The reason places become so expensive is because every one moves to these big cities from MANY other places. It doesn't work the other way around because there's probably 20 medium sized cities, and a 100 small towns for every big city. If people move out of the big cities, it's going to have a diluted effect.
"will become McMansion-infested suburban holes with high prices" not if they are doing what tgeller did, and buying existing vacant homes that had been sitting on the market(I would guess since it was "huge" and only $50k it had probably been on the market for awhile). He's not creating a demand for anything, he's just consuming the existing supply. I did the same thing, 1600 sq ft for $70k. I could have afforded something 4 times that price, but why? I don't need it. People like tgeller are by no means the cause of the problem you're describing. It's an insult to try and say as much. We are not the kind of people who have 3 jet skis, a boat, and Porsche sitting in our garage, and go eat at expensive restaurants every night so we can flush $100 down the toilet next day. I could buy the empty house across the street and hold on to it for the market to recover and make some money, but why? It's not that much money in the end, a huge hassle to deal with, and in the end does no one any good except making someone pay more for a house than they would have had to. IMO it's the same as domain squatting.
Unless people start doing stupid speculative things like buying up homes to hold on to and flip/resell or only buying expensive homes/condos, prices won't rise sharply.
Before the housing crash there were tons of condos being overbuilt, sitting vacant for months, and no affordable apartments could be had in my area. That problem is a result of the decisions of the housing development industry, not the people that live there. There were jobs available, but just about impossible to move to the area because there was no affordable apartments. It's one thing to talk about regular houses going up in price, but when you talk about condos and McMansions, that's not a problem with housing developers trying to create a market that they will make more profit in, and convince people they need those overpriced things. If people were like tgeller, that would happen less, because we don't buy ridiculous shit we don't need.
Also, developers often don't take into account other developments that are in the works and the impact that will have on the market. A bunch of them see a demand, and all put through development plans that take years, and then because they all built at once there is an over supply.
There's a point where the economies of scale reverse when it comes to population density, at least for some things. There's alot of statistics that show that several moderately sized communities are much more efficient than a single very large one.
If the article summary is accurate, the ruling was based on the judge's interpretation of the contract between the creators and publishers. So whether or not this is applicable in other scenarios, probably hinges on the text of the contracts in each scenario. Kind of like a question I see often about if a programmer writes some code for someone, who owns the product, and who owns the code? Each depends on the terms of the work agreement in that particular case.
True, I think they didn't try so hard to reinvent themselves at those times. I remember vaguely all kinds of problems with Win 95a and there was no upgrade to 95c.
Did Dell ever say? "Oh it's not fair to market a non-NT kernel OS as the now current and premier home OS?" NO, they didn't.
So yes, it holds that every other consumer Microsoft OS, regardless of what kernel they chose to use at the time, has been the result of somebody deciding they wanted to "think outside the box", "shake up" the OS industry, or whatever BS they thought was more important than quality control.
I can compare them. See my previous post and you'll see I did indeed compare them.
I think it's a perfectly fair comparison, considering MS marketed them all as home consumer products. It's like the movie Dogma, let them be judged them by their own beliefs. Why is the kernel significant? Why not some other attribute of the OS, like the filesystem?
None of that means jack shit to the average user, unless they bought a business workstation, when they bought a Dell, they probably got ME when it was the "next best thing" at the time.
I wouldn't want to buy that source code. 1) It probably wasn't written with long term adaptation and reuse in mind. 2) Why give EA any money at all? Just start an open source project and a kickstart campaign to fund a few fulltime developers.
Yeh, DirectX was almost an afterthought, upon realization that Windows didn't provide any access to graphics hardware and effectively locking out game developers. I believe it was bought from some other company under a different name.
Gluing shit together is what Linux has always been about. You want to accomplish some trivial task that almost everyone does everyday, expect to involve multiple commands being piped into one another, and hope you don't miss type something, because don't expect any of the safe guards you'd find in any proper integrated solution.
Yes, the solution is to use good layers of abstractions that allow you to easily port your content/assets from one system to another. There is a start in this area but not much that is very mature.
