The infrastructure of the internet was never free, but most of the content for most of the history of the internet has been. Which isn't to say that it's wrong to attempt to defray either cost, but rather to point out that universities have not to a large extent subsidized the cost of producing content.
You omitted my phrase, "The casino makes its money when people play games with negative expected payouts", and then spent a paragraph restating it. The expected payout is the sum of all payouts, weighted by the probablility of making that payout. In your example, it's $.90 * 0.5 - $1 * 0.05 = -$0.05. I.E., in the long run, the house is making 5 cents per wager. You can think of it your way if you want (and I'm not saying it's wrong, just asymmetrical), but I don't see how this way of thinking generalizes to cover the, er, general 2 (or n) person game. If I challenge you to a bet (on whatever), will you still claim that you make your money when you lose? Why does that change when you call yourself "the House"?
A friend once told me: the casino doesn't make money when they win a bet. They make money when they lose a bet.
It's ridiculous to claim that someone makes money when they pay out, and not when they take in. The casino makes its money when people play games with negative expected payouts, which is all the time. Individual players may win the the short run, but the house is in it for the long haul. To keep this on topic, card counting allows you to turn the expected payout positive.
Why are Americans so much more paranoid than other people? Have your government really screwed over that many times? If you can't trust your government you have a problem. Please do something about it.
This bill has nothing to do with trusting the government - it's about regulating the release of this information by banks. And even if it did relate to the release of this information by the government, the fact that the bill has been proposed would show immense trust in the government, since you would be trusting one branch to enforce it.
>> Well, the reason is because if I post my own SSN, then I could be considered to be implicitly allowing others to use it. I don't care if someone else posts my SSN, but I'm not going to do it myself.
Grow a sac and put your money where your mouth is. If you don't think it's a big deal, log in AC and post it.
And for fuck's sake, it's not like anyone is even going to check if the # you post is yours. But right now, you're looking like a hypocritical coward.
Is this a troll? Here's some tips: RTFA, get the units right in your calculation (hint: V != A), and if you're going to use physics, make your conclusion meaningful ("Force of Asteroid > Force of Earth" means less than you think).
There's this really big thing in the center of the Solar System that exerts a gravitational on the earth. I know it looks small from here (about the size of a quarter), but it's really big.
It's a totally stereotypical shop teacher thing to say, but he really said it: "It's the volts that give you the shock. It's the amps that give you the burn."
My example in the general form is the fairly common "pattern"
if (fooIsSafeToDo() && foo())...
Yes, but do you understand what has to happen for this to not work the way you'd expect? One or the other of these has to return an object of class type that participates in an overloaded operator && with the other return type! Sure it's possible, but I think you're concerned about things that never happen. In addition, someone whom you trust to some extent (because you're using their code) intentionally overloaded this operator. I'm not saying that there aren't pitfalls in C++, but this doesn't keep me up at night.
Here's an other pet peeve, while I'm whining. Why is this unsafe C++ code?
because foo() may throw an exception, so this is a resource leak.
Yes, but this isn't any better in Java, so what's your point? There are well known ways of handling this situation (C++: variables with automatic scope, google for RAII; Java: finally). I call it a wash (maybe advantage C++ since RAII is more flexible than finally). And the answer to this is not GC and finalize: if you are relying on GC to free non-memory resources, then you have a bug waiting to manifest itself. Java GC is a one-trick pony - it knows how to destroy Objects to free memory for other Objects. If the lifetimes of your Objects control other resources (file descriptors, threads, sockets, etc), you have to rely on GC running even when there is not memory pressure.
> But with operator overloading in the language, you can never be too sure.
You are not allowed to overload operators that take 2 build in types for this very reason. You can declare a class, and try to get an implicit conversion into the mix, but I don't think it works. Do you have an actual code sample, or is this FUD?
> (The above may not be valid C++ syntax. I left C++ for Java many years ago and I'm never going back!)
Well, it's hard to judge the validity of the syntax without variable declarations, but I will try anyway:
Since the point of your post is that && can be overloaded, and if it is, it loses its shortcut semantics, I assume that x is of type T*. So let's replace x.foo() with x->foo(), and voila! No problem. No operator overloads are called, and the && shortcuts the way it needs to.
I think you were reaching for an example like:
A a();B b();
C c = a() && b();
Assuming an appropriate user-define operator&&(), the problem here is that both a() and b() are evaluated, no matter what. But I wouldn't call it an "awful consequence". Did you ever see a problem that resulted from this particular operator overload semantics, or is this imagined FUD?
This was, of course, ridiculous: they didn't require their employees to have deep pockets, and when they screwed up, they didn't sue them for millions.
It's not legal (in the US) to sue an employee for screwing up except for cases of gross negligence.
Is there locking for posting in-depth, correct, messages, or if you spend lots of time presenting a well thought out post do you just get bounced when somebody else has already replied while you were typing?
Neither. You don't reply to a message, you post to the discussion. If you are "replying" to a particular post, that's fine, but is not officially indicated or recorded in any fashion.
I heard them use the term 'googling' on ER the other night
That was an ER writer trying to make a character sound cool - did it work?. I have heard only one person use it in spoken communication, and it didn't make him sound cool.
Slashdot Mirror
The infrastructure of the internet was never free, but most of the content for most of the history of the internet has been. Which isn't to say that it's wrong to attempt to defray either cost, but rather to point out that universities have not to a large extent subsidized the cost of producing content.
What is the big advantage of this system over a fuel tax?
I print everything out on paper, then sort it according to the integer value of the MD5 hash of each page's contents.
I do the electronic equivalent: I store it in Freenet under Content Hash Keys.
