And that's the only time it's said in that entire movie
Well.. it's the only time it's listed on IMDB as a quote.
I'm sure it's been used in casinos since the dawn of time but Boiler Room brought the term to the masses.
Then how do I know the term without having ever seen Boiler Room? What you meant to say was that Boiler Room brought the term to you, and you're equating your experiences with "the masses".
Boiler Room? From 2000? No, that term has been used by casinos far longer than that. It was in the movie Casino, from 1995, for instance.
The town will never be the same. After the Tangiers, the big corporations took it all over. Today it looks like Disneyland. And while the kids play cardboard pirates, Mommy and Daddy drop the house payments and Junior's college money on the poker slots. In the old days, dealers knew your name, what you drank, what you played. Today, it's like checkin' into an airport. And if you order room service, you're lucky if you get it by Thursday. Today, it's all gone. You get a whale show up with four million in a suitcase, and some twenty-five-year-old hotel school kid is gonna want his Social Security Number.
What good is having GPU acceleration that only works on one platform?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't IE9 use GPU acceleration on all platforms that IE9 runs on? Are you assuming that it is Microsoft's responsibility to implement GPU acceleration for all other platforms and browsers also, or is it cool with you if each vendor only works on their own product?
If I wanted a game to work just on Windows
Ohh, it's because you're assuming that GPU acceleration only applies to games, and that.. somehow... it's Microsoft's responsibility.. to make sure that people can play games on other platforms?
What exactly are you saying that is so insightful?
Right, a PDF reader isn't going to open that, and if it did then it wouldn't execute the VBScript. That's not a PDF exploit, that's basically a phishing attack to try to get someone to open something that's not what they think it is.
Most businesses/business people don't ive a flying fuck about "the newest technologies like CSS3 and canvas", never mind which browser they are using.
I don't care what they give a flying fuck about. The level of technology on the internet is at a certain level, we'll call that X. If your corporate IT environment is below level X, then you cannot use current technologies. That's all there is to it. It's no more complex than that. They can give a flying fuck about whatever they want to give a flying fuck about, but if they want to use current technologies online then they need to upgrade their environment, not expect online service companies to come down to their level. We are actually actively trying to leave the level that IE6 represents, there's no reason for many major companies to continue supporting it.
In fact, you could say that online services companies like Google don't really give a flying fuck about IE6. We're not doing the same things online that we were doing 9 years ago.
What about Google? You can use Chrome if you want to, but you can also upgrade to IE8, Firefox, Opera, Safari, et al. This is about using a current browser, not online services. Google or not, you're going to be locked out from a lot of what the internet in general has to offer if you decide to stay with IE6. Or IE7, for that matter. And in a few months IE8 will be on that list also, whenever IE9 is ready.
I just don't like when people refuse to upgrade and then cry
It's sort of like pulling out your cell phone from 2001 and bitching to your phone company that it doesn't support video calls. Maybe people think that software is magical, where it's all of a sudden going to have capabilities now that it didn't have 9 years ago when it was released. What they don't understand is that it does have new capabilities, but it's called IE8, not IE6.
Google has locked out thousands of businesses that have never upgraded browsers.
I tend to see it has thousands of businesses denying themselves access to services because they aren't willing to upgrade. It's not Google's fault that businesses refuse to upgrade. They're going to be left behind, end of story. I stopped testing on IE6 a long time ago. People need to move on and upgrade if they expect to use all of the features of the internet, that's just a simple fact. You can't expect all of the newest technologies like CSS3 and canvas to work in IE6, it's just not going to happen, ever.
Women want security, but they want a stud to father a child. No reason not to have both...
So what's the deal with women chasing and dating guys who look really great and are both dumb as a stump and incapable of holding a decent job? There's no security there and you can't really say much for how smart the kid would turn out either. Looking at the type of people having children vs. the type of people who aren't, am I the only one thinking that as a society we're devolving?
And this is the mistake most men make. Once men figure out what they like, they see no reason to change.
I'm not sure if that's a mistake..
Women like mystery.
