So, suppose I delay purchasing a product from the company by a day (or, even *worse* to their bottom line, by a week!). How does this affect their financials. Do we shift the graph again and show how I caused significant losses? What if I decide not to buy it at all? Have they incurred huge losses over time? No. Just the loss of one sale, of a particular dollar value at a particular time.
You must be an accountant, for your creativity is incredible;)
So, it's a good thing the 12 hours doesn't cause 12 hours of unprepared time wasting rather than just the 8 hours you state. Then, it would be possible for that 12 hours to cause 12 hours of wasted time, and so on, ad infinitum.
Your point is a good one, the original 12 hours represents a loss. But, at the beginning and end of that 12 hours you had the same preparedness for the manufacturing site. Thus, the 12 hours has not affected that at all. It stole the time you might have prepared, yes, but that time is part of the 12 hours, not extra to be added on.
Hey guy... why not just tell us what OS you're running? Why make us try and guess?
"Well Pat, I work for a major international marketing firm, and yes, my computer, a PC, has an OS on it."
See what I mean? But you're not on a game show, and you can tell us. I think you wrote this just looking for pity. Well, that's found in the dictionary between "shit" and "syphalus"... no wait, that's "sympathy":)
Ok, rant over, just wanted to post.
Re:There is a path to cracking RSA
on
RSA Cracked - Not
·
· Score: 1
Thanks for the warning!
And now, in the interest of giving something back, here's some tips for you:
I think these things called "computers" might be big, they seem like more than a fad.
You do it an injustice! Why, it's at least a *century* behind.
Seriously... and I'm really holding back from calling you a name;) but how in the world did you come up with "a decade"? Did you just randomly pick a number out of the air? Your post is useless because of such an inane statement.
This post just made my day! Said day has been long, I am tired, but this brought a smile to my face. Maybe it's not a joke, all the same I think I'll treat it as such and in that case, it's funny! Bless you Anonymous Coward, one of your best posts. Seriously, this is not sarcasm.
Why, if I make a mistake in a program, my compiler should guess at what I want to do and finish it for me. After all, that's what IE and Netscape (most of the time) do for you HTML developers. What interesting code we might get then... what bloated monstrosities.
Or, better yet, how about a compiler, parser, interpreter *never* assume anything. That way, you can just close the table, being explicit about what you want done.
Windows and most windows apps have a very standard interface.
Uhmmm... no, that's not true. Even between apps written by MS there are wide differences in GUI standards. Menu items are different, functionality is different. It only seems easy to use because people have learned and now know what to do. But, then again, you'd know all this if you took the time to really understand the business you're in. For reference:
http://www.iarchitect.com/mshame.htm
Note that they also give good examples of MS interface design, lest you think it's just an anti-MS site. Since it sounds like you create GUIs in your work, it's probably worthwhile reading for you.
However with ORIGIN there is the possibility of provably correct code. This has special importance for safety critical systems, where ORIGIN may have particular advantages.
Hmmm... I hope they're not claiming to solve the halting problem with this statement. If so, bravo!
Yes, for if we find such a place, with water, air, light, and plants... but, with major earthquakes... we'll never find life there. Except for the plants... or did you mean silk plants? or origami lilies...
What law of probability says this? I've seen statistics twisted both ways on this... that there should be millions (billions?) of intelligent races, or just one, us.
3. Who the hell came up with the rule requiring the announcer to yell the word "scooooooooore!" for as long as it took for the point to actually be scored (average time - 2 hours or something like that)?
Incredible use of hyperbole. By comparing the time the announcer takes to a time much longer than is actual, you really make your point. And, in a completely original way. I don't think I've ever seen that before. Hey, can we even improve upon it? Let's use the make-believe word "gazillion" instead. Then we can have a "gazillion hours" and really drive that point home!
Ok, sarcasm off. Just wanted to say something.
Ah.... but I just achieved my epiphany reading your small font reply. Or, maybe I could have if you offered an argument beyond "he's wrong", paraphrasing of course.
Slashdot Mirror
You must be an accountant, for your creativity is incredible;)
Your point is a good one, the original 12 hours represents a loss. But, at the beginning and end of that 12 hours you had the same preparedness for the manufacturing site. Thus, the 12 hours has not affected that at all. It stole the time you might have prepared, yes, but that time is part of the 12 hours, not extra to be added on.
Troll? I prefer "Senior Agitation Engineer"...
"Well Pat, I work for a major international marketing firm, and yes, my computer, a PC, has an OS on it."
See what I mean? But you're not on a game show, and you can tell us. I think you wrote this just looking for pity. Well, that's found in the dictionary between "shit" and "syphalus"... no wait, that's "sympathy":)
Ok, rant over, just wanted to post.
And now, in the interest of giving something back, here's some tips for you:
I think these things called "computers" might be big, they seem like more than a fad.
The internet... I think it really might catch on!
Now, use this information wisely.
Seriously... and I'm really holding back from calling you a name;) but how in the world did you come up with "a decade"? Did you just randomly pick a number out of the air? Your post is useless because of such an inane statement.
Or... are you being sarcastic and I fell for it?
Or, better yet, how about a compiler, parser, interpreter *never* assume anything. That way, you can just close the table, being explicit about what you want done.
Uhmmm... no, that's not true. Even between apps written by MS there are wide differences in GUI standards. Menu items are different, functionality is different. It only seems easy to use because people have learned and now know what to do. But, then again, you'd know all this if you took the time to really understand the business you're in. For reference:
http://www.iarchitect.com/mshame.htm
Note that they also give good examples of MS interface design, lest you think it's just an anti-MS site. Since it sounds like you create GUIs in your work, it's probably worthwhile reading for you.
Cheers... and don't forget to be open-minded!
If where lucky? Also, who are you quoting?
However with ORIGIN there is the possibility of provably correct code. This has special importance for safety critical systems, where ORIGIN may have particular advantages.
Hmmm... I hope they're not claiming to solve the halting problem with this statement. If so, bravo!
Generally though, me thinks the white papers reak
like a dirty diaper.
Incredible use of hyperbole. By comparing the time the announcer takes to a time much longer than is actual, you really make your point. And, in a completely original way. I don't think I've ever seen that before. Hey, can we even improve upon it? Let's use the make-believe word "gazillion" instead. Then we can have a "gazillion hours" and really drive that point home! Ok, sarcasm off. Just wanted to say something.
Ah.... but I just achieved my epiphany reading your small font reply. Or, maybe I could have if you offered an argument beyond "he's wrong", paraphrasing of course.
Or... you could use Postgres.
Right?