I guess the amazing part is that they expect their lies to be believed.
I don't think they expect you to believe it...Just tollerate it. Facebook basically assumes that if they piss you off in small enough increments, that only like 10% of people are actively considering quitting at any given time, they can be successful, because the 90% provide enough gravity to pull you back in. But there's a tipping point, and studies show that there really is a disproportionate amount of gravity around "cool kids", the most social people in your family, and other social people who act like "hubs". When these people move, they tend to pull others with them.
The point of this is that FB is not a stock to have in your portfolio. Because they rely on being cool in order to continue to make money. But making more money than they currently make requires doing increasingly uncool things.
Yeah, also, TFA actually includes a publication date: 9/29/2011 . But hey, at least it isn't the "What's The Best way for me to store my Baby Pictures for 10,000 years" AskSlashdot again...
Seriously? That joke's like 10 years old. If you like that, you're gonna love these:
-ALL YOUR BASE ARE BELONG TO US! In Soviet Russia, Internet Browses You! Whasssuuuup! Don't Taze me Bro! I did not have sexual relations with that woman!
By the way, I would also add that when you take a job like this, you sometimes end up working next to people who are doing it to scrape a living, rather than saving for college books or earning movie money. Act accordingly, and be respectful of other people. Don't act like your job is trivial, or a joke, or whatever. I enjoyed the novelty of doing it for 10 weeks over two summers, but I feel for people who end up, for whatever reason, do it for a living. Be humble, and keep this in mind, or face a lot of animosity.
Yeah. And get outside. During college I hit the books all year long. Then, over a couple of summers I worked on the landscaping crew for a big company in my town. Those were the best summers I ever had, even though I got a couple of internships the next two summers. Driving a giant riding mower across acres of grass at 15mph, the smell of fresh cut lawn and sunshine. Those were the days...
I don't think so. It sounds more like a MacroVision strategy. Come up with a scheme you want to carry out. Then envision all possible anti-scheme methods, and patent them when you patent your original scheme. That way no one can anti-scheme your scheme.
First of all, lumping Iran and North Korea in with Iraq (who Bush planned to invade) served no good purpose.
It makes good theater. Destro, Cobra Commander and Zartan all had different aims and ambitions, but they pretty much just got lumped together as Bad Guys too. The American public dislikes subtlety.
You don't know that. If they can, they aren't going to tell you. And they aren't going to piss away a secret capability that valuable prosecuting some drug-dealer, or kiddie porn maker. For the forseeable future, you'd only use it on matters of highest national interest, and then you'd only act directly on such information if you were resonably sure it wasn't a red-herring specifically designed to test if you can break such encryption.
It's not necessarily pointless, depending on who your attacker is. Against a sufficiently advanced and determined attacker, nearly all security attempts are pointless, because all can be broken, even if a rubber hose must be used. If your goal is to simply prevent someone from casually picking up your phone and browsing through your inbox, it might be worthwhile. Additionally, if the "gimmick" aspect leads some people to use it who would not otherwise use a PIN (which is very un-gimmicky), there may be some value in it.
Finally, I see this as potentially very useful as a two-factor authentication for cases where the person who has the phone doesn't know to whom it belongs. e.g. they found it in a bar. If brute-forcing the face recognition is somewhat difficult, it could be added to a pin code for extra security. All of this assumes that there isn't an easily exploited backdoor or weakness via USB or other interface.
First, I'd note on number 3 above. When i say "Public Health Initiatives" I'm not advocating a gov't health care system. I am in favor of vaccination efforts, and the ability to put a quick lid on what can become an epidemic, like what the CDC does.
As to the rest of it, it's all fine, but most of it is 18th century think. Almost none of it scales to a modern economy. The idea of banding together to build a dirt road through your town is in fact very viable without a central, national government. But a freeway system isn't.
And strong property rights alone aren't the solution to environmental problems; regulations are. Saying "You can do as you like with your property" means that if you like, you can dump mercury into the ground, on your property. The fact that your neighbor's kids are gonna be brain damaged from the well water -- The well on their property -- isn't your problem. The only solution to this is a government, restricting your liberty, telling you that you can't do that.
