I would prefer to leave a comment, so other people in my situation know not to bother with it. Your comment, however, served no purpose other than whining about mine. Way to go.
But does it do Daily Blog Posting to people with wordpress blogs? 1000s of people currently depend on delicious to drive their blog daily posted links.
But will it do daily blog posts like delicious? This drives 1000s of blogs. I'm not going to pay $7 for something that does less than what I do now for free.
So now all of us lazy bloggers who simply tag stories on delicious and let delicious generate a blogpost for us -- we're all ultimately screwed. It's much harder to compose a blogpost all at once every 24 hours manually than it is to simply micro-blog your newsstory comments into delicious and have it poop out a meta-post to your blog every 24 hours.
Some of us depended on this service. Thousands, judging by the google results. This closure will reduce the content being posted in Wordpress!
Firefox only uses one core. Moore's law still applies, however. The rate of cores becoming faster, y'know. Not using a 2nd core doesn't just throw all that out the window. Slapping on a second core doesn't make things twice as fast, either. Very few things use both cores. (I'm on a 32 bit operating system.) One notable one is LAME encoder.
Point being - under the same conditions [firefox using 1 of 2 cores], a faster cpu will use faster cores and will result in this happening less often.
I do find your response infinitely smarter than the other response to my comment though:)
I'm an argumentative stubborn type; I think it says more about your compelling points than me, hehe.
Though, I think -- why can't basic, vetted contracts be provided for free on the internet for various things most people do? [including buying a house]. Oh yeah, lawyers wouldn't like that! But wait! This law isn't good for lawyers too! I guess either way, the lawyers lose. And the old way, they didn't. And lawyers do suck. Heh:)
Without property law, every property owner in the country would be subject to banditry and anarchy. Something that gives freedom and rights to people at large doesn't strike me as exclusively statist. Eminent domain is statist and authoritarian. Property law is for the people. Indeed, the right to own property used to be something only for aristocracy, before people revolted and gained these rights.
It seems that way. But I have to wonder if, pre- that act, the law tilted a certain way. For example, if it was always the property of the owner of the land it was found on, then this law steals half their profit away in the name of compromise. If it was always the property of the person who found it, then this law steals half their profit away. Minus lawyer fees, of course.:) Compromise is cool and all, but I don't want to compromise on my half of the booty. Nobody does.
Of course. Tyranny of the majority: There are more people without treasure than with, therefore we petition our government to steal it from those who find it, and redistribute it to everyone. I believe in socialism with universal health care, roads, and lots of other things, but not being able to own something I found myself is b.s.
The majority of people have believed in a lot of things, and it's often been the wrong thing. I mean, this is the country that invaded most of the world;)
The statute didn't appear to have this wiggle room you speak of. I am curious where you got the 1.25M from though -- the statute doesn't specify a specific reward. Why can't they just say, "You're reward is 1$." [No, I'm not gonna figure out how to make a pound symbol:)]
Without a reward, I'd take the surefire legal, tax-declarable method of melting it down. Or I'd sell it on the black market. I'd never just give away gold that I found (i.e. if it was required to be repossed by The Crown and I got nothing). This is likely true for 99% of humanity, most especially the poor [which is what, 90 of the world%?]. It's not immoral either. Every old trinket isn't magically the property of all humanity, to stick in a museum and be gawked at. It's only value for most people will be the photograph that some people look at; 99.99% of the world will never go in the specific museum it ends up in. If the museum doesn't allow photography, they won't even get a picture. But in the end, it's just something to look at for a minute and go "neat". A webpage with a high-resolution photo would be just as culturally informative. I know what King Tut looks like without having had to see it in a museum. . .
I got a news flash for ya - most people aren't looking for things with metal detectors out of selfless reasons. So he's forced to sell it? That's a bit more reasonable, but still quite statist and authoritarian.
Basically, if I were this kid, and aware of the law, I would melt it down and just sell it as gold. Only because of the law. Otherwise, I would sell it intact.
Yes, because now of course, the rich will just hand it over, rather than use the lucrative black market. And the tax-writeoff benefit doesn't exist either. It's a bit like posting a sign outside a bank that says "no bank robbers". All this really does is remove the legitimate route for people to donate to the museum, and remove the incentive for treasure hunting. The actual rich guy who's pocket something like this would sit in -- if he's the type to not donate it -- certainly isn't going to follow the law either. The law is for poor people.
Oh, that's what you're saying? Fine. Whatever. In that case, you have to pay for a firearm & ammo & a firing squad, instead of a doctor & a syringe & some chemicals. Death by gun is always done by a squad, where some have blanks and 1 has a real bullet. Somehow, I'm willing to bet that hiring 5 executioners and 5 firearms is probably comparable in cost to hiring a doctor to administer a lethal injection. But who knows. It may be cheaper. It's still on the books in some states. Even this year, we had someone decide he wanted to die by firing squad. It sent people scrambling. The news never did follow-up on that story; I wonder if they did it. I believe the state was Utah, one of a few that still has that method of execution on the books. Considering that an execution involves witnesses, location, and staff (last rites, last meal, etc), I'm thinking the cost difference between the two is not substantive.
