Is Khan Academy available on Roku? I have an IPTV in the living room, but most of my viewing is done in the bedroom. The TED channel is interesting enough, but some fll fledged History or Economics lectures would be really cool.
My company (heavily investing in Office, Lync, Sharepoint, etc.) has offices and production facilities in the US, the UK, France, Italy, and India (not to mention sales offices elsewhere in Europe, Mexico, South America, Australia and SE Asia).
How do they reckon they will design the configuration setting to be able to adapt to the acceptable customs in all those cultures? Hell, there is a computer games company in our building, and I see guys in jeans and t-shirts with a multitude of piercings and tattoos every day in the elevator, while our company is business casual. Other company's are more formal. How are they going to adjust for different corporate cultures?
I'm willing to bet that almost any jurisdiction in the United States would find someone getting fired to prevent the vesting of shares would be an act of fraud on the part of the employer.
I'll take that bet. PM me your email and I'll tell you where to send the check.
Correct. The value to the economy as a whole increases as knowledge is shared. This is (one of) the argument(s) for FOSS.
But, if I am the only one who knows how to brew beer, how much would the market pay me for that knowledge? If everyone knows how to brew beer, how much would the market pay me for that knowledge? The forer is greater than the latter. Therefore, the value of a piece of knowledge decreases as more people possess it (ie as it becomes less scarce).
I think you are confusing knowledge of all things with knowledge of a specific thing. As we learn more, the sum total of knowledge increases, the aggregate value of that knowledge increases. But as specific knowledge becomes widespread, the value of that knowledge decreases.
If only one person knew how to brew beer, that knowledge would be very valuable. If everyone knows how to brew beer, that knowledge is less valuable.
our economies might well have moved past physical scarcity by that point in time.
Umm... they already have with fiat currency.
Or do you mean our economy as a whole, i.e. the trading of goods and services, would move beyond scarcity? I don't see how that is possible. Value is intrinsically linked to scarcity.
If you have evidence of a consistent, effective effort to use old women as suicide bombers then we can work out the costs and the risks of combating that and decide on the best course from there.
So what you're saying is that we should only respond to threats and not anticipate them?
What's your point? That a nation's Constitution should include a clear and specific definition of every possible job required? Can't tell if troll or just stupid.
Do you really think so? I'd assume they'd get somewhat better rates than the private sector, but I know we spend somewhere between $$60 and $80 per month for our Blackberries (we only have about 15). It's somewhat difficult to pin down, because we have a corporate minute pool that is shared with 50+ feature phones as well.
But even if they're only paying $25 per month for phone and data and got the handsets for free, that still only supplies less than 2% of federal employees.
The number of Executive Branch employees per capita has been declining since the 1960s. Actually, that's not true. It went up a bit under Reagan and the first Bush.
That's $11.7 million per year. Assume $50 per month per Blackberry, that's about 20,000 Blackberries. There are something like 2 million federal workers (executive branch only, not including postal workers). Seems like more than 1% of federal employees would be well served with a smart phone.
You miss the point. The fact that someone keeps trying to do something doesn't serve as proof that it accomplishes it's goal. Perhaps the War on Drugs isn't the perfect analogy, but I think it's pretty good, despite everything you said. The fact remains that the US government persists in it's War on Drugs, and yet there is no noticeable change in the amount of drugs flowing into the market. Likewise, there may be a concerted effort on the part of malware propagators to attack Linux servers, but there isn't any evidence (at least, none offered here) that there is a significant success rate. They could be attacking Linux servers simply because it's simple to launch an attack and it's more efficient for them to use the shotgun approach than to tailor their attacks to specific targets. Attacking a very large group of machines expecting a 0.5% success rate can be more efficient than spending time and money to tailor your attack to a smaller number of machines where you expect a 1% or 5% (or more) success rate.
Slashdot Mirror
First Economics lecture did not inspire. Will try again tonight maybe.
In other news, The Adjustment Bureau is on HBOGo and is really good. I love those PKD short stories.
Is Khan Academy available on Roku? I have an IPTV in the living room, but most of my viewing is done in the bedroom. The TED channel is interesting enough, but some fll fledged History or Economics lectures would be really cool.
You're answer is that TV is not broken, and your evidence is that people watch YouTube on smart phones?