OH! It all makes sense now. I never understood that song.
I don't know why you say "Goodbye", I say "Hello, hello, hello".
I don't know why you say goodbye, I say hello.
I say "High", you say "Low".
You say "Why?" And I say "I don't know".
What's your alternative? Home schooling? It works good for a handful of people, but isn't viable for most others, due to the fact that the parents simply aren't competent to do it, or are busy doing subsistance level economic activity. There's a reason that poor farmers have been banding together to build one-room school houses for 200 years. Modern private schools aren't viable for the destitute, which makes social movement impossible. This is antithetical to the American experience.
Public roads are good.
- strongly disagree.
This has been established for a couple thousand years. Now I'm sure you're trolling.
Public health initiatives are good.
- strongly disagree.
You've obviously never lived somewhere where a bunch of your neighbors have tuburculosis (sp).
creating externalities that make their current path unsustainable
- no, the Chinese problem only extends to the government destroying their own currency by printing it to buy US dollars and subsidise US consumer and government involvement in a number of industries (in terms of taxes, regulations and just ownership).
As China becomes richer and richer, the quality of life will go up there, and the real problem for environment that exists there, will only continue to the extent that the private property rights are not protected.
The Chinese have mortgaged there entire environment - the actual land - by polluting it to an extent that is unimaginable in the US. This is a real, concrete thing that they have done. It cannot be undone (Look at what the California Air Resouces Board has done to try to clean up LA, and it's problems pale compared to Wuhan or Beijing's). The average lifespan in China is dropping, not going up. Most of what they've gotten in return is a bunch of fiat currency, and treasury bonds. All of which are backed by nothing but people's beliefs and intentions. And even if people continue to believe in those things, it's questionable whether the total value of all of it is sufficent to reverse the concrete harm that has been done.
Which leads increasingly to a service economy which provide things that people don't want made by machines, such as meals, art, and foot massages.
But, If you're ever played Monopoly, you know that whomever owns the capital (e.g. the crane) will eventually end up owning nearly everything of value. These people simply don't need the services of everyone who has no wealth. This leads to joblessness, poverty, and, eventually, rage and desperation. Then, inevitably, a weath redistribution happens, occationally by vote or more often by violence.
I think the ones that are really funny are the Anarchists. We knew a couple of college-educated ones that used to like to steal cheap, insignificant stuff like your can-opener when they went to parties, to show everybody how cool they were. Then they'd tell you about it later. People like that often have very shallow beliefs. I'm guessing they'd go ahead and call the cops if you hit 'em with a pipe wrench... They're not allowed in our house anymore, btw...
Right on. Sometimes, it's in our common greater good to do things that aren't in our individual good (e.g. pay to educate your neighbor's children, or prevent a total collapse of an industry, such as the auto or banking systems, recently). In these cases, we revert to a socialist system, which is run by the government because they're the only ones with the stick to make everybody participate.
In other cases, we're willing to see our neighbor suffer (e.g. have his business go bankrupt) because we're confident that this preening will lead to a stronger society overall.
Obviously, everybody tries to game the system, so it doesn't always work out.
There's not a good description for what China is. I use the term "caplitalist" with regard to the externalities (pushing your costs off on society) with regard to how they do business. Being able to dump heavy metals directly into the local river, for example, makes you competitive against companies that operate with more restricitons. China has been described as a lawless country with lots of laws on the books. Ability to do business outside of law is very free-market.
But, you're right. There are still large aspects of state run economics, particularly in the banking sector.
Local governments do this all the time with things like property tax abatements. Trade one kind of tax income for (hopefully more) of another, or for other less direct benefit (people with jobs put less strain on government resources, for example)
Slashdot Mirror
I guess the amazing part is that they expect their lies to be believed.
I don't think they expect you to believe it...Just tollerate it. Facebook basically assumes that if they piss you off in small enough increments, that only like 10% of people are actively considering quitting at any given time, they can be successful, because the 90% provide enough gravity to pull you back in. But there's a tipping point, and studies show that there really is a disproportionate amount of gravity around "cool kids", the most social people in your family, and other social people who act like "hubs". When these people move, they tend to pull others with them.
