Also up for sale are "potential legal claims" Gawker may have against Peter Thiel,
They've got nothing, and they know it. The difference between "potential legal claims" and "legal claims" is that the former is just a euphemism for "fiction".
The article is clearly about tech jobs hence all the references to computers.
On my desk, right now, I have a scope, soldering iron, laptop, desktop, the machinary I write software for and a couple of what can only be called 'safe' munitions. I'm not lugging that lot back and forth daily.
Bring back five-row hardware keyboards, slider phones, and optical trackballs. Bring back phones that don't suck and stop shoving apps down our throats.
I have a BB Passport. The keyboard doubles as a touchpad so you can scroll with it.
Works for me because the few android apps I want to run work fine on the BB (Actually, Words with Friends runs better on the Passport than on Android because in-app advertisements do not get downloaded).
Better display than an iPhone too, which is a nice bonus.
Apple has earned enough goodwill from a lot of people through the previous iterations of the iPhone [...] They know generally it will work pretty well [...]
"1 + 2 + 3" (too fast, try again)
"I thought my bluetooth+Wifi was off"
"You're holding it wrong"
"Nevermind, we'll just use google maps to find a route."
Apple users may have many reasons for queuing up for the latest iPhone. "Works well" is not one of those reasons.
You still didn't answer the question: what economics class did you teach.
First year (101) and second year (201). Also taught statistics first year. Taught while I was doing postgrad in CS, after having completed postgrad in Economics (BS with dual majors in CS and IS). The actual final economics course I passed was called Money, Banking and Financial markets.
It's only the armchair economists who proclaim "$FOO is worth exactly what someone pays for it". What something sells for might be correlated to its value, but not always. Even if it is correlated, that does not imply a causative relationship between any two characteristics.
What economics class did you teach? BTW, you were absolutely wrong when you said this:
" The value of a currency is not based on what people are willing to pay for it,"
If your attention span doesn't extend to full sentences then yes, that is indeed wrong. However if your attention span can last a full sentence then you'll see that the full quote is:
The value of a currency is not based on what people are willing to pay for it, it's based on the underlying value of the society that produces it.
What people are willing to pay for a currency is correlated to how valuable it is, but this is one of those cases where correlation is not causation.
That study in [8] seems to agree with me, as they define SHS exposure in terms of how much exposure is received, with SHS exposure below their threshold being considered non-exposure.
IOW, they don't consider "2nd-hand cigarette smoke from a passing smoker " to be SHS. This lets them lead the abstract off with "no levels of SHS are safe" because they specifically ignore non-chronic SHS. Smart. Misleading, but smart.
I've not seen any study on non-chronic SHS. Every study leaves it out, usually because the non-chronic SHS impact is too small to even be measured, nevermind compared against other things on the street (noxious fumes from cars comes to mind).
The anti-smoking lobby stopped being about the actual smoking. Now you're a just a bunch of puritanical assholes who gets triggered if someone, somewhere, is enjoying something.
Nobody gives a fat fuck if you sit at home and poison yourself. It's when you go out in public and poison other people that it becomes a problem. By all means, stay home and poison yourself, and if you don't mind, up the dose.
Please, spare me the hysterics - there has been absolutely no harm found in 2nd-hand water-vapour. You're just puritanical, is all.
If you're really allergic to water vapour I suggest you sit home, along with the anti-vaxxers, the anti-cell-tower-crowd, the 911-conspricay theorists, the gamer-gaters and the flat-earth society. You have more in common with them than you do with the rest of the world, and frankly, we wouldn't miss you one bit.
In a lot of workplaces, strong perfumes are often banned., because some people are assholes and don't respect their coworkers, so sadly rules are needed to reign in antisocial types. And we're working on ICE engines, over the kicking and screaming of another group of self-entitled snowflakes who believe it's their God-given right to help melt the ice caps.
The anti-smoking lobby stopped being about the actual smoking. Now you're a just a bunch of puritanical assholes who gets triggered if someone, somewhere, is enjoying something.
This is not different to Jack Thompson's approach to videogames - "Think of the possible unproven dangers $ACTIVITY involves!".
