Maybe they both plagiarized this article. Or maybe articles like these are just older than any of us and multiple people can write their own without plagiarizing anyone.
You don't need to make an actual transaction to assess worth.
If the seller doesn't want to sell, it's presumably because he thinks they're worth even more that what the buyer offers for it. Therefore it's necessarily not $0.
And in any case, that's all irrelevant because that number is based on transactions that are occurring every hour.
The author is not that young. You just forgot to RTFA and so you missed the fact that he never said magnifying glasses are obsolete, just that they don't make sense to represent what they do (high breadth search).
RTFA. The author doesn't say the binoculars and magnifying glasses are outdated, just that they should be switched (right now, binoculars are often used to represent local (in-document) search, while magnifying glasses are used to represent system-wide search).
You now only have 1 window for the same application, no matter how many chrome or terminal windows you might have open.
I must be missing something. You do Alt-tab to the application, then press down to show all the windows of that application. How is that only having one window?
I'm an Awesome WM user at home, but I use Unity at work for a couple of weeks by now and I don't see what's so problematic with it, except for the bugs (which are plenty, unfortunately).
It has keyboard shortcuts to switch workspaces (CTRL+arrow) and a decent keyboard drive application launcher (plus shortcut for the Terminal).
Sure, it's not tilling -which is often annoying- but that'd be a little too much to ask.
Uh, bitcoins have the (monetary) value that the buyers decide they have, not the sellers. So if people want to buy them, of course they have value, that's not a lie nor is it misleading.
In any case, if you don't like the line I quoted, go bitch at the guy who wrote the NewsTechnica article, not me. Though I might try investing in a sense of humor first, so the joke doesn't go over your head again.:)
Maybe I should, because I don't see where's a joke there. It seems exactly the same as the posts by bitcoin haters.
There are many stocks which are almost certainly going to be worth more tomorrow than they are today, yet they are still being traded by thousands of investors. Are they all 'crazy'?
There are plenty of reasons not to hoard, even if they are in fact expected to go up. For one, people sometimes actually want the money for something other than watching it grow. And 2033 - the year when the "hard number limit" will be reached - is still a long way from now.
No. A pump-and-dump requires sellers to intentionally lie or mislead the buyers into thinking there's money to be made. While some might, most miners and the bitcoin developers promise no profits. Buyers only have themselves to blame for making a shitty investment.
"Being attacked" is not a inconvenience, so that doesn't contradict what I said. It's also a red herring, since the vast majority of OWS protesters didn't attack anyone.
If a protester stops me, they are violating my liberty
Imprisoning you is clearly a violation of your liberty, but just being in your way isn't.
Computer output should not be considered creative works...
It's not that simple. Presumably, output created purely from factual data isn't, but if the input is already a creative work, then the output is a copyrighted derivative; for example, binaries produced by compilers are still copyrighted by the source code author.
So, if they write the program to analyze an existing corpus of articles and create new ones based on it (and a database of new facts), I'd say the result could be considered a derivative work, owned by whoever owns the copyright of that corpus.
You said it only mattered if the person is planning to "distribute those modifications as closed source", and that's not true; it matters if you're planning to distribute it at all, closed or open.
Not that I'm pro-Obama (I don't really like any of your presidents in recent history), but I don't get this line of reasoning:
He has assasinated 3 americans
Well, no, he didn't. His orders led to the death of three "Americans" (I prefer US citizens), but couldn't you say the same about every president who has started a war where US soldiers have died? Why are these deaths particularly worse?
Not to mention how apparently killing thousands of innocent civilians is apparently OK, but three(!) US citizens is terrible? To me, the death of innocent people is equally wrong, regardless of their country of origin.
Oh, right. Well, GA just performs the second step - the first is the normal password input. The second is generating a time-based token from a shared secret (essentially a second password, but you don't input it on the login page).
I just didn't understand what you meant by "cheating", that's why I asked.
A rather narrow definition. I would say that cell division includes the task of gene replication, e.i.making a copy, even if there is no intelligent agent directing the copying toward a purpose.
Defining a "task" as having some goal is "rather narrow"? Then how do you define "task"?
All that happens is here is that a set of conditions created a chemical and physical reaction that led to a copy. If that's a task, then any possible physical activity is a task too.
Tell that to the parents of a child with cystic fibrosis, Down syndrome, or muscular dystrophy.
"Appeal to emotion is a potential fallacy which uses the manipulation of the recipient's emotions, rather than valid logic, to win an argument. The appeal to emotion fallacy uses emotions as the basis of an argument's position without factual evidence that logically supports the major ideas endorsed by the elicitor of the argument."
A "task" assumes a goal, which is a concept that only makes sense in the context of an intelligent agent. Here, the mechanism just is; an inexact copy is no less valid than an exact copy.
Google Authenticator "cheats" a bit by using your mobile phone to first authenticate that you aren't some password stealing hack.
What do you mean? I don't use GA itself, but a J2ME app that implements the same algorithm, so I wouldn't know what kind of verifications GA does, but Gmail et all work fine with a basic HTOP/TOTP implementation.
Slashdot Mirror
Maybe they both plagiarized this article. Or maybe articles like these are just older than any of us and multiple people can write their own without plagiarizing anyone.
Oh, my attention span is fine; I just don't read lengthy drivel.
TL; DR.
You don't need to make an actual transaction to assess worth.
