and you seem to think that wealthy people get wealthy by spending all their money frivolously, instead of investing it, and spending the money earned by the investments.
On Monday, New Jersey will propose caps of 2.5 to six Gs vertically -- depending on how long the Gs last -- and one to 2.5 Gs side to side.
Just when you thought that New Jersey couldn't be more lame, they find a way to prove you wrong. These are legislators solving a problem that doesn't exist... or more likely, threatening to solve the problem unless their election fund gets a nice little boost from six flags.
You start with $500k in the bank, and you invest it. Odds are that you'll average somewhere in the neighborhood of 10% return. This gives you an income of $50k/year.
Now, if you want your value to follow cost-of-living, you need to reinvest half of that, so now you only have a steady income of $25k/year.
Now we assume that this person is in an upper tax bracket, let's say 39% federal, 5% state, 3% local, for a total of 48% tax (very realistic). Your $25k/year is only about $13k/yr after taxes.
Thus, while $500k sounds like a lot of money, if you want to be responsible with it, it only provides about $13k/yr.
$500k per year (a touch that you added, i specifically stated otherwise), would still only get you about $260k/year, and odds are good if you have that salary, you're well aware how to spend that without any issue.
even so, $500k isn't much cash, it's distinctly middle class. $500k only earns about $20k/year after taxes, and assuming 5% reinvestment. It's not exactly big bucks.
First of all, $500k isn't a high net worth, that's not even upper-middle class, it's just plain middle class. $500k is a guy with a house, a car, and not much else.
Secondly, the study itself was of people with $1m net worths, or $250k annual salaries, where did the submitter get that $500k figure anyway?
Lastly, a higher percentage of people said they'd pay $20m than is possible. Fewer than 7% of all people with a net worth > $1m have a net worth that would allow $20m to be spent on a vacation, which is contrary to what this study shows.
I mean you no disrespect, but you're a fucking retard.
"hey guys, I've got a great idea. let's make a virus that will expose ourselves to billions of dollars of liability, but will only shut down some minor piracy for a day or two, until anti-virus software makers have protection for it".
am i the only person on slashdot whose reaction to this a bigass grin?
Congratulations on your free copy of photoshop (which is alright because you wouldn't have bought it), Windows XP (which is alright, because Microsoft is evil), the new Dave Matthews Band CD (which is alright, because the RIAA is evil), and that DivX of episode 2 (which is alright, because the MPAA is evil).
I hope you all enjoy your free gift, and I hope nobody here is so fucking broken as to consider the possibility that the RIAA made this virus seriously.
according to you, the following are problems that Disneyland created, not merely fine examples that Darwinism still occasionally works:
1964: a fuckwit stands up at the summit of the matterhorn. He was thrown off, died.
1966: a fuckwit sneaks onto disneyland property, and is walking along the monorail track. a guard tries to warn him that the monorail is coming, he runs from the guide, and hides on the track, gets smushed.
1967: a fuckwit attempts to get out of the people mover while it's in the middle of the ride. His cuff gets caught, and he trips, gets squished.
1968: a helicopter service that ran from LAX to disneyland had two crashes. The first semi-legitimate one, though the fact that helicopters can crash isn't particularly shocking.
1973: two fuckwits stay in the park after closing. they then decide to cross a fake river, despite the fact that one of them doesn't know how to swim. one kid manages to survive, the other one drowns. thank you darwin.
1974: a fuckwit, who was actually an employee, was working at an attraction which involves different rooms rotating to face the audiance. clearly, the machinery which moves a 3-story building is fairly strong. the fuckwit got herself caught in a fashion that her leg got squashed by the spinning room.
1980: another fuckwit is walking between the couplings of various PeopleMover cars. fuckwit falls down, gets run over. dies.
1981: a fuckwit pinches some girl's ass. the girl's boyfriend doesn't like this, a fight erupts, it escalates, the fuckwit gets himself stabbed.
1983: drunken fuckwit steals a maintainance raft at night, takes it for a spin around the rivers of america, falls out, drowns.
1984: for reasons not detailed (nothing says if it's equipment failure, or user error), a woman's buckle comes undone on the matterhorn, she gets thrown off, then gets hit by another matterhorn car, dies.
1987: fuckwit gang members get into a fight in the parking lot, and shoot each other.
1998: the first death caused by a Disney employee fuckup. One of the river of america ships is coming to dock. they cast a rope around the mooring cleat, but the ship was moving too fast, ripped the mooring cleat off the dock, and through an unfortunate soul's face, killing her. Disney didn't deny anything, or even fight the lawsuit.
So, could you explain to me which part of this shows that Disneyland has lots of hidden problems, covered up only by good marketing?
oh wait, none of it shows that at all, you're a fucking retard.