Dave Attell going MST3K on 1970s era porn, with guest stars ranging from Chelsea Handler to Ron Jeremy.
What's not to love?
I know the US government is dysfunctional on a lot of levels, but I think it can do more than one thing at a time.
...really helped Rodney King.
My company (heavily investing in Office, Lync, Sharepoint, etc.) has offices and production facilities in the US, the UK, France, Italy, and India (not to mention sales offices elsewhere in Europe, Mexico, South America, Australia and SE Asia).
How do they reckon they will design the configuration setting to be able to adapt to the acceptable customs in all those cultures? Hell, there is a computer games company in our building, and I see guys in jeans and t-shirts with a multitude of piercings and tattoos every day in the elevator, while our company is business casual. Other company's are more formal. How are they going to adjust for different corporate cultures?
I'm willing to bet that almost any jurisdiction in the United States would find someone getting fired to prevent the vesting of shares would be an act of fraud on the part of the employer.
I'll take that bet. PM me your email and I'll tell you where to send the check.
This is why we need lobbyists, to answer these inscrutable questions for us.
That would require us Yanks to disavow the notion of being a collection of united states.
Archive 2010-?
Correct. The value to the economy as a whole increases as knowledge is shared. This is (one of) the argument(s) for FOSS.
But, if I am the only one who knows how to brew beer, how much would the market pay me for that knowledge? If everyone knows how to brew beer, how much would the market pay me for that knowledge? The forer is greater than the latter. Therefore, the value of a piece of knowledge decreases as more people possess it (ie as it becomes less scarce).
I think you are confusing knowledge of all things with knowledge of a specific thing. As we learn more, the sum total of knowledge increases, the aggregate value of that knowledge increases. But as specific knowledge becomes widespread, the value of that knowledge decreases.
If only one person knew how to brew beer, that knowledge would be very valuable. If everyone knows how to brew beer, that knowledge is less valuable.
our economies might well have moved past physical scarcity by that point in time.
Umm... they already have with fiat currency.
Or do you mean our economy as a whole, i.e. the trading of goods and services, would move beyond scarcity? I don't see how that is possible. Value is intrinsically linked to scarcity.
I didn't specify a limit on the current....
Just because it's tedious doesn't mean the admin doesn't have a responsibility to do it.
Well, if it were legal for engineers incorporate electroshock feedback then we might have a fair contest.
That's pretty clever. Insidious, but clever.
If you have evidence of a consistent, effective effort to use old women as suicide bombers then we can work out the costs and the risks of combating that and decide on the best course from there.
So what you're saying is that we should only respond to threats and not anticipate them?
What's your point? That a nation's Constitution should include a clear and specific definition of every possible job required? Can't tell if troll or just stupid.
Do you really think so? I'd assume they'd get somewhat better rates than the private sector, but I know we spend somewhere between $$60 and $80 per month for our Blackberries (we only have about 15). It's somewhat difficult to pin down, because we have a corporate minute pool that is shared with 50+ feature phones as well.
But even if they're only paying $25 per month for phone and data and got the handsets for free, that still only supplies less than 2% of federal employees.
The analogue to a government's or company's payroll for a consumer would be their budget for food and housing.
The number of Executive Branch employees per capita has been declining since the 1960s. Actually, that's not true. It went up a bit under Reagan and the first Bush.
That's $11.7 million per year. Assume $50 per month per Blackberry, that's about 20,000 Blackberries. There are something like 2 million federal workers (executive branch only, not including postal workers). Seems like more than 1% of federal employees would be well served with a smart phone.
You miss the point. The fact that someone keeps trying to do something doesn't serve as proof that it accomplishes it's goal. Perhaps the War on Drugs isn't the perfect analogy, but I think it's pretty good, despite everything you said. The fact remains that the US government persists in it's War on Drugs, and yet there is no noticeable change in the amount of drugs flowing into the market. Likewise, there may be a concerted effort on the part of malware propagators to attack Linux servers, but there isn't any evidence (at least, none offered here) that there is a significant success rate. They could be attacking Linux servers simply because it's simple to launch an attack and it's more efficient for them to use the shotgun approach than to tailor their attacks to specific targets. Attacking a very large group of machines expecting a 0.5% success rate can be more efficient than spending time and money to tailor your attack to a smaller number of machines where you expect a 1% or 5% (or more) success rate.