chroot is used in Gentoo installation. After bootstrapping, you chroot to the new install to finish the installation steps (grub install, etc.) before rebooting.
If you hard-code the "from whom, for whom, and sociological context" part of the translation, you could do it. For example, you could have one translation program written specifically for technical writing. A separate program could be written for, say, business news, etc.. Eventually, you could have a library of translation programs for the majority of social contexts, and parameterize the contexts.
The next step, of course, is to develop heuristics to determine the context parameter.
You are right that word-for-word translation will never cut it. And word-for-word is all I have ever seen implemented. But with enough investment, it sounds like decent machine translation COULD be done before your career as a translator runs its course.
I suggest you invest heavily in your first 10 years on the job:-)
My use of the word "think" was not by accident. The community colleges and Devrys of the world are churning out tons of windows developers willing to work for $50k/year. Developers knowledgeable in multiple platforms, or, even better, know how to code to standards, cost more to hire. Training customer support on multiple platforms costs more.
I can't tell which is more profitable. But thinking non-windows support is less profitable is not an idea wholly without evidential support.
When YOU own a business and middle management tells offers you the option to take $50,000 out of your pocket to invest in a linux development, QA, and support infrastructure, which might possibly grow your marketshare by half a percent or so, you may understand the question a little better.
I recently bought auto insurance, and when pricing it, I ruled out companies whose web sites did not render on Firefox/Ubuntu. But I didn't presume to know whether supporting these systems was in the business owners' best interests.
This topic is about the US monetary system, which has inflation rates between two and four percent. There is a lot of talk in the US suggesting that this inflation will mean the end of the world and the enslavement of mankind, etc. etc.. My comments were about the US system of low, controlled inflation. Clearly, they don't apply to a hyperinflated currency like yours. I only took macro at econ (in addition to reading about this stuff when I get the chance). All I know about hyperinflation is that you should 1) learn English, which you have done. 2) get the hell out of the country.
Inflation gives the poor no incentive to save, as their cash savings will decrease in real value over time, and they are unlikely to be able to accumulate enough cash to invest in more risky instruments that are more likely to hold value.
It takes $500 to open a Scottrade account. Inflation is not keeping the poor from accumulating $500. That's just $50/month for 10 months. I've been poor (lived for $10,000 per year while in college). When I decided whether to save or spend, I can tell you that inflation wasn't party of the equation.
Also, the funds that went bust used leveraged investing in junk bonds. They weren't mutual funds. They were hedge funds. Hedge funds aren't even an option for the 401ks in which most middle class keep the majority of their savings.
My statement was an oversimplification. Labor and things people are willing to labor to attain have value. Land is one of those things. The problem is that it is damn hard to value land. If someone invents a new material that allows for the cheap construction of skyscrapers, land goes down in value. It is an interesting idea, though.
Looking at your website, it seems you publish some sort of gold newsletter. Surprise, surprise.
First, your physics is completely wrong. Radioactive elements are the only ones that decay.
Second, your assertion that all new gold is used in industry is highly questionable. Most gold is hoarded underground and not used for ANYTHING--a senseless waste of resources.
You are correct that my one-sentence definition of "value" is an oversimplification. But your assertion that ANY physical object has some sort of inherent value is wrong. Nothing has value unless people want it and are willing to sacrifice for it--including gold.
Your claim that the poor choose not to save because they understand and fear inflation is laughable. Anybody with a checking account can use scottrade, etrade, or whatever and transfer their assets from currency to revenue-generating businesses, REITs, or even gold ETFs if they are so inclined. Inflation isn't stopping the poor from saving. Living hand-to-mouth is.
Your don't seem to have made a point when you stated that real-estate and securities can fluctuate in value ("bubble" in your terms). Averaged out, these things grow in value faster than inflation, and much faster than gold. The minor corrections in these assets are just static. Gold goes up and down in value over the short term, too. On top of that, it doesn't generate any new value, as a business (stock investment) does. What is your point again?
I'm not an economist, so I can't compare the value of hoarding to investing with great accuracy, but I can say that countries which adopted banking (aka lots of investment, hardly any hoarding) did FAR better off economically than countries that didn't.
