I would love for the day when I could sing happy birthday on screen without having to pay. But the issue is not that covers happen. The issue is that the media company is living a double standard. If you do the same with with their holdings, they'll make sure you pay up.
The article shows a correlation between volcanoes and dips in climate. Also they attribute all climate rise to mostly CO2 and say that solar/urbanization/etc has not caused noticeable climate change. They attribute CO2 increase to both humans and volcanoes.
If this is just a way to swap out archetectures in a box, that seems very useless to me. On the other hand if what they are providing, is something akin to sun boxes hot-swap that could be useful for uptime. On top of that, if it can just add additional CPUs to scaleup a system before doing a scaleout. That would be very beneficial to database managers. (Facebook is supporting this and that is one of their main logistical problems.)
The article is sparse on details though, so someone that knows what this standard can do should chime in.
I don't get it. Are we redesigning the whole computer archetecture so we have a different group specing out the north bridge (etc) that all CPU manufactures will use? Or are they just adding an additional cpu into the current architecture the same way we do with graphics cards? And then offloading work onto it, like people have been doing for a while with GPGPUs?
Except that it isn't a counterexample. At least if Superman understood what FsG was getting at. He is talking macro economics. If we look at the hypothetical that apple won't lower prices with lower production costs it is just bogus. They would have to find the price elasticity of demand and determine what gives them maximum profits. It might even be in the best interest of a "greedy" company to lower prices. But that is beyond the point, my statement was to help Superman understand FsG, because if he thought that was a valid counter-example then he didn't understand what FsG was saying. In an open market with no price fixing (colluding) than it's safe to assume competition will drive prices down as cost goes down. If he is making the argument that the US is rampant with price fixing, that's another issue.
His point was not that a specific instance of automation will lower the cost of that item. He is talking on the macro scale, responding to a misinformed argument. You can still argue what you are arguing without saying what he is saying is wrong. If moving manufacturing to automation lowers the cost of manufacturing, it might maximize profit to lower the price of their products, but it might maximize profit to keep it the same. We don't have the data. But in general, as efficiencies in an industry (not a specific company with a monopoly on "cool") improve, we see lower prices on the consumer side.
I believe Ahmadinejad is having a party right now. BYOT. While any sane person will be dissuaded from using it due to MAD, religious fanatics are not as sane.
And yet if you compare the statistics from my state to Hong Kong I get: Hong Kong citizens are 150 times more likely to be involved in a violent crime. I am 5 times more likely to have a theft than someone from Hong Kong.
I'm just going to go out on a limb here and say that our statistics need to be viewed by someone that understands how things are being reported and what it means. I find it hard to believe that Hong Kong has had no Burglary in the last three years with a gun. I also find it hard to believe that violent crime is so prevalent in Hong Kong when theft is so rare. It could be I am just culturally unaware, but one would assume people that have 15000% more violent crimes per capita would have at least similar if not more theft.
I follow it all and it makes sense. Except for the influence it has on the outcome of the bet. I am sure there is some measurable influence on the outcome of an election, but I'm not sold on it being able to sway an election to the point of being a good use of marketing dollars. Do we have any research in this field?
Interest rates went up at the same time square footage went up from '63-'82. '82 the mortgage rates peaked at almost 15%. From 1963-2000 the rates went up and we still saw buying power and house size and amenities increase. What history are you using? The rates were even lower in 1950. We just recently reached as low as they have been, but all my data is during the time in which rates soared. Get your facts straight.
So, you made me do my homework. Looks like rich are richer, middle class and poor are shrinking as households go to two income, and those that are poor are more likely to be in poverty. While we have data on current social mobility vs other countries we don't have historical data to make any projections about where we are heading.
My point was not to make you believe that social mobility was getting better, or that there were no problems. In general I think that profit motive is better managed in a capitalistic society vs a communist society. None of my friends that have "made it" had to pander to any bureaucrats. While this does occur in the USA, i would be extremely surprised if it compared at all to communist societies. Also, an interesting fact is that the top 1% in the USA change from year to year way more often than other countries. (I doubt that holds true for the top 0.1%, but that's beyond the point) Anywho, it's past my bedtime and I'm likely rambling so thanks for making me do my homework.
I have a friend that became a multi-millionaire. He did this by creating a business out of nothing. It was not handed to him for being in a specific crowd. I have another friend that made a million off of a home grown website. I have a brother who was denied entrance to Yale because he did not have "connections" (in spite of him having better scores than the other candidates. He then got a similar job along with the Yale student after his MBA (and without the debt).
All anecdotes, I admit, yet they attest to the American dream still living. Those who knock it, are those unwilling to try and fail and try again.
Most people I know would take the job loss. Union workers especially. During a job loss you pick up unemployment and you have health insurance saved up from your union dues. Why make less at your current company when you can lose your job take an unemployment vacation (and yeah as a union worker you get on a list and don't even look for work) and be picked up by another company down the road. The only reason they would have negotiated is if they saw NO prospects for future job markets.
