Rewards typically always require risks. If I were an NC legislator, I'd seriously consider reaping rewards of millions or billions of dollars for my state with the understanding that if the worst fears of AGW alarmism pan out, all of that could literally go underwater in the next 100 years. But it's arguably not actually even that risky, because building and further data collection will happen at the same time, at a gradual pace. If the AGW alarmists' predictions come true (which would be a first), we should see it happening and be able to react and at least limit losses.
And there's nothing insidious and evil about trusting historical data more than the most complex empirically derived computer models, which are typically just about as valid to extrapolate as a stock market trend.
I disagree with your entire premise here. It's very common for academic papers to use big words and dense descriptions. Exceptions (ironically) include ESL writers who may be fluent in their field's jargon but not in wider English; and also more gifted writers who are able to say what they want without using a five dollar word where a fifty cent word would do (as Mark Twain put it).
I probably should have said something more insightful like, hmm, I didn't know facebook and google didn't work on mobile devices,
oh, wait, they do
In fact, I probably use google maps more on my iphone than on my desktop.
How much do you pay for using Google maps? Do you follow ads a lot? If the answer is that you don't pay anything to Google for your mobile maps, and you don't follow ads, then how is Google making money off you? The same observation applies to Facebook.
Facebook has over 900 million active users, more than half of them using mobile devices.
Kinda flies in the face of what Cuban said, doesn't it.
I disagree; it wouldn't matter if that number was 99% that are using it on mobile. The question is, is Facebook effectively monetizing those people, or are they just using the free service. If the latter, Facebook's goose may be cooked. Free is fun, but all those servers sure ain't free to Facebook.
That's my sense as well. It seems like Microsoft's strategy is to go lighter on foreign piracy specifically. For example, I think it would make the most sense for them to try to censor Google, but not Baidu. The First World has both money and (somewhat) effective legal enforcement.
I wouldn't expect Google to have the same interest in censoring Android app results on Bing, because the relatively few apps actually owned by Google are generally released for free anyway, whereas Microsoft has a ton of commercial software that many people consider desirable to rip off, like Windows, Office, MS Game Studios titles, etc.
Recall that in general for Microsoft, software is something they create to sell to the public. For Google, software is something they give away free so that they can sell people's private browsing experiences to advertisers.
Google doesn't really innovate or do any research. The closest you get is the 20% time they give to engineers (note that not for other personnel). In fact, the only real products Google has made in-house are their search engine and gmail. Everything else (YouTube, Google Earth, Maps, Android) have been buy-outs of startups or copied, like Google+.
What about their self-driving cars? What about their glasses and stuff? They have a lot of secret research projects that they are allegedly spending billions on. Are you trolling, or am I misunderstanding you?
That's not what I was saying. They could know something was wrong without figuring out how he pulled it off. A raised eyebrow doesn't imply a pursuit and tackle.
Somehow I doubt that the cashiers follow Lego pricing so closely. To someone with any amount of ignorance on the merchandise, $50 may seem like a reasonable price on a large box of plastic foot needles.
Also keep in mind the repetitive, mind-numbing task cashiers perform. After a while, I doubt they even notice what it was they rung up. Scan, bag, repeat x N. Total, swipe, next. Try that for five or six 8-hour days in a row, for hundreds of customers, then see how much you notice or care about the merchandise.
Wow, you have a high opinion of human beings./sarc
It actually works pretty much the exact opposite way from what you said. While a beginning cashier may be flustered, the more experienced cashiers actually observe more details, because they're no longer stressing with the basic mechanics of checkout, and they also are more familiar with the products. The human mind is a restless thing. You better believe they notice what you are buying.
Cash register workers are smarter and more observant than you may think. Purchasing a $280 Lego set for $50 will raise all kinds of eyebrows. Shucks, I bet some of the workers ran back to see if they could buy one themselves. So Tom was definitely an idiot, risking his entire career and reputation like this. I expect that he would have been apprehended much sooner if not for most people's intimidation by technology -- being unaware of how easy it is to create a fake bar code.
