I don't see the value in confirmation. If I want to sleep with my best friend's wife (or wife's best friend), who does it help to confirm that. I deny it, everyone wants to believe the denial, and life goes on.
Unless you think that for the first time in the history of all nations, heads of state deserve privacy from other countries (in the case of spying on Germany). Or that the numerous reports of the US monitoring all "international" conversations and then having telecoms route local calls through overseas were somehow insufficient.
I honestly may have missed something, but I have asked a lot of people (on/., and elsewhere) what he said that surprised you. Please enlighten me, cause if there's more going on, I do want to know.
Internal witnesses are important for proving things in a court, or discovering something you didn't know about (where in both cases "credible" is more important than "internal".) In this case, since I honestly don't think I learned anything new, I fail to see any value. And I would think I'm as far on the "government shouldn't spy on me" side as is possible, short of arguing the government should be disbanded to make double-plus-sure.
Is there anything Snowden said that you didn't already know the US government was up to? Or that you would not expect the American who was interested in what he said didn't already know the US government did?
I mean, most Americans probably didn't think about it, but most Americans probably don't know who Snowden is.
All I really see Snowden doing was verifying a lot of assumed to exist programs. I don't see the value.
How many millions are you allowed to lose or waste before you get fired?
It depends on the return when it hits, and how often it hits.
Hint: In the corporate world, it's not that many.
It depends. If you blow millions of dollars on ARM chips when you needed x86s (and you were supposed to buy x86 chips) yeah. Or if you fuck up a deployment and Amazon goes offline for 5 minutes. Or whatever.
But if you're trying to grow money? VCs invest millions in a company, and expect 70-90% failure rates. Why we would expect better from government attempts to grow the economy, I have no idea.
I'm fine with 14 out of 15 million-dollar programs failing, if the upside on the 1 that succeeds is measured in billions.
Why would you lose your job over one mistake like that? If someone spends millions and sometimes makes 2x and sometimes loses it all, you should only care about that ratio. See VC firms for an example.
Signs that say "sale" in a store are a form of advertising. All the more so if you're buying the store brand. All the advertising the store does is also advertising the brand. They reinforce that with sale signs, to insure you buy their brand. There would be no reason to be embarrassed about the fact that store ads drove you in, and then you were sold the store brand... except that you think ads don't work on you. I'm just trying to get you to admit that smart people with tons of money to research it, education and experience can influence your behavior (our get you to explain some flaw in what I am saying). Ads work, and being cocky doesn't really change that. Not does being rude to me.
You don't think it's odd that I could identify where you bought you jeans from the brand name? That apropos of nothing I knew the geographic area you lived in and the common regional chain you shop at?
It wasn't random. Falls Creek jeans, which you claim you never saw ads for, has a rielationship with that store for effective and subtle ads.
I still don't know why you insist avoiding ads because I know they are effective implies I am a sheep or whatever.
Funny, never seen or heard an ad for "Falls Creek" jeans and slacks on TV or radio, just on the shelf in the store, nice try though
Sure you have. They advertise all over - at least - Michigan, Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, and Kentucky. I mean, the fact that you don't think they advertise is just an excellent example.
Oh, you don't believe me? Let me guess, you bought them at Meijer store, right?
Such a cute little sheep you are,
I'm someone who knows enough about bias and non-rational decision making that I don't trust myself. How or why that turns into a cliche "sheeple" insult, I have no clue whatsoever.
It's not a matter of being weakminded. It's a matter of numerous repeatedly verified weaknesses in the human psyche.
Advertisers feel about "strong minded people who use advertisements to tell you what not to buy" the same way casinos feel about "people who are going to count cards in Vegas". They love em. The number of people who think they are (and thus are more willing to expose themselves) vastly outnumber those who can. Most likely, it means that you get the second most advertised solution. Or the one that amused you the most. Or something. Because you are a human.
What brand of car did you buy? Where did you buy your clothes? What brand are they? Odds are, these are brands everyone has heard of, Because it turns out that "Jack's Handbuilt Cars" would be really hard to get people to buy, even if they were as good as a Ferrari and as cheap as a Kia. Cause who would know to do it.
Well, part of the problem is that some people got trained to use the reviews as reviews of the shipping service by eBay. After all, on eBay, I'm reporting on a seller. If he sells me a POS because I didn't realize that a "for parts only" device might not power on, or because I was drunk and thought it would be great to have an OS/2 machine, it's not his fault.