Maybe I read a different article. They argument was penn state administration covered up the Sandusky stuff. Thus, with something as mild as academic fraud they'd be even more likely to cover it up. Where did they equate the two?
To someone that loves nature, urban areas very well can be soul crushing. His point was just that we each have different things that feed our souls.
I grew up in the suburbs and lived in a big city for years. Each has it's benefits, but the whole point of a suburb is that you are still within distance of all the theaters, shops, restaurants, etc. There are only a few reasons I won't live downtown anymore: Fenced backyard with large house for kids to play in. (Not feasible on my salary downtown) Safe Neighborhood. (again, there are some rich neighborhoods downtown with little to no crime, but i'm not able to live there)
Give me those two things and I'd move back downtown in a heartbeat. But as it is I get all the benefits of living downtown (it's only 20 mins away) without giving up a yard and safety.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution vs http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_selection Evolution happens by process of Natural Selection. People that refute human evolution often accept intra-species natural selection, but won't accept natural selection changing a species to a point where it cannot reproduce with a former version. Yet, generally speaking evolution and natural selection are synonymous.
I think the problem here is that everyone is a dissident in some circles. So while I hold opinion A and like to promote it, my (family/boss/co-worker/government) don't know that opinion and will keep treating me normal. If I start publicly promoting opinion A then I would be disowned/fired/disasociated/killed.
So we are all dissidents in that respect when we want to remain anonymous. Early supporters of rights for minorities and females would fall into this category. If you try and define what is legitimate to disagree with anonymously and what isn't, then you have already ruled out dissidents from opposing you without being subject to your prejudice/judgement/punishment.
Slashdot Mirror
I would love for the day when I could sing happy birthday on screen without having to pay. But the issue is not that covers happen. The issue is that the media company is living a double standard. If you do the same with with their holdings, they'll make sure you pay up.
Not to be pedantic, but I think I should clarify that 2.4Ghz has a longer wavelength. The longer wavelength penetrates walls better.
The article shows a correlation between volcanoes and dips in climate. Also they attribute all climate rise to mostly CO2 and say that solar/urbanization/etc has not caused noticeable climate change. They attribute CO2 increase to both humans and volcanoes.
See correlation here: http://berkeleyearth.org/volcanoes/ The theory is that the recent (1956+) rise is mostly AGW.
If this is just a way to swap out archetectures in a box, that seems very useless to me. On the other hand if what they are providing, is something akin to sun boxes hot-swap that could be useful for uptime. On top of that, if it can just add additional CPUs to scaleup a system before doing a scaleout. That would be very beneficial to database managers. (Facebook is supporting this and that is one of their main logistical problems.)
The article is sparse on details though, so someone that knows what this standard can do should chime in.
I don't get it. Are we redesigning the whole computer archetecture so we have a different group specing out the north bridge (etc) that all CPU manufactures will use? Or are they just adding an additional cpu into the current architecture the same way we do with graphics cards? And then offloading work onto it, like people have been doing for a while with GPGPUs?
Except that it isn't a counterexample. At least if Superman understood what FsG was getting at. He is talking macro economics. If we look at the hypothetical that apple won't lower prices with lower production costs it is just bogus. They would have to find the price elasticity of demand and determine what gives them maximum profits. It might even be in the best interest of a "greedy" company to lower prices. But that is beyond the point, my statement was to help Superman understand FsG, because if he thought that was a valid counter-example then he didn't understand what FsG was saying. In an open market with no price fixing (colluding) than it's safe to assume competition will drive prices down as cost goes down. If he is making the argument that the US is rampant with price fixing, that's another issue.
His point was not that a specific instance of automation will lower the cost of that item. He is talking on the macro scale, responding to a misinformed argument. You can still argue what you are arguing without saying what he is saying is wrong. If moving manufacturing to automation lowers the cost of manufacturing, it might maximize profit to lower the price of their products, but it might maximize profit to keep it the same. We don't have the data. But in general, as efficiencies in an industry (not a specific company with a monopoly on "cool") improve, we see lower prices on the consumer side.
I believe Ahmadinejad is having a party right now. BYOT. While any sane person will be dissuaded from using it due to MAD, religious fanatics are not as sane.
And yet if you compare the statistics from my state to Hong Kong I get:
Hong Kong citizens are 150 times more likely to be involved in a violent crime.
I am 5 times more likely to have a theft than someone from Hong Kong.
I'm just going to go out on a limb here and say that our statistics need to be viewed by someone that understands how things are being reported and what it means. I find it hard to believe that Hong Kong has had no Burglary in the last three years with a gun. I also find it hard to believe that violent crime is so prevalent in Hong Kong when theft is so rare. It could be I am just culturally unaware, but one would assume people that have 15000% more violent crimes per capita would have at least similar if not more theft.
