Yes, light can only travel a tiny distance in 1 picosecond. You can still trade at that speed. It would require the traders to be running their programs on the same machine that is running the market. These programs would have to be implemented in silicon since 1/picosecond is a terahertz and we don't have general purpose terahertz machines - you'd even need more than a terahertz since a trade probably cannot be carried out in just 1 cycle. The real solution to this madness is to run the market at 1 hertz or less.
I agree. I personally hate it when people in the service sector act subserviently to me. It's also subtly insulting because this person is implicitly stating that I'm the kind of person who enjoys subservient behavior. So I end up feeling an odd mixture of being insulted by and feeling pity for this person. I want to deal with real people and subservience replaces a real person with a fake one. Both the receiving and giving sides of subservience ultimately place people in immature roles - the tyrant brat and the good little boy. I want people in the service sector to be competent professionals and I want them to allow me to treat them as such. That includes the 15 year old putting my groceries in a bag.
I'll ignore your little semantic game with "idea" - define it in whatever way you need to to understand what you are reading.
The problem is not business model or software patents in particular. The problem is that patents are used to prevent other people from using their own ideas when someone else already took out a patent on them. That is a drain on humanity and it should not happen except when the patent system can provide value that surpasses the destruction it causes. That value only exists when the ideas are so novel or expensive to produce that the patent system is the only way we can get at those ideas in a timely manner. Business model and software patents just happen to be areas where both the damage and the lack of benefit is particularly apparent.
This situation will be extraordinarily hard to fix because the destruction caused by patents is distributed globally by international treaties, while the income gained from a patent is localized to whatever country the company taking out the patent is in. So all countries have an incentive to allow their local companies to take out patents even when those patents cause more destruction than benefit from a global perspective. It is the classic tragedy of the commons.
The issue is that pessimism about yourself is a self-fulfilling prophecy. If you think you can't do something, you won't even try. Our information about what we can and cannot do is at all times very incomplete so we cannot ever know the full truth about what we can and cannot do. There often IS no rational way to fill in the blanks. Low self esteem is making an arbitrary choice to limit yourself by filling in the blanks in a way that hinders your performance. You might as well make that arbitrary choice in a way that doesn't hinder yourself. Self esteem is good for you.
Whether self esteem is beneficial to the rest of us is more open for debate - contrary to popular opinion, high self esteem is a prerequisite to be a successful criminal as well as a successful anything else. You won't be an inconsiderate jerk if you think you are worth less than those around you. That is the real source of critique of self esteem boosting (other than when it doesn't work) - the rest of us actually really do appreciate other people to be subordinate to us and that doesn't work so well if they have high self esteem. How dare those serfs think they are worth something? They haven't earned the right to look out for themselves like I have! Etc.
The problem is not that a patent was given when there was prior art. Are we supposed to think this would all be fine and dandy if only this abusive patent troll company had filed for this patent a little earlier so that there wouldn't be prior art? The patent system was supposed to be this deal: you tell the world how you did this amazing thing, and the world allows you to control your idea for a limited time. The patent system has instead become a competition to come up with an idea before anyone else does, so that those other people can't use their own idea to compete with you.
The premise that gives the patent system value is that the world just wouldn't have the idea available if the patent holder hadn't come along. In such a case perhaps a patent is called for. If we give patents for 20 years, the standard for giving a patent should be that no one else is likely to come up with that idea for the next 20 years assuming no patent system to motivate them. Then a patent makes sense. I doubt even one patent in a thousand could live up to that standard. The 999 other patents in a thousand are a drain on humanity.
It's not about terrorism, it's about not having 10 different IDs in your wallet. Combine them into one, make it harder to fake now that you only need to make 1/10 as many and use it for everything. If you don't like your grocer talking to your shoe shop about what you are buying, have the card present a different id to everyone who asks, and have it so it takes a court order/similar process to access the information necessary to track that information back to you. So you wouldn't have a single card number, you'd have as many numbers associated to the card as there are people who want you in their particular system. It wouldn't be the same number they've all got so no tracking problem. This would be better security than giving your name has now.
How the hell can these people NOT KNOW what is causing the decline in sales? Get focus groups together, ask a lot of people and look at the sales data. Such things will point out exactly what the problem is with no guessing or uncertainty, and these things are not very expensive to do compared to the budgets of these players. It defies belief that they don't know their problem, whatever it is. Yet if the focus completely shifts from one year to another, they can't have a good idea of the situation, except if we are to believe that free music streaming is a phenomenon that has taken off in just the last year, which doesn't seem likely. More likely it's bad reporting or a show put on to influence laws or something like that.
