try/dev/hda1 for starters. what the fuck is that supposed to mean? damn. (i know its like the second hard drive or something, but still)
for crying out loud. There is one thing that could be significantly improved, is the naming scheme for drives in linux. It makes absolutely zero sense and it is completely unintuitive. By that, I mean, hda1 was arbitrarily picked. It could have been picked as hrdrvA1 or hdda1 or anything like that. its just badd form. bad bad bad.
holy shit!! I thought I was the only one who knew of that band.... what's your napster username?
Mine is solinari69
You should check out my library. I am sure you will be pleasantly surprised!:)
Its not that I have problems with UI improvements, I am all for improvements! What I have a problem with, is someone installing a shitload of crap that I don't want or need on my desktop.
Your question is akin to asking a person who objects to overly salted food if he would rather go completely without salt for the rest of his life. Salt is good, but only in moderation. And, besides, I don't think the Gnome desktop is an improvement at all in this situation. Maybe somewhere else, for someone who wants it.
We haven't "gone up in arms" yet because there has not yet been a serious enough assault on our liberties to justify such drastic measures. As the situation stands now, it would be much more efficient to attempt to resolve our problems through the legal system.
The time may soon come, however, when this is no longer effective. In which case, I suggest you take your "million moms" and your government with "better weapons" and hide yourselves, because the wrath of a forever free US citizen is nothing to be trifled with.
And these redhat machines really suck. I am sorry to say this, and this truly is not meant as a troll. I'm just telling it how it is for those of you who care.
Previously, the labs all had Solaris installed on Sparcs and Ultra Sparcs. This was fine. I had a very minimal desktop with no special effects or wallpapers. When I sit down to code or browse the web, I just want to open my applications and get the homework done.
Well, now there is this nice glitzy redhat program on the computers. As much as I support linux, it is extremely annoying to have all of the unnecessary graphics that go along with their included Gnome desktop. I do not have time to fiddle with, or learn, the settings to take all that shit off. At one time, only browsing the web, I had a full square inch filled with buttons and task bars! And that was only one portion of the screen; if you had added all the space wasted by buttons and bars, it probably would have been 30% of the desktop. I know you can slide the TWO taskbars out of the way, but its annoying as I don't know what. Especially coming from a minimal Solaris desktop.
All of these graphics noticeably slow down the entire computing experience in the labs. Oh well, it got so bad, I only go to the tiny little lab in Daniel's Hall which luckily doesn't have redhat (yet!).
Again, I am not putting redhat down! All I'm saying is that it is compeletely unneccesary and actually degrades the performance of the labs. (nevermind all of the simulation software that now doesn't work)
First you intimate that it would be next to impossible to steal an electrical substation.
Then you turn right around and give an excellent example of how it could be done. WTF??? Can somebody please explain, to me, what the hell is going on here?
Is it just me, or does somebody have some confusion to clear up?
Offtopic maybe, but Signal_11 will undoubtedly fail to see this blatant contradiction of all of his paranoid delusions of "group think" and "broken moderation system," etc...
Tell me, sig, if the moderation system was truly broken in such a way that only the accepted propoganda got moderated up, how does my parent have a +4???
errr... I only used the word "merits" twice, and they were in the last sentence (shouldn't have detracted/that/ much from my post's readability).
I'm sorry that I so overused that word, and I'm also sorry that I presented a viewpoint that was counter to your own.
Last I checked, it was a good thing to consider all aspects of a situation, but I guess you are God and know exactly how everything should happen.
There is a strong case to be made against cookie based pricing schemes. An equally strong case can be made in favor, however. This is the side I shall attempt to argue.
The 3 major benefits which can be gained from these types of practices, in order of importance, are:
A deeper academic knowledge in the field of economics
Increased marketability of goods to consumers
Increased corporate revenues
Economics is a challenging science. It is not possible to validate economic theories in a laboratory; economists must, in a general sense, patiently analyze those situations presented to them by the normal course of civilization. Data gained from the price targetting of individual consumers could prove invaluable to academics. Think about how beneficial an understanding of the atomic structure of silicon has been to the electronics industry. This sort of information not only atomizes the consumer/supplier relationships, but also allows for, in a limited sense, the opportunity for quasi-ethical controlled econonomic experiments.
