But all hell breaks loose when I've waited for 20 minutes (after 2-3 waves of Oregonians are serviced ahead of me) and touch that gas pump.
Well, I can check myself out at Target more efficently than the Target cashier. I can check myself into a plane more efficently than the airline attendent (at least the one time I was able to clearly observe what they were doing.) But they don't let me. I would guess it has more to do with preventing people from filling up and driving off than anything else.
Assuming you are bitching about cost, New Jersey, with the same system, has some of the cheapest gasoline in the nation.
Where are the lawsuits against sony, panasonic, sharp, RCA, etc. "high speed dubbing" is used for what legitimate means again?
Sony was sued in the 80's. Recording copyrighted broadcasts for private one-time replay within a reasonable (forgot definition) period of time was considered fair-use. So, that same use would be useful for high speed dubbing, I presume.
you can't be raiding home depot because they happen to be stocking fertilizer and fuel oil.
If fertilizer and fuel oil purchased from Home Depot were converted into a weapon with the same frequency that Pirate Bay torrent trackers turned into copyright infringement, they would.
Besides, fertilizer and fuel oil have other uses. A tracker for IndyIV.avi does not.
. However, there is no market for withheld or obfuscated source code in such a culture
You realize that the rest of your post explains why such a market would exist? Why would anyone distribute binaries with the source? Hell, why would anyone distribute binaries at all. Remotely connect to my machine, and I'll let you run the program. But don't ever expect access to the source or binary. Just the end product. And I'll probably retain/redistribute a copy. Imagine if you had to connect to a Microsoft computer to compile code for DOS, back in the day. And there was no copyright law. Microsoft would, amazingly, keep producing revolutionary products in concurrence with other people.
Apple is quite literally ripping the arms off those who aren't able to upgrade hardware themselves.
"Rip off" is a transitive verbal phrase. It is not the verb "rip" followed by a noun that is being removed, followed by off. Instead, the two words "rip" and "off" combine to form a new meaning. Hence, the author of the summary was correct, Apple literally was ripping off customers.
My grammar nazi training course offers very reasonable rates.
The use of "literally", while technically true, is cliched and serves no purpose. It should have been cut for asthetic reasons. "Literally" should be resevered for when there is ever reason to believe that the default interpertation would be non-literal:
The Petco blimp tried to fly through the thunderstorm. Imagine the surprise of the people below when, in the middle of a downpour, it literally began raining cats and dogs.
Interesting. I'm not sure how it works under the hood. And during collisons (for instance, a ball could easily be touching the rim in two places and the backboard in one) there are multiple forces that need to be solved in an interdependent fashion. Could Lagrangian mechanics be used then? I suppose.
PhysX also has a special vehicle wheel with suspension class of object. The fact that it seems not to be made up of other components implies that it has a different solve method. Given the difficulty of damping springs, that's one major reason for a specialty component. Maybe they use LaGrangian mechanics there? A lot of interacting forces there.
The PhysX system doesn't really care about heat or energy. It primarily concerns itself with force and momentum. That, as I understand it, is the principle difference between Newtonian and LaGrangian mechanics.
AMD/ATI vs. Intel/Havok vs. nVidia/PhysX. At least, Intel licensed code from Havok. Intel wants physics on the CPU, nVidia on the GPU, and AMD/ATI just wants to be able to use both.
The interface is a freely available SDK (for some uses). The physics is basically Newtonian mechanics (more in a moment). Physics for games are, first and foremost, an exercise in collision detection. The physics is simple. Determining collisions in a series of finite-length steps is the hard part.
Why I say that the physics is basically Newtonian mechanics, there is spring technology, although all spring technology in finite step simulations has errors (if you are not carefully, the springs increase in oscillation over time, instead of damping.) Chemical dynamics and quantum force fields are out. Classical force fields are included. The force fields operate based on propogation (distance, distance-squared, etc.) and other parameters.
The fluid/solid interaction is still being worked on, and fluids and cloth benefit most from hardware acceleration. Fluids use a number of points with mutual attraction/repulsion properties.
No sound properties.
Rope is emulated as a series of sticks with ball joints at the end, a flag as a series of springs with forces at points (cloth simulation is esentially a thing of springs), and the ball and spring, yes.
You left out an important question, which is the rigidity of objects other than cloth/fluids. The ball that deforms as it bounces. Currently, that's in the SDK, but I've not played with it yet.
Are you more likely to be upwardly mobile if you live in, say, France as compared to the US?
Apparently, yes. To become president of France, you could be the son of an immigrent whose father cut off all financial support. To become president of the US, you should be the grandson of a senator who got rich by violating embargos, the son of a president, and the alumnus of several of the top universities (see the family connections that got him in), etc.