Certainly. What I'm referring to is that, generally in the world, rape accusation victims are not kept anonymous. That's OK if the accused is guilty but often that is not the case. With Assange it's even worse than normal with the police themselves apparently directly informing the press about it to give it wide exposure. The accused shouldn't first hear about such a thing by reading the newspaper.
Not if I asked if I was free to leave the country and the authorities said yes, and then didn't want to question me when I offered that. Then I would be quite surprised to be wanted by Interpol. The bizarre thing is that rape accusations are made public before the accusation has been investigated and seen to have any merit.
Weirdly, your first point would indicate premeditation on the woman's part rather than absolve her. Assange was informed by the Swedish authorities that they did not want to question him before he left Sweden. Obviously we doesn't want to go back to Sweden given the farce that the Swedish authorities have made of the case so far.
It's not clearly definable. For example if you use those messages as a ring tone on your phone, that's not the same as your phone having a conversation with you.
It's creepy if the computer is trying to pass itself off as a person, because fakeness in social interactions is creepy whether it's a Wallmart greeter or a computer program being fake. If the computer is plainly just presenting itself as a voice interface it won't feel creepy for very long if at all.
If this study had come out the opposite way you'd have been here telling us how pictures of violence aren't the same as violence so this study is obvious. On top of that, this kind of thinking is exactly why science didn't get anywhere historically. The Earth is flat, everyone says so, so what's the point of thinking more about it? So I'd say you're the one deserving of dick-punching, twice.
SSN is used as an ID in all kinds of places outside and inside the government. SSN isn't really about social security or taxes. You just call it SSN in the US because you don't like the sound of something like "national unique identification number" which is what it really is.
True, though as a juror it's important to distinguish between "I don't agree with that law" and "no, you can't gas these people for being jews, I don't care what the law says." Don't ignore laws lightly.
Certainly some kind of caching of JIT output should be helpful in some way. There are numerous issues that limit how helpful it can be. For one, it hasn't solved the Java issue and Java is much more amenable to this kind of thing than Javascript is. For one thing Javascript often makes heavy use of document.write which is that Javascript will dynamically write more Javascript to be run later. So the code being run can change from one page load to another even if the code is initially the same, defeating caching of compiled code.
Java isn't a dynamic language which is the central difference that makes languages like Javascript and Python much slower than C++ and even Java with the compiler technology as it is now and for the forseeable future. A big still relevant problem with Java is the long loading times you end up with starting up large applications. Javascript isn't even compiled to bytecode so that problem would be much worse if big applications were written and run as Javascript. Javascript is getting faster all the time but don't expect anything like C++ or even Java for general purpose programming. Which is fine because that isn't what Javascript is all about.
Bandwidth is like water or electricity. It is up to your provider to have the capacity to fulfill the obligations that they have taken on. It is not ok for my light to dim to half strength because my neighbor is using his dryer. The problem there has nothing to do with my neighbor using too much electricity, the problem is the provider. The solution is not to make my neighbor only use his dryer when I don't have my lights turned on, it is to have the necessary capacity so that you provider can fulfill the obligations that they have taken on.
The actually relevant QoS issue with bittorrent and, say, Skype is that Skype is latency sensitive while bittorrent isn't. So it is OK if a bittorrent packet doesn't have awesome latency. It's fine if my neighbor gets better and more consistent latency while he is on Skype. It is NOT ok if my neighbor can steal my bandwidth because he's on Skype and I'm on bittorrent.
If you take the (almost zero) mass of the electrons that carry the information for SMS messages, you may even find that SMS messages are more expensive per pound than gold. Anything that comes within orders of magnitude of SMS data prices are beyond the pale.
Old people die of X if they don't die of Y. The solution to that is to repair the underlying damage caused by aging so old people don't get frail in the first place. The solution is not just to accept aging as a good thing. If you didn't have to get old and frail, would you take a pill that inflicted you with the disease of aging? Yet younger people still get cancer, so we need a cure regardless.
That's a false dichotomy and an absurd one at that - it is only designed to enable teachers to abuse their position of authority. You can tell someone how to improve without insulting them at the same time. You can scold a child without telling the child that it is worthless. Someone without those skills is an incompetent teacher. That goes both ways, so a teacher who won't criticize is also a problem. In your previous post you also made the comment that being stupid is a choice, as in stupid people should choose to use their brain. Sometimes it is, but often it is not and continually insulting a slow child for being unintelligent goes beyond incompetent teaching into child abuse.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, light can only travel a tiny distance in 1 picosecond. You can still trade at that speed. It would require the traders to be running their programs on the same machine that is running the market. These programs would have to be implemented in silicon since 1/picosecond is a terahertz and we don't have general purpose terahertz machines - you'd even need more than a terahertz since a trade probably cannot be carried out in just 1 cycle. The real solution to this madness is to run the market at 1 hertz or less.
