de Raadt doesn't walk into a diner and yell out @s$#0135 when someone asks him the time of day. However, he doesn't go lightly on you if you walk into his house, where there are signs, a valet and a receptionist that say ``men at work'' do not disturb, read the DIY instructions for any questions, and interrupt as a last resort.
I don't view the OBSD developers as elitist, but as members of a lucid meritocracy. Anyone is welcome to contribute, down to simple html patches if you like. There are friendships clearly evident in the src submit list but if you lazily/foolishly foul up your submits, code, a patch, an idea or design some other developer will call you out. Typically it's de Raadt.
That is what theo.c playfully is. Theo de Raadt doesn't contribute to it, it is the OTHER developers that respectfully, teasingly, lovingly? code it. Get it now? It's not an exercise in vanity from TdR.
In essence, there are sweet people, temperate people, mean people, and cool guys that are fun to hang out with that don't suffer fools lightly---that is Theo de Raadt. Now I am a sweet guy, that's full of inner rage, that canm turn the spigot on when neccesary, but, I wouldn't mind being excellent in a given field and be TdR like.
The guy is a big fitness, hiking type. How many geeks are that into p.t. and hacking.
Lies! OBSD releases are regularly released a month early.
And, the canard that de Raadt is an asshole is plain wrong. To those who follow OBSD for anything other than a short period of time will know what his, the team's refrain is: We make this OS for us, not for you! Your benefit is an unintended consequence. We don't want to be the most popular, we make this OS for us, not for you! You want Linux. We don't talk, we code. We don't suggest bs features, we code. You want it, code it. But then you keep posting to the list, you've been told to help yourself, that we make this OS for us, not for you! So I will now tell you to fuck off, slacker.
It's simple, man. I've read Bruce Perens say he met the guy, extended his hand but the guy never acknowledged him, that he might be Aspergerish. I thought Bruce was off his rocker when I read that. He bats.400 most of the time, and some-times I say WTF is he drinking today?
Check out theo.c for a lot of laughs!!!
One list goodie went sort of like this years ago: Why are you posting to misc@. Why didn't you read the man pages, slacker. They're quality, this is not Linux. If you didn't bother you're an idler. If you read them and didn't understand them you're a lamer.
"you bring new meaning to the terms slackass. I will have to invent a new term." --Theo de Raadt
``The initially war-drove around, mapping APs. Then when users connect to those APs in the database and query the location, they also send back a report on other nearby APs. This allows their database to grow and become more accurate over time, without them having to keep war-driving previously established areas.''
I don't know why you had to go ac on us---just saying, Ted^W.
I've heard of their technology, it was a few years ago when the suggestion that gps chipsets in smartphones was a fantasy; lookee what happened. Then there was Google's/others' eureka moment of not needing chipsets but just using and triangulating on cell towers for a position fix. Anyway.
The idea of wardriving the nation and its territories has always seemed so Yahoo directory manpower suicide. Once upon a time, kids, Yahoo had an army of humans categorizing the Net link by link, but Google ate their non-automated lunch soon enough. Ted's idea, not just his, is doomed to fail. Why bespoke a posfix dbase when you can assembly line and automateit!
Even with their idea of just seeding the thing, attracting and glomming others as time passes is so inefficient.
I use their Google Maps a hell of a lot, I always save time whereever I am by mapping from/to pairs by just using either my zip, or my home address if it's already in browser memorey. I took/take it as a given that my IP address is being mapped to my zip/address data. It's not hard for any shoulder surfer less so Google to infer where *I am*, and that I am going someplace else.
Add me, my bros, my dogs, and my mates searcheS over time and you can rate high accuracy over the medium/long term. WTF.
Do that ad naseum, ad infinitum, omnipresently and you are Magellan, babe. ^.^
Long and short scales From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia...
The long and short scales are two of the several different numerical systems used throughout the world:
Short scale is the English translation of the French term échelle courte.[1] It refers to a system of numeric names in which every new term greater than million is 1,000 times the previous term: billion means a thousand millions (109), trillion means a thousand billions (1012), and so on.