The point of this is that FB is not a stock to have in your portfolio. Because they rely on being cool in order to continue to make money. But making more money than they currently make requires doing increasingly uncool things.
A "mil".
So are you implying that the editors aren't nerds?
They have yet to convince me that it will even work in a desktop...
Yeah, also, TFA actually includes a publication date: 9/29/2011 . But hey, at least it isn't the "What's The Best way for me to store my Baby Pictures for 10,000 years" AskSlashdot again...
Seriously? That joke's like 10 years old. If you like that, you're gonna love these:
-ALL YOUR BASE ARE BELONG TO US!
In Soviet Russia, Internet Browses You!
Whasssuuuup!
Don't Taze me Bro!
I did not have sexual relations with that woman!
I worked on the landscaping crew
By the way, I would also add that when you take a job like this, you sometimes end up working next to people who are doing it to scrape a living, rather than saving for college books or earning movie money. Act accordingly, and be respectful of other people. Don't act like your job is trivial, or a joke, or whatever. I enjoyed the novelty of doing it for 10 weeks over two summers, but I feel for people who end up, for whatever reason, do it for a living. Be humble, and keep this in mind, or face a lot of animosity.
Yeah. And get outside. During college I hit the books all year long. Then, over a couple of summers I worked on the landscaping crew for a big company in my town. Those were the best summers I ever had, even though I got a couple of internships the next two summers. Driving a giant riding mower across acres of grass at 15mph, the smell of fresh cut lawn and sunshine. Those were the days...
I don't think so. It sounds more like a MacroVision strategy. Come up with a scheme you want to carry out. Then envision all possible anti-scheme methods, and patent them when you patent your original scheme. That way no one can anti-scheme your scheme.
First of all, lumping Iran and North Korea in with Iraq (who Bush planned to invade) served no good purpose.
It makes good theater. Destro, Cobra Commander and Zartan all had different aims and ambitions, but they pretty much just got lumped together as Bad Guys too. The American public dislikes subtlety.
Or, just rent a cloud server for a little while.
You don't know that. If they can, they aren't going to tell you. And they aren't going to piss away a secret capability that valuable prosecuting some drug-dealer, or kiddie porn maker. For the forseeable future, you'd only use it on matters of highest national interest, and then you'd only act directly on such information if you were resonably sure it wasn't a red-herring specifically designed to test if you can break such encryption.
It's not necessarily pointless, depending on who your attacker is. Against a sufficiently advanced and determined attacker, nearly all security attempts are pointless, because all can be broken, even if a rubber hose must be used. If your goal is to simply prevent someone from casually picking up your phone and browsing through your inbox, it might be worthwhile. Additionally, if the "gimmick" aspect leads some people to use it who would not otherwise use a PIN (which is very un-gimmicky), there may be some value in it.
Finally, I see this as potentially very useful as a two-factor authentication for cases where the person who has the phone doesn't know to whom it belongs. e.g. they found it in a bar. If brute-forcing the face recognition is somewhat difficult, it could be added to a pin code for extra security. All of this assumes that there isn't an easily exploited backdoor or weakness via USB or other interface.
You're gonna need a hell of a lot more than an aimbot in this pool, I think. We're talking about full blown A/I, I think, to be competitive.
I find this idea rather interesting, but I worry what might happen to someone who was placed in this pool by mistake?
It still seems better than an outright ban. The guys sent to Australia probably thought it better than the gallows.
To me it looks like windows 3.1, but with more colors and higher resolution. And a task bar.
First, I'd note on number 3 above. When i say "Public Health Initiatives" I'm not advocating a gov't health care system. I am in favor of vaccination efforts, and the ability to put a quick lid on what can become an epidemic, like what the CDC does.
As to the rest of it, it's all fine, but most of it is 18th century think. Almost none of it scales to a modern economy. The idea of banding together to build a dirt road through your town is in fact very viable without a central, national government. But a freeway system isn't.