I agree. I personally hate it when people in the service sector act subserviently to me. It's also subtly insulting because this person is implicitly stating that I'm the kind of person who enjoys subservient behavior. So I end up feeling an odd mixture of being insulted by and feeling pity for this person. I want to deal with real people and subservience replaces a real person with a fake one. Both the receiving and giving sides of subservience ultimately place people in immature roles - the tyrant brat and the good little boy. I want people in the service sector to be competent professionals and I want them to allow me to treat them as such. That includes the 15 year old putting my groceries in a bag.
I'll ignore your little semantic game with "idea" - define it in whatever way you need to to understand what you are reading.
The problem is not business model or software patents in particular. The problem is that patents are used to prevent other people from using their own ideas when someone else already took out a patent on them. That is a drain on humanity and it should not happen except when the patent system can provide value that surpasses the destruction it causes. That value only exists when the ideas are so novel or expensive to produce that the patent system is the only way we can get at those ideas in a timely manner. Business model and software patents just happen to be areas where both the damage and the lack of benefit is particularly apparent.
This situation will be extraordinarily hard to fix because the destruction caused by patents is distributed globally by international treaties, while the income gained from a patent is localized to whatever country the company taking out the patent is in. So all countries have an incentive to allow their local companies to take out patents even when those patents cause more destruction than benefit from a global perspective. It is the classic tragedy of the commons.
The issue is that pessimism about yourself is a self-fulfilling prophecy. If you think you can't do something, you won't even try. Our information about what we can and cannot do is at all times very incomplete so we cannot ever know the full truth about what we can and cannot do. There often IS no rational way to fill in the blanks. Low self esteem is making an arbitrary choice to limit yourself by filling in the blanks in a way that hinders your performance. You might as well make that arbitrary choice in a way that doesn't hinder yourself. Self esteem is good for you.
Whether self esteem is beneficial to the rest of us is more open for debate - contrary to popular opinion, high self esteem is a prerequisite to be a successful criminal as well as a successful anything else. You won't be an inconsiderate jerk if you think you are worth less than those around you. That is the real source of critique of self esteem boosting (other than when it doesn't work) - the rest of us actually really do appreciate other people to be subordinate to us and that doesn't work so well if they have high self esteem. How dare those serfs think they are worth something? They haven't earned the right to look out for themselves like I have! Etc.
The problem is not that a patent was given when there was prior art. Are we supposed to think this would all be fine and dandy if only this abusive patent troll company had filed for this patent a little earlier so that there wouldn't be prior art? The patent system was supposed to be this deal: you tell the world how you did this amazing thing, and the world allows you to control your idea for a limited time. The patent system has instead become a competition to come up with an idea before anyone else does, so that those other people can't use their own idea to compete with you.
The premise that gives the patent system value is that the world just wouldn't have the idea available if the patent holder hadn't come along. In such a case perhaps a patent is called for. If we give patents for 20 years, the standard for giving a patent should be that no one else is likely to come up with that idea for the next 20 years assuming no patent system to motivate them. Then a patent makes sense. I doubt even one patent in a thousand could live up to that standard. The 999 other patents in a thousand are a drain on humanity.
It's not about terrorism, it's about not having 10 different IDs in your wallet. Combine them into one, make it harder to fake now that you only need to make 1/10 as many and use it for everything. If you don't like your grocer talking to your shoe shop about what you are buying, have the card present a different id to everyone who asks, and have it so it takes a court order/similar process to access the information necessary to track that information back to you. So you wouldn't have a single card number, you'd have as many numbers associated to the card as there are people who want you in their particular system. It wouldn't be the same number they've all got so no tracking problem. This would be better security than giving your name has now.
How the hell can these people NOT KNOW what is causing the decline in sales? Get focus groups together, ask a lot of people and look at the sales data. Such things will point out exactly what the problem is with no guessing or uncertainty, and these things are not very expensive to do compared to the budgets of these players. It defies belief that they don't know their problem, whatever it is. Yet if the focus completely shifts from one year to another, they can't have a good idea of the situation, except if we are to believe that free music streaming is a phenomenon that has taken off in just the last year, which doesn't seem likely. More likely it's bad reporting or a show put on to influence laws or something like that.