Finally: If paper money is a scam, then please explain why the countries with fiat currency have dramatically better standards of living than barter societies. My understanding is that paper money benefits everyone, but it benefits some disproportionately. It doesn't bother me. I direct deposit into an investment brokerage.
And you are right that you do desperately need a web designer; but you probably will have to pay him in "scam" money. Not many web designers are willing to take metals and kooky newsletters as payment, because they don't value those things as much as they value fiat currency.
...The US dollar has real value, i.e., it represents tangible wealth, such as gold securely stored at Fort Knox.
Gold has almost no real value. You can do very little with it other than make jewelry. Yet, like fiat currency, people have become collectively convinced that it is valuable. Because of this, we spend countless resources digging it up from the ground, then burying it back underground. If we actually started USING the 95% of the worlds gold that wastes away in vaults, the value of gold would be almost nothing due to inflation (19x increase in supply).
Real value is power--the ability to control other people (aka labor). Whether the medium is gold coins or paper money or tootsie pops, what you are trading when you exchange money is labor.
Inflation does not tax the poor: They have no cash savings. Inflation does not tax the middle class: They keep their assets in real-estate and mutual funds. Inflation forces everyone else to invest in something, because hoarding money isn't good for the economy.
I'm sick of all the "money is a scam" articles on the internet recently.
Well, another way to put it. The people who benefit from inflation are those who can afford to be in assets rather than cash. The rich rather than the poor.
What are you talking about? The poor have no savings, therefore inflation has no impact on them. Middle-income Americans keep their assets in real-estate and mutual funds, which are both immune to inflation. The rich keep their money in hookers and blow, which depreciate rapidly, but aren't any better than an index fund when it comes to hedging against inflation.
I think I should still make enough to support me and my wife without my wife needing to work too.
I can't believe I'm hearing that in the 21st century. This sentiment that half the economy should be freeloading (or, at best, be effectively live-in cook/maid/prostitute hybrids) is quite offensive. While it certainly makes sense for one partner in a marriage to work only part time while children are very young, this idea people have that women should not have to work at all, even when daytime childcare is not necessary, is a sad hold-over from a time when women couldn't go to school or hold good jobs due to sexual discrimination. Let's not perpetuate this kind of backward thinking--it has no place in a free society with a modern economy.
Did you know that the average income for women is actually higher than for men in some parts of the country? I laugh at the thought of you sitting home all day watching The View while your wife works.
You seem to be under the misconception that the world is fair.
Yes, everyone deserves more pay. But any economist will tell you that legislating who gets more pay can potentially lead to people getting no pay at all.
You seem to be seriously confused. Apple is a business. They don't care about the consumer point of view. They only care about the business point of view.
If a future civilization doesn't have the technology to identify dangerous radioactivity, that proves that civilization has already suffered some apocalyptic catastrophe, and a couple more cancer deaths will be totally insignificant in the overall scheme of things.
Also, it is quite likely that we will someday develop technology to PERFECTLY dispose of nuclear waste, at which time we will no doubt dig up what we already buried and cleanse it.
One more thing: If we bury it deep enough, we can be confident that any civilization with the technology do dig it up would have necessarily developed the technology to recognize radioactivity.
People taking credit for your work? SPEAK UP. Part of your job is to make sure your boss is aware of the good work you do.
You think marketing will be better? You have to be even more assertive to make it in marketing!
Regardless of gender, timid people get taken advantage of. I suspect that women tend to be more timid, and that this is a primary reason for promotion/compensation inequality. It's not about gender, it's about attitude.
You are wrong and are confusing two completely separate issues.
Stores can ban you from entrance for anything they want EXCEPT race, gender, religion, etc.. Whether you agree to a bag search or not is a personal choice, your race is not a personal choice. There is a huge difference.
Wow. Now you are comparing it to Jim Crow. Just wow.
If I own a shop, you don't have any fundamental human rights to shop there. If I only allow people to shop in my store on the condition that they allow me to check their bags, we are both within our rights to accept or refuse those conditions.
The fact that you can't see this really worries me. Mutually-agreed upon business arrangements that have nothing to do with discrimination based on race, religion, gender, sexuality, etc. are not civil rights issues. They are private contract issues.