When we invent an engine that run's on religious self-rightesousness, you and people like you would be a net benefit to society. Right now all we get from you is to force your belief system onto the rest of us.
If you're producing a compiler (which is just another program) there really isn't any code that compiles on Borland turbo C that would present much of a problem to gcc, unless you're attempting to produce 16-bit binaries, which you wouldn't be doing when writing a compiler anyway.
The book I was working from had pre-ANSI C code. Gcc wouldn't compile the source files without major changes. Some of the references to header files were obsolete, updating the header files meant that corresponding code had to change, and I rewrote entire blocks of code that I couldn't get to work otherwise.
Are you perhaps referring to the conio.h and dos.h headers? When writing a compiler you can simply rip them out and replace or wrap the functions they prototype very easily with standard library functions.
Post the code snippet that fails on gcc into a pastebin; I'm now very curious to see why it doesn't compile.
Currencies have their own supply/demand curve. If the demand drops to zero, the price will also drop to zero, no matter how much the country produces. If the supply increases to infinity.........I'll let you figure that one out.
I did not say it's dependent on how much a country produces, I said it's dependent on how much value a country produces. The more value they produce, the stronger their trading position and the stronger their state currency.
The cost of acquisition of the currency is the value divided by the amount of that currency in existence, so yes you can make a currency look exceptionally strong merely by artificially limiting its production or exceptionally weak by artificially increasing the supply. All currency controls are artificial, imposed by those who create and/or control the currency.
With poor or non-existent controls you get Zimbabwe and BTC - the underlying value is the same but the each unit is divided either too much or not enough to match the value it is supposed to measure.
You must have taught a high-school economics class, to have missed that important principle.
I suggest that, instead of berating others about lack of training in economics, you attend a first-year economics course. I don't teach anymore so at least you won't accidentally get taught by me.
In particular, the greater fool theory ensures that ever more money will pour into the tulipmanie until there is no more left to spare, at which time the entire thing implodes.
of the economy by talking your way through it; even without the backing of a course in economics. Those sorts of discussions are the bedrock of a democracy. To your point, it would be nice if folks were better educated. But it's tough to get people (read: voters) willing to pay for it. We've been cutting education for 30 years straight. There are consequences for that.
Ignore him - he doesn't have that economics class he is asking everyone else to take.
The value of a currency is determined by what people are willing to pay for it (again, just like anything).
Maybe you should take an introductory economics class (I used to teach one, so I can help). The value of a currency is not based on what people are willing to pay for it, it's based on the underlying value of the society that produces it. What people are willing to pay for it is simply a by-product of a society that produces value.
The value of the USD is determined by the value of the entire country. The value of the Zimbabwean dollar was worth what the country was worth - which was a lot when they were over-producing and sank to nothing when they stopped producing.
Look - we get it - you got in at the top of a Ponzi (or pyramid - take your pick) scheme and you mistake your luck for prescience. However, the more BTC soars to clearer it becomes that the only thing underlying it is the greater fool theory. This seems appropriate.
Look at it this way - BTC increased in "value" by a factor of two since [particular time-frame], but it has not increased in usage (retail payment) by the same amount. IOW, the increase in value is due almost entirely to people who are buying and holding it in the hope of gains. That's exactly the greater fool theory.
they are also killing off the rest of us who have to choose between either inhaling the noxious stuff as well or not breathing at all when there's somebody smoking nearby.
If your system is so weak that 2nd-hand cigarette smoke from a passing smoker has any effect on your health then it's a wonder you're still alive.
IOW, I call bullshit on your claims of temporary 2nd-hand smoke having any effect on your health. Long-term (living with a smoker, for example) - sure. But someone smoking on the street? Bullshit.
PC-MOS/386 currently requires a nonfree compiler (the Borland compiler) but now that PC-MOS/386 is free software it can be ported to systems so it will compile with free software compilers [...]
Good luck with that. I tried working my way through an older how to write a compiler book that was written in Borland C. Transliterating Borland C into ANSI C to compile with gcc was a bit hairy.
Really? What problems did you run into that weren't assembly related? I recently compiled some 16bit OS code (I originally wrote it for Watcom C/C++ Compiler, with wasm assembler - I still have the CD) on gcc and the only major problems I had was getting a linker to produce flat binaries. Sure, there were other problems but they were small and easily worked-around/fixed.
