You know, I live in the midwest. In a union town. In an auto-manufacturing town. (But not Detroit).
I have family members who are able to live upper-middle-class lifestyles probably largely because of the UAW.
But I also see the flip side... Try this: Find a UAW organized auto plant. A bigger one, at least 750-1000 hourly workers.
Then look around at all the "Restaurant & Bar" type places that exist around these plants.
Then go in for lunch one day during the plant lunch hour.
Here's what you'll see:
1. Lots and Lots of drinking. Obvious, out in the open, "lets see how drunk we can get" drinking. Guys with breathalyzers, making bar-tab bets-- he with the lowest BAC at the end of the lunch hour has to pay the tab.
2. Go in the bathroom. Look regular. You'll definitely see drug use.
3. Watch them all stumble back to work and assemble the hunk of steel that you hurdle down the road at 80MPH.
Clearly, not every employee is a partier. And those that are, most aren't druggies.
But there are a lot. And their job is protected precicely BECAUSE of the union.
Most of us have had drinks during our lunch break on the job. But these guys are of a different breed.
And anymore, this is the function of the unions: Protecting the jobs of people who don't deserve it anyway.
SOMETIMES there is legit BS going on and a Union can really be a lifesaver for a guy with a family who is getting the shove for a rotten reason.
But on balance, I think it harms the American auto industry and its employees.
I'm a software developer. I worked on-contract on-site at a Honda plant for 6 months back in 04.
No unions there.
The workers are paid well. Great benefits. On site lunch facilities. No bullshitting. No drinking. No drugs. Everybody is on time (they're very serious about that)
And lo, Honda has been producing better quality cars than the "American 3" for how many years now?
There's sanity checks on the data-input screens that prevent you from entering NaN, a negative number, etc, and somewhere along the line somebody added a sanity check to make sure the persons new rate was >= to existing rate. Maybe to prevent a misplaced decimal or something.
And the "6 month solution" that they came up with was maybe to re-enter the employee data into a new record, with new rate, etc.
But really, if I was tasked with this, I'd want a programmer, too. It would be a lot easier to mod these salaries in batch than one-by-one.
I don't either of these require a team of COBOL wizzards as they're making it seem. Surely in the most populous state in the Union there is a single COBOL developer that has touched this payroll system before and can get into it.
I think you're a little too tough on our fairer-sex cohorts.
In my estimation, it's probably far more about the risk-taking, high stakes, self-confidence that is required to be successful at most things, but business in particular.
This is not really a newsflash: Women are attracted to men who act like, yes, men. A guy who doesn't need his hand held and who doesn't need constant stroking of their sensitive ego.
You don't have to be rich, gorgeous, or muscle-bound and tattooed. You just need to possess the same kind of self assurance that guys that DO have those things regularly display.
In geek speak: The default position here is you not going out and not getting laid. So anything you do has no downside. You act self-assured and self-confident and it turns out she's not receptive to it, worst case scenario you're back where you started, home, alone, with a bitchin macbook and BSG on your new 48" LCD.
And yes, I'm a software developer. A pretty good one, actually. And I totally think like this:
me = new Person('shane', 'male'); her = new Person('april', 'female');
me.desireQueue.push(her);
Clearly, if my brain works like this, and I can find compelling women to share an evening (or even a cup of coffee with) you can too.
I have figured out that you are a moron and therefore this is the last post I will make, or read, in this thread. I do not have time to banter with morons.
This is very simple. Imagine this equation:
X mod Y = 0
This is what you're talking about. It was evenly divisible, it was "integer" no matter how you say it, it's the same thing.
Now, listen carefully:
For ANY combination of X and Y above, for the equation to be true, no matter what, Y is ALWAYS a factor of X.
In your case, it's
IndexSize mod MagicNumber = 0.
Your MagicNumber is a FACTOR of IndexSize.
You seem to think that's unusual. It's NOT. There are HUNDREDS of factors of IndexSize.
It's not as if you ran across the ONE factor of IndexSize. There are HUNDREDS. Perhaps THOUSANDS.
For EACH of those factors, the modulo would be 0.
Your MagicNumber could've been, as I said, "3."
