I'm pretty creeped out Google owns VirusTotal. Not that they bought it, that's fine^W an example of the epidemic of Google consolidating the internet in a distinctly evil way. That they did, and I didn't know it.
They could change the terms tomorrow and then you're funded at a high valuation.
Fixed that for you. It makes sense that a startup would use other people's data to up their valuation. If they need to replace it later, at least they'll have more cash/equity to do so with.
Now, investors should price that into the valuation, but they don't seem to.
s. Because Trump has been on every side of every issue, most of his lies....
I explicitly ignored those, and focused on areas he has been consistent on since 1986. I mean, you didn't seem to read my comment before rambling off a long tangent.
You have it exactly backwards. Cruz was a conman who aligned with the Tea Party as a way of raising his stature. He's always been a long-term game player. So, he was totally willing to be the establishment person if that made him POTUS (as in recent months).
Donald Trump's worst ideas, like starting a trade war with China, have been policies he's been advocating since 1986 (only then it was Japan). He's scarily consistent on his crazy ideas.
I mean, I'm ignoring the wall type stuff, and focusing only on those of his actual policies not immediately ignored as showmanship.
He totally can win. First, he's overcome far worse polling leads in far shorter time than how much he trails Hillary (or Sanders.) Secondly, if the Republican party does split, it'll be a 3-way race. He excels at pluralities in 3-way races.
But he choose the right party to run in. The Republican party is the shut-up-and-salute party.
There are definately Nests and Nest competitors in all the big-box home improvement stores. Also, WiFI doorbells and more.
A friend of mine even bought a WiFI enableld crockpot (that had no buttons for manual operation.) But, he got it on clearance, so, that's proably a wash.
What do you mean there aren't ordinances surrounding it? Gasoline is a hazardous material inflammable, etc. There are regulations about carrying too much gasoline, carrying it inside your car, using inadequate materials, and carrying it through tunnels. The US DOT has a bunch, and states have additional ones.
What's your problem? 9.5% is the proper chance a 0.1% likelihood event happens at least once in the next 100 measurements. And, since you wonder, at 1000 years, it would be 63%. 2000 years would be 84%.
Do you not know how to do the math? Cause if you were less arrogant in your ignorance, I'm sure someone would help you.
What does that mean? It means, you say "I don't pay attention to yogurt advertising, just go to the store and buy yogurt." Assuming this is true, and marketing people know it is true, you won't see more ads for brands of yogurt. But assuming you live somewhere with multiple stores that sell yogurt, each store will try to be the "the store" in your sentence.
They spend a lot of money advertising to a wide audience because they spend a lot of money advertising to their desired audience, plus whomever happens to be in the way. (you)
Yes, niche items (non-undershirt v-necks) are always going to have to be special ordered. Impossible not to be the case. Costs too much to keep around SKUs just for you
Nothing beats a competitive environment to motivate developers
Wait, really? Because I see when people try to motivate me with a "competitive environment" they're not motivating me with, say money. Which is fine for academics (the Underhanded C guy), but I wouldn't expect group with a $1 billion to do that.
Also, I don't really think I would send algorithms with high value, and low ability to detect theft (if even protectable) to an offsite location, or especially this offsite location
So the marketer data would tell stores that they have to win you over with advertising, not product companies. Which makes the ad more targetted towards you.
I have a friend working on.... a popular webbrowser. They test JS performance (of theirs and competitors') all the time against benchmarks. In theory, those benchmarks are derived from looking at the 1000 most popular sites (according to some site ranking algorithm). If that's true, than that seems to be a valid(ish) benchmark. I mean, those 1000 sites probably account for the vast majority of traffic, and other sites probably model themselves after those 1000 sites.
Wait, how would that work. I mean, all the name->IP translation happens locally, and only IP addresses are sent out... unless they deeper packet examination. Which seems like a high cost.
I suppose they could parse the HTTP request headers... or listen for the DNS queries?
Yeah, again, my argument was it wasn't better to be thinner than the ethernet port, regardless of if you have one..
You haven't explained any way of determining if (a) People really want a thin laptop or (b) People really want an Apple laptop, and that meant accomidating Steve Jobs's obsession with thinness.
Tablets aren't popular because they are thinner/lighter. They are popular because they can be held in the hand (and manipulated by the other hand.) No laptop form factor allows this.
Something is worth what people are willing to spend on it (at least, in our economic system.) Normally a business might be evaluated on what it can make (revenue and profit). But that's not always that case.
And if people are willing to buy 10% of something for 100M, then I think you can make the excellent case it is worth 1B (Well, I think you can make an excellent case it is worth something close to that.)
Absolutely nothing will force people to do things. And that's absolutely fine. There's no reason to force people to do things if there's no reason for people, not robots, to do those things!
Slashdot Mirror
I'm pretty creeped out Google owns VirusTotal. Not that they bought it, that's fine^W an example of the epidemic of Google consolidating the internet in a distinctly evil way. That they did, and I didn't know it.
Fixed that for you. It makes sense that a startup would use other people's data to up their valuation. If they need to replace it later, at least they'll have more cash/equity to do so with.
