Never considered this. That's actually a solid point.
No, it's not, unless you are thinking about it in pure theoretical terms. The first issue is "over long enough periods" - this could mean anything from "a week from now" to "the cold death of the universe". Any statement involving time tends to become valid "over long enough periods". Then, losing active bitcoin is indeed a thing, and it's indeed pushing bitcoin value up, but that's not a cause, it's an effect of the overall total amount of bitcoin being limited, with a known upper limit (21-something million). Then it becomes a matter of offer versus demand, with locked bitcoin being a factor, but it's been a factor already since its inception. With online wallets gaining more and more popularity over time, this issue would diminish.
Banks and exchanges are barely starting to look at this because the whole Cryptocurrency market is still pocket change compared to "traditional" financial world. Crypto market cap hovers at around 200 billion dollars(*), while an article from 2016(**) lists 60 major stock exchanges worldwide totaling 69 trillion dollars. Rounded up, it means Crypto represents 0.29% of the overall market. As I was saying... pocket change. Banks didn't even give a shit. They start giving a shit because the blip on the radar starts looking like it's here to stay, and they obviously want to get their dirty paws on some of that shit early.
Path of Exile has an interesting and truly fair approach: their "Mystery Boxes" guarantee a prize at least equal to the amount of credits entered, the average being much higher.
Each box grants you one random microtransaction themed as either Chaos or Order, with value equal to at least that of the box (30 points). The possible outcomes from your mystery box range in value from 30 points all the way up to 320 points! The average reward is worth 110 points, which is 366% of the cost of the box.
No, I asked him to provide the parts of which he thinks are unfair. The fact that X is unfair or not is subjective - there is no such thing that is objectively unfair.
I can't tell and here's why: there is no actual information on what Hillary might have done, had she become president. We could be in the middle of a nuclear war for all we know. Or we could all hold our hands and sing Kumbaya while flying through the heavenly portals to another dimension. So all I can do in order to directly compare the two is look at them as candidates, up to right when elections took place. And from that data, neither was better than the other. What happened afterwards was one-sided and can't be taken into consideration.
Oh, I am sorry, I didn't know I could google for whatever passes as parent poster's opinion on something. I guess those damned corporation already extracted his thoughts and put them up publicly on display, must be my poor googling skills. Teach me, master, for I wish to learn... what is my opinion of you? Google it and tell me how you did it.
And I replied. You act as if that were a pissing contest or something. Grow up. I was asking for details, I got details provided, I answered them with my understanding on them. Yes, we're having a *gasp* mature discussion on Slashdot.
Most of those are safety nets. You perceive them as possible dangers, I perceive them differently. 1. "use the software as server software" refers to you being denied support if you use the Windows 10 OS commercially as a server and your database hosted under it breaks. Basically, if you use Windows 10 non-server as a server and it fucks your data, you can't sue for damages. Car analogy: "You can't use your Volkswagen Polo for professional racing".
2. the software transfer chain issue: I don't think it's "unfair". They're protecting their business - they allow you to transfer the license to a second user, and that's it. It being fair or not is subjective - I'm not saying it should be fair to everyone, but I don't personally see it as unfair either.
3. A crapton of commercial software requires activation. Most games do too. Is it fair? Not really, ideally. But if you think about it, first there was unprotected software which everyone was copying, then protections started being implemented as an effect. The F/OSS blossomed as an effect of that. And to be fair, Windows still allows you to use it very well without activation. most other commercial software doesn't even install, let alone run, without activation.
4. Automatic updates: sure they suck. But then again, I am torn on this, not really sure which way to lean, because it's a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" scenario. No updates means unpatched vulnerabilities and then you blame Microsoft. Forced updates means money lost if a metered connection is involved, and rare occasions when the OS breaks. So they picked their poison, and yours too.
5. "Class-action arbitration is forbidden" - is that even enforceable? I'm from the EU and here it's definitely not enforceable.
6. The Video part of the license is actually not really theirs. "ADDITIONAL INFORMATION MAY BE OBTAINED FROM MPEG LA, L.L.C. SEE (AKA.MS/MPEGLA)". Microsoft licensed that codec and sublicenses it to you. It's the same license spaghetti as the MP3 stuff which Linux distros suffered from for years - you had to download it manually and agree to its license terms separately, otherwise you couldn't even listen to an MP3 song.
Here's the thing: IT DOES NOT MATTER. What happens in the USA right now is half the country fighting the other half, each saying their rotten meat piece is better. Quite sad, really, if you ask me. Luckily, nobody asks me anyway:)
Maybe (I'm not American) but the point is that you believe the choice STARTED there, whereas I believe the choice ENDED there. And that, right there, is the result of "the will of the people", when people are dumb as a whole. They are willing to support a candidate, no matter how inane because it is pushed by the party they support - or the other way around, they're willing to support a whole political agenda because the person pushing it is a celebrity of sorts (magnate, singer, sportsman, etc). Whether it's the former or the latter depends on country and culture. But very rarely, if ever, will you see the best candidate being chosen out of a pool of many (IMHO 100 is the bare minimum number) through objective train of thought and valid data analysis. THAT would be true choice: the freedom to look at objective information and filter data based on what's objectively best, ousting candidate after candidate until the best one remains, no matter the political party that stands behind him.
