Of course, if the bad guys are clever enough to seed the sidewalks in front of the airport with compounds known to be flagged, the whole system breaks down for a long, long time.
Oddly enough, people tend to form their expectations based on past experiences. Is it so unreasonable for the tone of the article to be incredulous when the situation is unprecedented?
Where you see value judgments and a jaded reporter, I see a pretty reasonable surprise. I don't see anything in the article where the reporter suggests that Perelman "should" do anything other than what he is. Surprise, and remarking on an unusual behavior, is *not* approbation.
I'm not much of a conspiracy theorist, but you have to wonder if they're paying this guy. At the very least, the guy has to have stock in Take Two the way he shamelessly promotes them.
Spammers use free and hijacked services because they get shut down a lot. Suppose some spammer can get 10,000 emails out using a commercial darnket before the account gets TOS'd. Even if they can get 100,000 emails out before having to spend another $6, that still destroys the economics of spamming.
Unless you're suggesting that the darknet is soft on spam and won't shut down spammer accounts.
Given that the hypothesis is valid (which is arguable), it seems to me that compressing wikipedia is a fairly useless way of supporting it. It seems like an abstraction error: Wikipedia is *not* a set of rules that predict the observations in it. It's a list of observations, sure, but there's no ruleset involved. Now, someone/thing who can read and parse language can get educated based on the knowledge in wikipedia, but then the intelligence is providing the ruleset, just training itself with the raw data in wiki.
It really seems like one of those mistaking-the-map-for-the-territory errors.
So Microsoft intentionally ships crappy software so that spammers will disrupt communication among open source programmers? Did I get that right?
You have a very... unique viewpoint. Have you considered writing a book about the Kennedy assassination? You may just be able to come up with something original in that area, which is no small feat.
You do realize that the difference between 1080i and 1080p is merely a transport difference, right? Any modern display (DLP, LCD, LCOS, most CRT) reassembles the frame in a memory buffer and displays it progressively. Interlacing is only visible as a display artifact, not as a transport.
Nitpick: HD movies, in both Bluray and HDDVD formats, are encoded at 1080p/24. It would be kind of silly to encode 60FPS when the original film that the DVD is mastered from is 24 FPS.
Yeah, 1080p rocks, and HD quality is far beyond mpeg2 DVD, but your math is a bit off.
Wow, that must suck to have these people coming in and driving up the price of the houses that you good central valley folk own. Mabye you should not only kick them out, but find new and innovative ways to intentionally lower the values of your homes so you can... er, wait, where were you going with this?
Hey, let's not defame traffic cops. They can be borderline unethical, but nothing like the real villains. The **AA's are more like classic protection rackets than the are like traffic cops:
- Their main tactic is intimidation
- Their business model is that people would rather pay a little than suffer a lot
- Because fear is their selling point, they have to win every battle. If it looks like they might lose, they'll back down rather than be seen as being weak by the other victims.
The worst form of "more than" abuse is, of course, when people use it with flagrantly non-round numbers. "More than 274 parts", "More than 6831 batteries", etc.
The second worst form -- which this OP engages in -- is nonsensical math. If 24 faults is "more than six times" the number of faults in the previous year, then the number of faults in the previous year was 1, 2, or 3 (if there were 4 in the previous year, 24 would be exactly six times as many). Yeah, the previous year could have been zero, but 1) I know office better than that, and 2) let's give the OP at least a tiny bit of credit.
So, ok, we're up from between 1 and 3 to 24. "More than six times"? Well, if the previous year was 3, "more than seven times" would be more accurate. If the previous year were 2, "twelve times" would suffice. And, god help us, if there were only one in the previous year, "compared to only one last year" is probably better than "24 faults, which is 24 times more than last year."
Please, join me in the crusade against "more than" abuse. It does give extra punch to a sentence, but only if used properly. -b
Indeed, but at least here in the US, Burger King aggressively advertsises "have it your way" as a competitive differentiator. My point, though, was that the WSJ has apparently just discovered something that is fundamental to a very large company's business model, or at least marketing thrust.
I agree that Netflix's advertising is misleading, but on the other hand it's not a simple message to communicate.
