The A.P. Computer Science course was a great learning experience, but only because there was standardized material that teachers had to adhere to so that we could pass the APCS exam.
Perhaps the problem is that there is too low availability of such programs or entities that can create such a standardized curriculum.
I don't recall saying anywhere that you said that we should have invaded NK. Try some reading comprehension. It generally helps with this sort of thing.
As to addressing the issue, I do consider that addressing the issue as they were not posing an immediate threat. The Iraq war was irrelevant to our handling of the NK situation.
I pay attention to the world around me, it seems you have no idea about international politics or how the world works.
The U.S. wasn't ignoring North Korea. If we weren't in Iraq or Afghanistan, we still wouldn't have gone to war or invaded NK because:
1. China sits on the UN permanent security council, which means the U.S. would have a hard time drumming up international support for any first-strike actions against NK.
2. Any aggression from the U.S. puts Chinese/U.S. trade relations in danger.
3. It's apparent to *EVERYONE* on the world stage that NK is bluffing to receive foreign aid.
The U.S. has been handling the NK situation through a series of disarmament talks with Japan, South Korea, NK, and China.
Just because we haven't taken physical action (doing so would have been foolish) DOESN'T MEAN WE HAVE BEEN IGNORING THEM.
China will *NOT* come to NK's aid. They did it in the 50s when they had nothing to lose and a lot to gain. Now they have a lot to lose (trillions of dollars in debt, crushed economy) and nothing to gain (they aren't hardcore commies anymore, cold war is over).
I don't know what American's you're using to make that over-generalization, but it's certainly false.
Maybe you spend too much time watching sensationalist media, but most of us aren't concerned about terrorism at all. Rather, we're much more concerned with the bullshit the gov't does using counter-terrorism as an excuse.
Proof? My understanding that they were losing money on every PS3 regardless of scale, just like printers lose money on every sale, but make the money back in ink cartridge prices.
It's a different but equally valid model, and one that you have disregarded so that you can call other people "infantile" for recognizing it.
From Digital Trends: "Since the PS3’s debut in November of 2006, every console been sold for a loss. With the move to a new cheaper and cooler RSX graphics card, the PS3 is finally showing a profit on each unit sold.... It isn’t uncommon for consoles to sell at a loss as manufacturers make up the difference through game prices and additional components like controllers, while waiting for the component pricing to inevitably drop, but the costs were higher than anticipated. By comparison, the Xbox 360, which sold at a loss of around $100 per unit when it debuted, quickly began to see a profit of $75per console within a year and a half of the its release."
So from the sounds of it: "Now they have sold so many PS3s that the sunk costs are more than paid for, but it's not sensible to say current PS3s are profitable and older ones were not. They paid for development and equipment, and each PS3 sold at any time was revenue Sony used to recoup losses and eventually make a profit." is mostly incorrect.
It *is* sensible to say that the current PS3s are profitable and the older ones are not since the current PS3s had hardware changes that made them more profitable and the old ones didn't. The cost per unit in just hardware (not including sunk cost) was still higher than what they were being sold for.
I worked for a large defense contractor that writes a lot of complex software on secure systems. The only quality control tools I ever saw used were PMD, audits/standards put forth by DISA, and in depth peer software reviews.
My understanding is that at some point they decided that products like Contour are 95% bullshit and 5% use, which can be replicated by more efficient processes.
I did software development and IA, so I had a fair bit of knowledge about the processes used.
I stopped taking you seriously when you drew a conclusion about the real world based on a blanket analogy without first considering if the blanket analogy was good enough to make that conclusion.
You clearly have no idea how any large engineering company works.
First, no employee can just go out and file a patent, they sign that right away when they join a company like IBM.
Secondly, it's the legal department of IBM that would file a patent, the employee would just submit a proposal. The legal department meticulously goes through the proposal claims just as a patent office would to avoid scenarios like what the OP is implying.
Thirdly, the employee only makes a bonus once the patent is granted, not on the submission of a proposal, such that there is NO incentive for submitting stolen or invalid patent proposals.
What is happening here is that the OP doesn't understand what IBM patented. IBM patented an improvement of the OPs invention and specifically claims that they are NOT patenting the OPs invention.
That might be true on the national scale, but on the local scale, there are several cable companies in our area offering competing internet/tv to Comcast, Cox being the largest.
The death penalty wasn't designed to deter extremely violent crimes. The death penalty was designed to remove extremely violent persons from our society. The same way killing lawyers is about removing those that are so corrupt that it is believed they cannot be rehabilitated.
Not true. The reason why a netbook is called a NETbook is because it's designed to be a cheap and mobile interface to a network (such as the Internet) similar in concept to a thin-client. Cheap being the key word.
A notebook is a small laptop, a netbook is an inexpensive notebook.
Because you posted as a coward, you'll never hear me calling you a moron, but that is what you are. The post you are responding to is not a correction, but another joke altogether.
