At infinity, you should make no *additional* profit compared to a comparably-safe investment of the same amount of money to create that last unit. It's a matter of relative profit rather than absolute profit.
For instance, even in your infinitieth year of operation at steady state, if a stable government offers a bond with 1% returns, your business should also profit 1%.
How does Wikipedia suffer? If Google knows the answer, nobody will hit Wikipedia's servers and thus Wikipedia won't have to beg for as much cash in December. If Google doesn't, Wikipedia will be the stop result as always.
You seem to be using "selection" in two different ways. You're talking about one-off individuals, and yes, we all know that inbreeding is not good for the kid. Shavano is talking about populations over time, and implying that the ones with various homozygous negative attributes would be selected against, thus reducing the prominence of those attributes in the long run.
The average minimum wage earner *is* the primary wage earner. This also implies that for this half they are, at most, just barely hitting lower middle class incomes, and probably most of them are poor.
While I do agree with you that livestreaming is overstated, just about everything you said in support of that seems irrelevant. People actually do watch home run derbys and golf. Although there are multiple people involved, these are in fact single player games, and you compete only in the sense of playing the same game at around the same time to compare scores. To a lesser extent, things like bowling and curling and pool also get airplay. And every Olympics, there are solo sports like gymnastics and diving and archery and (of all things) "solo synchronized swimming", as well as minimal-interaction competitions like a million variations on races (footraces, skating races, swimming races, skiing races, skiing and then sometimes shooting things races, luge...).
These things aren't as popular as football in the US, you say? Well no shit, neither is any given livestreaming game. Not the point. These things are all popular enough that they got devoted time on TV even back when TV broadcast much more limited content at any given time.
He was a soldier but he was not a combatant. Typically, terrorism is about targeting noncombatants, not non-soldiers (though non-soldiers are almost always noncombatants). Ottawa is not a warzone.
That's about the 70th percentile for household income (thus, a higher percentile for individual income). A median average US household makes around $50k, and a mean average US household makes around $60k, the 20% difference reflecting considerable skew from very high income households. That is household income, not individual salary, and most married Americans are dual-income (I couldn't find stats specifically on unmarried but living together, but I would guess that's even more likely to be dual-income than married), so a typical US salary is considerably under 70k.
There might be a language barrier issue here. The term "X figure" talks about the number of digits of dollars (excluding everything past the decimal) over the course of a year. A mathematically inclined person might rephrase that as saying it's "on the order of 10^X dollars". So a 6k figure job is a job that pays massively more than a googol of dollars.
You have assumed (reasonably, IMO) that he meant 6000 dollars per month. It's just not what he actually said.
A common characteristic of agile development are daily status meetings or "stand-ups", e.g. Daily Scrum (Meeting). In a brief session, team members report to each other what they did the previous day, what they intend to do today, and what their roadblocks are.[14]
Can you tell us the one true agile that doesn't have lots and lots of meetings? In my experience, Waterfall frontloads a few megameetings, whereas Agile backloads them in nickels and dimes.
Even with massive improvements to propulsion, you would want a near-closed-system. The Antarctica station is kind of what you're talking about, but it's a huge stretch to say we have civilization on Antarctica, and that's a situation where we have much much much better propulsive technologies relative to the distances involved. I'm going to define "
Also, it's not entirely clear what the Martians are going to sell to the Earthlings, but they'll be a captive audience for Earth's food monopoly if they can't sustain themselves (for example). Note that it has to be worth more than the energy cost of sending that food -- no matter how good our propulsive technologies get, there's a fixed lower bound on the energy requirements to leave Earth orbit.
I think anything short of an actual teleporter means that an interplanetary/inter...lunarary(?) civilization will need to be able to support itself as a closed system indefinitely, or at least for a matter of decades. This is assuming we don't download our consciousness to robots, or consider AI robots part of our civilization, or something bizarre like that -- in other words, it assumes that civilization means a permanent, multigenerational settlement of flesh-and-blood human beings that can live their entire lives without ever going to Earth.
I'm pretty sure the motor control nerves also serve as signal amplifiers, so you don't need more brain cells to drive a larger muscle.
Not necessarily. I can easily imagine larger creatures needing finer motor control compared to their size (note that large humans are often described as "clumsy" and small humans as "graceful"). In a similar vein, I know one proposed theory about why humans are so much weaker than chimpanzees is because we dedicate way more brainpower to fine motor control (one source: http://www.smithsonianmag.com/...).
It might be closer to satire but it's not satire, it's primarily intended to elicit negative reactions. I would disagree with a definition of trolling that says that enlightenment is part of the intent.
