These were Certified "Professional Engineers". This is different from being a "regular engineer" which is simply a corporate title.
A P.E. is roughly equivalent to a C.P.A (Certified Public Accountant) and has undergone some form of state certification process. The process typically includes testing then working under a P.E for some number of years and usually another test.
Once you are a P.E. you are able to "sigh-off" on specific designs. You are putting your professional name on it and can be held personally liable. P.E.s DO NOT do this for free and typically get "malpractice insurance". In this case the engineer made a mistake (or was incompetent) and is no longer a "Professional Engineer" (and may have suffered other claims).
I also bought Carcassonne and Settlers of Catan a few months ago. Fantastic!
A few years ago I totally gave up on Computer based games and went totally console. I play console games when the wife goes out and the kids are in bed. Fun playing when no one else is around, better than reality TV.
When I go out I typically hook up with friends for some kind of miniature wargame. Fun interaction and competition.
The kids really like Carcassonne. 8 and 9 and no trouble picking it up (less trouble than the grand parents had...). It's also nice because it's mostly benign (no real way to attack someone). Once we added "Princess and Dragon" we got to add some lessons on how to be a good sport when someone jacks your castle:)
I've been a Netflix user for years and never experienced "throttling". I return movies within a day or so typically. They opened a distribution center in a nearby city a while back (2 hrs away). They report my DVD received the day after I put it in the Mail and I get my movie the next day.
I can never get any good info out of Janes. Mainly because when I try and find it I stumble on Janes Guide instead (http://www.janesguide.com/frames.html)
Then I lose interest in whatever I was looking for:)
"I don't bother with car insurance. I haven't had a wreck and don't expect to. I might get a fender bender, but that's no biggie, I'll just live with he dent. Look at all those losers who spend tons of cash on insurance each year!"
I can understand taking a MEASURED look at the situation and deciding it's not worth the money. But you're claim of totally ignoring the problem borders on negligence.
Actually it IS negligent.
Of course by now I realize you are but a troll Mr AC and couldn't be the head of anything let alone the IT dept at a "major medical research institution" AKA, the hydroponic pot farm in your mothers basement closet.
I understand you were talking about people who don't pay attention to those details but...
We've been riding 0% and 2+% cashback now for over 3 years.
Both cars and a number of appliances still sit on credit a credit card account (with enough savings in the bank/CDs to pay them off right now)
We still get 2-3 0% offers each DAY. So when the one we're on is ready to age, we just hop on to one that's 12+ months out.
Here's my strategy to your scenarios:
o you don't pay attention to their changing fine print periodically tossed out with other junk mail
Pay attention to your bill! Not running this game is no excuse for ignoring the fine print on your credit cards. You should always know what your current situation is with your credit provider. Especially credit you use every day.
o as a fallible human, you will eventually pay a bill late
Don't pay late, ever. Why should you? You have the money in the bank right? Besides, being a good payer is how you keep those 0% cards rolling in. They want you because your credit is EXCELLENT. Each one is hopeing to win the lottery and catch that perfect customer. They all lose.
o or that a payment will take too long to get through the postal system
BS. Pay when the bill arrives and this will never be a problem. If they do charge you a late fee (because they are crooked or because you were late that ONE time...) call them and say "take it off please" and they will. If they don't say "cancel please" then they will.
Not today, not tomorrow, but eventually the day comes and.... BAM!
Three years, no BAM.
o BAM!: All of your "savings" by using the float are wiped out as you spend your time (and what is that worth) to surf the web for a better card, apply, and then eventually deal with moving any automatic payments you may have to the new card. (Look at all the pr0n surfing time you lose!)
Sure. if you're credit's not good enough to have the CC companies hammering on your door to GIVE you 0% PLEASE, then don't bother with this game.
=Shreak
The US commerce laws (and a lot of the western world laws) define what a modern "free market" should look like. This creates both explicit and implicit activities that are non-free market.
Attempting to "Stop" a competitor is outside the ethical and practical bounds of the modern free market.
How do you "Stop" a competitor? Kill him? Burn his factory down? Collude with other competitors to squeeze him out? Arrange with legislators to be the only "allowed" vendor?
Stopping can't be done without violating an explicit or implicit boundary of the free market.
