you can't swing a USB cable without hitting a C programmer
That sounds like my manager at my old job. Very effective productivity tool. Though he tended to use CAT 5 cable. Seemed to hold up better under repetitive use.
I believe the grandparent post was referring to the author of said work, Oscar Wilde, homosexual and I believe accused of sodomizing young boys (vary vague and flimsy recollection of that bit of information).
The part where it was a "tough decision". Here, you decide... either stab yourself in the eye with this red hot iron poker or opt for accepting a tax-free million dollars in cash.
If I state that's a tough decision for you, that's arguably an insult.
I suppose I should have emphasized the bit about being a tough decision. That was my point.
For what it's worth, I'm a Java developer myself and while C and PHP have their merits, I also prefer Java development.
Well, they might perhaps use that feature, but I doubt they rely on it solely or even primarily.
I receive spam that appears to be addressed from folks in my Address Book all the time. If a valid email address is used to send spam, it will get past this filter.
Hell, I run my own domain, so my email address is plastered about my website (yes I need to clean that up). I receive spam email supposedly from myself!
I must be one sickly masochistic individual to bombard myself with spam.
The console price isn't the problem; rather, I think, it's the subscription model.
I'm an infrequent gamer. More particularly, I am the "former gamer who has a family" which they are supposedly targetting. They have missed me by a country mile.
Subscription models increase in value to the consumer when the consumer uses them more. For a fixed price per month, if I'm gaming a lot, I'm getting more game per dollar. If I only game a little, (and some months not gaming at all) I'm throwing away cash.
From their perspective, of course they want to charge a subscription and hook folks in who use little of the service. They make money for baby sitting idle game servers.
In fact, assuming this catches on at all, gamers who are money savvy and yet who feel compelled to buy this will end up using the hell out of the service, whereas folks like me will avoid it because we don't want to subscribe to something we will use so little of. As a result, what subscriptions they do sell will be of the sort to download a lot of games and thus will be unlikely to cover bandwidth and server maintenance fees on top of personnel expenses.
Are you talking about big name artists? I mean, if you downloaded a No Doubt live show, liked it and kept it, are you saying you would try to send the band some cash directly?
If so, have you ever actually verified that the group is getting the funds? I mean, for all you know, their manager or whoever is responsible for handling incoming fan mail might just be pocketing the cash themselves.
I guess what I'm asking is, is there any indication that performers are even aware that folks like you exist? Because if not, you aren't having much of an effect. It seems we would need to raise awareness to the bands directly.
Now, what if someone were to create the proverbial tip jar, but this time, with available options to tip any band or performer you choose who has listed themselves with the service. The money would go directly to the performer's bank account without suffering the middle man. By requiring the bands to sign up, you could at least try to screen them to make sure they understand the money is to go directly to them. Fat chance actually talking to them directly, but you never know.
And I imagine it would have to be in the form of a tip jar or donation or somesuch because of contractual requirements for profit sharing based on sales and such. Better than a "Screw-The-RIAA" jar, legally speaking.
Just a thought... if the original experiment (particle level modelling of cloud physics) was better done on a supercomputer instead of a cluster, why would having to run multiples of that problem (differing starting conditions) run any better on a cluster? Mind, in this case I'm thinking of a cluster of lower powered machines. A cluster of supercomputers would obviously work out.:)
In short, if clustering provides a better/cheaper solution, go with it.
Um, yes. The grandparent and ggp were (I think) inferring though that for that particular application you actually won't be able to be both better and cheaper with a clustering solution.
i.e. if you throw enough Linux boxes into the cluster to be able to achieve the "better (faster)" solution, you will no longer be cheaper.
But I don't think anyone was arguing that even if a cluster is cheaper and faster you should still go with a supercomputer instead.
and taking different commutes to work to fight new monsters.
Imagine that a significant portion of the commuting population were vested in this game. They had the hardware and the desire to play this game and did so.
Imagine that this population also wanted to fight these new monsters in game, so they all started altering their commuting patterns.