It also appears that wikipedia and snopes disagrees with you:
"The following unverified quotation has been attributed to Tytler, most notably as part of a longer piece which began circulating on the Internet shortly after the 2000 U.S. Presidential Election[9]:
[quotation follows] There is no reliable record of Alexander Tytler's having made the statement.[9] "
Maybe for some people. Personally, I get hung up on the claims that the quote makes. First, that the average age of great civilizations was 200 years. This seems to be a carefully chosen date to correlate with the democratic revolutions that took place in France, the U.S., Mexico, and many other countries at the end of the last major colonial/imperial age. That is, chosen to be particularly relevant right about when the quotation is published. Any of my attempts at verifying that figure independently have used that quote as a primary source (that is, it cannot be verified independently and is likely bunk).
I say "is" because this quotation has been re-used several times in history (from 1951 to 2000) particularly around election times and other politically important events.
Also, the quote treats this pattern as a proven and established pattern, even though democracy in it's modern form and the way we have it (with a constitution and checks of power) is relatively recent.
That is, the author makes an unsupported argument and uses careful weasel-wording and timing to appeal to his audience.
If you've read Frank Herbert's Dune, it's very similar to the Missionary Protectiva concept: slight of hand with careful timing to spur action.
It is a great quote for sure, but one to be skeptical of and to carefully examine, not to take at face value.
I put "3d movies are" into the google searchbar, and it autofilled:
"3d movies are a gimmick 3d movies are overrated 3d movies are bullshit 3d movies are crap 3d movies are annoying"
as the first 5 options.
I think the massive backlash is because many people view 3d as the first result, a gimmick to pass off lower quality films while trying to keep the same revenue. After all, the hollywood revenue stream has two factors. One being ticket prices, which can be boosted for the gimmick, and the other being production costs which can be reduced if the film expectations are lowered.
If it was true that the poster above's study provided evidence for your assertion, then you contradicted yourself here:
"universally designed to mislead, it is quite simple to set your policy"
One line, you say we're incapable of independent thought and have weak willpower, then in another suggest that we use our strong willpower to consciously set effective policies even though you claim that an article showing that ads effect the unconscious in ways that we cannot control.
Slashdot Mirror
The A.P. Computer Science course was a great learning experience, but only because there was standardized material that teachers had to adhere to so that we could pass the APCS exam.
Perhaps the problem is that there is too low availability of such programs or entities that can create such a standardized curriculum.
I don't recall saying anywhere that you said that we should have invaded NK. Try some reading comprehension. It generally helps with this sort of thing.
As to addressing the issue, I do consider that addressing the issue as they were not posing an immediate threat. The Iraq war was irrelevant to our handling of the NK situation.
I pay attention to the world around me, it seems you have no idea about international politics or how the world works.
The U.S. wasn't ignoring North Korea. If we weren't in Iraq or Afghanistan, we still wouldn't have gone to war or invaded NK because:
1. China sits on the UN permanent security council, which means the U.S. would have a hard time drumming up international support for any first-strike actions against NK.
2. Any aggression from the U.S. puts Chinese/U.S. trade relations in danger.
3. It's apparent to *EVERYONE* on the world stage that NK is bluffing to receive foreign aid.
The U.S. has been handling the NK situation through a series of disarmament talks with Japan, South Korea, NK, and China.
Just because we haven't taken physical action (doing so would have been foolish) DOESN'T MEAN WE HAVE BEEN IGNORING THEM.
Who is 'we'? You?
The U.S. military/gov't/news did no such thing.
China will *NOT* come to NK's aid. They did it in the 50s when they had nothing to lose and a lot to gain. Now they have a lot to lose (trillions of dollars in debt, crushed economy) and nothing to gain (they aren't hardcore commies anymore, cold war is over).
NK Leadership would be a lot more powerful and prosperous if their country was more powerful and prosperous.
I don't know what American's you're using to make that over-generalization, but it's certainly false.
Maybe you spend too much time watching sensationalist media, but most of us aren't concerned about terrorism at all. Rather, we're much more concerned with the bullshit the gov't does using counter-terrorism as an excuse.
From TFA:
""everyone should have one" category, and out of the "gee, I wish I couple afford one" tier."
Proof? My understanding that they were losing money on every PS3 regardless of scale, just like printers lose money on every sale, but make the money back in ink cartridge prices.
...
It's a different but equally valid model, and one that you have disregarded so that you can call other people "infantile" for recognizing it.
From Digital Trends: "Since the PS3’s debut in November of 2006, every console been sold for a loss. With the move to a new cheaper and cooler RSX graphics card, the PS3 is finally showing a profit on each unit sold.
It isn’t uncommon for consoles to sell at a loss as manufacturers make up the difference through game prices and additional components like controllers, while waiting for the component pricing to inevitably drop, but the costs were higher than anticipated. By comparison, the Xbox 360, which sold at a loss of around $100 per unit when it debuted, quickly began to see a profit of $75per console within a year and a half of the its release."
