Yeah, we should all just shut the fuck up and not try to influence each other. Sorry, but I think that in order to live in a society, people should discuss with each other various issues and try to come to a mutual understanding, even if they don't agree on all points. "Mind your own business" is one of the most pathetic social failings of the United States. No, I won't mind my own fucking business, I'm going to let you know what I think of your decisions, and I have a right to do so guaranteed by the 1st Amendment.
The system works this way because people don't use it the way it's designed - everyone puts in their maximum bid, and the system sorts the mess out.
I think any strategy which achieves results is a legitimate one. Unfortunately it's hard to do a controlled test to see whether closing prices on the average are higher or lower in a system which allows sniping. It depends on the makeup of the bidding crowd, for sure.
What's the point when you can just put in your maximum bid and eBay raises your active bid as the bidding warrants?
Because bidding on an item calls attention to it. If bidding activity on an item is fierce and heavy, sniping has no benefit. But imagine a situation where you are vying for an item with only one other person. You do not want to set your maximum bid right away, because the other guy's valuation of the item is probably similar to yours -- he'll bid up right away. The other person, of course, follows the same logic and also starts with a lowball bid. Now, since neither party is using automatic bidding, they have to keep checking on the item to see if they've been outbid. What sniping does is allows the other person to become complacent, and not set their actual maximum bid. You can then come in at the last second and bid slightly over them and get the item before they can react.
The reason bidders behave this way is because they are hoping the other guy doesn't know the "true value" of the item. Placing a realistic maximum bid would only drive the price up. But if you are knowledgable of an item's true value and conceal that from the other participants by bidding low at the beginning, you have a better chance of getting the item at a lower price.
Your rude imperative is unlikely to persuade the OP.
Since the OP already knows the correct information, what would she (I presume) gain from making the correction to the website? Those knowledgable in a field have no obligation to the rest of humanity to educate us.
They are even less inclined to do so when ordered, by anonymous dingbats on the Internet, to "Fix it." Since you're such an idealist with only Wikipedia's best interests at heart, and she apparently will not edit the page, why don't you do the rest of us a favor and make the change yourself? Or would that detract from your self-righteousness?
A collaboration of people, working to increase the sum of human knowledge, because the sum of accumulated knowledge is something that is greater than its parts.
I don't believe that to be true. Collecting knowledge in one spot doesn't create new ideas. It is people who create ideas. Wikipedia is like a library -- it's a building with a bunch of books in it. The fact that this information is assembled together doesn't create anything new. It's the person who comes in on a rainy Sunday afternoon, reads over some articles on quantum mechanics and general relativity, and has an "Eureka" moment, who creates something new.
The value of Wikipedia is only as great as the intelligence and capacity for creative thinking of its readers. Otherwise it's merely a storehouse of bits of information.
So no, Wikipedia doesn't embiggen us all, but we may lucky enough to have among us individuals who are capable of putting it to use. The article writers are enablers, but it is the great thinkers and creators of new information which improve our understanding of the world.
Don't people already do this in real life with AIDS?
Yes. There have been multiple cases, and people have gone to jail for it. But imagine what would happen if AIDS was much easier to spread (say, via ingestion instead of blood/blood contact). Spiteful individuals could infect literally thousands of other people. Among those thousands, there would surely be other psychotics who would also spread it. It would explode out of control.
The problem with HIV is that it leaves you alive long enough to get pissed off that you're going to die, and with enough time to take out that anger on other people (if you happen to be a psychopath).
CTRL+L in almost any terminal application forces a terminal redraw. Comes in handy when the application doesn't explicitly detect SIGWINCH, and you want to resize the terminal window. Resize, then hit CTRL+L to inform the app that the window size changed.
I wish the behavior was the same in bash, but for some reason they chose to make it clear the screen instead.
I don't think the point of the article is to discuss which commands are coolest, rather, what ways can you combine those commands to achieve powerful results?
Here's something that I run via cron on a nightly basis. See if you can decode its function:-)
for F in $(find $SRCDIR); do echo $(basename $F) $F; done | sort | rev | uniq -c -f 1 | grep -E ^[[:space:]]*1[[:space:]] | awk '{print $2 " " $3}' | rev > $CACHEFILE
Tim Berners Lee built a plaza. It was called the World Wide Web. He invited everybody to set up shop in the plaza, distributing whatever information they wanted, and using his bloody wonderful hyperlinks. And many US corporations became wealthy because the World Wide Web was an enabler of commerce.
The US built a network to give some academics a place to play. CERN (an organization which I assure you has scant ties to the United States) turned it into something that benefits billions around the world.
