Because the money is created - like all money in existence - in the form of a loan that needs to get payed back + interest. Money is debt. This leads us to another interesting question, why do the government (and anyone else) lend from private companies/establishments (e.g. the FED) when they could create all the money they need without paying any interest rate?
Re:Who cares about TVs? Give me HUXGA instead
on
Beyond HDTV
·
· Score: 1
Who cares about TVs? Give me HUXGA instead
on
Beyond HDTV
·
· Score: 2
More resolution on my TV to watch Movies? Whatever. I need resolution for my monitor though - 1080p is a joke in terms of desktop surface. Give me a standard 19" 4:3 LCD with same pixel resolution as the screen on iPhone 4. I'd easily pay1000$ for that.
A comparison: A normal 19" 1280x1024 LCD has ~90 DPI. If it had ~326 dpi instead like the iPhone4 claims, the display would have a resolution of ~4640x3710 - the closest "common resolution" would then be: 4096x3072 (HXGA) or 6400x4800 (HUXGA). *drool* Imagine all the lines of code that would fit on that.
I agree with you but fuck - have you seen pictures of Greenland melting? If that shit melts sea levels will increase 6 meters. Several thousand years of ice is just pouring away at the moment. New lakes are being created as we speak and they have seen crazy phenomena like lakes being evacuated in minutes by pouring down under the ice, creating sub-glacier rivers that probably catalyze the whole process.
I don't like alarmism but when I see phenomena like this I can't help but feel a sense of panic. Doesn't help living in Sweden knowing that if the Golf Stream stops we're basically fucked. Climate change is weighing the facts against the risks. Should we keep gambling with the climate for the sake of "economic growth". Is it really worth it?
Yep, starvation is really "biofuels" fault and not due to more abstract reasons like socio economic poverty and droughts. It's "the wests" fault for not sending more food to Africa.
He seems legit then. I'm pretty skeptical against any articles and statements that slams any specific service or companies since the FB smear campaign against Google was revealed. Makes me wonder how many that was *not* revealed.
Why should she be forced to explain to people that yes, she *is* her despite the different name?
Because she chooses to interact with them trough G+. Sounds like an edge case where people could have more than one "real" name. If this was a common problem Google would simply implement the ability to have multiple real names. The issue here though (what this debate is about) is that the Google have rules that prevent psedonymity... which me and many other G+ users believe is a good thing.
People should be able to use G+ as they wish, including without including their real name.
As people has commented in this thread previously, Anonymity significantly reduces the quality of social interaction. If Google would allow that I'm not sure I would like to use G+ anymore. It would loose it's purpose for me which is to interact with people that publicly identifies themselves in real-life.
However, when a service doesn't give you a choice on certain options because it makes you a less valuable "product" for their business plan, that generates a conflict of interest.
You are right, but you missed the point that it also makes it a less valuable "product" for me. If you want to interact with me via G+ I want to know your name. For slashdot, I'm fine with psedonymity although I sometimes wonder if allowing Social Network connected comments would further improve the discussion quality.
Users should have absolute control of what they wish to volunteer to a given social network.
By requiring people to only use their real names, unless they just happen to be a celebrity, they have eliminated the ability for people to be private in any meaningful way.
What a nice twisting of words. How is "having to use your real name" different from being indexed in a phone listing or birthday directory? I think this author needs to look up the definition of "being private". Being private does not mean that people are unaware that you exist or that they are unable to attribute your opinions or other personal data. Rather, it means that you have control over who can access what of your personal data, and I found that easier to do in G+ than FB which is one of the reasons I rather use G+.
Also FB is known for paying people to badmouth Google. Just saying...
Re:Git could use revision numbers
on
The Rise of Git
·
· Score: 1
At work we use SVN revision number as the "build" token in the web application version number. E.g. 5.3.5627 where 5627 is the revision number. It's very easy to see what revision is currently deployed and it's very easy to communicate this version number to other people. You also get a very good idea of "how far" it is between revisions in the revision stack when hearing their numbers.
Premium Spotify user here. If the prices increase I will simply stop paying and my account will be in "free" mode again. I won't lose my music collection. It's not like Spotify deletes your playlist in free mode. I'll just have to spend some hours pirating it again, so I don't think "bait and switch" applies in this case...
Wow, your think programmers should be blamed when management fails at their responsibilities (planning). I'm not even going to bother explaining why that's insane since your name is "OldTroll".