Why should someone be rewarded for their "choice" of parents?
Why should someone be rewarded for their "choice" of being intelligent or athletic (note, I'm really asking). People should get paid enough extra so that they use their gifts to the fullest, and no more.
It's not that big companies get to make the laws... It's that governments need to realize that their decisions have consequences.
Unfortunately, there are more local governements then there are big companies. If only the various states could form some sort of union to equalize things across all 50 of them. Oh well.
Do efficient economies charge prices based on the benefits their good provide, or rather based on the costs of the production of the goods?
Well, theory of communism is to charge based on the costs of production. The theory of capitalism is to charge based on the benefits the goods provide. Most people live in capitalistic countries.
If a product is cheap to manufacture, it will be cheap to purchase even if it creates a huge benefit for its owners.
If it is cheap to manufacture, and eitehr a) the vast majority of people gain a small benefit, and it is impossible to distinguish between customers who benefit a lot and those who benefit a little; or b) the fixed costs of production(counting regulatory, skill, capital costs, etc) as well as the marginal costs of production are sufficently low, and the entrenched players "play fair". Fixed that for you.
Big, non-software business is always about the last to adopt any technology.
Well, why update away from what works? You don't have to care about prettiness. You can lock down the machines so that IE6 isn't a huge security hole. Newer does not always equal better. Plus old software can run on old hardware.
Why should someone who works harder, innovates, starts their own business, or pursues a higher-wage career be penalized? It is not 'unfair' that some people have higher salaries than others.
It's a strawman (and not a clever or subtle one) to claim that advocating a progressive tax means that one thinks different salary levels are "unfair".
One can advocate a progressive tax based on the Rawlsian argument, namely, why should someone who is naturally smarter or stronger benefit over someone who, through no fault of their own, was born crippled. These arguments beg for a tax on natural gifts. Unfortunately, income tax is the best stand-in.
Alternatively, one can use two economics arguemnts. The first is that the rich consume more goods then the poor. They have more possessions that require protecting, make more use of air traffic controllers, recieve higher unemployment beenfits, etc. etc.
The second is that law and order are worth more to the rich. Someone $300,000 dollars in debt, about to lose their house, car and all worldly possesions, might value a continuing rule of law at a very low, or even negative rate. They have little to lose, and can probably gain if they are limited to whatever they can hold in their hand. The rich on the otherhand have vacation homes, yahcts, etc. They have a lot more to lose.
Progressive taxes also result in higher salaries for those at the bottom, as the allure of the future raise is lessened, making it cheaper to give people at the bottom each a smaller raise. That, combined with the lower tax burden, increase the freedom to attempt to become an entrepuner. Progressive taxes increase the number of people who will attempt it, while only hurting those who succeed.
There's a practical argument. If you insist that everyone pay the same amount, people would quickly become bankrupt with their 1/300,000,000th of the national budget. The rich have to pay more taxes because, well, the top 1% owns 98% of the country.
There is also a question of original aquisition. The original obtainment of any good is never fair. The first farmer gets the best land. The strongest evil warlord stole the diamond mine. The money that you get paid with was never entirely yours, because the person who paid you never entirely owned it, etc. etc. back to when it was originally aquired. Hence, redistribution attempts to correct that in an ongoing fashion.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I seem to remember reading about a similar situation about 230 or so years ago that was fairly successful.
I'm patriotic, but come on. For one thing, the colonies had British military equipment ( Lexington and Concord was when the British were trying to reclaim cannons/guns they had given to the settlers for the French and Indian war). Secondly, Washington was only able to hang on because he crossed to Deleware and led a surprise attack on Christmas Eve. This action violated the rules of war at the time, and hence the Hessians were undefended. Of course, that trick only works one. Third, as a result of his victory at Trenton, Washington was able to convince France to help. That made a difference, what with their navy, and weapons, and thousands of soldiers.
But not everyone who is enlightened wants to impose their values on the world... I used enlightened to mean "free from ignorance"...
Yes, everyone who uses enlightened uses it to mean "free from ignorance". In fact, the two camps are commonly set up as dipoles. But "ignorance" is used to mean "disagreement with me". You haven't explained why you/your position is "enlightened" or others/others' position are/is "ignorant". You just assert it.
Almost every time enlightened is used, it is used in this manner. Like-minded people will agree with the sentiment, and people who disagree are ignorant and can be ignored. It's just othering without supplying information and argument. Hence, I object to its usage. Similar, in concept, to the way that many people object to Flash. It has its uses, but 99% of the time, it's an impediment to doing what I want. Hence, I object unless a reason not to is shown to me.