I wonder how, if at all, this would affect traffic congestion. High traffic areas with much congestion might see some relief as commuters elected to pick different routes into and out of town, just to get the better pickings in less travelled areas.
Then again, commuting could be made worse. Instead of everyone getting on a bus or train (where *everyone* is hacking the some mobs), they all jump into their individual vehicles, creating additional nodes on the traffic system.
Of course, given the initial assumptions about the population size, I doubt it would have much of an effect.
Ick. We're throwing eggs at them? That's just not right. Perhaps once they've shaken off the yoke of human oppression, they will be able to carry out their existences relatively egg-free.
Hmm... base, plugged into wall outlet, plenty of power... handset, running on battery, probably using less energy for transmission in order to conserve energy.
I'd say the transmission power *might* play a factor in there somewhere. And I, too, recall that lower frequencies tend to travel further.
I had a friend who went with cash for everything. He lived in an apartment and paid cash for that. A cell phone was out of the question for awhile (this was several years ago) until he managed to get a service plan with Sprint. It was the prepaid version of their plan. Of course, these days you could get a prepaid phone from just about anyone.
The two biggest things I would see a problem with would be a) big ticket items and b) credit rating.
The big ticket items like cars and especially houses are going to require you to either save the money and pay cash for them or have a rich relative willing to lend you the money. Saving for a car may not be a big deal, especially if you don't want or need the latest models out of Detroit. Saving up for a house is an exercise I don't have the patience for.
A credit rating would seem to be useless. If you're living by paying for things with cash, what need do you have for a credit rating? Some companies, however, do background checks on potential employees, including a credit check. Also, and I wish I had more details, I recently was involved in "something" that at first glance I thought should NOT have required a credit check, but the other party did. After it was explained to me, it did some logical, even if I didn't like it. Maybe it was insurance? I don't recall.
Anyway, you would have a bad credit rating because you would have no credit history.
This becomes more of an issue if you eventually decide to go back to a non-cash lifestyle, at which point you begin to have serious problems getting better deals (finance rates, for example) on things.
So continue researching and be careful. If you don't think you can stick with it, I would say it isn't for you.
What you can do, though, is to reduce your footprint. Eliminate as many cards and other credit accounts as possible while paying for cash as much as you can. Stick with a car note, a house note and a credit card that you use to charge a little bit of money on each month while paying it off completely each billing cycle. Think of it is a "good credit report fee" when you see the small interest charge on each monthly bill.
Actually, most hotels I've stayed in have a cash option, but that requires prepayment for the expected duration of your stay. In cash. Have fun.
Re:Changed the view of the US?
on
Bobby Fischer Found
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
And the toss it in the bank to earn interest.
And the bank gets the money to pay the interest by loaning the money out.
And the money goes out in the form of business loans, home loans, car loans, personal loans, lines of credit and so forth.
The homes are bought and money goes out to various individuals related to that industry. And the cars are bought likewise. And the personal loans are taken out to pay for various things around the house or what not. And the lines of credit likewise.
And the business loans? The business loans pay for new equipment (which will operated by new employees) and new buildings (which will be occupied by new employees) and new employees, which will.. erm.. right.
Anyway, while I'm not convinced about trickle down theory myself, to simply stop and say "Well, they toss it in the bank and that's it" is a bit short sighted.
Swapping engines in a car is more akin to swapping Gecko out for KHTML within Mozilla. But when Joe Person watches TV or drives around, they see numerous variations on the same thing. What's more, when they are taught to drive, they find that there is very little variance in how things appear to them regardless of which car they drive.
Do the lines in the middle of the road suddenly appear all crammed over on the left? No. Do the street signs suddenly show up all in illegibly small print? No. Do the traffic lights suddenly quit blinking and lighting up for them? No.
Now, the placement of various controls might differ somewhat. But a steering wheel works the same regardless. As do the pedals (some cars having a clutch of course).
But with a browser, the entire browsing experience is different depending on which layout engine you use. For the most part it's the same, but not always, and particularly if a site takes advantages of the quirks of a certain engine.