Then you are likewise arguing that the government doesn't have an "incentive" to keep public roads safe or provide good education. So by that standard everything should be privatized. "The government" is not some kind of sentient being that doesn't give a fuck. It's a collection of institutions with normal people with normal jobs. They have responsibilities and if they screw up they could get fired - just like any other job in the private sector.
The government doesn't have expenditures and profit but rather responsibilities and money it needs to spend to meet those responsibilities. This has pros and cons. The cons are that it makes it non-innovative and it has higher expenses. The pros is that it can focus directly on these responsibilities and it acts in the public interest since it's administered by politicians elected by the people. This makes it he best entity to use for managing the common, basic infrastructure and services all citizens indiscriminately have right to access. Like using roads, getting education etc.
You know private sector is a bad idea when the business idea is basically "own it, become part of the system and profit from it" - when there's no innovation or risk involved. The big credit card companies (like many other banks) have done precisely this - they have become a part of the system. The lock in effect of the technology and people now using their proprietary currency transaction technology is enormous. It's exactly the same lock in effect where mobile operators have created a proprietary standard for text messaging which enables them to charge 700000$+ per gb of data. They own the infrastructure and the standard which reduces competition to zero. You can't just start your own text messaging standard that competes with the existing version - try to convince the telecom operators that they should support this new standard in their network that will make them earn less money. If a private company own the power lines they will charge you as much as you are prepared to pay - which is a lot because you need power. If a private company owns the road you will pay up because you need to drive to work. If a private company owns the transaction technology you'll pay that 1-5% per transaction (essentially a tax) and yearly 60$ because you need to buy food.
There's lots of money to be made on simply owning standards and infrastructure. Many companies has made the lock in effect part of their business model. Microsoft for example. God knows how much money they have earned so far on having created their executable standard, OS API standard, GUI standard, office standard formats and so on. This has paved the way for lots of innovation though. The credit card companies paved the way for the credit card standard once. This doesn't mean that they should be granted the exclusive market position that they got from this forever though. By replacing proprietary lock-in standards, technology and infrastructure with general public, open ones there is lots of money that can be saved by tearing down the lock in effects. So philosophically this issue touches on (software) patents as well. Innovation grants you the right to exploit either artificial or proprietary standard-given lock in effects for a while - as a reward. But people also have the right to not be subject to this skewed market for too long for the same reasons as there are antitrust law.
Okay, you trust private companies with your transaction information more than you trust the government with it. I don't. I think the profit motive of the private company will make them cut corners on security. If the government handled transactions it could directly enforce privacy and security directly. Who knows how many times visa and mastercard servers has been hacked and transaction details leaked? Nobody because they erase all evidence of it to avoid PR disasters. I don't really understand why it's bad that the goverment would have a "monopoly" on the transaction infrastructure.
Although I mostly agree with you I think their acting is understandable. Private companies should be free to chose what other companies and organizations they like to do business with. The real problem here as I see it is that the current digital monetary system depends on a handful of big players which means they can effectively choke the ability for anyone to send or receive money. In other words the current digital monetary system is broken.
Imagine that paper money was printed by handful of bug private companies that forced everyone to pay a transaction fee every time they used it in the store, and pay a yearly fee for using it at all. They could also deny people and organizations to use it for any reason. This is why paper money is printed by the government and why digital money should be too. It doesn't make sense to outsource economic infrastructure to the private sector. Having to pay a fee to use money is like being required to pay a fee for walking down the street. Why we accept this treatment online and hasn't come up with a public government controlled standard for digital currency transactions is beyond me.
I don't think you can just count the number of input and output nuclei and come to that conclusion. Both fission and fusion reactions can involve decay into smaller particles while fusion reactions always has at least one element merging with another, in this case a free proton (hydrogen) and boron. E.g. the 1H + 11B -> 12C part (a neutron is not an "element" hence fission != fusion).
Oh wow. So basically you're saying that there has never been an update that has fixed any bug or added any feature. You're either exaggerating or trolling. The whole point of rapid release cycle development is that you should not even notice when the application updates itself. "Release small. Release often." Read more about it in the article I linked.
Nice, I got moderated troll. So much for telling your honest opinion on Slashdot. The implicit rules are to mod -1 disagree with anyone that doesn't agree with the nerd groupthink.