You may wish to say even, that the job of a congress person is to try and corrupt the system.
I agree with a lot of what you said, but I don't understand what you mean above. I'd probably describe the job of a congressperson something like: to write laws that their constituents find fair, appropriate, and consistent with our foundational laws, as you referenced (i.e. the Constitution).
Slavery is against the law. It stinks that the recording industry can claim absurd penalties like this, but Tenenbaum can at least get a court to declare bankruptcy and move on with his life. (IANAL, somebody correct me if I'm wrong.)
I disagree. The legislative branch (i.e. Congress) is most at fault here. If you think the default solution to society's problems is for the judicial branch to override the laws of the land, you are asking for trouble. That's appropriate in a few cases, but it's better to blame those who wrote the bad laws in the first place.
That sounds kind of cold and dirty and dangerous to me. But you know, it's a free country. If a person and his/her gun really love each other, I guess they could get married.
I'm not denying that taxation has it's place, it's just that I see a politician saying, "Let's change the law to penalize people who try to leave the country" and I think "Really?"
The legislature should not be trying to build "walls" to keep people from leaving, but should rather work on making the USA a desirable place to live. If a few rich people expatriate, it's not the end of the world. I think bitter politicians like these Dem senators give the USA a bad image.
Didn't read the article, but I imagine that part of the difficulty is that network capacity isn't reducible to an individual scalar number, but rather looks like an N-dimensional graph. There are many points of failure and bottleneck depending on how each node behaves relative to other nodes.
Slashdot Mirror
Rewards typically always require risks. If I were an NC legislator, I'd seriously consider reaping rewards of millions or billions of dollars for my state with the understanding that if the worst fears of AGW alarmism pan out, all of that could literally go underwater in the next 100 years. But it's arguably not actually even that risky, because building and further data collection will happen at the same time, at a gradual pace. If the AGW alarmists' predictions come true (which would be a first), we should see it happening and be able to react and at least limit losses.
And there's nothing insidious and evil about trusting historical data more than the most complex empirically derived computer models, which are typically just about as valid to extrapolate as a stock market trend.
I disagree with your entire premise here. It's very common for academic papers to use big words and dense descriptions. Exceptions (ironically) include ESL writers who may be fluent in their field's jargon but not in wider English; and also more gifted writers who are able to say what they want without using a five dollar word where a fifty cent word would do (as Mark Twain put it).
So the most effective hacker gets to determine the representative's positions?
Terms like "Culturally congruent risk perception" have no obvious meaning for the general reader. Field-specific jargon is just annoying
I did have to think about it for a second, but I don't find that phrase particularly field specific. YMMV
I have no idea why your post was modded as troll, except maybe for the dollar signs in M$. Everything you said was spot-on. Cheers, dude.
N, y wll mr lkly g bnkrpt. Bsds, th Hbrw lngg hs bn nvntd lrdy.
I probably should have said something more insightful like, hmm, I didn't know facebook and google didn't work on mobile devices, oh, wait, they do In fact, I probably use google maps more on my iphone than on my desktop.
How much do you pay for using Google maps? Do you follow ads a lot? If the answer is that you don't pay anything to Google for your mobile maps, and you don't follow ads, then how is Google making money off you? The same observation applies to Facebook.
Kinda flies in the face of what Cuban said, doesn't it.
I disagree; it wouldn't matter if that number was 99% that are using it on mobile. The question is, is Facebook effectively monetizing those people, or are they just using the free service. If the latter, Facebook's goose may be cooked. Free is fun, but all those servers sure ain't free to Facebook.
That's my sense as well. It seems like Microsoft's strategy is to go lighter on foreign piracy specifically. For example, I think it would make the most sense for them to try to censor Google, but not Baidu. The First World has both money and (somewhat) effective legal enforcement.