If you're producing a compiler (which is just another program) there really isn't any code that compiles on Borland turbo C that would present much of a problem to gcc, unless you're attempting to produce 16-bit binaries, which you wouldn't be doing when writing a compiler anyway.
The reason I had problems was because of the need of a flat 16bit linker. What problems did you have?
True only if you don't care how good an indicator it is. In that case, time of day is an indicator of obesity as well.
It's mostly correct. If you pick 100 random people the BMI will accurately reflect their obesity status for 90 of them (99 if you pick 100 random females).
How can you possibly rate anything not produced ? I know that Tesla is inside the Reality Distortion Field. Jobs left it to Musk in his Will, but how can you rate a car in beta, er, pre production ? Do CR writers have some Tesla in the 401 (k) ?
Same way we get a MTBF on products that haven't been out for that length of time. It's not accurate, but that's why it's called a "prediction" and not a "report". It's not totally pulled out of thin air, hence "prediction".
Unintended consequences of the "wrong" candidate winning. The media's bitterness is not because the wrong candidate won, but because they were shown via the election results that they had less power than they thought they did.
I'm sure that resonated well with the younger, white, straight, male voters,
I'm sure it did, but if it were only them, then Trump would not have won. He won because he had support from non-white and non-male voters.
You're trying to spin his win as something that is only possible because of racist and sexist voters by pointing out "white, male" only, when in fact millions of female and/or non-white people voted for him.
His win wasn't due to sexism, or racism. It was due to a sense of entitlement from the other candidate. People hate that shit. HRC was basically trying to slide in on the "if you don't vote for me you're sexist/racist" card, while Trump actually fucking worked to convince people to vote for him.
HRC worked less than Trump did at winning, and the results showed it.
If you want to convince voters to vote for you stop calling them racists when they aren't, and stop calling them sexists when they aren't. "Deplorables" didn't help either.
Throwing mud instead of working hard is what caused HRC to lose. Sure, Trump threw mud too, mostly inappropriately... but then he also worked hard to convince people to vote for him. HRC just threw mud because she saw no reason to work for the position - all her life things have been handed to her on a fucking platter, so she was not used to not being simply given what she asks for.
Her 30 years of experience in politics resulted in her having less political and socially aware skills than someone who took it up as a hobby a year ago. She should have worked harder.
You gain no goodwill when you paint with a broad brush - while Trump did in fact attack people he kept it personal. He attacked specific individuals. HRC went ahead and called a good quarter of the country "deplorables." Trump then worked to convince groups to vote for him, while HRC did the opposite - "See all these individuals who support me".
That's a good summary of the election tactics on both sides: Trump attacked individual people and wooed broad groups. HRC attacked broad groups and wooed individuals.
Tip: If you find yourself negatively referring to a group as "white, male", then you're probably a moron who's bad at math. Like the math that led you to believe that insignificant numbers non-white and non-male voters voted for Trump - when the truth is that Trump could never have won without the female, black and hispanic voters.
If simple algorithms are sufficient we would have had SDCs by now. Hell, if *any* current algorithmic approach was sufficient we would have had SDCs by now. What we have now is an incremental improvement to what we had in the mid-nineties. Considering that the computing resource for SD has increased over 1000x but the SD improvements increased by low single-digit percentages I don't think it's a success.
For the last five years we've been hearing how SDCs are only five years away. I'm still hearing it. I predict that in 2019 we will be hearing how SDCs are only five years away.
Slashdot Mirror
Also up for sale are "potential legal claims" Gawker may have against Peter Thiel,
They've got nothing, and they know it. The difference between "potential legal claims" and "legal claims" is that the former is just a euphemism for "fiction".
The article is clearly about tech jobs hence all the references to computers.
On my desk, right now, I have a scope, soldering iron, laptop, desktop, the machinary I write software for and a couple of what can only be called 'safe' munitions. I'm not lugging that lot back and forth daily.
I have a tech job.
its not a "World Series" if its only played in America.....
It is if you're american who is too stupid to realise that other countries exist too.