A new major version increment is no longer equivalent to a new application. There is no Firefox 3, "firefox3.5", Firefox 4 etc. There is only Firefox - which is exactly the way it should be. Normal users doesn't and shouldn't be concerned about version numbers. They should always use the latest version and it is the application/browsers responsibility to keep itself up to date. Why separate updates and security updates? The update process should be as simple, fast, automatic and non-obtrusive as possible. This is a step in the right direction. Read: http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/2011/05/the-infinite-version.html
For the similar reasons, W3C has decided to skip version numbers altogether in the HTML standard. The web is continuously evolving so version number doesn't make sense there. You either supports the latest HTML or not. You cannot choose to use the Internet 3.0 because you still want to use your 3.0 browser. It doesn't work that way. Browsers should always keep up to date with the latest standards instead of clinging on a specific version number. W3C has realized that a standard is not a standard until it's actually used. The can draft together a document explaining how web sites should be compatible with the "semantic web" and call it "The Semantic Web 2.0" but until web sites actually implement it and browsers support it it's not a standard.
As I see it there are two problems that are _not_ related to the above. Please don't confuse them. First of all addons gets "incompatible" when a new major is released which cause problems for people. The upgrade process is not perfect yet, Mozilla is probably working on that. As I understand it all v4 addons automatically gets marked as incompatible with v5 - but AFAIK this is just a safety measure which will probably be changed in the future. 99% of all addons just needs to update a flag to get compatible again. There are addons that automatically can make old addons work again by updating that flag.
The second problem is that some repositories s are not fast enough to keep up with the rapid release cycle. Well, that's their problem really. Use a repository that's faster then or compile yourself... or use an OS that don't want to take away the responsibility of updating itself from the application.
Thank you for taking your time to type down your experience, It's always interesting to hear the point of view of others. I don't question the fact that the collaboration between the sales and the tech department are in most cases... less than ideal. However, if the sales people lie to clients and rush through deals without thinking about deliver-ability, I would say that it's a symptom and not a cause. In most cases I think the core issue is poor management, planning and other reasons - problems big companies usually suffer from because... well, they are big. And not because the sales people are assholes in general.
What makes star-sellers star-sellers are a completely different discussion but I've listen and talked to sellers with decades of experience - I can assure you that "lying" has nothing to do with it. If lying where the key to selling I can assure you that this is exactly what they would teach sales people... also known as "the economic argument".
Slashdot Mirror
Because the money is created - like all money in existence - in the form of a loan that needs to get payed back + interest. Money is debt. This leads us to another interesting question, why do the government (and anyone else) lend from private companies/establishments (e.g. the FED) when they could create all the money they need without paying any interest rate?
Oh, and obligatory XKCD: http://xkcd.com/732/
More resolution on my TV to watch Movies? Whatever. I need resolution for my monitor though - 1080p is a joke in terms of desktop surface. Give me a standard 19" 4:3 LCD with same pixel resolution as the screen on iPhone 4. I'd easily pay1000$ for that.
A comparison: A normal 19" 1280x1024 LCD has ~90 DPI. If it had ~326 dpi instead like the iPhone4 claims, the display would have a resolution of ~4640x3710 - the closest "common resolution" would then be: 4096x3072 (HXGA) or 6400x4800 (HUXGA). *drool* Imagine all the lines of code that would fit on that.
I agree with you but fuck - have you seen pictures of Greenland melting? If that shit melts sea levels will increase 6 meters. Several thousand years of ice is just pouring away at the moment. New lakes are being created as we speak and they have seen crazy phenomena like lakes being evacuated in minutes by pouring down under the ice, creating sub-glacier rivers that probably catalyze the whole process.
I don't like alarmism but when I see phenomena like this I can't help but feel a sense of panic. Doesn't help living in Sweden knowing that if the Golf Stream stops we're basically fucked. Climate change is weighing the facts against the risks. Should we keep gambling with the climate for the sake of "economic growth". Is it really worth it?
Yep, starvation is really "biofuels" fault and not due to more abstract reasons like socio economic poverty and droughts. It's "the wests" fault for not sending more food to Africa.
Basic economics. *facepalm*
Uhh.. I thought it was impossible to transplant lungs?
You need to understand that Slashdot is American. It's mainstream to be a climate denier here. /thread
He seems legit then. I'm pretty skeptical against any articles and statements that slams any specific service or companies since the FB smear campaign against Google was revealed. Makes me wonder how many that was *not* revealed.
Why should she be forced to explain to people that yes, she *is* her despite the different name?
Because she chooses to interact with them trough G+. Sounds like an edge case where people could have more than one "real" name. If this was a common problem Google would simply implement the ability to have multiple real names. The issue here though (what this debate is about) is that the Google have rules that prevent psedonymity... which me and many other G+ users believe is a good thing.