I say "quasi-ethical" because dynamically changing a price does sound creepy. But is it truly any different, in principle, than what already occurs? Management and those who control prices are taught to understand the market; they know what groups buy what, and how changing the price of a good affects the quantity bought. It is my view that Amazon's techniques accomplish nothing more than customizing the "market" to a single person. Once that person's unique elasticity of demand for each object is known, the prices can be set accordingly. The result: no change in consumer's flow of payment, but an increase in the consumer's reward for that payment. I come to this conclusion based on this reasoning (which could be flawed:)
Currently, each of us exists, in the price-setter's mind, within a defined and homogenized market category.
This particular market's elasticity of demand is known, and the prices of goods are adjusted accordingly.
Sometimes individuals are faced with a higher charge, for a certain good, than they can pay. This is because some wealthy individuals, who share the category, influence the perceived elasticity.
The new system will exclude everyone else.
Consumers will be charged a personalized maximum price per good.
However, whereas we may pay a little more for one item, the cost of those items, which we were previously unable to afford, will now be within our price range.
Obviously, we can only spend our income, and my logic does break down in extreme cases. (Gold plated Feraris will always be too expensive for me:) As an approximation, the above points should be valid, and they demonstrate how such strategies can actually benefit the consumer.
Of course, corporations will gather a great deal more revenue by implementing individual prices. The knee-jerk reaction, "If it enriches corporations it must be bad," is only a reaction. Think about who pays your salary. Corporation's success cause econonic prosperity for all of us through the DOW, NASDAQ, lower inflation, and a generally higher standard of living (just think, more money for research!!)
Most people, understandably, feel uncomfortable that they are being charged differently than their neighbor. I also have my doubts, but, by the same token, such a system does have merits, and the reluctance to investigate those merits is not healthy.
Slashdot Mirror
lots of women like smart guys
try /dev/hda1 for starters. what the fuck is that supposed to mean? damn. (i know its like the second hard drive or something, but still)
for crying out loud. There is one thing that could be significantly improved, is the naming scheme for drives in linux. It makes absolutely zero sense and it is completely unintuitive. By that, I mean, hda1 was arbitrarily picked. It could have been picked as hrdrvA1 or hdda1 or anything like that. its just badd form. bad bad bad.
um, i think he was being ironic, moron
that didn't make any sense at all, but whatever. We've come to expect such nonsense from y'all.
holy shit!! I thought I was the only one who knew of that band.... what's your napster username? Mine is solinari69 You should check out my library. I am sure you will be pleasantly surprised! :)
wow, you are so wise.
hehehe, cut and paste this into word to see a nice sea-weed/green slime effect!! She looks like some sort evil super villain! (or not, but still cool)
I ran your comment through the fish, but I still couldn't figure out what the hell language you are talking in. Can someone please translate??
hahahaha!!! Very good humor, if I do say so myself! I would mod you up, but you are already +5, and I am not a moderator. hmmm
Yes, I happen to know sig, and they (Anne Marie and Signal11) are one and the same.
Its not that I have problems with UI improvements, I am all for improvements! What I have a problem with, is someone installing a shitload of crap that I don't want or need on my desktop.
Your question is akin to asking a person who objects to overly salted food if he would rather go completely without salt for the rest of his life. Salt is good, but only in moderation. And, besides, I don't think the Gnome desktop is an improvement at all in this situation. Maybe somewhere else, for someone who wants it.
We haven't "gone up in arms" yet because there has not yet been a serious enough assault on our liberties to justify such drastic measures. As the situation stands now, it would be much more efficient to attempt to resolve our problems through the legal system.
The time may soon come, however, when this is no longer effective. In which case, I suggest you take your "million moms" and your government with "better weapons" and hide yourselves, because the wrath of a forever free US citizen is nothing to be trifled with.
And these redhat machines really suck. I am sorry to say this, and this truly is not meant as a troll. I'm just telling it how it is for those of you who care.
Previously, the labs all had Solaris installed on Sparcs and Ultra Sparcs. This was fine. I had a very minimal desktop with no special effects or wallpapers. When I sit down to code or browse the web, I just want to open my applications and get the homework done.
Well, now there is this nice glitzy redhat program on the computers. As much as I support linux, it is extremely annoying to have all of the unnecessary graphics that go along with their included Gnome desktop. I do not have time to fiddle with, or learn, the settings to take all that shit off. At one time, only browsing the web, I had a full square inch filled with buttons and task bars! And that was only one portion of the screen; if you had added all the space wasted by buttons and bars, it probably would have been 30% of the desktop. I know you can slide the TWO taskbars out of the way, but its annoying as I don't know what. Especially coming from a minimal Solaris desktop.
