That was supposed to be the Fry's concept: the customers at computer stores were perpetually more knowledgeable than the staff, so just use the staff as stockers and let the customers pick out whatever they want.
I wonder how many people don't know that the guy who started Fry's Electronics is the son of the guy who owns the Fry's food chain. It really is an electronics supermarket. Although it never was quite as clean about it as Micro Center was. The themed stores seemed counterproductive. They even resisted going online, probably in keeping with the supermarkets' secret weapon, that browsing the aisles is a sales strategy with 100% margin.
But enough people still go in without a cluebat of their own, and are susceptible to commission-based unguidance at a profitable rate. So Fry's Electronics has uniformed droids to lead them 8 aisles down to find the USB mousepads.
If you're conducting a house-to-house search for malefactors, GET OUT OF THAT WAR.
No.
We're winning.
Unless it turns out the enemy are being supplied from other enemy countries -- or worse, from supposed ally countries.
Then we've just got a bigger war to win. And if we're not honest about it, we'll lose it, like Viet Nam.
But this time, unlike Viet Nam, losing won't end our involvement. Because the enemy we'd leave behind this time are not merely interested in having a homeland with a different political system, but in developing and exporting an ideology of violent extremism through extremely violent means.
That's my analogy.
Yours, Israel and North Korea, is distorted. If someone doesn't supply Israel continuously it will be overrun by its vast enemy before the world has time to respond, while North Korea doesn't have the resources to invade South Korea, much less deal with our response; besides which, we maintain a significant active presence in South Korea, and have little in Israel. I'm not shocked at all that Palestinians and Arabs blame America for Israel's actions; they blame everyone but themselves. Israel's taking of territory was a defensive measure to create a defensible border. Its putative excesses in responding to cross-border attacks have been twisted into fodder for terrorist rants, guaranteeing we haven't seen the last of the conflict. Israel doesn't go on the offensive. And I think the Palestinians, Lebanese, et al will find that if they stop going on the offensive, Israel won't be doing so much shooting back, if any.
I've never played Star Craft. I couldn't even tell what they were advertising yesterday until the logo came on the screen.
I have, however, played war, for large values of "played."
We leave behind enough of a presence as we move through, and we gain the assistance of the local authorities. In the end the plan is to have them governing and protecting themselves instead of rolling over when the Taliban come in over the border from Pakistan.
Some areas need repeat visits from a full-strength force. Some need it several times. But that's to be expected as long as we leave the areas bordering our cleared areas uncleared. It's also to be expected that some of our presumed friends turn out to be enemies; rooting them out by iteration is part of the process as well. That's why this takes time and diligence and the willingness to suffer casualties, and isn't resolved by rearing up and making ourselves look big and hoping the enemy has a distaste for the obvious endgame.
Now go back to your video games. And tell me how that Star Craft II looks on a PC. The commercial was pretty good.
The purpose of capitalism is to make money from other people doing the marketing. And manufacturing and designing and transporting.
Hard work doesn't make you rich unless it's someone else's. Marketing made you think otherwise, which is why you likely work hard for pay that's a tiny fraction of the value you create.
I don't expect that many of them are talking out their ass. I expect that many of them are regurgitating the meta-rectal disgorgements of others.
And I don't let them continue behaving that way. I should probably bill Best Buy for training their lamers. Fry's droids I don't even ask questions; they know more about carpet samples than computers.
HD was first being tested by the competing developers in 1992. By the time the DTV standard took over in 2009, the system was already being overtaken by up-mods like 120 Hz and 1080p.
My attitude is, pick a future feature that you want (can't see one, and 3D is too goofy and sub-impressive for it to be one) and wait until it hits your price point.
Then ignore the other 13 stickers on the box.
I still don't know what half the features on my Denon receiver do, but it has enough HDMI ins and outs and it doesn't power-cycle itself randomly like my Sony did. And I'm keeping my Mitsubishi DLP until it needs yet another bulb (every 18-30 months, so far). Then it's a shiny new LED for me.
No. Using cables labeled "HDMI 1.3" instead of "Standard Speed" will result in rounded harmonics on the peak voicing pressures of cross-coupled sound space reproductions.
The new cables are made with labelling technology that accesses the uppermost reaches of gullibility distortion, ensuring that your credulous experience is the highest quality known to science.
The waiting list is open, and financing is available.
Calling the currently higher-speed standard "High speed" is going to turn out to have been a mistake when a higher-speed standard appears in the future.
And, as the link referred to in TFA points out, "high speed" and "standard speed" don't even come close to suggesting the true applicability space of the cables. Consumers would be far better off if the labelling was required to carry the standard name (HDMI 1.3 or HDMI 1.4 with whatever add-on) and a URI pointing to the standards documentation.