Bring back five-row hardware keyboards, slider phones, and optical trackballs. Bring back phones that don't suck and stop shoving apps down our throats.
I have a BB Passport. The keyboard doubles as a touchpad so you can scroll with it.
Works for me because the few android apps I want to run work fine on the BB (Actually, Words with Friends runs better on the Passport than on Android because in-app advertisements do not get downloaded).
Better display than an iPhone too, which is a nice bonus.
Apple has earned enough goodwill from a lot of people through the previous iterations of the iPhone [...] They know generally it will work pretty well [...]
"1 + 2 + 3" (too fast, try again)
"I thought my bluetooth+Wifi was off"
"You're holding it wrong"
"Nevermind, we'll just use google maps to find a route."
Apple users may have many reasons for queuing up for the latest iPhone. "Works well" is not one of those reasons.
If you want to stop modern war, you must make it so costly politically that no country would ever think to start one.
That only works in the democratic countries, where the people can overthrow the rulers if the rulers go against the wishes of the people.
In other words, this won't work for the majority of countries, only for a tiny handful who don't go to war anyway,
You still didn't answer the question: what economics class did you teach.
First year (101) and second year (201). Also taught statistics first year. Taught while I was doing postgrad in CS, after having completed postgrad in Economics (BS with dual majors in CS and IS). The actual final economics course I passed was called Money, Banking and Financial markets.
It's only the armchair economists who proclaim "$FOO is worth exactly what someone pays for it". What something sells for might be correlated to its value, but not always. Even if it is correlated, that does not imply a causative relationship between any two characteristics.
What economics class did you teach? BTW, you were absolutely wrong when you said this: " The value of a currency is not based on what people are willing to pay for it,"
If your attention span doesn't extend to full sentences then yes, that is indeed wrong. However if your attention span can last a full sentence then you'll see that the full quote is:
The value of a currency is not based on what people are willing to pay for it, it's based on the underlying value of the society that produces it.
What people are willing to pay for a currency is correlated to how valuable it is, but this is one of those cases where correlation is not causation.
http://www.lung.org/stop-smoki...
That study in [8] seems to agree with me, as they define SHS exposure in terms of how much exposure is received, with SHS exposure below their threshold being considered non-exposure.
IOW, they don't consider "2nd-hand cigarette smoke from a passing smoker " to be SHS. This lets them lead the abstract off with "no levels of SHS are safe" because they specifically ignore non-chronic SHS. Smart. Misleading, but smart.
I've not seen any study on non-chronic SHS. Every study leaves it out, usually because the non-chronic SHS impact is too small to even be measured, nevermind compared against other things on the street (noxious fumes from cars comes to mind).
The anti-smoking lobby stopped being about the actual smoking. Now you're a just a bunch of puritanical assholes who gets triggered if someone, somewhere, is enjoying something.
Nobody gives a fat fuck if you sit at home and poison yourself. It's when you go out in public and poison other people that it becomes a problem. By all means, stay home and poison yourself, and if you don't mind, up the dose.
Please, spare me the hysterics - there has been absolutely no harm found in 2nd-hand water-vapour. You're just puritanical, is all.
If you're really allergic to water vapour I suggest you sit home, along with the anti-vaxxers, the anti-cell-tower-crowd, the 911-conspricay theorists, the gamer-gaters and the flat-earth society. You have more in common with them than you do with the rest of the world, and frankly, we wouldn't miss you one bit.
Water vapour, indeed.
I'm working on making fuel from idiotic apostrophes. There's an endless supply of them and they have no other use.
Generalise it to make fuel from idiotic autocorrects - that's where that apostrophe came from.
In a lot of workplaces, strong perfumes are often banned., because some people are assholes and don't respect their coworkers, so sadly rules are needed to reign in antisocial types. And we're working on ICE engines, over the kicking and screaming of another group of self-entitled snowflakes who believe it's their God-given right to help melt the ice caps.
The anti-smoking lobby stopped being about the actual smoking. Now you're a just a bunch of puritanical assholes who gets triggered if someone, somewhere, is enjoying something.
