By using keyboard shortcuts, yes, you are in the minority. Even more so for using something application specific (lots of people use control-c and friends for cut and paste).
The middle America is no more a monolith than the coasts. Hell, given the distribution of population, there could well be more crazies on the coasts, just a lower percentage of them.
It is generally easier to build a rail line through open space than through a developed area (and cheaper!).
Not to mention that the governments in the 1800s probably had a somewhat more cavalier attitude towards eminent domain (like, the corrupt county judge would just tell you to shut up and go away, rather than the corrupt municipality giving you a just okay price for the land that a developer wants).
Who knows what will motivate such a creature, and how they would prefer to repair themselves (healing has lots of advantages, but ask anybody with bad ankles whether they see any advantages to something that bolts on).
I was very careful to say that solar panels capture more energy. Any estimate of the overall efficiency of such a machine would come with enormous margins of error.
Minor quibble: "Life already functions in the most optimal way possible at consuming energy and replicating more of its own kind." is quite an assertion.
The use of things like rotating bearings and electric current (for transmission of energy) might enable a self replicating machine to operate much more efficiently than life.
Then there are the solar panels that capture much more energy than photosynthesis, while not being made (mostly) out of water (so an artificial tree might be able to just keep its leaves through the winter).
I was sort of inverting that, instead of the buyer shopping around, the seller was finding better buyers (for a unique item, this may make sense). I was also pointing out that most advertisers are selling something, so maybe the $30,000 baby announcement isn't a very good comparison.
Given that LMI went bankrupt in 1987 (3 years after the end of the two year period you cite), while Symbolics continued to operate into the 1990s, it seems possible to construct an interpretation other than 'out-programming'.
It certainly sounds like Stallman was very productive during that period.
Fuel. The debris occupies a huge volume, and to collect each piece, you have to spend enough time in an intersecting orbit for the piece to come to you.
Yes, but most people, if they are amortizing the cost over years, are perfectly willing to pay a higher price for something. Also, the fact that it (occasionally?) keeps working for years at a time is part of the value of software (in fact, I should probably quibble over value==quality, as quality is often only one of many considerations when a person is placing a value on something).
Your argument is going to make you sound like a complete lunatic to anyone living in a developed country; $30 for something you use everyday for 2 years is ludicrously cheap (think about the stupid shit that people spend far, far more than $0.05 per day on...). Even $300 is still pretty cheap.
Much of the time, Free Software isn't competing on price, the times when each option is basically free (A company that employs someone to work at a computer, paying them $150,000 a year, is not going to hesitate to spend $5,000 on some software that they simply perceive to be slightly better than a $0 alternative).
Whether you know it or not, you are being disingenuous. "Selling, informational and administrative expenses" includes all sorts of other spending (things like salaries, rent, etc.), not just marketing.
What about fast food? It is extraordinary popular, but much of it really is crap (or at least, not as good as the food available at some diner or dive bar, just cheaper).
As I was reading the summary, I was wondering if someone was really so demented as to construe 'external force' as a god (rather than something striking of pressing on the phone), or if it was intentional sensationalism.
If it really is intentional sensationalism, it has me looking forward to the future, where I can use technological blinders to ignore the presence of that person on the internet.
Starting from the premise that EA is a successful company, it is safe to assume that most of their marketing costs are made up for in increased sales (part of being a successful company is taking in more money than you spend).
You might feel better knowing that you spent $12 that mostly went to the people who created the game, but it isn't particularly likely EA could sit on the other side of that transaction and still make money (because the $5 per box that you have going to the creators is spread across some significant multiple of the boxes they would sell without the marketing).
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, me too, in this case, lazy is a much better design principle than pedantically logical.
By using keyboard shortcuts, yes, you are in the minority. Even more so for using something application specific (lots of people use control-c and friends for cut and paste).
It sounds like they just soft-swap a whole chassis once enough of the drives in it have failed.
If their requirements are a mix of cheap, redundant and huge (with not so much focus on performance), cheap disposable systems may fit the bill.
William Shatner has continued to be awesome into well into his 70s. He even went on Conan and mocked Sarah Palin (while gently ribbing himself).
Of the personalities in Hollywood, he is one I like quite a bit.
What's intimidating about a self-absorbed, over-acting computer?