So from the sounds of it: "Now they have sold so many PS3s that the sunk costs are more than paid for, but it's not sensible to say current PS3s are profitable and older ones were not. They paid for development and equipment, and each PS3 sold at any time was revenue Sony used to recoup losses and eventually make a profit." is mostly incorrect.
It *is* sensible to say that the current PS3s are profitable and the older ones are not since the current PS3s had hardware changes that made them more profitable and the old ones didn't. The cost per unit in just hardware (not including sunk cost) was still higher than what they were being sold for.
I worked for a large defense contractor that writes a lot of complex software on secure systems. The only quality control tools I ever saw used were PMD, audits/standards put forth by DISA, and in depth peer software reviews.
My understanding is that at some point they decided that products like Contour are 95% bullshit and 5% use, which can be replicated by more efficient processes.
I did software development and IA, so I had a fair bit of knowledge about the processes used.
A.K.A., you're a coward.
I stopped taking you seriously when you drew a conclusion about the real world based on a blanket analogy without first considering if the blanket analogy was good enough to make that conclusion.
You clearly have no idea how any large engineering company works.
First, no employee can just go out and file a patent, they sign that right away when they join a company like IBM.
Secondly, it's the legal department of IBM that would file a patent, the employee would just submit a proposal. The legal department meticulously goes through the proposal claims just as a patent office would to avoid scenarios like what the OP is implying.
Thirdly, the employee only makes a bonus once the patent is granted, not on the submission of a proposal, such that there is NO incentive for submitting stolen or invalid patent proposals.
What is happening here is that the OP doesn't understand what IBM patented. IBM patented an improvement of the OPs invention and specifically claims that they are NOT patenting the OPs invention.
That might be true on the national scale, but on the local scale, there are several cable companies in our area offering competing internet/tv to Comcast, Cox being the largest.
The death penalty wasn't designed to deter extremely violent crimes. The death penalty was designed to remove extremely violent persons from our society. The same way killing lawyers is about removing those that are so corrupt that it is believed they cannot be rehabilitated.
Not true. The reason why a netbook is called a NETbook is because it's designed to be a cheap and mobile interface to a network (such as the Internet) similar in concept to a thin-client. Cheap being the key word.
A notebook is a small laptop, a netbook is an inexpensive notebook.
Because you posted as a coward, you'll never hear me calling you a moron, but that is what you are. The post you are responding to is not a correction, but another joke altogether.
Like WGA?
It also appears that wikipedia and snopes disagrees with you:
"The following unverified quotation has been attributed to Tytler, most notably as part of a longer piece which began circulating on the Internet shortly after the 2000 U.S. Presidential Election[9]:
[quotation follows]
There is no reliable record of Alexander Tytler's having made the statement.[9] "
He could be Jesus reincarnate, but if he isn't going to be pushing the legislation that you support, why would you vote for him to work against you?
Maybe for some people. Personally, I get hung up on the claims that the quote makes. First, that the average age of great civilizations was 200 years. This seems to be a carefully chosen date to correlate with the democratic revolutions that took place in France, the U.S., Mexico, and many other countries at the end of the last major colonial/imperial age. That is, chosen to be particularly relevant right about when the quotation is published. Any of my attempts at verifying that figure independently have used that quote as a primary source (that is, it cannot be verified independently and is likely bunk).
I say "is" because this quotation has been re-used several times in history (from 1951 to 2000) particularly around election times and other politically important events.
Also, the quote treats this pattern as a proven and established pattern, even though democracy in it's modern form and the way we have it (with a constitution and checks of power) is relatively recent.
That is, the author makes an unsupported argument and uses careful weasel-wording and timing to appeal to his audience.
If you've read Frank Herbert's Dune, it's very similar to the Missionary Protectiva concept: slight of hand with careful timing to spur action.
It is a great quote for sure, but one to be skeptical of and to carefully examine, not to take at face value.
Inception was brutal on my ears. I almost left a few times because I was in such pain. Louder doesn't mean more immersive, louder just means louder.
I put "3d movies are" into the google searchbar, and it autofilled:
"3d movies are a gimmick
3d movies are overrated
3d movies are bullshit
3d movies are crap
3d movies are annoying"
as the first 5 options.
I think the massive backlash is because many people view 3d as the first result, a gimmick to pass off lower quality films while trying to keep the same revenue. After all, the hollywood revenue stream has two factors. One being ticket prices, which can be boosted for the gimmick, and the other being production costs which can be reduced if the film expectations are lowered.
My $0.02
*supports your argument.
Add that to the end of the last line.
If it was true that the poster above's study provided evidence for your assertion, then you contradicted yourself here:
"universally designed to mislead, it is quite simple to set your policy"
One line, you say we're incapable of independent thought and have weak willpower, then in another suggest that we use our strong willpower to consciously set effective policies even though you claim that an article showing that ads effect the unconscious in ways that we cannot control.