You can out-sell your competitor. You can grab a bigger market share than your competitor. You can even undermine your competitors credibility with FUD (although this is starting to be ethically questionable). Non of these things "stop" your competitor, they compete with your competitor.
I can't comment on what the legal parameters are but one of the benefits is a level of legal immunity.
If my child stumbles across some pornographic site on the web, it would be unlikely that I'd be able to squeeze any cash out of the ISP for presenting the material to her. They will argue "We're a common carrier, we don't limit or scrutinize the information you access through us so we have no way of protecting you or your child from any information you may be presented with" or some such.
If they were to start censoring information presented to customers it is conceivable that they could be required to uphold community standards. They are no longer a "common carrier".
Other examples of common carriers:
Phone companies (not liable for criminal activity or operations that violate local community standards, like phone sex)
Mail Carriers - Not liable for illegal or community standard violating material.
Your math seems plausable, if you meant to say: "If the limit of Y as x approaches infinity is infinity". But it doesn't seem to back up your original statement.
If your equation is an accurate description of a situation, then it is true at the $0.00 point and is no more true at the $0.75, $1.00 or $100 point.
So the risk of increasing cost exists regardless of where you are currently. We're at $0 and equation says, we're at risk of a price increase. If the price increases to $0.75, we're still at risk of a price increase.
That's the basis of the slippery slope fallacy. You've proposed an equation that describes a slippery slope scenario, but you have not provided an adequate argument that the equation fits the situation.
There could be any number of limits on the price that ICANN wants to impose. Market forces being the most likely to assert itself first.
This sounds similar to a solution I heard for returning stale copyrights to the public domain.
Charge a small yearly fee. If it doesn't get paid the domain returns to the pool. It would prevent domains from remaining out of circulation even though the original claimer has forgotten about it (or passed on...).
http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/distract/ss. ht m
"The Slippery Slope" is a logical fallacy, not a valid argument. It's easy to spot on./ because people will actually call it by name while they are using it as an argument.
"Right now it's $0.75, then it's $1.00, then it's $100, then it's you first born! This change will lead us to slavery!"
hmmm... I don't think that'll work. The whole point of money laundering is to break the info connection between you and the illegal cash.
There are two accepted methods I know of:
Buy someone at a bank that can throw some accounting mojo (multi transfers through various shell companies). They charge for this, but you can launder huge amounts of cash pretty quickly.
Use a cash economy and run the cash through it to create "real" receipts. This also costs money but potentially less than the above. It's also hard to run huge amounts through. Cash economies exist in things like bars, strip clubs and casinos where people are likely to come in and drop a fair amount of money in cash form with minimal traceable inventory. i.e. Shela got $1000 in tips tonight and tipped out $500 to the house. Maybe she does that every night. She's not good looking, but some of the customer seem to REALLY like her...
Why would he want to throw it? Why would he stop caring about winning?
He's a obviously competitor who enjoy's and is good at using his brain.
Chess champions don't get "tired of winning". Professional sports players don't get "tired of winning"
I don't think it's necessary that he threw the game or got tired of winning. He may have, but don't see why it would be more boring and draining than anything else people do on a regular basis (and keep doing for the majority of there lives...)
Ah, well that makes much more sense. I thought the "lack of operator as operator" was extremely weird...
Still, it looks like they are trying to patent the use of the actual word "ISNOT" which isn't the same as Bang-equals. So maybe not prior art. Of course it does seem to fail the "non-obvious" requirement...
Slashdot Mirror
These were Certified "Professional Engineers". This is different from being a "regular engineer" which is simply a corporate title.
A P.E. is roughly equivalent to a C.P.A (Certified Public Accountant) and has undergone some form of state certification process. The process typically includes testing then working under a P.E for some number of years and usually another test.
Once you are a P.E. you are able to "sigh-off" on specific designs. You are putting your professional name on it and can be held personally liable. P.E.s DO NOT do this for free and typically get "malpractice insurance". In this case the engineer made a mistake (or was incompetent) and is no longer a "Professional Engineer" (and may have suffered other claims).
And offtopic!
I also bought Carcassonne and Settlers of Catan a few months ago. Fantastic!
:)
A few years ago I totally gave up on Computer based games and went totally console. I play console games when the wife goes out and the kids are in bed. Fun playing when no one else is around, better than reality TV.