IndexSize mod 3 = 0.
It could've been 48.
IndexSize mod 48 = 0
It could've been HUNDREDS of other numbers, it would be evenly divisible.
This is a single data point. It proves nothing CLOSE to what you think it does.
Nothing.
Also, I don't think "order of magnitude" means what you think it does.
how likely is it that the huge number they claim that I look up next is a multiple of that 2,784 number? 1 out of 2,784.
Look, I don't know you. And I don't really even think cuil is that good of a search engine. Maybe it has promise, time will tell.
But this is NOT a matter of "point of view." Probability is deterministic. It's not a matter of opinion or pov. It's arithmetic.
And this is why I said if your "magic number" was prime, THAT would be a little more interesting. Because if it were, then you'd be correct: The probability would be pretty low.
But 2784 has 24 factors.
So, what is the probability that any given number is a factor of 121,617,892,992? I don't know off the top of my head. But there are hundreds of them.
You are assigning meaning to something that is meaningless.
I just think it's the biggest joke of a hypothesis I've seen on Slashdot all week. And that's saying something.
What you're missing is that 2784 isn't prime. In fact, it's not even CLOSE to prime. It's divisible by THREE for chrissakes.
So take your original numerator: 121,617,892,992
You divide by your "magic number" and it's an integer. So you jump to the genius conclusion that they're inflating their index by your "magic number" of 2784.
What happens when we divide 121,617,892,992 by 3?
It's an integer.
By 6?
Integer.
12?
Integer.
24?
Integer.
48?
Integer
96?
Yep. Integer.
I could go on. And on.
If your magic divisor was a prime number, then that would be SOMEWHAT more interesting.
You really have no clue what you're talking about. Just be honest. You did one query, on the DAY this thing went public, and you're trying to pass off this idea that YOU'RE the true authority on their index size.
You have a client that says "Buy $1MM worth of XXXX"
You reply "Their share price is $100, you now own 10,000 shares. Congrats"
(But you personally think the stock will fall, so you don't actually buy anything. You take the $1MM, put it in the brokerage account, and wait)
If the stock price DOES fall, you try to ride it as low as you think it'll go. Then you buy 10,000 shares. Say the price is only $75 per share, you just made a quarter million bucks.
If the stock doesn't fall, well, that's the risk of this particular technique. You tell your boss, and if you're good at your job and make the company money, no biggie you're allowed to be wrong sometimes.
1. So a Microsoft tech's time isn't as important as an Apple tech's time?
The criticism of this idea is that they'll be preventing REAL PEOPLE who need help from getting it from the Apple Geniuses. How is it better that Microsoft customers can't reach their support?
2. How does accusations of monopoly effect whether or not this is a good idea?
3. Apple didn't open source the core of OSX. It already was open-sourced. OSX uses the BSD core. Apple had to release its fork. This is the license NeXT agreed to when they based their OS on BSD.
4. Apple is hardly the anti-DRM champion. Every file they sold between the times iTunes opened and early this year is infected with DRM. Millions of songs and videos. Even now, only a fraction of their library is available in unencumbered format.
5. Apple sues a lot more than companies. Like, bloggers who post "secrets." And by "bloggers," what I really mean is regular, everyday guys.
This "apple is above deh law" thing is just a little over the top
And even if they DID move, the definition you gave would apply to EVERY kind of non-digital projector, and EVERY digital telescope.
Do you not understand that a patent is a narrow protection?
Honestly, I'm sure you get some sort of satisfaction from trolling an obviously inane opinion around, but I'm just not sure what that satisifcation is.
And THIS is the symptom of an uber-asshole: he would rather spend his time blathering his pissy opinions and trying to belittle somebody than put his talents, however limited they may be, to good use.
THIS writer has gotten to the point where "being an asshole" stinks every bit as much as you'd expect it to.
You're missing the point: Every manufacturer measures contrast ratio differently.
There is no universal standard for measuring contrast like there is for measuring resolution or refresh rate.