As for patent troll, I think that's a separate derivation; it's not really the same word. Internet trolling is like fishing-trolling: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T..., and we get a troll as "someone who trolls". Perhaps instead it should be angler.
That's generally an American regionalism, that comes about mainly because it's not easy to do what we did in the pre-print era and stick both the quote superscript and the punctuation subscript in the same "slot".
I have literally never been called a cheating bastard in my life. The only times men are called cheating bastards are if they are suspected of cheating on their partners (albeit "cheating" and "suspected" can be defined liberally in some extreme edge cases). No, it's not the same as whore. There really isn't a "the same as whore" (there also isn't the a "the same as womanizer", which I would say is a little closer to a parallel).
If you're not a sexist asshole, then why are you throwing in with the assholes? For the sake of argument, I'll assume you're white. When we say the kkk is racist, we aren't saying all white people are racist. Even when we point out the kkk guy is white, we're not calling you a member of the kkk.
When you point out that there are men abusing women, nobody has said that you are abusing women. It's a composition fallacy. If it's not about you, then it's not about you. The burned of responsibility wasn't shifted to the gender in the first place.
-- And yes, I fully admit that there are people who will wield the composition fallacy as a weapon. Just as there are people who will blame all Christians for abortion clinic bombings or all Muslims for 9/11, they are all blithering morons. But if I point out that the KKK or abortion clinic bombers are Christian terrorists, you waste everybody's time by jumping in and saying you are tired of your little small-town Church being blamed for murders and racism. If it's not you, it's not you; move along.
It's true that men tend to under-report. But now that evidence has been presented, it's incumbent upon *you* to provide evidence that these factors are sufficient to account for the difference.
Calling a person "slut" for example would not necessarily be considered abuse by the male, and would more likely be considered abuse by the female.
...That doesn't even seem unreasonable to me, considering that a female is much more likely to be called a slut in an abusive manner. You can't draw a parallel statement there. Context is important.
I bet men will take a threat like "I'll chip your dick off with this ginsu knife" -- from a person holding a ginsu knife menacingly -- more seriously than women. I do not have statistics to back this up, but I will not take seriously anybody who asserts otherwise without a very good reason. You have to know your audience if you want to make an idle threat in good fun.
While you go pull more made up numbers to back your tangent, nothing gets done to resolve the real issue.
They weren't made-up numbers, he cited his sources.
Lastly, as I stated above, this whole argument is a tangent to the real issue which is "Trolling" or "Abuse".
No, not completely. There are two relevant aspects:
First, if victims are disproportionately in some class or another, that's important in figuring out how to address the problem. This is Amdahl's law. It may prove productive to spend effort reducing 70% of abuse by 50% (net: 35% reduction in abuse), compared to spending the same effort reducing 100% of the abuse by 10%.
Second, if class status is used as a weapon (even if it had literally no role in choosing a target), it's still useful to know. You yourself were citing that women are more likely to perceive words like "slut" as abuse than men are. Perhaps you're right and the problem is a big misunderstanding. A potential solution, then, is to educate people on how their words, intended as non-threatening, can be taken as threatening when seen from another perspective. That's sort of what happened in the case cited above with swatting -- that case didn't involve sexism or anything like that, but it's similar in that the kid that seemed to genuinely not understand the full consequences of his actions. Which doesn't excuse them. But that's why I think the 25 years he was sentenced to was excessive -- I tend to suspect that a month in jail would be more than enough to ensure he would *never* do that again and fully integrate an understanding of consequences into his psyche (even a week would probably do it); 25 years can only be justified as "sending a message" by pulling in another round of media coverage, which is a form of education, even if it is IMO unjust.
I'd be wary of the term "sexist against". The purpose of ladies' night is to increase the pool of women that straight men can hit on by providing women an incentive. Somewhat more sinisterly, those women are able to consume more alcohol so their judgement is also likely to be more impaired on average.
So it's not really against men or against women, it's more complicated than that.
It is sexist though, and it's not actually universally legal.
Slashdot Mirror
Customer needs to keep their finger on the button.
What the fuck.
At infinity, you should make no *additional* profit compared to a comparably-safe investment of the same amount of money to create that last unit. It's a matter of relative profit rather than absolute profit.
For instance, even in your infinitieth year of operation at steady state, if a stable government offers a bond with 1% returns, your business should also profit 1%.
How does Wikipedia suffer? If Google knows the answer, nobody will hit Wikipedia's servers and thus Wikipedia won't have to beg for as much cash in December. If Google doesn't, Wikipedia will be the stop result as always.
What if they buy the computer, then replace the processor. Does the vendor have to accept that return?