Any IT organization adopting cloud usage is taking a very big risk. I have always encouraged management to only use these for things where they are comfortable with it being temporary. Project management software, customer support management, etc. Things that wouldn't be a nightmare if you suddenly had to switch to something else, because you invested little in creating content in them.
The proprietary cloud is much more risky than the former proprietary inhouse system, at least with an inhouse system, end-of-support/bankrupt-vendor/etc. meant you could still use the system for the foreseeable future and gradually migrate away from it in a planned manner.
I don't buy EA games for completely different reasons regarding design and other issues I've encountered. I do play some of their Free to play. I love the free to play model because now friends can play together with little investment in the game. Most free to play games are not play-to-win. The stuff people spend tons of money is really quite pointless, but if they are supporting the game then that's fine by me. It's about like buying plastic spinners for your rims. To each his own.
I don't really care about micro transactions. If the game itself was worth $60 and you bought it, you have it. Years ago once you bought a game, you expected to play it awhile and then be done with it. Now we have DLC's that extend the enjoyment, and if the money isn't worth it to you, then don't buy it.
It's not like they are shutting you out of what you already payed for. That's what I'd really worry about, is when you put alot of money into something, but it isn't really yours. A lot of people got hosed when the Company of Heroes free2play went under. Think of all the gaming networks that have went under. Lots of games only supported multiplayer through those networks. Only in some cases did people figure out unstable hacks to get the multiplayer working again without those networks. Do you think these places like EA/Origin and Steam will be around forever? I only buy games on Steam that really cheap(i.e. old or on a big sale). I buy them knowing they won't be there forever, yet I enjoy the convenience of an easy reliable installation. I have to say that is one thing that is nice, is no surprises/junk systray junk you used to get with standalone installers. IMO Steam has a pretty unintrusive design, which I find respectable. When you right-click Exit it stops the downloads, etc. They don't even use their user's as torrent distribution network, which I bet a lot of other companies in their shoes would do.
Even skeptics who believed global warming was just normal climate cycles have funded independent studies which concluded that human activity is impacting the climate. So pretty much everyone who has done a scientific study, both the proponents and opponents, have found the same thing. After the many studies that have been done, your "waiting" is over, and you can safely declare yourself to be an idiot.
Is it so far fetched to imagine that there isn't a conspiracy, and his bias is just part of who he is? Humans are irrational. They form opinions and become entrenched in them. Millions of people are pretty biased in interpreting politics, not because they are part of some mass conspiracy, they are just stubborn and close minded.
Just as your monitor is at eye level, the TV would be at eye level to. If you are at an appropriate distance, then they will appear to be the same size. The keyboard and mouse would still be in the same relative place to your body.
I agree, layout of most apps are designed for a certain screen shape. When you only have a single larger monitor, maybe 50% more area, you wind up with two abnormally skinny apps side by side or on top of each other. Two regular sized monitors are better IMO
Also, 1920x1080 monitors are the defacto now just about, and you will get a better $/pixel value getting two of those instead of one less common resolution.
I personally use a 50" TV as a computer monitor. However, another reason to be wary of TV's is many have overscan, which basically will cut off the edge of your screen. You will have to configure a custom resolution that compensates or use scaling(which degrades image quality).
Majority of TV's will be 1920x1080 because that's standard HD. So the larger screen size doesn't buy you more screen, just makes it bigger so you can sit farther away.
There was usually some time frame requested, i.e. within the next 3 days. They aren't out of luck, because the nurse can make the call to allow them to see a doctor later than the computer says, or go to walk-in or emergency care if they think waiting too long would be bad. It's the nurse's judgement call to make, but they would always go through this cycle of denial before they finally decide to make a decision for themselves.
Staring out the window is actually beneficial. If you spend alot of time on "near work" such as staring at a screen, it is good for your eyes to take a break and stare at something in the distance for a short while. If you can walk to an empty conference room/break room that has a window.
I'm believe they are in slightly diminished roles. The US military has triage lines, where family members call in about medical problems, a registered nurse answers and then decides if the patient should self-care, book a Dr. appointment, or go to emergency room. I handled appointment booking, and sometimes the nurse would call and no appointments would be available and they'd get annoyed at me and say "Well that's what the computer told me to do."