And actually, what you're describing -- How black are the blacks -- is referred to as "black level" (which is a term you use in your post)
Technically, contrast ratio is the ratio between the darkest darks and brightest brights. A low contrast ratio could indicate either that the blacks aren't very black, or the lights aren't very light. Poor contrast ratio doesn't necessarily correlate to poor black levels.
Of course, right now, contrast ratio doesn't necessarily correlate to anything. Because, as I said, every manufacturer is measuring it differently. It's misleading for that reason.
Contrast Ratio is probably the most misleading "specification" in the LCD universe.
You go to shop for an LCD TV, and the major retailers put a few things on the tag: Size, Resolution, Refresh Rate, and Contrast Ratio.
3 of these are measured in universally accepted ways. One is not. Can you guess which one?
EVERY manufacturer measures contrast ratio differently. That's why you'll see, say, a Samsung LCD boasting its 20:000:1 contrast ratio, with, say, a Sharp right beside it at 800:1.
Yet, the actual screens for those two TVs were both produced by the same 3rd party company in the same factory in China.
It's fictional. Meaningless. We might as well all make up things: Me, well, I bought the LCD TV that had the best kilajoules per ramapixel. Everybody knows that if you don't have at least 400 kilajoules, the display is useless.
Slashdot Mirror
You know, I live in the midwest. In a union town. In an auto-manufacturing town. (But not Detroit).
I have family members who are able to live upper-middle-class lifestyles probably largely because of the UAW.
But I also see the flip side... Try this: Find a UAW organized auto plant. A bigger one, at least 750-1000 hourly workers.
Then look around at all the "Restaurant & Bar" type places that exist around these plants.
Then go in for lunch one day during the plant lunch hour.
Here's what you'll see:
1. Lots and Lots of drinking. Obvious, out in the open, "lets see how drunk we can get" drinking. Guys with breathalyzers, making bar-tab bets-- he with the lowest BAC at the end of the lunch hour has to pay the tab.
2. Go in the bathroom. Look regular. You'll definitely see drug use.
3. Watch them all stumble back to work and assemble the hunk of steel that you hurdle down the road at 80MPH.
Clearly, not every employee is a partier. And those that are, most aren't druggies.
But there are a lot. And their job is protected precicely BECAUSE of the union.
Most of us have had drinks during our lunch break on the job. But these guys are of a different breed.
And anymore, this is the function of the unions: Protecting the jobs of people who don't deserve it anyway.
SOMETIMES there is legit BS going on and a Union can really be a lifesaver for a guy with a family who is getting the shove for a rotten reason.
But on balance, I think it harms the American auto industry and its employees.
I'm a software developer. I worked on-contract on-site at a Honda plant for 6 months back in 04.
No unions there.
The workers are paid well. Great benefits. On site lunch facilities. No bullshitting. No drinking. No drugs. Everybody is on time (they're very serious about that)
And lo, Honda has been producing better quality cars than the "American 3" for how many years now?
Exactly.
True. Genies don't have tails as far as I know.
My honest guess?
There's sanity checks on the data-input screens that prevent you from entering NaN, a negative number, etc, and somewhere along the line somebody added a sanity check to make sure the persons new rate was >= to existing rate. Maybe to prevent a misplaced decimal or something.
And the "6 month solution" that they came up with was maybe to re-enter the employee data into a new record, with new rate, etc.
But really, if I was tasked with this, I'd want a programmer, too. It would be a lot easier to mod these salaries in batch than one-by-one.
I don't either of these require a team of COBOL wizzards as they're making it seem. Surely in the most populous state in the Union there is a single COBOL developer that has touched this payroll system before and can get into it.
I think you're a little too tough on our fairer-sex cohorts.
In my estimation, it's probably far more about the risk-taking, high stakes, self-confidence that is required to be successful at most things, but business in particular.
This is not really a newsflash: Women are attracted to men who act like, yes, men. A guy who doesn't need his hand held and who doesn't need constant stroking of their sensitive ego.
You don't have to be rich, gorgeous, or muscle-bound and tattooed. You just need to possess the same kind of self assurance that guys that DO have those things regularly display.
In geek speak: The default position here is you not going out and not getting laid. So anything you do has no downside. You act self-assured and self-confident and it turns out she's not receptive to it, worst case scenario you're back where you started, home, alone, with a bitchin macbook and BSG on your new 48" LCD.