(my reading of the ruling is "no" because they feel that it's pertinent that there was a separate contract at first boot from purchase time).
You seem to be using "selection" in two different ways. You're talking about one-off individuals, and yes, we all know that inbreeding is not good for the kid. Shavano is talking about populations over time, and implying that the ones with various homozygous negative attributes would be selected against, thus reducing the prominence of those attributes in the long run.
According to this cite: http://www.epi.org/publication...
The average minimum wage earner *is* the primary wage earner. This also implies that for this half they are, at most, just barely hitting lower middle class incomes, and probably most of them are poor.
While I do agree with you that livestreaming is overstated, just about everything you said in support of that seems irrelevant. People actually do watch home run derbys and golf. Although there are multiple people involved, these are in fact single player games, and you compete only in the sense of playing the same game at around the same time to compare scores. To a lesser extent, things like bowling and curling and pool also get airplay. And every Olympics, there are solo sports like gymnastics and diving and archery and (of all things) "solo synchronized swimming", as well as minimal-interaction competitions like a million variations on races (footraces, skating races, swimming races, skiing races, skiing and then sometimes shooting things races, luge...).
These things aren't as popular as football in the US, you say? Well no shit, neither is any given livestreaming game. Not the point. These things are all popular enough that they got devoted time on TV even back when TV broadcast much more limited content at any given time.
He was a soldier but he was not a combatant. Typically, terrorism is about targeting noncombatants, not non-soldiers (though non-soldiers are almost always noncombatants). Ottawa is not a warzone.
The best way to deal with a shitty situation is to try to change it so it isn't shitty anymore.
Male fashion designers are free to make similar pushes for the legitimacy of fashion design as a male career option.
What happens when you plug in a projector?
This is not a workable heuristic because resolution is not an invariant.
That's about the 70th percentile for household income (thus, a higher percentile for individual income). A median average US household makes around $50k, and a mean average US household makes around $60k, the 20% difference reflecting considerable skew from very high income households. That is household income, not individual salary, and most married Americans are dual-income (I couldn't find stats specifically on unmarried but living together, but I would guess that's even more likely to be dual-income than married), so a typical US salary is considerably under 70k.
There might be a language barrier issue here. The term "X figure" talks about the number of digits of dollars (excluding everything past the decimal) over the course of a year. A mathematically inclined person might rephrase that as saying it's "on the order of 10^X dollars". So a 6k figure job is a job that pays massively more than a googol of dollars.
You have assumed (reasonably, IMO) that he meant 6000 dollars per month. It's just not what he actually said.
Very short feedback loop and adaptation cycle
A common characteristic of agile development are daily status meetings or "stand-ups", e.g. Daily Scrum (Meeting). In a brief session, team members report to each other what they did the previous day, what they intend to do today, and what their roadblocks are.[14]
From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A...
Can you tell us the one true agile that doesn't have lots and lots of meetings? In my experience, Waterfall frontloads a few megameetings, whereas Agile backloads them in nickels and dimes.
Even with massive improvements to propulsion, you would want a near-closed-system. The Antarctica station is kind of what you're talking about, but it's a huge stretch to say we have civilization on Antarctica, and that's a situation where we have much much much better propulsive technologies relative to the distances involved. I'm going to define "
Also, it's not entirely clear what the Martians are going to sell to the Earthlings, but they'll be a captive audience for Earth's food monopoly if they can't sustain themselves (for example). Note that it has to be worth more than the energy cost of sending that food -- no matter how good our propulsive technologies get, there's a fixed lower bound on the energy requirements to leave Earth orbit.
I think anything short of an actual teleporter means that an interplanetary/inter...lunarary(?) civilization will need to be able to support itself as a closed system indefinitely, or at least for a matter of decades. This is assuming we don't download our consciousness to robots, or consider AI robots part of our civilization, or something bizarre like that -- in other words, it assumes that civilization means a permanent, multigenerational settlement of flesh-and-blood human beings that can live their entire lives without ever going to Earth.
I'm pretty sure the motor control nerves also serve as signal amplifiers, so you don't need more brain cells to drive a larger muscle.
Not necessarily. I can easily imagine larger creatures needing finer motor control compared to their size (note that large humans are often described as "clumsy" and small humans as "graceful"). In a similar vein, I know one proposed theory about why humans are so much weaker than chimpanzees is because we dedicate way more brainpower to fine motor control (one source: http://www.smithsonianmag.com/...).
The crime is that their employees' wages were artificially reduced. You want to respond by further reducing those wages to 0?
It might be closer to satire but it's not satire, it's primarily intended to elicit negative reactions. I would disagree with a definition of trolling that says that enlightenment is part of the intent.