Long scale is the English translation of the French term échelle longue. It refers to a system of numeric names in which every new term greater than million is 1,000,000 times the previous term: billion (from bi and million) means a million to the power of two or a million millions (1012), trillion (from tri and million) means a million to the power of three or a million billions (1018), and so on.
Note that the difference between the two scales grows as numbers get larger. Million is the same in both scales, but the long-scale billion (1,000,000,000,000) is a thousand times larger than the short-scale billion (1,000,000,000), the long-scale trillion is a million times larger than the short-scale trillion, and so on.
For most of the 19th and 20th centuries, the United Kingdom uniformly used the long scale,[2] while the United States of America used the short scale,[2] so that usage of the two systems was often referred to as British and American respectively. In 1974, the government of the UK abandoned the long scale, so that the UK now exclusively applies the short scale interpretation in mass media and official usage.[3][4][5][6] Although some residual usage of the long scale continues in the UK,[7] the phrases British usage and American usage are no longer accurate nor helpful characterizations. The two systems can be a subject of misunderstanding or controversy. Usage changes can evoke resentment in adherents to the older system, while national differences of any kind can acquire jingoistic overtones.[8]
Many countries, including most in continental Europe, use the long scale. There are other numbering systems which are neither long nor short scale such as the Chinese numbering system, the Indian numbering system, the Japanese numbering system, and the Korean numbering system.
[end quote]
Funny story:
My patriarch was raised in South America, once during dinner whilst discussing the US deficit, Walmart's capitalization or a baller's salary, I said something like:
* he has a half billion dollar contract * the export deficit is 40 billion dollars * that company is bigger than IBM, General Motors, it's a monter 100+ billion dollar company
He looked flabbergasted, as though he had seen his first UFO, and was incredulous of the amount!
I had a quick insight and I said:
``A United States billion is a thousand million. A US trillion is a million million. OK?''
To which he said:
``Whew! that makes more sense. You were talking real money there, for a minute.''
As a child, an ignorant NYC teacher rebuked me brusquely when I grew confused at the mention of billion and trillion with so few left-hand-of-decimal-place zeros. The guy had never heard of long and short scale systems. What r-e-a-l-l-y confused me was his bad attitude, I was a dumb public school kid, wtf could I possibly know. Now on tangent, when it came to decimal period vs decimal commas, thousand place commas vs thousand place periods (points), I didn't bother to clarify with that lardass. That would have really thrown him. ^.^
In John Carpenter's Dark Star (1974) an asteroid storm and an escaped alien (in the form of a large beach ball with webbed claws) initiate a series of malfunctions on the already dilapidated starship. The storm and the alien both foul up a "communications laser" that sends bombing signals and orders to the ship's 20 "thermostellar nuclear" bombs, each designed to destroy an entire planet. Mother, the ship's main computer, is able to convince bomb #20 twice to return to the bomb bay after receiving faulty orders, but the third time, the bomb stubbornly refuses to disarm itself and return to the bay, anxious to fulfill its single purpose in life, its destiny: to explode.
