She probably wasn't supposed to tell me that, but the whole thing seems reasonable enough to me now -- I still call 'em "door nazis" out of habit though.
I was with you until you said the whole thing seems reasonable. Any company with electronic registers knows exactly what is on your receipt without having to visually inspect it. In real time. Without harassing you.
I saw a few like that. Those were also by newish sellers, whose descriptions conflicted with pictures or even other parts (is it 20 or 60GB?), had reserves in place which had to be assumed to be high since the buy-it-now is $1500.
The point being: If a reputable dealer was selling ps3's at retail+20%+shipping, it was not go unbid. The original statement of ps3's NOT going for retail is extremely misleading. It was implying that people couldn't even unload them at reatail. Feel free to point out some auctions that meet that context, since you also indicate people can't even get rid of them at retail.
Yes, because an open auction is indicative of the final price in this day and age of auction sniping and "reserves not met".
Just because someone won't part with it for less than a $200 profit doesn't mean that your statement that they are not selling for more than retail is factual.
absolutely. I certainly don't want to play with random dipshits. I just want to come home from work, veg out for about 45 minutes playing a game, then get back to life.
I'm not sure that time machine wouldn't do the same thing. It is a pretty motivating feature to include. I guess we'll find out on release. Until then, I have zero qualms about paying for superduper! as a stopgap. Cheap, effective, straightforward.
SuperDuper! is for people that realize that reinventing the wheel is bad use of their time. Though with time machine Jaguar(OS X 10.5), it will become obsolete. Rsync is still quite viable in remote mirroring, though.
Ok, then you agree that there is something unique and interesting with the finder. Great. But nobody said anything about it being new. No argument there.
Now as to replacing it, that is what spotlight will hope to be doing. Finder is certainly better than spotlight at this stage of the game. Definitely better than window explorer. At least I can drop to a real prompt and make any hierarchy I want with hard and soft links.
It always surprises me (even though it shouldn't anymore) that so many on/. are so dependent on menus for such simple things as: open, save, close, copy, paste, etc...
cmd-q, cmd-h, cmd-w are so ingrained in my fingers (I mean, left hand is on the keyboard anyways) and so quick. alt-f4, alt-space n, and cntl-f4 as comparable keystrokes are simply ridiculous. If I had to use them, I'd use my mouse, too. . .
oops, also you forgot to include taxes in your calculations. It was so long since my original post, I forgot we were talking reality vs academic, and taxes are so very very real:(
So, the number of times the payout *.4 (fed + state) > $146MM is even lower. Your $365MM big win drops to about $185MM lump then $111MM. So, you can only play in situations where the published number is what, $480MM?
Nevertheless, your point that the lottery can in some situations will have +EV still stands. You just are never in a position to take advantage of it.
I did neglect the fact that in certain situations, the value will exceed the odds. That's a good point. So yes, at certain points in time EV goes positive. (assuming odds of picking powerball winning numbers is 146,000,000:1. [5 from a bucket of 55 balls, 1 from a bucket of 42 => (5!/(55*54*53*52*51))*(1/42)] )
However, this is also simplifying in looking at a single all or nothing scenario, meaning that it would take many many iterations before this would hold true. However, the number of bets needed to make EV useful exceeds the number of opportunities you will have in your lifetime. Thank you for pointing out my oversight an generalization, though.
People keep talking about GODOS, and there is a lot of documentation, but I don't know anyone that's actually used it. Plus, as a game platform it only runs HALO
A mathematician would look at his Expected Value as it pertains to game theory. As such, yes it may be that in certain situations there is +EV, but they don't exist in reality. This is due to the fact that MORE people would play, cutting down on what you could possibly win (splitting pots, etc).
If there ever comes a time when there is +EV for a play in the lottery, then I guarantee that the lottery would cease to exist -- the pot would change. The people running the lottery kinda pay attention to that. Academically, the lottery is very interesting, however in the real world, no mathematician would ever put money on the line expecting +EV.
Let me re-phrase the joke for you that once made sense when you were young:
Anyone that pays for a lottery ticket ever expecting more money back is not good at math as the lottery is designed to be a -EV situation.
Actually, my dear idiot, the same concept applies to both, although the monetary balance flips. A small expenditure for an incredibly unlikely great reward shares startling fundamentals with a relatively small expenditure for an unlikely great risk. In both cases you are a net loser, but one would have to be a startling idiot to say that home insurance is only for people who are bad at math.
You really don't put any thought into your replies, do you? People that pay for home insurance do so because they cannot afford the risk, WHICH IS VERY REAL. I.e. A high probability relative to winning the lottery. As that risk decreases, the number of people carrying the insurance drops.
You apparently believe that people in Kansas should buy insurance against icebergs.
Me, I feel that taking the odds of an occurrence happening in addition to the "great risk" and the "small expenditure". You have taken the side that the odds don't matter.
Additionally, those who can afford to cover a large loss SELF INSURE because it is overall more profitable. Obviously, you are not in that situation or it would have occurred to you. I hope you become successful, though any success will obviously not be based on critical thinking. Your brand of logic smarts of amateur emulation of Limbaugh or Hannity... it sounds great on its face, but cannot stand up to inspection. Your only success can only come at being critical (however incorrectly) of others while contributing zilch yourself.
Oh, and your repetition of "my dear idiot" shows you as terribly uncreative. Your writing smacks of arrogance (as I said earlier and you have proven that out again and again) and of a fragile psyche. In this particular situation you are wrong, and the sooner you admit it, the sooner you can get on with life, you chowder head.
Hey, chalk that one off - the sub retarded monkey has that one covered.