Slashdot Mirror
I would prefer to leave a comment, so other people in my situation know not to bother with it. Your comment, however, served no purpose other than whining about mine. Way to go.
But does it do Daily Blog Posting to people with wordpress blogs? 1000s of people currently depend on delicious to drive their blog daily posted links.
But will it do daily blog posts like delicious? This drives 1000s of blogs. I'm not going to pay $7 for something that does less than what I do now for free.
I use it myself every day.
So now all of us lazy bloggers who simply tag stories on delicious and let delicious generate a blogpost for us -- we're all ultimately screwed. It's much harder to compose a blogpost all at once every 24 hours manually than it is to simply micro-blog your newsstory comments into delicious and have it poop out a meta-post to your blog every 24 hours.
Some of us depended on this service. Thousands, judging by the google results. This closure will reduce the content being posted in Wordpress!
Does anyone know what's going to happen?
"Slashdot: Most CPU intensive page in existence."
Did anyone say that they couldn't be?
Point being - under the same conditions [firefox using 1 of 2 cores], a faster cpu will use faster cores and will result in this happening less often.
I do find your response infinitely smarter than the other response to my comment though :)
Because of course you know everything about every computer and every situation. Haha. Hilarious "generic defensive geek" archtype response.
Firefox maxes one core out all the time. I could certainly use more flops.
Though, I think -- why can't basic, vetted contracts be provided for free on the internet for various things most people do? [including buying a house]. Oh yeah, lawyers wouldn't like that! But wait! This law isn't good for lawyers too! I guess either way, the lawyers lose. And the old way, they didn't. And lawyers do suck. Heh :)
Your explanation is actually very compelling. Thank you.
Without property law, every property owner in the country would be subject to banditry and anarchy. Something that gives freedom and rights to people at large doesn't strike me as exclusively statist. Eminent domain is statist and authoritarian. Property law is for the people. Indeed, the right to own property used to be something only for aristocracy, before people revolted and gained these rights.
It seems that way. But I have to wonder if, pre- that act, the law tilted a certain way. For example, if it was always the property of the owner of the land it was found on, then this law steals half their profit away in the name of compromise. If it was always the property of the person who found it, then this law steals half their profit away. Minus lawyer fees, of course. :) Compromise is cool and all, but I don't want to compromise on my half of the booty. Nobody does.
That doesn't seem to be what the statute pasted a few messages above said, which is what I was responding to.
The majority of people have believed in a lot of things, and it's often been the wrong thing. I mean, this is the country that invaded most of the world ;)
Without a reward, I'd take the surefire legal, tax-declarable method of melting it down. Or I'd sell it on the black market. I'd never just give away gold that I found (i.e. if it was required to be repossed by The Crown and I got nothing). This is likely true for 99% of humanity, most especially the poor [which is what, 90 of the world%?]. It's not immoral either. Every old trinket isn't magically the property of all humanity, to stick in a museum and be gawked at. It's only value for most people will be the photograph that some people look at; 99.99% of the world will never go in the specific museum it ends up in. If the museum doesn't allow photography, they won't even get a picture. But in the end, it's just something to look at for a minute and go "neat". A webpage with a high-resolution photo would be just as culturally informative. I know what King Tut looks like without having had to see it in a museum. . .
I got a news flash for ya - most people aren't looking for things with metal detectors out of selfless reasons. So he's forced to sell it? That's a bit more reasonable, but still quite statist and authoritarian.
Basically, if I were this kid, and aware of the law, I would melt it down and just sell it as gold. Only because of the law. Otherwise, I would sell it intact.
Yes, because now of course, the rich will just hand it over, rather than use the lucrative black market. And the tax-writeoff benefit doesn't exist either. It's a bit like posting a sign outside a bank that says "no bank robbers". All this really does is remove the legitimate route for people to donate to the museum, and remove the incentive for treasure hunting. The actual rich guy who's pocket something like this would sit in -- if he's the type to not donate it -- certainly isn't going to follow the law either. The law is for poor people.
Man. That's weak. Finders keepers!
But what is the legal definition of treasure?
In most states, you mean.
Doctors don't actually take the Hippocratic Oath anymore.
I am relieved to hear you are at least consistent. :)
Oh, that's what you're saying? Fine. Whatever. In that case, you have to pay for a firearm & ammo & a firing squad, instead of a doctor & a syringe & some chemicals. Death by gun is always done by a squad, where some have blanks and 1 has a real bullet. Somehow, I'm willing to bet that hiring 5 executioners and 5 firearms is probably comparable in cost to hiring a doctor to administer a lethal injection. But who knows. It may be cheaper. It's still on the books in some states. Even this year, we had someone decide he wanted to die by firing squad. It sent people scrambling. The news never did follow-up on that story; I wonder if they did it. I believe the state was Utah, one of a few that still has that method of execution on the books. Considering that an execution involves witnesses, location, and staff (last rites, last meal, etc), I'm thinking the cost difference between the two is not substantive.