Amazon seems to want to blur the line when asking for reviews, because more 5-star reviews means more sales.
Yes, someone please tell me what Snowden said that is shocking? I mean, I full expect the NSA to be snooping on Merkle's phone, and I understand that widespread electronic surveillance of the entire world is unlikely to have a "This is an American, so backoff" bit? I'll be honest, when I saw his first "revelations" I started tuning out, so there may be more shocking things in there.
I find the price difference for storing more than just images to be pretty steep. Wouldn't it save money to use stenography to store your files inside of some images so you could get around their stupid rule?
It's not a stupid rule. Pictures are small, so they can guess that the storage use of your "all-you-can-store" buffet will be smaller. The fact that it breaks down in edge cases isn't terribly relevant.,/p>
Well, art is different from many goods in that no one knows if anyone will want it until it's created. It's a high-risk high-failure business model. And the government reducing the risk has been showed to pay net dividends to society.
None of what you went through in any way seems onerous. The use-case is when someone is buying a new property, not every six months. It's a big deal.
And, I don't see what's even marginally offensive about what happened to you. You call N providers to get quotes. All tell you the same thing you quoted. You start with the best choice at a one-year contract. If that fails, you call the second best, and so on.
Then have the homeowner (after seeking a court order allowing him to do so) run the fiber at his expense, and the company pays 125% of the cost. Companies paying what courts dictate is already a solved problem.
As for them hooking up a paying customer when the additional cost is almost nothing? I'd imagine a relatively small fine ($500/day) would be sufficient if you allow like a week or something reasonable before it kicks in.
billions of people will be considered based on race, gender, social position and annual income as potential revenue factors when subscribing or continuing to use the product
No they won't. Facebook wants to say X% of the world is on Facebook. This is to boost marketshare, not money.
The argument to the stock market is then, X/2% led to a market cap of Y. X% should lead to a market cap of 2Y.
It's just the way motivations are aligned when "users" and "active users" are metrics given real importance.
The touchscreen devices seem to have some kind of extra allure, which I associate with the fact that they have a tactile component different than a game controller or keyboard/mouse.
It probably has something to do with advances (from both theory and datamining) in creating addicting experiences. A 10-year-old vs. a group of adults conspiring to get him addicted barely stands a chance. Hell, based on what I've seen, most adults barely stand a chance.
I think it's fairly likely that all of those hurt children (depending on their age, psychology, etc.) If only there was system for allocating one or more adults to watch what children do, have unilateral authority to veto certain actions of the child, and be responsible for taking into account the specific child's development. And responsible for explaining things in context, etc. We could even give them authority to punish the children to ensure lessons get taught.
Sadly, those adults would have to bear some responsibility... and they'd probably blame society for their failings.
Now, I could get behind preventing the advertising of those things to children (just like cigarettes and alcohol), but I think all advertising designed to appeal to children is evil.
I should note that all those executions are all (a) local only (b) based on URL parsing, not HTML and (c) only had user level access (except for one bug in developer mode.)
Data that gets rendered is not equal to a Turning complete code set. And I'm not 100% on what the Turning complete machine adds.
First off, although I totally understand that your religious* beliefs were insulted. But you didn't really respond to my point about identity. By religious I mean your dogmatic, unsupported claim that personal liberty is paramount.. in a conversation about personal liberty. That's the kind of circular reason that usually only comes up when talking about how the Bible is real, because Jesus said so, and Jesus is awesome because see Bible..
My point was, remaining a part of a society is agreeing to be bounds by certain codes of behavior. If you do not wish to be bound by your obligations to society, please feel free to depart. If you agree that past-you, who did not leave society, can bind current-you behaviors, then it seems like you agree you shouldn't be allowed to proceed.
And the hungover-you was all about binding decisions about you, and your future. Nothing to do with prohibition or non-future yous.
It's a common rhetorical technique, to provide you with options and ask you to expound on how your philosophy works, and draw lines in the gray. Not engaging is... well... deciding you don't want to communicate on that issue.
I understand what a natural monopoly is. Natural monopolies (Microsoft, Google) are totally, and explicitly, not allowed to use their monopoly powers in one industry (OS, Search) to promote their power in another (Internet Browsers, Travel). They also are pretty regulated in behavior and prices(ala AT&T).