I understand, things like impulsiveness, surprises, and The Unknown are attractive. I enjoy setting things up like this for people who appreciate it, although I don't really like the convention that it's essentially the man's job to come up with everything. Maybe I've just dated the wrong women, but it seems like there are significantly more things expected of men than women. Even right down to the first meeting, traditionally it's the man's responsibility to approach the woman. It seems like the burden is always on the guy to find something new and exciting for the two to do. I just surprised my ex-girlfriend and current friend with a $5k custom guitar for her master's music degree graduation. She's a great girl, but I would have loved it if any one of my girlfriends had ever put in an effort to do something like that for me. Not even financially, just something fun and unexpected. I appreciate the draw, I just dislike how it's a man's responsibility to initiate everything. I understand there are women out there not like that, who actually are willing to give back everything they get, but it's pretty disheartening when every single one I've dated has shared at least that one trait.
And how exactly have I portrayed most men to be? I said that if you figure out what a guy likes, chances are he's going to keep liking that same thing. That sounds neither uninteresting nor interesting, just "normal".
I'm glad that you can read so much into what I write that you're able to determine what kind of a person I am, though. I think we're making a connection here.
I don't think that's very misogynistic. While not disagreeing with your assessment, it's true that I can go out with a woman, learn all about the way she likes to be treated, what turns her on, off, etc, and then think I've got it all figured out. I'll go out with another, apparently similar, woman, and everything I know is now wrong. I give the same set of inputs, and I receive completely different outputs. Sometimes even faults, errors, and outright crashes. Sometimes it doesn't even have to be a different woman, just a different time or day. I do the same things I was doing a while ago, and I get a completely different response with no apparent rhyme or reason that I can detect prior to opening my mouth, all of a sudden there's just a purse flying at my head.
Contrast that with writing code. No matter what computer I run a certain program on, if I give it the same inputs I'm guaranteed to get the same outputs, because the computer is doing the exact same thing the other one was (I realize it's not that simple, but you know what I'm saying).
Contrast that with men, even. If you find a guy, and you figure out that he enjoys having a few beers out, followed by a blowjob, it's reasonably fair to assume that at any point in the future if you repeat your actions, he's going to respond the same way. Hell, I've been with women that I've slept with several times who one night decide they don't want to have sex right in the middle of sex. And yes, I'm sure you're thinking that's also my fault, but they did come back after the first several times.
That's all I meant. I wasn't trying to be misogynistic, Sweet Cheeks. No reason to get your panties in a bunch.
Nass has recently published the book The Man Who Lied to His Laptop, in which he 'uses our interactions with machines to investigate how human relationships could be improved.'
I propose forcing women to think like computers instead of like women. They would be much easier to interact with.
As far as I know, the only snakes that allow themselves to be on their back are either playing dead or actually dead. There's at least one species that will roll over and emit a "death odor" to fool predators, but with most snakes, even if they're almost dead, if you roll them on their back they go straight over again.
That means 180k more people were riding the subway in DC on that exact day. A separate figure derived over a whole day means nothing to you compared to a single snapshot at a specific time? That truly indicates nothing at all to you? Really?
It means nothing conclusive, and that should be obvious. I'm talking about people at a particular rally, and you're talking about people riding the subway. While possibly related, those are obviously two different things. You can't seriously claim that all 180k of them had to have attended Beck's rally, and that's the only thing I'm getting at. The number of people riding the subway doesn't prove anything. What about people who rode it twice, both directions? What about people attending the MLK rally, or other events in the city?
That along with the photo data actually is pretty hard data, if you look at how crowd estimates are done.
Right. 78k-96k, according to the professionals.
And you have no idea who Beck's audience is I guess, because if you look at photos from the crowd that is not who is there.
First, Beck's audience is known. It's a fact that his primary audience is composed of aging retired people. I'm not just assuming that, it's a fact. That's actually the case with all of Fox News, not just Beck's show. The average age of the viewers of Fox News is 65. Since Beck is on in the afternoon, his audience probably tends to be a little older.
Secondly, this is my point exactly. His core audience is likely not to show up, it's likely to be younger people willing to travel in order to go hear people like Beck and Palin speak at a political rally in DC. Hence, not his primary audience. They were at home watching it on TV.
Because if you had read my message the increase in subway riders was 180k.
So what? What does that mean? Does that mean that every person who made the subway average higher went to the Glenn Beck rally? Was that the only thing going on in the city that day? Even if every one of those people did in fact attend the rally, what does that have to do with anything? We're not talking about the total rally attendance, we're talking about the size of the crowd at a single point in time. The pictures were taken around 11am, an hour after the thing officially started. The official stopping time was 2pm. There could have been 200k people there, but no more than 90k at a time.
I don't know why you assume things about people instead of using real data.
