It was not radical at the time of the original patent application. This patent is circa 1998-1999 and there were tons of online retailers pre-1998. The difference was they were small. In fact, Netscape created cookies for the purposes of e-commerce. Lastly, just look at the 1997 RFC. There was gobs, and gobs, and gobs of prior art on this patent. That's why everyone went so bonkers about the patent being awarded.
This
context might be used to create, for example, a "shopping cart", in
which user selections can be aggregated before purchase, or a
magazine browsing system, in which a user's previous reading affects
which offerings are presented.
-- http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2109
Magic cookies were already used in computing when Lou Montulli had the idea of using them in Web communications in June 1994.[28] At the time, he was an employee of Netscape Communications, which was developing an e-commerce application for a customer. Cookies provided a solution to the problem of reliably implementing a virtual shopping cart.
-- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Http_cookie#History
Yahoo messenger is very annoying with focus stealing. You can be typing to a friend and suddenly you're accepting some jackass/bot on your friends list or accepting some conference invite because a sudden popup stole the ENTER keystroke.
Nit pick. Doping in sports isn't illegal if you're referring to the law (at least in USA). The most common, steroids and EPO, are not illegal compounds.
Yes. I think altering the algo to use bezier curves would make it more realistic, but the computations could be a bit more time consuming on the compression and rendering side because rather than 2 variables at a time (2 points to a line) it's got 4 variables (for quadratic bezier curve).
Airlines book to maximum capacity. Sometimes, they even overbook slightly because a statistically small number of travelers do not show up. This normally works well, but occasionally 1 or 2 passengers get bumped to another flight. The bumped passengers are generally the ones with the cheapest economy ticket with direct domestic flights with no connections. Alternative flights may also play into this (but I'm not sure). Anyhow, the airline will not know which passenger is morbidly obese enough to require 2 seats, so the airline will still sell to full capacity. Now, my question is... who gets bumped? The obese passenger (who will likely decry discrimination) or the hapless passenger who happened to be given the adjacent seat? What if that passenger paid full rate? What if that passenger has 1 bazillion flier miles? What if that passenger has an international connection? OK, so now we have to shuffle around passengers AFTER check-in seat assignments have been made in order to bump an economy class domestic passenger. Wonderful. More delays.
I see this really increasing the number of bumped passengers because as the word gets out that obese passengers get 2 seats, they will fly more. Also, borderline obese passengers will begin demanding their right to a free 2nd seat. Airlines will likely yield and give them that seat, fearing bad press if they don't.. thus bumping more passengers. This is going to gum up even more an already bad flying experience.
You're post was not troll. It was lively, but not trollish.
I think you are entirely missing the point of many of the irate postings here. They're irate because it's yet another example of personal irresponsibility triumphing over self-sacrifice. Yet again society has to pick up the slack for the laziness of others. I'll tell you this: many people are growing sick of it. Very sick of it, and I don't blame them.
Obesity is a behavioral problem for 99%-ish of all obese people. It's not a viral disease. It's a 100% behavioral problem, which means it can be controlled. Most of us control our diet and thus our weight. Some of us may be a little fat, but it's not out-of-hand. We can still easily fit inside an airline seat. The REAL selfish people you speak of are these people who cannot or will not control their diets. They consume every edible thing in sight. They crave instant and continuous satisfaction. THEY are the selfish ones. NOT US.
Sales guys like to over-sell
on
Tech Vs. Business?
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
At one place I worked, there was enormous animosity between IT and Sales/Business Dev. It stemmed from them selling services and guaranteeing delivery dates on software that hadn't been created yet.
So... it was a constant treadmill trying to play catchup to meet those ridiculous deadlines, which caused a lot of animosity from developers to sales.
This can also be intentionally exploited. It's what I've done and continue to do, and I recently got an amazing job because of my blog and websites. Plain and simple: it got me noticed.
Also, I do not use message boards for this function. Unless you're the owner or moderator, I think they are too risky because you lose control of the content once you post. In other words, you can't retract something you later wished you hadn't posted.
One caveat. If you can't write exceedingly well, a blog may be a bad idea. In that case you could always maintain a video blog or podcast.
That post was very odd, illogical, and ambiguous. You are saying this.
1) Let intelligent being = IB
2) Let life form = LF
3) IB created LF
which you then conclude one or both of the following (the ambiguous part):
4) LF was not created by IB
5) IB was not intelligent
#4 violates statement #3. Either IB created LF or not. Choose only one please.
