Exactly, people are bringing up all these situations where anonymity is conveniently available and making the mistake of assuming that the government would protect that anonymity, whereas it would actually do nothing.
Built to almost certainly last a few months. That involves quite a lot of overbuilding, and it makes perfect sense when you consider the difficulty involved in getting it to location.
There will always be people that are poor for some reason or another, even if everyone got the same exact number of economic credits by way of governmental redistribution, other people would like their wives more, or their jobs more, or enjoy the shows that were on television more, or whatever.
If you compare actual historical standards of living, instead of mindlessly comparing historical government statistics, those 37 million are doing okay. If you shop and cook for yourself, you don't even have to eat low quality calories to get by on a pretty thin budget.
You are shadowboxing, none of those things say anything about squalor or poverty (especially if you want it to be depression era poverty, and not food-stamps poverty).
It would have been better for me to have said "while being as fair as possible to all participants", I'm not really a wide-eyed idealist (I guess I'm a cynical one). So my point was more that "you can't" is a useless answer when you are working from the premise that you are going to have contests for women only.
Now, you could just reject the idea of a women only contest, but that isn't something most people are going to want to do (and it is equally as uninteresting to me as "you can't").
Resolving this particular incident is going to be a bit of a pickle, but having a clear definition of eligibility is possible (of course, that definition may be one that is markedly unfair for a small group...).
The professional athletes in basketball thing is no longer the case (the USA has fielded teams composed of NBA players since 1992), and it wasn't necessarily the Olympics making the decision (looking it up, they apparently delegated the decision to FIBA).
In any case, that was more about sportsmanship than it was about fairness.
It seems there is a fair sized contingent here who agrees with my sentiment that, at least in a general context, there is a difference (perhaps only in connotation, but it could be the case that accountant types, who have to pay attention to the specifics all of the time, do no realize that other folks wantonly interchange revenue and gross revenue in day-to-day conversation).
Well how profound. So onto the real question, if you are going to have a group of contests for women only, how do you go about determining who is eligible for those contests, while being fair to all the participants?
I'm not really sure if I am right or wrong versus the professional usage you are talking about, and I don't really care, but I have never noticed the business press use the terms 'revenue' and 'profit' differently than I am (an example would be here: http://finance.yahoo.com/q/is?s=MSFT&annual ); for the most part, I am basing my usage on that, and I don't think it is particularly absurd to expect conversations between laymen to follow that definition (especially because the dictionary definition of revenue is rather vague, but the dictionary definition of profit clearly specifies that it is a gain above some base cost).
The whole point is that we don't know anything about the cost of revenues for the accounts that were banned, so we can't talk meaningfully about any sort of profits, we can only speculate. We can assume that the costs are similar to the costs for other accounts, but that gets sloppy quite quickly.
So the Swiss government is requiring Google to deny a service to people in Switzerland in retaliation for settlements that will cost Swiss banks hundreds of millions of dollars?
Because I said "might have been". I'm encouraging clear language use, not making any assertions about how the 2% drop in revenues will impact their profits.
Profits and revenues are different things. They certainly lost revenues, but neither one of us knows how they use their revenues, and how that translates into profits; maybe their hardware costs are 1% of their revenues, and overtime dealing with complaints about RMT users was 3% of revenues (that's probably silly, but it's possible).
The sloppy is in pretending that revenues and profits are the same thing. As far as being an ungrateful gamer, I'm not either, I'm simply encouraging you to think about what you are saying before you say it.
"2% of their profits" isn't something you could possibly know. They are claiming that cutting the players reduced their system load by 20%, so the loss of 2% of their revenues might have been offset by lower per user costs and increased their profits, even if they never make it up new users.
It's likely that you were just being sloppy, but what does that matter?
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, libel suits can be replaced with trying-to-prove-libel suits. Genius!
Or was there some other legal mechanism you were suggesting as a way to resolve whether libel had occurred or not?
Google never promised to stand between the blogger and the law. Why should the blogger expect them to?
Exactly, people are bringing up all these situations where anonymity is conveniently available and making the mistake of assuming that the government would protect that anonymity, whereas it would actually do nothing.
People have been writing on walls since before they were invented, they used the ones they found in caves.
Worry not, I am hard at work on an animation that will be even more disappointing.