Digital projection in it's current incarnation, DLP, is terrible. Theoretically the color depth should be fine, the spec is for 45 bits of color, though AoTC demonstrated well that apparently they don't use all those bits, because at least at the theatre I was at, the blacks weren't very black.
The real problem is the incredibly shitty resolution, 1280x1024. 35mm film is roughly equivalent to 20 million pixels, a wee bit more than digital. Watch a slow pan of a detailed scene carefully (the waterfall scene would work), and you'll actually see everything moving pixel by pixel.
Oddly enough, the digital projector should be able to get an equivalent or better contrast ratio than film. 35mm film is generally specced to get about 1000:1, but the Barco DLP Projectors can get up to 1250:1.
The storal of the,mory is that contrary to popular opinion, adding the word 'digital' to a technology does not make it better.
no hooker ads? did you accidentally get a ticket to salt lake city?
apparently you haven't walked down the strip. see those mexican immigrants tapping pamphlets against their hands to get your attention? yes, that's a book full of hooker ads. No, you're not going to find them on casino property, and more and more of the walk really is casino property on the new strip, but you'll find them everywhere else.
dealing with an offshore programming team is no different than dealing with any other consultancy.
Agree on the statements of work
Make sure that the statements of work are adhered to.
Smile and enjoy the fact that you're helping keep americans unemployed by implementing a plan which will not bring the savings you were hoping for.
Interesting portion of the article to quote. Odd that you didn't mention that the Maxtor Atlas 10k III (a U160 SCSI drive) beats the WD1200JB by:
88% in the SR File Server DriveMark 2002
85% in the SR Web Server DriveMark 2002
43% lower average read service time
39% lower average write service time
20% in the Business Disk WinMark 99
16% in the SR Gaming DriveMark 2002
13% higher transfer rate beginning
10% in the SR Office DriveMark 2002
8% higher transfer rate ending
2% In the High-End Disk WinMark 99
1% In the SR High-End DriveMark 2002
0% (a tie) in the SR Bootup DriveMark 2002
In fact, there's no performance test where the IDE drive in question beat the SCSI drive in question at all. Next time you make an argument, you should really cite a source that supports your argument, on the off chance that somebody reads it.
Hard drives prices are set by a complicated formula where somebody sits down, looks at the costs involved in developing the drive, the costs involved in testing the drive, the costs involved with creating the equipment to manufacturer the drive, the number of units they expect to sell, the expected return rate and the cost per unit of manufacture (and a lot of other things). They then attempt to set a price which will result in a reasonable profit.
Why attempt to set a price which results in reasonable profit? Because if one aims for an unreasonable per-unit profit, a competitor (and the hard-drive market is hardly a monopoly) will decide that they can sell enough extra units by lowering their price that they'll undercut the first vendor.
So SCSI drives happen to be the most expensive in nearly every fashion. They're the most likely to implement cutting edge technologies, thereby funding the refinement of these technologies for later use in cheap IDE drives. 15K RPM SCSI drives have been around for quite some time now, but I'm not aware of any IDE drives that beat 10K RPM yet.
SCSI sells fewer units, thus the fixed costs are distributed over a much, much smaller number of units, driving up the price dramatically.
SCSI drives are more likely to be returned as defective. Not because of a higher failure rate, but because SCSI drives are likely to be put places where they get used heavily, 24 hours a day. IDE drives tend to get used in applications which involve idling 98% of the time, so even cheap shit will have low return rates.
Additionally, the SCSI command set is larger than the ATAPI command set. In fact, ATAPI is just a standard way to communicate a subset of SCSI over an IDE connection. This means that SCSI drives really can do more things than an IDE drive... for instance, they can accept multiple commands, then execute them in a more intelligent manner than an IDE drive, which only knows how to do one thing at a time (IBM DTLA and DPTA not withstanding)... So this SCSI drive is also more complicated than the IDE counterpart, thus requiring more testing, and more design, raising the costs further.
Saying that SCSI is artificially overpriced is like claiming a WRC rally car is artificially overpriced, because you managed to get 500hp out of your Dodge Neon by bolting on a turbo, intercooler, straight pipes and a cold air intake.
Somehow I think that my explanation for the price disparity between IDE and SCSI is a lot more plausible than one which requires every single hard-drive manufacturer on the planet to be organized in a cabal, whose sole purpose is to drive up the price of server-class hardware.
How many of you drive a car with a Wankel engine? This is the sorry fate of humanity.
If it wasn't for slashdot, I'd never get to see the failure of the rotary engine described as a bellweather signaling the collapse of humanity. Thank you!