#5 violates statement #1. IB was intelligent and now he's not. Choose only one please.
These are your statements which represent your logic. Your logic is invalid because your statements conflict. It's also funny because you declared anyone who doesn't understand your broken logic is an idiot.
Regarding your second paragraph: you stated previous generations were stupid and our current generation is smart, which is why previous generations believed in intelligent creation of life. Your proof was in the fact past generations did not possess modern technology. Of course you've drawn a connection there between technology and religious belief. You're saying the intelligence of a person is measured by the nature of the technology he creates. I challenge that by asking you these questions:
A lot of our technology is merely a refinement of old inventions and breakthroughs. For example: modern sailing ships versus wood sailing ships. The theory and practical use are the same, but one is a refinement over the other. How can we be smart and our ancestors be dumb if we're still using technology they created?
Technology is abundant and highly available for the majority of people on the planet, yet religions still thrive. Also, many of our greatest inventions were created by devoutly religious people who believed there was an intelligent creator. How can this be? I thought technology and belief in intelligent design were mutually exclusive.
Bees and ants create complex living structures. Their complexity rivals that of modern engineering, yet we don't consider bees and ants to be smart. We consider them dumb. How can a dumb creature create something complex?
Now. I'm not asking these questions because I don't know the answer. I'm asking them to illustrate just how vacuous and illogical your statements were.
It is possible to find a 9-5 IT job, or close to it (9-6), without the pager requirement, but you must be willing to accept a low wage--much lower. Oh, and you'll probably be working in a small crappy town for a low-volume website coding CGI after CGI after CGI--endlessly. Not much fun, but major server outages occur very infrequently. If you can handle the mind numbing repetition, then it works out great.
After burning out on 8 years of consistent 65-85 hour work weeks carrying a pager, I accepted a job very much like that. I got bored after 14 months, but I came out recharged and ready to go. Now I've got something a lot more challenging and interesting.
Just a thought and maybe an option. But one warning, be ready to explain your income drop on the next go-around at interviews.
1. American workers are less educated than others.
Bullshit. We're talking IT workers, not blue collar workers.
2. American companies are very hierarchial, making adaptations to new circumstances slow.
Bullshit. In the last 10 years, I've worked 2 jobs and have just gotten a new job. All three of them have very flat organization and they range in size from small, medium and extremely large. They were hierarchical yes, but the structure was developer, project manager, and then CEO. Very flat. In the case of the extremely large corp, there is 1 more management layer. That's it; still reasonably flat.
4. Poor IT infrastructure.
Bullshit and a very retarded comment. Most homes have high-speed connections, nearly everyone is connected with PDA phones, and USA is clearly a major source of new technology.
Only your other points, 3 and 5, have any merit.
/me suspects you're just another prissy euro-wanker spouting off again about those damned Americans
...there doesn't seem to be anyone wondering why a guy would be fearful of a woman? Men are taller, bigger, stronger, and more aggressive, yet he was afraid. Mmmmm'kay. He said she implied she had a gun, but according to him it wasn't on her (he couldn't see it), so why on Earth would a guy who's twice as strong as the woman be afraid? This makes no sense because generally smaller and weaker women are quite fearful of men. My guess is the woman was rude and acting like a diva and he made up the story to punish her by twisting an inconvenient choice of words. I don't buy his story at all and I believe he should be arrested for filing a false complaint.
Evolution is going to produce all viable permutations. It's not surprising to me there may be segments of people who are predisposed to monogamy and those who aren't. I don't think you can determine which is better or which guarantees the survival of the species without evidence.
Also, I don't think it's valid to ignore the technological aspects of different time periods. Primitive cultures experienced a greater number of infant deaths, so they may have had a stronger incentive to enter polygamous relationships. In today's period, we have technology (medicine) to reduce deaths, but technological advancement is also part of our evolution so one cannot discount current trends when they're influenced by our technology evolution.
But then consider you can argue that survival of the mother in harsh environments necessitated monogamy so there would have been a strong incentive to form stable marriages.
Those thoughts are contradictory, so I don't think issuing value judgments pro or con for either case make any sense without the evidence or considering the climate and mortality rates.
And like winning the lottery twice, the slashdot men that do marry are quite unlikely to find another. A predisposition for involuntary celibacy is a predictor for monogomy.