In any case, Microsoft is not in the same boat as a car manufacturer with regard to browsers. Most folks don't get ads on TV indicating the hot chicks they could pick up if only they would use Firefox (I mean, it has *fox* right there in the name!). And they aren't assaulted visually be billboards indicating how cool the latest Opera revision is. Likewise, they can't drive by fleets of computers all showing them the latest copy of Safari as they take little Timmy to school in the morning.
Most users are not aware, and usually only as a circumstance of their usage patterns.
The web conveys information (or is supposed to) and if you are not interested in information regarding web browsers, you will not be aware of alternate browsers. It's just that simple.
And the user who posted about AOL is exactly right. Likewise, Microsoft capitalizes on this fact. If it is already installed and working on someone's new computer, they are much less likely to switch, unless they a) have a reason to and b) have the knowledge of what they might be able to switch to.
And if Toyota could set it up so that people were unaware there were any other manufacturers available, do you think for one second they wouldn't?
However, the greater part of the bluff on humans is at the emotional level and this AI should be immune to it.
I guess that's what I was responding to. Most folks have a tendency to misrepresent AI as being somehow more human like, an error brought on, I would think, by the fact that humans are the most (only?) intelligent species we are familiar with. An AI doesn't necessarily inherit our foibles (unless we screw up and add them in).
But why would a "true AI" be susceptible to bluffs? Would a veneer of humanity laid atop an overgrown calculator somehow limit its ability to perform said calculations?
Or, to put it differently, why would I include sufficient ego in an AI to cause it to be able to underestimate an opponent?
Slashdot Mirror
That sounds like my manager at my old job. Very effective productivity tool. Though he tended to use CAT 5 cable. Seemed to hold up better under repetitive use.
you call him weirdo and have 'touch my hiney' in your sig?
I believe the grandparent post was referring to the author of said work, Oscar Wilde, homosexual and I believe accused of sodomizing young boys (vary vague and flimsy recollection of that bit of information).
The part where it was a "tough decision". Here, you decide... either stab yourself in the eye with this red hot iron poker or opt for accepting a tax-free million dollars in cash.
If I state that's a tough decision for you, that's arguably an insult.
I suppose I should have emphasized the bit about being a tough decision. That was my point.
For what it's worth, I'm a Java developer myself and while C and PHP have their merits, I also prefer Java development.
Then..
And then..
Either you a) just gravely insulted the Open Xchange developers or b) should not be in charge of making any significant decision for your company.
Well, they might perhaps use that feature, but I doubt they rely on it solely or even primarily.
I receive spam that appears to be addressed from folks in my Address Book all the time. If a valid email address is used to send spam, it will get past this filter.
Hell, I run my own domain, so my email address is plastered about my website (yes I need to clean that up). I receive spam email supposedly from myself!
I must be one sickly masochistic individual to bombard myself with spam.
I think I'll go punish myself...
The console price isn't the problem; rather, I think, it's the subscription model.
I'm an infrequent gamer. More particularly, I am the "former gamer who has a family" which they are supposedly targetting. They have missed me by a country mile.
Subscription models increase in value to the consumer when the consumer uses them more. For a fixed price per month, if I'm gaming a lot, I'm getting more game per dollar. If I only game a little, (and some months not gaming at all) I'm throwing away cash.
From their perspective, of course they want to charge a subscription and hook folks in who use little of the service. They make money for baby sitting idle game servers.
In fact, assuming this catches on at all, gamers who are money savvy and yet who feel compelled to buy this will end up using the hell out of the service, whereas folks like me will avoid it because we don't want to subscribe to something we will use so little of. As a result, what subscriptions they do sell will be of the sort to download a lot of games and thus will be unlikely to cover bandwidth and server maintenance fees on top of personnel expenses.
Are you talking about big name artists? I mean, if you downloaded a No Doubt live show, liked it and kept it, are you saying you would try to send the band some cash directly?