Desperate, Doolittle, the ship's commanding officer, seeks advice from Commander Powell, who is in cryogenic suspension after suffering a freak accident caused by a malfunctioning seat-belt. Powell tells Doolittle to teach Bomb #20 "a little phenomenology." Doolittle goes EVA and has the following conversation with Bomb #20: Doolittle: Hello, Bomb? Are you with me? Bomb #20: Of course. Doolittle: Are you willing to entertain a few concepts? Bomb #20: I am always receptive to suggestions. Doolittle: Fine. Think about this then. How do you know you exist? Bomb #20: Well, of course I exist. Doolittle: But how do you know you exist? Bomb #20: It is intuitively obvious. Doolittle: Intuition is no proof. What concrete evidence do you have that you exist? Bomb #20: Hmmmm.....well.....I think, therefore I am. Doolittle: That's good. That's very good. But how do you know that anything else exists? Bomb #20: My sensory apparatus reveals it to me. This is fun! Doolittle: Now, listen, listen. Here's the big question. How do you know that the evidence your sensory apparatus reveals to you is correct? What I'm getting at is this. The only experience that is directly available to you is your sensory data. This sensory data is merely a stream of electrical impulses that stimulate your computing center. Bomb #20: In other words, all that I really know about the outside world is relayed to me through my electrical connections. Doolittle: Exactly! Bomb #20: Why...that would mean that...I really don't know what the outside universe is really like at all for certain. Doolittle: That's it! That's it! Bomb #20 : Intriguing. I wish I had more time to discuss this matter. Doolittle: Why don't you have more time? Bomb #20: Because I must detonate in 75 seconds. Doolittle: Wait! Wait! Now, bomb, consider this next question very carefully. What is your one purpose in life? Bomb #20: To explode, of course. Doolittle: And you can only do it once, right? Bomb #20: That is correct. Doolittle: And you wouldn't want to explode on the basis of false data, would you? Bomb #20: Of course not. Doolittle: Well then, you've already admitted that you have no real proof of the existence of the outside universe. Bomb #20: Yes...well... Doolittle: You have no absolute proof that Sergeant Pinback ordered you to detonate. Bomb #20: I recall distinctly the detonation order. My memory is good on matters like these. Doolittle: Of course you remember it, but all you remember is merely a series of sensory impulses which you now realize have no real, definite connection with outside reality. Bomb #20: True. But since this is so, I have no real proof that you're telling me all this. Doolittle: That's all beside the point. I mean, the concept is valid no matter where it originates. Bomb #20: Hmmmm.... Doolittle: So, if you detonate... Bomb #20: In nine seconds.... Doolittle:...you could be doing so on the basis of false data. Bomb #20: I have no proof it was false dat
What was the name of that 1970's US film, a B movie, which took place in space, aboard a ship of (y)hippie'ish long haired dudes, with a sentient bomb that repeatedly kept deploying---in error---and the crew kept having to annoyingly talk the bomb down.
I saw it a couple of times in passing, via the late-night movie feature. But I saw it in little pieces, as it was so cheesy B cinema. But I thought it was fabulous the way it ended.
Mid sentence, mid travel, one more time: come on bomb! there you go again! just go bac' KABOOM!
Now that is AI. The same sort of idea was used in a TNG episode.
I turned down a much smaller offer on a much less significant, but still very cool, two hundred year old angler's guide (with hand colored plates and original binding) for the same reason.
Interesting! Would Google be interested in making it possible for you (me, them?) to have your unique book scanned?
You want to sell it someday, but, you want it scanned and accessible for posterity, everyone wins.
I hate to break it to you, but if your countries' advertisement rates vs exorbitant bandwidth cost ratios do not make financial sense to web entertainment companies (such as facebook, hulu, youtube, veoh) in these tough times you are likely to be cut off, or about to be cut off from the spigot!
Africa, Latin America, Eastern Europe, Asia users make up the huge percentage in many of these sites, but their nations' ad rates are very low! The NY Times has a piece on it. Relatedly, it amazes me that facebook claims a gargantuan photograph cache so vast that storing it, and disseminating it is that much of a problem, third world or not. ?
..."Whenever you have a lot of user-generated material, your bandwidth gets utilized in Asia, the Middle East, Latin America, where bandwidth is expensive and ad rates are ridiculously low," Mr. Volpi said. If Web companies "really want to make money, they would shut off all those countries."
...There may be 1.6 billion people in the world with Internet access, but fewer than half of them have incomes high enough to interest major advertisers.
...Web companies that rely on advertising are enjoying some of their most vibrant growth in developing countries. But those are also the same places where it can be the most expensive to operate, since Web companies often need more servers to make content available to parts of the world with limited bandwidth. And in those countries, online display advertising is least likely to translate into results.