I figured they had some sort of system that the nurse entered symptoms into, and it used the patient history+symptoms to suggest a self-treatment or triage to appointment/emergency room. I had also read about these systems in the book AI: A Modern Approach Even when the doctor doubted the diagnosis, the computer could even explain the conclusion(this is pretty advanced for an expert system) which would usually elicit a kind of "oh I didn't consider that factor" kind of realization from the Doctor.
I assume a registered nurse must still be involved to meet legal requirements, to properly elicit symptom information, and serve as a sanity check for the system. The problem, demonstrated by their response and inability to troubleshoot problems, is that they become completely trustful of the system. I imagine the opposite problem is also common, where they don't trust the system at all.
They also do things like "Hey, we need to replace the entire 'such-and-such' just because one tiny part in the 'such-and-such' is broken." If you are able to buy that tiny part yourself, at least you have the option to do it yourself or take it to an independent repair place and be specific about them replacing that part. Of course one could get into an argument about the labor cost of replacing that little part versus the entire... but the point is, if the manufacturer is the exclusive option for repairs, then they have a monopoly on repairs and will gradually side with the less thoughtful approach and potentially more costly/wasteful approaches. If the repair tech isn't feeling particularly motivated that day, they could tell you it's not repairable and say you need to buy a new one. Since there is no competition, it's not like you are going to take it elsewhere, so they have no incentive to maintain quality service.
I can see there reasoning for selecting javascript. But I would never call JS elegant. It lacks so many basic language constructs, that you everyone has to be intimately familiar with a mess of boiler plate code to make it object oriented or make your code easily reusable.
It's somewhat like programming in ASM because that's what every processor requires, even though it is tedious and redundant.
Similarly, with the pervasiveness of javascript, we will probably so TypeScript or something similar become the defacto eventually, to hide a lot of the boiler plate code.
Slashdot Mirror
The reason places become so expensive is because every one moves to these big cities from MANY other places. It doesn't work the other way around because there's probably 20 medium sized cities, and a 100 small towns for every big city. If people move out of the big cities, it's going to have a diluted effect.
"will become McMansion-infested suburban holes with high prices" not if they are doing what tgeller did, and buying existing vacant homes that had been sitting on the market(I would guess since it was "huge" and only $50k it had probably been on the market for awhile). He's not creating a demand for anything, he's just consuming the existing supply. I did the same thing, 1600 sq ft for $70k. I could have afforded something 4 times that price, but why? I don't need it. People like tgeller are by no means the cause of the problem you're describing. It's an insult to try and say as much. We are not the kind of people who have 3 jet skis, a boat, and Porsche sitting in our garage, and go eat at expensive restaurants every night so we can flush $100 down the toilet next day. I could buy the empty house across the street and hold on to it for the market to recover and make some money, but why? It's not that much money in the end, a huge hassle to deal with, and in the end does no one any good except making someone pay more for a house than they would have had to. IMO it's the same as domain squatting.
Unless people start doing stupid speculative things like buying up homes to hold on to and flip/resell or only buying expensive homes/condos, prices won't rise sharply.
Before the housing crash there were tons of condos being overbuilt, sitting vacant for months, and no affordable apartments could be had in my area. That problem is a result of the decisions of the housing development industry, not the people that live there. There were jobs available, but just about impossible to move to the area because there was no affordable apartments. It's one thing to talk about regular houses going up in price, but when you talk about condos and McMansions, that's not a problem with housing developers trying to create a market that they will make more profit in, and convince people they need those overpriced things. If people were like tgeller, that would happen less, because we don't buy ridiculous shit we don't need.
Also, developers often don't take into account other developments that are in the works and the impact that will have on the market. A bunch of them see a demand, and all put through development plans that take years, and then because they all built at once there is an over supply.
There's a point where the economies of scale reverse when it comes to population density, at least for some things. There's alot of statistics that show that several moderately sized communities are much more efficient than a single very large one.
"Smart people can't be educated. They can learn."
The only way this makes sense is if you're using some twisted cynical definition of smart, educate, and learn.
