Pirates have been clamoring for publishers to adopt a pay-what-you-want model. THQ is trying that out as a temporary offering. It is entirely logical for them to use an existing site that specializes in pay-what-you-want temporary offers. If it works well, they might create their own platform. Expecting them to create their own platform for an experiment is absurd.
He was right, you are wrong. A polemic isn't just an argument, it's an organized, long-form argument intended to prove that a specific position is wrong.
The submitter was probably looking for the work "anemic", which would mean that it's a poor offering.
It is a specific brand of name your price software offering, estalished on a set of core ideals.
Maybe that was true for the first few bundles. But they've since branched out into releasing music and books. They sold Crayon Physics Deluxe without source code, and probably other games too.
People support the humble bundle brand for a reason.
But not always the same reason. I've supported the Humble Bundles from the beginning, always paying several times the average, and keeping all my keys neatly sorted in KeePass. I've never played half the games, but I support it anyway. Not because I care about DRM (so long as its inobtrusive, I don't) or open source, but because I support the pay-what-you-want-and-give-some-to-charity model.
This happens. Little communities expand, and become more ideologically diverse. You shouldn't be so angry towards your fellow supporters. We give just as much as you do.
Yeah, that'll teach them to do exactly what pirates have been insisting major publishers should do! How dare they give us the option to pay what we want!? They must be punished!!
It's still pay what you want. It still lets you send a portion to charity. What exactly is the problem? Is it just that you are ideologically against big publishers and are upset that not everyone agrees with you?
THQ has been struggling, so they're trying something new. That's a good thing. If you don't want to buy it, don't. I did, as did many of my friends, and I'm quite happy with it.
a 200mm wafer is 0.775mm thick. A quick google says this is about $1200. I'm not sure when this was, but the price keeps dropping.
Either that's old data, or the company selling the wafers was marking them up, or both. In my company's fab, 200 mm wafers cost around half that.
However, you are forgetting a crucial component: wafers may start that thick, but that's only for mechanical reasons. Prior to packaging the individual die, they get ground down to just ~100 um thickness. If they're growing individual chips instead of shuttling a big wafer around, then perhaps the gold layer only needs to be ~50 um instead of ~750 um. You also don't have wasted substrate around the edge of the wafer. That should at least come close to evening out the 20x difference you calculated. And then you can account for time savings, and perhaps some other advantages, and it starts to look like this tech might have some promise.
The bigger flaw I see is how much the price of gold fluctuates due to speculators. They've driven it up by 500% over the past ten years. Maybe it'll even out or go back down, but maybe not. Lots of companies are moving away from gold bond wires because of it, so I can't imagine many companies wanting to become more dependent on the price of gold.
In that case, the OP is using his boss's money for his shopping. Or is it the money of the people who buy from his boss's business? Or does the money belong to the bosses of the people who buy from the OP's boss's business?
Hmm, this is getting confusing. Can we please just agree that people, even public servants, own the money paid to them, until they pay it to someone else?
Uhh... are you saying that it's discriminatory to not allow children to vote and drive? I'm guessing you must be a kid, probably an older one, and pissed about your lack of rights.
Sorry, but you aren't Athena. You don't spring out fully formed and ready to go. It takes a long time for the brain to fully develop, and teenagers just aren't done yet. Slowly easing them into responsibility is the right thing to do. That's not discrimination, unless you're gonna try to argue semantics and pretend that "discrimination" doesn't carry connotations of being unjust.
You're full of shit, and just looking to stroke your own ego. You aren't Mark Zuckerburg. You aren't Steve Jobs. Nothing wrong with that, most people aren't.
Most people around here work for companies; they don't own them. That's practically tautological. At my company, the vast majority of engineers are over forty. Many, perhaps even most, are millionaires, but only just. That'll happen when you make six figures for most of your life and are competent at math. But the notion that everyone over 40 either has tens of millions or is a failure is total bunk. Just something you say to make yourself seem cool.
According to this article, which references the same study, the cameras actually seem to make things much better.