There's a reason I like tabs inside the browser. Grouping.
I often have several functions I'm performing simultaneously such as development, surfing YouTube, reading documentation, checking on bank accounts, etc. It's nice to keep tabs grouped together along those functional purposes: work versus play. That way when break time is over (or when the boss is heading in my direction), I can easily close out the YouTube and banking browser windows. Also, I don't generally have problems with tabs locking up other tabs because of this logical separation.
One other thing, which is related to browser tabs. On a Linux desktop, I still use screen because I find it insanely useful. Why not just open multiple windowed shells? Because it's easier to keep the desktop orderly when your sessions are stacked on top of each other like cards. Browser tabs give me that same stacking functionality. It's easier to cycle through sessions because when I'm flipping through tabs, I'm not also cycling through other applications (with CTRL-C or CTRL-a-n).
Slashdot Mirror
Try astral projection (aka out of body). You can be successful with that and find personal proof.
We sense it. We transmit it. Assuming we've solved all the mysteries of the body is naive. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ch'i
Yahoo messenger is very annoying with focus stealing. You can be typing to a friend and suddenly you're accepting some jackass/bot on your friends list or accepting some conference invite because a sudden popup stole the ENTER keystroke.
Nit pick. Doping in sports isn't illegal if you're referring to the law (at least in USA). The most common, steroids and EPO, are not illegal compounds.
Yes. I think altering the algo to use bezier curves would make it more realistic, but the computations could be a bit more time consuming on the compression and rendering side because rather than 2 variables at a time (2 points to a line) it's got 4 variables (for quadratic bezier curve).
Ummm.. totally wild guess here... 6?
It's cool because of a few reasons.
Airlines book to maximum capacity. Sometimes, they even overbook slightly because a statistically small number of travelers do not show up. This normally works well, but occasionally 1 or 2 passengers get bumped to another flight. The bumped passengers are generally the ones with the cheapest economy ticket with direct domestic flights with no connections. Alternative flights may also play into this (but I'm not sure). Anyhow, the airline will not know which passenger is morbidly obese enough to require 2 seats, so the airline will still sell to full capacity. Now, my question is... who gets bumped? The obese passenger (who will likely decry discrimination) or the hapless passenger who happened to be given the adjacent seat? What if that passenger paid full rate? What if that passenger has 1 bazillion flier miles? What if that passenger has an international connection? OK, so now we have to shuffle around passengers AFTER check-in seat assignments have been made in order to bump an economy class domestic passenger. Wonderful. More delays.
I see this really increasing the number of bumped passengers because as the word gets out that obese passengers get 2 seats, they will fly more. Also, borderline obese passengers will begin demanding their right to a free 2nd seat. Airlines will likely yield and give them that seat, fearing bad press if they don't.. thus bumping more passengers. This is going to gum up even more an already bad flying experience.
At one place I worked, there was enormous animosity between IT and Sales/Business Dev. It stemmed from them selling services and guaranteeing delivery dates on software that hadn't been created yet.
So... it was a constant treadmill trying to play catchup to meet those ridiculous deadlines, which caused a lot of animosity from developers to sales.
This can also be intentionally exploited. It's what I've done and continue to do, and I recently got an amazing job because of my blog and websites. Plain and simple: it got me noticed.
Also, I do not use message boards for this function. Unless you're the owner or moderator, I think they are too risky because you lose control of the content once you post. In other words, you can't retract something you later wished you hadn't posted.
One caveat. If you can't write exceedingly well, a blog may be a bad idea. In that case you could always maintain a video blog or podcast.
That post was very odd, illogical, and ambiguous. You are saying this.
1) Let intelligent being = IB
2) Let life form = LF
3) IB created LF
which you then conclude one or both of the following (the ambiguous part):
4) LF was not created by IB
5) IB was not intelligent
#4 violates statement #3. Either IB created LF or not. Choose only one please.
#5 violates statement #1. IB was intelligent and now he's not. Choose only one please.
These are your statements which represent your logic. Your logic is invalid because your statements conflict. It's also funny because you declared anyone who doesn't understand your broken logic is an idiot.
