If you don't create a mechanism to keep Google out (e.g. robots.txt) then - by your own admission - you have opted to allow Googlebot to read what you publish to the world.
Allowing Google to do something does not mean asking Google to do it. Allowing does not involve "service".
Tough to say anything clearly when you are more interested in sarcasm, isn't it? To say nothing of the fact that you have not given a single reason why it is "fucking moronic" [sic].
He specifically points to capital gains being the reason why his tax rate is low. Congressmen could be stupid, but not this stupid. In essence he is asking for a way to figure out capital gains which are actually income and tax them accordingly.
Property rights are a construct we invented to improve civilization.
We? I am not sure property right inventors would have had such poor reading comprehension like you, but whatever.
If they are no longer serving that purpose the can and should be adjusted and/or eliminated.
And you were accusing me of advocating Anarchy.
Ok, so I STILL don't get this. You don't believe Meg Whitman has earned the money that she has been granted
Never said so. Fourth instance of putting words into my mouth. Also, you don't believe the Britney Spears is the best thing ever, but are still her fan? What the hell?
if I take your things I have them without EARNING them
Exactly what you propose to do with Meg, taking her things without earning them.
consensus on slashdot was Meg was an incompetent boob that doesn't deserve the huge amount of wealth she commands
Ha ha. If there was one redeeming quality of Slashdot, it was the ability of Slashdotters to realize that we are far from being a majority - a fringe group, a cult of sorts. You demonstrate that not all Slashdotters are gifted with this insight.
Couple that with your premature conclusion of consensus on slashdot without any formal poll or formal definitions of the vague words in the hypothesis, and we have a doubly reinforced delusion.
Can you answer, yes or no, do you believe Meg deserves the wealth she has because she earned it?
Doesn't matter, you have alternately put both opinions into my mouth. I have said neither, opine neither, and my point is orthogonal to this point. Discussing it would require defining "deserve", which is complicated to put it lightly. And especially your sense of entitlement just after creating some stupid accounting software rivals that of the CxOs of too-big-to-fail companies.
One with property rights. Where reading comprehension impaired people like yourself (or anybody else) don't get to decide what the other person gets.
THAT IS WHAT GIVES ME THE RIGHT.
So, not quite. That is "NO" for reading comprehension impaired people like you.
please enjoy your decent into Anarchy. Put another way, please provide me with your full name and address so that I may..
No, that is the world you are arguing for - where random people get to decide who gets what. It's your decent into $SocialHierarchyOfChoice, not mine.
since you believe Meg's contribution to society is worth
Not only do I not believe this, I never wrote anything to such an effect, but keeping in mind your weakness in reading comprehension, I even quoted it explicitly, thus:
First assuming I am arguing for Meg's contribution, then assuming I am arguing against it. Just FYI, both false
Oh, and you started trolling right around the time you started using badly formatted HTML and Britney Spears references...
Oh, and you started trolling when you put words in my mouth. I just did that to see how you react when words are put into your mouth, and it was spectacular.
Why? One backup doesn't preclude a possibility of a second backup. Since hard disks fail, does it mean backing up to hard disk useless? Websites too fail, you are concluding backing up to websites is useless from it.
Ahh, the good ol' "you're a troll" argument. Saves one from making a counter-point, or even reading the other person's post. And kind of liberating too - "You're a troll". Nice, I like it.
She also has no productive output whatsoever. We seem in agreement on that
Seems wrong to you, then. Second serious "putting words into my mouth" event in this thread. (First assuming I am arguing for Meg's contribution, then assuming I am arguing against it. Just FYI, both false). Reading comprehension hasn't been your strong point, for sure.
And you still haven't pointed out what gives you the right to question her.
Dodging? I never said Meg did anything valuable. I am just questening the questioner. You propose taking away x from y without owning x nor proving why you deserve to own x. Rather than justifying y's worth, I question your moral right to question y - either by your ownership of x or any more hand in y's success than your plumber and electrician.
tl;dr : who are you?
And please justify why you are a fan of Britney Spears.
plumbers didn't claim 93% of income gains in the last 2 years.
Whereas you did? I am comparing plumbers and electricians to you. You claimed ownership of HP just because you wrote some stupiid accounting code for it. Why wouldn't the electrician own you because he fixed machinery which enables your coding?
And you are really, really missing my point.
Ha ha.
what does Meg Whitman do for our civilization that justifies her enormous wealth
And I ask what have you done that justifies your criticism for her? But you not only criticize, but also propose taking away Meg's money without yourself making any contribution to "society". Heard the story of pot and kettle ?
I did the work, I put up the houses. I fixed the computers that ran the accounting firm. I wrote the software they use. I did all the work. Why the hell isn't it mine?
It would have been yours but your plumber and electrician claimed ownership on you. We designed his taps, we fixed the electric machinery that enabled rsilvergun to do all his work, why the he'll isn't he ours?
Well, an overwhelming majority of review websites receive review products for free. Even poor bloggers in third world countries receive good products at slightest hint of the blog being widely read. So, I kind of know what you meant to imply.