On the two intersections where the cameras have been in place the longest, t-bone accidents are down 86%!! And this isn't a revenue stream either, as the number of tickets issued, while spiking initially, drops off substantially as drivers get used to the cameras.
Of course, the article submitter wanted a good ole fashioned anti-government hate-fest, and was happy to massage the numbers accordingly. Lies, damned lies, and statistics, indeed.
It doesn't matter. If it's finite in supply, it cannot work. Eventually the cap will be reached, and then one can earn a better rate of return by hoarding than by investing. It's deflationary, and that is disastrous. Anyone with a grade school level of economics knowledge should have no trouble grasping this, but the people pushing bitcoin operate on some sort of knee-jerk anti-economic thinking where whatever "the establishment" believes must be wrong.
There is a way to let the artist reach the user without infringing on the user's rights. Right now, the webpage displays info on the artist. You can reach that same info by clicking on the band's name in the desktop app. Just let artists add a couple sentences to their bio page. Something like "We have a new album called XXX coming out on YYY! Be sure to check it out!"
Problem solved. People who want to learn more about the artist can get the info, people who don't care don't get ads shoved in their face. I don't know if Ms. Keating would be satisfied with that arrangement, but anything more than that would probably leave me reconsidering my subscription.
Despite of all of the hype and gnashing of teeth, I have been able to do this with "other stuff" for over a decade. The idea that you can't use "other stuff" is just the same old mindless FUD we've been fed since the 80s.
Is it? It's admittedly been a while since I checked, but does Libre/OpenOffice now include a decent equation editor that can export to PDF without looking like it passed through a cheese grater? Does it have conditional formatting that allows for more than three formats? Can that conditional formatting automatically scan the range of the data its being applied to and highlight outliers?
Those are all essential tools for people doing serious work, and when I last checked OpenOffice (circa 2009), it had none of those features. Maybe they've made major strides over the past few years, in which please let me know so I can give them another try. But if not, then you need to learn that when users tell you that they need features X, Y, & Z, you should listen instead of dismissing their concerns as "mindless FUD".
What you mean is that all families should be forced to be atheist, because you're an atheist. That would, after all, be the effect of banning exposure of religion to children, and your goal is clearly to make more atheists. You are advocating an end to freedom of thought -- forcing your personal beliefs on everyone.
It really is amazing how many internet-atheists (not to be confused with the majority of quite reasonable atheists) are exactly as bad in the exact same ways as the religious people they hate so much.
This same congressman wanted to force the US to default on our debts, which would have caused complete economic collapse. At the same time, he pushes for unnecessary military spending on tanks that the Pentagon doesn't even want, because guess who's district they get made in. And on top of that, he's one of those Republicans who claims to support small government while simultaneously thinking it has a role in the bedroom.
In short, he's a vile little hypocrite, who happens to be right on this one issue. No need to alter my perception of the GOP. They do occasionally come up with good ideas: Obamacare, cap & trade, the DREAM Act, etc. But they'll abandon all principles and fight to the death to protect the privilege of rich white Christian men, and that's what most people dislike about them.
After their foray into I, Robot, I'm quite glad that they're not making the Foundation series into the next big blockbuster. I can just imagine Michael Bay directing it. Forget the technology-as-religion approach to controlling their neighbors, the Foundation will just blast them to hell and back. Also, the Mule and Second Foundationers will all be Jedi, since the final confrontation with the Mule would be utterly unfilmable otherwise.
You just backed it up for him. According to the site that you yourself linked there is only one "red" state that pays more in taxes than it gets in federal spending: Texas.
Here's a quick summary, from your own link, of which states support the nation, sorted by the amount they give in excess of the amount they receive:
That list includes big states, small states, densely populated states, sparse states, coastal states, landlocked states, and so on. The only common thread is that they're all liberal, except Texas. And if we're being honest, Texas only makes the list because of the big liberal cities like Houston that drive their economy.
The fact is that the red states that bitch the most about taxes are also the ones who benefit the most from them. Not unlike their fervently anti-gay congressmen who get caught soliciting sex in the men's room.
You think corporate profits are going through the roof? Great! Buy some stock.