Regarding your second paragraph: you stated previous generations were stupid and our current generation is smart, which is why previous generations believed in intelligent creation of life. Your proof was in the fact past generations did not possess modern technology. Of course you've drawn a connection there between technology and religious belief. You're saying the intelligence of a person is measured by the nature of the technology he creates. I challenge that by asking you these questions:
Now. I'm not asking these questions because I don't know the answer. I'm asking them to illustrate just how vacuous and illogical your statements were.
*rolls eyes*
It is possible to find a 9-5 IT job, or close to it (9-6), without the pager requirement, but you must be willing to accept a low wage--much lower. Oh, and you'll probably be working in a small crappy town for a low-volume website coding CGI after CGI after CGI--endlessly. Not much fun, but major server outages occur very infrequently. If you can handle the mind numbing repetition, then it works out great.
After burning out on 8 years of consistent 65-85 hour work weeks carrying a pager, I accepted a job very much like that. I got bored after 14 months, but I came out recharged and ready to go. Now I've got something a lot more challenging and interesting.
Just a thought and maybe an option. But one warning, be ready to explain your income drop on the next go-around at interviews.
Bullshit. We're talking IT workers, not blue collar workers.
Bullshit. In the last 10 years, I've worked 2 jobs and have just gotten a new job. All three of them have very flat organization and they range in size from small, medium and extremely large. They were hierarchical yes, but the structure was developer, project manager, and then CEO. Very flat. In the case of the extremely large corp, there is 1 more management layer. That's it; still reasonably flat.
Bullshit and a very retarded comment. Most homes have high-speed connections, nearly everyone is connected with PDA phones, and USA is clearly a major source of new technology.
Only your other points, 3 and 5, have any merit.
/me suspects you're just another prissy euro-wanker spouting off again about those damned Americans
I'm skeptical that's true. Are you guessing or do you have real knowledge to make that statement?
...there doesn't seem to be anyone wondering why a guy would be fearful of a woman? Men are taller, bigger, stronger, and more aggressive, yet he was afraid. Mmmmm'kay. He said she implied she had a gun, but according to him it wasn't on her (he couldn't see it), so why on Earth would a guy who's twice as strong as the woman be afraid? This makes no sense because generally smaller and weaker women are quite fearful of men. My guess is the woman was rude and acting like a diva and he made up the story to punish her by twisting an inconvenient choice of words. I don't buy his story at all and I believe he should be arrested for filing a false complaint.
I recommend playing lotto.
Evolution is going to produce all viable permutations. It's not surprising to me there may be segments of people who are predisposed to monogamy and those who aren't. I don't think you can determine which is better or which guarantees the survival of the species without evidence.
Also, I don't think it's valid to ignore the technological aspects of different time periods. Primitive cultures experienced a greater number of infant deaths, so they may have had a stronger incentive to enter polygamous relationships. In today's period, we have technology (medicine) to reduce deaths, but technological advancement is also part of our evolution so one cannot discount current trends when they're influenced by our technology evolution.
But then consider you can argue that survival of the mother in harsh environments necessitated monogamy so there would have been a strong incentive to form stable marriages.
Those thoughts are contradictory, so I don't think issuing value judgments pro or con for either case make any sense without the evidence or considering the climate and mortality rates.
And like winning the lottery twice, the slashdot men that do marry are quite unlikely to find another. A predisposition for involuntary celibacy is a predictor for monogomy.
There's a reason I like tabs inside the browser. Grouping.
I often have several functions I'm performing simultaneously such as development, surfing YouTube, reading documentation, checking on bank accounts, etc. It's nice to keep tabs grouped together along those functional purposes: work versus play. That way when break time is over (or when the boss is heading in my direction), I can easily close out the YouTube and banking browser windows. Also, I don't generally have problems with tabs locking up other tabs because of this logical separation.
One other thing, which is related to browser tabs. On a Linux desktop, I still use screen because I find it insanely useful. Why not just open multiple windowed shells? Because it's easier to keep the desktop orderly when your sessions are stacked on top of each other like cards. Browser tabs give me that same stacking functionality. It's easier to cycle through sessions because when I'm flipping through tabs, I'm not also cycling through other applications (with CTRL-C or CTRL-a-n).
Errrm.. You mean Land of the Fee.
Parent was not troll. Idiot mods strike again.
http://www.iqcomparisonsite.com/Occupations.aspx
http://www.aceviper.net/aceviper_net/ace_intelligence/aceviper_questions_and_answers/aceviper_interesting_intelligence_related_questions_and_answers.html#question3