And yes, I'm a software developer. A pretty good one, actually. And I totally think like this:
me = new Person('shane', 'male');
her = new Person('april', 'female');
me.desireQueue.push(her);
Clearly, if my brain works like this, and I can find compelling women to share an evening (or even a cup of coffee with) you can too.
The secret will be to equip each PC with an infectious-disease version of Smell-o-vision.
When it says "You've died of dysentery" well, you had better get your affairs in order.
I have figured out that you are a moron and therefore this is the last post I will make, or read, in this thread. I do not have time to banter with morons.
This is very simple. Imagine this equation:
X mod Y = 0
This is what you're talking about. It was evenly divisible, it was "integer" no matter how you say it, it's the same thing.
Now, listen carefully:
For ANY combination of X and Y above, for the equation to be true, no matter what, Y is ALWAYS a factor of X.
In your case, it's
IndexSize mod MagicNumber = 0.
Your MagicNumber is a FACTOR of IndexSize.
You seem to think that's unusual. It's NOT. There are HUNDREDS of factors of IndexSize.
It's not as if you ran across the ONE factor of IndexSize. There are HUNDREDS. Perhaps THOUSANDS.
For EACH of those factors, the modulo would be 0.
Your MagicNumber could've been, as I said, "3."
IndexSize mod 3 = 0.
It could've been 48.
IndexSize mod 48 = 0
It could've been HUNDREDS of other numbers, it would be evenly divisible.
This is a single data point. It proves nothing CLOSE to what you think it does.
Nothing.
Also, I don't think "order of magnitude" means what you think it does.
(Alltel, also. Just FYI)
Look, I don't know you. And I don't really even think cuil is that good of a search engine. Maybe it has promise, time will tell.
But this is NOT a matter of "point of view." Probability is deterministic. It's not a matter of opinion or pov. It's arithmetic.
And this is why I said if your "magic number" was prime, THAT would be a little more interesting. Because if it were, then you'd be correct: The probability would be pretty low.
But 2784 has 24 factors.
So, what is the probability that any given number is a factor of 121,617,892,992? I don't know off the top of my head. But there are hundreds of them.
You are assigning meaning to something that is meaningless.
Anonymous?
Whatever you say, 121.43.201.19.
No, I got it.
I just think it's the biggest joke of a hypothesis I've seen on Slashdot all week. And that's saying something.
What you're missing is that 2784 isn't prime. In fact, it's not even CLOSE to prime. It's divisible by THREE for chrissakes.
So take your original numerator: 121,617,892,992
You divide by your "magic number" and it's an integer. So you jump to the genius conclusion that they're inflating their index by your "magic number" of 2784.
What happens when we divide 121,617,892,992 by 3?
It's an integer.
By 6?
Integer.
12?
Integer.
24?
Integer.
48?
Integer
96?
Yep. Integer.
I could go on. And on.
If your magic divisor was a prime number, then that would be SOMEWHAT more interesting.
As it is? zzzzz
You're a moron.
And I'm willing to take a karma hit to say so.
One data point does not a trend make.
You really have no clue what you're talking about. Just be honest. You did one query, on the DAY this thing went public, and you're trying to pass off this idea that YOU'RE the true authority on their index size.
Yes, you're definitely a moron.
Often it doesn't involve borrowing anything.
You're a broker at a big brokerage.
You have a client that says "Buy $1MM worth of XXXX"
You reply "Their share price is $100, you now own 10,000 shares. Congrats"
(But you personally think the stock will fall, so you don't actually buy anything. You take the $1MM, put it in the brokerage account, and wait)
If the stock price DOES fall, you try to ride it as low as you think it'll go. Then you buy 10,000 shares. Say the price is only $75 per share, you just made a quarter million bucks.
If the stock doesn't fall, well, that's the risk of this particular technique. You tell your boss, and if you're good at your job and make the company money, no biggie you're allowed to be wrong sometimes.
But if you're not...?
No, it's doing this:
((Name of Applicant) + (X || Y || Z || etc))
So it will only return a story with the word "sex" in it if it also has the name of the candidate.