The only advantage a natural monopoly has over a non-natural monopoly is that it won't be broken up.
You really should do some research, because your ideas are incorrect.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't see the value in confirmation. If I want to sleep with my best friend's wife (or wife's best friend), who does it help to confirm that. I deny it, everyone wants to believe the denial, and life goes on.
Unless you think that for the first time in the history of all nations, heads of state deserve privacy from other countries (in the case of spying on Germany). Or that the numerous reports of the US monitoring all "international" conversations and then having telecoms route local calls through overseas were somehow insufficient.
I honestly may have missed something, but I have asked a lot of people (on /., and elsewhere) what he said that surprised you. Please enlighten me, cause if there's more going on, I do want to know.
Internal witnesses are important for proving things in a court, or discovering something you didn't know about (where in both cases "credible" is more important than "internal".) In this case, since I honestly don't think I learned anything new, I fail to see any value. And I would think I'm as far on the "government shouldn't spy on me" side as is possible, short of arguing the government should be disbanded to make double-plus-sure.
Is there anything Snowden said that you didn't already know the US government was up to? Or that you would not expect the American who was interested in what he said didn't already know the US government did?
I mean, most Americans probably didn't think about it, but most Americans probably don't know who Snowden is.
All I really see Snowden doing was verifying a lot of assumed to exist programs. I don't see the value.
Well, the cost of reclaiming the steel is really high. Like, more than the value of the steel.
Yup, that is a good thing.
However, there aren't that many options. And sometimes the only one is pretty shitty.
It depends on the return when it hits, and how often it hits.
It depends. If you blow millions of dollars on ARM chips when you needed x86s (and you were supposed to buy x86 chips) yeah. Or if you fuck up a deployment and Amazon goes offline for 5 minutes. Or whatever.
But if you're trying to grow money? VCs invest millions in a company, and expect 70-90% failure rates. Why we would expect better from government attempts to grow the economy, I have no idea.
I'm fine with 14 out of 15 million-dollar programs failing, if the upside on the 1 that succeeds is measured in billions.
Why would you lose your job over one mistake like that? If someone spends millions and sometimes makes 2x and sometimes loses it all, you should only care about that ratio. See VC firms for an example.
Signs that say "sale" in a store are a form of advertising. All the more so if you're buying the store brand. All the advertising the store does is also advertising the brand. They reinforce that with sale signs, to insure you buy their brand. There would be no reason to be embarrassed about the fact that store ads drove you in, and then you were sold the store brand... except that you think ads don't work on you. I'm just trying to get you to admit that smart people with tons of money to research it, education and experience can influence your behavior (our get you to explain some flaw in what I am saying). Ads work, and being cocky doesn't really change that. Not does being rude to me.
You don't think it's odd that I could identify where you bought you jeans from the brand name? That apropos of nothing I knew the geographic area you lived in and the common regional chain you shop at? It wasn't random. Falls Creek jeans, which you claim you never saw ads for, has a rielationship with that store for effective and subtle ads. I still don't know why you insist avoiding ads because I know they are effective implies I am a sheep or whatever.
No response. So you did buy your jeans at a Meijer?
Sure you have. They advertise all over - at least - Michigan, Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, and Kentucky. I mean, the fact that you don't think they advertise is just an excellent example.
Oh, you don't believe me? Let me guess, you bought them at Meijer store, right?
I'm someone who knows enough about bias and non-rational decision making that I don't trust myself. How or why that turns into a cliche "sheeple" insult, I have no clue whatsoever.
It's not a matter of being weakminded. It's a matter of numerous repeatedly verified weaknesses in the human psyche.
Advertisers feel about "strong minded people who use advertisements to tell you what not to buy" the same way casinos feel about "people who are going to count cards in Vegas". They love em. The number of people who think they are (and thus are more willing to expose themselves) vastly outnumber those who can. Most likely, it means that you get the second most advertised solution. Or the one that amused you the most. Or something. Because you are a human.
What brand of car did you buy? Where did you buy your clothes? What brand are they? Odds are, these are brands everyone has heard of, Because it turns out that "Jack's Handbuilt Cars" would be really hard to get people to buy, even if they were as good as a Ferrari and as cheap as a Kia. Cause who would know to do it.
Well, part of the problem is that some people got trained to use the reviews as reviews of the shipping service by eBay. After all, on eBay, I'm reporting on a seller. If he sells me a POS because I didn't realize that a "for parts only" device might not power on, or because I was drunk and thought it would be great to have an OS/2 machine, it's not his fault.