What's your next comparison? Saying that bars with dress codes are similar to Nazi Germany?
If it can't penetrate skin, leather would be adequate to block it. Leather shoes, pants, jacket, gloves, and mask would make you invincible.... and dead sexy.
I'm sorry, but that is complete bullshit. Pepper spray is a "chemical torture device" yet the world did not end when it became available at Wal-Mart. Police have been using this "chemical torture device" on crowds without pepper spray operators being "the FIRST targets" for lethal retribution.
This device is a functionally just a better form of pepper spray. You have a knack for drawing dramatic false conclusions. Perhaps you should get a job in TV news.
Slashdot Mirror
Terrorism does not deserve its own priority. It falls under violent crime and espionage.
chroot is used in Gentoo installation. After bootstrapping, you chroot to the new install to finish the installation steps (grub install, etc.) before rebooting.
If you hard-code the "from whom, for whom, and sociological context" part of the translation, you could do it. For example, you could have one translation program written specifically for technical writing. A separate program could be written for, say, business news, etc.. Eventually, you could have a library of translation programs for the majority of social contexts, and parameterize the contexts.
:-)
The next step, of course, is to develop heuristics to determine the context parameter.
You are right that word-for-word translation will never cut it. And word-for-word is all I have ever seen implemented. But with enough investment, it sounds like decent machine translation COULD be done before your career as a translator runs its course.
I suggest you invest heavily in your first 10 years on the job
My use of the word "think" was not by accident. The community colleges and Devrys of the world are churning out tons of windows developers willing to work for $50k/year. Developers knowledgeable in multiple platforms, or, even better, know how to code to standards, cost more to hire. Training customer support on multiple platforms costs more.
I can't tell which is more profitable. But thinking non-windows support is less profitable is not an idea wholly without evidential support.
When YOU own a business and middle management tells offers you the option to take $50,000 out of your pocket to invest in a linux development, QA, and support infrastructure, which might possibly grow your marketshare by half a percent or so, you may understand the question a little better.
I recently bought auto insurance, and when pricing it, I ruled out companies whose web sites did not render on Firefox/Ubuntu. But I didn't presume to know whether supporting these systems was in the business owners' best interests.
They think supporting linux desktops is too expensive to be profitable.
End of discussion.
Next question!
You actually think that only governments store gold in vaults? That's not true. You are the one making things up now.
This topic is about the US monetary system, which has inflation rates between two and four percent. There is a lot of talk in the US suggesting that this inflation will mean the end of the world and the enslavement of mankind, etc. etc.. My comments were about the US system of low, controlled inflation. Clearly, they don't apply to a hyperinflated currency like yours. I only took macro at econ (in addition to reading about this stuff when I get the chance). All I know about hyperinflation is that you should 1) learn English, which you have done. 2) get the hell out of the country.
Also, the funds that went bust used leveraged investing in junk bonds. They weren't mutual funds. They were hedge funds. Hedge funds aren't even an option for the 401ks in which most middle class keep the majority of their savings.
My statement was an oversimplification. Labor and things people are willing to labor to attain have value. Land is one of those things. The problem is that it is damn hard to value land. If someone invents a new material that allows for the cheap construction of skyscrapers, land goes down in value. It is an interesting idea, though.
Looking at your website, it seems you publish some sort of gold newsletter. Surprise, surprise.
First, your physics is completely wrong. Radioactive elements are the only ones that decay.
Second, your assertion that all new gold is used in industry is highly questionable. Most gold is hoarded underground and not used for ANYTHING--a senseless waste of resources.
You are correct that my one-sentence definition of "value" is an oversimplification. But your assertion that ANY physical object has some sort of inherent value is wrong. Nothing has value unless people want it and are willing to sacrifice for it--including gold.
Your claim that the poor choose not to save because they understand and fear inflation is laughable. Anybody with a checking account can use scottrade, etrade, or whatever and transfer their assets from currency to revenue-generating businesses, REITs, or even gold ETFs if they are so inclined. Inflation isn't stopping the poor from saving. Living hand-to-mouth is.
