Now this is the sort of work I expect to see in this class. The original paper, legitimate rebutals and even a link to the original raw data so that we may make proper comparisons and legitimately draw our own informed conclusions.
You should do well here. You may return to your seat.
Ah, and you were off to such a good start too (although pointing out some other potential sources of bias might have earned you a bonus point).
You seem, however, to have slept through the lecture on claims and proofs and merely cribed notes which you don't understand and thus fail to be able to distinguish an extraordinary claim ("I did my homework, but an Alien stole it from me after the anal probe") from a perfectly normal claim ("A clerical error fucked up the data").
Both require proof, of course, but the later proof can be handled through the simple expediant of comparing data sets and methodolgies. (Frankly, we haven't the stomach at this hour to review an anal probe proof)
But then you seem to be unable to distinguish between a publishers blurb and the actual paper, let alone the work the paper is based on.
Is that what he was talking about? Well, ya got me there I guess. I just spent 15 minutes trying to figure out what the hell his point was and couldn't even find a context for it. He certainly didn't provide one.
I went so far as the visit the PeopleSoft web site. Wow! Completely content free gobbledy-gook, but at least I know where to go for a complete "Human Capital Managment" system, whatever the hell that is, if I ever need one.
At WebCT I can get "flexible pedagogical tools."
Yummy! Can I have my electronically delivered pedantic formalism with extra cheese, please?
So, what this guy seems to be saying is that a major university with one of the finest CS departments in the world of whom Brian Frikken' Kernighan is a member isn't qualified to put up the university website, but a bunch of MBAs selling expensive electronic snake oil to tech clueless corporations are?
I'm not particularly interested in refuting the statement tonight. Not the least reason for which is I really don't feel like dealing with accussations of being both a Linux Zealot and Microsoft Lackey when my refutation doesn't neatly fit into the doctrine of either camp.
Red Hat is an irrellevency to me personally, by their own declaration. They are interested in neither my business nor the business of my customers. Ok, that's their business. Whatever.
But this statement says that now that we aren't selling a desktop product anymore don't go running to Mandrake, Slack, Lycoris or Apple.
It was completely unnecessary to make such a statement really, could have been said with considerably more sophistication and smacks of pissing in a pool that you've just declared you won't swim in anymore.
In other words, spiteful.
Nonetheless I have some understanding of why they might have said such a thing and it wasn't out of the sort of malice that the word "spite" implies. It's the more simple and business oriented sort of "malice" which is now considered normal business behaviour.
I find it distasteful.
I'll save the refutations of their, and your, points for another night I'm afraid.
Liberalism puts political and economic power in the hands of the individual for the good of the individual.
Conservatism is the resistence to change.
Socialism puts political and economic power in the hands of government for the good of society.
Fascism puts all economic and political power in the hands of a governmental elite and promotes the worship thereof.
Libertarianism puts the absolute maximum freedom in the hands of the individual and minimizes government.
The American Libertarian Party is strictly Constitutional. The Constitution is a very liberal document, which is why the Libertarian term can be applied to strict Constitutionalism and American Libertarianism is American Liberalism.
It sounds really, really weird saying this to a Libertarian, but:
Dude, you've completely bought into the current political dogma promologated by "The Man."
Free your mind and, ummmmmmmm, the rest will follow.
"Technically true, but extremely and exceedingly misleading. Were the definition of "lie" all but emptied of content by politics, I would call this a lie.
I agree that linux as a whole isn't ready for the desktop, unless you have a nearby linux geek who doesn't mind do the occasional difficult administrative things that a normal user can't.
But this is just as true of any other operating system. I put lots of food on my table and fuel in my boiler by administering Mac and Windows systems. The real problem here is the perception that these OSs can be administered by the average user. The end result is that instead of paying me $40 a couple times a year to keep things running smoothly they end up waiting until things go all to hell and have to pay me a couple hundred to straighten things out.
Good for me, I suppose, but only in the same sense that it's "good" for doctors if people only come in with a cut after gangrene has set in.
In this respect the greatest problem with Linux on the desktop isn't Linux itself, but the very geeks needed to administer it. They have no clue about the real needs of average users and don't set up boxes for them properly.
http://qrxx.4t.com/linuxbeat3.htm
As for the statements of Red Hat this is the sort of shit that happens when you decide you want to be a "playa," go public and put the MBAs in charge.