Certificate revokations are relatively easy to implement
Easy to implement, but there's a million ways to do it. It's far harder to get any significantly large group to agree on which method of revocation to implement. Your scheme is feasible in a controlled environment, such as a single corporation with a suite of internal services all using the same scheme. But it would be impossible on the wild Internet.
And you do that on the BOTTOM of the pool do you? Neat Trick!
No, I don't. But if you read the description of the Poseidon system, it claims to detect motionless bodies anywhere, not just at the bottom of the pool. So it seems a person playing dead man's float would trigger the system.
So now you want the life guard to watch the
monitor, and the water?
Yeah, how hard can it be? They're already flitting their eyes around constantly, how hard is it to glance at a monitor every minute or so?
Aslo, a good enough under water camera that is design to stay underwater for long periods of time is not 'cheap ass'.
Plus it is just not the cost of the equipment, there is installation AND a profit margin for the company that they bought it from.
Actually, I wasn't thinking of retrofitting existing pools (that would obviously be more expensive). For new installations, it would be fairly simple to build a small alcove with a plexiglass port, and put a standard "cheap ass" camera behind it. The camera doesn't have to be IN the water, it just has to have a view of it. Haven't you ever been to Seaworld?
In my opinion the advantage of the system is not just another set of eyes (that never get tired). But a set of eyes underwater where it would be difficult for even the most attentive life guard to see.
But couldn't that be achieved for far less than £65,000 by simply having an underwater camera watching the bottom of the pool, and display the images on tiny televisions on the lifeguard perches? I bet you could throw something like that together for less than a few thousand.
This Poseidon system also uses camera, but I fail to see the need for all the complexity. It claims to detect "persons motionless underwater," but I know I'm not the only one who plays "dead man's float" in a pool, so wouldn't that lead to false positives? If somebody is drowning, their lungs will fill with water and they will sink to the bottom. They don't float near the surface. Surely it's sufficienct to just watch the bottom of the pool with a cheap-ass camera?
You don't have to be a doctor to know facts (such as, brain damage starts to occurs 4 to 6 minutes after removal of oxygen).
What if the guy had said, "If that car had hit her head on, she surely would have broken some bones?" I guess he's not qualified to make that statement, either?
Doctors distinguish themselves by diagnosing illness and then working to cure it. That doesn't mean the rest of us are blithering idiots.
Slashdot Mirror
I saw no evidence to suggest that the original poster was one of those who supports laws such as this one.
Yeah, we should all just shut the fuck up and not try to influence each other. Sorry, but I think that in order to live in a society, people should discuss with each other various issues and try to come to a mutual understanding, even if they don't agree on all points. "Mind your own business" is one of the most pathetic social failings of the United States. No, I won't mind my own fucking business, I'm going to let you know what I think of your decisions, and I have a right to do so guaranteed by the 1st Amendment.
I think any strategy which achieves results is a legitimate one. Unfortunately it's hard to do a controlled test to see whether closing prices on the average are higher or lower in a system which allows sniping. It depends on the makeup of the bidding crowd, for sure.
Because bidding on an item calls attention to it. If bidding activity on an item is fierce and heavy, sniping has no benefit. But imagine a situation where you are vying for an item with only one other person. You do not want to set your maximum bid right away, because the other guy's valuation of the item is probably similar to yours -- he'll bid up right away. The other person, of course, follows the same logic and also starts with a lowball bid. Now, since neither party is using automatic bidding, they have to keep checking on the item to see if they've been outbid. What sniping does is allows the other person to become complacent, and not set their actual maximum bid. You can then come in at the last second and bid slightly over them and get the item before they can react.
The reason bidders behave this way is because they are hoping the other guy doesn't know the "true value" of the item. Placing a realistic maximum bid would only drive the price up. But if you are knowledgable of an item's true value and conceal that from the other participants by bidding low at the beginning, you have a better chance of getting the item at a lower price.
Since the OP already knows the correct information, what would she (I presume) gain from making the correction to the website? Those knowledgable in a field have no obligation to the rest of humanity to educate us.
They are even less inclined to do so when ordered, by anonymous dingbats on the Internet, to "Fix it." Since you're such an idealist with only Wikipedia's best interests at heart, and she apparently will not edit the page, why don't you do the rest of us a favor and make the change yourself? Or would that detract from your self-righteousness?
I don't believe that to be true. Collecting knowledge in one spot doesn't create new ideas. It is people who create ideas. Wikipedia is like a library -- it's a building with a bunch of books in it. The fact that this information is assembled together doesn't create anything new. It's the person who comes in on a rainy Sunday afternoon, reads over some articles on quantum mechanics and general relativity, and has an "Eureka" moment, who creates something new.