Yeah, that's some great data you got there. We can draw a lot of conclusions from the basic fact that there were 180k more subway riders on average in the DC metro area. That data totally outweighs everything else.
Thinking that what you like or dislike is the same as what everyone likes or dislikes
I didn't say anything like that, and I didn't mean that either. I simply think it's fairly unlikely for a crowd of old retirees (Beck's primary audience) to find themselves traveling to DC to attend a political rally in the middle of the summer.
I don't know why it should seem low, I'm not sure how many people you would expect to show up at a rally by Glenn Beck. I'm more inclined to trust the guy's expertise though, that's the same guy who estimated the Obama inauguration at 800k and had the support of conservatives for that one. I think it's fair to say he doesn't show a political bias.
Each episode is HEAVILY weighted to make fun of conservatives.
Give Comedy Central a break, conservatives write their own jokes. They have rallies where people show up with signs like "We don't want socialism you arrogant Kenyan." You don't even need to add anything to that for it to be funny.
If liberals held rallies where people were acting like that then they would get made fun of also. They're getting made fun of not because they're conservative, but because they're stupid. It just happens to be conservatives doing most of the publicly stupid things these days.
you could instead argue against the calculation to come by the range of estimates (low end was 90k)
The low end was 78k, from the guy in Arizona who is a "crowd estimation expert". His estimate was 87k +/- 9k, so from 78k-96k.
Now, I'm more willing to believe a guy who has a system and method for accurately estimating crowd sizes than I am a website who is analyzing several low-resolution oblique photos and trying to apply a single formula to the entire crowd. The photos the researcher from Arizona used were taken by a company flying balloons from high overhead to lower down, for the specific purpose of taking pictures for estimating the size of the crowds.
I'm much more willing to trust that guy to come up with a reliable estimate versus someone trying to guess at the average croud density and offering a range between 86k and 200k.
Slashdot Mirror
And that's the only time it's said in that entire movie
Well.. it's the only time it's listed on IMDB as a quote.
I'm sure it's been used in casinos since the dawn of time but Boiler Room brought the term to the masses.
Then how do I know the term without having ever seen Boiler Room? What you meant to say was that Boiler Room brought the term to you, and you're equating your experiences with "the masses".
Boiler Room? From 2000? No, that term has been used by casinos far longer than that. It was in the movie Casino, from 1995, for instance.
The town will never be the same. After the Tangiers, the big corporations took it all over. Today it looks like Disneyland. And while the kids play cardboard pirates, Mommy and Daddy drop the house payments and Junior's college money on the poker slots. In the old days, dealers knew your name, what you drank, what you played. Today, it's like checkin' into an airport. And if you order room service, you're lucky if you get it by Thursday. Today, it's all gone. You get a whale show up with four million in a suitcase, and some twenty-five-year-old hotel school kid is gonna want his Social Security Number.
What good is having GPU acceleration that only works on one platform?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't IE9 use GPU acceleration on all platforms that IE9 runs on? Are you assuming that it is Microsoft's responsibility to implement GPU acceleration for all other platforms and browsers also, or is it cool with you if each vendor only works on their own product?
If I wanted a game to work just on Windows
Ohh, it's because you're assuming that GPU acceleration only applies to games, and that.. somehow... it's Microsoft's responsibility.. to make sure that people can play games on other platforms?
What exactly are you saying that is so insightful?
See my reply below to Dr Barnowl, this is not a PDF exploit.
Right, a PDF reader isn't going to open that, and if it did then it wouldn't execute the VBScript. That's not a PDF exploit, that's basically a phishing attack to try to get someone to open something that's not what they think it is.
Oh - and we are not lazy as some have suggested. My team pulled a 32 hour session last week.
Is that out of a 40-hour work week? Or are you based in France?
That's not a PDF... You can tell, because a PDF file ends with ".pdf".
Most businesses/business people don't ive a flying fuck about "the newest technologies like CSS3 and canvas", never mind which browser they are using.
I don't care what they give a flying fuck about. The level of technology on the internet is at a certain level, we'll call that X. If your corporate IT environment is below level X, then you cannot use current technologies. That's all there is to it. It's no more complex than that. They can give a flying fuck about whatever they want to give a flying fuck about, but if they want to use current technologies online then they need to upgrade their environment, not expect online service companies to come down to their level. We are actually actively trying to leave the level that IE6 represents, there's no reason for many major companies to continue supporting it.
