The other option would be to pay a little more attention to the crack addict that you just let into your apartment (on a scale of convenience, this is more convenient than getting cleaned out by the crack addict, but less convenient than not letting the crack addict into your life and continuing to use a debit card).
It would certainly be interesting to hear what they had to say.
At the very least, the fact that overall Windows licensing revenue went up year-over-year is a decent indicator that there isn't any mass exodus away from Windows as a platform.
They don't really discuss how much of those revenues are XP and how much are Vista, but they attribute a $1.46 billion increase largely to Vista licensing (read the text under the numbers for client revenue, there is a reference to $1.8 billion that is something else):
Once they stop licensing XP, they will have to report where the revenues are coming from. Until then, the idea that Vista was a massive failure (rather than a poor success) is pretty speculative.
The article makes the mistake of assuming that new methods that can be used when you have bigger piles of information will make the old methods less powerful. As you say, it is often the case that they can be used together, resulting in faster/better/cheaper results.
I have a theory that some of the best engineers are scientists, and some of the best scientists are engineers.
Scientists often need to build crazy stuff to figure things out, and engineers often need to figure things out to build crazy stuff. Because they are each result oriented, they don't get hung up on the things that someone in field would.
Fine. I'll try to restate my point using more specific language.
The fact that correlation does not imply causation isn't nearly as troublesome as the volume of "Remember folks correlation!=causation" would have us believe; lacking other evidence, it is a reasonable assumption to start with.
Of course correlation implies causation. When things are correlated, it is often a good place to look for causation. That's exactly what "imply" means.
Read your treaty. China and India aren't listed in Annex B. By signing the treaty, they have simply put their names on it, while agreeing to do nothing.
He wasn't saying that they have no signed the treaty, he was saying that the treaty doesn't ask them to do anything.
Cap and trade means that someone gets to decide how much emissions are o.k. and poisons the process.
A direct tax means that you treat all emissions the same. If you don't get the result you want, you increase the tax. If emissions go down further than is considered necessary, you lower the tax.
The opt out usually precedes the case. It gives the people bringing the case more leverage to actually get a settlement.
Take this case for instance, if you wanted to put it to Take Two, would you take the $5, or would you make one of their lawyers spend a couple of hours doing paper work for another case? If the opt out came after the agreement, Take Two would work a lot harder not settling.
I don't accept that the overall shape of our society makes sense. A lot of it does, but a lot of it is just crazy, and the people doing the craziest stuff (I don't think cduffy is one of these...) are certainly behaving irrationally.
As you point out, people who can pay for it will never get there.
I was mostly riffing on 'severely limited time' because time limitations are almost always a result of attitude and choices, not circumstances, or at least largely a result of attitude and choices.
I would not be too upset about that (though I am of above average size and would pay more).
It would need to be a base price + per pound fee structure though, as part of what you are paying for is the space that you are sitting in, and the space for the toilet, and the crew, and so forth, none of which vary based on your weight (except for people that fill two seats).
Slashdot Mirror
You type awesome for a six month old.
The other option would be to pay a little more attention to the crack addict that you just let into your apartment (on a scale of convenience, this is more convenient than getting cleaned out by the crack addict, but less convenient than not letting the crack addict into your life and continuing to use a debit card).
How do you verify that export is impossible without knowing what attacks someone else might dream up?
I'm sure it is easy to make it rather difficult.
You missed that he put number after PIN, so you didn't get it write either.
It would certainly be interesting to hear what they had to say.
At the very least, the fact that overall Windows licensing revenue went up year-over-year is a decent indicator that there isn't any mass exodus away from Windows as a platform.
It isn't all that clear that Vista is stumbling terribly. See the client revenues here:
http://www.microsoft.com/msft/reports/ar07/staticversion/10k_fr_not_17.html
They don't really discuss how much of those revenues are XP and how much are Vista, but they attribute a $1.46 billion increase largely to Vista licensing (read the text under the numbers for client revenue, there is a reference to $1.8 billion that is something else):
http://www.microsoft.com/msft/reports/ar07/staticversion/10k_fr_dis.html
Once they stop licensing XP, they will have to report where the revenues are coming from. Until then, the idea that Vista was a massive failure (rather than a poor success) is pretty speculative.
What about those of us who deride them for not using the search bar?
Dude:
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=596003&cid=23947925
Yes, but can you do it longer and harder?
The article makes the mistake of assuming that new methods that can be used when you have bigger piles of information will make the old methods less powerful. As you say, it is often the case that they can be used together, resulting in faster/better/cheaper results.
I admitted that I wasn't using precise language. As the AC that also replied to me pointed out, imply does happen to mean suggest in normal usage.
All the time was apparently an overstatement, but look at the tone surrounding that exact phrase:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22correlation!%3Dcausation%22+site%3Aslashdot.org
and the words:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=correlation+causation+site%3Aslashdot.org
I have a theory that some of the best engineers are scientists, and some of the best scientists are engineers.
Scientists often need to build crazy stuff to figure things out, and engineers often need to figure things out to build crazy stuff. Because they are each result oriented, they don't get hung up on the things that someone in field would.
People say it all the time.
Fine. I'll try to restate my point using more specific language.
The fact that correlation does not imply causation isn't nearly as troublesome as the volume of "Remember folks correlation!=causation" would have us believe; lacking other evidence, it is a reasonable assumption to start with.
Of course correlation implies causation. When things are correlated, it is often a good place to look for causation. That's exactly what "imply" means.
Correlation doesn't *prove* causation.
There is a difference.
Lots of people. I don't happen to use Outlook, but I do it all the time.
They even changed the functionality after user observation showed that a lot of people used it to check dates:
http://news.softpedia.com/news/Date-and-Time-Settings-in-Vista-38465.shtml
FOX Mondays.
Read your treaty. China and India aren't listed in Annex B. By signing the treaty, they have simply put their names on it, while agreeing to do nothing.
He wasn't saying that they have no signed the treaty, he was saying that the treaty doesn't ask them to do anything.
Cap and trade means that someone gets to decide how much emissions are o.k. and poisons the process.
A direct tax means that you treat all emissions the same. If you don't get the result you want, you increase the tax. If emissions go down further than is considered necessary, you lower the tax.
The opt out usually precedes the case. It gives the people bringing the case more leverage to actually get a settlement.
Take this case for instance, if you wanted to put it to Take Two, would you take the $5, or would you make one of their lawyers spend a couple of hours doing paper work for another case? If the opt out came after the agreement, Take Two would work a lot harder not settling.
I think American Idol is stupid, but I can clearly see that it was a good idea.
Buying in to it is a choice. The alternatives certainly are not any good, but it is still a choice.
I don't accept that the overall shape of our society makes sense. A lot of it does, but a lot of it is just crazy, and the people doing the craziest stuff (I don't think cduffy is one of these...) are certainly behaving irrationally.
As you point out, people who can pay for it will never get there.
I was mostly riffing on 'severely limited time' because time limitations are almost always a result of attitude and choices, not circumstances, or at least largely a result of attitude and choices.
I would not be too upset about that (though I am of above average size and would pay more).
It would need to be a base price + per pound fee structure though, as part of what you are paying for is the space that you are sitting in, and the space for the toilet, and the crew, and so forth, none of which vary based on your weight (except for people that fill two seats).