There's no if left, regarding the rest of the country. Votes in Washington were 3 to 1 that we should fill trains with nuclear waste, and send them to Nevada.
nah, bullets aren't infinite, the clips have a drama detection unit, which allow bullets to pass into the chamber only in a fashion which will maximize the drama created by the insertion, or failure to insert a bullet.
additionally, even top-notch shooters can't shoot worth a damn, the miss:hit ratio being even worse than the 10:1 real world ratio for urban combat.
Congratulations on your 18 months work experience. I managed to do the same thing at Penn, by getting a job as an admin while going to school. Amazing how these things are possible, even if your college doesn't support them directly.
You're right though, the CS at Penn is more theory, and learning to code in ML and shit. Fortunately for me, CS wasn't my major.
sounds like we're in agreement then... undergrad classes at Penn actually require a functioning brain, whereas Drexel is a degree mill which teaches you the fine art of waiting 4 more years until you do anything useful.
Slashdot Mirror
that's why you're poor.
Now, if you want your value to follow cost-of-living, you need to reinvest half of that, so now you only have a steady income of $25k/year.
Now we assume that this person is in an upper tax bracket, let's say 39% federal, 5% state, 3% local, for a total of 48% tax (very realistic). Your $25k/year is only about $13k/yr after taxes.
Thus, while $500k sounds like a lot of money, if you want to be responsible with it, it only provides about $13k/yr.
$500k per year (a touch that you added, i specifically stated otherwise), would still only get you about $260k/year, and odds are good if you have that salary, you're well aware how to spend that without any issue.
even so, $500k isn't much cash, it's distinctly middle class. $500k only earns about $20k/year after taxes, and assuming 5% reinvestment. It's not exactly big bucks.
First of all, $500k isn't a high net worth, that's not even upper-middle class, it's just plain middle class. $500k is a guy with a house, a car, and not much else.
Secondly, the study itself was of people with $1m net worths, or $250k annual salaries, where did the submitter get that $500k figure anyway?
Lastly, a higher percentage of people said they'd pay $20m than is possible. Fewer than 7% of all people with a net worth > $1m have a net worth that would allow $20m to be spent on a vacation, which is contrary to what this study shows.
Who fucking cares?
"hey guys, I've got a great idea. let's make a virus that will expose ourselves to billions of dollars of liability, but will only shut down some minor piracy for a day or two, until anti-virus software makers have protection for it".
Congratulations on your free copy of photoshop (which is alright because you wouldn't have bought it), Windows XP (which is alright, because Microsoft is evil), the new Dave Matthews Band CD (which is alright, because the RIAA is evil), and that DivX of episode 2 (which is alright, because the MPAA is evil).
I hope you all enjoy your free gift, and I hope nobody here is so fucking broken as to consider the possibility that the RIAA made this virus seriously.
- 1964: a fuckwit stands up at the summit of the matterhorn. He was thrown off, died.
- 1966: a fuckwit sneaks onto disneyland property, and is walking along the monorail track. a guard tries to warn him that the monorail is coming, he runs from the guide, and hides on the track, gets smushed.
- 1967: a fuckwit attempts to get out of the people mover while it's in the middle of the ride. His cuff gets caught, and he trips, gets squished.
- 1968: a helicopter service that ran from LAX to disneyland had two crashes. The first semi-legitimate one, though the fact that helicopters can crash isn't particularly shocking.
- 1973: two fuckwits stay in the park after closing. they then decide to cross a fake river, despite the fact that one of them doesn't know how to swim. one kid manages to survive, the other one drowns. thank you darwin.
- 1974: a fuckwit, who was actually an employee, was working at an attraction which involves different rooms rotating to face the audiance. clearly, the machinery which moves a 3-story building is fairly strong. the fuckwit got herself caught in a fashion that her leg got squashed by the spinning room.
- 1980: another fuckwit is walking between the couplings of various PeopleMover cars. fuckwit falls down, gets run over. dies.
- 1981: a fuckwit pinches some girl's ass. the girl's boyfriend doesn't like this, a fight erupts, it escalates, the fuckwit gets himself stabbed.
- 1983: drunken fuckwit steals a maintainance raft at night, takes it for a spin around the rivers of america, falls out, drowns.
- 1984: for reasons not detailed (nothing says if it's equipment failure, or user error), a woman's buckle comes undone on the matterhorn, she gets thrown off, then gets hit by another matterhorn car, dies.
- 1987: fuckwit gang members get into a fight in the parking lot, and shoot each other.
- 1998: the first death caused by a Disney employee fuckup. One of the river of america ships is coming to dock. they cast a rope around the mooring cleat, but the ship was moving too fast, ripped the mooring cleat off the dock, and through an unfortunate soul's face, killing her. Disney didn't deny anything, or even fight the lawsuit.
So, could you explain to me which part of this shows that Disneyland has lots of hidden problems, covered up only by good marketing?oh wait, none of it shows that at all, you're a fucking retard.