Paying for a device might bias you against it, though it is a well established human behaviour trait to "throw good money after bad", escalation of commitment, loving and rationalizing one's own past decisions. Getting biased against one's own purchases would lead to a life of misery, so it is an understandable escape mechanism to get biased towards one's own purchases. So a great majority does it, it is not a conjecture on my part.
Ok, either / or probably suggest exclusive possibilities which I never meant. But there are a million other things a rich person could be looking for at a given moment other than expensive cars. But no, poor rich bloke will get to see ads of expensive cars when he is not looking for them.
So, you have a $80k luxury car want to advertise? You can target people over 40 with post secondary education.
When he is looking for a good suit to wear to his business presentation? Way to irritate a user. Newsflash : not everyone who can afford a luxury car is looking for it all the time. Either he is not interested, or he already has 2 and not interested anymore.
I trust reviews primarily from persons who've actually paid for a device.
But humans are rationalizing machines. After paying, people like things even if they wouldn't have liked it otherwise. You want a review from a person who doesn't have a horse in the race. A customer is definitely NOT such a person.
On a reputed review website, you can confirm if it can give negative review to products of this company. Check for recent reviews. If some are negative, positive reviews mean something. Else all is fluff. Review websites are more knowledgeable too.
Which is why the data structure you suggest is not optimal and storing per second diff is more efficient as well as directly proportional to the duration of enjoyment afforded by the document.
For every second (or millisecond / microsecond..) store the changed pixels, deleted pixels and added pixels. For that second, full timestamp needn't be stored if you are stingy with storage space - upto a year granularity would do.
So needs 32 bits for each second of active editing if pixels are only added. Add thrice the file size for (out of the ass generous guess of )extra data because of storing changed, added as well as deleted pixels every second.
Doesn't seem excessive, though should not be the default setting for sure.
For the NTFS equivalent (if any) of the Unix atime, if an application reads a file from the disk, its access time might need to be written to the disk, causing disk writes.
And the point of my post was that hard drives can't survive as high temperature as papers can. How many hard drives out there can survive 451 degree f? Seagate's ratings don't exceed 70 degree c.
Companies have debt, could be secured or unsecured. The law would define this expense as one of these and there would be no problem that doesn't also apply to 90% of companies which have secured or unsecured debt.
Slashdot Mirror
You said "theft of service". If you had read the second sentence, it said allowing does not involve service.
For example, you "allowed" me to pray for you. I pray for a fee. You are hereby charged with theft of service.
If you don't create a mechanism to keep Google out (e.g. robots.txt) then - by your own admission - you have opted to allow Googlebot to read what you publish to the world.
Allowing Google to do something does not mean asking Google to do it. Allowing does not involve "service".
Tough to say anything clearly when you are more interested in sarcasm, isn't it? To say nothing of the fact that you have not given a single reason why it is "fucking moronic" [sic].
Right... The problem with PCs is that they are so damned good, nobody buys them
Too good to need replacement is a widely studied pitfall in business. You are just showing your ignorance.
He specifically points to capital gains being the reason why his tax rate is low. Congressmen could be stupid, but not this stupid. In essence he is asking for a way to figure out capital gains which are actually income and tax them accordingly.
Property rights are a construct we invented to improve civilization.
We? I am not sure property right inventors would have had such poor reading comprehension like you, but whatever.
If they are no longer serving that purpose the can and should be adjusted and/or eliminated.
And you were accusing me of advocating Anarchy.
Ok, so I STILL don't get this. You don't believe Meg Whitman has earned the money that she has been granted
Never said so. Fourth instance of putting words into my mouth.
Also, you don't believe the Britney Spears is the best thing ever, but are still her fan? What the hell?
if I take your things I have them without EARNING them
Exactly what you propose to do with Meg, taking her things without earning them.
consensus on slashdot was Meg was an incompetent boob that doesn't deserve the huge amount of wealth she commands
Ha ha. If there was one redeeming quality of Slashdot, it was the ability of Slashdotters to realize that we are far from being a majority - a fringe group, a cult of sorts. You demonstrate that not all Slashdotters are gifted with this insight.
Couple that with your premature conclusion of consensus on slashdot without any formal poll or formal definitions of the vague words in the hypothesis, and we have a doubly reinforced delusion.
Can you answer, yes or no, do you believe Meg deserves the wealth she has because she earned it?
Doesn't matter, you have alternately put both opinions into my mouth. I have said neither, opine neither, and my point is orthogonal to this point. Discussing it would require defining "deserve", which is complicated to put it lightly. And especially your sense of entitlement just after creating some stupid accounting software rivals that of the CxOs of too-big-to-fail companies.
I AM A MEMBER OF THIS CIVILIZATION
One with property rights. Where reading comprehension impaired people like yourself (or anybody else) don't get to decide what the other person gets.
THAT IS WHAT GIVES ME THE RIGHT.
So, not quite. That is "NO" for reading comprehension impaired people like you.
please enjoy your decent into Anarchy. Put another way, please provide me with your full name and address so that I may ..