If you actually want abundance and not throttling, try upgrading your netflix plan. I'm on 7-at-a-time, and I see no signs of throttling (I generally return one disc a day and get one a day in the mail, and they turn around receipt/shipping in the same day).
I think the problem is that they have given people the impression that it's unlimited, quick-turn-around rentals regardless of how much you pay. The reality is that they will throttle the account to make sure they don't lose money on you (can't blame 'em for that, but you can blame 'em for not being more clear about it). For me, at least, paying a little more per month was worth it.
I generally agree that top level execs are paid too much.
However, regardless of that opinion, there's an easy explanation for the results the article found: given a top-notch CEO who gets a job offer from a well-performing company as well as an underperforming company, which company do you think would have to pay more to get his services?
Clearly, companies that are in need of a turnaround and repair are going to have to pay more to get equivelent talent. Not only is the work harder, but the prospect of failure and termination are much higher. It's a greater risk, and therefore the market will make it more expensive.
So there are a couple of valid interpretations of this data, and the article (wisely, probably) makes no attempt to jump from correltation to causation. Too bad so many people -- even slashdotters -- have such a hard time resisting the instinct to see the two as being the same.
...they've discovered Netflix's well-advertised business model. That's some investigative, in-depth reporting for you. Maybe one day soon they'll discover that Burger King differentiates itself by emphasizing their willingness to take custom orders.
Busy people hate traditional rental stores because you rent some movies, pay for them, get busy and can't watch them, and then return them 3 days later unwatched. Or, equally likely, you return them 6 days later and pay late fees for the movie you didn't watch.
There's too much focus on the price and features of new razors, and not enough attention paid to the cost of razor blades.
Welcome to life, people. We humans like instant gratification, and if something is easy now, we don't pay a whole lot of attention to what the long term implications are. Same goes for companies.
I'm not belittling the original OP; I think it's a valid point and one that should be paid attention to. I'm just trying to explain why it is not a surprising state of affairs at all.
Seems to me that this makes it more likely that the survivor will be the one with the lowest disc manufacturing costs. So this development may make it take longer for a clear winner to emerge, I don't think we'll see both formats go on forever. And once one format gets the upper hand in mindshare and shelf space, cheaper players will appear that only play that format (cheaper because they will only pay licensing fees for BD or HD, not both [as the combo players will have to do]).
Me, combo players seem like a good step towards standardization.
So by extension, would it be good for Americans if we arbitrarily *complicated* spelling? Ohr is evreatheing dgust riyght the waigh it is?
I'm just not sure I buy the "wanting to less work is somehow evil" mentality. If it frees peoples' brains up for other things, what's the harm? Consider that there was no standard for even what *letters* were in the English alphabet when the first dictionaries appeared in the 1700's, and you'll understand why the concept of a static and never-changing lexicon is actually the perversion.
It's possible that you're not aware when your attention returns to something after being distracted, but most people are. I'm willing to believe that someone with experience and practice at multitasking is cable of consciously deciding what to focus on and prioritizing. It'd be an interesting experiment, anyway. Unless you think that all 6 billion people on earth process information identically, and what you know about your own limited multitasking abilities applies to everyone else, regardless of natural variation, experience, and training.
Some people are better drivers than others. Some people have better hand/eye than others. Some people are better coders than others. Why can't some people be better multitaskers than others?
I'm not suggesting we formalize that reality into drivers' licenses or anything, just that your "bullshit" comment seems like a really knee-jerk response to someone saying they can do something that you can't.
...maybe 0.08% doesn't really constitute "drunk"? It'd be interesting to see the same study at 0.1%, 0.15%, and 0.2% (much higher than that gets pretty dangerous to the subjects).
The study's conclusion that cell phone driving is worse than drunk driving hinges on its definition of "drunk driving," which in this case they're using a legislated value for. It's still interesting, but it's not clear whether they've proven that talking on a cell phone is worse than being drunk, or whether the current standards for "drunk" are out of whack with reality.
Slashdot Mirror
Just come up with a drug, abortion, porn, or terrorism angle, and the funding is yours. For the next few months, anyway.
-b
Of course, if the bad guys are clever enough to seed the sidewalks in front of the airport with compounds known to be flagged, the whole system breaks down for a long, long time.
