The Chinese education system is great for rote memorization at the high-school level. If businesses could be developed from the fact that you can pass high-school algebra or geography, then China would have us beat. But unfortunately for them, businesses happens through people that push the state-of-the-art, instead of just getting by with a passing grade. And the state-of-the-art is still at a very high level only achievable by few. Maybe post-grad linear algebra or combinatorics would be useful, but at this point China competes against the US university system, of which there is no peer.
And it's not necessarily through engineering that pushes the state-of-the-art, but through the other fields as well.
For example, can anyone name a single high-end chinese fashion designer, or a movie director? LOL.
I usually price stock at 1:1 price:revenue (a very traditional measure), in which case it's a $2-3 stock, reaching maybe $5 over the next couple of years.
In any case, Facebook is a dead-end for advertisers. They need to figure out a way to make money without advertisements, since social media is terrible for ads. Why would a company pay to have their ad next to a photo of your friend from high-school throwing up, when they can place it next to a fashion spread of Kate Moss? This is why social media will never compete against traditional media, because they won't be able to bring in the national advertising dollars, and will forever be stuck with local 10 cent ads.
They're trying to fix that with their edge-graph algorithm, to only shows you stories that are popular, but the problem with that is that it's a computed process, not an human-edited process that advertisers prefer. Also, this kills brand Facebook page views, so brands have less reason to care about Facebook if their stories only reach 6% of their likes. Twitter doesn't filter out your posts, so it reaches all your followers.
Facebook has an audience of 900 million, yet only makes $4billion/yr. Conde-Nast has an audience of maybe 20 million, yet also makes $4 billion, because professional human production & editing will always win over amateurs and computers.
"Freedom" these days means corporate control. The more "freedom" people have, the more corporations have power. Power has to go somewhere, so if power is taken away from government, it goes to the next powerful entity - corporations. The last place power goes to is to individuals. The only power individuals have is their ability to collectively gather and form a government, which in effect limits their own individual power.
An individual limiting their own power is a good thing.
"Freedom" at this point is a bad word. Adults already know that no one has "freedom". No one has ever had "freedom", from the times when kings existed to any democracy. They simply replaced one ruler (a king) with another (big govt), especially with millions of laws in place, each one designed to take away one less right.
And even when kings existed, they never had full power as well. Kings have always had to rely on public support to maintain their power, especially during the rise of the merchant middle class in the 1100's.
Let's remember that every libertarian "freedom" fighter with a 3rd grade educations is actually saying "I want to give corporations more power over competing smaller entities, including individuals."
This is why one must NEVER be a libertarian, and one must always believe in forceful social controls.
And that we must always fight against "freedom" that the Republican party wants, and their insane ego that causes them to feel they should have "freedom."
Let's transfer power away from individuals, and give them more to government. Redistribute power. It's a good thing.
Ultimately, the information Klout is trying to analyze all comes down to marketing, and for that, Klout needs a specific audience to measure influence with.
If I was running a fashion magazine targeted towards females, I would want to tell advertisers I have influence among women ages 24-45, with a certain amount of income, who are interested in shoes and bags. That's going to be different than the influence I have among male libertarian tech nerds, but unfortunately, Klout doesn't know the influence specific separate audiences (probably a billion combinations of different audience profiles), which is important now that marketers are targeting more specific niches.
Laws preventing the government from stepping on rights are not tyranical, nor are they alarming. What's alarming is that people who want these laws are the minority.
Protip: When making political points, instead of just crying and screaming, try to explain it in terms of how it benefits me, and not how much YOU want it.
Life is about me, it is not about you. As another citizen, explain to me why I should allow you "rights"? How does it benefit me if I allow you to own a gun? Will your gun give me more money? How will your rights and freedom benefit me? As far as I can tell, the only good thing you do for me is to pay taxes to government so that I can benefit from it.
A big, powerful government benefits me greatly, and I welcome your support of a big, powerful government through your tax dollars.
This is something "freedom" lovers don't understand. They think people live our lives for ideals, such as "freedom". NO ONE cares about "freedom". People only cares about the end result, namely, the tangible services and benefits that government provides.