If so, have you ever actually verified that the group is getting the funds? I mean, for all you know, their manager or whoever is responsible for handling incoming fan mail might just be pocketing the cash themselves.
I guess what I'm asking is, is there any indication that performers are even aware that folks like you exist? Because if not, you aren't having much of an effect. It seems we would need to raise awareness to the bands directly.
Now, what if someone were to create the proverbial tip jar, but this time, with available options to tip any band or performer you choose who has listed themselves with the service. The money would go directly to the performer's bank account without suffering the middle man. By requiring the bands to sign up, you could at least try to screen them to make sure they understand the money is to go directly to them. Fat chance actually talking to them directly, but you never know.
And I imagine it would have to be in the form of a tip jar or donation or somesuch because of contractual requirements for profit sharing based on sales and such. Better than a "Screw-The-RIAA" jar, legally speaking.
Just a thought... if the original experiment (particle level modelling of cloud physics) was better done on a supercomputer instead of a cluster, why would having to run multiples of that problem (differing starting conditions) run any better on a cluster? Mind, in this case I'm thinking of a cluster of lower powered machines. A cluster of supercomputers would obviously work out. :)
In short, if clustering provides a better/cheaper solution, go with it.
Um, yes. The grandparent and ggp were (I think) inferring though that for that particular application you actually won't be able to be both better and cheaper with a clustering solution.
i.e. if you throw enough Linux boxes into the cluster to be able to achieve the "better (faster)" solution, you will no longer be cheaper.
But I don't think anyone was arguing that even if a cluster is cheaper and faster you should still go with a supercomputer instead.
Didn't Sega try the "get it out early" tactic with the Dreamcast and fail miserably? Unless I'm missing my facts.
Imagine that a significant portion of the commuting population were vested in this game. They had the hardware and the desire to play this game and did so.
Imagine that this population also wanted to fight these new monsters in game, so they all started altering their commuting patterns.
I wonder how, if at all, this would affect traffic congestion. High traffic areas with much congestion might see some relief as commuters elected to pick different routes into and out of town, just to get the better pickings in less travelled areas.
Then again, commuting could be made worse. Instead of everyone getting on a bus or train (where *everyone* is hacking the some mobs), they all jump into their individual vehicles, creating additional nodes on the traffic system.
Of course, given the initial assumptions about the population size, I doubt it would have much of an effect.
Still, an interesting thought.
I won't mention it to anyone... else. ;)
It's a Voltron reference! I know this!
shake off the yolk of human oppression
Ick. We're throwing eggs at them? That's just not right. Perhaps once they've shaken off the yoke of human oppression, they will be able to carry out their existences relatively egg-free.
Remember, he said "all things being equal"...
Hmm... base, plugged into wall outlet, plenty of power... handset, running on battery, probably using less energy for transmission in order to conserve energy.
I'd say the transmission power *might* play a factor in there somewhere. And I, too, recall that lower frequencies tend to travel further.
tongue troopers
I don't know whether to fear or be excited about that notion...
I had a friend who went with cash for everything. He lived in an apartment and paid cash for that. A cell phone was out of the question for awhile (this was several years ago) until he managed to get a service plan with Sprint. It was the prepaid version of their plan. Of course, these days you could get a prepaid phone from just about anyone.
The two biggest things I would see a problem with would be a) big ticket items and b) credit rating.
The big ticket items like cars and especially houses are going to require you to either save the money and pay cash for them or have a rich relative willing to lend you the money. Saving for a car may not be a big deal, especially if you don't want or need the latest models out of Detroit. Saving up for a house is an exercise I don't have the patience for.
A credit rating would seem to be useless. If you're living by paying for things with cash, what need do you have for a credit rating? Some companies, however, do background checks on potential employees, including a credit check. Also, and I wish I had more details, I recently was involved in "something" that at first glance I thought should NOT have required a credit check, but the other party did. After it was explained to me, it did some logical, even if I didn't like it. Maybe it was insurance? I don't recall.