No, that is the world you are arguing for - where random people get to decide who gets what. It's your decent into $SocialHierarchyOfChoice, not mine.
since you believe Meg's contribution to society is worth
Not only do I not believe this, I never wrote anything to such an effect, but keeping in mind your weakness in reading comprehension, I even quoted it explicitly, thus :
First assuming I am arguing for Meg's contribution, then assuming I am arguing against it. Just FYI, both false
Oh, and you started trolling right around the time you started using badly formatted HTML and Britney Spears references...
Oh, and you started trolling when you put words in my mouth. I just did that to see how you react when words are put into your mouth, and it was spectacular.
Why? One backup doesn't preclude a possibility of a second backup. Since hard disks fail, does it mean backing up to hard disk useless? Websites too fail, you are concluding backing up to websites is useless from it.
Ahh, the good ol' "you're a troll" argument. Saves one from making a counter-point, or even reading the other person's post. And kind of liberating too - "You're a troll". Nice, I like it.
She also has no productive output whatsoever. We seem in agreement on that
Seems wrong to you, then. Second serious "putting words into my mouth" event in this thread. (First assuming I am arguing for Meg's contribution, then assuming I am arguing against it. Just FYI, both false). Reading comprehension hasn't been your strong point, for sure.
And you still haven't pointed out what gives you the right to question her.
Dodging? I never said Meg did anything valuable. I am just questening the questioner. You propose taking away x from y without owning x nor proving why you deserve to own x. Rather than justifying y's worth, I question your moral right to question y - either by your ownership of x or any more hand in y's success than your plumber and electrician.
tl;dr : who are you?
And please justify why you are a fan of Britney Spears.
plumbers didn't claim 93% of income gains in the last 2 years.
Whereas you did? I am comparing plumbers and electricians to you. You claimed ownership of HP just because you wrote some stupiid accounting code for it. Why wouldn't the electrician own you because he fixed machinery which enables your coding?
And you are really, really missing my point.
Ha ha.
what does Meg Whitman do for our civilization that justifies her enormous wealth
And I ask what have you done that justifies your criticism for her? But you not only criticize, but also propose taking away Meg's money without yourself making any contribution to "society". Heard the story of pot and kettle ?
I did the work, I put up the houses. I fixed the computers that ran the accounting firm. I wrote the software they use. I did all the work. Why the hell isn't it mine?
It would have been yours but your plumber and electrician claimed ownership on you. We designed his taps, we fixed the electric machinery that enabled rsilvergun to do all his work, why the he'll isn't he ours?
Because it's not yours to take away
Well, an overwhelming majority of review websites receive review products for free. Even poor bloggers in third world countries receive good products at slightest hint of the blog being widely read. So, I kind of know what you meant to imply.
Paying for a device might bias you against it, though it is a well established human behaviour trait to "throw good money after bad", escalation of commitment, loving and rationalizing one's own past decisions. Getting biased against one's own purchases would lead to a life of misery, so it is an understandable escape mechanism to get biased towards one's own purchases. So a great majority does it, it is not a conjecture on my part.
Ok, either / or probably suggest exclusive possibilities which I never meant. But there are a million other things a rich person could be looking for at a given moment other than expensive cars. But no, poor rich bloke will get to see ads of expensive cars when he is not looking for them.
So, you have a $80k luxury car want to advertise? You can target people over 40 with post secondary education.
When he is looking for a good suit to wear to his business presentation? Way to irritate a user. Newsflash : not everyone who can afford a luxury car is looking for it all the time. Either he is not interested, or he already has 2 and not interested anymore.
I trust reviews primarily from persons who've actually paid for a device.
But humans are rationalizing machines. After paying, people like things even if they wouldn't have liked it otherwise. You want a review from a person who doesn't have a horse in the race. A customer is definitely NOT such a person.
On a reputed review website, you can confirm if it can give negative review to products of this company. Check for recent reviews. If some are negative, positive reviews mean something. Else all is fluff. Review websites are more knowledgeable too.
What say?
Which is why the data structure you suggest is not optimal and storing per second diff is more efficient as well as directly proportional to the duration of enjoyment afforded by the document.
And like I said, should not be default.
You mean several millionths of the new convenient unit of measuring data storage on portable devices and several billionths that on fixed devices?
For every second (or millisecond / microsecond ..) store the changed pixels, deleted pixels and added pixels. For that second, full timestamp needn't be stored if you are stingy with storage space - upto a year granularity would do.
So needs 32 bits for each second of active editing if pixels are only added. Add thrice the file size for (out of the ass generous guess of )extra data because of storing changed, added as well as deleted pixels every second.
Doesn't seem excessive, though should not be the default setting for sure.
For the NTFS equivalent (if any) of the Unix atime, if an application reads a file from the disk, its access time might need to be written to the disk, causing disk writes.
And the point of my post was that hard drives can't survive as high temperature as papers can. How many hard drives out there can survive 451 degree f? Seagate's ratings don't exceed 70 degree c.
Companies have debt, could be secured or unsecured. The law would define this expense as one of these and there would be no problem that doesn't also apply to 90% of companies which have secured or unsecured debt.
Not me, the GP.
After spending 12 hours at 4500F, what is the temperature inside the safe? Is your hard drive rated to survive that?