Gotta agree here. To be successful, I think you need to manage two things:
1. Maximizing preparedness for opportunities when they are presented to you. (education, experience, etc) 2. Maximizing exposure to opportunities. (networking)
In most cases, success is primarily luck. Lots of people are as capable as those that become wildly successful. Luck is what differentiates the crazy success stories. But you have to play the game to get lucky (2). And you have to be prepared to execute when the opportunity is presented (1).
Not a stupid question. In fact, you would have been justified asking this question back when Galois was doing his work on abstract algebra in the 1830s. Or when Fourier was doing his work on temperature a bit earlier than that.
Over a century later, the work of both Fourier and Galois has moved so far from the abstract and so deeply entrenched in the practical, consumer-applied engineering fields that it would be hard to name anything in technology that didn't at least consider the application of both.
Fourier analysis is now used in all sorts of detection and classification schemes. Its principles are applied to video and audio compression as JPEG and MP3. Galois' finite fields are the basis for a myriad of digital coding schemes for error detection and correction -- not the least of which is the venerable Reed-Solomon code used in compact discs (CD).
There may not be an immediate application for such abstract theory (finite fields in 1830???), but the advancement of knowledge plants seeds from which we reap the fruit for centuries.
Yes. The geek is weak in this one. If you waited this long for a smart phone, surely you can wait another decade for the best features of tablets to come out.
You've waited this long to buy a smart phone because you don't use your phone?
Just because it's called a "phone" doesn't mean that's the primary function. I make very little use of my "phone" to actually talk to people. You've missed out on years of great utility because of this ridiculous notion.
Surprising people are arguing that it can't be done.
Stations are obviously making commercials louder than the TV program. They could, then, make them the same volume.
The problem you attacked (if I understand correctly) is that of keeping the volume approximately the same without having the a priori knowledge of what separates a program from the commercial. The stations have this information. They're simply turning up the volume when a commercial hits. The solution is as easy as this: "Don't do that!"
First, consider that the cost differential between a new Linux-based PC and a new Windows-based PC is essentially $0 due to the difficulty in getting a PC without an OS unless you build your own.
Second, consider the complications involved in getting that Linux-based PC to interoperate with the various applications, networks, etc that might be found on your typical college campus and you've just opened up a huge can of wasted time.
I was a Linux user for many years. But let's be honest. Linux is great for serving but has almost no merit as a college student's OS.
There are loads of free things in this world, but that doesn't automatically imply that you should value them positively.
Because the market *should* be protected? Why you ask? Because the government has pushed people into investing in the market by way of tax-deductible retirement funds such as 401k and IRAs.
Personally, I think the tax-deductible retirement accounts are a scam to get people investing more money in the stock market. My preference would be to get rid of this ridiculous concept, but that's not going to happen. So, since the government has coerced the general public into investing in a market they have no clue about, the government should do what it can to protect that market somehow.
What we have now is essentially a government which encourages (by way of a 30% discount) people to hand their money over to blackjack players to gamble with their money.
Quants are fine as long as people are investing with that money. The problem is, the general public can't compete -- they're just along for the ride.
Penned by Samuel Johnson, actually. Not sure if the Shelden got his Samuels mixed up or if he was just saying that Clemens shared the thought that originated with Johnson.
Actually, the term is "arbitrage" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arbitrage) and it really is "sucking profits". It is exploiting (yes, I mean that) small variations and inefficiencies in market representations. These points are being closed, but they still exist.
For example GE has $154 BILLION in revenues, yet makes only $10 Billion in terms of income available to common.
Well, yes. But lots and lots of employees at GE have very comfortable incomes. The company itself may only be making a particular margin, but when you consider the wealth of the employees, things change dramatically.
I got your reference, dude. Next time, pull something from the Family Guy or xkcd. It'll go over better with this crowd....Son, you've got a panty on your head.... Just drive... Fast, k?
Agree 100%. You're absolutely nuts if you think you can handle the taxes and accounting any better or cheaper with free software than you can using something as simple as QuickBooks and an accountant.
Free Software is only free if you value your time at $0.
LegalZoom can be helpful for small-time stuff. For anything serious, establish a relationship with a decent law firm that handles small business transactional stuff. They have hundreds of contracts that make up their portfolio and can typically start with those for nearly anything you need. A solo attorney won't have anywhere near the breadth of material as a firm. And a firm has a much larger pool of expertise to pull from.
If you are serious about making money doing the things you're good at, then you shouldn't have a problem spending money on the things you're not good at.
This is an overly simplistic criticism of the tax system that indicates a poor understanding of many of the issues involved. Multi-national (and even just multi-state) companies have a variety of complications and neither the states nor the companies themselves have clear answers to all of them.
For example, what if you do all of your R&D in South Dakota, then pack up and ship all your product from North Dakota, but California sales reps account for 95% of your revenue? Where did you "earn money" that you "pay a percentage to the government" ?
Municipals compete for corporate nexus by providing tax incentives and for good reason. Here in Oregon, most folks pay about 10% in income taxes. That means that for every $1M in wages that a company pays to the employees that end up coming to Oregon, the state gets $100k in income tax revenue. Not to mention the other revenue-generation activities such as real-estate taxes.
Slashdot Mirror
Bummer. I sort of liked not knowing your real name all these years. Hemos is dead. Long live Jeffrey Bates.
My car is really fast. It goes over 500 meters!!!
Gotta agree here. To be successful, I think you need to manage two things:
1. Maximizing preparedness for opportunities when they are presented to you. (education, experience, etc)
2. Maximizing exposure to opportunities. (networking)
In most cases, success is primarily luck. Lots of people are as capable as those that become wildly successful. Luck is what differentiates the crazy success stories. But you have to play the game to get lucky (2). And you have to be prepared to execute when the opportunity is presented (1).
