That's why if I win the lottery, I'm clearly going to reinvest it all in more tickets.
Lucas was very lucky to have discovered Harrison Ford, pioneered CGI at the exact moment in history when incredible CGI couldn't replace a story (see: Avatar), and ripped off samurai movies at a time when that felt novel.
I loved the original trilogy. But you can see that even trying to improve the CGI ruins a unique gem,. Lightning just doesn't strike twice.
Invading Afghanistan to build pipeline, did not support
What the Taliban was doing was far worse than even what Saudi Arabi is impotently trying to do.
They blew up multi-thousand year old religious artifacts/temples/giant statues whose presence offended them. That persisted even after other countries offered to pay for the privilege of airlifting them out. (Clearly they are valuable enough culturally to offer to move a 100m high statue 100's of miles.)
And, in what can only be seen as a desire to ease into something unimaginably horrible or a total lack of history, started forcing religious minorities to wear yellow badges.
I'm confused. Was Costco selling these drives at a loss or something, just to get people in the door?
There was a delay in the pipeline. Like, all factories shut down due to natural disaster (Tsunami). Therefore, Costco (due to buying in bulk) and a few others had a supply that had to be stretched. Instead of raising rates to match the new supply with demand, they imposed caps on how many each customer could buy. Many other companies did so as well (Newegg for instance).
Now that the supply line has been fixed, you can go buy a shitton of drives at Costco, as I believe this company was doing before.
Basically, this is like complaining that the local grocery store won't let you buy all the water you want after a hurricane (esp. if you plan on reselling it.) when they are keeping prices low as a humanitarian gesture.
i was unaware there were rules against providing too much information when trying to teach an alien race how we communicate
There are no rules against that. The rules are against providing information that people will recognize but aliens won't, and that humans do not necessarily notice they are recognizing. Just like if you randomly put "+" in in the appropriate spot. I mean, your entire example takes advantage of the fact that most people won't recognize how arbitrary it is not use RPN.
Your "more steps" don't help. You're repeating the pattern
A O1 B O2 C, repeated however many times, with A,B, and C being appropriate integers, can never differentiate whether O1 and O2 are = and x respectively or / and = respectively.
Further, 3 is not 2 x 1.
Lastly, you're adding additional information via brackets around the operators.
not that owning the loaded weapon is an issue in this scenario, but rather discharging a high-powered rifle in a crowded multi-family abode that is, essentially, made of friggin' paper, is not a very nice thing to do to your neighbors.
Pretty much. And it kinda constrains what loaded weapons you can have. I mean, collecting is one thing, but loading means it is ready for use. If you have a loaded belt-fed.50 on a farm, eh. In a high-rise, it's tantamount to saying to your neighbors "just so you know, you could die at any moment if I pull this trigger for good or bad reasons"
And I guess I should break down city into "slummy inner city", "high rise style", "suburb" and "technically a city, but really more akin to a town. Not a major metropolitan area that shows up on a map of my country".
Many countries forbid extradition if it might carry the death penalty...
Which is not to say all countries always follow those laws (exceptions are made, for example, if they requesting country agrees not to pursue the death penalty in that case),
That hardly seems like an exception. The extraditing country agrees not to enforce the death penalty. An exception would be if it was a "we won't*wink wink* execute him" statement.
In the early days of the Soviet Union it was a very popular idea that there should be no specialization in work. No man should have to do the same thing over and over every day of his life. Jobs should be changed regularly to keep the worker interested and motivated.
Those are two very distinct ideas. Specialization is necessary for economic reasons. But I can see how changing careers would be motivating. (After X years, not constantly.)
So, yes, I'd move my money to where I could get a better return - say investment in foreign companies overseas where the tax rate is less.
Ah, the old "race to the bottom" argument. Laws could trivially be set up such that expatriating money cannot evade taxes. In fact, there are some laws, but the loopholes could be plugged.
Having more of the money siphoned to the government does not grow the economy, it shrinks it.
It depends on what the government does with the money, how much spare investment capital there is, the desired saving rates of people, and numerous other factors.
Government cannot grow the economy, only business can. Government can be of assistance (as well as be a hindrance)
I don't follow your distinction. But Government can definately grow the economy. See, Interstate Highway System.
[Government] is not in the driver's seat and not in complete control.
The first and most important role of government is to be the final authority on stuff. Who owns what? What can you do? Who has the authority to use lethal force? etc.
. If the government took 30-39% of the return, and still assumed none of the risk, where is the incentive to invest?
Still there? I mean, are you really going to take your 70+% and go home?
