Every moment I spend moving a window around or resizing it is frankly wasted time. Same with launching programs or organizing my menus.
I agree that a psychic interface would be great, but short of that how is the GUI supposed to know, for instance, that at Time A I want this text editor window to be small and the browser to be big (because I'm taking notes on a web page) while at Time B the opposite is preferable (because I'm writing a document and only want the browser open for reference)?
That's exactly my point. People who have a B.S./B.Eng. can apply it to useful work. People who almost made the cut to be competitive athletes can't apply their athletic training to equally productive purposes.
We need lots of scientists/engineers/etc., and relatively few athletes (arguably we don't *need* any at all). And student athletes are generally being trained in something else, which they can apply to a career if sports don't work out. A football player who doesn't make the cut might still have a degree in accounting or philosophy or bio or whatever else. That makes no sense as a model for STEM education.
The reason this is such a bad analogy has nothing to do with whether an app succeeds because of luck, or how much the annual fees are. It has to do with where the money comes from. The money a developer gets comes, ultimately, from customers buying the app. Yes, the middleman takes a lot (but perhaps not more than more middlemen), but that doesn't make it a casino. In a casino, all the money coming in is from the gamblers, and all the money you win is from other gamblers (minus the house's cut). The same is true in a lottery. But an app store is completely different. Sure, it's unpredictable whether you will make big, medium, or no money, but the source of that money is not your fellow developers' entry fees.
Doesn't a crash usually mean a record low, rather than the decline of a particularly enormous peak?
No. If a stock market were to triple its value over a decade, then lose half its peak value in a week, I think that would qualify as a crash, even though it was still up from ten years earlier. It depends on the time scale you're looking at
Water would make an awful currency because it's way to expensive to transport (imagine going to the coffee shop with a gallon jug to pay for a cup of coffee). Not everything that is valuable would be an efficient form of money. And how would you pay a water bill to your utility company? With water?
First, I wasn't making an argument either way about whether the killing was justified or not, I was only talking about the narrower issue of whether he was really a US citizen or not. And on that point, the Yemeni legal system is not directly relevant to whether he is a US citizen or not; someone loses US citizenship only according to rules spelled out in US law. It's possible that a Yemeni court might not recognize his US citizenship but a US court would.
Presumably the parent would have assassinated Hitler before the Nazi rise to power, not in 1939, on the assumption that doing so would stop WWII from happening at all. Seeing if that were so would be a fun experiment!
We also have existing law on the books that says if you join a foreign military, you lose your citizen ship.
This is not true and would lead to ridiculous situations considering that someone could be forcibly conscripted into a foreign military.
Indeed, not only forcibly conscripted but in countries that have mandatory military service for all citizens a dual citizen (e.g., someone born overseas of US parents) would be expected to perform that service when they reach the appropriate age. That happens to people born in France of US parents, for example, who have both US and French passports.
Now, before you try to tell me that it's not the same scenario - I'll remind you that Al Unlucky has indeed publicly renounced his US citizenship. THAT is where all the media has it WRONG. Al Unlucky hasn't been a US citizen for a long, long time. And, Unlucky did indeed join a "party", or organization, whose stated goals include the overthrow of the United States.
Did he legally renounce his US citizenship? It's not enough to simply say, "I renounce my citizenship" to make it effective. It's actually a fairly involved process (in part, to prevent people from simply giving up their citizenship to avoid taxes). So he may in fact have been a US citizen, even if he denied it.
Some should make a soft core porn game for metro and make it very clear that it is a adult game and if it gets banned sue under 1ST amendment rights and antitrust laws.
Antitrust maybe, but the First Amendment only protects you from government restrictions on speech, not from private individuals or corporations.
Search is completely impossible to not have a bias. If it did so, it wouldn't be a search, it'd be a table of contents and also completely useless as a search. If they rank their own shit higher, well, that's their choice.
Of course there's no purely objective search. But if Company A builds into their algorithm that their own pages will always appear among the first five results, for example, it seems perfectly sensible for a Company B to point that fact out and say "We never do that. We rank all pages on the basis of a formula that does not consider who provides a particular web page," it would be a selling point for at least some consumers.
Your definition of cooking is not the only, or even most, reasonable one. Sure, a search company can devise whatever algorithm it wants, but I think people have come, rightly or wrongly, to expect a baseline of impartiality in results from Google. If we define "cooking" against that expectation, it could include any tweaking that biases for or against certain pages because of Google's other interests. Ranking their own services higher in the results than where they would appear if a single algorithm were applied across the board would then be "cooking."
The question of what to do about this is a separate one. I might, for example, decide that the best course of action is to publicize Google's actions so that users of their search will be aware of this bias. There's no need to leap from pointing the practice out to legislating a master algorithm.
There's a third reason: Linux systems have far lower sales volume, so the cost of, e.g., configuring systems, preparing documentation and figuring out drivers is spread across fewer units. If it costs Dell $100,000 (including salaries, test machines, training support staff, etc.) to prepare this for a given model, divide that by 500,000 machines sold with Windows vs 10,000 sold with Linux and the differences add up. Anything sold in smaller volumes is going to be more expensive for this reason.
Slashdot Mirror
Gross sales =/= revenue.
Every moment I spend moving a window around or resizing it is frankly wasted time. Same with launching programs or organizing my menus.
I agree that a psychic interface would be great, but short of that how is the GUI supposed to know, for instance, that at Time A I want this text editor window to be small and the browser to be big (because I'm taking notes on a web page) while at Time B the opposite is preferable (because I'm writing a document and only want the browser open for reference)?