Since Red Hat has decided that their own interest is in pushing Linux as an "Enterprise" system they have to support that point of view publicly by dissing Linux itself on the desktop ( and other people's enterprise systems as well, of course). They are no longer a Linux company. They are Red Hat (tm).
Assuming your ravine was on earth yes, but you failed to specify. Sloppy work.
If, for instance, your ravine were on Phobos you could have gone orbital with pedaling (which again you didn't specify). Be careful though, escape velocity is only about 22.5 mph, although the high cadence the average BMX bike requires to achieve that sort of speed would protect just about everybody but track racers.
A very low orbit could be achieved at only several mph.
Something that people want so badly they're willing to obtain it illegally proves more popular than something nobody asked for and virtually nobody wants.
Now, now. Is that any way to talk to a convicted violator of antitrust laws for abuse of monopoly powers who keeps asking us to "pick up the soap just one more time"?
Niether one is really correct, but either one will do. It's an Anglicization of a Chinese word, and the Chinese word itself has several regional variants. There are also variants in nearly every Asian country if it comes to that. Seems like we got the word filtered through the Dutch in any case. Basically it means "sauce" and doesn't even have to made out of tomatoes.
When I was a kid I got confused over this issue so I went and did some research. Geeks are like that.
So just pick whichever one makes you happy. There is no authority for "correctness" in English. Only common usage.
Yeah, well, I left out the part where heat destroys the alkaloids.:)
That's why, while you have to worry about green potatoes, you don't have to worry about green potato chips. But where's the fun in telling people that? Christ man, I was trained on usenet back in the day when "that's the stupidest thing I've ever heard" wasn't even considered a flamebait and trolling was considered an art form.
So is eating plants that contain alkaloids. I eat a lot of milkweed (Euell Gibbons, not a health nut, and Monarch butterflies taught me about that) and dandelion. Controling bitterness is a developed skill, but then so is learning to like bitter.
Loss Leaders only work if people don't cherry pick the deals.
Oh, please Lord, give me a billion such "cherry pickers." See post above. I was not selling a loss leader. I was selling the psychological appearance of a loss leader which resulted in pure profit against fixed costs. Sometimes people actually felt bad about how little I charged and insisted I take a bit more.
I made a lot of money off of people such as yourself.
Well, you know what David Hannum said, only I provided real value for my customer's $3. A steal to them, profit to me. Win/Win at it's finest. Capitalism can be grand when you're not a scumwad.
I did not pay myself anything. I couldn't. I operated as a sole propriatorship. I made money. The kid who mows lawns doesn't "pay himself."
He makes a profit.
He is payed by his customers directly. Interesting concept that, no?
Sometimes people who have never operated outside of the corporate enviroment don't really understand the concept of profit. They're insulated from it by layers of law, beauracracy, accounting procedures, business models and social misconceptions. They've never made a profit in their lives, only paychecks.
Poor bastards.
You are free to suspect whatever you want, it makes no nevermind to me, but as all your premises are false so are all of your conclusions.
No, no, no. Absolutely not. A loss leader is where you sell something at a loss and leverage that into other sales. Every penny of that three bucks was pure profit. Money in my pocket.
That was the point of my post, to support the point made by GigsVt about leveraging fixed costs, as opposed to leveraging investment, which people seem to be having a hard time grasping.
Whan I sold a pair of tires for $15 that wasn't $15 in my pocket. $10 of that went to recouping the capital investment or servicing debt. However my rent and insurance remained the same whether I even opened the doors or not. $20 a day, closed or open. Makes no nevermind. The $3 bucks I charged for track time encured no additional investment at all over these fixed costs. That measly $3 was equal to $20 in retail sales (when you add in all the other costs incured in dealing with over the counter goods).
Misunderstanding of loss leaders results in the joke whose punch line is . .."Yeah, but I'm going to make it up in volume!"
I was not in that position. Every customer was clear profit. Against fixed costs. The brick and mortar version of the ideal business, a post office box that people mail money to.
Had a million people walked in one day and each handed me $3 I could have instantly retired with three million bucks less that month's fixed costs. That would be approximately. . . three million bucks. I "made it up" on volume.
The Porsche 959 is a sterling example of a loss leader. It is rumored that Porsche lost as much as $100k for every one they sold, but the promotional value sold enough 911s to make a net profit.