In fact, you could say that online services companies like Google don't really give a flying fuck about IE6. We're not doing the same things online that we were doing 9 years ago.
What about Google? You can use Chrome if you want to, but you can also upgrade to IE8, Firefox, Opera, Safari, et al. This is about using a current browser, not online services. Google or not, you're going to be locked out from a lot of what the internet in general has to offer if you decide to stay with IE6. Or IE7, for that matter. And in a few months IE8 will be on that list also, whenever IE9 is ready.
It doesn't take a new PC to upgrade from a browser that is 9 years old.
I just don't like when people refuse to upgrade and then cry
It's sort of like pulling out your cell phone from 2001 and bitching to your phone company that it doesn't support video calls. Maybe people think that software is magical, where it's all of a sudden going to have capabilities now that it didn't have 9 years ago when it was released. What they don't understand is that it does have new capabilities, but it's called IE8, not IE6.
Google has locked out thousands of businesses that have never upgraded browsers.
I tend to see it has thousands of businesses denying themselves access to services because they aren't willing to upgrade. It's not Google's fault that businesses refuse to upgrade. They're going to be left behind, end of story. I stopped testing on IE6 a long time ago. People need to move on and upgrade if they expect to use all of the features of the internet, that's just a simple fact. You can't expect all of the newest technologies like CSS3 and canvas to work in IE6, it's just not going to happen, ever.
Sorry guys, it's my fault that more women aren't here. My bad. I didn't realize I had such an effect on humorless women.
Women want security, but they want a stud to father a child. No reason not to have both...
So what's the deal with women chasing and dating guys who look really great and are both dumb as a stump and incapable of holding a decent job? There's no security there and you can't really say much for how smart the kid would turn out either. Looking at the type of people having children vs. the type of people who aren't, am I the only one thinking that as a society we're devolving?
And this is the mistake most men make. Once men figure out what they like, they see no reason to change.
I'm not sure if that's a mistake..
Women like mystery.
I understand, things like impulsiveness, surprises, and The Unknown are attractive. I enjoy setting things up like this for people who appreciate it, although I don't really like the convention that it's essentially the man's job to come up with everything. Maybe I've just dated the wrong women, but it seems like there are significantly more things expected of men than women. Even right down to the first meeting, traditionally it's the man's responsibility to approach the woman. It seems like the burden is always on the guy to find something new and exciting for the two to do. I just surprised my ex-girlfriend and current friend with a $5k custom guitar for her master's music degree graduation. She's a great girl, but I would have loved it if any one of my girlfriends had ever put in an effort to do something like that for me. Not even financially, just something fun and unexpected. I appreciate the draw, I just dislike how it's a man's responsibility to initiate everything. I understand there are women out there not like that, who actually are willing to give back everything they get, but it's pretty disheartening when every single one I've dated has shared at least that one trait.
And how exactly have I portrayed most men to be? I said that if you figure out what a guy likes, chances are he's going to keep liking that same thing. That sounds neither uninteresting nor interesting, just "normal".
I'm glad that you can read so much into what I write that you're able to determine what kind of a person I am, though. I think we're making a connection here.
I don't think that's very misogynistic. While not disagreeing with your assessment, it's true that I can go out with a woman, learn all about the way she likes to be treated, what turns her on, off, etc, and then think I've got it all figured out. I'll go out with another, apparently similar, woman, and everything I know is now wrong. I give the same set of inputs, and I receive completely different outputs. Sometimes even faults, errors, and outright crashes. Sometimes it doesn't even have to be a different woman, just a different time or day. I do the same things I was doing a while ago, and I get a completely different response with no apparent rhyme or reason that I can detect prior to opening my mouth, all of a sudden there's just a purse flying at my head.
Contrast that with writing code. No matter what computer I run a certain program on, if I give it the same inputs I'm guaranteed to get the same outputs, because the computer is doing the exact same thing the other one was (I realize it's not that simple, but you know what I'm saying).
Contrast that with men, even. If you find a guy, and you figure out that he enjoys having a few beers out, followed by a blowjob, it's reasonably fair to assume that at any point in the future if you repeat your actions, he's going to respond the same way. Hell, I've been with women that I've slept with several times who one night decide they don't want to have sex right in the middle of sex. And yes, I'm sure you're thinking that's also my fault, but they did come back after the first several times.
That's all I meant. I wasn't trying to be misogynistic, Sweet Cheeks. No reason to get your panties in a bunch.