If the article summary is accurate, the ruling was based on the judge's interpretation of the contract between the creators and publishers. So whether or not this is applicable in other scenarios, probably hinges on the text of the contracts in each scenario. Kind of like a question I see often about if a programmer writes some code for someone, who owns the product, and who owns the code? Each depends on the terms of the work agreement in that particular case.
True, I think they didn't try so hard to reinvent themselves at those times. I remember vaguely all kinds of problems with Win 95a and there was no upgrade to 95c.
Did Dell ever say? "Oh it's not fair to market a non-NT kernel OS as the now current and premier home OS?" NO, they didn't.
So yes, it holds that every other consumer Microsoft OS, regardless of what kernel they chose to use at the time, has been the result of somebody deciding they wanted to "think outside the box", "shake up" the OS industry, or whatever BS they thought was more important than quality control.
I can compare them. See my previous post and you'll see I did indeed compare them.
I think it's a perfectly fair comparison, considering MS marketed them all as home consumer products. It's like the movie Dogma, let them be judged them by their own beliefs. Why is the kernel significant? Why not some other attribute of the OS, like the filesystem?
None of that means jack shit to the average user, unless they bought a business workstation, when they bought a Dell, they probably got ME when it was the "next best thing" at the time.
As Windows XP was to Windows ME
As Windows 98 was to Windows 95
It's like every other version is the experiment, followed by the practical application of it.
I wouldn't want to buy that source code. 1) It probably wasn't written with long term adaptation and reuse in mind. 2) Why give EA any money at all? Just start an open source project and a kickstart campaign to fund a few fulltime developers.
Yeh, DirectX was almost an afterthought, upon realization that Windows didn't provide any access to graphics hardware and effectively locking out game developers. I believe it was bought from some other company under a different name.
Gluing shit together is what Linux has always been about. You want to accomplish some trivial task that almost everyone does everyday, expect to involve multiple commands being piped into one another, and hope you don't miss type something, because don't expect any of the safe guards you'd find in any proper integrated solution.
Yes, the solution is to use good layers of abstractions that allow you to easily port your content/assets from one system to another. There is a start in this area but not much that is very mature.
Any IT organization adopting cloud usage is taking a very big risk. I have always encouraged management to only use these for things where they are comfortable with it being temporary. Project management software, customer support management, etc. Things that wouldn't be a nightmare if you suddenly had to switch to something else, because you invested little in creating content in them.
The proprietary cloud is much more risky than the former proprietary inhouse system, at least with an inhouse system, end-of-support/bankrupt-vendor/etc. meant you could still use the system for the foreseeable future and gradually migrate away from it in a planned manner.
I don't buy EA games for completely different reasons regarding design and other issues I've encountered. I do play some of their Free to play. I love the free to play model because now friends can play together with little investment in the game. Most free to play games are not play-to-win. The stuff people spend tons of money is really quite pointless, but if they are supporting the game then that's fine by me. It's about like buying plastic spinners for your rims. To each his own.
I don't really care about micro transactions. If the game itself was worth $60 and you bought it, you have it. Years ago once you bought a game, you expected to play it awhile and then be done with it. Now we have DLC's that extend the enjoyment, and if the money isn't worth it to you, then don't buy it.
It's not like they are shutting you out of what you already payed for. That's what I'd really worry about, is when you put alot of money into something, but it isn't really yours. A lot of people got hosed when the Company of Heroes free2play went under. Think of all the gaming networks that have went under. Lots of games only supported multiplayer through those networks. Only in some cases did people figure out unstable hacks to get the multiplayer working again without those networks. Do you think these places like EA/Origin and Steam will be around forever? I only buy games on Steam that really cheap(i.e. old or on a big sale). I buy them knowing they won't be there forever, yet I enjoy the convenience of an easy reliable installation. I have to say that is one thing that is nice, is no surprises/junk systray junk you used to get with standalone installers. IMO Steam has a pretty unintrusive design, which I find respectable. When you right-click Exit it stops the downloads, etc. They don't even use their user's as torrent distribution network, which I bet a lot of other companies in their shoes would do.
Even skeptics who believed global warming was just normal climate cycles have funded independent studies which concluded that human activity is impacting the climate. So pretty much everyone who has done a scientific study, both the proponents and opponents, have found the same thing. After the many studies that have been done, your "waiting" is over, and you can safely declare yourself to be an idiot.