When I go out I typically hook up with friends for some kind of miniature wargame. Fun interaction and competition.
The kids really like Carcassonne. 8 and 9 and no trouble picking it up (less trouble than the grand parents had...). It's also nice because it's mostly benign (no real way to attack someone). Once we added "Princess and Dragon" we got to add some lessons on how to be a good sport when someone jacks your castle
=Shreak
I've been a Netflix user for years and never experienced "throttling". I return movies within a day or so typically. They opened a distribution center in a nearby city a while back (2 hrs away). They report my DVD received the day after I put it in the Mail and I get my movie the next day.
Yes, that's a 2 day turnaround. Awesome.
=Shreak
I can never get any good info out of Janes. Mainly because when I try and find it I stumble on Janes Guide instead (http://www.janesguide.com/frames.html)
:)
Then I lose interest in whatever I was looking for
=Shreak
"I don't bother with car insurance. I haven't had a wreck and don't expect to. I might get a fender bender, but that's no biggie, I'll just live with he dent. Look at all those losers who spend tons of cash on insurance each year!"
I can understand taking a MEASURED look at the situation and deciding it's not worth the money. But you're claim of totally ignoring the problem borders on negligence.
Actually it IS negligent.
Of course by now I realize you are but a troll Mr AC and couldn't be the head of anything let alone the IT dept at a "major medical research institution" AKA, the hydroponic pot farm in your mothers basement closet.
Cheers
=Shreak
We've been riding 0% and 2+% cashback now for over 3 years.
Both cars and a number of appliances still sit on credit a credit card account (with enough savings in the bank/CDs to pay them off right now)
We still get 2-3 0% offers each DAY. So when the one we're on is ready to age, we just hop on to one that's 12+ months out.
Here's my strategy to your scenarios:
o you don't pay attention to their changing fine print periodically tossed out with other junk mail
Pay attention to your bill! Not running this game is no excuse for ignoring the fine print on your credit cards. You should always know what your current situation is with your credit provider. Especially credit you use every day.
o as a fallible human, you will eventually pay a bill late
Don't pay late, ever. Why should you? You have the money in the bank right? Besides, being a good payer is how you keep those 0% cards rolling in. They want you because your credit is EXCELLENT. Each one is hopeing to win the lottery and catch that perfect customer. They all lose.
o or that a payment will take too long to get through the postal system
BS. Pay when the bill arrives and this will never be a problem. If they do charge you a late fee (because they are crooked or because you were late that ONE time...) call them and say "take it off please" and they will. If they don't say "cancel please" then they will.
Not today, not tomorrow, but eventually the day comes and .... BAM!
Three years, no BAM.
o BAM!: All of your "savings" by using the float are wiped out as you spend your time (and what is that worth) to surf the web for a better card, apply, and then eventually deal with moving any automatic payments you may have to the new card. (Look at all the pr0n surfing time you lose!)
Sure. if you're credit's not good enough to have the CC companies hammering on your door to GIVE you 0% PLEASE, then don't bother with this game. =Shreak
More OT.
/. seems much more serious, but no more accurate :)
I surf at 4+ as well, but I use a -4 funny modifier.
=Shreak
If your house had a real security system (psst... yours doesn't) you wouldn't be able to call a locksmith to get you in.
That's the whole point of these security systems. They are there to secure stuff that needs something more than a pretend, feel good, solution.
Pretend, feel good solution == single, user definable password, or your standard house lock.
Real solution == 2 factor authentication or commercial security system.
And yes, with increased security comes increased complexity (and inconvenience).
=Shreak
I demand someone smack you with a framed, nude picture of Ayn Rand.
Call me when they're done.
=Shreak
While maybe not evil; certainly non-free market.
The US commerce laws (and a lot of the western world laws) define what a modern "free market" should look like. This creates both explicit and implicit activities that are non-free market.
Attempting to "Stop" a competitor is outside the ethical and practical bounds of the modern free market.
How do you "Stop" a competitor? Kill him? Burn his factory down? Collude with other competitors to squeeze him out? Arrange with legislators to be the only "allowed" vendor?
Stopping can't be done without violating an explicit or implicit boundary of the free market.
You can out-sell your competitor. You can grab a bigger market share than your competitor. You can even undermine your competitors credibility with FUD (although this is starting to be ethically questionable). Non of these things "stop" your competitor, they compete with your competitor.