You omitted my phrase, "The casino makes its money when people play games with negative expected payouts", and then spent a paragraph restating it. The expected payout is the sum of all payouts, weighted by the probablility of making that payout. In your example, it's $.90 * 0.5 - $1 * 0.05 = -$0.05. I.E., in the long run, the house is making 5 cents per wager.
You can think of it your way if you want (and I'm not saying it's wrong, just asymmetrical), but I don't see how this way of thinking generalizes to cover the, er, general 2 (or n) person game.
If I challenge you to a bet (on whatever), will you still claim that you make your money when you lose? Why does that change when you call yourself "the House"?
A friend once told me: the casino doesn't make money when they win a bet. They make money when they lose a bet.
It's ridiculous to claim that someone makes money when they pay out, and not when they take in. The casino makes its money when people play games with negative expected payouts, which is all the time. Individual players may win the the short run, but the house is in it for the long haul. To keep this on topic, card counting allows you to turn the expected payout positive.
If you're interested in these articles, read them on the Crypto-Gram newsletter instead of waiting for /. ers to read it and post them here.
Only you suckers who are stuck on decimal are fooled by this. I prefer my prices expressed in base 2999, so the expensive G5's cost just $10!
Why are Americans so much more paranoid than other people? Have your government really screwed over that many times? If you can't trust your government you have a problem. Please do something about it.
This bill has nothing to do with trusting the government - it's about regulating the release of this information by banks. And even if it did relate to the release of this information by the government, the fact that the bill has been proposed would show immense trust in the government, since you would be trusting one branch to enforce it.
>> Well, the reason is because if I post my own SSN, then I could be considered to be implicitly allowing others to use it. I don't care if someone else posts my SSN, but I'm not going to do it myself.
Grow a sac and put your money where your mouth is. If you don't think it's a big deal, log in AC and post it.
And for fuck's sake, it's not like anyone is even going to check if the # you post is yours. But right now, you're looking like a hypocritical coward.
How much do they pay you? Please tell me they pay you.
If they paid him, he might be able to afford a keyboard with a shift key.
Does that include ridiculing the poster for using words they don't understand? Did you mean trove?
Help me remember:
Monday is patch your windows server day
Tuesday is patch your Linux box day
Wednesday is file a Unix lawsuit day?
It's a totally stereotypical shop teacher thing to say, but he really said it: "It's the volts that give you the shock. It's the amps that give you the burn."
My example in the general form is the fairly common "pattern"
// memory, file, whatever
if (fooIsSafeToDo() && foo())...
Yes, but do you understand what has to happen for this to not work the way you'd expect? One or the other of these has to return an object of class type that participates in an overloaded operator && with the other return type! Sure it's possible, but I think you're concerned about things that never happen. In addition, someone whom you trust to some extent (because you're using their code) intentionally overloaded this operator. I'm not saying that there aren't pitfalls in C++, but this doesn't keep me up at night.
Here's an other pet peeve, while I'm whining. Why is this unsafe C++ code?
getResource();
foo();
releaseResource();
because foo() may throw an exception, so this is a resource leak.
Yes, but this isn't any better in Java, so what's your point? There are well known ways of handling this situation (C++: variables with automatic scope, google for RAII; Java: finally). I call it a wash (maybe advantage C++ since RAII is more flexible than finally). And the answer to this is not GC and finalize: if you are relying on GC to free non-memory resources, then you have a bug waiting to manifest itself. Java GC is a one-trick pony - it knows how to destroy Objects to free memory for other Objects. If the lifetimes of your Objects control other resources (file descriptors, threads, sockets, etc), you have to rely on GC running even when there is not memory pressure.
You are not allowed to overload operators that take 2 build in types for this very reason. You can declare a class, and try to get an implicit conversion into the mix, but I don't think it works. Do you have an actual code sample, or is this FUD?
Well, it's hard to judge the validity of the syntax without variable declarations, but I will try anyway:
Since the point of your post is that && can be overloaded, and if it is, it loses its shortcut semantics, I assume that x is of type T*. So let's replace x.foo() with x->foo(), and voila! No problem. No operator overloads are called, and the && shortcuts the way it needs to.
I think you were reaching for an example like:
A a();B b();
C c = a() && b();
Assuming an appropriate user-define operator&&(), the problem here is that both a() and b() are evaluated, no matter what. But I wouldn't call it an "awful consequence". Did you ever see a problem that resulted from this particular operator overload semantics, or is this imagined FUD?
That's great. Why be so immature? Why not listen for 10 seconds, say "I'm not interested", and hang up?
This was, of course, ridiculous: they didn't require their employees to have deep pockets, and when they screwed up, they didn't sue them for millions.
It's not legal (in the US) to sue an employee for screwing up except for cases of gross negligence.
'One college student I spoke to described leaving one's phone at home or letting the battery die as "the new taboo."'
Great! Just what the Japanese need - another way to lose face.
It seems like that you do not understand the "Microsoft Tax" term. It is called so because you pay it EVEN if you do NOT want Windows
Does that mean that Hemos doesn't understand the term [free game for anyone that's paid the Microsoft tax!] either?
Is there locking for posting in-depth, correct, messages, or if you spend lots of time presenting a well thought out post do you just get bounced when somebody else has already replied while you were typing?
Neither. You don't reply to a message, you post to the discussion. If you are "replying" to a particular post, that's fine, but is not officially indicated or recorded in any fashion.
Sounds like a broken decision to me
Sounds like attacking a straw man to me.
I heard them use the term 'googling' on ER the other night
That was an ER writer trying to make a character sound cool - did it work?. I have heard only one person use it in spoken communication, and it didn't make him sound cool.