Why do standards bodies continue to make such simple mistakes of relativism? It's not like ISO, ANSI, EIA, etc. haven't been around for decades learning from these mistakes.
In fact, I'd be willing to bet that the meta-standards published by ISO include a statement somewhere not to fall into such traps.
But of course, people who make standards sometimes do so because they don't like reading them...
Energy companies love oil because it's incredibly cheap for them to produce it to feed our need for ergs, the price of which is independent of the cost. Notice their ridiculous profits even during a recession.
They worry that it will become expensive to produce, and that prediction of reduced profit margin is what drives their angst.
They worry about all the reasons it will become less profitable, including running out of the stuff in easy bubbles, and global warming-induced restrictions on demand.
Global warming will make our planet uninhabitable. So we're going to limit the production of the products of fossil-fuel combustion.
If that cuts into Exxon or Shell or BP's profits, then fuck 'em. If they wanted to make money forever they should have found more secure jobs. Same problem all of us have.
a record going back 500 MILLION years illustrating that our current temps are actually fairly COOL compared to history
lest someone coopts your caveats to deny global warming, and ignores the errors you've made:
1. Anything before a few thousand years ago is pre-history, not history.
2. 500 million years ago the Earth was not inhabited by anything resembling humans, and likely not habitable to us. So referring to it as part of the norm is missing the point.
The point is that pollution is altering our climate in a way that may make the planet uninhabitable by us. Whether that's due to excess warming, cooling, or persistent rains of acid is not relevant. The fact that something bad is happening is true, and the fact that we have the ability to consciously stop it from happening is true.
Al Gore's a politician; calling him a self-promoting dick is a tautology. He's doing good work on this subject, in any case.
It is what it is. Now, what're we gonna do about it?
Yes, I do, because I build real-time systems. Extremely complex ones. And they work deterministically because I don't make the mistakes that people who poll in software make because they're polling in software. They're also simpler and use less power and CPU resources than if I was polling.
If you don't have control of the hardware design, you might be forced to poll in software; otherwise, you're a fool to do it. Most real-time systems are built by fools who rely on appeal to popularity instead of experience in real-time design. Believe me. I get a lot of experience cleaning up after them.
I have an open source license to the software; he can buy the people who wrote it, but he can't kill my license.
I can make forks of it.
He'd have to buy each one from me individually to pwn the OSS universe.
I can keep pulling forks out of my pocket, perpetually.
Can he do the same with dollars?
The inductive endgame is that he'd have to buy my rights from me. He'd have to do this for every copy in existence, though, or I'd find one and start forking that one.
He'd have to pay me as part of a contract never to acquire another copy from anyone other than him.
And I'm not selling him that right. That one's mine. I'm keeping it.
I would utterly destroy you if you attempted that shit in my neighborhood. Absolutely. Destroy.
I doubt that. You'd have to have numbers, or infinite luck.
The bad guys aren't numerous in most areas, and in most areas the good guys are all too willing to help me out. It's not terribly easy to root out small numbers of them from large populations, but it's doable.
In areas where bad guys are numerous, we switch from house to house picking and choosing to clearing the entire area. This is where war gets messy, but that's why it's war and not something we do for fun on weekends in the Hamptons.
If I bring force and stick to my plan of clearing an area and doing it righteously and keeping it clear, I win. This, on the other hand, is #fail: Insurgents bully bakeries in Marjah, Afghanistan Those guys should be dead, not hassling naan-flippers, or the story should be "U.S. Forces Kill Taliban Thugs Who Harassed Marjah Merchants". Petraeus needs to recognize this and fix what McChrystal didn't.
Medieval tactics are inferior to modern tactics in the same way that Unix is inferior to modern OSes like Windows.
That's cute, but it's wrong. I use both Unix and Windows, precisely because I know their where not to use either of them. Military tactics can be nullified by military strategy, so knowing when not to allow a tactic to come into play means it's me FTW. Like I said. If you're vulnerable to well-studied medieval tactics -- or worse, you're trying to use them on someone who's been through a war college and a few campaigns, then you're a stupid cunt, and he's an even stupider cunt if you succeed.
Slashdot Mirror
Make a game that comes with one of these:
http://tech.slashdot.org/story/10/07/27/1619255/Heat-Ray-Gun-Fails-Final-Test-Nixed-From-War
or a waldo-controlled sword for the fantasy MMORPG otaku.
That was supposed to be the Fry's concept: the customers at computer stores were perpetually more knowledgeable than the staff, so just use the staff as stockers and let the customers pick out whatever they want.
I wonder how many people don't know that the guy who started Fry's Electronics is the son of the guy who owns the Fry's food chain. It really is an electronics supermarket. Although it never was quite as clean about it as Micro Center was. The themed stores seemed counterproductive. They even resisted going online, probably in keeping with the supermarkets' secret weapon, that browsing the aisles is a sales strategy with 100% margin.
