The 30% is certainly high for companies that already have everything you described, like Amazon and Microsoft. There's a lot of tension there, to be sure. Even for the little guys though, I can see people pushing to negotiate that 30% down somewhat, especially if they have a variety of toolkits that each take a fixed %, leaving the dev with less than 30% of each sale.
No, a free trial has full functionality with limited time. Shareware has limited functionality but unlimited time.
There were many kinds of shareware: limited time, limited functionality, nagware, and guiltware, just to name a few. The early BBS says lacked the monetization sophistication of modern apps, but they did try quite a few approaches.
You are unable to distinguish between what a character in a book said, and what the author said about that book. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. I am now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.
f you had wanted to say, pick James G. Blaine or Chester Arthur, you should have known to have gone with over a century, and I didn't want to think that poorly of you.
I have to call you out on this. Chester A Arthur is likely the least corrupt president we've had. He ran in the primary as the corruption candidate, but when he was VP and James Garfield was assassinated, he immediately flipped to the anti-corruption position that Garfield had held, at the clear risk to his own life, simply to make it clear that US policy will never be controlled by assassins.
Politicians today are simply not made of the same stuff.
You seem to be ignoring the fact that we don't have to guess why Orwell wrote 1984: he told us directly that it was about how socialism can go wrong. You're saying "but that wasn't socialism", and yes, that was the damn point of the book: it had gone wrong. FFS, man.
Well, I'd say that the tools of totalitarianism are the tools of socialism taken farther. E.g., Britain's panopticon and social media police are the tools of totalitarianism, but Britain was socialist for decades before things got that bad. Sure, though, merely a difference in degree, not a difference in kind.
Warren Harding was 1920, you meant to say almost a century
Good point, if debatable as to the degree of corruption. Certainly comparable.
Unfortunately, despite Trump's rejection by a plurality, he still got into office, and is even now taking open bribes.
Interesting theory. Does it involve shape-shifting Reptoids?
Had a five minute conversation with the average vote recently?
Yes, and most of them seem to openly embrace the premise of identity politics. Plenty of exceptions, though.
Nope. Not Socialism.
The Party seeks power entirely for its own sake. We are not interested in the good of others; we are interested solely in power. Not wealth or luxury or long life or happiness: only power, pure power. What pure power means you will understand presently. We are different from all the oligarchies of the past, in that we know what we are doing. All the others, even those who resembled ourselves, were cowards and hypocrites.
You should read more carefully.
The book's warning was about that.
Not about socialism.
Orwell has explicitly written that 1984, like Animal Farm, was about how a socialist government can fall to totalitarianism. Just as Animal Farm was a warning about the betrayal from within, as the revolutionaries fall to the lure of power, 1984 was a warning about the danger that, no matter how pure of heart your socialist revolutionaries, there will be others, not at all pure, attracted to the concentration of power. The tools of socialism look a lot like the tools of totalitarianism, after all, so it's a question of trusting those who get their hands on those tools.
Because ideology often trumps self interest. It's like homosexuals still being Christian or Muslim, or poor/middle-class people voting against socialised healthcare.
Not great examples. Many Christian churches welcome homosexuals these days (most churches in liberal areas do), and socialized health care is not in the self-interest of most of the middle class.
While that's an optimistic thought, 2016 was not a rejection of totalitarianism or post modernism, merely a rejection of the most corrupt presidential candidate in a century. There's little evidence thus far that people are rejecting identity politics, which is the lever by which modern totalitarians move themselves into power.
Orwell, an ardent socialist, saw well the dangers socialism presented for descent into totalitarianism.
You may well be right. However, I suspect a quark star only exists inside a black hole, which would make it hard to verify. (Much like the theory that F6 tornadoes exist, but only inside an F5, so how can you ever prove it?)
Well, the proton is already the lowest energy level. The binding energy for hadrons works a bit differently than for atoms - pulling a quark out of a photon requires so much energy that new quarks are created and the quarks remain bound in particles. Free neutrons, OTOH, decay with a half life of ~14 minutes IIRC, when they aren't packed in tightly with other protons and neutrons.
