But the whole point - indeed, the only point - of giving something a "Like" is to share your opinion with others. Don't pretend to be surprised when the sharing happens.
No, that's an interpretation, but it isn't a correct one.
If I like something on Facebook, it's because I would like to see their future updates. Period.
It isn't a commercial endorsement, and I don't necessarily want everybody I know to be informed of that fact (and I sure as hell don't give a damn that my Aunt has Liked "Cute Cat Pictures Volume 693").
I don't ses the ROI on social media engagement, unless you are a marketing firm or consultancy charging by the project or hour.
My guess is there's little empirical evidence to suggest there's much (or any) ROI.
But, marketing wankers being what they are, have decided social media is the new thing, and they will use that as much as they can.
The fact that there are companies who you can pay to get you more followers on Twitter or fake friends on Facebook pretty much sums up its value.
But it's also hard to deny seeing the Facebook and Twitter logos on damned near everything these days. People clearly believe it works and provides value.
(2) the creation of the false impression that the company has paid for a product endorsement.
They have paid for a product endorsement. They just haven't paid you.
But, joking aside, I believe it should be illegal to use my name or image to endorse a product without me being explicitly asked, and compensated. Anything else is a fraudulent use of my name.
My other personal favorite is some of the dumb warnings from IE -- you are about to use the internet, are you sure you really want to do that? followed by when you use the internet, people can see what you do, are you sure?.
You mean like when Microsoft Windows tells me that a zip file has "unspecified problems on the current page" or whatever it is?
Because the ones I see now are pretty meaningless and come down to something bad can happen, click Yes to say it's your fault if it does.
Oh, and browsers shouldn't be able to put up dialog boxes which look like native ones -- that would prevent some of the malware from getting onto people's machine in the first place.
Except the scan started at 10am to be sure the machines were all likely to be powered on.
And then everybody walked away from their desks -- got so bad many of us started disabling it, then IT and HR got grumpy, and we told them that if they insisted on making our machines unusable for several hours during a working day we would either not be able to work, or we'd disable the stuff.
You could literally hear the groans spread through the office when it started scanning and everything ground to a halt.
It was definitely crappy software that wanted to use ALL of the CPU.
The problem is the rubber sheet is a 2D surface. It can represent two dimensions. It can be two of space (as is normal), one space and one time, etc.
By the time you have the ball in the middle creating the notional 'gravity well', it's a 3d surface.
If it was still a 2d surface, it would be a terrible demonstration of the concept, because there would be nothing to see. Which is why you can't do it on a table.
And yet, to someone like me (a non-physicist) the rubber sheet analogy makes a lot of sense to me, while the orange analogy....well, I'm not exactly sure where you are going with that because it helps me understand nothing. Maybe you just didn't explain it fully or correctly, but I'm not finding it very useful
I'm with you -- an ant walking on a sphere as metaphor for a 1d ant travelling in 3d is just a trick of plotting.
It adds nothing to the understanding of space/time -- "see, it's curved, just like space time" is meaningless because the metaphor doesn't add anything to me understanding what you're trying to say.
The rubber sheet analogy they highlight in the article to me (again, as a non-physicist) seems predictable , because when I looked up Kepler's Laws, the third one says "The square of the orbital period of a planet is proportional to the cube of the semi-major axis of its orbit."
So, your semi-major axis is on a downward spiral, but otherwise a circle assuming a square rubber sheet, isn't it? (Circles being special cases of ellipses, and the model enforces the circle)
Which means any movement on the z-axis changes the equation because, in planetary orbit's, they're in a plane, and falling in towards the body they orbit, but not "down" relative to the plane, that's an artifact of the metaphor.
At least, that's my layman's understanding.
I couldn't even describe the math, but the physical metaphor is necessarily affected by the fact that our own gravity is affecting the plane of the orbit and on successive 'orbits' you're actually lower on the z-axis... so it's going to corkscrew down to a different 'bottom' than in actual orbits do.
Again, totally a layman's understanding, but from what I remember of calculus and linear algebra, it seems fairly intuitive. Then again, most everything is once someone else has figured it out.:-P
So, this is, what, Kepler's laws wrapped around a funnel or something?
TFS doesn't sound like any part actually involved in flight was printed. But essentially covers for other parts.
Now, don't get me wrong, printing your own spare parts sounds good and all -- but I'm willing to bet no piece involved in flight or flight control was actually printed and used in flight just yet.
In other words, no RAF fighter has actually flown using parts critical to flight, but just caps and covers for other things.
Joking aside i do remember a time when many people would simply trade up every year or so, and once the car was not new, the dealers really could have cared less.
Now there's an understatement -- the dealers were ecstatic to have people doing that.
You buy a new car, and it massively depreciates as you drive it off the lot. Then two years later you come in, provide them with new inventory to sell, and then sell you another car at full price.
For car dealers, that's pretty much the pipe-dream. Because you're essentially paying over and over again.
I've known people who traded in a car every 1-2 years -- and I've mostly been of the opinion they're subsidizing the dealers at their own expense.