Your comment has me thinking: What if I did the gratis support for my ego gratification and, or sound mind/body regimen but I was acerbic in commentary or review?! A la David Letterman and his ex General Electric bosses.
Would that be the way to go? That's how I'd go. ``Spit then rotate the doohickey on the turbo widget and bam! that piece of shit from Acme will work. Cheap bastards. I love my hellacious karma, though.''
> email alerts that let me scan a multitude of newspapers for certain keywords
The New York Times did this in the late 1990s, if not early 2000 or 2001. It was cool and predated Google News' version, I believe I remember correctly.
> 1) Refuse to let Google and other search engines index your stories > 2) Google removes all newspapers with AP content from its indexing
Google reached its own accord with AP years ago. Google is not in the cross hairs of the AP.
No one mentioned it months after the Belgium incident, but, the Belgian newspapers griped loudly publicly that their loss of Google traffic was hurting them!
Difference? One implies *infinite* usage. The other does not.
[ snip needless examples ]
End of myth. Move on apologists, suffer fiery deaths marketroids. Nothing goes on forever (sleep, boredom anyone) except a perpetual motion machine. I'll sell you mine.
You just gave me an idea! This would be awesome for schoolers! i can bring all my heavy ass motherfucking texts in one light object!!! Yay for the $350 cost if it does that---and it might make a hypothetically serious dent in the cost (yeah right!) of textbooks!
* Can old edition texts be self scanned AND community annotated for new term editions? Haha?
Mrs. Oh was excoriating the law firm's (more precisely the elite senior partners) campaign to blame law associates with a record of _excellent_ reviews for the associates' firing.
Why? She alleged the law firm was not bringing in sufficient business to grow (a partner's raison d'etre), that the firm did not want to publicly admit the fact, BUT, it wanted to maintain an illusion of grandeur so as to entice new elite-law school graduates to continue to apply as new associates.
The miscarriage, her exemplary reviews, one partner's unsolicited glowing! praise days earlier, his about face, her firing, her presentation of an NDA type document for severance pay at the last minute firing, her emotional rawness, her refusal to be stampeded at such a vulnerable moment, her outrage and refusal to submit to the law firm's fig leaf for its own hiring duplicity, her email to "the" partner, et al all make up the rest of the story.
Last heard, months ago when this broke, she had committed major corporation career suicide but she apparently did not let that stand in her way. She's of Korean ancestry and cute though married.
> I think what the author was trying to say was something like...
As of the time of my reply there were 3 "Score:5" replies that all arrived at the same conclusion above.
Tangentially, I had added for amusement, as I frequently do lately, a keyword. My kw's are understood/popular rarely, that's fine. I do find the winning? kw's tiresome. Hence I have a feature request for the next/. version: (alternative) keyword (sub)set selection.
I dig when rarely I see someone's offbeat thinking (e.g., donttastemebro) in kw's. I make literary, tangential, childhood, international, polycultural, rebellious, etc. allusions in my kw choices. Allimsaying is, as many already do here, I think most kw's from the unwashed masses and forced down my gullet suck donkey balls.
Slashdot Mirror
de Raadt doesn't walk into a diner and yell out @s$#0135 when someone asks him the time of day. However, he doesn't go lightly on you if you walk into his house, where there are signs, a valet and a receptionist that say ``men at work'' do not disturb, read the DIY instructions for any questions, and interrupt as a last resort.
I don't view the OBSD developers as elitist, but as members of a lucid meritocracy. Anyone is welcome to contribute, down to simple html patches if you like. There are friendships clearly evident in the src submit list but if you lazily/foolishly foul up your submits, code, a patch, an idea or design some other developer will call you out. Typically it's de Raadt.
That is what theo.c playfully is. Theo de Raadt doesn't contribute to it, it is the OTHER developers that respectfully, teasingly, lovingly? code it. Get it now? It's not an exercise in vanity from TdR.