A slightly more subtle example is the Corvette. Every Corvette sold makes a profit, but incurs an accounting loss. If they invested that money in some other product they would make more money than they do by selling Corvettes. The Corvette, however, is a flagship model. If you don't sell Corvettes you don't sell Malibus either.
Nissan learned that, much to their dismay, when they dropped the Z. Now they've had to bring it back, but the customers and mindshare are already gone. It could take them decades to bring it back, if they ever do.
Apple has historically had a good grasp on loss leaders and a fair one on flagship, but they're slipping.
A couple times a year I gave out coupons for a free day of practice through other venues. It was a good promo. Brought in lots of new people. It was not a loss leader (well, other than the cost of the paper and toner) because it did not cost me anything other than those costs that were fixed.
Get it?
Now if Red Hat is already paying for the servers and already paying for the bandwidth and have already payed for the code creation and already payed to create rpms of patches (which may well be done by volunteers in the Open Source way of doing things). ..
Why not take seventy bucks a year from people to download them? Because most of the cost is fixed most of the income is profit.
This would appear to be a pure branding/corporate image policy.
Slashdot Mirror
Unfortunately for you one of the likely effects of global warming is that Sweden will get a bit colder.
Ironic,isn't it?
The upside, I suppose, is that you won't have to put up with all those snotty Norwegians boasting about their "balmy" climate anymore.
KFG
Actually, I was kinda looking forward to actual cash payments for riding my bicycle.
KFG
Thank you Master Monkey.
Now this is the sort of work I expect to see in this class. The original paper, legitimate rebutals and even a link to the original raw data so that we may make proper comparisons and legitimately draw our own informed conclusions.
You should do well here. You may return to your seat.
KFG
Ah, and you were off to such a good start too (although pointing out some other potential sources of bias might have earned you a bonus point).
You seem, however, to have slept through the lecture on claims and proofs and merely cribed notes which you don't understand and thus fail to be able to distinguish an extraordinary claim ("I did my homework, but an Alien stole it from me after the anal probe") from a perfectly normal claim ("A clerical error fucked up the data").
Both require proof, of course, but the later proof can be handled through the simple expediant of comparing data sets and methodolgies. (Frankly, we haven't the stomach at this hour to review an anal probe proof)
But then you seem to be unable to distinguish between a publishers blurb and the actual paper, let alone the work the paper is based on.
Better luck next term.
KFG
Check out the funding behind this.
Noted, as a potential source of bias.
You seem, however, to have left out your scientific criticism of their methodology and results.
As that criticism will comprise 99% of your final grade it looks like you have some work to do if you expect to pass this course.
KFG
Is that what he was talking about? Well, ya got me there I guess. I just spent 15 minutes trying to figure out what the hell his point was and couldn't even find a context for it. He certainly didn't provide one.
I went so far as the visit the PeopleSoft web site. Wow! Completely content free gobbledy-gook, but at least I know where to go for a complete "Human Capital Managment" system, whatever the hell that is, if I ever need one.
At WebCT I can get "flexible pedagogical tools."
Yummy! Can I have my electronically delivered pedantic formalism with extra cheese, please?
So, what this guy seems to be saying is that a major university with one of the finest CS departments in the world of whom Brian Frikken' Kernighan is a member isn't qualified to put up the university website, but a bunch of MBAs selling expensive electronic snake oil to tech clueless corporations are?
Is that what that incoherant rant was about?
KFG
I'm not particularly interested in refuting the statement tonight. Not the least reason for which is I really don't feel like dealing with accussations of being both a Linux Zealot and Microsoft Lackey when my refutation doesn't neatly fit into the doctrine of either camp.
Red Hat is an irrellevency to me personally, by their own declaration. They are interested in neither my business nor the business of my customers. Ok, that's their business. Whatever.
But this statement says that now that we aren't selling a desktop product anymore don't go running to Mandrake, Slack, Lycoris or Apple.
It was completely unnecessary to make such a statement really, could have been said with considerably more sophistication and smacks of pissing in a pool that you've just declared you won't swim in anymore.
In other words, spiteful.
Nonetheless I have some understanding of why they might have said such a thing and it wasn't out of the sort of malice that the word "spite" implies. It's the more simple and business oriented sort of "malice" which is now considered normal business behaviour.
I find it distasteful.
I'll save the refutations of their, and your, points for another night I'm afraid.
KFG
Danger, danger! Run Will Robinson, RUN!