-b
Oddly enough, people tend to form their expectations based on past experiences. Is it so unreasonable for the tone of the article to be incredulous when the situation is unprecedented?
Where you see value judgments and a jaded reporter, I see a pretty reasonable surprise. I don't see anything in the article where the reporter suggests that Perelman "should" do anything other than what he is. Surprise, and remarking on an unusual behavior, is *not* approbation.
-b
I'm not much of a conspiracy theorist, but you have to wonder if they're paying this guy. At the very least, the guy has to have stock in Take Two the way he shamelessly promotes them.
Spammers use free and hijacked services because they get shut down a lot. Suppose some spammer can get 10,000 emails out using a commercial darnket before the account gets TOS'd. Even if they can get 100,000 emails out before having to spend another $6, that still destroys the economics of spamming.
Unless you're suggesting that the darknet is soft on spam and won't shut down spammer accounts.
-b
I applaud their honesty, but I'm not convinced on this "you pay us monthly, and we'll destroy the service" business model.
-b
Given that the hypothesis is valid (which is arguable), it seems to me that compressing wikipedia is a fairly useless way of supporting it. It seems like an abstraction error: Wikipedia is *not* a set of rules that predict the observations in it. It's a list of observations, sure, but there's no ruleset involved. Now, someone/thing who can read and parse language can get educated based on the knowledge in wikipedia, but then the intelligence is providing the ruleset, just training itself with the raw data in wiki.
It really seems like one of those mistaking-the-map-for-the-territory errors.
-b
...what terms have changed that you object to?
-b
So Microsoft intentionally ships crappy software so that spammers will disrupt communication among open source programmers? Did I get that right?
You have a very... unique viewpoint. Have you considered writing a book about the Kennedy assassination? You may just be able to come up with something original in that area, which is no small feat.
-b
You do realize that the difference between 1080i and 1080p is merely a transport difference, right? Any modern display (DLP, LCD, LCOS, most CRT) reassembles the frame in a memory buffer and displays it progressively. Interlacing is only visible as a display artifact, not as a transport.
-b
Nitpick: HD movies, in both Bluray and HDDVD formats, are encoded at 1080p/24. It would be kind of silly to encode 60FPS when the original film that the DVD is mastered from is 24 FPS.
Yeah, 1080p rocks, and HD quality is far beyond mpeg2 DVD, but your math is a bit off.
Cheers
-b
Wow, that must suck to have these people coming in and driving up the price of the houses that you good central valley folk own. Mabye you should not only kick them out, but find new and innovative ways to intentionally lower the values of your homes so you can... er, wait, where were you going with this?
-b
Hey, let's not defame traffic cops. They can be borderline unethical, but nothing like the real villains. The **AA's are more like classic protection rackets than the are like traffic cops:
- Their main tactic is intimidation
- Their business model is that people would rather pay a little than suffer a lot
- Because fear is their selling point, they have to win every battle. If it looks like they might lose, they'll back down rather than be seen as being weak by the other victims.
-b
The worst form of "more than" abuse is, of course, when people use it with flagrantly non-round numbers. "More than 274 parts", "More than 6831 batteries", etc.
The second worst form -- which this OP engages in -- is nonsensical math. If 24 faults is "more than six times" the number of faults in the previous year, then the number of faults in the previous year was 1, 2, or 3 (if there were 4 in the previous year, 24 would be exactly six times as many). Yeah, the previous year could have been zero, but 1) I know office better than that, and 2) let's give the OP at least a tiny bit of credit.
So, ok, we're up from between 1 and 3 to 24. "More than six times"? Well, if the previous year was 3, "more than seven times" would be more accurate. If the previous year were 2, "twelve times" would suffice. And, god help us, if there were only one in the previous year, "compared to only one last year" is probably better than "24 faults, which is 24 times more than last year."
Please, join me in the crusade against "more than" abuse. It does give extra punch to a sentence, but only if used properly.
-b
Indeed, but at least here in the US, Burger King aggressively advertsises "have it your way" as a competitive differentiator. My point, though, was that the WSJ has apparently just discovered something that is fundamental to a very large company's business model, or at least marketing thrust.
-b
I agree that Netflix's advertising is misleading, but on the other hand it's not a simple message to communicate.