In essence, there are sweet people, temperate people, mean people, and cool guys that are fun to hang out with that don't suffer fools lightly---that is Theo de Raadt. Now I am a sweet guy, that's full of inner rage, that canm turn the spigot on when neccesary, but, I wouldn't mind being excellent in a given field and be TdR like.
The guy is a big fitness, hiking type. How many geeks are that into p.t. and hacking.
but this is just plain wrong!
`` exactly on the date promised''
Lies! OBSD releases are regularly released a month early.
And, the canard that de Raadt is an asshole is plain wrong. To those who follow OBSD for anything other than a short period of time will know what his, the team's refrain is: We make this OS for us, not for you! Your benefit is an unintended consequence. We don't want to be the most popular, we make this OS for us, not for you! You want Linux. We don't talk, we code. We don't suggest bs features, we code. You want it, code it. But then you keep posting to the list, you've been told to help yourself, that we make this OS for us, not for you! So I will now tell you to fuck off, slacker.
It's simple, man. I've read Bruce Perens say he met the guy, extended his hand but the guy never acknowledged him, that he might be Aspergerish. I thought Bruce was off his rocker when I read that. He bats .400 most of the time, and some-times I say WTF is he drinking today?
Check out theo.c for a lot of laughs!!!
One list goodie went sort of like this years ago: Why are you posting to misc@. Why didn't you read the man pages, slacker. They're quality, this is not Linux. If you didn't bother you're an idler. If you read them and didn't understand them you're a lamer.
"you bring new meaning to the terms slackass. I will have to invent a new term." --Theo de Raadt
http://www.openbsd.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb/src/usr.bin/mg/theo.c
``The initially war-drove around, mapping APs. Then when users connect to those APs in the database and query the location, they also send back a report on other nearby APs. This allows their database to grow and become more accurate over time, without them having to keep war-driving previously established areas.''
I don't know why you had to go ac on us---just saying, Ted^W.
I've heard of their technology, it was a few years ago when the suggestion that gps chipsets in smartphones was a fantasy; lookee what happened. Then there was Google's/others' eureka moment of not needing chipsets but just using and triangulating on cell towers for a position fix. Anyway.
The idea of wardriving the nation and its territories has always seemed so Yahoo directory manpower suicide. Once upon a time, kids, Yahoo had an army of humans categorizing the Net link by link, but Google ate their non-automated lunch soon enough. Ted's idea, not just his, is doomed to fail. Why bespoke a posfix dbase when you can assembly line and automateit!
Even with their idea of just seeding the thing, attracting and glomming others as time passes is so inefficient.
I use their Google Maps a hell of a lot, I always save time whereever I am by mapping from/to pairs by just using either my zip, or my home address if it's already in browser memorey. I took/take it as a given that my IP address is being mapped to my zip/address data. It's not hard for any shoulder surfer less so Google to infer where *I am*, and that I am going someplace else.
Add me, my bros, my dogs, and my mates searcheS over time and you can rate high accuracy over the medium/long term. WTF.
Do that ad naseum, ad infinitum, omnipresently and you are Magellan, babe. ^.^
Oi!
Let me correct you:
[quote]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long_and_short_scales
Long and short scales ...
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The long and short scales are two of the several different numerical systems used throughout the world:
Short scale is the English translation of the French term échelle courte.[1] It refers to a system of numeric names in which every new term greater than million is 1,000 times the previous term: billion means a thousand millions (109), trillion means a thousand billions (1012), and so on.
Long scale is the English translation of the French term échelle longue. It refers to a system of numeric names in which every new term greater than million is 1,000,000 times the previous term: billion (from bi and million) means a million to the power of two or a million millions (1012), trillion (from tri and million) means a million to the power of three or a million billions (1018), and so on.
Note that the difference between the two scales grows as numbers get larger. Million is the same in both scales, but the long-scale billion (1,000,000,000,000) is a thousand times larger than the short-scale billion (1,000,000,000), the long-scale trillion is a million times larger than the short-scale trillion, and so on.