All of these graphics noticeably slow down the entire computing experience in the labs. Oh well, it got so bad, I only go to the tiny little lab in Daniel's Hall which luckily doesn't have redhat (yet!).
Again, I am not putting redhat down! All I'm saying is that it is compeletely unneccesary and actually degrades the performance of the labs. (nevermind all of the simulation software that now doesn't work)
I want some pie too! Leave some for me you greedy bastards!
First you intimate that it would be next to impossible to steal an electrical substation.
Then you turn right around and give an excellent example of how it could be done. WTF??? Can somebody please explain, to me, what the hell is going on here?
Is it just me, or does somebody have some confusion to clear up?
Offtopic maybe, but Signal_11 will undoubtedly fail to see this blatant contradiction of all of his paranoid delusions of "group think" and "broken moderation system," etc...
Tell me, sig, if the moderation system was truly broken in such a way that only the accepted propoganda got moderated up, how does my parent have a +4???
- when it was discovered that that significantly more than existed in pure form in the entire world at that time.
I'm sorry, I can't understand that sentence... would you please rephrase it?- Daughter: Is to. The only reason they had you is so they could save me. Otherwise they never would have had you.
Son: You owe your life to me bitch. I want my room clean by Saturday. I want my fishtank washed, and don't forget the laundry.Son: (to father) Dad, is this true?
Father: Well...
I remember...
RAM is good. I want a terrabyte of RAM for my hard drive.
ok guys. time to stop figting
Silly me... I forgot all about what greedy bastards those corporations are. Well, it was a nice naive idea to toy with for an evening anyway!
cheers
errr... I only used the word "merits" twice, and they were in the last sentence (shouldn't have detracted /that/ much from my post's readability).
I'm sorry that I so overused that word, and I'm also sorry that I presented a viewpoint that was counter to your own.
Last I checked, it was a good thing to consider all aspects of a situation, but I guess you are God and know exactly how everything should happen.
Any other opinions are, of course, just "windy".
The 3 major benefits which can be gained from these types of practices, in order of importance, are:
Economics is a challenging science. It is not possible to validate economic theories in a laboratory; economists must, in a general sense, patiently analyze those situations presented to them by the normal course of civilization. Data gained from the price targetting of individual consumers could prove invaluable to academics. Think about how beneficial an understanding of the atomic structure of silicon has been to the electronics industry. This sort of information not only atomizes the consumer/supplier relationships, but also allows for, in a limited sense, the opportunity for quasi-ethical controlled econonomic experiments.
I say "quasi-ethical" because dynamically changing a price does sound creepy. But is it truly any different, in principle, than what already occurs? Management and those who control prices are taught to understand the market; they know what groups buy what, and how changing the price of a good affects the quantity bought.
It is my view that Amazon's techniques accomplish nothing more than customizing the "market" to a single person. Once that person's unique elasticity of demand for each object is known, the prices can be set accordingly. The result: no change in consumer's flow of payment, but an increase in the consumer's reward for that payment. I come to this conclusion based on this reasoning (which could be flawed
- Currently, each of us exists, in the price-setter's mind, within a defined and homogenized market category.
- This particular market's elasticity of demand is known, and the prices of goods are adjusted accordingly.
- Sometimes individuals are faced with a higher charge, for a certain good, than they can pay. This is because some wealthy individuals, who share the category, influence the perceived elasticity.
- The new system will exclude everyone else.
- Consumers will be charged a personalized maximum price per good.
- However, whereas we may pay a little more for one item, the cost of those items, which we were previously unable to afford, will now be within our price range.
Obviously, we can only spend our income, and my logic does break down in extreme cases. (Gold plated Feraris will always be too expensive for meOf course, corporations will gather a great deal more revenue by implementing individual prices. The knee-jerk reaction, "If it enriches corporations it must be bad," is only a reaction. Think about who pays your salary. Corporation's success cause econonic prosperity for all of us through the DOW, NASDAQ, lower inflation, and a generally higher standard of living (just think, more money for research!!)
Most people, understandably, feel uncomfortable that they are being charged differently than their neighbor. I also have my doubts, but, by the same token, such a system does have merits, and the reluctance to investigate those merits is not healthy.
Will the quality degrade as the copy progresses? Does anyone know?
You could employ the "sophisticated-super-compooter-image-recognition-s oftware" used by the friendly censor groups!