TFS is a bit odd too. Of course the pressure in a proton is greater than in a neutron star - when the internal pressure in a start exceeds the pressure inside a neutron, the neutrons collapse and you get a black hole. And protons and neutrons are reasonably similar.
Again, that merely restates Zeno's assumptions when stating the problem. The question is: how do you complete an infinite number of actions in a finite time.
What your saying is "I ignore the question and blindly assume it's possible, and having done so, I know how long it takes". Yeah, that's not the interesting bit.
You've completely misunderstood Zeno's paradox. You've merely stated one of his premises. The question at hand was whether an infinite count of events can be packed into a finite time. The answer is still unclear.
Taking a couple of isolated incidents shows nothing about might.
They aren't a couple of isolated incidents - they are a pattern across the navy. Read the incident reports and court martial summaries (what's public) and it's clear, from patrol boats that surrender because the ship is in too poor shape to fight, to DDGs where a dozen officers each should have sounded an alarm, and none of the did. 20 hour shifts, no training on navigation basics, faulty radar (or mis-configured). These are cultural (and budget) issues.
Also, you should look at the two civil wars we've had in the US (the successful one we call a revolution, of course). It's always trained military onboth sides, armed with real equipment thanks to either bases switching sides, or raids on armories. But that starts with an armed populace.
People don't want centrism. If the DNC pushes centrism, it will fail again and again. Centrism has only led us further down the spiral.
That's a fundamental misunderstanding of US politics. The 70% of Americans who are politically disinterested are centrists and want centrism. That's the vast crowd who never participates in political discussions online.
What people increasingly don't want is the establishment. The 70% of politicians who blatantly don't care about voters, and sell them out to corporate donors, and never seem to fix any of the day-to-day problems that it seems the government should fix.
You'll notice that, since the mid-90s at least, national elections have been strongly anti-incumbent. We keep trying to "throw the bums out" over and over again. America has not been surging strongly to the left for 6 years, then strongly to the right for 6 years, then back and forth again. We've just been voting the bastards out. Beria and Trump both appeal strongly to voters who increasingly sense that the establishment just doesn't care about them.
People (mostly) don't vote for Trump because he's a boorish ass, but instead they are so disillusioned they're willing to accept that to get some chance of real change. People (mostly) don't vote for Bernie because he's a socialist, but instead they are so disillusioned they're willing to accept that to get some chance of real change. A candidate who could somehow show he was strongly anti-establishment without being a fringe weirdo would win in a landslide - but how would you manage that?
. The USA hasn't demonstrated it's military might since the Vietnam war and even that effort paled in comparison to WW2.
You mean, the US has not demonstrated some alleged, potential might that it once had a lifetime ago. What makes you think that can change?
At the small scale, the US in Iraq was objectively the deadliest fighting force ever seen. Clearing houses, where the defender should have a massive advantage, casualties went 10:1 the other way. When it comes to squad-level action, there are none better.
But that's not the might of a nation. Our Navy can't even steer around civilian ships safely, and it's clear that's a structural issue (overworked crews with inadequate training and failing equipment), not just a bad commander here or there. Our air force can keep its full compliment of planes flying, because it's so underfunded it has to park some to salvage for parts, like the cold-war Russian air force. There are structural issues across the board.
And those top-notch soldiers who fought in Iraq? Those are now ex-military gun owners. I'd bet on them in a fight.
When you have an attendee using OSX... it almost works sometimes.
The problem with S4B on OSX is that it doesn't reconnect when people log in, making the whole thing nearly useless. Whats the point of an IM system that is almost always logged out? (And we used Lync/S4B mostly for IM, conference calls were secondary).
For all the rhetoric about "oh Skype's ailing because of focus on business needs", S4B compares poorly with pretty much all of its business oriented competitors.
Oh, there are other products similarly poor, though that at least has first class OSX support.