Your don't seem to have made a point when you stated that real-estate and securities can fluctuate in value ("bubble" in your terms). Averaged out, these things grow in value faster than inflation, and much faster than gold. The minor corrections in these assets are just static. Gold goes up and down in value over the short term, too. On top of that, it doesn't generate any new value, as a business (stock investment) does. What is your point again?
I'm not an economist, so I can't compare the value of hoarding to investing with great accuracy, but I can say that countries which adopted banking (aka lots of investment, hardly any hoarding) did FAR better off economically than countries that didn't.
Finally: If paper money is a scam, then please explain why the countries with fiat currency have dramatically better standards of living than barter societies. My understanding is that paper money benefits everyone, but it benefits some disproportionately. It doesn't bother me. I direct deposit into an investment brokerage.
And you are right that you do desperately need a web designer; but you probably will have to pay him in "scam" money. Not many web designers are willing to take metals and kooky newsletters as payment, because they don't value those things as much as they value fiat currency.
Real value is power--the ability to control other people (aka labor). Whether the medium is gold coins or paper money or tootsie pops, what you are trading when you exchange money is labor.
Inflation does not tax the poor: They have no cash savings.
Inflation does not tax the middle class: They keep their assets in real-estate and mutual funds.
Inflation forces everyone else to invest in something, because hoarding money isn't good for the economy.
I'm sick of all the "money is a scam" articles on the internet recently.
Did you know that the average income for women is actually higher than for men in some parts of the country? I laugh at the thought of you sitting home all day watching The View while your wife works.
You seem to be under the misconception that the world is fair.
Yes, everyone deserves more pay. But any economist will tell you that legislating who gets more pay can potentially lead to people getting no pay at all.
If a future civilization doesn't have the technology to identify dangerous radioactivity, that proves that civilization has already suffered some apocalyptic catastrophe, and a couple more cancer deaths will be totally insignificant in the overall scheme of things.
Also, it is quite likely that we will someday develop technology to PERFECTLY dispose of nuclear waste, at which time we will no doubt dig up what we already buried and cleanse it.
One more thing: If we bury it deep enough, we can be confident that any civilization with the technology do dig it up would have necessarily developed the technology to recognize radioactivity.
So, yeah, it is a real solution to the problem.
Wow. You just admitted to deliberate sexual discrimination in your hiring practices.
People taking credit for your work? SPEAK UP. Part of your job is to make sure your boss is aware of the good work you do.
You think marketing will be better? You have to be even more assertive to make it in marketing!
Regardless of gender, timid people get taken advantage of. I suspect that women tend to be more timid, and that this is a primary reason for promotion/compensation inequality. It's not about gender, it's about attitude.
You are wrong and are confusing two completely separate issues.
Stores can ban you from entrance for anything they want EXCEPT race, gender, religion, etc.. Whether you agree to a bag search or not is a personal choice, your race is not a personal choice. There is a huge difference.
Wow. Now you are comparing it to Jim Crow. Just wow.
If I own a shop, you don't have any fundamental human rights to shop there. If I only allow people to shop in my store on the condition that they allow me to check their bags, we are both within our rights to accept or refuse those conditions.
The fact that you can't see this really worries me. Mutually-agreed upon business arrangements that have nothing to do with discrimination based on race, religion, gender, sexuality, etc. are not civil rights issues. They are private contract issues.
What's your next comparison? Saying that bars with dress codes are similar to Nazi Germany?
Hyperbole much? Agreeing to have your bag searched has nothing to do with civil liberties.
The store also has the right to ban you from returning.
Personally, I don't mind having my bag checked, because it means I don't have to worry about losing shopping privileges at my favorite stores.
If it can't penetrate skin, leather would be adequate to block it. Leather shoes, pants, jacket, gloves, and mask would make you invincible.... and dead sexy.
I'm sorry, but that is complete bullshit. Pepper spray is a "chemical torture device" yet the world did not end when it became available at Wal-Mart. Police have been using this "chemical torture device" on crowds without pepper spray operators being "the FIRST targets" for lethal retribution.
This device is a functionally just a better form of pepper spray. You have a knack for drawing dramatic false conclusions. Perhaps you should get a job in TV news.