I wouldn't expect Google to have the same interest in censoring Android app results on Bing, because the relatively few apps actually owned by Google are generally released for free anyway, whereas Microsoft has a ton of commercial software that many people consider desirable to rip off, like Windows, Office, MS Game Studios titles, etc.
Recall that in general for Microsoft, software is something they create to sell to the public. For Google, software is something they give away free so that they can sell people's private browsing experiences to advertisers.
Google doesn't really innovate or do any research. The closest you get is the 20% time they give to engineers (note that not for other personnel). In fact, the only real products Google has made in-house are their search engine and gmail. Everything else (YouTube, Google Earth, Maps, Android) have been buy-outs of startups or copied, like Google+.
What about their self-driving cars? What about their glasses and stuff? They have a lot of secret research projects that they are allegedly spending billions on. Are you trolling, or am I misunderstanding you?
That's not what I was saying. They could know something was wrong without figuring out how he pulled it off. A raised eyebrow doesn't imply a pursuit and tackle.
Yep, true observations. It's fun to approach illegal activities as an engineering problem. But pretty stupid to act on them!
Somehow I doubt that the cashiers follow Lego pricing so closely. To someone with any amount of ignorance on the merchandise, $50 may seem like a reasonable price on a large box of plastic foot needles.
Also keep in mind the repetitive, mind-numbing task cashiers perform. After a while, I doubt they even notice what it was they rung up. Scan, bag, repeat x N. Total, swipe, next. Try that for five or six 8-hour days in a row, for hundreds of customers, then see how much you notice or care about the merchandise.
Wow, you have a high opinion of human beings. /sarc
It actually works pretty much the exact opposite way from what you said. While a beginning cashier may be flustered, the more experienced cashiers actually observe more details, because they're no longer stressing with the basic mechanics of checkout, and they also are more familiar with the products. The human mind is a restless thing. You better believe they notice what you are buying.
Cash register workers are smarter and more observant than you may think. Purchasing a $280 Lego set for $50 will raise all kinds of eyebrows. Shucks, I bet some of the workers ran back to see if they could buy one themselves. So Tom was definitely an idiot, risking his entire career and reputation like this. I expect that he would have been apprehended much sooner if not for most people's intimidation by technology -- being unaware of how easy it is to create a fake bar code.
You may wish to say even, that the job of a congress person is to try and corrupt the system.
I agree with a lot of what you said, but I don't understand what you mean above. I'd probably describe the job of a congressperson something like: to write laws that their constituents find fair, appropriate, and consistent with our foundational laws, as you referenced (i.e. the Constitution).
Slavery is against the law. It stinks that the recording industry can claim absurd penalties like this, but Tenenbaum can at least get a court to declare bankruptcy and move on with his life. (IANAL, somebody correct me if I'm wrong.)
I disagree. The legislative branch (i.e. Congress) is most at fault here. If you think the default solution to society's problems is for the judicial branch to override the laws of the land, you are asking for trouble. That's appropriate in a few cases, but it's better to blame those who wrote the bad laws in the first place.
^ someone got it - either sideslash didn't or he made a joke that failed.
Probably all of the above.
That sounds kind of cold and dirty and dangerous to me. But you know, it's a free country. If a person and his/her gun really love each other, I guess they could get married.
Speaking as a right wing, family oriented, gun loving engineer myself. Why would he ever want to go into politics?
I'm not denying that taxation has it's place, it's just that I see a politician saying, "Let's change the law to penalize people who try to leave the country" and I think "Really?"
The legislature should not be trying to build "walls" to keep people from leaving, but should rather work on making the USA a desirable place to live. If a few rich people expatriate, it's not the end of the world. I think bitter politicians like these Dem senators give the USA a bad image.
I can picture your ads now: "Do you have compulsive lying disorder? Get relief now, ask your doctor about VeriPilium."
Didn't read the article, but I imagine that part of the difficulty is that network capacity isn't reducible to an individual scalar number, but rather looks like an N-dimensional graph. There are many points of failure and bottleneck depending on how each node behaves relative to other nodes.