I follow it all and it makes sense. Except for the influence it has on the outcome of the bet. I am sure there is some measurable influence on the outcome of an election, but I'm not sold on it being able to sway an election to the point of being a good use of marketing dollars. Do we have any research in this field?
Interest rates went up at the same time square footage went up from '63-'82. '82 the mortgage rates peaked at almost 15%. From 1963-2000 the rates went up and we still saw buying power and house size and amenities increase. What history are you using? The rates were even lower in 1950. We just recently reached as low as they have been, but all my data is during the time in which rates soared. Get your facts straight.
Their house purchasing power has gone up: http://www.nahb.org/assets/docs/publication/fft2001_8142002101506AM.pdf
Even adjusting for inflation we see that we are better off than historically. http://www.davemanuel.com/median-household-income.php I'm just not sure what data you are using to back up your argument.
We don't have any more disposable income (adjusting for inflation) than in the past, but we have more luxeries and larger homes.
So, you made me do my homework.
Looks like rich are richer, middle class and poor are shrinking as households go to two income, and those that are poor are more likely to be in poverty.
While we have data on current social mobility vs other countries we don't have historical data to make any projections about where we are heading.
My point was not to make you believe that social mobility was getting better, or that there were no problems. In general I think that profit motive is better managed in a capitalistic society vs a communist society. None of my friends that have "made it" had to pander to any bureaucrats. While this does occur in the USA, i would be extremely surprised if it compared at all to communist societies. Also, an interesting fact is that the top 1% in the USA change from year to year way more often than other countries. (I doubt that holds true for the top 0.1%, but that's beyond the point) Anywho, it's past my bedtime and I'm likely rambling so thanks for making me do my homework.
I have a friend that became a multi-millionaire. He did this by creating a business out of nothing. It was not handed to him for being in a specific crowd.
I have another friend that made a million off of a home grown website.
I have a brother who was denied entrance to Yale because he did not have "connections" (in spite of him having better scores than the other candidates. He then got a similar job along with the Yale student after his MBA (and without the debt).
All anecdotes, I admit, yet they attest to the American dream still living. Those who knock it, are those unwilling to try and fail and try again.
or, a more likely explination is http://xkcd.com/882/
Most people I know would take the job loss. Union workers especially. During a job loss you pick up unemployment and you have health insurance saved up from your union dues. Why make less at your current company when you can lose your job take an unemployment vacation (and yeah as a union worker you get on a list and don't even look for work) and be picked up by another company down the road. The only reason they would have negotiated is if they saw NO prospects for future job markets.
Maybe I read a different article. They argument was penn state administration covered up the Sandusky stuff. Thus, with something as mild as academic fraud they'd be even more likely to cover it up. Where did they equate the two?
With 128 million Chenese living on less than $365/year I think he's right. There is no data from 2012, 2011 is last complete year. (source: https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/ch.html)
To someone that loves nature, urban areas very well can be soul crushing. His point was just that we each have different things that feed our souls.
I grew up in the suburbs and lived in a big city for years. Each has it's benefits, but the whole point of a suburb is that you are still within distance of all the theaters, shops, restaurants, etc. There are only a few reasons I won't live downtown anymore:
Fenced backyard with large house for kids to play in. (Not feasible on my salary downtown)
Safe Neighborhood. (again, there are some rich neighborhoods downtown with little to no crime, but i'm not able to live there)
Give me those two things and I'd move back downtown in a heartbeat. But as it is I get all the benefits of living downtown (it's only 20 mins away) without giving up a yard and safety.
Wait, there's an article behind that? I thought they just linked to an add site.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution vs http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_selection
Evolution happens by process of Natural Selection. People that refute human evolution often accept intra-species natural selection, but won't accept natural selection changing a species to a point where it cannot reproduce with a former version. Yet, generally speaking evolution and natural selection are synonymous.
So, no, there is no huge difference.
Also,
1) Old campaign "You will be cool and fashionable as an Apple user"
2) New campaign "Only annoying geeks are Apple genius"
oblig http://xkcd.com/1074/
I think the problem here is that everyone is a dissident in some circles. So while I hold opinion A and like to promote it, my (family/boss/co-worker/government) don't know that opinion and will keep treating me normal. If I start publicly promoting opinion A then I would be disowned/fired/disasociated/killed.
So we are all dissidents in that respect when we want to remain anonymous. Early supporters of rights for minorities and females would fall into this category. If you try and define what is legitimate to disagree with anonymously and what isn't, then you have already ruled out dissidents from opposing you without being subject to your prejudice/judgement/punishment.
Touche, user error here, it was default sorted by the other column. Luckily for me, my state is at 1 murder/100k (which means likely .6 gun homicides).
We definitely catalog events better than other countries, at least most of the ones I've visited.