Bad grammar. You're asking whom?
That sounds like an excellent question for Ask Slashdot...
That's exactly my point. People who have a B.S./B.Eng. can apply it to useful work. People who almost made the cut to be competitive athletes can't apply their athletic training to equally productive purposes.
We need lots of scientists/engineers/etc., and relatively few athletes (arguably we don't *need* any at all). And student athletes are generally being trained in something else, which they can apply to a career if sports don't work out. A football player who doesn't make the cut might still have a degree in accounting or philosophy or bio or whatever else. That makes no sense as a model for STEM education.
Perhaps he hand-engraves his music onto vinyl.
The reason this is such a bad analogy has nothing to do with whether an app succeeds because of luck, or how much the annual fees are. It has to do with where the money comes from. The money a developer gets comes, ultimately, from customers buying the app. Yes, the middleman takes a lot (but perhaps not more than more middlemen), but that doesn't make it a casino. In a casino, all the money coming in is from the gamblers, and all the money you win is from other gamblers (minus the house's cut). The same is true in a lottery. But an app store is completely different. Sure, it's unpredictable whether you will make big, medium, or no money, but the source of that money is not your fellow developers' entry fees.
Doesn't a crash usually mean a record low, rather than the decline of a particularly enormous peak?
No. If a stock market were to triple its value over a decade, then lose half its peak value in a week, I think that would qualify as a crash, even though it was still up from ten years earlier. It depends on the time scale you're looking at
Water would make an awful currency because it's way to expensive to transport (imagine going to the coffee shop with a gallon jug to pay for a cup of coffee). Not everything that is valuable would be an efficient form of money. And how would you pay a water bill to your utility company? With water?
Just like the gold standard, whereby any country that finds gold deposits can also create currency.
...or hot fusion surrounded by very good insulation...
Would it melt, freeze, or both?
First, I wasn't making an argument either way about whether the killing was justified or not, I was only talking about the narrower issue of whether he was really a US citizen or not. And on that point, the Yemeni legal system is not directly relevant to whether he is a US citizen or not; someone loses US citizenship only according to rules spelled out in US law. It's possible that a Yemeni court might not recognize his US citizenship but a US court would.
Presumably the parent would have assassinated Hitler before the Nazi rise to power, not in 1939, on the assumption that doing so would stop WWII from happening at all. Seeing if that were so would be a fun experiment!
This is not true and would lead to ridiculous situations considering that someone could be forcibly conscripted into a foreign military.
Indeed, not only forcibly conscripted but in countries that have mandatory military service for all citizens a dual citizen (e.g., someone born overseas of US parents) would be expected to perform that service when they reach the appropriate age. That happens to people born in France of US parents, for example, who have both US and French passports.
Now, before you try to tell me that it's not the same scenario - I'll remind you that Al Unlucky has indeed publicly renounced his US citizenship. THAT is where all the media has it WRONG. Al Unlucky hasn't been a US citizen for a long, long time. And, Unlucky did indeed join a "party", or organization, whose stated goals include the overthrow of the United States.
Did he legally renounce his US citizenship? It's not enough to simply say, "I renounce my citizenship" to make it effective. It's actually a fairly involved process (in part, to prevent people from simply giving up their citizenship to avoid taxes). So he may in fact have been a US citizen, even if he denied it.
You don't search too good. Try here.
I would have thought being homeless was a pretty darn good evasion method.
Why? It's not like the police have no experience tracking down homeless people.
Some should make a soft core porn game for metro and make it very clear that it is a adult game and if it gets banned sue under 1ST amendment rights and antitrust laws.
Antitrust maybe, but the First Amendment only protects you from government restrictions on speech, not from private individuals or corporations.
I'm sure the parent meant "severe vendors."
Search is completely impossible to not have a bias. If it did so, it wouldn't be a search, it'd be a table of contents and also completely useless as a search. If they rank their own shit higher, well, that's their choice.
Of course there's no purely objective search. But if Company A builds into their algorithm that their own pages will always appear among the first five results, for example, it seems perfectly sensible for a Company B to point that fact out and say "We never do that. We rank all pages on the basis of a formula that does not consider who provides a particular web page," it would be a selling point for at least some consumers.
Your definition of cooking is not the only, or even most, reasonable one. Sure, a search company can devise whatever algorithm it wants, but I think people have come, rightly or wrongly, to expect a baseline of impartiality in results from Google. If we define "cooking" against that expectation, it could include any tweaking that biases for or against certain pages because of Google's other interests. Ranking their own services higher in the results than where they would appear if a single algorithm were applied across the board would then be "cooking."
The question of what to do about this is a separate one. I might, for example, decide that the best course of action is to publicize Google's actions so that users of their search will be aware of this bias. There's no need to leap from pointing the practice out to legislating a master algorithm.
Are we only in a recession because companies who are going to say we're in a recession are allowed to be counted in the DJIA?
No. The DJIA and S&P 500 track each other pretty well over the long term. Look.
There's a third reason: Linux systems have far lower sales volume, so the cost of, e.g., configuring systems, preparing documentation and figuring out drivers is spread across fewer units. If it costs Dell $100,000 (including salaries, test machines, training support staff, etc.) to prepare this for a given model, divide that by 500,000 machines sold with Windows vs 10,000 sold with Linux and the differences add up. Anything sold in smaller volumes is going to be more expensive for this reason.