Yeah I think you're responding to someone else maybe. I never said one thing even remotely related to "voting costing money", "money being spent", or "getting donations."
I was pointing out to someone else that Scott Walker has very little chance of being president according to bettors, and if he really believed that Walker was going to win, as he stated, then the current betting odds of 12-to-1 meant if he wanted to gamble on his stated convictions, he could get a 1200% return on his bet. That's all.
I don't know who was talking about spending on campaigns but it wasn't me. Learn to read.
Oh look, you're quoting Fox News. Sure sign of an intelligent conversation. But okay, I'll bite anyway.
The reason you don't raise the minimum wage to $1 million/hour is because it would be unreasonable to pay someone working a drive-thru $40 million per week. But, there just might a reasonable place in between the $290/week they make now and the $40 million you suggest. Perhaps, a, what-do-you-call-it... a compromise?? oh, the horror!
Bullshit. The price of a product is based on how much people are willing to pay for it. That's it. Nothing more. It has fuck-all to do with the wage being paid to a menial worker.
If Starbucks raised their minimum wage to $15/hour, the price of everything would stay exactly the same, and the owners of Starbucks would make.16 on the dollar per fiscal year instead of the current.18 - that's the only difference. Boo-fucking-hoo.
All of this, of course, has zero to do with my post that you responded to, which dealt with the odds of each candidate winning, which is directly based on how much bettors are putting on each candidate to win. In other words, anyone can spout a stupid opinion, but if you asked them to actually bet real money on who they'd pick to win, they might suddenly not be so confident. However, looking at who actual bettors put their money on has been reasonably accurate in the past.
Which has fuck-all to do with candidates raising money. How you got there is a mystery to me. Poor reading comprehension, I suspect, which makes your writing automatically worthless.
The point is that Google doesn't need all the Apple iPhone users to use Google maps. There's millions of them that do. That's a big enough sample size to pretty much know, statistically, where iPhone users are going. Much as you'd like to believe that you're important enough for them to want to know where YOU are, you're not. They just want the trends. They have that.
I generally agree Jeb is unlikely to win because people don't want him, but I'm more worried than you are. If your sort of analysis could be counted on, then we could already call a Hillary loss in the general election because people don't like Hillary. She has very little to offer and probably won't be able to do anything to surprise anyone or to motivate a strong turnout.
I'd guess the most likely outcome is President Scott Walker and Vice President Marco Rubio.
If you really believe this nonsense, you could make a shit-ton of cash right now. Among the people that actually put their money where their mouth is, you can get Scott Walker at 12-to-1. Meanwhile, Hillary is even money.
None of that is a guarantee of anything, of course; even money represents a 50% shot in the minds of bettors. But the odds have been a pretty good indicator in past presidential elections. Barring some sort of collapse, I don't see why they'd be wrong this time around.
You act as if there's only "honest" and "dishonest" and the line between that black-and-white in this case is universally agreed upon by everyone. Surely you know that's ridiculous.
In the list of fraudelent advertising I've seen in just the past year, ranked by how offensive they are, I'm not sure the Wikipedia appeals for money would even make the top 1000.
Look, they're planning for the future. If they said, "Please donate or the lights will go out in 10 years", the numbers of donations would go down drastically.
They're appealing to as massive an audience as they can to donate small amounts of money, and sure, they're using mass-appeal language to do it. I'd rather see that than have a few billionaires being lobbied to keep Wikipedia going. It makes sense.
You're right that a lot of that is misleading - but that's framing it in the worst-sounding way. It's really just advertising, although a different sort of advertising. If they said, "Hey we have $53 million in the bank, but the reality is, we need more funding in order to keep our organization going, because if we don't have sustainable funding we may go under in 10 years", how many people would donate?
The wording that they use is carefully chosen to try to get the maximum amount of donations. I'm okay with that.
Or, in the case of many regions (parts of Africa or the Middle East spring to mind) there's often no government presence whatsoever in areas where there's a whole lot of killin' going on.
Right, because no middle-class suburban residents ever commit theft or larceny.
I can why you didn't get my point - you're suffering from the same disease as the OP; that is, you think that the people proposing drone delivery haven't given any more thought to it than you have, and the 5 seconds you've invested in thinking about it is the final word.
Wow, you're right! Jeff Bezos is probably canceling the whole project right now, because no one at Amazon ever thought about any of the points you've brought up, and your post just turned the entire idea of drone delivery into a no-go. It's a little amazing to me than a lowly Slashdot poster outwitted the entire engineering division at Amazon, but it just goes to show, the best ideas always come from naysayers that have no idea what's going on at the company they're tearing down in their heads.
I know 90% of the Slashdot audience is going to talk about shooting down Amazon's drones and shit like that, but seriously - isn't there anyone besides me that can't wait for this? I think it's going to be great, and the "sky is falling" predictions about all the downsides to this seem like nonsense to me, for the most part. Am I alone in this?
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah I think you're responding to someone else maybe. I never said one thing even remotely related to "voting costing money", "money being spent", or "getting donations."
I was pointing out to someone else that Scott Walker has very little chance of being president according to bettors, and if he really believed that Walker was going to win, as he stated, then the current betting odds of 12-to-1 meant if he wanted to gamble on his stated convictions, he could get a 1200% return on his bet. That's all.
I don't know who was talking about spending on campaigns but it wasn't me. Learn to read.
Oh look, you're quoting Fox News. Sure sign of an intelligent conversation. But okay, I'll bite anyway.