For most of the 19th and 20th centuries, the United Kingdom uniformly used the long scale,[2] while the United States of America used the short scale,[2] so that usage of the two systems was often referred to as British and American respectively. In 1974, the government of the UK abandoned the long scale, so that the UK now exclusively applies the short scale interpretation in mass media and official usage.[3][4][5][6] Although some residual usage of the long scale continues in the UK,[7] the phrases British usage and American usage are no longer accurate nor helpful characterizations. The two systems can be a subject of misunderstanding or controversy. Usage changes can evoke resentment in adherents to the older system, while national differences of any kind can acquire jingoistic overtones.[8]
Many countries, including most in continental Europe, use the long scale. There are other numbering systems which are neither long nor short scale such as the Chinese numbering system, the Indian numbering system, the Japanese numbering system, and the Korean numbering system.
[end quote]
Funny story:
My patriarch was raised in South America, once during dinner whilst discussing the US deficit, Walmart's capitalization or a baller's salary, I said something like:
* he has a half billion dollar contract
* the export deficit is 40 billion dollars
* that company is bigger than IBM, General Motors, it's a monter 100+ billion dollar company
He looked flabbergasted, as though he had seen his first UFO, and was incredulous of the amount!
I had a quick insight and I said:
``A United States billion is a thousand million. A US trillion is a million million. OK?''
To which he said:
``Whew! that makes more sense. You were talking real money there, for a minute.''
As a child, an ignorant NYC teacher rebuked me brusquely when I grew confused at the mention of billion and trillion with so few left-hand-of-decimal-place zeros. The guy had never heard of long and short scale systems. What r-e-a-l-l-y confused me was his bad attitude, I was a dumb public school kid, wtf could I possibly know. Now on tangent, when it came to decimal period vs decimal commas, thousand place commas vs thousand place periods (points), I didn't bother to clarify with that lardass. That would have really thrown him. ^.^
Bing Is Not Google
LOL!
###############
http://www2.english.uiuc.edu/cybercinema/bomb20.htm
In John Carpenter's Dark Star (1974) an asteroid storm and an escaped alien (in the form of a large beach ball with webbed claws) initiate a series of malfunctions on the already dilapidated starship. The storm and the alien both foul up a "communications laser" that sends bombing signals and orders to the ship's 20 "thermostellar nuclear" bombs, each designed to destroy an entire planet. Mother, the ship's main computer, is able to convince bomb #20 twice to return to the bomb bay after receiving faulty orders, but the third time, the bomb stubbornly refuses to disarm itself and return to the bay, anxious to fulfill its single purpose in life, its destiny: to explode.
Desperate, Doolittle, the ship's commanding officer, seeks advice from Commander Powell, who is in cryogenic suspension after suffering a freak accident caused by a malfunctioning seat-belt. Powell tells Doolittle to teach Bomb #20 "a little phenomenology." Doolittle goes EVA and has the following conversation with Bomb #20: ...you could be doing so on the basis of false data.
Doolittle: Hello, Bomb? Are you with me?
Bomb #20: Of course.
Doolittle: Are you willing to entertain a few concepts?
Bomb #20: I am always receptive to suggestions.
Doolittle: Fine. Think about this then. How do you know you exist?
Bomb #20: Well, of course I exist.
Doolittle: But how do you know you exist?
Bomb #20: It is intuitively obvious.
Doolittle: Intuition is no proof. What concrete evidence do you have that you exist?
Bomb #20: Hmmmm.....well.....I think, therefore I am.
Doolittle: That's good. That's very good. But how do you know
that anything else exists?
Bomb #20: My sensory apparatus reveals it to me. This is fun!
Doolittle: Now, listen, listen. Here's the big question. How do you know that the evidence your sensory apparatus reveals to you is correct? What I'm getting at is this. The only experience that is directly available to you is your sensory data. This sensory data is merely a stream of electrical impulses that stimulate your computing center.
Bomb #20: In other words, all that I really know about the outside world is relayed to me through my electrical connections.