It would no doubt have been built on farmland with the local farmers - of thich there will be many - having their land compulsory purchased
Why would you imagine "compulsory purchased"? It's a data center - a large building - not an airport. Apple has billions stuck in Ireland right now, and Irish farm land isn't Manhattan. Apple would have no problem finding one farmer to sell them some land.
All they'd see out of it is reduced income and more traffic.
Once it's complete, it's (a few) more jobs in the local economy, which then have a multiplied effect for more support jobs (creating a tech job in the first world creates an extra 1.6 or so "neighborhood" jobs, closer to 10x in places like India). A few hundred extra jobs (heck, even a few dozen) is a meaningful boost to a rural economy.
Everything you just described is fundamental to receiving data from non-programmers. Excel isn't causing that problem, it's users are - and they'd be causing it regardless. But, hey, normalize your inputs and get on with life.
These people are in love with Excel, and when they submit requirements for actual software development, they adamantly insist that the software accept Excel documents as input, and that everything the program does be controlled by Excel.
This creates terrible inefficiency, gobbles up memory, slows the system down, injects an endless stream of bugs and support issues, and lets utterly unqualified people inject code into complex systems with little-to-no insight as to what-all is going to break because of it. But if you try to convince them to allow you to implement some of that logic in a proper coding language, they flatly refuse.
Lo, I was beset by such ills, and I went to the mountaintop. Upon the mountaintop was a burning bush, and in a booming voice it spoke:
C S V
So it is written. So let it be done.
(Seriously, tell your Excel jockies the input format is CSV, or TSV, or whatever. As a bridge between Excel and real code, it's a gift from God. They can play to their hearts' content in Excel, but they have to give you plain data, and accept plain data from you.)
Slashdot Mirror
The 30% is certainly high for companies that already have everything you described, like Amazon and Microsoft. There's a lot of tension there, to be sure. Even for the little guys though, I can see people pushing to negotiate that 30% down somewhat, especially if they have a variety of toolkits that each take a fixed %, leaving the dev with less than 30% of each sale.
No, a free trial has full functionality with limited time. Shareware has limited functionality but unlimited time.
There were many kinds of shareware: limited time, limited functionality, nagware, and guiltware, just to name a few. The early BBS says lacked the monetization sophistication of modern apps, but they did try quite a few approaches.
You are unable to distinguish between what a character in a book said, and what the author said about that book. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. I am now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.
f you had wanted to say, pick James G. Blaine or Chester Arthur, you should have known to have gone with over a century, and I didn't want to think that poorly of you.
I have to call you out on this. Chester A Arthur is likely the least corrupt president we've had. He ran in the primary as the corruption candidate, but when he was VP and James Garfield was assassinated, he immediately flipped to the anti-corruption position that Garfield had held, at the clear risk to his own life, simply to make it clear that US policy will never be controlled by assassins.
Politicians today are simply not made of the same stuff.
You seem to be ignoring the fact that we don't have to guess why Orwell wrote 1984: he told us directly that it was about how socialism can go wrong. You're saying "but that wasn't socialism", and yes, that was the damn point of the book: it had gone wrong. FFS, man.
Well, I'd say that the tools of totalitarianism are the tools of socialism taken farther. E.g., Britain's panopticon and social media police are the tools of totalitarianism, but Britain was socialist for decades before things got that bad. Sure, though, merely a difference in degree, not a difference in kind.
Warren Harding was 1920, you meant to say almost a century
Good point, if debatable as to the degree of corruption. Certainly comparable.
Unfortunately, despite Trump's rejection by a plurality, he still got into office, and is even now taking open bribes.
Interesting theory. Does it involve shape-shifting Reptoids?
Had a five minute conversation with the average vote recently?
Yes, and most of them seem to openly embrace the premise of identity politics. Plenty of exceptions, though.
Nope. Not Socialism.
The Party seeks power entirely for its own sake. We are not interested in the good of others; we are interested solely in power. Not wealth or luxury or long life or happiness: only power, pure power. What pure power means you will understand presently. We are different from all the oligarchies of the past, in that we know what we are doing. All the others, even those who resembled ourselves, were cowards and hypocrites.