This is not different to Jack Thompson's approach to videogames - "Think of the possible unproven dangers $ACTIVITY involves!".
When we invent an engine that run's on religious self-rightesousness, you and people like you would be a net benefit to society. Right now all we get from you is to force your belief system onto the rest of us.
If you're producing a compiler (which is just another program) there really isn't any code that compiles on Borland turbo C that would present much of a problem to gcc, unless you're attempting to produce 16-bit binaries, which you wouldn't be doing when writing a compiler anyway.
The book I was working from had pre-ANSI C code. Gcc wouldn't compile the source files without major changes. Some of the references to header files were obsolete, updating the header files meant that corresponding code had to change, and I rewrote entire blocks of code that I couldn't get to work otherwise.
Are you perhaps referring to the conio.h and dos.h headers? When writing a compiler you can simply rip them out and replace or wrap the functions they prototype very easily with standard library functions.
Post the code snippet that fails on gcc into a pastebin; I'm now very curious to see why it doesn't compile.
Currencies have their own supply/demand curve. If the demand drops to zero, the price will also drop to zero, no matter how much the country produces. If the supply increases to infinity.........I'll let you figure that one out.
I did not say it's dependent on how much a country produces, I said it's dependent on how much value a country produces. The more value they produce, the stronger their trading position and the stronger their state currency.
The cost of acquisition of the currency is the value divided by the amount of that currency in existence, so yes you can make a currency look exceptionally strong merely by artificially limiting its production or exceptionally weak by artificially increasing the supply. All currency controls are artificial, imposed by those who create and/or control the currency.
With poor or non-existent controls you get Zimbabwe and BTC - the underlying value is the same but the each unit is divided either too much or not enough to match the value it is supposed to measure.
You must have taught a high-school economics class, to have missed that important principle.
I suggest that, instead of berating others about lack of training in economics, you attend a first-year economics course. I don't teach anymore so at least you won't accidentally get taught by me.
In particular, the greater fool theory ensures that ever more money will pour into the tulipmanie until there is no more left to spare, at which time the entire thing implodes.
You've never seen Star Trek before? It usually takes at least 2 seasons for the series to get any good.
To truly appreciate it you have to see it in the original Klingon.
of the economy by talking your way through it; even without the backing of a course in economics. Those sorts of discussions are the bedrock of a democracy. To your point, it would be nice if folks were better educated. But it's tough to get people (read: voters) willing to pay for it. We've been cutting education for 30 years straight. There are consequences for that.
Ignore him - he doesn't have that economics class he is asking everyone else to take.
The value of a currency is determined by what people are willing to pay for it (again, just like anything).
Maybe you should take an introductory economics class (I used to teach one, so I can help). The value of a currency is not based on what people are willing to pay for it, it's based on the underlying value of the society that produces it. What people are willing to pay for it is simply a by-product of a society that produces value.
The value of the USD is determined by the value of the entire country. The value of the Zimbabwean dollar was worth what the country was worth - which was a lot when they were over-producing and sank to nothing when they stopped producing.
Look - we get it - you got in at the top of a Ponzi (or pyramid - take your pick) scheme and you mistake your luck for prescience. However, the more BTC soars to clearer it becomes that the only thing underlying it is the greater fool theory. This seems appropriate.
Look at it this way - BTC increased in "value" by a factor of two since [particular time-frame], but it has not increased in usage (retail payment) by the same amount. IOW, the increase in value is due almost entirely to people who are buying and holding it in the hope of gains. That's exactly the greater fool theory.
they are also killing off the rest of us who have to choose between either inhaling the noxious stuff as well or not breathing at all when there's somebody smoking nearby.
If your system is so weak that 2nd-hand cigarette smoke from a passing smoker has any effect on your health then it's a wonder you're still alive.
IOW, I call bullshit on your claims of temporary 2nd-hand smoke having any effect on your health. Long-term (living with a smoker, for example) - sure. But someone smoking on the street? Bullshit.
I'm surprised you can't access your Bitcoin but you can access Slashdot.
He can probably access his bitcoin just fine - he just can't find anyone who will give swap his bitcoins for food.
PC-MOS/386 currently requires a nonfree compiler (the Borland compiler) but now that PC-MOS/386 is free software it can be ported to systems so it will compile with free software compilers [...]