I did! I made a killing! The markets have done great under Obama. But unemployment stays high because our corporate masters like the fact that they can pressure people into working longer hours for less money. Why would they want to start hiring again when they're getting along just fine as is? And meanwhile the millionaires on Wall Street bitch and moan about how awful it is that they might soon have to pay 20% taxes instead of just 15%, and how we should get that money by taking food and medicine away from poor people instead.
That was the troll's point. He started with a nice sentence as mod-bait, but he's just another deluded Republican.
The GOP has made hostage taking the standard operation procedure in Washington. When they wanted the Bush tax cuts extended in 2010, they threatened to cut off unemployment support for millions of people. When they wanted to slash the social safety nets, they refused to pay the country's bills until the Democrats gave in, causing our credit to get downgraded in the process.
I hope that Obama puts a gun to their head with the fiscal cliff. He's probably too spineless to do it, but turnabout is fair play, and they deserve to suffer for what they've done to this country.
Turn off Fox. They're poisoning your mind, and stripping you of your ability to reason.
Corporations want the recession to continue. They make record profits during recession. They can use it as an excuse to lay off your coworkers, make you do the work of two people, and pay you less to boot. As if that's not enough, they tell you over and over that you must destroy your safety net and using the saving to cut their taxes, making things even better for them and even worse for you. They are conning you.
I'd like to refute your claims in greater detail, but the fact is that you haven't provided any details to refute. You're just insisting that Obamacare is somehow destroying the economy, but have you given any thought into how that could even be possible? No, of course not. The nice man on TV said so, and he said a bunch of other words that sounded smart, and he said them so confidently! It must be true!
Slashdot Mirror
Pirates have been clamoring for publishers to adopt a pay-what-you-want model. THQ is trying that out as a temporary offering. It is entirely logical for them to use an existing site that specializes in pay-what-you-want temporary offers. If it works well, they might create their own platform. Expecting them to create their own platform for an experiment is absurd.
He was right, you are wrong. A polemic isn't just an argument, it's an organized, long-form argument intended to prove that a specific position is wrong.
The submitter was probably looking for the work "anemic", which would mean that it's a poor offering.
It is a specific brand of name your price software offering, estalished on a set of core ideals.
Maybe that was true for the first few bundles. But they've since branched out into releasing music and books. They sold Crayon Physics Deluxe without source code, and probably other games too.
People support the humble bundle brand for a reason.
But not always the same reason. I've supported the Humble Bundles from the beginning, always paying several times the average, and keeping all my keys neatly sorted in KeePass. I've never played half the games, but I support it anyway. Not because I care about DRM (so long as its inobtrusive, I don't) or open source, but because I support the pay-what-you-want-and-give-some-to-charity model.
This happens. Little communities expand, and become more ideologically diverse. You shouldn't be so angry towards your fellow supporters. We give just as much as you do.
Yeah, that'll teach them to do exactly what pirates have been insisting major publishers should do! How dare they give us the option to pay what we want!? They must be punished!!
Why?
It's still pay what you want. It still lets you send a portion to charity. What exactly is the problem? Is it just that you are ideologically against big publishers and are upset that not everyone agrees with you?
THQ has been struggling, so they're trying something new. That's a good thing. If you don't want to buy it, don't. I did, as did many of my friends, and I'm quite happy with it.
a 200mm wafer is 0.775mm thick. A quick google says this is about $1200. I'm not sure when this was, but the price keeps dropping.
Either that's old data, or the company selling the wafers was marking them up, or both. In my company's fab, 200 mm wafers cost around half that.
However, you are forgetting a crucial component: wafers may start that thick, but that's only for mechanical reasons. Prior to packaging the individual die, they get ground down to just ~100 um thickness. If they're growing individual chips instead of shuttling a big wafer around, then perhaps the gold layer only needs to be ~50 um instead of ~750 um. You also don't have wasted substrate around the edge of the wafer. That should at least come close to evening out the 20x difference you calculated. And then you can account for time savings, and perhaps some other advantages, and it starts to look like this tech might have some promise.