I know this is just utopian daydreaming and it would never happen (cue human nature), however if you want to talk choice and freedom, there they are. What you have, politically speaking, are two colossal turds facing each other. One is blue and one is red, whatever that may mean, and they're orbited by specks of shit (the other political parties) which change allegiance according to their own largely irrelevant political agenda. It's a deadlock - and you call it "choice". Sorry, it ain't. But hey, be happy, it's "the will of the people", boo-hoo-fucking-ray!
The game developer was shocked because the game had been released 6 months ago and had all features implemented... but under Wine it looked like an early alpha with no textures.
Fear the true will of the people. Usually "the people" are a bunch of semi-primitives who have no clue what the fuck they are doing or whether whatever they seem to want is even achievable. Yes, everyone would love lots of money, free booze and no work to do, but besides that I don't think "the people" (as a whole, mind you, not those of them who have neurons in other places than their own gonads) are any good at deciding anything.
Governments never enacted the will of the people; they did what they thought was best for the country and their own pockets, with priorities varying from "most for my pockets" to "most for the country", with the former being more prevalent throughout history.
All voting processes are flawed in one way or another, so you can't even argue successfully that the ruling people were "chosen by the people". Most times they aren't. They're usually chosen by a group of people with power, and then the candidate is shown as "this is the one you should all vote!" and that's it. That's a lack of choice rather than a choice, much like "mouldy bread or spoiled meat" could be considered "choice".
The GP doesn't like it so it must be bad. Now, I've ditched complex formulas in favor of VBA a long time ago, probably around when Office 2007 got released. Stuff just works.
Slashdot Mirror
Oh, I didn't know the US Government can seize anyone's money, no matter where on Earth they might be. Or throw anyone in jail, no matter who they are.
Never considered this. That's actually a solid point.
No, it's not, unless you are thinking about it in pure theoretical terms.
The first issue is "over long enough periods" - this could mean anything from "a week from now" to "the cold death of the universe". Any statement involving time tends to become valid "over long enough periods".
Then, losing active bitcoin is indeed a thing, and it's indeed pushing bitcoin value up, but that's not a cause, it's an effect of the overall total amount of bitcoin being limited, with a known upper limit (21-something million). Then it becomes a matter of offer versus demand, with locked bitcoin being a factor, but it's been a factor already since its inception. With online wallets gaining more and more popularity over time, this issue would diminish.
Information: I have been sentenced to a lifetime in Bucharest, and I don't even have periods.
Banks and exchanges are barely starting to look at this because the whole Cryptocurrency market is still pocket change compared to "traditional" financial world.
Crypto market cap hovers at around 200 billion dollars(*), while an article from 2016(**) lists 60 major stock exchanges worldwide totaling 69 trillion dollars. Rounded up, it means Crypto represents 0.29% of the overall market.
As I was saying... pocket change. Banks didn't even give a shit. They start giving a shit because the blip on the radar starts looking like it's here to stay, and they obviously want to get their dirty paws on some of that shit early.
(*) https://www.forbes.com/sites/c...
(**) http://www.visualcapitalist.co...
As soon as you stop looking at only the gorgeous ones, you'll enjoy many amazing sex encounters with the ones you previously ignored.
Path of Exile has an interesting and truly fair approach: their "Mystery Boxes" guarantee a prize at least equal to the amount of credits entered, the average being much higher.
Each box grants you one random microtransaction themed as either Chaos or Order, with value equal to at least that of the box (30 points). The possible outcomes from your mystery box range in value from 30 points all the way up to 320 points! The average reward is worth 110 points, which is 366% of the cost of the box.
Source: https://www.pathofexile.com/fo...
Yes: You're a fucking idiot.
Might not be fair to me, but might be fair to you.
Don't you have anything better to do than concocting these fractured logic ideas?
No, I asked him to provide the parts of which he thinks are unfair.
The fact that X is unfair or not is subjective - there is no such thing that is objectively unfair.
Remember, you don't get the leaders you need, but the ones you deserve.
True words, my friend. Valid for every group and every leader out there.
I can't tell and here's why: there is no actual information on what Hillary might have done, had she become president. We could be in the middle of a nuclear war for all we know. Or we could all hold our hands and sing Kumbaya while flying through the heavenly portals to another dimension.
So all I can do in order to directly compare the two is look at them as candidates, up to right when elections took place. And from that data, neither was better than the other. What happened afterwards was one-sided and can't be taken into consideration.
Which EU country?
It doesn't matter, AFAIK it covers the whole of EU.
You might need to change your Constitution to allow Romanians to run for presidency.