People should be able to use G+ as they wish, including without including their real name.
As people has commented in this thread previously, Anonymity significantly reduces the quality of social interaction. If Google would allow that I'm not sure I would like to use G+ anymore. It would loose it's purpose for me which is to interact with people that publicly identifies themselves in real-life.
However, when a service doesn't give you a choice on certain options because it makes you a less valuable "product" for their business plan, that generates a conflict of interest.
You are right, but you missed the point that it also makes it a less valuable "product" for me. If you want to interact with me via G+ I want to know your name. For slashdot, I'm fine with psedonymity although I sometimes wonder if allowing Social Network connected comments would further improve the discussion quality.
Users should have absolute control of what they wish to volunteer to a given social network.
They have. They can always choose to leave.
By requiring people to only use their real names, unless they just happen to be a celebrity, they have eliminated the ability for people to be private in any meaningful way.
What a nice twisting of words. How is "having to use your real name" different from being indexed in a phone listing or birthday directory? I think this author needs to look up the definition of "being private". Being private does not mean that people are unaware that you exist or that they are unable to attribute your opinions or other personal data. Rather, it means that you have control over who can access what of your personal data, and I found that easier to do in G+ than FB which is one of the reasons I rather use G+.
Also FB is known for paying people to badmouth Google. Just saying...
At work we use SVN revision number as the "build" token in the web application version number. E.g. 5.3.5627 where 5627 is the revision number. It's very easy to see what revision is currently deployed and it's very easy to communicate this version number to other people. You also get a very good idea of "how far" it is between revisions in the revision stack when hearing their numbers.
Don't worry. Even if the group did steal the data they have clearly stated that they will give it back. To as many as possible.
Premium Spotify user here. If the prices increase I will simply stop paying and my account will be in "free" mode again. I won't lose my music collection. It's not like Spotify deletes your playlist in free mode. I'll just have to spend some hours pirating it again, so I don't think "bait and switch" applies in this case...
Wow, your think programmers should be blamed when management fails at their responsibilities (planning). I'm not even going to bother explaining why that's insane since your name is "OldTroll".
Probably some script-monkey who wrote:
SELECT * FROM `accounts` WHERE first_name = $facebook_first_name LIMIT 1
Then you are likewise arguing that the government doesn't have an "incentive" to keep public roads safe or provide good education. So by that standard everything should be privatized. "The government" is not some kind of sentient being that doesn't give a fuck. It's a collection of institutions with normal people with normal jobs. They have responsibilities and if they screw up they could get fired - just like any other job in the private sector.
The government doesn't have expenditures and profit but rather responsibilities and money it needs to spend to meet those responsibilities. This has pros and cons. The cons are that it makes it non-innovative and it has higher expenses. The pros is that it can focus directly on these responsibilities and it acts in the public interest since it's administered by politicians elected by the people. This makes it he best entity to use for managing the common, basic infrastructure and services all citizens indiscriminately have right to access. Like using roads, getting education etc.
You know private sector is a bad idea when the business idea is basically "own it, become part of the system and profit from it" - when there's no innovation or risk involved. The big credit card companies (like many other banks) have done precisely this - they have become a part of the system. The lock in effect of the technology and people now using their proprietary currency transaction technology is enormous. It's exactly the same lock in effect where mobile operators have created a proprietary standard for text messaging which enables them to charge 700000$+ per gb of data. They own the infrastructure and the standard which reduces competition to zero. You can't just start your own text messaging standard that competes with the existing version - try to convince the telecom operators that they should support this new standard in their network that will make them earn less money. If a private company own the power lines they will charge you as much as you are prepared to pay - which is a lot because you need power. If a private company owns the road you will pay up because you need to drive to work. If a private company owns the transaction technology you'll pay that 1-5% per transaction (essentially a tax) and yearly 60$ because you need to buy food.
There's lots of money to be made on simply owning standards and infrastructure. Many companies has made the lock in effect part of their business model. Microsoft for example. God knows how much money they have earned so far on having created their executable standard, OS API standard, GUI standard, office standard formats and so on. This has paved the way for lots of innovation though. The credit card companies paved the way for the credit card standard once. This doesn't mean that they should be granted the exclusive market position that they got from this forever though. By replacing proprietary lock-in standards, technology and infrastructure with general public, open ones there is lots of money that can be saved by tearing down the lock in effects. So philosophically this issue touches on (software) patents as well. Innovation grants you the right to exploit either artificial or proprietary standard-given lock in effects for a while - as a reward. But people also have the right to not be subject to this skewed market for too long for the same reasons as there are antitrust law.