As for patent troll, I think that's a separate derivation; it's not really the same word. Internet trolling is like fishing-trolling: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T..., and we get a troll as "someone who trolls". Perhaps instead it should be angler.
Patent troll is like mythological trolls that live under bridges and collect tolls: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T...
The Da Vinci code famously includes the line:
FACT:... All descriptions of artwork, architecture, documents, and secret rituals in this novel are accurate.
They were not accurate.
I think the difference is, I get the impression that this Scorpion guy believes his own bullshit to a degree.
No. http://www.grammar-monster.com...
That's generally an American regionalism, that comes about mainly because it's not easy to do what we did in the pre-print era and stick both the quote superscript and the punctuation subscript in the same "slot".
In this spirit of good faith, I have since discovered that the 25 year sentence was, thankfully, a hoax:
http://www.snopes.com/media/no...
Winning a discussion doesn't mean you actually effect change.
It's self-preservation when you call the cops. Vengeance doesn't necessarily have to be a motivation, even if it is a result.
I have literally never been called a cheating bastard in my life. The only times men are called cheating bastards are if they are suspected of cheating on their partners (albeit "cheating" and "suspected" can be defined liberally in some extreme edge cases). No, it's not the same as whore. There really isn't a "the same as whore" (there also isn't the a "the same as womanizer", which I would say is a little closer to a parallel).
If you're not a sexist asshole, then why are you throwing in with the assholes? For the sake of argument, I'll assume you're white. When we say the kkk is racist, we aren't saying all white people are racist. Even when we point out the kkk guy is white, we're not calling you a member of the kkk.
When you point out that there are men abusing women, nobody has said that you are abusing women. It's a composition fallacy. If it's not about you, then it's not about you. The burned of responsibility wasn't shifted to the gender in the first place.
-- And yes, I fully admit that there are people who will wield the composition fallacy as a weapon. Just as there are people who will blame all Christians for abortion clinic bombings or all Muslims for 9/11, they are all blithering morons. But if I point out that the KKK or abortion clinic bombers are Christian terrorists, you waste everybody's time by jumping in and saying you are tired of your little small-town Church being blamed for murders and racism. If it's not you, it's not you; move along.
It's true that men tend to under-report. But now that evidence has been presented, it's incumbent upon *you* to provide evidence that these factors are sufficient to account for the difference.
Calling a person "slut" for example would not necessarily be considered abuse by the male, and would more likely be considered abuse by the female.
...That doesn't even seem unreasonable to me, considering that a female is much more likely to be called a slut in an abusive manner. You can't draw a parallel statement there. Context is important.
I bet men will take a threat like "I'll chip your dick off with this ginsu knife" -- from a person holding a ginsu knife menacingly -- more seriously than women. I do not have statistics to back this up, but I will not take seriously anybody who asserts otherwise without a very good reason. You have to know your audience if you want to make an idle threat in good fun.
While you go pull more made up numbers to back your tangent, nothing gets done to resolve the real issue.
They weren't made-up numbers, he cited his sources.
Lastly, as I stated above, this whole argument is a tangent to the real issue which is "Trolling" or "Abuse".
No, not completely. There are two relevant aspects:
First, if victims are disproportionately in some class or another, that's important in figuring out how to address the problem. This is Amdahl's law. It may prove productive to spend effort reducing 70% of abuse by 50% (net: 35% reduction in abuse), compared to spending the same effort reducing 100% of the abuse by 10%.
Second, if class status is used as a weapon (even if it had literally no role in choosing a target), it's still useful to know. You yourself were citing that women are more likely to perceive words like "slut" as abuse than men are. Perhaps you're right and the problem is a big misunderstanding. A potential solution, then, is to educate people on how their words, intended as non-threatening, can be taken as threatening when seen from another perspective. That's sort of what happened in the case cited above with swatting -- that case didn't involve sexism or anything like that, but it's similar in that the kid that seemed to genuinely not understand the full consequences of his actions. Which doesn't excuse them. But that's why I think the 25 years he was sentenced to was excessive -- I tend to suspect that a month in jail would be more than enough to ensure he would *never* do that again and fully integrate an understanding of consequences into his psyche (even a week would probably do it); 25 years can only be justified as "sending a message" by pulling in another round of media coverage, which is a form of education, even if it is IMO unjust.
I'd be wary of the term "sexist against". The purpose of ladies' night is to increase the pool of women that straight men can hit on by providing women an incentive. Somewhat more sinisterly, those women are able to consume more alcohol so their judgement is also likely to be more impaired on average.
So it's not really against men or against women, it's more complicated than that.
It is sexist though, and it's not actually universally legal.