"The U.S. postal service ... are also competing against USPS " They ARE the USPS :) I assume you meant "against UPS"
Is it so far fetched to imagine that there isn't a conspiracy, and his bias is just part of who he is? Humans are irrational. They form opinions and become entrenched in them. Millions of people are pretty biased in interpreting politics, not because they are part of some mass conspiracy, they are just stubborn and close minded.
Just as your monitor is at eye level, the TV would be at eye level to. If you are at an appropriate distance, then they will appear to be the same size. The keyboard and mouse would still be in the same relative place to your body.
I agree, layout of most apps are designed for a certain screen shape. When you only have a single larger monitor, maybe 50% more area, you wind up with two abnormally skinny apps side by side or on top of each other. Two regular sized monitors are better IMO
Also, 1920x1080 monitors are the defacto now just about, and you will get a better $/pixel value getting two of those instead of one less common resolution.
I personally use a 50" TV as a computer monitor. However, another reason to be wary of TV's is many have overscan, which basically will cut off the edge of your screen. You will have to configure a custom resolution that compensates or use scaling(which degrades image quality).
Majority of TV's will be 1920x1080 because that's standard HD. So the larger screen size doesn't buy you more screen, just makes it bigger so you can sit farther away.
There was usually some time frame requested, i.e. within the next 3 days. They aren't out of luck, because the nurse can make the call to allow them to see a doctor later than the computer says, or go to walk-in or emergency care if they think waiting too long would be bad. It's the nurse's judgement call to make, but they would always go through this cycle of denial before they finally decide to make a decision for themselves.
Staring out the window is actually beneficial. If you spend alot of time on "near work" such as staring at a screen, it is good for your eyes to take a break and stare at something in the distance for a short while. If you can walk to an empty conference room/break room that has a window.
I'm believe they are in slightly diminished roles. The US military has triage lines, where family members call in about medical problems, a registered nurse answers and then decides if the patient should self-care, book a Dr. appointment, or go to emergency room. I handled appointment booking, and sometimes the nurse would call and no appointments would be available and they'd get annoyed at me and say "Well that's what the computer told me to do."
I figured they had some sort of system that the nurse entered symptoms into, and it used the patient history+symptoms to suggest a self-treatment or triage to appointment/emergency room. I had also read about these systems in the book AI: A Modern Approach Even when the doctor doubted the diagnosis, the computer could even explain the conclusion(this is pretty advanced for an expert system) which would usually elicit a kind of "oh I didn't consider that factor" kind of realization from the Doctor.
I assume a registered nurse must still be involved to meet legal requirements, to properly elicit symptom information, and serve as a sanity check for the system. The problem, demonstrated by their response and inability to troubleshoot problems, is that they become completely trustful of the system. I imagine the opposite problem is also common, where they don't trust the system at all.
When you said "very much a technology of the future" I was thinking 5+ years maybe, 2014 isn't too bad. But very interesting.
They also do things like "Hey, we need to replace the entire 'such-and-such' just because one tiny part in the 'such-and-such' is broken." If you are able to buy that tiny part yourself, at least you have the option to do it yourself or take it to an independent repair place and be specific about them replacing that part. Of course one could get into an argument about the labor cost of replacing that little part versus the entire... but the point is, if the manufacturer is the exclusive option for repairs, then they have a monopoly on repairs and will gradually side with the less thoughtful approach and potentially more costly/wasteful approaches. If the repair tech isn't feeling particularly motivated that day, they could tell you it's not repairable and say you need to buy a new one. Since there is no competition, it's not like you are going to take it elsewhere, so they have no incentive to maintain quality service.
I can see there reasoning for selecting javascript. But I would never call JS elegant. It lacks so many basic language constructs, that you everyone has to be intimately familiar with a mess of boiler plate code to make it object oriented or make your code easily reusable.
It's somewhat like programming in ASM because that's what every processor requires, even though it is tedious and redundant.
Similarly, with the pervasiveness of javascript, we will probably so TypeScript or something similar become the defacto eventually, to hide a lot of the boiler plate code.
"hosed by U.S. companies"