The bigger flaw I see is how much the price of gold fluctuates due to speculators. They've driven it up by 500% over the past ten years. Maybe it'll even out or go back down, but maybe not. Lots of companies are moving away from gold bond wires because of it, so I can't imagine many companies wanting to become more dependent on the price of gold.
In that case, the OP is using his boss's money for his shopping. Or is it the money of the people who buy from his boss's business? Or does the money belong to the bosses of the people who buy from the OP's boss's business?
Hmm, this is getting confusing. Can we please just agree that people, even public servants, own the money paid to them, until they pay it to someone else?
Uhh... are you saying that it's discriminatory to not allow children to vote and drive? I'm guessing you must be a kid, probably an older one, and pissed about your lack of rights.
Sorry, but you aren't Athena. You don't spring out fully formed and ready to go. It takes a long time for the brain to fully develop, and teenagers just aren't done yet. Slowly easing them into responsibility is the right thing to do. That's not discrimination, unless you're gonna try to argue semantics and pretend that "discrimination" doesn't carry connotations of being unjust.
You're full of shit, and just looking to stroke your own ego. You aren't Mark Zuckerburg. You aren't Steve Jobs. Nothing wrong with that, most people aren't.
Most people around here work for companies; they don't own them. That's practically tautological. At my company, the vast majority of engineers are over forty. Many, perhaps even most, are millionaires, but only just. That'll happen when you make six figures for most of your life and are competent at math. But the notion that everyone over 40 either has tens of millions or is a failure is total bunk. Just something you say to make yourself seem cool.
According to this article, which references the same study, the cameras actually seem to make things much better.
On the two intersections where the cameras have been in place the longest, t-bone accidents are down 86%!! And this isn't a revenue stream either, as the number of tickets issued, while spiking initially, drops off substantially as drivers get used to the cameras.
Of course, the article submitter wanted a good ole fashioned anti-government hate-fest, and was happy to massage the numbers accordingly. Lies, damned lies, and statistics, indeed.
It doesn't matter. If it's finite in supply, it cannot work. Eventually the cap will be reached, and then one can earn a better rate of return by hoarding than by investing. It's deflationary, and that is disastrous. Anyone with a grade school level of economics knowledge should have no trouble grasping this, but the people pushing bitcoin operate on some sort of knee-jerk anti-economic thinking where whatever "the establishment" believes must be wrong.
How so? You can't eat it, it's too soft and heavy to fight with, and no one is going to be building electronics if civilization falls.
That's all well and good, but if you read the full quote, Senator Rubio was suggesting that the world was made in seven days:
Whether the Earth was created in 7 days, or 7 actual eras, I'm not sure we'll ever be able to answer that. It's one of the great mysteries.
There is a way to let the artist reach the user without infringing on the user's rights. Right now, the webpage displays info on the artist. You can reach that same info by clicking on the band's name in the desktop app. Just let artists add a couple sentences to their bio page. Something like "We have a new album called XXX coming out on YYY! Be sure to check it out!"
Problem solved. People who want to learn more about the artist can get the info, people who don't care don't get ads shoved in their face. I don't know if Ms. Keating would be satisfied with that arrangement, but anything more than that would probably leave me reconsidering my subscription.
Despite of all of the hype and gnashing of teeth, I have been able to do this with "other stuff" for over a decade. The idea that you can't use "other stuff" is just the same old mindless FUD we've been fed since the 80s.
Is it? It's admittedly been a while since I checked, but does Libre/OpenOffice now include a decent equation editor that can export to PDF without looking like it passed through a cheese grater? Does it have conditional formatting that allows for more than three formats? Can that conditional formatting automatically scan the range of the data its being applied to and highlight outliers?
Those are all essential tools for people doing serious work, and when I last checked OpenOffice (circa 2009), it had none of those features. Maybe they've made major strides over the past few years, in which please let me know so I can give them another try. But if not, then you need to learn that when users tell you that they need features X, Y, & Z, you should listen instead of dismissing their concerns as "mindless FUD".
What you mean is that all families should be forced to be atheist, because you're an atheist. That would, after all, be the effect of banning exposure of religion to children, and your goal is clearly to make more atheists. You are advocating an end to freedom of thought -- forcing your personal beliefs on everyone.
