So the C:\ongrats.w95 very elegantly said "Ha, that's just a cheap hack on top of DOS, with all the same limitations", or something like that.
Slashdot Mirror
Darn. I was hoping for something like:
"Ancient weapons and hokey religions are no match for a good blaster at your side kid."
...there's no such thing as luck.
Filter this comment with
s/r ey//
for something else that might work.
Servers that are powered off because the company is dead and out of business will not, however, execute the automation program.
Also, companies are not the only things that hold copyrights.
Also, I don't think the original idea was to trick the company into forgetting to pay the dollar. Of course, as brilliant as this all might sound, I didn't rtfa
he wouldn't be ther first one who did that. The number of people that have a clue about how the business of publishing works is tiny compared to the number of people who want to be published.
...most people just call it sighing. :)
...'cause there's an outbreak of Severe Acute Claim of Unix Ownership Syndrome in Utah.
If they are not claiming ownership, what does this mean (emphasis added):
Pretty much the same thing--they cut out the middle man, though, evolved the monkeys into humans, and had the humans kill the rats directly.
Ah, yes, matter is just lumpy energy. Here's a brick, will you please produce enough power for [insert huge populatino] [insert huge time period]?
...that the universe in a nutshell would definitely be within its Schwarzschild radius. Who is this Hawkings fellow, anyway?
Actually wasn't there some negotiation about this where the French ticked off Benjamin Franklin, and he got up from the table and stated "America will never use the metric sytem"? All I can find on Google is him recommending it. Any help with this possible urban legend?
why is that? Just curious. E of the bond divided by c^2 doesn't seem like it could be a big enough factor. Or is this a joke that I am missing?
Ok, but how do you know when you have 10^25 atoms of Si? Count?
As long as we're boing precise, you should say that your weight is X newtons downward or X newtowns toward the center of gravity of the earth, for example, since, as you note at one point in your statement, it's a vector.
:).
Also, since you mentioned "at sea level", correctly noting that the pull of earth's gravity is different in different places, you need to throw out the "your mass is invariant", unless you eat/drink in a very precise fashion as you go to the bathroom. I imagine the difference between your weight at sea level and atop a mountain is probable a lot less than the difference between your mass before and after a big meal/excretion event.
Also, I'm pretty sure I don't weigh 735.75 newtons at sea level as you suggest.
(The moral of this story is that there is always a bigger pedant out there
Actually, I'm secretly hoping that someone will prove me right by pointing out that your weight vector is displaced toward the center of gravity of everything in the universe...
Ok, slower this time. How will you know when you have 1/1200th of a mole?
Well, yes, assuming that the original poster is NOT the platinum-iridium bar in the story.
Just to fill in where you speculate on his motive:
:). Anyway, the theory was, "leave enough to your kids so that they can do anything, but not so much that they can do nothing.". Buffet said that his kids didn't agree with his theory.
I heard Warren Buffet talking one time and he said that he and Bill agreed on the fact that leaving all that money to your kids was a Bad Idea. I don't know if they pointed at the Kennedys specifically, but I remember it that way
Gates really is planning on giving that money away. I used to believe many bad things about Bill Gates. I certainly saw how bad things were happening as the result of MS dominance. Then I read some very interesting stuff and changed my mind about him as a person.
First, there is that conversation where he is arguing that windows 98 wasn't just a "bugfix release". He says that's a stupid reason to do a realease, that people wouldn't pay for it, they only pay for features. Then the interviewer says something about all the bugs in '95, or in MS software in general, and Gates bristles and say "did you ever here of user error?"--suggesting that there were not bugs, but just people incorrectly using the software and thinking that there are bugs as a result.
That's point 1. Point 2 is something that a Mac advocate (I'll call him Bob, no idea what his real name was) said about a conversation with an MS sales person. Bob's company was going to all-Windows because it solved compatibility issues, eliminating Bob's beloved Macs. Bob mentioned this to the MS sales rep. The rep went ballistic. "Who's telling them that? We're not telling them that!" and I think there was also an assertion that Windows is extremely compatible with other platforms--I could be misremembering that part, but I know that the MS sales person was very peeved at the idea. The point of the article or website was that this Mac advocate had shifted the point of blame in his mind from "MS conspiracy" to "bone-headed tech managers".
Point 3. The anti-trust case. There was a Wired article called "The Truth, the Whole Truth, and Nothing but the Truth", about the anti-trust trial, by a guy who had a lot of access on the condition that he released none of it until after the judge's ruling was out.
In this article, there are a couple of interesting things. One is that he talks to some random engineer in MS's cafeteria, who says "I think everyone's just mad at Bill because he has so much money." But far, far more interesting than that is the fact that, after the legal process gets started and Gates meets with the board, he actually seems to be genuinely in disbelief that it is happening.
I know, I know, he could fake that. Would he fake crying? I don't think so, but that's exactly what he did. I think it might be in the same article that he says something along the lines that the other players just aren't trying hard enough--"If I had AOL's position, or IBM's position, [maybe he names another in here, etc]" that he could knock MS off the top. He really (I think) believed that--that IBM or AOL or maybe even Sun could beat them.
Now, _we_, on the outside, look at that as being ridiculous. But have you ever seen how other people behave around a person with a lot of power? They generally either fear them or fawn over them or fawn over them in fear. That was why I put in the story about the engineer in the cafeteria. Gates was undoubtedly surrounded by people who would do anything to prevent him from knowing about a bug that their department had introduced, etc, etc.
Now, I'm not saying that MS never did anything wrong. But I am saying that, (a) a lot of the fault for the total dominance of MS lies in the way people behaved, like deciding to eliminate all Macs even though the same number of PCs took two to five times as many people to look after them, etc. And (b), even if Bill did engage in and/or sanction things that were illegal given the monopoly, I don't think he ever really believed that he was i
...you should look into Setec Astronomy
It's true that you can make good money doing something like SAP, but you sort of have to sell your soul to it. I did it for about a year and a half, I was very good at it, etc, etc, but it was really boring. Right now I would like a job in anything, even something boring :). But since I have been out of the market for a while, I am unlikely to be able to get an SAP job. They want to know what the latest implementation job you were on was, stuff like that. They will ask for experience with a specific version, for example.
So basically, if you want to work in it, you have to keep working in it. That is somewhat true in other fields, but I think stuff like SAP is exceptional that way--very closed. Hard to get into, and hard to get back into if you've been out.
Mind you this is not because you can't just jump in and pick right back up--you can. but there's a whole mentality surrounding all the work that says "sorry, you can't come back in". So something along those lines.
Just as I would have suspected. This movie has a sex scene in it, right? And you guys are drooling over a screen shot of nmap....
...you also have to consider how many ipods/Macs the existence of this service will sell. Not that I'm arguing that it will save the company or anything.
Also, keep in mind that they are planning on having a Windows version out soon, which could tremendously increase the market. If it scales linearly with marketshare, that will be a pretty big number.
Look, it's not _that_ stupid. Surely it would be a minor change in wiring to get it to take them to the recycling bin.
The point was that win95 was still dos underneath, and you still had 8.3 filenames in there, they just faked it to make it look like long filenames were supported. So the C:\ongrats.w95 very elegantly said "Ha, that's just a cheap hack on top of DOS, with all the same limitations", or something like that.
I think the answer to that was already given in Slaughterhouse Five.