Sell it to American Express for a larger undisclosed sum.
Not a stupid question. In fact, you would have been justified asking this question back when Galois was doing his work on abstract algebra in the 1830s. Or when Fourier was doing his work on temperature a bit earlier than that.
Over a century later, the work of both Fourier and Galois has moved so far from the abstract and so deeply entrenched in the practical, consumer-applied engineering fields that it would be hard to name anything in technology that didn't at least consider the application of both.
Fourier analysis is now used in all sorts of detection and classification schemes. Its principles are applied to video and audio compression as JPEG and MP3. Galois' finite fields are the basis for a myriad of digital coding schemes for error detection and correction -- not the least of which is the venerable Reed-Solomon code used in compact discs (CD).
There may not be an immediate application for such abstract theory (finite fields in 1830???), but the advancement of knowledge plants seeds from which we reap the fruit for centuries.
Probably. This is called a modem.
Yes. The geek is weak in this one. If you waited this long for a smart phone, surely you can wait another decade for the best features of tablets to come out.
You've waited this long to buy a smart phone because you don't use your phone?
Just because it's called a "phone" doesn't mean that's the primary function. I make very little use of my "phone" to actually talk to people. You've missed out on years of great utility because of this ridiculous notion.
Surprising people are arguing that it can't be done.
Stations are obviously making commercials louder than the TV program. They could, then, make them the same volume.
The problem you attacked (if I understand correctly) is that of keeping the volume approximately the same without having the a priori knowledge of what separates a program from the commercial. The stations have this information. They're simply turning up the volume when a commercial hits. The solution is as easy as this: "Don't do that!"
Linux is by no means free.
First, consider that the cost differential between a new Linux-based PC and a new Windows-based PC is essentially $0 due to the difficulty in getting a PC without an OS unless you build your own.
Second, consider the complications involved in getting that Linux-based PC to interoperate with the various applications, networks, etc that might be found on your typical college campus and you've just opened up a huge can of wasted time.
I was a Linux user for many years. But let's be honest. Linux is great for serving but has almost no merit as a college student's OS.
There are loads of free things in this world, but that doesn't automatically imply that you should value them positively.
Because the market *should* be protected? Why you ask? Because the government has pushed people into investing in the market by way of tax-deductible retirement funds such as 401k and IRAs.
Personally, I think the tax-deductible retirement accounts are a scam to get people investing more money in the stock market. My preference would be to get rid of this ridiculous concept, but that's not going to happen. So, since the government has coerced the general public into investing in a market they have no clue about, the government should do what it can to protect that market somehow.
What we have now is essentially a government which encourages (by way of a 30% discount) people to hand their money over to blackjack players to gamble with their money.
Quants are fine as long as people are investing with that money. The problem is, the general public can't compete -- they're just along for the ride.
Portland has the highest number of strip clubs (per-capita) in the U.S.
I'd be more concerned if his name was Browning.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iben_Browning
Penned by Samuel Johnson, actually. Not sure if the Shelden got his Samuels mixed up or if he was just saying that Clemens shared the thought that originated with Johnson.
But yea. Good quote.
Actually, the term is "arbitrage" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arbitrage) and it really is "sucking profits". It is exploiting (yes, I mean that) small variations and inefficiencies in market representations. These points are being closed, but they still exist.
How come the display never changes? It's stuck with that "fireball" image on there. I cry fake.
For example GE has $154 BILLION in revenues, yet makes only $10 Billion in terms of income available to common.
Well, yes. But lots and lots of employees at GE have very comfortable incomes. The company itself may only be making a particular margin, but when you consider the wealth of the employees, things change dramatically.
I got your reference, dude. Next time, pull something from the Family Guy or xkcd. It'll go over better with this crowd. ...Son, you've got a panty on your head.... Just drive... Fast, k?
Congratulations, Joel! Nice to hear RTEMS is still kicking.
Agree 100%. You're absolutely nuts if you think you can handle the taxes and accounting any better or cheaper with free software than you can using something as simple as QuickBooks and an accountant.
Free Software is only free if you value your time at $0.
LegalZoom can be helpful for small-time stuff. For anything serious, establish a relationship with a decent law firm that handles small business transactional stuff. They have hundreds of contracts that make up their portfolio and can typically start with those for nearly anything you need. A solo attorney won't have anywhere near the breadth of material as a firm. And a firm has a much larger pool of expertise to pull from.
If you are serious about making money doing the things you're good at, then you shouldn't have a problem spending money on the things you're not good at.
This is an overly simplistic criticism of the tax system that indicates a poor understanding of many of the issues involved. Multi-national (and even just multi-state) companies have a variety of complications and neither the states nor the companies themselves have clear answers to all of them.
For example, what if you do all of your R&D in South Dakota, then pack up and ship all your product from North Dakota, but California sales reps account for 95% of your revenue? Where did you "earn money" that you "pay a percentage to the government" ?
Municipals compete for corporate nexus by providing tax incentives and for good reason. Here in Oregon, most folks pay about 10% in income taxes. That means that for every $1M in wages that a company pays to the employees that end up coming to Oregon, the state gets $100k in income tax revenue. Not to mention the other revenue-generation activities such as real-estate taxes.
You haven't met enough pilots.
Sorry, you cannot do 3D anaglyphics with a rolling shutter.
Just leave it alone.
If you're really itching, hook it up to some broadband interference generator. That'll really mess with the feds.
What this should have taught you was to use simulation.