You should read more carefully.
The book's warning was about that.
Not about socialism.
Orwell has explicitly written that 1984, like Animal Farm, was about how a socialist government can fall to totalitarianism. Just as Animal Farm was a warning about the betrayal from within, as the revolutionaries fall to the lure of power, 1984 was a warning about the danger that, no matter how pure of heart your socialist revolutionaries, there will be others, not at all pure, attracted to the concentration of power. The tools of socialism look a lot like the tools of totalitarianism, after all, so it's a question of trusting those who get their hands on those tools.
Because ideology often trumps self interest. It's like homosexuals still being Christian or Muslim, or poor/middle-class people voting against socialised healthcare.
Not great examples. Many Christian churches welcome homosexuals these days (most churches in liberal areas do), and socialized health care is not in the self-interest of most of the middle class.
While that's an optimistic thought, 2016 was not a rejection of totalitarianism or post modernism, merely a rejection of the most corrupt presidential candidate in a century. There's little evidence thus far that people are rejecting identity politics, which is the lever by which modern totalitarians move themselves into power.
Orwell, an ardent socialist, saw well the dangers socialism presented for descent into totalitarianism.
You may well be right. However, I suspect a quark star only exists inside a black hole, which would make it hard to verify. (Much like the theory that F6 tornadoes exist, but only inside an F5, so how can you ever prove it?)
Is Subnuclear fission a possibility?
Well, the proton is already the lowest energy level. The binding energy for hadrons works a bit differently than for atoms - pulling a quark out of a photon requires so much energy that new quarks are created and the quarks remain bound in particles. Free neutrons, OTOH, decay with a half life of ~14 minutes IIRC, when they aren't packed in tightly with other protons and neutrons.
TFS is a bit odd too. Of course the pressure in a proton is greater than in a neutron star - when the internal pressure in a start exceeds the pressure inside a neutron, the neutrons collapse and you get a black hole. And protons and neutrons are reasonably similar.
Cyclists are allowed on the road.
In Cali: https://leginfo.legislature.ca...
In Texas: Sure, we call them "targets".
Again, that merely restates Zeno's assumptions when stating the problem. The question is: how do you complete an infinite number of actions in a finite time.
What your saying is "I ignore the question and blindly assume it's possible, and having done so, I know how long it takes". Yeah, that's not the interesting bit.
How do you complete an infinite number of action in finite time? That's the question. Zeno started with the premise that the sum converged to 1.
You've completely misunderstood Zeno's paradox. You've merely stated one of his premises. The question at hand was whether an infinite count of events can be packed into a finite time. The answer is still unclear.
Taking a couple of isolated incidents shows nothing about might.
They aren't a couple of isolated incidents - they are a pattern across the navy. Read the incident reports and court martial summaries (what's public) and it's clear, from patrol boats that surrender because the ship is in too poor shape to fight, to DDGs where a dozen officers each should have sounded an alarm, and none of the did. 20 hour shifts, no training on navigation basics, faulty radar (or mis-configured). These are cultural (and budget) issues.
Also, you should look at the two civil wars we've had in the US (the successful one we call a revolution, of course). It's always trained military onboth sides, armed with real equipment thanks to either bases switching sides, or raids on armories. But that starts with an armed populace.
People don't want centrism. If the DNC pushes centrism, it will fail again and again. Centrism has only led us further down the spiral.
That's a fundamental misunderstanding of US politics. The 70% of Americans who are politically disinterested are centrists and want centrism. That's the vast crowd who never participates in political discussions online.
What people increasingly don't want is the establishment. The 70% of politicians who blatantly don't care about voters, and sell them out to corporate donors, and never seem to fix any of the day-to-day problems that it seems the government should fix.
You'll notice that, since the mid-90s at least, national elections have been strongly anti-incumbent. We keep trying to "throw the bums out" over and over again. America has not been surging strongly to the left for 6 years, then strongly to the right for 6 years, then back and forth again. We've just been voting the bastards out. Beria and Trump both appeal strongly to voters who increasingly sense that the establishment just doesn't care about them.