The middle America is no more a monolith than the coasts. Hell, given the distribution of population, there could well be more crazies on the coasts, just a lower percentage of them.
It is generally easier to build a rail line through open space than through a developed area (and cheaper!).
Not to mention that the governments in the 1800s probably had a somewhat more cavalier attitude towards eminent domain (like, the corrupt county judge would just tell you to shut up and go away, rather than the corrupt municipality giving you a just okay price for the land that a developer wants).
I think I read somewhere that he decided to cut back a bit, as it was difficult to maintain the hilarious regime he was on.
Presumably, the imperfections of the eye are mappable and can be compensated for.
The concept is incredibly attractive, but it seems like a whole lot of pieces need to be working quite well.
And yet we set aside horses and paved the world.
Who knows what will motivate such a creature, and how they would prefer to repair themselves (healing has lots of advantages, but ask anybody with bad ankles whether they see any advantages to something that bolts on).
I was very careful to say that solar panels capture more energy. Any estimate of the overall efficiency of such a machine would come with enormous margins of error.
Minor quibble: "Life already functions in the most optimal way possible at consuming energy and replicating more of its own kind." is quite an assertion.
The use of things like rotating bearings and electric current (for transmission of energy) might enable a self replicating machine to operate much more efficiently than life.
Then there are the solar panels that capture much more energy than photosynthesis, while not being made (mostly) out of water (so an artificial tree might be able to just keep its leaves through the winter).
Well, it isn't obvious to me whether the fuel expended on such a task would be less than the mass collected, no matter the efficiency of the engines.
In any case, when facing an asteroid that needs deflection, "Spend an extra $15 billion" is a pretty easy choice (to me).
I was sort of inverting that, instead of the buyer shopping around, the seller was finding better buyers (for a unique item, this may make sense). I was also pointing out that most advertisers are selling something, so maybe the $30,000 baby announcement isn't a very good comparison.
Given that LMI went bankrupt in 1987 (3 years after the end of the two year period you cite), while Symbolics continued to operate into the 1990s, it seems possible to construct an interpretation other than 'out-programming'.
It certainly sounds like Stallman was very productive during that period.
Fuel. The debris occupies a huge volume, and to collect each piece, you have to spend enough time in an intersecting orbit for the piece to come to you.
Yes, but most people, if they are amortizing the cost over years, are perfectly willing to pay a higher price for something. Also, the fact that it (occasionally?) keeps working for years at a time is part of the value of software (in fact, I should probably quibble over value==quality, as quality is often only one of many considerations when a person is placing a value on something).
Your argument is going to make you sound like a complete lunatic to anyone living in a developed country; $30 for something you use everyday for 2 years is ludicrously cheap (think about the stupid shit that people spend far, far more than $0.05 per day on...). Even $300 is still pretty cheap.
Much of the time, Free Software isn't competing on price, the times when each option is basically free (A company that employs someone to work at a computer, paying them $150,000 a year, is not going to hesitate to spend $5,000 on some software that they simply perceive to be slightly better than a $0 alternative).
Yes, the proper procedure is to shuffle sideways and then argue.
I'm one to actually give 10 year olds a decent amount of credit, but that doesn't mean they get to make me angry without any consequences.
Whether you know it or not, you are being disingenuous. "Selling, informational and administrative expenses" includes all sorts of other spending (things like salaries, rent, etc.), not just marketing.
What about fast food? It is extraordinary popular, but much of it really is crap (or at least, not as good as the food available at some diner or dive bar, just cheaper).
What if those ads help you sell the baby for $50,000, instead of $15,000?
I think the analogy may be starting to break down though.
As I was reading the summary, I was wondering if someone was really so demented as to construe 'external force' as a god (rather than something striking of pressing on the phone), or if it was intentional sensationalism.
If it really is intentional sensationalism, it has me looking forward to the future, where I can use technological blinders to ignore the presence of that person on the internet.
So you are the kind of guy that appreciates the stickers instructing you not to put your hand in a running lawnmower?
Starting from the premise that EA is a successful company, it is safe to assume that most of their marketing costs are made up for in increased sales (part of being a successful company is taking in more money than you spend).
You might feel better knowing that you spent $12 that mostly went to the people who created the game, but it isn't particularly likely EA could sit on the other side of that transaction and still make money (because the $5 per box that you have going to the creators is spread across some significant multiple of the boxes they would sell without the marketing).