And "freedom" in the end really is code-word for corporate control. Adults never use the term "freedom" in political discussion, since that is an elementary school concept. Adults already know that there is no such thing as "freedom." You do not had "freedom," and you never will. Adults only discuss tangible benefits that government actually provides.
Government is not a belief system.
Government is a giant Costco where everybody pools their money together to buy shit for themselves, such as healthcare, military, trains, police, etc., for a lower wholesale price than if they bought it themselves.
Re:Here we see the difference between Free and Sla
on
OS X Mountain Lion Review
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
Free software doesn't exist in industries that does not involve computers itself. This is the fundamental limitation of the free-software model, since it relies on its own industry to support it - you need other software engineers to make it happen.
But, most people don't use computers to use computers, they use them to do something else that DOESN'T involve computers. People are only interested in what gets that job done.
For example, there is no better tool than Apple's Aperture in cataloging and publishing photos within an hour of doing a photoshoot for a fashion magazine or newspaper. Free software doesn't even exist in that industry. (Lightroom isn't as good...) So, what are you going to use to code a free-software version of Aperture? A bunch of eager fashion models and stylists? =^D Who's going to code the controls of your kitchen's microwave ovens? A bunch of chefs?
Nobody else really cares about software. You still have to pay to play in these industries. If you can't pay, you don't play. Go do something else.
The final answer is: Government invented the internet, no matter what the dangerously right-wing Wall Street Journal falsely believes.
Seriously, the WSJ loves business too much. It needs to learn that business are the MOST dependent on government. The richer you are, the more dependent you are on government, since a larger portion of your wealth derives from government activities.
A poor person does not need a highway system, schools, or an army. Poor people do not give a fuck.
A rich person needs a highway so their employees can get to work and deliver products to customers. They need schools so their employees can read instructions. They need armies to control resources. They need courts & police to enforce these rules.
ALL of government was designed to make people rich, and this is why we liberals tax the wealthy more than the poor. It used to be a nice 70% income tax rate for the rich, before Reagan gave all the dumbassess a false sense of hope that they too can be rich if they work hard. Um no, not everyone can be rich. Dumb people cannot be rich, no matter how hard they work. And, rich people need to pay the benefits of dumb people, so that they can continue to be rich.
The smaller government, the poorer the people. The bigger the government, the richer the people.
Meanwhile, the worst part is the SEO-optimized headline "Who really invented the internet" that'll cause Googlers to reach this page, falsely thinking that businesses somehow invented the internet. Someone really needs to un-SEO this article.
The iPhone worked because people could use it as an iPod, and it had the whole exclusive iTunes infrastructure behind it.
Blackberry's killed it with their keyboard.
Android didn't get popular until the Droid came out with their keyboard, giving it that differentiation from the iPhone, and that it was available outside of Cingular/AT&T.
Windows phone doesn't really offer any exclusive hook that'll sell itself. It has a nice UI, but the other systems are pretty good and ultimately very usable.
I suspect they'll have to tie in deeper with the upcoming Windows 8 infrastructure to get Windows Phone to sell. Or maybe XBox games. But right now it doesn't have that absolutely exclusive must-have killer app or selling point.
It's really shame, because Windows phone is a perfectly fine system that just needs a critical mass to get going.
I still don't understand why States need to enforce federal laws.
If the federal government doesn't want to enforce laws, that's because they have a reason to - no need for states to get involved in international affairs.
(The answer is: Americans want illegal immigration to continue)
This privatization of the TSA will only serve to hand tax dollars to private companies with zero return.
In all cases, when government does a task themselves, you don't have to worry about waste corporations' demand for profit. Waste is only introduced when private for-profit corporations are brought in. Corporations just can't compete against government.
This is why sending mail via government costs pennies, while sending mail via UPS or FedEx costs $10 or more. Privatization only makes things wasteful and inefficient because companies can't compete when they have to make a profit.
We need to make sure people understand that socialism is a better solution than private corporations when solving societal problems, and we need to make sure to give more power to government in solving social problems, since private industry simply cannot solve social problems.
Fortunately it isn't TOO annoying here in PA. Shall issue, $20, good for five years, all it takes is "not being a criminal" pretty much.