Now, investors should price that into the valuation, but they don't seem to.
I explicitly ignored those, and focused on areas he has been consistent on since 1986. I mean, you didn't seem to read my comment before rambling off a long tangent.
You have it exactly backwards. Cruz was a conman who aligned with the Tea Party as a way of raising his stature. He's always been a long-term game player. So, he was totally willing to be the establishment person if that made him POTUS (as in recent months).
Donald Trump's worst ideas, like starting a trade war with China, have been policies he's been advocating since 1986 (only then it was Japan). He's scarily consistent on his crazy ideas.
I mean, I'm ignoring the wall type stuff, and focusing only on those of his actual policies not immediately ignored as showmanship.
It's after eliminating cancer and coronary disease. It's beating respiratory disease.
He totally can win. First, he's overcome far worse polling leads in far shorter time than how much he trails Hillary (or Sanders.) Secondly, if the Republican party does split, it'll be a 3-way race. He excels at pluralities in 3-way races.
But he choose the right party to run in. The Republican party is the shut-up-and-salute party.
There are definately Nests and Nest competitors in all the big-box home improvement stores. Also, WiFI doorbells and more.
A friend of mine even bought a WiFI enableld crockpot (that had no buttons for manual operation.) But, he got it on clearance, so, that's proably a wash.
I paid... actually, less, not extra, for buttons I can press. The buttons do things, correspond to letters, etc.
What do you mean there aren't ordinances surrounding it? Gasoline is a hazardous material inflammable, etc. There are regulations about carrying too much gasoline, carrying it inside your car, using inadequate materials, and carrying it through tunnels. The US DOT has a bunch, and states have additional ones.
What's your problem? 9.5% is the proper chance a 0.1% likelihood event happens at least once in the next 100 measurements. And, since you wonder, at 1000 years, it would be 63%. 2000 years would be 84%.
Do you not know how to do the math? Cause if you were less arrogant in your ignorance, I'm sure someone would help you.
Do you trust that when you forbid permissions, you really forbid permissions?
What use is a hooker without the economy to pay her (or him)?
What does that mean? It means, you say "I don't pay attention to yogurt advertising, just go to the store and buy yogurt." Assuming this is true, and marketing people know it is true, you won't see more ads for brands of yogurt. But assuming you live somewhere with multiple stores that sell yogurt, each store will try to be the "the store" in your sentence.
They spend a lot of money advertising to a wide audience because they spend a lot of money advertising to their desired audience, plus whomever happens to be in the way. (you)
Yes, niche items (non-undershirt v-necks) are always going to have to be special ordered. Impossible not to be the case. Costs too much to keep around SKUs just for you
Wait, really? Because I see when people try to motivate me with a "competitive environment" they're not motivating me with, say money. Which is fine for academics (the Underhanded C guy), but I wouldn't expect group with a $1 billion to do that.
Also, I don't really think I would send algorithms with high value, and low ability to detect theft (if even protectable) to an offsite location, or especially this offsite location
So the marketer data would tell stores that they have to win you over with advertising, not product companies. Which makes the ad more targetted towards you.
They've always had a lifetime fee version (which on the new $400 model is baked in).
I have a friend working on.... a popular webbrowser. They test JS performance (of theirs and competitors') all the time against benchmarks. In theory, those benchmarks are derived from looking at the 1000 most popular sites (according to some site ranking algorithm). If that's true, than that seems to be a valid(ish) benchmark. I mean, those 1000 sites probably account for the vast majority of traffic, and other sites probably model themselves after those 1000 sites.
Wait, how would that work. I mean, all the name->IP translation happens locally, and only IP addresses are sent out... unless they deeper packet examination. Which seems like a high cost.
I suppose they could parse the HTTP request headers... or listen for the DNS queries?
You get what you measure. Unfortunately, my use cases and the majority's are not the same.
About 0. GCHQ probably helps close vulnerabilities that intelligence services (other than US/Canada/UK/Australia/NZ) and criminals use.
Yeah, again, my argument was it wasn't better to be thinner than the ethernet port, regardless of if you have one..
You haven't explained any way of determining if (a) People really want a thin laptop or (b) People really want an Apple laptop, and that meant accomidating Steve Jobs's obsession with thinness.
Tablets aren't popular because they are thinner/lighter. They are popular because they can be held in the hand (and manipulated by the other hand.) No laptop form factor allows this.
Something is worth what people are willing to spend on it (at least, in our economic system.) Normally a business might be evaluated on what it can make (revenue and profit). But that's not always that case.
And if people are willing to buy 10% of something for 100M, then I think you can make the excellent case it is worth 1B (Well, I think you can make an excellent case it is worth something close to that.)
Other than the lack of existence of said robot double (and the fact that your employer would own it to save on salary), this sounds perfect!
Absolutely nothing will force people to do things. And that's absolutely fine. There's no reason to force people to do things if there's no reason for people, not robots, to do those things!
There's absolutely no path forward from "really good at predicting human desires" to "autonomous agent worthy of respect as sentient."