KFG
You're a real fucking idiot. You went/go to college, don't you?
Well, we can certainly say that I don't have much worry about having you for a student, or at least not for long, can't we?
KFG
Liberalism puts political and economic power in the hands of the individual for the good of the individual.
Conservatism is the resistence to change.
Socialism puts political and economic power in the hands of government for the good of society.
Fascism puts all economic and political power in the hands of a governmental elite and promotes the worship thereof.
Libertarianism puts the absolute maximum freedom in the hands of the individual and minimizes government.
The American Libertarian Party is strictly Constitutional. The Constitution is a very liberal document, which is why the Libertarian term can be applied to strict Constitutionalism and American Libertarianism is American Liberalism.
It sounds really, really weird saying this to a Libertarian, but:
Dude, you've completely bought into the current political dogma promologated by "The Man."
Free your mind and, ummmmmmmm, the rest will follow.
KFG
Don't get it? Are you kidding?
Man, they're profiting from it pocket over money bearing fist.
KFG
responds to this with:
"Technically true, but extremely and exceedingly misleading. Were the definition of "lie" all but emptied of content by politics, I would call this a lie.
KFG
I agree that linux as a whole isn't ready for the desktop, unless you have a nearby linux geek who doesn't mind do the occasional difficult administrative things that a normal user can't.
But this is just as true of any other operating system. I put lots of food on my table and fuel in my boiler by administering Mac and Windows systems. The real problem here is the perception that these OSs can be administered by the average user. The end result is that instead of paying me $40 a couple times a year to keep things running smoothly they end up waiting until things go all to hell and have to pay me a couple hundred to straighten things out.
Good for me, I suppose, but only in the same sense that it's "good" for doctors if people only come in with a cut after gangrene has set in.
In this respect the greatest problem with Linux on the desktop isn't Linux itself, but the very geeks needed to administer it. They have no clue about the real needs of average users and don't set up boxes for them properly.
http://qrxx.4t.com/linuxbeat3.htm
As for the statements of Red Hat this is the sort of shit that happens when you decide you want to be a "playa," go public and put the MBAs in charge.
Since Red Hat has decided that their own interest is in pushing Linux as an "Enterprise" system they have to support that point of view publicly by dissing Linux itself on the desktop ( and other people's enterprise systems as well, of course). They are no longer a Linux company. They are Red Hat (tm).
Fuck 'em.
KFG
Assuming your ravine was on earth yes, but you failed to specify. Sloppy work.
If, for instance, your ravine were on Phobos you could have gone orbital with pedaling (which again you didn't specify). Be careful though, escape velocity is only about 22.5 mph, although the high cadence the average BMX bike requires to achieve that sort of speed would protect just about everybody but track racers.
A very low orbit could be achieved at only several mph.
"Duck Timmy! Joey's coming 'round again."
KFG
Newsflash!
.Well, you know when.
Something that people want so badly they're willing to obtain it illegally proves more popular than something nobody asked for and virtually nobody wants.
Film. .
KFG
And I had tapioca pudding at lunch the other day, which, as it happens, can also be poisonous.
KFG
Fuck you Microsoft, you are circumvented.
Now, now. Is that any way to talk to a convicted violator of antitrust laws for abuse of monopoly powers who keeps asking us to "pick up the soap just one more time"?
KFG
As opposed to slightly dead?
Exactly! At last, someone who understands.
KFG
Certainly. If the premises are wrong the conlusions are wrong.
Please note that I made no statements about Red Hat's costs. I made some prepositions and asked a question. That wasn't an accident.
I can poke a number of holes in my prepositions myself quite easily.
KFG
Bless you sir. Voltaire and old Tom Paine would probably each stand you a drink for that while secretly being jealous they hadn't written it.
Lord knows I am. Except for the secretly part.
KFG
Niether one is really correct, but either one will do. It's an Anglicization of a Chinese word, and the Chinese word itself has several regional variants. There are also variants in nearly every Asian country if it comes to that. Seems like we got the word filtered through the Dutch in any case. Basically it means "sauce" and doesn't even have to made out of tomatoes.
When I was a kid I got confused over this issue so I went and did some research. Geeks are like that.
So just pick whichever one makes you happy. There is no authority for "correctness" in English. Only common usage.