Still more hassle than it should be (any hassle is too much hassle) but better than some states.
I still don't see the reason anyone would WANT to carry a gun. You just wasted $300 you could have spent at Starbucks or a new XBox or something. You don't need a security blanket everywhere, when you can simply live a riskier life.
Ultimately, do we really want to trust a segment of the population that hasn't figured out that guns are worthless?
The person attempting to separate a firearm from its owner is an agent of tyranny. It is moral, almost to the point of an obligation, to kill agents of tyranny or die trying.
OK good luck with that. We liberal tyrants have the bigger guns, with our big government and all. Not sure why you feel you need to be free.
The only thing freedom has ever done is hand control over to corporations.
Law-abiding citizens also use guns to murder their ex-wives.
We liberals will grab guns from the law-abiding citizen before we worry about grabbing them from criminals. It's actually the law-abiding citizen that's more of a threat than the criminal.
Want to know why? It's because gun-owners are conservatives, who have higher divorce rates, and therefore kill their ex-wives more. It is why homicide rates are higher in conservative societies than liberal societies.
Really, get rid of your gun. It builds character, something conservatives could use.
Do you have a magical box or something? How do you keep guns out of the hands of criminals? There would be a black market. The criminals are the ones you need to worry about having guns not law-abiding citizens. Also, why is banning guns from the country "the best thing"?
It's actually very possible to remove guns from society. There are several systematic methods of doing so, from going after manufacturing sources, distribution sources, to removing demand from end users. Legalize gambling, prostitution, weed & other drugs, for example, and you suddenly reduce criminal demand for guns, because those black markets are now gone.
There obviously is no technical constraint on removing guns from society. I'm sure YOU can figure out several methods on your own.
We need to get rid of guns because this cuts down on homicides. We ESPECIALLY need to get rid of guns from law-abiding gun-owning fuckwits. The law-abiding gun-owner is eventually going to have an argument with his ex-wife, and he's going to use his own gun to go kill her because he's really pissed off at her right now. We want to make sure this doesn't happen, and that it becomes much harder for the law-abiding citizen to kill his wife. He needs to use a knife or something else instead, at which point the effort costs too much.
Why would anyone sandpaper the casings? They'd just sandpaper the firing pin and the breech face - before heading off to kill someone.
You mean the average criminal fuckwit that doesn't know to leave an untraceable gun at the scene is going to figure out how to sandpaper a firing pin?
We liberals want to grab your guns because gun-nuts aren't smart enough to figure out how criminals actually behave. You actually think the average criminal is smart as you are.
If criminals had any skills at all, they wouldn't be criminals, but you gun-lovers haven't figured that one out yet.
No need for extra firing pins, though; a bit of sandpaper is all that is needed to remove the microstamping.
Criminals aren't going to stand around the crime scene, collect the casings, sandpaper them off, and put them back on the ground, before running off.
Really, you gun-nuts need to get a clue.
The best thing, of course, is to just ban guns from the country. Grab them from every household. The gun-nuts can easily get a different hobby, such as gardening. And government can train them to not live in constant fear for their lives, like we liberal gun-grabbers do.
The 2nd Amendment wasn't for your personal liberty. You do not have any personal liberty, something the libertarians don't understand. Everyone gets to live in the structure defined for them by society. Living inside the Matrix is no less valid than living outside the Matrix.
I've always bought the 17" (from power book G4 to last year's Sandy Bridge), not because of it's big display, but because it always had the highest pixel count for my photography work. Another exclusive of it was the Firewire 800 port, which was used by very specific people. The 17" model was always targeted at a specific pro market that needed these specific features, even though it was always a little too big to be practical.
The new 15" with Retina Display & firewire dongle pretty much nullifies the need for the old 17" model at this point, which I don't expect to return. The only thing the 17" model would do at this point is add bulk, which is not helpful.
Slashdot Mirror
was trying to concentrate here..
And since when did girls get on the internet?
Anyone know which browsers & httpd's are planning support for this soon? Webkit?