The reason you don't raise the minimum wage to $1 million/hour is because it would be unreasonable to pay someone working a drive-thru $40 million per week. But, there just might a reasonable place in between the $290/week they make now and the $40 million you suggest. Perhaps, a, what-do-you-call-it... a compromise?? oh, the horror!
Bullshit. The price of a product is based on how much people are willing to pay for it. That's it. Nothing more. It has fuck-all to do with the wage being paid to a menial worker.
If Starbucks raised their minimum wage to $15/hour, the price of everything would stay exactly the same, and the owners of Starbucks would make .16 on the dollar per fiscal year instead of the current .18 - that's the only difference. Boo-fucking-hoo.
All of this, of course, has zero to do with my post that you responded to, which dealt with the odds of each candidate winning, which is directly based on how much bettors are putting on each candidate to win. In other words, anyone can spout a stupid opinion, but if you asked them to actually bet real money on who they'd pick to win, they might suddenly not be so confident. However, looking at who actual bettors put their money on has been reasonably accurate in the past.
Which has fuck-all to do with candidates raising money. How you got there is a mystery to me. Poor reading comprehension, I suspect, which makes your writing automatically worthless.
The point is that Google doesn't need all the Apple iPhone users to use Google maps. There's millions of them that do. That's a big enough sample size to pretty much know, statistically, where iPhone users are going. Much as you'd like to believe that you're important enough for them to want to know where YOU are, you're not. They just want the trends. They have that.
You should probably read up on the differences between description and prescription.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
It does, actually. In fact, the shifting spelling of that word has already entered the spelling that you don't like into the dictionary.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/rigamarole
Definition of RIGAMAROLE: variant of rigmarole
Lots of people on iPhones use Google Maps.
I generally agree Jeb is unlikely to win because people don't want him, but I'm more worried than you are. If your sort of analysis could be counted on, then we could already call a Hillary loss in the general election because people don't like Hillary. She has very little to offer and probably won't be able to do anything to surprise anyone or to motivate a strong turnout.
I'd guess the most likely outcome is President Scott Walker and Vice President Marco Rubio.
If you really believe this nonsense, you could make a shit-ton of cash right now. Among the people that actually put their money where their mouth is, you can get Scott Walker at 12-to-1. Meanwhile, Hillary is even money.
None of that is a guarantee of anything, of course; even money represents a 50% shot in the minds of bettors. But the odds have been a pretty good indicator in past presidential elections. Barring some sort of collapse, I don't see why they'd be wrong this time around.
www.oddschecker.com/politics/us-politics/us-presidential-election-2016/winner
Weird, you sound just like that guy who yells at kids to get off his lawn and tells everyone that music and movies were much better back in your day.
Then stop reading Slashdot. You'll be missed.
Personally, I liked the video.
Depends if you're talking to people over or under the age of 45.
Liar.
http://www.news10.net/story/we...
You act as if there's only "honest" and "dishonest" and the line between that black-and-white in this case is universally agreed upon by everyone. Surely you know that's ridiculous.
In the list of fraudelent advertising I've seen in just the past year, ranked by how offensive they are, I'm not sure the Wikipedia appeals for money would even make the top 1000.
Man I wish I had mod points. Brilliant post.
As Homer Simpson said, "It's funny because it's true!"
Jimmy Wales is worth an estimated $1 million. He could probably afford to buy a nice 30-foot sailboat; bigger if he planned to live on it exclusively.
Look, they're planning for the future. If they said, "Please donate or the lights will go out in 10 years", the numbers of donations would go down drastically.
They're appealing to as massive an audience as they can to donate small amounts of money, and sure, they're using mass-appeal language to do it. I'd rather see that than have a few billionaires being lobbied to keep Wikipedia going. It makes sense.
You're right that a lot of that is misleading - but that's framing it in the worst-sounding way. It's really just advertising, although a different sort of advertising. If they said, "Hey we have $53 million in the bank, but the reality is, we need more funding in order to keep our organization going, because if we don't have sustainable funding we may go under in 10 years", how many people would donate?
The wording that they use is carefully chosen to try to get the maximum amount of donations. I'm okay with that.
Or, in the case of many regions (parts of Africa or the Middle East spring to mind) there's often no government presence whatsoever in areas where there's a whole lot of killin' going on.
yeah really, why read the article?
"A mockup shows an Amazon order screen with four options for delivery: “Bring It to Me,” “Home,” “Work,” and “My Boat.”
Right, because no middle-class suburban residents ever commit theft or larceny.
I can why you didn't get my point - you're suffering from the same disease as the OP; that is, you think that the people proposing drone delivery haven't given any more thought to it than you have, and the 5 seconds you've invested in thinking about it is the final word.
Wow, you're right! Jeff Bezos is probably canceling the whole project right now, because no one at Amazon ever thought about any of the points you've brought up, and your post just turned the entire idea of drone delivery into a no-go. It's a little amazing to me than a lowly Slashdot poster outwitted the entire engineering division at Amazon, but it just goes to show, the best ideas always come from naysayers that have no idea what's going on at the company they're tearing down in their heads.
I know 90% of the Slashdot audience is going to talk about shooting down Amazon's drones and shit like that, but seriously - isn't there anyone besides me that can't wait for this? I think it's going to be great, and the "sky is falling" predictions about all the downsides to this seem like nonsense to me, for the most part. Am I alone in this?
or C) neither of the above
https://support.apple.com/en-u...