=Shreak
I surf /. with a funny -4 modifier for just this reason. The funny comments don't make up for the stupid ones modded funny.
/. take on a much more serious tone.
It also makes
=Shreak
I can't comment on what the legal parameters are but one of the benefits is a level of legal immunity.
If my child stumbles across some pornographic site on the web, it would be unlikely that I'd be able to squeeze any cash out of the ISP for presenting the material to her. They will argue "We're a common carrier, we don't limit or scrutinize the information you access through us so we have no way of protecting you or your child from any information you may be presented with" or some such.
If they were to start censoring information presented to customers it is conceivable that they could be required to uphold community standards. They are no longer a "common carrier".
Other examples of common carriers:
Phone companies (not liable for criminal activity or operations that violate local community standards, like phone sex)
Mail Carriers - Not liable for illegal or community standard violating material.
=Shreak
So what did you find?
=Shreak
Maybe he typically takes it cold?
Maybe "Earl Grey" typically refers to playing his favorite TV show.
=Shreak
Your math seems plausable, if you meant to say: "If the limit of Y as x approaches infinity is infinity". But it doesn't seem to back up your original statement.
If your equation is an accurate description of a situation, then it is true at the $0.00 point and is no more true at the $0.75, $1.00 or $100 point.
So the risk of increasing cost exists regardless of where you are currently. We're at $0 and equation says, we're at risk of a price increase. If the price increases to $0.75, we're still at risk of a price increase.
That's the basis of the slippery slope fallacy. You've proposed an equation that describes a slippery slope scenario, but you have not provided an adequate argument that the equation fits the situation.
There could be any number of limits on the price that ICANN wants to impose. Market forces being the most likely to assert itself first.
=Shreak
This sounds similar to a solution I heard for returning stale copyrights to the public domain.
Charge a small yearly fee. If it doesn't get paid the domain returns to the pool. It would prevent domains from remaining out of circulation even though the original claimer has forgotten about it (or passed on...).
=Shreak
Indeed it is a slippery slope:
. ht m
./ because people will actually call it by name while they are using it as an argument.
http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/distract/ss
"The Slippery Slope" is a logical fallacy, not a valid argument. It's easy to spot on
"Right now it's $0.75, then it's $1.00, then it's $100, then it's you first born! This change will lead us to slavery!"
=Shreak
hmmm... I don't think that'll work. The whole point of money laundering is to break the info connection between you and the illegal cash.
There are two accepted methods I know of:
Buy someone at a bank that can throw some accounting mojo (multi transfers through various shell companies). They charge for this, but you can launder huge amounts of cash pretty quickly.
Use a cash economy and run the cash through it to create "real" receipts. This also costs money but potentially less than the above. It's also hard to run huge amounts through. Cash economies exist in things like bars, strip clubs and casinos where people are likely to come in and drop a fair amount of money in cash form with minimal traceable inventory. i.e. Shela got $1000 in tips tonight and tipped out $500 to the house. Maybe she does that every night. She's not good looking, but some of the customer seem to REALLY like her...
=Shreak
Sounds like it. So you won't be sent to jail.
Of course you're still on the hook for the original costs and civil penalties which could run into the thousands.
And that would be in civil court so the burden of proof is much lower.
Keep your head down.
=Shreak
Why would he want to throw it? Why would he stop caring about winning?
He's a obviously competitor who enjoy's and is good at using his brain.
Chess champions don't get "tired of winning". Professional sports players don't get "tired of winning"
I don't think it's necessary that he threw the game or got tired of winning. He may have, but don't see why it would be more boring and draining than anything else people do on a regular basis (and keep doing for the majority of there lives...)
=Shreak
Ah, well that makes much more sense. I thought the "lack of operator as operator" was extremely weird...
Still, it looks like they are trying to patent the use of the actual word "ISNOT" which isn't the same as Bang-equals. So maybe not prior art. Of course it does seem to fail the "non-obvious" requirement...
=Shreak
The patent application is not for an operator that returns true if both A and B poitn to the same memory location. That operator already exists: "IS".
The patent is for an operator that returns true if A and B DO NOT point to the same memory location:
"ISNOT".
=Shreak
No they haven't.
=Shreak
Dept of Assertions
Mod Parent up!