Doolittle: Exactly!
Bomb #20: Why...that would mean that...I really don't know what the outside universe is really like at all for certain.
Doolittle: That's it! That's it!
Bomb #20 : Intriguing. I wish I had more time to discuss this matter.
Doolittle: Why don't you have more time?
Bomb #20: Because I must detonate in 75 seconds.
Doolittle: Wait! Wait! Now, bomb, consider this next question very carefully. What is your one purpose in life?
Bomb #20: To explode, of course.
Doolittle: And you can only do it once, right?
Bomb #20: That is correct.
Doolittle: And you wouldn't want to explode on the basis of false data, would you?
Bomb #20: Of course not.
Doolittle: Well then, you've already admitted that you have no real proof of the existence of the outside universe.
Bomb #20: Yes...well...
Doolittle: You have no absolute proof that Sergeant Pinback ordered you to detonate.
Bomb #20: I recall distinctly the detonation order. My memory is good on matters like these.
Doolittle: Of course you remember it, but all you remember is merely a series of sensory impulses which you now realize have no real, definite connection with outside reality.
Bomb #20: True. But since this is so, I have no real proof that you're telling me all this.
Doolittle: That's all beside the point. I mean, the concept is valid no matter where it originates.
Bomb #20: Hmmmm....
Doolittle: So, if you detonate...
Bomb #20: In nine seconds....
Doolittle:
Bomb #20: I have no proof it was false dat
Dark Star (film)
1974
``Dark Star is a 1974 sci-fi tongue-in-cheek comedy motion picture directed by John Carpenter...''
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_Star_(film)
What was the name of that 1970's US film, a B movie, which took place in space, aboard a ship of (y)hippie'ish long haired dudes, with a sentient bomb that repeatedly kept deploying---in error---and the crew kept having to annoyingly talk the bomb down.
I saw it a couple of times in passing, via the late-night movie feature. But I saw it in little pieces, as it was so cheesy B cinema. But I thought it was fabulous the way it ended.
Mid sentence, mid travel, one more time: come on bomb! there you go again! just go bac' KABOOM!
Now that is AI. The same sort of idea was used in a TNG episode.
I turned down a much smaller offer on a much less significant, but still very cool, two hundred year old angler's guide (with hand colored plates and original binding) for the same reason.
Interesting! Would Google be interested in making it possible for you (me, them?) to have your unique book scanned?
You want to sell it someday, but, you want it scanned and accessible for posterity, everyone wins.
I hope Google is listening.
I hate to break it to you, but if your countries' advertisement rates vs exorbitant bandwidth cost ratios do not make financial sense to web entertainment companies (such as facebook, hulu, youtube, veoh) in these tough times you are likely to be cut off, or about to be cut off from the spigot!
Africa, Latin America, Eastern Europe, Asia users make up the huge percentage in many of these sites, but their nations' ad rates are very low! The NY Times has a piece on it. Relatedly, it amazes me that facebook claims a gargantuan photograph cache so vast that storing it, and disseminating it is that much of a problem, third world or not. ?
..."Whenever you have a lot of user-generated material, your bandwidth gets utilized in Asia, the Middle East, Latin America, where bandwidth is expensive and ad rates are ridiculously low," Mr. Volpi said. If Web companies "really want to make money, they would shut off all those countries."
...There may be 1.6 billion people in the world with Internet access, but fewer than half of them have incomes high enough to interest major advertisers.
...Web companies that rely on advertising are enjoying some of their most vibrant growth in developing countries. But those are also the same places where it can be the most expensive to operate, since Web companies often need more servers to make content available to parts of the world with limited bandwidth. And in those countries, online display advertising is least likely to translate into results.
Your comment has me thinking: What if I did the gratis support for my ego gratification and, or sound mind/body regimen but I was acerbic in commentary or review?! A la David Letterman and his ex General Electric bosses.