If you actually want abundance and not throttling, try upgrading your netflix plan. I'm on 7-at-a-time, and I see no signs of throttling (I generally return one disc a day and get one a day in the mail, and they turn around receipt/shipping in the same day).
I think the problem is that they have given people the impression that it's unlimited, quick-turn-around rentals regardless of how much you pay. The reality is that they will throttle the account to make sure they don't lose money on you (can't blame 'em for that, but you can blame 'em for not being more clear about it). For me, at least, paying a little more per month was worth it.
-b
I generally agree that top level execs are paid too much.
However, regardless of that opinion, there's an easy explanation for the results the article found: given a top-notch CEO who gets a job offer from a well-performing company as well as an underperforming company, which company do you think would have to pay more to get his services?
Clearly, companies that are in need of a turnaround and repair are going to have to pay more to get equivelent talent. Not only is the work harder, but the prospect of failure and termination are much higher. It's a greater risk, and therefore the market will make it more expensive.
So there are a couple of valid interpretations of this data, and the article (wisely, probably) makes no attempt to jump from correltation to causation. Too bad so many people -- even slashdotters -- have such a hard time resisting the instinct to see the two as being the same.
-b
So 1% of the kids will be all into it and be good citizens... and 99% of the kids will laugh at and mock that 1%.
Great way to make piracy seem even more cool, and to make reporting piracy something that only losers do.
-b
...they've discovered Netflix's well-advertised business model. That's some investigative, in-depth reporting for you. Maybe one day soon they'll discover that Burger King differentiates itself by emphasizing their willingness to take custom orders.
Busy people hate traditional rental stores because you rent some movies, pay for them, get busy and can't watch them, and then return them 3 days later unwatched. Or, equally likely, you return them 6 days later and pay late fees for the movie you didn't watch.
-b
There's too much focus on the price and features of new razors, and not enough attention paid to the cost of razor blades.
Welcome to life, people. We humans like instant gratification, and if something is easy now, we don't pay a whole lot of attention to what the long term implications are. Same goes for companies.
I'm not belittling the original OP; I think it's a valid point and one that should be paid attention to. I'm just trying to explain why it is not a surprising state of affairs at all.
-b
Seems to me that this makes it more likely that the survivor will be the one with the lowest disc manufacturing costs. So this development may make it take longer for a clear winner to emerge, I don't think we'll see both formats go on forever. And once one format gets the upper hand in mindshare and shelf space, cheaper players will appear that only play that format (cheaper because they will only pay licensing fees for BD or HD, not both [as the combo players will have to do]).
Me, combo players seem like a good step towards standardization.
-b
So by extension, would it be good for Americans if we arbitrarily *complicated* spelling? Ohr is evreatheing dgust riyght the waigh it is?
I'm just not sure I buy the "wanting to less work is somehow evil" mentality. If it frees peoples' brains up for other things, what's the harm? Consider that there was no standard for even what *letters* were in the English alphabet when the first dictionaries appeared in the 1700's, and you'll understand why the concept of a static and never-changing lexicon is actually the perversion.
-b
If you practice fiscal responsibility, you are *not* the PS3 target audience.
-b
It's possible that you're not aware when your attention returns to something after being distracted, but most people are. I'm willing to believe that someone with experience and practice at multitasking is cable of consciously deciding what to focus on and prioritizing. It'd be an interesting experiment, anyway. Unless you think that all 6 billion people on earth process information identically, and what you know about your own limited multitasking abilities applies to everyone else, regardless of natural variation, experience, and training.
Some people are better drivers than others. Some people have better hand/eye than others. Some people are better coders than others. Why can't some people be better multitaskers than others?
I'm not suggesting we formalize that reality into drivers' licenses or anything, just that your "bullshit" comment seems like a really knee-jerk response to someone saying they can do something that you can't.
-b
...maybe 0.08% doesn't really constitute "drunk"? It'd be interesting to see the same study at 0.1%, 0.15%, and 0.2% (much higher than that gets pretty dangerous to the subjects).
The study's conclusion that cell phone driving is worse than drunk driving hinges on its definition of "drunk driving," which in this case they're using a legislated value for. It's still interesting, but it's not clear whether they've proven that talking on a cell phone is worse than being drunk, or whether the current standards for "drunk" are out of whack with reality.
-b