And the government does assume some of the risk. See also, bank bailouts in 2008, social security in case you lose your retirement funds, etc. And other costs (SEC, etc.) required for you to invest your money.
(there is no risk in working a regular job (W-2 income), you are guaranteed to make your wage)
There are risks (corporate bankrupcy) associated with W-2 work. Esp. if bonuses are invovled. But you seem to think we should tax people on based on risk. That seems fundamentally insane. Progressive tax systems work on income, not safety of investments.
But I forgot, that's why inflation indexed government bonds are taxed at 50-80% while lottery winnings are taxed at negative 82%
I understand your problem. But your solution is absolutely retarded. There are way better solutions than to lower the rates of people who do consistently make $1M a year.
Of course it's an option. And a viable one if you want to do it for yourself. But it's (as you well know) not a "get rich quick or for-sure" method. And it certainly is something that shouldn't be assumed a panacea. A lot of people aren't cut out for it.
Hell, the ability to save your money from a good month so you can eat in a later one is a rare enough ability.
The difference is, it's entirely within their control how much they work and how much money they make.
Except, um, it's not. There's finite demand and finite time in a day. Owning a business often requires working far longer hours for the same pay. Yes, occasionally you can put forth extra effort to try to get another customer or something, but often that simply isn't a possibility.
Depending on a faceless corporation isn't risky?
Not particularly. The worst case scenario is that the current situation won't continue. Not that your equity will disappear, or that you'll be forced to choose between putting your personal assets up for collateral or the company going bust.
A company will pay you the money for the work you did. If that work wasn't valuable, they take the loss. If there was no market? If a competitor beats them to the punch? They assume those and a lot of other risks. The risks employees assume is that they will get fired... which doesn't really leave them in as shitty a place. (Getting fired sucks, but your business going under is that plus.)
Plus, most small businessees have to depend ona faceless corporation as customers anyway.... unless you sell handcrafted art on ebay or something.
I'll take "scraping by" over being a collared slave any day.
Have you actually done it? 50% of all new businesses fail in the first year. Capital extensive businesses can generate large losses. Even just working by yourself can lead to a lot of personal debt (you didn't think anyone was going to loan your brand-new company money, did you?).
Depends on the city. My internet (major US city) goes out several times a month for hours due to poor weather. The power does not.
And yes, I did admit the usage matters. But I don't believe anyone on the planet would refer to offsite hosting as "in the cloud". That phrase seems reserved for moving desktop activities to a client/server relationship.
Not when your goal is to train up kids to own their own business and make themselves rich.
A lot of people who own small businesses work longer hours and still only make a middle-class existence. Plus, they assume the risk. Granted, they get to do what they love, but owning a business often leads to bankruptcy or scraping by.
Most people realize the actual question being asked is whether cloud computing is affected by weather more than other generic things, to which the answer is no, in fact it's less affected by weather than other generic things.
I'd assume the question is, "does using cloud computing increase or decrease the effects of weather. And I would answer that it increases the effects. More components/connections, more points of failure. Given roof integrity, my UPSes and laptop batteries can keep me chugging through an actual storm. But my internet connection is more fragile than my power connectivity (modem needs power + connection).
Now, if I wasn't doing something on the computer, just running some multi-day calculation, then the Cloud would be safer. But that requires a totally arcane reading of the question.
. I know I'll never buy another Blizzard game that is built that way... I haven't bothered playing it since I discovered it was online only.
Fair enough
I got Diablo III as part of my 1 year WoW subscription
Umm... what?
Look, I get the difference. But you would be hard pressed to convince me (from the dev side) that a very proven method if dirtributiona nd development and studio knowledge of working that way should get thrown away. I know it was a very DRMy move, but it also is qhat I would do to make things work well.
The issue is not that the face is covered in soot. The issue is (in the unedited versions you may have never seen) afterwards they start doing a really racist impression of a black person.
Wrong, american audiences are offended. The rest of world is not offended by this B-series film. And frankly speaking, if Song of the South is banned, then they should also ban Gone with the Wind and the Adventures of Tom Sawyer. Stupid country, unable to cope rationally with your past.
Why? This is part of history, and people should know what attitudes were publicly held and presented to see how much we've changed over the years.
There's a big difference between watching a movie as an educational experience/to discuss culture, and watching a movie as entertainment. Bugs Bunny cartoons are edited because blackface shouldn't be considered entertaining anymore. Not that we should whitewash over it, and it would be interesting to show to people in a literature class, but that it shouldn't be broadcast as entertainment for children.