Built to almost certainly last a few months. That involves quite a lot of overbuilding, and it makes perfect sense when you consider the difficulty involved in getting it to location.
No, not really.
I plan on boiling in demississippi.
Yes.
There will always be people that are poor for some reason or another, even if everyone got the same exact number of economic credits by way of governmental redistribution, other people would like their wives more, or their jobs more, or enjoy the shows that were on television more, or whatever.
If you compare actual historical standards of living, instead of mindlessly comparing historical government statistics, those 37 million are doing okay. If you shop and cook for yourself, you don't even have to eat low quality calories to get by on a pretty thin budget.
You are shadowboxing, none of those things say anything about squalor or poverty (especially if you want it to be depression era poverty, and not food-stamps poverty).
It would have been better for me to have said "while being as fair as possible to all participants", I'm not really a wide-eyed idealist (I guess I'm a cynical one). So my point was more that "you can't" is a useless answer when you are working from the premise that you are going to have contests for women only.
Now, you could just reject the idea of a women only contest, but that isn't something most people are going to want to do (and it is equally as uninteresting to me as "you can't").
Resolving this particular incident is going to be a bit of a pickle, but having a clear definition of eligibility is possible (of course, that definition may be one that is markedly unfair for a small group...).
The professional athletes in basketball thing is no longer the case (the USA has fielded teams composed of NBA players since 1992), and it wasn't necessarily the Olympics making the decision (looking it up, they apparently delegated the decision to FIBA).
In any case, that was more about sportsmanship than it was about fairness.
Really, it's just highly correlated with the genetic advantages.
It seems there is a fair sized contingent here who agrees with my sentiment that, at least in a general context, there is a difference (perhaps only in connotation, but it could be the case that accountant types, who have to pay attention to the specifics all of the time, do no realize that other folks wantonly interchange revenue and gross revenue in day-to-day conversation).
Well how profound. So onto the real question, if you are going to have a group of contests for women only, how do you go about determining who is eligible for those contests, while being fair to all the participants?
Actually, I started all this business by insisting that revenue and profit are not interchangeable, way back here:
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1344441&cid=29155553
I'm not really sure if I am right or wrong versus the professional usage you are talking about, and I don't really care, but I have never noticed the business press use the terms 'revenue' and 'profit' differently than I am (an example would be here: http://finance.yahoo.com/q/is?s=MSFT&annual ); for the most part, I am basing my usage on that, and I don't think it is particularly absurd to expect conversations between laymen to follow that definition (especially because the dictionary definition of revenue is rather vague, but the dictionary definition of profit clearly specifies that it is a gain above some base cost).
There are hooks for implementing scripting languages, so you don't have to go quite so far out on a limb to pull in an alternative javascript engine:
https://wiki.mozilla.org/Tamarin:ScreamingMonkey
The whole point is that we don't know anything about the cost of revenues for the accounts that were banned, so we can't talk meaningfully about any sort of profits, we can only speculate. We can assume that the costs are similar to the costs for other accounts, but that gets sloppy quite quickly.
So the Swiss government is requiring Google to deny a service to people in Switzerland in retaliation for settlements that will cost Swiss banks hundreds of millions of dollars?
I'm sure the U.S. government is fine with that.
Because I said "might have been". I'm encouraging clear language use, not making any assertions about how the 2% drop in revenues will impact their profits.
Where's the insult? Confusing revenues and profits is sloppy.
If you really are the mod who chucked in a Flamebait, you should have commented from a browser where you weren't logged in, it were undone.
Profits and revenues are different things. They certainly lost revenues, but neither one of us knows how they use their revenues, and how that translates into profits; maybe their hardware costs are 1% of their revenues, and overtime dealing with complaints about RMT users was 3% of revenues (that's probably silly, but it's possible).
The sloppy is in pretending that revenues and profits are the same thing. As far as being an ungrateful gamer, I'm not either, I'm simply encouraging you to think about what you are saying before you say it.
"2% of their profits" isn't something you could possibly know. They are claiming that cutting the players reduced their system load by 20%, so the loss of 2% of their revenues might have been offset by lower per user costs and increased their profits, even if they never make it up new users.
It's likely that you were just being sloppy, but what does that matter?