Oh, I am sorry, I didn't know I could google for whatever passes as parent poster's opinion on something. I guess those damned corporation already extracted his thoughts and put them up publicly on display, must be my poor googling skills. Teach me, master, for I wish to learn... what is my opinion of you? Google it and tell me how you did it.
And I replied.
You act as if that were a pissing contest or something. Grow up. I was asking for details, I got details provided, I answered them with my understanding on them.
Yes, we're having a *gasp* mature discussion on Slashdot.
Isn't that what everyone says about their rotten piece of meat?
Most of those are safety nets. You perceive them as possible dangers, I perceive them differently.
1. "use the software as server software" refers to you being denied support if you use the Windows 10 OS commercially as a server and your database hosted under it breaks. Basically, if you use Windows 10 non-server as a server and it fucks your data, you can't sue for damages.
Car analogy: "You can't use your Volkswagen Polo for professional racing".
2. the software transfer chain issue: I don't think it's "unfair". They're protecting their business - they allow you to transfer the license to a second user, and that's it. It being fair or not is subjective - I'm not saying it should be fair to everyone, but I don't personally see it as unfair either.
3. A crapton of commercial software requires activation. Most games do too. Is it fair? Not really, ideally. But if you think about it, first there was unprotected software which everyone was copying, then protections started being implemented as an effect. The F/OSS blossomed as an effect of that. And to be fair, Windows still allows you to use it very well without activation. most other commercial software doesn't even install, let alone run, without activation.
4. Automatic updates: sure they suck. But then again, I am torn on this, not really sure which way to lean, because it's a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" scenario. No updates means unpatched vulnerabilities and then you blame Microsoft. Forced updates means money lost if a metered connection is involved, and rare occasions when the OS breaks. So they picked their poison, and yours too.
5. "Class-action arbitration is forbidden" - is that even enforceable? I'm from the EU and here it's definitely not enforceable.
6. The Video part of the license is actually not really theirs. "ADDITIONAL INFORMATION MAY BE OBTAINED FROM MPEG LA, L.L.C. SEE (AKA.MS/MPEGLA)". Microsoft licensed that codec and sublicenses it to you. It's the same license spaghetti as the MP3 stuff which Linux distros suffered from for years - you had to download it manually and agree to its license terms separately, otherwise you couldn't even listen to an MP3 song.
Here's the thing: IT DOES NOT MATTER. :)
What happens in the USA right now is half the country fighting the other half, each saying their rotten meat piece is better. Quite sad, really, if you ask me. Luckily, nobody asks me anyway
Maybe (I'm not American) but the point is that you believe the choice STARTED there, whereas I believe the choice ENDED there.
And that, right there, is the result of "the will of the people", when people are dumb as a whole. They are willing to support a candidate, no matter how inane because it is pushed by the party they support - or the other way around, they're willing to support a whole political agenda because the person pushing it is a celebrity of sorts (magnate, singer, sportsman, etc). Whether it's the former or the latter depends on country and culture.
But very rarely, if ever, will you see the best candidate being chosen out of a pool of many (IMHO 100 is the bare minimum number) through objective train of thought and valid data analysis. THAT would be true choice: the freedom to look at objective information and filter data based on what's objectively best, ousting candidate after candidate until the best one remains, no matter the political party that stands behind him.
I know this is just utopian daydreaming and it would never happen (cue human nature), however if you want to talk choice and freedom, there they are.
What you have, politically speaking, are two colossal turds facing each other. One is blue and one is red, whatever that may mean, and they're orbited by specks of shit (the other political parties) which change allegiance according to their own largely irrelevant political agenda. It's a deadlock - and you call it "choice". Sorry, it ain't. But hey, be happy, it's "the will of the people", boo-hoo-fucking-ray!
The game developer was shocked because the game had been released 6 months ago and had all features implemented... but under Wine it looked like an early alpha with no textures.
Feel free to quote those unfair EULA terms.
Fear the true will of the people. Usually "the people" are a bunch of semi-primitives who have no clue what the fuck they are doing or whether whatever they seem to want is even achievable. Yes, everyone would love lots of money, free booze and no work to do, but besides that I don't think "the people" (as a whole, mind you, not those of them who have neurons in other places than their own gonads) are any good at deciding anything.
Governments never enacted the will of the people; they did what they thought was best for the country and their own pockets, with priorities varying from "most for my pockets" to "most for the country", with the former being more prevalent throughout history.
All voting processes are flawed in one way or another, so you can't even argue successfully that the ruling people were "chosen by the people". Most times they aren't. They're usually chosen by a group of people with power, and then the candidate is shown as "this is the one you should all vote!" and that's it. That's a lack of choice rather than a choice, much like "mouldy bread or spoiled meat" could be considered "choice".
Excel fills the nice.
It can also fill the awful just as well.
The GP doesn't like it so it must be bad.
Now, I've ditched complex formulas in favor of VBA a long time ago, probably around when Office 2007 got released. Stuff just works.
Literal translation would be: "First Far Far", while "messenger" is implied.
Note: I have no clue what I am talking about, take this as a bad attempt at a joke.