Would that be the way to go? That's how I'd go. ``Spit then rotate the doohickey on the turbo widget and bam! that piece of shit from Acme will work. Cheap bastards. I love my hellacious karma, though.''
> how about we demand a little evenhandedness from them and demand they somehow ___remunerate___
There's a problem here. Remuneration = payment = employment = demands = rights. Slippery slope they don't want to climb.
> email alerts that let me scan a multitude of newspapers for certain keywords
The New York Times did this in the late 1990s, if not early 2000 or 2001. It was cool and predated Google News' version, I believe I remember correctly.
> 1) Refuse to let Google and other search engines index your stories
> 2) Google removes all newspapers with AP content from its indexing
Google reached its own accord with AP years ago. Google is not in the cross hairs of the AP.
No one mentioned it months after the Belgium incident, but, the Belgian newspapers griped loudly publicly that their loss of Google traffic was hurting them!
And they will refrain from ever using Street View themselves, right.
> all-you-can-use X
This is a misnomer. What is meant is un-metered!
Difference? One implies *infinite* usage. The other does not.
[ snip needless examples ]
End of myth. Move on apologists, suffer fiery deaths marketroids. Nothing goes on forever (sleep, boredom anyone) except a perpetual motion machine. I'll sell you mine.
Ahhh, I see the bike shed has many colors.
> I stick it in my backpack on the way to school
You just gave me an idea! This would be awesome for schoolers! i can bring all my heavy ass motherfucking texts in one light object!!! Yay for the $350 cost if it does that---and it might make a hypothetically serious dent in the cost (yeah right!) of textbooks!
* Can old edition texts be self scanned AND community annotated for new term editions? Haha?
Executive Summary:
Mrs. Oh was excoriating the law firm's (more precisely the elite senior partners) campaign to blame law associates with a record of _excellent_ reviews for the associates' firing.
Why? She alleged the law firm was not bringing in sufficient business to grow (a partner's raison d'etre), that the firm did not want to publicly admit the fact, BUT, it wanted to maintain an illusion of grandeur so as to entice new elite-law school graduates to continue to apply as new associates.
The miscarriage, her exemplary reviews, one partner's unsolicited glowing! praise days earlier, his about face, her firing, her presentation of an NDA type document for severance pay at the last minute firing, her emotional rawness, her refusal to be stampeded at such a vulnerable moment, her outrage and refusal to submit to the law firm's fig leaf for its own hiring duplicity, her email to "the" partner, et al all make up the rest of the story.
Last heard, months ago when this broke, she had committed major corporation career suicide but she apparently did not let that stand in her way. She's of Korean ancestry and cute though married.
Why doesn't login prevent this?
> Mac OS X doesn't run natively on all PCs ...
It runs natively in any pocketbook or wallet. Money is cash is share. Now mod me overrated. *sigh*
> the new blink tag
about:config
browser.blink_allowed;false
> blocks ALL Flash content until explicitly allowed (which can either be once or always for a particular site
Don't you wish as I do that the Flashblock guys would steal the "temporarily allow example.com" from noscript?
Otherwise, undoing flashblock pass quick is a longass process!!!
> blocks ALL Flash content until explicitly allowed (which can either be once or always for a particular site
Don't you wish as I do that the Flashblock guys would steal the "temporarily allow example.com"?
Otherwise, undoing is a longass process!!!
> I think what the author was trying to say was something like ...
/. version: (alternative) keyword (sub)set selection.
As of the time of my reply there were 3 "Score:5" replies that all arrived at the same conclusion above.
Tangentially, I had added for amusement, as I frequently do lately, a keyword. My kw's are understood/popular rarely, that's fine. I do find the winning? kw's tiresome. Hence I have a feature request for the next
I dig when rarely I see someone's offbeat thinking (e.g., donttastemebro) in kw's. I make literary, tangential, childhood, international, polycultural, rebellious, etc. allusions in my kw choices. Allimsaying is, as many already do here, I think most kw's from the unwashed masses and forced down my gullet suck donkey balls.
citationneededinthebssummary