...?
well?
WHAT word?
Don't leave me hanging like this!
1. So a Microsoft tech's time isn't as important as an Apple tech's time?
The criticism of this idea is that they'll be preventing REAL PEOPLE who need help from getting it from the Apple Geniuses. How is it better that Microsoft customers can't reach their support?
2. How does accusations of monopoly effect whether or not this is a good idea?
3. Apple didn't open source the core of OSX. It already was open-sourced. OSX uses the BSD core. Apple had to release its fork. This is the license NeXT agreed to when they based their OS on BSD.
4. Apple is hardly the anti-DRM champion. Every file they sold between the times iTunes opened and early this year is infected with DRM. Millions of songs and videos. Even now, only a fraction of their library is available in unencumbered format.
5. Apple sues a lot more than companies. Like, bloggers who post "secrets." And by "bloggers," what I really mean is regular, everyday guys.
This "apple is above deh law" thing is just a little over the top
Actually, the mirrors don't move.
But nice try.
And even if they DID move, the definition you gave would apply to EVERY kind of non-digital projector, and EVERY digital telescope.
Do you not understand that a patent is a narrow protection?
Honestly, I'm sure you get some sort of satisfaction from trolling an obviously inane opinion around, but I'm just not sure what that satisifcation is.
If you're an organization designed to affect change and shake-up the status quo, and nobody hates you, you're not doing your job.
I don't know.. I remember when they organized a "DOS Attack" by flooding Microsofts customer service lines to register complaints with their CSR's.
That seemed to get the proverbial nod of approval from many in this community.
Gee, that's a nice straw-man, but it doesn't make your original claim any more true.
Did you even READ TFA? If you did, go read the wiki on DLP.
Literally, the only similarity is that they both use mirrors for the purpose mirrors were invented: To reflect light.
And THIS is the symptom of an uber-asshole: he would rather spend his time blathering his pissy opinions and trying to belittle somebody than put his talents, however limited they may be, to good use.
THIS writer has gotten to the point where "being an asshole" stinks every bit as much as you'd expect it to.
You're missing the point:
Every manufacturer measures contrast ratio differently.
There is no universal standard for measuring contrast like there is for measuring resolution or refresh rate.
And actually, what you're describing -- How black are the blacks -- is referred to as "black level" (which is a term you use in your post)
Technically, contrast ratio is the ratio between the darkest darks and brightest brights. A low contrast ratio could indicate either that the blacks aren't very black, or the lights aren't very light. Poor contrast ratio doesn't necessarily correlate to poor black levels.
Of course, right now, contrast ratio doesn't necessarily correlate to anything. Because, as I said, every manufacturer is measuring it differently. It's misleading for that reason.
It's like DLP in the sense that it uses mirrors to reflect light.
If that's your definition of "similar" then TI ought to ramp-up their legal team because they've got a lot of patent enforcement work ahead of them.
The real difference is that DLP is a digital technology. This is, effectively, analog.
I like how you asked a question, then used your presumed answer as the premise for a critique.
All the while, not knowing a damn thing about the actual truth of the matter.
But maybe you missed these 2 words in the summary: "essentially mimics."
All I'm saying is, why pass off some half-baked premise as truth when you really have absolutely no clue?
Contrast Ratio is probably the most misleading "specification" in the LCD universe.
You go to shop for an LCD TV, and the major retailers put a few things on the tag: Size, Resolution, Refresh Rate, and Contrast Ratio.
3 of these are measured in universally accepted ways. One is not. Can you guess which one?
EVERY manufacturer measures contrast ratio differently. That's why you'll see, say, a Samsung LCD boasting its 20:000:1 contrast ratio, with, say, a Sharp right beside it at 800:1.
Yet, the actual screens for those two TVs were both produced by the same 3rd party company in the same factory in China.
It's fictional. Meaningless. We might as well all make up things: Me, well, I bought the LCD TV that had the best kilajoules per ramapixel. Everybody knows that if you don't have at least 400 kilajoules, the display is useless.
I remember that community. I think it was called "Narcotics Anonymous"