Okay, you trust private companies with your transaction information more than you trust the government with it. I don't. I think the profit motive of the private company will make them cut corners on security. If the government handled transactions it could directly enforce privacy and security directly. Who knows how many times visa and mastercard servers has been hacked and transaction details leaked? Nobody because they erase all evidence of it to avoid PR disasters. I don't really understand why it's bad that the goverment would have a "monopoly" on the transaction infrastructure.
Although I mostly agree with you I think their acting is understandable. Private companies should be free to chose what other companies and organizations they like to do business with. The real problem here as I see it is that the current digital monetary system depends on a handful of big players which means they can effectively choke the ability for anyone to send or receive money. In other words the current digital monetary system is broken.
Imagine that paper money was printed by handful of bug private companies that forced everyone to pay a transaction fee every time they used it in the store, and pay a yearly fee for using it at all. They could also deny people and organizations to use it for any reason. This is why paper money is printed by the government and why digital money should be too. It doesn't make sense to outsource economic infrastructure to the private sector. Having to pay a fee to use money is like being required to pay a fee for walking down the street. Why we accept this treatment online and hasn't come up with a public government controlled standard for digital currency transactions is beyond me.
I don't think you can just count the number of input and output nuclei and come to that conclusion. Both fission and fusion reactions can involve decay into smaller particles while fusion reactions always has at least one element merging with another, in this case a free proton (hydrogen) and boron. E.g. the 1H + 11B -> 12C part (a neutron is not an "element" hence fission != fusion).
Oh wow. So basically you're saying that there has never been an update that has fixed any bug or added any feature. You're either exaggerating or trolling. The whole point of rapid release cycle development is that you should not even notice when the application updates itself. "Release small. Release often." Read more about it in the article I linked.
Nice, I got moderated troll. So much for telling your honest opinion on Slashdot. The implicit rules are to mod -1 disagree with anyone that doesn't agree with the nerd groupthink.
+5 Funny
A new major version increment is no longer equivalent to a new application. There is no Firefox 3, "firefox3.5", Firefox 4 etc. There is only Firefox - which is exactly the way it should be. Normal users doesn't and shouldn't be concerned about version numbers. They should always use the latest version and it is the application/browsers responsibility to keep itself up to date. Why separate updates and security updates? The update process should be as simple, fast, automatic and non-obtrusive as possible. This is a step in the right direction. Read: http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/2011/05/the-infinite-version.html
For the similar reasons, W3C has decided to skip version numbers altogether in the HTML standard. The web is continuously evolving so version number doesn't make sense there. You either supports the latest HTML or not. You cannot choose to use the Internet 3.0 because you still want to use your 3.0 browser. It doesn't work that way. Browsers should always keep up to date with the latest standards instead of clinging on a specific version number. W3C has realized that a standard is not a standard until it's actually used. The can draft together a document explaining how web sites should be compatible with the "semantic web" and call it "The Semantic Web 2.0" but until web sites actually implement it and browsers support it it's not a standard.
As I see it there are two problems that are _not_ related to the above. Please don't confuse them. First of all addons gets "incompatible" when a new major is released which cause problems for people. The upgrade process is not perfect yet, Mozilla is probably working on that. As I understand it all v4 addons automatically gets marked as incompatible with v5 - but AFAIK this is just a safety measure which will probably be changed in the future. 99% of all addons just needs to update a flag to get compatible again. There are addons that automatically can make old addons work again by updating that flag.
The second problem is that some repositories s are not fast enough to keep up with the rapid release cycle. Well, that's their problem really. Use a repository that's faster then or compile yourself... or use an OS that don't want to take away the responsibility of updating itself from the application.
Thank you for taking your time to type down your experience, It's always interesting to hear the point of view of others. I don't question the fact that the collaboration between the sales and the tech department are in most cases... less than ideal. However, if the sales people lie to clients and rush through deals without thinking about deliver-ability, I would say that it's a symptom and not a cause. In most cases I think the core issue is poor management, planning and other reasons - problems big companies usually suffer from because... well, they are big. And not because the sales people are assholes in general.
What makes star-sellers star-sellers are a completely different discussion but I've listen and talked to sellers with decades of experience - I can assure you that "lying" has nothing to do with it. If lying where the key to selling I can assure you that this is exactly what they would teach sales people... also known as "the economic argument".