Anyway, you would have a bad credit rating because you would have no credit history.
This becomes more of an issue if you eventually decide to go back to a non-cash lifestyle, at which point you begin to have serious problems getting better deals (finance rates, for example) on things.
So continue researching and be careful. If you don't think you can stick with it, I would say it isn't for you.
What you can do, though, is to reduce your footprint. Eliminate as many cards and other credit accounts as possible while paying for cash as much as you can. Stick with a car note, a house note and a credit card that you use to charge a little bit of money on each month while paying it off completely each billing cycle. Think of it is a "good credit report fee" when you see the small interest charge on each monthly bill.
Actually, most hotels I've stayed in have a cash option, but that requires prepayment for the expected duration of your stay. In cash. Have fun.
And the toss it in the bank to earn interest.
And the bank gets the money to pay the interest by loaning the money out.
And the money goes out in the form of business loans, home loans, car loans, personal loans, lines of credit and so forth.
The homes are bought and money goes out to various individuals related to that industry. And the cars are bought likewise. And the personal loans are taken out to pay for various things around the house or what not. And the lines of credit likewise.
And the business loans? The business loans pay for new equipment (which will operated by new employees) and new buildings (which will be occupied by new employees) and new employees, which will.. erm.. right.
Anyway, while I'm not convinced about trickle down theory myself, to simply stop and say "Well, they toss it in the bank and that's it" is a bit short sighted.
Swapping engines in a car is more akin to swapping Gecko out for KHTML within Mozilla. But when Joe Person watches TV or drives around, they see numerous variations on the same thing. What's more, when they are taught to drive, they find that there is very little variance in how things appear to them regardless of which car they drive.
Do the lines in the middle of the road suddenly appear all crammed over on the left? No. Do the street signs suddenly show up all in illegibly small print? No. Do the traffic lights suddenly quit blinking and lighting up for them? No.
Now, the placement of various controls might differ somewhat. But a steering wheel works the same regardless. As do the pedals (some cars having a clutch of course).
But with a browser, the entire browsing experience is different depending on which layout engine you use. For the most part it's the same, but not always, and particularly if a site takes advantages of the quirks of a certain engine.
In any case, Microsoft is not in the same boat as a car manufacturer with regard to browsers. Most folks don't get ads on TV indicating the hot chicks they could pick up if only they would use Firefox (I mean, it has *fox* right there in the name!). And they aren't assaulted visually be billboards indicating how cool the latest Opera revision is. Likewise, they can't drive by fleets of computers all showing them the latest copy of Safari as they take little Timmy to school in the morning.
Most users are not aware, and usually only as a circumstance of their usage patterns.
The web conveys information (or is supposed to) and if you are not interested in information regarding web browsers, you will not be aware of alternate browsers. It's just that simple.
And the user who posted about AOL is exactly right. Likewise, Microsoft capitalizes on this fact. If it is already installed and working on someone's new computer, they are much less likely to switch, unless they a) have a reason to and b) have the knowledge of what they might be able to switch to.
And if Toyota could set it up so that people were unaware there were any other manufacturers available, do you think for one second they wouldn't?
I guess that's what I was responding to. Most folks have a tendency to misrepresent AI as being somehow more human like, an error brought on, I would think, by the fact that humans are the most (only?) intelligent species we are familiar with. An AI doesn't necessarily inherit our foibles (unless we screw up and add them in).
But why would a "true AI" be susceptible to bluffs? Would a veneer of humanity laid atop an overgrown calculator somehow limit its ability to perform said calculations?
Or, to put it differently, why would I include sufficient ego in an AI to cause it to be able to underestimate an opponent?
No, I for one welcome our new AI overlords.
"Uh, sir, is there a hiss coming from your Coke can?"
- as a near (but not quite) inaudible hiss becomes the only tell tale trace of a Sarin attack.
I think a remotely triggered attack hidden within an otherwise innocuous looking can of Coke is *exactly* what would be meant by bi-directional.
Indeed, but I believe I'm more of a sad bastard than you all.