Amazon seems to want to blur the line when asking for reviews, because more 5-star reviews means more sales.
Unless it's priced as a rental, you mean. I use Netflix knowing it's a rental of the movies I stream.
Yes, someone please tell me what Snowden said that is shocking? I mean, I full expect the NSA to be snooping on Merkle's phone, and I understand that widespread electronic surveillance of the entire world is unlikely to have a "This is an American, so backoff" bit? I'll be honest, when I saw his first "revelations" I started tuning out, so there may be more shocking things in there.
It's not a stupid rule. Pictures are small, so they can guess that the storage use of your "all-you-can-store" buffet will be smaller. The fact that it breaks down in edge cases isn't terribly relevant.,/p>
Well, art is different from many goods in that no one knows if anyone will want it until it's created. It's a high-risk high-failure business model. And the government reducing the risk has been showed to pay net dividends to society.
None of what you went through in any way seems onerous. The use-case is when someone is buying a new property, not every six months. It's a big deal.
And, I don't see what's even marginally offensive about what happened to you. You call N providers to get quotes. All tell you the same thing you quoted. You start with the best choice at a one-year contract. If that fails, you call the second best, and so on.
Then have the homeowner (after seeking a court order allowing him to do so) run the fiber at his expense, and the company pays 125% of the cost. Companies paying what courts dictate is already a solved problem.
As for them hooking up a paying customer when the additional cost is almost nothing? I'd imagine a relatively small fine ($500/day) would be sufficient if you allow like a week or something reasonable before it kicks in.
No they won't. Facebook wants to say X% of the world is on Facebook. This is to boost marketshare, not money.
The argument to the stock market is then, X/2% led to a market cap of Y. X% should lead to a market cap of 2Y.
It's just the way motivations are aligned when "users" and "active users" are metrics given real importance.
It probably has something to do with advances (from both theory and datamining) in creating addicting experiences. A 10-year-old vs. a group of adults conspiring to get him addicted barely stands a chance. Hell, based on what I've seen, most adults barely stand a chance.
I think it's fairly likely that all of those hurt children (depending on their age, psychology, etc.) If only there was system for allocating one or more adults to watch what children do, have unilateral authority to veto certain actions of the child, and be responsible for taking into account the specific child's development. And responsible for explaining things in context, etc. We could even give them authority to punish the children to ensure lessons get taught.
Sadly, those adults would have to bear some responsibility... and they'd probably blame society for their failings.
Now, I could get behind preventing the advertising of those things to children (just like cigarettes and alcohol), but I think all advertising designed to appeal to children is evil.
The amount you have to download as markup is small compared to the CSS/images.. and the increase compared to delta-JSON is negligible.
I should note that all those executions are all (a) local only (b) based on URL parsing, not HTML and (c) only had user level access (except for one bug in developer mode.)
Data that gets rendered is not equal to a Turning complete code set. And I'm not 100% on what the Turning complete machine adds.
First off, although I totally understand that your religious* beliefs were insulted. But you didn't really respond to my point about identity. By religious I mean your dogmatic, unsupported claim that personal liberty is paramount.. in a conversation about personal liberty. That's the kind of circular reason that usually only comes up when talking about how the Bible is real, because Jesus said so, and Jesus is awesome because see Bible..
My point was, remaining a part of a society is agreeing to be bounds by certain codes of behavior. If you do not wish to be bound by your obligations to society, please feel free to depart. If you agree that past-you, who did not leave society, can bind current-you behaviors, then it seems like you agree you shouldn't be allowed to proceed.
And the hungover-you was all about binding decisions about you, and your future. Nothing to do with prohibition or non-future yous.
It's a common rhetorical technique, to provide you with options and ask you to expound on how your philosophy works, and draw lines in the gray. Not engaging is... well... deciding you don't want to communicate on that issue.
I understand what a natural monopoly is. Natural monopolies (Microsoft, Google) are totally, and explicitly, not allowed to use their monopoly powers in one industry (OS, Search) to promote their power in another (Internet Browsers, Travel). They also are pretty regulated in behavior and prices(ala AT&T).
The only advantage a natural monopoly has over a non-natural monopoly is that it won't be broken up.
You really should do some research, because your ideas are incorrect.