The value of Wikipedia is only as great as the intelligence and capacity for creative thinking of its readers. Otherwise it's merely a storehouse of bits of information.
So no, Wikipedia doesn't embiggen us all, but we may lucky enough to have among us individuals who are capable of putting it to use. The article writers are enablers, but it is the great thinkers and creators of new information which improve our understanding of the world.
Linux is both a community and an encyclopedia? Maybe I'm comatose, but can you explain that?
I see. Appending "../" to the end of a URL is outright VIGILANTISM! You're right -- this sort of evil deed simply should not be tolerated.
The RIAA is slowly going absolutely nuts. Where can I get some of whatever they're tripping on?
Yes. There have been multiple cases, and people have gone to jail for it. But imagine what would happen if AIDS was much easier to spread (say, via ingestion instead of blood/blood contact). Spiteful individuals could infect literally thousands of other people. Among those thousands, there would surely be other psychotics who would also spread it. It would explode out of control.
The problem with HIV is that it leaves you alive long enough to get pissed off that you're going to die, and with enough time to take out that anger on other people (if you happen to be a psychopath).
I can't remember any more (of course), but I believe the revs eliminated one call of awk somehow, and rev is much faster than awk, so...
My documentation-fu is weak in shell scripts.
Glad to share the info... Possible caveat, I haven't tested on anything except bash.
I wish the behavior was the same in bash, but for some reason they chose to make it clear the screen instead.
There isn't one. My point was just that comparing diff to diff wasn't really comparing the same things. DOS just out and out lacks the functionality.
Here's something that I run via cron on a nightly basis. See if you can decode its function :-)
for F in $(find $SRCDIR); do echo $(basename $F) $F; done | sort | rev | uniq -c -f 1 | grep -E ^[[:space:]]*1[[:space:]] | awk '{print $2 " " $3}' | rev > $CACHEFILE
That's not quite a fair comparison... DOS 'diff' is really more equivalent to UNIX 'cmp', not UNIX 'diff'.
ls -d */
The final slash is key.
Tim Berners Lee built a plaza. It was called the World Wide Web. He invited everybody to set up shop in the plaza, distributing whatever information they wanted, and using his bloody wonderful hyperlinks. And many US corporations became wealthy because the World Wide Web was an enabler of commerce.
The US built a network to give some academics a place to play. CERN (an organization which I assure you has scant ties to the United States) turned it into something that benefits billions around the world.
So sit down and shut the fuck up.
Why did you leave out option number 5? Option 5 is, Go to court and challenge the legal basis of the GPL.
Easy to implement, but there's a million ways to do it. It's far harder to get any significantly large group to agree on which method of revocation to implement. Your scheme is feasible in a controlled environment, such as a single corporation with a suite of internal services all using the same scheme. But it would be impossible on the wild Internet.
No, I don't. But if you read the description of the Poseidon system, it claims to detect motionless bodies anywhere, not just at the bottom of the pool. So it seems a person playing dead man's float would trigger the system.
Then you aren't a "network administrator at an ISP or government," are you? Try reading my comment.
Yeah, how hard can it be? They're already flitting their eyes around constantly, how hard is it to glance at a monitor every minute or so?
Aslo, a good enough under water camera that is design to stay underwater for long periods of time is not 'cheap ass'. Plus it is just not the cost of the equipment, there is installation AND a profit margin for the company that they bought it from.
Actually, I wasn't thinking of retrofitting existing pools (that would obviously be more expensive). For new installations, it would be fairly simple to build a small alcove with a plexiglass port, and put a standard "cheap ass" camera behind it. The camera doesn't have to be IN the water, it just has to have a view of it. Haven't you ever been to Seaworld?
But couldn't that be achieved for far less than £65,000 by simply having an underwater camera watching the bottom of the pool, and display the images on tiny televisions on the lifeguard perches? I bet you could throw something like that together for less than a few thousand.
This Poseidon system also uses camera, but I fail to see the need for all the complexity. It claims to detect "persons motionless underwater," but I know I'm not the only one who plays "dead man's float" in a pool, so wouldn't that lead to false positives? If somebody is drowning, their lungs will fill with water and they will sink to the bottom. They don't float near the surface. Surely it's sufficienct to just watch the bottom of the pool with a cheap-ass camera?
You don't have to be a doctor to know facts (such as, brain damage starts to occurs 4 to 6 minutes after removal of oxygen).
What if the guy had said, "If that car had hit her head on, she surely would have broken some bones?" I guess he's not qualified to make that statement, either?
Doctors distinguish themselves by diagnosing illness and then working to cure it. That doesn't mean the rest of us are blithering idiots.