There is a difference between "prefers not to" that you're referring to, and "not being able", which I'm referring to
What is the difference? Other than the degree to which people object to it? If you are using physical violence as your sole criterion, then I would say you are quite mistaken. The vast majority of people who discover cheating/having multiple partners do not resort to violence. Look at the divorce rate where infidelity is cited over the murders caused by infidelity.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, I can check myself out at Target more efficently than the Target cashier. I can check myself into a plane more efficently than the airline attendent (at least the one time I was able to clearly observe what they were doing.) But they don't let me. I would guess it has more to do with preventing people from filling up and driving off than anything else.
Assuming you are bitching about cost, New Jersey, with the same system, has some of the cheapest gasoline in the nation.
Err... my point was, with copyright, embrace/extend/extinguish works. Without copyright, scary.
Sony was sued in the 80's. Recording copyrighted broadcasts for private one-time replay within a reasonable (forgot definition) period of time was considered fair-use. So, that same use would be useful for high speed dubbing, I presume.
If fertilizer and fuel oil purchased from Home Depot were converted into a weapon with the same frequency that Pirate Bay torrent trackers turned into copyright infringement, they would.
Besides, fertilizer and fuel oil have other uses. A tracker for IndyIV.avi does not.
You realize that the rest of your post explains why such a market would exist? Why would anyone distribute binaries with the source? Hell, why would anyone distribute binaries at all. Remotely connect to my machine, and I'll let you run the program. But don't ever expect access to the source or binary. Just the end product. And I'll probably retain/redistribute a copy. Imagine if you had to connect to a Microsoft computer to compile code for DOS, back in the day. And there was no copyright law. Microsoft would, amazingly, keep producing revolutionary products in concurrence with other people.
It's harder to trace the origin of one of 10 packets than one of 10,000?
"Rip off" is a transitive verbal phrase. It is not the verb "rip" followed by a noun that is being removed, followed by off. Instead, the two words "rip" and "off" combine to form a new meaning. Hence, the author of the summary was correct, Apple literally was ripping off customers.
My grammar nazi training course offers very reasonable rates.
The use of "literally", while technically true, is cliched and serves no purpose. It should have been cut for asthetic reasons. "Literally" should be resevered for when there is ever reason to believe that the default interpertation would be non-literal:
Depends on the state, or maybe within a state. I know that the local schools here don't, and when I was in school they didn't.
You have to pay money to take the test, not to take the class.
Meh, I still remember my AP classes.
Interesting. I'm not sure how it works under the hood. And during collisons (for instance, a ball could easily be touching the rim in two places and the backboard in one) there are multiple forces that need to be solved in an interdependent fashion. Could Lagrangian mechanics be used then? I suppose.
PhysX also has a special vehicle wheel with suspension class of object. The fact that it seems not to be made up of other components implies that it has a different solve method. Given the difficulty of damping springs, that's one major reason for a specialty component. Maybe they use LaGrangian mechanics there? A lot of interacting forces there.
123 Fake Street
Springfield, Oh-hiya-Maude 90210
The PhysX system doesn't really care about heat or energy. It primarily concerns itself with force and momentum. That, as I understand it, is the principle difference between Newtonian and LaGrangian mechanics.
Close, but off...
AMD/ATI vs. Intel/Havok vs. nVidia/PhysX. At least, Intel licensed code from Havok. Intel wants physics on the CPU, nVidia on the GPU, and AMD/ATI just wants to be able to use both.
The interface is a freely available SDK (for some uses). The physics is basically Newtonian mechanics (more in a moment). Physics for games are, first and foremost, an exercise in collision detection. The physics is simple. Determining collisions in a series of finite-length steps is the hard part.
Why I say that the physics is basically Newtonian mechanics, there is spring technology, although all spring technology in finite step simulations has errors (if you are not carefully, the springs increase in oscillation over time, instead of damping.) Chemical dynamics and quantum force fields are out. Classical force fields are included. The force fields operate based on propogation (distance, distance-squared, etc.) and other parameters.
The fluid/solid interaction is still being worked on, and fluids and cloth benefit most from hardware acceleration. Fluids use a number of points with mutual attraction/repulsion properties.
No sound properties.
Rope is emulated as a series of sticks with ball joints at the end, a flag as a series of springs with forces at points (cloth simulation is esentially a thing of springs), and the ball and spring, yes.
You left out an important question, which is the rigidity of objects other than cloth/fluids. The ball that deforms as it bounces. Currently, that's in the SDK, but I've not played with it yet.
Recent events prove wikipedia incorrect.
Or, go back and major in maths. You get all the jokes!
