my point is that it's poorly reported. there's no mention of how much aluminum it takes to make hydrogen, nor how much hydrogen one might expect from the process.
if he's makes a claim that he's going to buy out shares at a 47% premium, and owns 20% already, sounds like he's just doing a fancy wide-screen director's cut of the old pump-and-dump.
i'm convinced that someone else is controlling what his computer-chair-interface says. perhaps it's even...bum bum bum....a super advanced AI, tricking us all into giving it access to a supercom...oh no! it's too late!
i read the original story the other day, as it was listed in someone's sig here at slashdot - i followed the trail, and after she had taken down Jay's picture, she replaced it with an Anne Geddes picture. that made me chuckle.
rather large difference in "explaining jargon once, and then using it heavily" vs. "using jargon throughout and never explaining it", which is what the OP doesn't like.
put it in context, explain it once, and proceed - don't force us to put down the work every three words to go learn something...teach it actively.
...perhaps it sends the message that what you are able to do, and what you continue to do effectively is more important than what on-paper tests you've passed.
the board member did not effectively research the candidate...whether or not the CEO works out in the end is of no consequence.
no problem at all - it's just that the fine point of the paramount mouthpiece is being missed and ignored.
I guess it really depends on how LCK formed his venture...but i'd say for the sake of this argument, any value he paid to himself was salary...not profit.
profit is what belongs to the organization after salary/lease/interest/tax is paid. in this case, it sounds like there was zero profit, although LCK made a tidy salary. in order to "monetize" the project, it would have to show a profit, which it did not, because LCK didn't fudge around with a budget - he didn't need to.
it's a fine point, but that's the idea behind the paramount statement...technically correct, but fundamentally flawed.
while this is a subtle sarcastic jab at the big studio, it's not far from correct, but it isn't entirely insightful, either.
to monetize is to turn a profit. If Louis CK paid all of the salaries of all the workers (including himself), paid all appropriate fees and whatnot, and sent all of the surplus from the gross proceeds to charity, he didn't monetize. Al Perry is right in saying that he didn't monetize, because there was nobody to turn that profit over to.
HOWEVER, his assertion that profit should drive art/entertainment is what we should take issue with. profits are for corporation or group-funded ventures, not individually founded enterprises. the whole corporation=person loophole has killed his perception.
well now - my simple-minded interpretation of this request makes me wonder - if you provide an unencrypted copy of anything, how do they expect to verify that what you're giving them is what's in the encrypted document/folder/partition?
if they aren't compelling the accused to provide the passphrase, and that can still be kept secret, then the actual encryption itself is still an 'untrustworthy' variable...isn't it?
"no, this is the only file in there...'thr33 littl3 piggi3s.txt'. I promise."
surely i'm missing some finer point here, but the point of the encryption+passcode is to keep the payload unknown, and unknown=unverifiable in my world.
Slashdot Mirror
you've been compromised, and now you're spamming /.
by winning more than a fourth of the contracts that ALU wins.
It doesn't count though, since it's just a test run.
http://science.slashdot.org/story/12/09/25/165256/lab-grown-leather-could-be-a-reality-in-5-years
my point is that it's poorly reported. there's no mention of how much aluminum it takes to make hydrogen, nor how much hydrogen one might expect from the process.
i did rtfa, and rtfs. neither speaks to the amount of fuel the motors take in, nor the amount of hydrogen produced.
these motors do work, while creating fuel?
riiiiiight.
if he's makes a claim that he's going to buy out shares at a 47% premium, and owns 20% already, sounds like he's just doing a fancy wide-screen director's cut of the old pump-and-dump.
duh.
or has that been done before?
i'm convinced that someone else is controlling what his computer-chair-interface says. perhaps it's even...bum bum bum....a super advanced AI, tricking us all into giving it access to a supercom...oh no! it's too late!
The last time I allowed Skype to update, it broke Excel.
No thanks.
Start surviving....NOW!
Sincerely,
Nature.
i read the original story the other day, as it was listed in someone's sig here at slashdot - i followed the trail, and after she had taken down Jay's picture, she replaced it with an Anne Geddes picture. that made me chuckle.
rather large difference in "explaining jargon once, and then using it heavily" vs. "using jargon throughout and never explaining it", which is what the OP doesn't like.
put it in context, explain it once, and proceed - don't force us to put down the work every three words to go learn something...teach it actively.
so then pay off homeowners to have testing done on their neighbors.
duh.
and half a world away, another butterfly does too.
not nearly as exciting. boo, science!
...perhaps it sends the message that what you are able to do, and what you continue to do effectively is more important than what on-paper tests you've passed.
the board member did not effectively research the candidate...whether or not the CEO works out in the end is of no consequence.
it is, and it isn't.
if we weren't so pedantic, the buffers wouldn't have the need to store anything.
insightful modifier is insightful.
no problem at all - it's just that the fine point of the paramount mouthpiece is being missed and ignored.
I guess it really depends on how LCK formed his venture...but i'd say for the sake of this argument, any value he paid to himself was salary...not profit.
profit is what belongs to the organization after salary/lease/interest/tax is paid. in this case, it sounds like there was zero profit, although LCK made a tidy salary. in order to "monetize" the project, it would have to show a profit, which it did not, because LCK didn't fudge around with a budget - he didn't need to.
it's a fine point, but that's the idea behind the paramount statement...technically correct, but fundamentally flawed.
while this is a subtle sarcastic jab at the big studio, it's not far from correct, but it isn't entirely insightful, either.
to monetize is to turn a profit. If Louis CK paid all of the salaries of all the workers (including himself), paid all appropriate fees and whatnot, and sent all of the surplus from the gross proceeds to charity, he didn't monetize. Al Perry is right in saying that he didn't monetize, because there was nobody to turn that profit over to.
HOWEVER, his assertion that profit should drive art/entertainment is what we should take issue with. profits are for corporation or group-funded ventures, not individually founded enterprises. the whole corporation=person loophole has killed his perception.
how many shoggoths?
maybe they're worried that the windmills will loosen the soil, and they'll all take off, eh?
well now - my simple-minded interpretation of this request makes me wonder - if you provide an unencrypted copy of anything, how do they expect to verify that what you're giving them is what's in the encrypted document/folder/partition?
if they aren't compelling the accused to provide the passphrase, and that can still be kept secret, then the actual encryption itself is still an 'untrustworthy' variable...isn't it?
"no, this is the only file in there...'thr33 littl3 piggi3s.txt'. I promise."
surely i'm missing some finer point here, but the point of the encryption+passcode is to keep the payload unknown, and unknown=unverifiable in my world.
you're right. that IS weird. he should have been arrested for that alone.