If for no other reason, most parents I know would not let their little children watch that. So WB keeps Bugs on the air, and cuts that part out. So kids can watch.
This is Google. When did Google ever enter a market with the intention to do something similar to the rest of the industry?
Every time? I mean, their UI may be slicker for web delivered apps, but other than that, they primarilly just go one step further. Better search, then a better targetted ad network, then an iPhone competitor (staying out of that fight), then GMail instead of hotmail, then Google+. Along the way they purchased what they could not outdo, like YouTube.
The only time they look remotely different is when they are offering complimentary goods to their primary business model at a loss/steep discount. And that frankly makes them just like every other company.
And they already stated this is an experiment just to see what can develop as a result of sufficient bandwidth being available at home, they did not start the project because they wanted to be an ISP. With that in mind why would Google want to put such restrictions on the customers?
If I had to guess, it would be to avoid having to deal with takedown letters. I believe that they would have to instantly disconnect people, and let them fight to get back online. (IANAL, nor do I play one on TV.)
Slashdot Mirror
That's why if I win the lottery, I'm clearly going to reinvest it all in more tickets.
Lucas was very lucky to have discovered Harrison Ford, pioneered CGI at the exact moment in history when incredible CGI couldn't replace a story (see: Avatar), and ripped off samurai movies at a time when that felt novel.
I loved the original trilogy. But you can see that even trying to improve the CGI ruins a unique gem,. Lightning just doesn't strike twice.
You dun messed up again.
The first, original trilogy was episodes 4-6.
If he had no other assets, Lucas is now the 91st richest man in America.
I'd sell out for that too.
Nope. 91 passanger-miles/gallon
passanger-miles meaning passangers*miles, if the compound unit was complicated.
CVS, no.
We go to Walgreen's, why?
What the Taliban was doing was far worse than even what Saudi Arabi is impotently trying to do.
They blew up multi-thousand year old religious artifacts/temples/giant statues whose presence offended them. That persisted even after other countries offered to pay for the privilege of airlifting them out. (Clearly they are valuable enough culturally to offer to move a 100m high statue 100's of miles.)
And, in what can only be seen as a desire to ease into something unimaginably horrible or a total lack of history, started forcing religious minorities to wear yellow badges.
There was a delay in the pipeline. Like, all factories shut down due to natural disaster (Tsunami). Therefore, Costco (due to buying in bulk) and a few others had a supply that had to be stretched. Instead of raising rates to match the new supply with demand, they imposed caps on how many each customer could buy. Many other companies did so as well (Newegg for instance).
Now that the supply line has been fixed, you can go buy a shitton of drives at Costco, as I believe this company was doing before.
Basically, this is like complaining that the local grocery store won't let you buy all the water you want after a hurricane (esp. if you plan on reselling it.) when they are keeping prices low as a humanitarian gesture.
There are no rules against that. The rules are against providing information that people will recognize but aliens won't, and that humans do not necessarily notice they are recognizing. Just like if you randomly put "+" in in the appropriate spot. I mean, your entire example takes advantage of the fact that most people won't recognize how arbitrary it is not use RPN.
Your "more steps" don't help. You're repeating the pattern
A O1 B O2 C, repeated however many times, with A,B, and C being appropriate integers, can never differentiate whether O1 and O2 are = and x respectively or / and = respectively.
Further, 3 is not 2 x 1.
Lastly, you're adding additional information via brackets around the operators.
Pretty much. And it kinda constrains what loaded weapons you can have. I mean, collecting is one thing, but loading means it is ready for use. If you have a loaded belt-fed .50 on a farm, eh. In a high-rise, it's tantamount to saying to your neighbors "just so you know, you could die at any moment if I pull this trigger for good or bad reasons"
Do you live in a city? In an apartment?
And I guess I should break down city into "slummy inner city", "high rise style", "suburb" and "technically a city, but really more akin to a town. Not a major metropolitan area that shows up on a map of my country".
That hardly seems like an exception. The extraditing country agrees not to enforce the death penalty. An exception would be if it was a "we won't*wink wink* execute him" statement.
Those are two very distinct ideas. Specialization is necessary for economic reasons. But I can see how changing careers would be motivating. (After X years, not constantly.)
Ah, the old "race to the bottom" argument. Laws could trivially be set up such that expatriating money cannot evade taxes. In fact, there are some laws, but the loopholes could be plugged.
It depends on what the government does with the money, how much spare investment capital there is, the desired saving rates of people, and numerous other factors.