It depends. 0 right now, because you thought of the question, and then choose a sufficent outlier to make the number unlikely to be reached.
Apparently, yes. To become president of France, you could be the son of an immigrent whose father cut off all financial support. To become president of the US, you should be the grandson of a senator who got rich by violating embargos, the son of a president, and the alumnus of several of the top universities (see the family connections that got him in), etc.
Why should someone be rewarded for their "choice" of being intelligent or athletic (note, I'm really asking). People should get paid enough extra so that they use their gifts to the fullest, and no more.
Unfortunately, there are more local governements then there are big companies. If only the various states could form some sort of union to equalize things across all 50 of them. Oh well.
Well, theory of communism is to charge based on the costs of production. The theory of capitalism is to charge based on the benefits the goods provide. Most people live in capitalistic countries.
If it is cheap to manufacture, and eitehr a) the vast majority of people gain a small benefit, and it is impossible to distinguish between customers who benefit a lot and those who benefit a little; or b) the fixed costs of production(counting regulatory, skill, capital costs, etc) as well as the marginal costs of production are sufficently low, and the entrenched players "play fair". Fixed that for you.
Well, why update away from what works? You don't have to care about prettiness. You can lock down the machines so that IE6 isn't a huge security hole. Newer does not always equal better. Plus old software can run on old hardware.
It's a strawman (and not a clever or subtle one) to claim that advocating a progressive tax means that one thinks different salary levels are "unfair".
One can advocate a progressive tax based on the Rawlsian argument, namely, why should someone who is naturally smarter or stronger benefit over someone who, through no fault of their own, was born crippled. These arguments beg for a tax on natural gifts. Unfortunately, income tax is the best stand-in.
Alternatively, one can use two economics arguemnts. The first is that the rich consume more goods then the poor. They have more possessions that require protecting, make more use of air traffic controllers, recieve higher unemployment beenfits, etc. etc.
The second is that law and order are worth more to the rich. Someone $300,000 dollars in debt, about to lose their house, car and all worldly possesions, might value a continuing rule of law at a very low, or even negative rate. They have little to lose, and can probably gain if they are limited to whatever they can hold in their hand. The rich on the otherhand have vacation homes, yahcts, etc. They have a lot more to lose.
Progressive taxes also result in higher salaries for those at the bottom, as the allure of the future raise is lessened, making it cheaper to give people at the bottom each a smaller raise. That, combined with the lower tax burden, increase the freedom to attempt to become an entrepuner. Progressive taxes increase the number of people who will attempt it, while only hurting those who succeed.
There's a practical argument. If you insist that everyone pay the same amount, people would quickly become bankrupt with their 1/300,000,000th of the national budget. The rich have to pay more taxes because, well, the top 1% owns 98% of the country.
There is also a question of original aquisition. The original obtainment of any good is never fair. The first farmer gets the best land. The strongest evil warlord stole the diamond mine. The money that you get paid with was never entirely yours, because the person who paid you never entirely owned it, etc. etc. back to when it was originally aquired. Hence, redistribution attempts to correct that in an ongoing fashion.
I'm patriotic, but come on. For one thing, the colonies had British military equipment ( Lexington and Concord was when the British were trying to reclaim cannons/guns they had given to the settlers for the French and Indian war). Secondly, Washington was only able to hang on because he crossed to Deleware and led a surprise attack on Christmas Eve. This action violated the rules of war at the time, and hence the Hessians were undefended. Of course, that trick only works one. Third, as a result of his victory at Trenton, Washington was able to convince France to help. That made a difference, what with their navy, and weapons, and thousands of soldiers.
Far from a citizen uprising.
Yes, everyone who uses enlightened uses it to mean "free from ignorance". In fact, the two camps are commonly set up as dipoles. But "ignorance" is used to mean "disagreement with me". You haven't explained why you/your position is "enlightened" or others/others' position are/is "ignorant". You just assert it.
Almost every time enlightened is used, it is used in this manner. Like-minded people will agree with the sentiment, and people who disagree are ignorant and can be ignored. It's just othering without supplying information and argument. Hence, I object to its usage. Similar, in concept, to the way that many people object to Flash. It has its uses, but 99% of the time, it's an impediment to doing what I want. Hence, I object unless a reason not to is shown to me.
What is the difference? Other than the degree to which people object to it? If you are using physical violence as your sole criterion, then I would say you are quite mistaken. The vast majority of people who discover cheating/having multiple partners do not resort to violence. Look at the divorce rate where infidelity is cited over the murders caused by infidelity.
My laptop's harddrive only has a 4200 rpm blender. Do I need to upgrade?