The Chinese education system is great for rote memorization at the high-school level. If businesses could be developed from the fact that you can pass high-school algebra or geography, then China would have us beat. But unfortunately for them, businesses happens through people that push the state-of-the-art, instead of just getting by with a passing grade. And the state-of-the-art is still at a very high level only achievable by few. Maybe post-grad linear algebra or combinatorics would be useful, but at this point China competes against the US university system, of which there is no peer.
And it's not necessarily through engineering that pushes the state-of-the-art, but through the other fields as well.
For example, can anyone name a single high-end chinese fashion designer, or a movie director? LOL.
Raw sensor frames only need 14-16 bits per pixel, with the added bonus of increased dynamic range.
I usually price stock at 1:1 price:revenue (a very traditional measure), in which case it's a $2-3 stock, reaching maybe $5 over the next couple of years.
In any case, Facebook is a dead-end for advertisers. They need to figure out a way to make money without advertisements, since social media is terrible for ads. Why would a company pay to have their ad next to a photo of your friend from high-school throwing up, when they can place it next to a fashion spread of Kate Moss? This is why social media will never compete against traditional media, because they won't be able to bring in the national advertising dollars, and will forever be stuck with local 10 cent ads.
They're trying to fix that with their edge-graph algorithm, to only shows you stories that are popular, but the problem with that is that it's a computed process, not an human-edited process that advertisers prefer. Also, this kills brand Facebook page views, so brands have less reason to care about Facebook if their stories only reach 6% of their likes. Twitter doesn't filter out your posts, so it reaches all your followers.
Facebook has an audience of 900 million, yet only makes $4billion/yr. Conde-Nast has an audience of maybe 20 million, yet also makes $4 billion, because professional human production & editing will always win over amateurs and computers.
"Freedom" these days means corporate control. The more "freedom" people have, the more corporations have power. Power has to go somewhere, so if power is taken away from government, it goes to the next powerful entity - corporations. The last place power goes to is to individuals. The only power individuals have is their ability to collectively gather and form a government, which in effect limits their own individual power.
An individual limiting their own power is a good thing.
"Freedom" at this point is a bad word. Adults already know that no one has "freedom". No one has ever had "freedom", from the times when kings existed to any democracy. They simply replaced one ruler (a king) with another (big govt), especially with millions of laws in place, each one designed to take away one less right.
And even when kings existed, they never had full power as well. Kings have always had to rely on public support to maintain their power, especially during the rise of the merchant middle class in the 1100's.
Let's remember that every libertarian "freedom" fighter with a 3rd grade educations is actually saying "I want to give corporations more power over competing smaller entities, including individuals."
This is why one must NEVER be a libertarian, and one must always believe in forceful social controls.
And that we must always fight against "freedom" that the Republican party wants, and their insane ego that causes them to feel they should have "freedom."
Let's transfer power away from individuals, and give them more to government. Redistribute power. It's a good thing.
A generic number is a horrible measure.
Ultimately, the information Klout is trying to analyze all comes down to marketing, and for that, Klout needs a specific audience to measure influence with.
If I was running a fashion magazine targeted towards females, I would want to tell advertisers I have influence among women ages 24-45, with a certain amount of income, who are interested in shoes and bags. That's going to be different than the influence I have among male libertarian tech nerds, but unfortunately, Klout doesn't know the influence specific separate audiences (probably a billion combinations of different audience profiles), which is important now that marketers are targeting more specific niches.
"Get your ass to Mars."
Laws preventing the government from stepping on rights are not tyranical, nor are they alarming. What's alarming is that people who want these laws are the minority.
Protip: When making political points, instead of just crying and screaming, try to explain it in terms of how it benefits me, and not how much YOU want it.
Life is about me, it is not about you. As another citizen, explain to me why I should allow you "rights"? How does it benefit me if I allow you to own a gun? Will your gun give me more money? How will your rights and freedom benefit me? As far as I can tell, the only good thing you do for me is to pay taxes to government so that I can benefit from it.
A big, powerful government benefits me greatly, and I welcome your support of a big, powerful government through your tax dollars.
This is something "freedom" lovers don't understand. They think people live our lives for ideals, such as "freedom". NO ONE cares about "freedom". People only cares about the end result, namely, the tangible services and benefits that government provides.