Good luck with that. I tried working my way through an older how to write a compiler book that was written in Borland C. Transliterating Borland C into ANSI C to compile with gcc was a bit hairy.
Really? What problems did you run into that weren't assembly related? I recently compiled some 16bit OS code (I originally wrote it for Watcom C/C++ Compiler, with wasm assembler - I still have the CD) on gcc and the only major problems I had was getting a linker to produce flat binaries. Sure, there were other problems but they were small and easily worked-around/fixed.
If you're producing a compiler (which is just another program) there really isn't any code that compiles on Borland turbo C that would present much of a problem to gcc, unless you're attempting to produce 16-bit binaries, which you wouldn't be doing when writing a compiler anyway.
The reason I had problems was because of the need of a flat 16bit linker. What problems did you have?
True only if you don't care how good an indicator it is. In that case, time of day is an indicator of obesity as well.
It's mostly correct. If you pick 100 random people the BMI will accurately reflect their obesity status for 90 of them (99 if you pick 100 random females).
How can you possibly rate anything not produced ? I know that Tesla is inside the Reality Distortion Field. Jobs left it to Musk in his Will, but how can you rate a car in beta, er, pre production ? Do CR writers have some Tesla in the 401 (k) ?
Same way we get a MTBF on products that haven't been out for that length of time. It's not accurate, but that's why it's called a "prediction" and not a "report". It's not totally pulled out of thin air, hence "prediction".
Unintended consequences of the "wrong" candidate winning. The media's bitterness is not because the wrong candidate won, but because they were shown via the election results that they had less power than they thought they did.
I'm sure that resonated well with the younger, white, straight, male voters,
I'm sure it did, but if it were only them, then Trump would not have won. He won because he had support from non-white and non-male voters.
You're trying to spin his win as something that is only possible because of racist and sexist voters by pointing out "white, male" only, when in fact millions of female and/or non-white people voted for him.
His win wasn't due to sexism, or racism. It was due to a sense of entitlement from the other candidate. People hate that shit. HRC was basically trying to slide in on the "if you don't vote for me you're sexist/racist" card, while Trump actually fucking worked to convince people to vote for him.
HRC worked less than Trump did at winning, and the results showed it.
If you want to convince voters to vote for you stop calling them racists when they aren't, and stop calling them sexists when they aren't. "Deplorables" didn't help either.
Throwing mud instead of working hard is what caused HRC to lose. Sure, Trump threw mud too, mostly inappropriately ... but then he also worked hard to convince people to vote for him. HRC just threw mud because she saw no reason to work for the position - all her life things have been handed to her on a fucking platter, so she was not used to not being simply given what she asks for.
Her 30 years of experience in politics resulted in her having less political and socially aware skills than someone who took it up as a hobby a year ago. She should have worked harder.
You gain no goodwill when you paint with a broad brush - while Trump did in fact attack people he kept it personal. He attacked specific individuals. HRC went ahead and called a good quarter of the country "deplorables." Trump then worked to convince groups to vote for him, while HRC did the opposite - "See all these individuals who support me".
That's a good summary of the election tactics on both sides: Trump attacked individual people and wooed broad groups. HRC attacked broad groups and wooed individuals.
Tip: If you find yourself negatively referring to a group as "white, male", then you're probably a moron who's bad at math. Like the math that led you to believe that insignificant numbers non-white and non-male voters voted for Trump - when the truth is that Trump could never have won without the female, black and hispanic voters.
Self driving cars do not require AI. A simple algorithm not only suffices, but can provide mathematically optimal results for the criteria.
In simple English :)
Actually it's simpler in math form
If simple algorithms are sufficient we would have had SDCs by now. Hell, if *any* current algorithmic approach was sufficient we would have had SDCs by now. What we have now is an incremental improvement to what we had in the mid-nineties. Considering that the computing resource for SD has increased over 1000x but the SD improvements increased by low single-digit percentages I don't think it's a success.
For the last five years we've been hearing how SDCs are only five years away. I'm still hearing it. I predict that in 2019 we will be hearing how SDCs are only five years away.