Certainly. What I'm referring to is that, generally in the world, rape accusation victims are not kept anonymous. That's OK if the accused is guilty but often that is not the case. With Assange it's even worse than normal with the police themselves apparently directly informing the press about it to give it wide exposure. The accused shouldn't first hear about such a thing by reading the newspaper.
Not if I asked if I was free to leave the country and the authorities said yes, and then didn't want to question me when I offered that. Then I would be quite surprised to be wanted by Interpol. The bizarre thing is that rape accusations are made public before the accusation has been investigated and seen to have any merit.
Weirdly, your first point would indicate premeditation on the woman's part rather than absolve her. Assange was informed by the Swedish authorities that they did not want to question him before he left Sweden. Obviously we doesn't want to go back to Sweden given the farce that the Swedish authorities have made of the case so far.
It's not clearly definable. For example if you use those messages as a ring tone on your phone, that's not the same as your phone having a conversation with you.
It's creepy if the computer is trying to pass itself off as a person, because fakeness in social interactions is creepy whether it's a Wallmart greeter or a computer program being fake. If the computer is plainly just presenting itself as a voice interface it won't feel creepy for very long if at all.
If this study had come out the opposite way you'd have been here telling us how pictures of violence aren't the same as violence so this study is obvious. On top of that, this kind of thinking is exactly why science didn't get anywhere historically. The Earth is flat, everyone says so, so what's the point of thinking more about it? So I'd say you're the one deserving of dick-punching, twice.
SSN is used as an ID in all kinds of places outside and inside the government. SSN isn't really about social security or taxes. You just call it SSN in the US because you don't like the sound of something like "national unique identification number" which is what it really is.
True, though as a juror it's important to distinguish between "I don't agree with that law" and "no, you can't gas these people for being jews, I don't care what the law says." Don't ignore laws lightly.
Wrong. The real question is, why do people have to ask stupid questions?
Certainly some kind of caching of JIT output should be helpful in some way. There are numerous issues that limit how helpful it can be. For one, it hasn't solved the Java issue and Java is much more amenable to this kind of thing than Javascript is. For one thing Javascript often makes heavy use of document.write which is that Javascript will dynamically write more Javascript to be run later. So the code being run can change from one page load to another even if the code is initially the same, defeating caching of compiled code.
Java isn't a dynamic language which is the central difference that makes languages like Javascript and Python much slower than C++ and even Java with the compiler technology as it is now and for the forseeable future. A big still relevant problem with Java is the long loading times you end up with starting up large applications. Javascript isn't even compiled to bytecode so that problem would be much worse if big applications were written and run as Javascript. Javascript is getting faster all the time but don't expect anything like C++ or even Java for general purpose programming. Which is fine because that isn't what Javascript is all about.
Bandwidth is like water or electricity. It is up to your provider to have the capacity to fulfill the obligations that they have taken on. It is not ok for my light to dim to half strength because my neighbor is using his dryer. The problem there has nothing to do with my neighbor using too much electricity, the problem is the provider. The solution is not to make my neighbor only use his dryer when I don't have my lights turned on, it is to have the necessary capacity so that you provider can fulfill the obligations that they have taken on.
The actually relevant QoS issue with bittorrent and, say, Skype is that Skype is latency sensitive while bittorrent isn't. So it is OK if a bittorrent packet doesn't have awesome latency. It's fine if my neighbor gets better and more consistent latency while he is on Skype. It is NOT ok if my neighbor can steal my bandwidth because he's on Skype and I'm on bittorrent.
Kaching! I serve to annoy precisely you in the morning.
If you take the (almost zero) mass of the electrons that carry the information for SMS messages, you may even find that SMS messages are more expensive per pound than gold. Anything that comes within orders of magnitude of SMS data prices are beyond the pale.
Early sponge-like organisms depended on their environment for energy. In the human body blood is where the energy is at.
Old people die of X if they don't die of Y. The solution to that is to repair the underlying damage caused by aging so old people don't get frail in the first place. The solution is not just to accept aging as a good thing. If you didn't have to get old and frail, would you take a pill that inflicted you with the disease of aging? Yet younger people still get cancer, so we need a cure regardless.
That's a false dichotomy and an absurd one at that - it is only designed to enable teachers to abuse their position of authority. You can tell someone how to improve without insulting them at the same time. You can scold a child without telling the child that it is worthless. Someone without those skills is an incompetent teacher. That goes both ways, so a teacher who won't criticize is also a problem. In your previous post you also made the comment that being stupid is a choice, as in stupid people should choose to use their brain. Sometimes it is, but often it is not and continually insulting a slow child for being unintelligent goes beyond incompetent teaching into child abuse.
If you think it has no effect on teaching then you would be a terrible teacher just like some college professors indeed are.