I don't follow your distinction. But Government can definately grow the economy. See, Interstate Highway System.
The first and most important role of government is to be the final authority on stuff. Who owns what? What can you do? Who has the authority to use lethal force? etc.
Still there? I mean, are you really going to take your 70+% and go home?
And the government does assume some of the risk. See also, bank bailouts in 2008, social security in case you lose your retirement funds, etc. And other costs (SEC, etc.) required for you to invest your money.
There are risks (corporate bankrupcy) associated with W-2 work. Esp. if bonuses are invovled. But you seem to think we should tax people on based on risk. That seems fundamentally insane. Progressive tax systems work on income, not safety of investments.
But I forgot, that's why inflation indexed government bonds are taxed at 50-80% while lottery winnings are taxed at negative 82%
I understand your problem. But your solution is absolutely retarded. There are way better solutions than to lower the rates of people who do consistently make $1M a year.
Of course it's an option. And a viable one if you want to do it for yourself. But it's (as you well know) not a "get rich quick or for-sure" method. And it certainly is something that shouldn't be assumed a panacea. A lot of people aren't cut out for it.
Hell, the ability to save your money from a good month so you can eat in a later one is a rare enough ability.
Except, um, it's not. There's finite demand and finite time in a day. Owning a business often requires working far longer hours for the same pay. Yes, occasionally you can put forth extra effort to try to get another customer or something, but often that simply isn't a possibility.
Not particularly. The worst case scenario is that the current situation won't continue. Not that your equity will disappear, or that you'll be forced to choose between putting your personal assets up for collateral or the company going bust.
A company will pay you the money for the work you did. If that work wasn't valuable, they take the loss. If there was no market? If a competitor beats them to the punch? They assume those and a lot of other risks. The risks employees assume is that they will get fired... which doesn't really leave them in as shitty a place. (Getting fired sucks, but your business going under is that plus.)
Plus, most small businessees have to depend ona faceless corporation as customers anyway.... unless you sell handcrafted art on ebay or something.
Have you actually done it? 50% of all new businesses fail in the first year. Capital extensive businesses can generate large losses. Even just working by yourself can lead to a lot of personal debt (you didn't think anyone was going to loan your brand-new company money, did you?).
Depends on the city. My internet (major US city) goes out several times a month for hours due to poor weather. The power does not.
And yes, I did admit the usage matters. But I don't believe anyone on the planet would refer to offsite hosting as "in the cloud". That phrase seems reserved for moving desktop activities to a client/server relationship.
A lot of people who own small businesses work longer hours and still only make a middle-class existence. Plus, they assume the risk. Granted, they get to do what they love, but owning a business often leads to bankruptcy or scraping by.
I'd assume the question is, "does using cloud computing increase or decrease the effects of weather. And I would answer that it increases the effects. More components/connections, more points of failure. Given roof integrity, my UPSes and laptop batteries can keep me chugging through an actual storm. But my internet connection is more fragile than my power connectivity (modem needs power + connection).
Now, if I wasn't doing something on the computer, just running some multi-day calculation, then the Cloud would be safer. But that requires a totally arcane reading of the question.
Fair enough
Umm... what?
Look, I get the difference. But you would be hard pressed to convince me (from the dev side) that a very proven method if dirtributiona nd development and studio knowledge of working that way should get thrown away. I know it was a very DRMy move, but it also is qhat I would do to make things work well.
The issue is not that the face is covered in soot. The issue is (in the unedited versions you may have never seen) afterwards they start doing a really racist impression of a black person.
There's a big difference between watching a movie as an educational experience/to discuss culture, and watching a movie as entertainment. Bugs Bunny cartoons are edited because blackface shouldn't be considered entertaining anymore. Not that we should whitewash over it, and it would be interesting to show to people in a literature class, but that it shouldn't be broadcast as entertainment for children.
If for no other reason, most parents I know would not let their little children watch that. So WB keeps Bugs on the air, and cuts that part out. So kids can watch.
Every time? I mean, their UI may be slicker for web delivered apps, but other than that, they primarilly just go one step further. Better search, then a better targetted ad network, then an iPhone competitor (staying out of that fight), then GMail instead of hotmail, then Google+. Along the way they purchased what they could not outdo, like YouTube.
The only time they look remotely different is when they are offering complimentary goods to their primary business model at a loss/steep discount. And that frankly makes them just like every other company.
If I had to guess, it would be to avoid having to deal with takedown letters. I believe that they would have to instantly disconnect people, and let them fight to get back online. (IANAL, nor do I play one on TV.)