If the seller doesn't want to sell, it's presumably because he thinks they're worth even more that what the buyer offers for it. Therefore it's necessarily not $0.
And in any case, that's all irrelevant because that number is based on transactions that are occurring every hour.
Nobody said we should throw them away. You're putting words in his month.
Apparently Cracked has beaten time itself too, since this article was posted on the author's blog just four days ago.
The author is not that young. You just forgot to RTFA and so you missed the fact that he never said magnifying glasses are obsolete, just that they don't make sense to represent what they do (high breadth search).
RTFA. The author doesn't say the binoculars and magnifying glasses are outdated, just that they should be switched (right now, binoculars are often used to represent local (in-document) search, while magnifying glasses are used to represent system-wide search).
You now only have 1 window for the same application, no matter how many chrome or terminal windows you might have open.
I must be missing something. You do Alt-tab to the application, then press down to show all the windows of that application. How is that only having one window?
I'm an Awesome WM user at home, but I use Unity at work for a couple of weeks by now and I don't see what's so problematic with it, except for the bugs (which are plenty, unfortunately).
It has keyboard shortcuts to switch workspaces (CTRL+arrow) and a decent keyboard drive application launcher (plus shortcut for the Terminal).
Sure, it's not tilling -which is often annoying- but that'd be a little too much to ask.
Uh, bitcoins have the (monetary) value that the buyers decide they have, not the sellers. So if people want to buy them, of course they have value, that's not a lie nor is it misleading.
In any case, if you don't like the line I quoted, go bitch at the guy who wrote the NewsTechnica article, not me. Though I might try investing in a sense of humor first, so the joke doesn't go over your head again. :)
Maybe I should, because I don't see where's a joke there. It seems exactly the same as the posts by bitcoin haters.
There are many stocks which are almost certainly going to be worth more tomorrow than they are today, yet they are still being traded by thousands of investors. Are they all 'crazy'?
There are plenty of reasons not to hoard, even if they are in fact expected to go up. For one, people sometimes actually want the money for something other than watching it grow. And 2033 - the year when the "hard number limit" will be reached - is still a long way from now.
No. A pump-and-dump requires sellers to intentionally lie or mislead the buyers into thinking there's money to be made. While some might, most miners and the bitcoin developers promise no profits. Buyers only have themselves to blame for making a shitty investment.
"+4, Funny"
Well played, mods. Well played.
"Being attacked" is not a inconvenience, so that doesn't contradict what I said. It's also a red herring, since the vast majority of OWS protesters didn't attack anyone.
If a protester stops me, they are violating my liberty
Imprisoning you is clearly a violation of your liberty, but just being in your way isn't.
Computer output should not be considered creative works...
It's not that simple. Presumably, output created purely from factual data isn't, but if the input is already a creative work, then the output is a copyrighted derivative; for example, binaries produced by compilers are still copyrighted by the source code author.
So, if they write the program to analyze an existing corpus of articles and create new ones based on it (and a database of new facts), I'd say the result could be considered a derivative work, owned by whoever owns the copyright of that corpus.
Sorry, but no one has a right "not to be inconvenienced".
You said it only mattered if the person is planning to "distribute those modifications as closed source", and that's not true; it matters if you're planning to distribute it at all, closed or open.
If it was so simple, ZFS would already be in the Linux kernel.
OSS libraries are often incompatible with each other, and not everyone is willing to change theirs to accommodate mixes.
Not that I'm pro-Obama (I don't really like any of your presidents in recent history), but I don't get this line of reasoning:
He has assasinated 3 americans
Well, no, he didn't. His orders led to the death of three "Americans" (I prefer US citizens), but couldn't you say the same about every president who has started a war where US soldiers have died? Why are these deaths particularly worse?
Not to mention how apparently killing thousands of innocent civilians is apparently OK, but three(!) US citizens is terrible? To me, the death of innocent people is equally wrong, regardless of their country of origin.
Oh, right. Well, GA just performs the second step - the first is the normal password input. The second is generating a time-based token from a shared secret (essentially a second password, but you don't input it on the login page).
I just didn't understand what you meant by "cheating", that's why I asked.
Unicode isn't a standard character set? Have we gone back to the 80s?
A rather narrow definition. I would say that cell division includes the task of gene replication, e.i.making a copy, even if there is no intelligent agent directing the copying toward a purpose.
Defining a "task" as having some goal is "rather narrow"? Then how do you define "task"?
All that happens is here is that a set of conditions created a chemical and physical reaction that led to a copy. If that's a task, then any possible physical activity is a task too.
Tell that to the parents of a child with cystic fibrosis, Down syndrome, or muscular dystrophy.
"Appeal to emotion is a potential fallacy which uses the manipulation of the recipient's emotions, rather than valid logic, to win an argument. The appeal to emotion fallacy uses emotions as the basis of an argument's position without factual evidence that logically supports the major ideas endorsed by the elicitor of the argument."
A "task" assumes a goal, which is a concept that only makes sense in the context of an intelligent agent. Here, the mechanism just is; an inexact copy is no less valid than an exact copy.
Google Authenticator "cheats" a bit by using your mobile phone to first authenticate that you aren't some password stealing hack.
What do you mean? I don't use GA itself, but a J2ME app that implements the same algorithm, so I wouldn't know what kind of verifications GA does, but Gmail et all work fine with a basic HTOP/TOTP implementation.