But enough people still go in without a cluebat of their own, and are susceptible to commission-based unguidance at a profitable rate. So Fry's Electronics has uniformed droids to lead them 8 aisles down to find the USB mousepads.
If you're conducting a house-to-house search for malefactors, GET OUT OF THAT WAR.
No.
We're winning.
Unless it turns out the enemy are being supplied from other enemy countries -- or worse, from supposed ally countries.
Then we've just got a bigger war to win. And if we're not honest about it, we'll lose it, like Viet Nam.
But this time, unlike Viet Nam, losing won't end our involvement. Because the enemy we'd leave behind this time are not merely interested in having a homeland with a different political system, but in developing and exporting an ideology of violent extremism through extremely violent means.
That's my analogy.
Yours, Israel and North Korea, is distorted. If someone doesn't supply Israel continuously it will be overrun by its vast enemy before the world has time to respond, while North Korea doesn't have the resources to invade South Korea, much less deal with our response; besides which, we maintain a significant active presence in South Korea, and have little in Israel. I'm not shocked at all that Palestinians and Arabs blame America for Israel's actions; they blame everyone but themselves. Israel's taking of territory was a defensive measure to create a defensible border. Its putative excesses in responding to cross-border attacks have been twisted into fodder for terrorist rants, guaranteeing we haven't seen the last of the conflict. Israel doesn't go on the offensive. And I think the Palestinians, Lebanese, et al will find that if they stop going on the offensive, Israel won't be doing so much shooting back, if any.
I've never played Star Craft. I couldn't even tell what they were advertising yesterday until the logo came on the screen.
I have, however, played war, for large values of "played."
We leave behind enough of a presence as we move through, and we gain the assistance of the local authorities. In the end the plan is to have them governing and protecting themselves instead of rolling over when the Taliban come in over the border from Pakistan.
Some areas need repeat visits from a full-strength force. Some need it several times. But that's to be expected as long as we leave the areas bordering our cleared areas uncleared. It's also to be expected that some of our presumed friends turn out to be enemies; rooting them out by iteration is part of the process as well. That's why this takes time and diligence and the willingness to suffer casualties, and isn't resolved by rearing up and making ourselves look big and hoping the enemy has a distaste for the obvious endgame.
Now go back to your video games. And tell me how that Star Craft II looks on a PC. The commercial was pretty good.
I and my buddies are the 13 soldiers in this scenario.
So it turns out you'd need both the numbers and the infinite luck, Mr. Ngumba.
And I'm not falling for any pincer moves, so think up something new.
I wish I'd thought of that.
That's the purpose of marketing.
The purpose of capitalism is to make money from other people doing the marketing. And manufacturing and designing and transporting.
Hard work doesn't make you rich unless it's someone else's. Marketing made you think otherwise, which is why you likely work hard for pay that's a tiny fraction of the value you create.
I don't expect that many of them are talking out their ass. I expect that many of them are regurgitating the meta-rectal disgorgements of others.
And I don't let them continue behaving that way. I should probably bill Best Buy for training their lamers. Fry's droids I don't even ask questions; they know more about carpet samples than computers.
HD was first being tested by the competing developers in 1992. By the time the DTV standard took over in 2009, the system was already being overtaken by up-mods like 120 Hz and 1080p.
My attitude is, pick a future feature that you want (can't see one, and 3D is too goofy and sub-impressive for it to be one) and wait until it hits your price point.
Then ignore the other 13 stickers on the box.
I still don't know what half the features on my Denon receiver do, but it has enough HDMI ins and outs and it doesn't power-cycle itself randomly like my Sony did. And I'm keeping my Mitsubishi DLP until it needs yet another bulb (every 18-30 months, so far). Then it's a shiny new LED for me.
No. Using cables labeled "HDMI 1.3" instead of "Standard Speed" will result in rounded harmonics on the peak voicing pressures of cross-coupled sound space reproductions.
The new cables are made with labelling technology that accesses the uppermost reaches of gullibility distortion, ensuring that your credulous experience is the highest quality known to science.
The waiting list is open, and financing is available.
Monster doesn't have a CFO. CFOs are for companies that have a chance of a negative unit margin on a product. Monster just has a shovel and a vault.
Calling the currently higher-speed standard "High speed" is going to turn out to have been a mistake when a higher-speed standard appears in the future.
And, as the link referred to in TFA points out, "high speed" and "standard speed" don't even come close to suggesting the true applicability space of the cables. Consumers would be far better off if the labelling was required to carry the standard name (HDMI 1.3 or HDMI 1.4 with whatever add-on) and a URI pointing to the standards documentation.
Why do standards bodies continue to make such simple mistakes of relativism? It's not like ISO, ANSI, EIA, etc. haven't been around for decades learning from these mistakes.