And "freedom" in the end really is code-word for corporate control. Adults never use the term "freedom" in political discussion, since that is an elementary school concept. Adults already know that there is no such thing as "freedom." You do not had "freedom," and you never will. Adults only discuss tangible benefits that government actually provides.
Government is not a belief system.
Government is a giant Costco where everybody pools their money together to buy shit for themselves, such as healthcare, military, trains, police, etc., for a lower wholesale price than if they bought it themselves.
Free software doesn't exist in industries that does not involve computers itself. This is the fundamental limitation of the free-software model, since it relies on its own industry to support it - you need other software engineers to make it happen.
But, most people don't use computers to use computers, they use them to do something else that DOESN'T involve computers. People are only interested in what gets that job done.
For example, there is no better tool than Apple's Aperture in cataloging and publishing photos within an hour of doing a photoshoot for a fashion magazine or newspaper. Free software doesn't even exist in that industry. (Lightroom isn't as good...) So, what are you going to use to code a free-software version of Aperture? A bunch of eager fashion models and stylists? =^D Who's going to code the controls of your kitchen's microwave ovens? A bunch of chefs?
Nobody else really cares about software. You still have to pay to play in these industries. If you can't pay, you don't play. Go do something else.
Indeed.
The final answer is: Government invented the internet, no matter what the dangerously right-wing Wall Street Journal falsely believes.
Seriously, the WSJ loves business too much. It needs to learn that business are the MOST dependent on government. The richer you are, the more dependent you are on government, since a larger portion of your wealth derives from government activities.
A poor person does not need a highway system, schools, or an army. Poor people do not give a fuck.
A rich person needs a highway so their employees can get to work and deliver products to customers. They need schools so their employees can read instructions. They need armies to control resources. They need courts & police to enforce these rules.
ALL of government was designed to make people rich, and this is why we liberals tax the wealthy more than the poor. It used to be a nice 70% income tax rate for the rich, before Reagan gave all the dumbassess a false sense of hope that they too can be rich if they work hard. Um no, not everyone can be rich. Dumb people cannot be rich, no matter how hard they work. And, rich people need to pay the benefits of dumb people, so that they can continue to be rich.
The smaller government, the poorer the people. The bigger the government, the richer the people.
Meanwhile, the worst part is the SEO-optimized headline "Who really invented the internet" that'll cause Googlers to reach this page, falsely thinking that businesses somehow invented the internet. Someone really needs to un-SEO this article.
The iPhone worked because people could use it as an iPod, and it had the whole exclusive iTunes infrastructure behind it.
Blackberry's killed it with their keyboard.
Android didn't get popular until the Droid came out with their keyboard, giving it that differentiation from the iPhone, and that it was available outside of Cingular/AT&T.
Windows phone doesn't really offer any exclusive hook that'll sell itself. It has a nice UI, but the other systems are pretty good and ultimately very usable.
I suspect they'll have to tie in deeper with the upcoming Windows 8 infrastructure to get Windows Phone to sell. Or maybe XBox games. But right now it doesn't have that absolutely exclusive must-have killer app or selling point.
It's really shame, because Windows phone is a perfectly fine system that just needs a critical mass to get going.
really have no reason to complain now..
GIVE THESE RABBITS AIR
I still don't understand why States need to enforce federal laws.
If the federal government doesn't want to enforce laws, that's because they have a reason to - no need for states to get involved in international affairs.
(The answer is: Americans want illegal immigration to continue)
This privatization of the TSA will only serve to hand tax dollars to private companies with zero return.
In all cases, when government does a task themselves, you don't have to worry about waste corporations' demand for profit. Waste is only introduced when private for-profit corporations are brought in. Corporations just can't compete against government.
This is why sending mail via government costs pennies, while sending mail via UPS or FedEx costs $10 or more. Privatization only makes things wasteful and inefficient because companies can't compete when they have to make a profit.
We need to make sure people understand that socialism is a better solution than private corporations when solving societal problems, and we need to make sure to give more power to government in solving social problems, since private industry simply cannot solve social problems.
Fortunately it isn't TOO annoying here in PA. Shall issue, $20, good for five years, all it takes is "not being a criminal" pretty much.