Nass has recently published the book The Man Who Lied to His Laptop, in which he 'uses our interactions with machines to investigate how human relationships could be improved.'
I propose forcing women to think like computers instead of like women. They would be much easier to interact with.
According to TFA, it was a Nokia N70.
As far as I know, the only snakes that allow themselves to be on their back are either playing dead or actually dead. There's at least one species that will roll over and emit a "death odor" to fool predators, but with most snakes, even if they're almost dead, if you roll them on their back they go straight over again.
That means 180k more people were riding the subway in DC on that exact day. A separate figure derived over a whole day means nothing to you compared to a single snapshot at a specific time? That truly indicates nothing at all to you? Really?
It means nothing conclusive, and that should be obvious. I'm talking about people at a particular rally, and you're talking about people riding the subway. While possibly related, those are obviously two different things. You can't seriously claim that all 180k of them had to have attended Beck's rally, and that's the only thing I'm getting at. The number of people riding the subway doesn't prove anything. What about people who rode it twice, both directions? What about people attending the MLK rally, or other events in the city?
That along with the photo data actually is pretty hard data, if you look at how crowd estimates are done.
Right. 78k-96k, according to the professionals.
And you have no idea who Beck's audience is I guess, because if you look at photos from the crowd that is not who is there.
First, Beck's audience is known. It's a fact that his primary audience is composed of aging retired people. I'm not just assuming that, it's a fact. That's actually the case with all of Fox News, not just Beck's show. The average age of the viewers of Fox News is 65. Since Beck is on in the afternoon, his audience probably tends to be a little older.
Secondly, this is my point exactly. His core audience is likely not to show up, it's likely to be younger people willing to travel in order to go hear people like Beck and Palin speak at a political rally in DC. Hence, not his primary audience. They were at home watching it on TV.
Because if you had read my message the increase in subway riders was 180k.
So what? What does that mean? Does that mean that every person who made the subway average higher went to the Glenn Beck rally? Was that the only thing going on in the city that day? Even if every one of those people did in fact attend the rally, what does that have to do with anything? We're not talking about the total rally attendance, we're talking about the size of the crowd at a single point in time. The pictures were taken around 11am, an hour after the thing officially started. The official stopping time was 2pm. There could have been 200k people there, but no more than 90k at a time.
I don't know why you assume things about people instead of using real data.
Yeah, that's some great data you got there. We can draw a lot of conclusions from the basic fact that there were 180k more subway riders on average in the DC metro area. That data totally outweighs everything else.
Thinking that what you like or dislike is the same as what everyone likes or dislikes
I didn't say anything like that, and I didn't mean that either. I simply think it's fairly unlikely for a crowd of old retirees (Beck's primary audience) to find themselves traveling to DC to attend a political rally in the middle of the summer.
I don't know why it should seem low, I'm not sure how many people you would expect to show up at a rally by Glenn Beck. I'm more inclined to trust the guy's expertise though, that's the same guy who estimated the Obama inauguration at 800k and had the support of conservatives for that one. I think it's fair to say he doesn't show a political bias.
Each episode is HEAVILY weighted to make fun of conservatives.
Give Comedy Central a break, conservatives write their own jokes. They have rallies where people show up with signs like "We don't want socialism you arrogant Kenyan." You don't even need to add anything to that for it to be funny.
http://politicalhumor.about.com/library/bl-tea-party-signs.htm
If liberals held rallies where people were acting like that then they would get made fun of also. They're getting made fun of not because they're conservative, but because they're stupid. It just happens to be conservatives doing most of the publicly stupid things these days.
you could instead argue against the calculation to come by the range of estimates (low end was 90k)
The low end was 78k, from the guy in Arizona who is a "crowd estimation expert". His estimate was 87k +/- 9k, so from 78k-96k.
Now, I'm more willing to believe a guy who has a system and method for accurately estimating crowd sizes than I am a website who is analyzing several low-resolution oblique photos and trying to apply a single formula to the entire crowd. The photos the researcher from Arizona used were taken by a company flying balloons from high overhead to lower down, for the specific purpose of taking pictures for estimating the size of the crowds.
Their site is here: http://airphotoslive.com/.
Here is an article describing the guy's methodology with examples:
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20015214-503544.html
I'm much more willing to trust that guy to come up with a reliable estimate versus someone trying to guess at the average croud density and offering a range between 86k and 200k.