In fact, I'd be willing to bet that the meta-standards published by ISO include a statement somewhere not to fall into such traps.
But of course, people who make standards sometimes do so because they don't like reading them...
"radioactive" is a relative term.
Outside the atmosphere space is full of particles (cosmic rays) that can kill you faster than playing handball with radioactive sodium.
Energy companies love oil because it's incredibly cheap for them to produce it to feed our need for ergs, the price of which is independent of the cost. Notice their ridiculous profits even during a recession.
They worry that it will become expensive to produce, and that prediction of reduced profit margin is what drives their angst.
They worry about all the reasons it will become less profitable, including running out of the stuff in easy bubbles, and global warming-induced restrictions on demand.
Global warming will make our planet uninhabitable. So we're going to limit the production of the products of fossil-fuel combustion.
If that cuts into Exxon or Shell or BP's profits, then fuck 'em. If they wanted to make money forever they should have found more secure jobs. Same problem all of us have.
a record going back 500 MILLION years illustrating that our current temps are actually fairly COOL compared to history
lest someone coopts your caveats to deny global warming, and ignores the errors you've made:
1. Anything before a few thousand years ago is pre-history, not history.
2. 500 million years ago the Earth was not inhabited by anything resembling humans, and likely not habitable to us. So referring to it as part of the norm is missing the point.
The point is that pollution is altering our climate in a way that may make the planet uninhabitable by us. Whether that's due to excess warming, cooling, or persistent rains of acid is not relevant. The fact that something bad is happening is true, and the fact that we have the ability to consciously stop it from happening is true.
Al Gore's a politician; calling him a self-promoting dick is a tautology. He's doing good work on this subject, in any case.
It is what it is. Now, what're we gonna do about it?
Making something undeniable just makes the deniers deny harder.
Why do they do it? Because they're paid to.
That's why money isn't speech.
Yes, I do, because I build real-time systems. Extremely complex ones. And they work deterministically because I don't make the mistakes that people who poll in software make because they're polling in software. They're also simpler and use less power and CPU resources than if I was polling.
If you don't have control of the hardware design, you might be forced to poll in software; otherwise, you're a fool to do it. Most real-time systems are built by fools who rely on appeal to popularity instead of experience in real-time design. Believe me. I get a lot of experience cleaning up after them.
Maybe it isn't, but I sure as hell do know what I'm talking about.
Look at this for a moment: /.
What do you think it is?
It's an ASCII model of a motorcycle jump over the Snake river.
It's a metaphor for getting information here.
If it's still there.
I mean, who's been guarding it?
Apropos of that but not much else, I'm still peeved that they left blast-ended skrewts out of the movies.
I have an open source license to the software; he can buy the people who wrote it, but he can't kill my license.
I can make forks of it.
He'd have to buy each one from me individually to pwn the OSS universe.
I can keep pulling forks out of my pocket, perpetually.
Can he do the same with dollars?
The inductive endgame is that he'd have to buy my rights from me. He'd have to do this for every copy in existence, though, or I'd find one and start forking that one.
He'd have to pay me as part of a contract never to acquire another copy from anyone other than him.
And I'm not selling him that right. That one's mine. I'm keeping it.
This looks like polling vs. pending, and if it is, pending won that war about 40 years ago.
I would utterly destroy you if you attempted that shit in my neighborhood. Absolutely. Destroy.
I doubt that. You'd have to have numbers, or infinite luck.
The bad guys aren't numerous in most areas, and in most areas the good guys are all too willing to help me out. It's not terribly easy to root out small numbers of them from large populations, but it's doable.
In areas where bad guys are numerous, we switch from house to house picking and choosing to clearing the entire area. This is where war gets messy, but that's why it's war and not something we do for fun on weekends in the Hamptons.
If I bring force and stick to my plan of clearing an area and doing it righteously and keeping it clear, I win. This, on the other hand, is #fail: Insurgents bully bakeries in Marjah, Afghanistan Those guys should be dead, not hassling naan-flippers, or the story should be "U.S. Forces Kill Taliban Thugs Who Harassed Marjah Merchants". Petraeus needs to recognize this and fix what McChrystal didn't.
Medieval tactics are inferior to modern tactics in the same way that Unix is inferior to modern OSes like Windows.
That's cute, but it's wrong. I use both Unix and Windows, precisely because I know their where not to use either of them. Military tactics can be nullified by military strategy, so knowing when not to allow a tactic to come into play means it's me FTW. Like I said. If you're vulnerable to well-studied medieval tactics -- or worse, you're trying to use them on someone who's been through a war college and a few campaigns, then you're a stupid cunt, and he's an even stupider cunt if you succeed.
even sadder, he's probably terrified of it.
as bad as we say ad-targeting is, totally un-targeted ads are pure noise.