Still more hassle than it should be (any hassle is too much hassle) but better than some states.
I still don't see the reason anyone would WANT to carry a gun. You just wasted $300 you could have spent at Starbucks or a new XBox or something. You don't need a security blanket everywhere, when you can simply live a riskier life.
Ultimately, do we really want to trust a segment of the population that hasn't figured out that guns are worthless?
It's always the law-abiding citizen that ends up killing their ex-wife.
The focus of us liberal gun-grabbers is to remove guns from the law-abiding citizen, BEFORE they can kill their ex-wives.
The person attempting to separate a firearm from its owner is an agent of tyranny. It is moral, almost to the point of an obligation, to kill agents of tyranny or die trying.
OK good luck with that. We liberal tyrants have the bigger guns, with our big government and all. Not sure why you feel you need to be free.
The only thing freedom has ever done is hand control over to corporations.
You can sure try to arrest us... Best wear your vest and bring bigger guns....
OK.
Law-abiding citizens also use guns to murder their ex-wives.
We liberals will grab guns from the law-abiding citizen before we worry about grabbing them from criminals. It's actually the law-abiding citizen that's more of a threat than the criminal.
Want to know why? It's because gun-owners are conservatives, who have higher divorce rates, and therefore kill their ex-wives more. It is why homicide rates are higher in conservative societies than liberal societies.
Really, get rid of your gun. It builds character, something conservatives could use.
Do you have a magical box or something? How do you keep guns out of the hands of criminals? There would be a black market. The criminals are the ones you need to worry about having guns not law-abiding citizens. Also, why is banning guns from the country "the best thing"?
It's actually very possible to remove guns from society. There are several systematic methods of doing so, from going after manufacturing sources, distribution sources, to removing demand from end users. Legalize gambling, prostitution, weed & other drugs, for example, and you suddenly reduce criminal demand for guns, because those black markets are now gone.
There obviously is no technical constraint on removing guns from society. I'm sure YOU can figure out several methods on your own.
We need to get rid of guns because this cuts down on homicides. We ESPECIALLY need to get rid of guns from law-abiding gun-owning fuckwits. The law-abiding gun-owner is eventually going to have an argument with his ex-wife, and he's going to use his own gun to go kill her because he's really pissed off at her right now. We want to make sure this doesn't happen, and that it becomes much harder for the law-abiding citizen to kill his wife. He needs to use a knife or something else instead, at which point the effort costs too much.
Why would anyone sandpaper the casings? They'd just sandpaper the firing pin and the breech face - before heading off to kill someone.
You mean the average criminal fuckwit that doesn't know to leave an untraceable gun at the scene is going to figure out how to sandpaper a firing pin?
We liberals want to grab your guns because gun-nuts aren't smart enough to figure out how criminals actually behave. You actually think the average criminal is smart as you are.
If criminals had any skills at all, they wouldn't be criminals, but you gun-lovers haven't figured that one out yet.
No need for extra firing pins, though; a bit of sandpaper is all that is needed to remove the microstamping.
Criminals aren't going to stand around the crime scene, collect the casings, sandpaper them off, and put them back on the ground, before running off.
Really, you gun-nuts need to get a clue.
The best thing, of course, is to just ban guns from the country. Grab them from every household. The gun-nuts can easily get a different hobby, such as gardening. And government can train them to not live in constant fear for their lives, like we liberal gun-grabbers do.
The 2nd Amendment wasn't for your personal liberty. You do not have any personal liberty, something the libertarians don't understand. Everyone gets to live in the structure defined for them by society. Living inside the Matrix is no less valid than living outside the Matrix.
I've always bought the 17" (from power book G4 to last year's Sandy Bridge), not because of it's big display, but because it always had the highest pixel count for my photography work. Another exclusive of it was the Firewire 800 port, which was used by very specific people. The 17" model was always targeted at a specific pro market that needed these specific features, even though it was always a little too big to be practical.
The new 15" with Retina Display & firewire dongle pretty much nullifies the need for the old 17" model at this point, which I don't expect to return. The only thing the 17" model would do at this point is add bulk, which is not helpful.