KFG
Yeah, well, I left out the part where heat destroys the alkaloids. :)
That's why, while you have to worry about green potatoes, you don't have to worry about green potato chips. But where's the fun in telling people that? Christ man, I was trained on usenet back in the day when "that's the stupidest thing I've ever heard" wasn't even considered a flamebait and trolling was considered an art form.
So is eating plants that contain alkaloids. I eat a lot of milkweed (Euell Gibbons, not a health nut, and Monarch butterflies taught me about that) and dandelion. Controling bitterness is a developed skill, but then so is learning to like bitter.
KFG
Loss Leaders only work if people don't cherry pick the deals.
Oh, please Lord, give me a billion such "cherry pickers." See post above. I was not selling a loss leader. I was selling the psychological appearance of a loss leader which resulted in pure profit against fixed costs. Sometimes people actually felt bad about how little I charged and insisted I take a bit more.
I made a lot of money off of people such as yourself.
Well, you know what David Hannum said, only I provided real value for my customer's $3. A steal to them, profit to me. Win/Win at it's finest. Capitalism can be grand when you're not a scumwad.
I did not pay myself anything. I couldn't. I operated as a sole propriatorship. I made money. The kid who mows lawns doesn't "pay himself."
He makes a profit.
He is payed by his customers directly. Interesting concept that, no?
Sometimes people who have never operated outside of the corporate enviroment don't really understand the concept of profit. They're insulated from it by layers of law, beauracracy, accounting procedures, business models and social misconceptions. They've never made a profit in their lives, only paychecks.
Poor bastards.
You are free to suspect whatever you want, it makes no nevermind to me, but as all your premises are false so are all of your conclusions.
KFG
That's a +5, Defintion of Loss Leader.
."Yeah, but I'm going to make it up in volume!"
.
No, no, no. Absolutely not. A loss leader is where you sell something at a loss and leverage that into other sales. Every penny of that three bucks was pure profit. Money in my pocket.
That was the point of my post, to support the point made by GigsVt about leveraging fixed costs, as opposed to leveraging investment, which people seem to be having a hard time grasping.
Whan I sold a pair of tires for $15 that wasn't $15 in my pocket. $10 of that went to recouping the capital investment or servicing debt. However my rent and insurance remained the same whether I even opened the doors or not. $20 a day, closed or open. Makes no nevermind. The $3 bucks I charged for track time encured no additional investment at all over these fixed costs. That measly $3 was equal to $20 in retail sales (when you add in all the other costs incured in dealing with over the counter goods).
Misunderstanding of loss leaders results in the joke whose punch line is . .
I was not in that position. Every customer was clear profit. Against fixed costs. The brick and mortar version of the ideal business, a post office box that people mail money to.
Had a million people walked in one day and each handed me $3 I could have instantly retired with three million bucks less that month's fixed costs. That would be approximately. . . three million bucks. I "made it up" on volume.
The Porsche 959 is a sterling example of a loss leader. It is rumored that Porsche lost as much as $100k for every one they sold, but the promotional value sold enough 911s to make a net profit.
A slightly more subtle example is the Corvette. Every Corvette sold makes a profit, but incurs an accounting loss. If they invested that money in some other product they would make more money than they do by selling Corvettes. The Corvette, however, is a flagship model. If you don't sell Corvettes you don't sell Malibus either.
Nissan learned that, much to their dismay, when they dropped the Z. Now they've had to bring it back, but the customers and mindshare are already gone. It could take them decades to bring it back, if they ever do.
Apple has historically had a good grasp on loss leaders and a fair one on flagship, but they're slipping.
A couple times a year I gave out coupons for a free day of practice through other venues. It was a good promo. Brought in lots of new people. It was not a loss leader (well, other than the cost of the paper and toner) because it did not cost me anything other than those costs that were fixed.
Get it?
Now if Red Hat is already paying for the servers and already paying for the bandwidth and have already payed for the code creation and already payed to create rpms of patches (which may well be done by volunteers in the Open Source way of doing things). .
Why not take seventy bucks a year from people to download them? Because most of the cost is fixed most of the income is profit.
This would appear to be a pure branding/corporate image policy.
KFG
in the link, it said that the tomacco itself may be deadly? why?
g J: lamar.colostate.edu/~samcox/Tomato.html+tomato+his tory&hl=en&ie=UTF-8
Because it makes good copy.
The idea of the toxic tomato isn't new either.
http://216.239.39.104/search?q=cache:Fbw399p1Rr
KFG