The real problem is the incredibly shitty resolution, 1280x1024. 35mm film is roughly equivalent to 20 million pixels, a wee bit more than digital. Watch a slow pan of a detailed scene carefully (the waterfall scene would work), and you'll actually see everything moving pixel by pixel.
Oddly enough, the digital projector should be able to get an equivalent or better contrast ratio than film. 35mm film is generally specced to get about 1000:1, but the Barco DLP Projectors can get up to 1250:1.
The storal of the ,mory is that contrary to popular opinion, adding the word 'digital' to a technology does not make it better.
apparently you haven't walked down the strip. see those mexican immigrants tapping pamphlets against their hands to get your attention? yes, that's a book full of hooker ads. No, you're not going to find them on casino property, and more and more of the walk really is casino property on the new strip, but you'll find them everywhere else.
Agree on the statements of work
Make sure that the statements of work are adhered to.
Smile and enjoy the fact that you're helping keep americans unemployed by implementing a plan which will not bring the savings you were hoping for.
- 88% in the SR File Server DriveMark 2002
- 85% in the SR Web Server DriveMark 2002
- 43% lower average read service time
- 39% lower average write service time
- 20% in the Business Disk WinMark 99
- 16% in the SR Gaming DriveMark 2002
- 13% higher transfer rate beginning
- 10% in the SR Office DriveMark 2002
- 8% higher transfer rate ending
- 2% In the High-End Disk WinMark 99
- 1% In the SR High-End DriveMark 2002
- 0% (a tie) in the SR Bootup DriveMark 2002
In fact, there's no performance test where the IDE drive in question beat the SCSI drive in question at all. Next time you make an argument, you should really cite a source that supports your argument, on the off chance that somebody reads it.Hard drives prices are set by a complicated formula where somebody sits down, looks at the costs involved in developing the drive, the costs involved in testing the drive, the costs involved with creating the equipment to manufacturer the drive, the number of units they expect to sell, the expected return rate and the cost per unit of manufacture (and a lot of other things). They then attempt to set a price which will result in a reasonable profit.
Why attempt to set a price which results in reasonable profit? Because if one aims for an unreasonable per-unit profit, a competitor (and the hard-drive market is hardly a monopoly) will decide that they can sell enough extra units by lowering their price that they'll undercut the first vendor.
So SCSI drives happen to be the most expensive in nearly every fashion. They're the most likely to implement cutting edge technologies, thereby funding the refinement of these technologies for later use in cheap IDE drives. 15K RPM SCSI drives have been around for quite some time now, but I'm not aware of any IDE drives that beat 10K RPM yet.
SCSI sells fewer units, thus the fixed costs are distributed over a much, much smaller number of units, driving up the price dramatically.
SCSI drives are more likely to be returned as defective. Not because of a higher failure rate, but because SCSI drives are likely to be put places where they get used heavily, 24 hours a day. IDE drives tend to get used in applications which involve idling 98% of the time, so even cheap shit will have low return rates.
Additionally, the SCSI command set is larger than the ATAPI command set. In fact, ATAPI is just a standard way to communicate a subset of SCSI over an IDE connection. This means that SCSI drives really can do more things than an IDE drive... for instance, they can accept multiple commands, then execute them in a more intelligent manner than an IDE drive, which only knows how to do one thing at a time (IBM DTLA and DPTA not withstanding)... So this SCSI drive is also more complicated than the IDE counterpart, thus requiring more testing, and more design, raising the costs further.
Saying that SCSI is artificially overpriced is like claiming a WRC rally car is artificially overpriced, because you managed to get 500hp out of your Dodge Neon by bolting on a turbo, intercooler, straight pipes and a cold air intake.
Somehow I think that my explanation for the price disparity between IDE and SCSI is a lot more plausible than one which requires every single hard-drive manufacturer on the planet to be organized in a cabal, whose sole purpose is to drive up the price of server-class hardware.
There's no if left, regarding the rest of the country. Votes in Washington were 3 to 1 that we should fill trains with nuclear waste, and send them to Nevada.
additionally, even top-notch shooters can't shoot worth a damn, the miss:hit ratio being even worse than the 10:1 real world ratio for urban combat.
Peter PPan involves repressed homoeroticism? who'd have thought?!
if by 'clearly defined' you mean 'completely fucked up', then yes, i agree.
interesting sig, but that command doesn't actually work, you'd need to seperate it into two commands.
You're right though, the CS at Penn is more theory, and learning to code in ML and shit. Fortunately for me, CS wasn't my major.
sounds like we're in agreement then... undergrad classes at Penn actually require a functioning brain, whereas Drexel is a degree mill which teaches you the fine art of waiting 4 more years until you do anything useful.
That's Gromit, not grommet