And strong property rights alone aren't the solution to environmental problems; regulations are. Saying "You can do as you like with your property" means that if you like, you can dump mercury into the ground, on your property. The fact that your neighbor's kids are gonna be brain damaged from the well water -- The well on their property -- isn't your problem. The only solution to this is a government, restricting your liberty, telling you that you can't do that.
I don't know why you say "Goodbye", I say "Hello, hello, hello".
I don't know why you say goodbye, I say hello.
I say "High", you say "Low".
You say "Why?" And I say "I don't know".
It's because he was into Dichotomy.
Public schools are good.
- strongly disagree.
What's your alternative? Home schooling? It works good for a handful of people, but isn't viable for most others, due to the fact that the parents simply aren't competent to do it, or are busy doing subsistance level economic activity. There's a reason that poor farmers have been banding together to build one-room school houses for 200 years. Modern private schools aren't viable for the destitute, which makes social movement impossible. This is antithetical to the American experience.
Public roads are good.
- strongly disagree.
This has been established for a couple thousand years. Now I'm sure you're trolling.
Public health initiatives are good.
- strongly disagree.
You've obviously never lived somewhere where a bunch of your neighbors have tuburculosis (sp).
creating externalities that make their current path unsustainable
- no, the Chinese problem only extends to the government destroying their own currency by printing it to buy US dollars and subsidise US consumer and government involvement in a number of industries (in terms of taxes, regulations and just ownership).
As China becomes richer and richer, the quality of life will go up there, and the real problem for environment that exists there, will only continue to the extent that the private property rights are not protected.
The Chinese have mortgaged there entire environment - the actual land - by polluting it to an extent that is unimaginable in the US. This is a real, concrete thing that they have done. It cannot be undone (Look at what the California Air Resouces Board has done to try to clean up LA, and it's problems pale compared to Wuhan or Beijing's). The average lifespan in China is dropping, not going up. Most of what they've gotten in return is a bunch of fiat currency, and treasury bonds. All of which are backed by nothing but people's beliefs and intentions. And even if people continue to believe in those things, it's questionable whether the total value of all of it is sufficent to reverse the concrete harm that has been done.
Which leads increasingly to a service economy which provide things that people don't want made by machines, such as meals, art, and foot massages.
But, If you're ever played Monopoly, you know that whomever owns the capital (e.g. the crane) will eventually end up owning nearly everything of value. These people simply don't need the services of everyone who has no wealth. This leads to joblessness, poverty, and, eventually, rage and desperation. Then, inevitably, a weath redistribution happens, occationally by vote or more often by violence.
I think the ones that are really funny are the Anarchists. We knew a couple of college-educated ones that used to like to steal cheap, insignificant stuff like your can-opener when they went to parties, to show everybody how cool they were. Then they'd tell you about it later. People like that often have very shallow beliefs. I'm guessing they'd go ahead and call the cops if you hit 'em with a pipe wrench... They're not allowed in our house anymore, btw...
Also, my favorite libertarian article:
http://www.theonion.com/articles/libertarian-reluctantly-calls-fire-department,4651/
Right on. Sometimes, it's in our common greater good to do things that aren't in our individual good (e.g. pay to educate your neighbor's children, or prevent a total collapse of an industry, such as the auto or banking systems, recently). In these cases, we revert to a socialist system, which is run by the government because they're the only ones with the stick to make everybody participate.
In other cases, we're willing to see our neighbor suffer (e.g. have his business go bankrupt) because we're confident that this preening will lead to a stronger society overall.
Obviously, everybody tries to game the system, so it doesn't always work out.
There's not a good description for what China is. I use the term "caplitalist" with regard to the externalities (pushing your costs off on society) with regard to how they do business. Being able to dump heavy metals directly into the local river, for example, makes you competitive against companies that operate with more restricitons. China has been described as a lawless country with lots of laws on the books. Ability to do business outside of law is very free-market.
But, you're right. There are still large aspects of state run economics, particularly in the banking sector.
Local governments do this all the time with things like property tax abatements. Trade one kind of tax income for (hopefully more) of another, or for other less direct benefit (people with jobs put less strain on government resources, for example)
I find the subtlety of your argument confusing and upsetting. COMMUNIST!