It really is amazing how many internet-atheists (not to be confused with the majority of quite reasonable atheists) are exactly as bad in the exact same ways as the religious people they hate so much.
This same congressman wanted to force the US to default on our debts, which would have caused complete economic collapse. At the same time, he pushes for unnecessary military spending on tanks that the Pentagon doesn't even want, because guess who's district they get made in. And on top of that, he's one of those Republicans who claims to support small government while simultaneously thinking it has a role in the bedroom.
In short, he's a vile little hypocrite, who happens to be right on this one issue. No need to alter my perception of the GOP. They do occasionally come up with good ideas: Obamacare, cap & trade, the DREAM Act, etc. But they'll abandon all principles and fight to the death to protect the privilege of rich white Christian men, and that's what most people dislike about them.
After their foray into I, Robot, I'm quite glad that they're not making the Foundation series into the next big blockbuster. I can just imagine Michael Bay directing it. Forget the technology-as-religion approach to controlling their neighbors, the Foundation will just blast them to hell and back. Also, the Mule and Second Foundationers will all be Jedi, since the final confrontation with the Mule would be utterly unfilmable otherwise.
Anyone with half a brain I know of didn't vote.
Meanwhile, those of us with full brains did vote. I'm sorry to hear about your condition and the crippling pessimism it brings.
Ah, good ole Switzerland.... Australia's path to the sea!
You just backed it up for him. According to the site that you yourself linked there is only one "red" state that pays more in taxes than it gets in federal spending: Texas.
Here's a quick summary, from your own link, of which states support the nation, sorted by the amount they give in excess of the amount they receive:
California: $47B
New Jersey: $32B
New York: $24B
Illinois: $19B
Connecticut: $10B
Texas: $10B
Minnesota: $9B
Massachusetts: $8B
Nevada: $6B
Colorado: $5B
Michigan: $3B
Washington: $3B
Wisconsin $3B
New Hampshire: $2B
Delaware: $1.5B
Oregon: $1B
Florida: $0.5B
That list includes big states, small states, densely populated states, sparse states, coastal states, landlocked states, and so on. The only common thread is that they're all liberal, except Texas. And if we're being honest, Texas only makes the list because of the big liberal cities like Houston that drive their economy.
The fact is that the red states that bitch the most about taxes are also the ones who benefit the most from them. Not unlike their fervently anti-gay congressmen who get caught soliciting sex in the men's room.
You think corporate profits are going through the roof? Great! Buy some stock.
I did! I made a killing! The markets have done great under Obama. But unemployment stays high because our corporate masters like the fact that they can pressure people into working longer hours for less money. Why would they want to start hiring again when they're getting along just fine as is? And meanwhile the millionaires on Wall Street bitch and moan about how awful it is that they might soon have to pay 20% taxes instead of just 15%, and how we should get that money by taking food and medicine away from poor people instead.
That was the troll's point. He started with a nice sentence as mod-bait, but he's just another deluded Republican.
The GOP has made hostage taking the standard operation procedure in Washington. When they wanted the Bush tax cuts extended in 2010, they threatened to cut off unemployment support for millions of people. When they wanted to slash the social safety nets, they refused to pay the country's bills until the Democrats gave in, causing our credit to get downgraded in the process.
I hope that Obama puts a gun to their head with the fiscal cliff. He's probably too spineless to do it, but turnabout is fair play, and they deserve to suffer for what they've done to this country.
Turn off Fox. They're poisoning your mind, and stripping you of your ability to reason.
Corporations want the recession to continue. They make record profits during recession. They can use it as an excuse to lay off your coworkers, make you do the work of two people, and pay you less to boot. As if that's not enough, they tell you over and over that you must destroy your safety net and using the saving to cut their taxes, making things even better for them and even worse for you. They are conning you.
I'd like to refute your claims in greater detail, but the fact is that you haven't provided any details to refute. You're just insisting that Obamacare is somehow destroying the economy, but have you given any thought into how that could even be possible? No, of course not. The nice man on TV said so, and he said a bunch of other words that sounded smart, and he said them so confidently! It must be true!