*sigh* your writing style has made this sentence unintelligible. Your antecedents have become thoroughly lost.
Oh, and let me guess - home insurance is a scam, right? I mean the premium xs the statistical period loss definitely makes it a losers game, right?
Even a retarded monkey wouldn't confuse a risk-reward scenario with a risk alleviation scenario. You make me laugh. Why do you even try? You keep falling on your face. Once again, no argument, simply utterly stupid comments.
Slashdot Mirror
I saw a few like that. Those were also by newish sellers, whose descriptions conflicted with pictures or even other parts (is it 20 or 60GB?), had reserves in place which had to be assumed to be high since the buy-it-now is $1500.
The point being: If a reputable dealer was selling ps3's at retail+20%+shipping, it was not go unbid. The original statement of ps3's NOT going for retail is extremely misleading. It was implying that people couldn't even unload them at reatail. Feel free to point out some auctions that meet that context, since you also indicate people can't even get rid of them at retail.
Just because someone won't part with it for less than a $200 profit doesn't mean that your statement that they are not selling for more than retail is factual.
Well, let's hope that designing a platform without HDD or larger capacity than DVD in its core system wasn't a stupid thing to do.
yeah.. It is scary.
absolutely. I certainly don't want to play with random dipshits. I just want to come home from work, veg out for about 45 minutes playing a game, then get back to life.
I'll just assume the rest of your post is make believe, too.
Yep, it's called jpg
yep, cause they think about security last. . .
Can we flame you about running Oracle!?!?
I'm not sure that time machine wouldn't do the same thing. It is a pretty motivating feature to include. I guess we'll find out on release. Until then, I have zero qualms about paying for superduper! as a stopgap. Cheap, effective, straightforward.
duh, yes of course.. oops.
SuperDuper! is for people that realize that reinventing the wheel is bad use of their time. Though with time machine Jaguar(OS X 10.5), it will become obsolete. Rsync is still quite viable in remote mirroring, though.
Ok, then you agree that there is something unique and interesting with the finder. Great. But nobody said anything about it being new. No argument there.
Now as to replacing it, that is what spotlight will hope to be doing. Finder is certainly better than spotlight at this stage of the game. Definitely better than window explorer. At least I can drop to a real prompt and make any hierarchy I want with hard and soft links.That's my #1 hope for Jaguar.. I don't want an everything spotlight, I want a configurable app launcher. QS is always the first thing I install.
I think spring loaded folders are unique and interesting, and certainly useful...
oops, also you forgot to include taxes in your calculations. It was so long since my original post, I forgot we were talking reality vs academic, and taxes are so very very real :(
So, the number of times the payout * .4 (fed + state) > $146MM is even lower. Your $365MM big win drops to about $185MM lump then $111MM. So, you can only play in situations where the published number is what, $480MM?
Nevertheless, your point that the lottery can in some situations will have +EV still stands. You just are never in a position to take advantage of it.I did neglect the fact that in certain situations, the value will exceed the odds. That's a good point. So yes, at certain points in time EV goes positive. (assuming odds of picking powerball winning numbers is 146,000,000:1. [5 from a bucket of 55 balls, 1 from a bucket of 42 => (5!/(55*54*53*52*51))*(1/42)] )
However, this is also simplifying in looking at a single all or nothing scenario, meaning that it would take many many iterations before this would hold true. However, the number of bets needed to make EV useful exceeds the number of opportunities you will have in your lifetime. Thank you for pointing out my oversight an generalization, though.People keep talking about GODOS, and there is a lot of documentation, but I don't know anyone that's actually used it. Plus, as a game platform it only runs HALO
And that brings us full circle to my point: The odds need to be taken into consideration.
Thank you,QED
A mathematician would look at his Expected Value as it pertains to game theory. As such, yes it may be that in certain situations there is +EV, but they don't exist in reality. This is due to the fact that MORE people would play, cutting down on what you could possibly win (splitting pots, etc).
If there ever comes a time when there is +EV for a play in the lottery, then I guarantee that the lottery would cease to exist -- the pot would change. The people running the lottery kinda pay attention to that. Academically, the lottery is very interesting, however in the real world, no mathematician would ever put money on the line expecting +EV.
Let me re-phrase the joke for you that once made sense when you were young: Anyone that pays for a lottery ticket ever expecting more money back is not good at math as the lottery is designed to be a -EV situation.You really don't put any thought into your replies, do you? People that pay for home insurance do so because they cannot afford the risk, WHICH IS VERY REAL. I.e. A high probability relative to winning the lottery. As that risk decreases, the number of people carrying the insurance drops.
You apparently believe that people in Kansas should buy insurance against icebergs.
Me, I feel that taking the odds of an occurrence happening in addition to the "great risk" and the "small expenditure". You have taken the side that the odds don't matter.
Additionally, those who can afford to cover a large loss SELF INSURE because it is overall more profitable. Obviously, you are not in that situation or it would have occurred to you. I hope you become successful, though any success will obviously not be based on critical thinking. Your brand of logic smarts of amateur emulation of Limbaugh or Hannity... it sounds great on its face, but cannot stand up to inspection. Your only success can only come at being critical (however incorrectly) of others while contributing zilch yourself.
Oh, and your repetition of "my dear idiot" shows you as terribly uncreative. Your writing smacks of arrogance (as I said earlier and you have proven that out again and again) and of a fragile psyche. In this particular situation you are wrong, and the sooner you admit it, the sooner you can get on with life, you chowder head.
*sigh* your writing style has made this sentence unintelligible. Your antecedents have become thoroughly lost.