People (mostly) don't vote for Trump because he's a boorish ass, but instead they are so disillusioned they're willing to accept that to get some chance of real change. People (mostly) don't vote for Bernie because he's a socialist, but instead they are so disillusioned they're willing to accept that to get some chance of real change. A candidate who could somehow show he was strongly anti-establishment without being a fringe weirdo would win in a landslide - but how would you manage that?
. The USA hasn't demonstrated it's military might since the Vietnam war and even that effort paled in comparison to WW2.
You mean, the US has not demonstrated some alleged, potential might that it once had a lifetime ago. What makes you think that can change?
At the small scale, the US in Iraq was objectively the deadliest fighting force ever seen. Clearing houses, where the defender should have a massive advantage, casualties went 10:1 the other way. When it comes to squad-level action, there are none better.
But that's not the might of a nation. Our Navy can't even steer around civilian ships safely, and it's clear that's a structural issue (overworked crews with inadequate training and failing equipment), not just a bad commander here or there. Our air force can keep its full compliment of planes flying, because it's so underfunded it has to park some to salvage for parts, like the cold-war Russian air force. There are structural issues across the board.
And those top-notch soldiers who fought in Iraq? Those are now ex-military gun owners. I'd bet on them in a fight.
No, it's clear you'll take any possible excuse to take away other people's guns. No need to look further into your motivations.
Every freedom has a cost. Freedom is worth it.
In order to make use of pumping water up a hill, you need an actual hill. Some parts of the world are really quite flat.
When you have an attendee using OSX... it almost works sometimes.
The problem with S4B on OSX is that it doesn't reconnect when people log in, making the whole thing nearly useless. Whats the point of an IM system that is almost always logged out? (And we used Lync/S4B mostly for IM, conference calls were secondary).
For all the rhetoric about "oh Skype's ailing because of focus on business needs", S4B compares poorly with pretty much all of its business oriented competitors.
Oh, there are other products similarly poor, though that at least has first class OSX support.
Ah, the "fixed sized pie" argument: new workers in an area just means others get less, because the economy can't possibly grow. Horseshit, of course.
It would no doubt have been built on farmland with the local farmers - of thich there will be many - having their land compulsory purchased
Why would you imagine "compulsory purchased"? It's a data center - a large building - not an airport. Apple has billions stuck in Ireland right now, and Irish farm land isn't Manhattan. Apple would have no problem finding one farmer to sell them some land.
All they'd see out of it is reduced income and more traffic.
Once it's complete, it's (a few) more jobs in the local economy, which then have a multiplied effect for more support jobs (creating a tech job in the first world creates an extra 1.6 or so "neighborhood" jobs, closer to 10x in places like India). A few hundred extra jobs (heck, even a few dozen) is a meaningful boost to a rural economy.
Everything you just described is fundamental to receiving data from non-programmers. Excel isn't causing that problem, it's users are - and they'd be causing it regardless. But, hey, normalize your inputs and get on with life.
These people are in love with Excel, and when they submit requirements for actual software development, they adamantly insist that the software accept Excel documents as input, and that everything the program does be controlled by Excel.
This creates terrible inefficiency, gobbles up memory, slows the system down, injects an endless stream of bugs and support issues, and lets utterly unqualified people inject code into complex systems with little-to-no insight as to what-all is going to break because of it. But if you try to convince them to allow you to implement some of that logic in a proper coding language, they flatly refuse.
Lo, I was beset by such ills, and I went to the mountaintop. Upon the mountaintop was a burning bush, and in a booming voice it spoke:
C S V
So it is written. So let it be done.
(Seriously, tell your Excel jockies the input format is CSV, or TSV, or whatever. As a bridge between Excel and real code, it's a gift from God. They can play to their hearts' content in Excel, but they have to give you plain data, and accept plain data from you.)
pwnt