I've always referred to the depreciation of a new car and buying another one before you've amortized the first as a "stupidity tax". Unless you're so well off you can afford to be giving up that much on depreciation and not care, you're probably getting screwed in the long run.
My wife's last car had in-dash GPS. Unfortunately, when we asked about getting an update to the maps, it would have cost about $900 for the new DVD.
When you can replace the damned thing for less than $150 for a dedicated unit, what's the point in having it?
By the time you get technology in a car, it's 5 years old... and by the time the car is 5 years old, the in-dash technology is usually so outdated as to be useless.
The auto-makers are all scrambling to get this stuff into their cars because it's the new hotness. But by the time they've built and deployed it, it's old and busted. You end up paying several times what you could buy a device for at any electronics store, for a device which is mostly obsolete by the time you even have it.
My 6 year old Tom Tom, I still get map updates for.
And, really, as people are slowly learning that distracted driving is really dangerous, adding all of these "in-vehicle-infotainment" is just more crap and distraction. You want to entertain your kids in your car? Buy 'em a $200 tablet.
I have to second this... I can type faster with Swype on a touch screen than I can with the key-press on the virtual keyboard.
Obviously, nowhere near as fast as I can with a full-sized keyboard, but the spell out the word in a continuous motion works really well for me.
My mother in law can't do it, because she finds she has to think about the key locations (she touch types, but doesn't consciously know where the keys are). For me, I think it's a pretty nice way to type.
I did, but it's one thing to have calculations, it's another thing to run a simulation, and it's yet another thing to be able to compare those to an actual system and see if your results stack up.
As I understood this, this is the first time someone will be able to actually validate the equations and simulations against something real.
The last winter like that I was still in high school (less than 10 years ago) and, unfortunately, the combination of waiting for the bus at 6:20am and teenage stupidity meant I was outside in -35F (-75F wind chill gusts) without a coat. Looking back, I'm starting to think I may have been a little bit retarded.
As far as I can tell, that is pretty common among high school students.
They seem to be the only ones I ever see who are woefully under-dressed for the weather because they're too focused on being cool.
Me, I'm of the opinion that no winter jacket looks ridiculous if it keeps you warm, but not wearing one is a sign of being young and stupid.
It's the people who are obviously from warmer climates who I see in parkas by mid-October that I feel really sorry for -- those poor bastards will be encountering temperatures they can't even fathom.
And long before then they figured out that the bread also needed to get exposed to stuff to get the yeast, even if they had no idea of the specifics of it.
But they'd have been doing it for thousands of years by that point.
Bread and beer pretty much formed a lot of the foundations of civilization.
LOL, why when we were kids we had it tough... "House! You were lucky to live in a house! We used to live in one room, all twenty-six of us, no furniture, 'alf the floor was missing, and we were all 'uddled together in one corner for fear of falling."
And you try and tell the young people of today that..... they won't believe you.
Slashdot Mirror
Tough to say ... sometimes giving discounts nets you more in the long run because people come in and spend money.
Loss leaders and discounts can still be profitable.
No, that's an interpretation, but it isn't a correct one.
If I like something on Facebook, it's because I would like to see their future updates. Period.
It isn't a commercial endorsement, and I don't necessarily want everybody I know to be informed of that fact (and I sure as hell don't give a damn that my Aunt has Liked "Cute Cat Pictures Volume 693").
My guess is there's little empirical evidence to suggest there's much (or any) ROI.
But, marketing wankers being what they are, have decided social media is the new thing, and they will use that as much as they can.
The fact that there are companies who you can pay to get you more followers on Twitter or fake friends on Facebook pretty much sums up its value.
But it's also hard to deny seeing the Facebook and Twitter logos on damned near everything these days. People clearly believe it works and provides value.
You know, using my name or likeness without my permission for any reason shouldn't require trademark.
It should be illegal to begin with -- because if you never asked me, you should have no bloody expectation you can legally do it.
I, for instance, could not use Zuckerfuck's likeness to endorse adult diapers with built-in butt plugs.
But somehow I'm expected to believe his EULA grants him the right to do this? I think not.
They have paid for a product endorsement. They just haven't paid you.
But, joking aside, I believe it should be illegal to use my name or image to endorse a product without me being explicitly asked, and compensated. Anything else is a fraudulent use of my name.
Oh, and Mark Zuckerberg is a douchebag.
Of course, the problem with your warnings is they need a warning to precede them.
Because, well, ick.
My other personal favorite is some of the dumb warnings from IE -- you are about to use the internet, are you sure you really want to do that? followed by when you use the internet, people can see what you do, are you sure?.
You mean like when Microsoft Windows tells me that a zip file has "unspecified problems on the current page" or whatever it is?
Because the ones I see now are pretty meaningless and come down to something bad can happen, click Yes to say it's your fault if it does.
Oh, and browsers shouldn't be able to put up dialog boxes which look like native ones -- that would prevent some of the malware from getting onto people's machine in the first place.
Much funnier when the Simpsons did it.
Every time I see that project name, I immediately think of the Simspons doing "Clang Clang went the trolley".
We were all developers, and had full admin rights on our machines.
But I definitely feel your pain -- anti-virus software which renders your machine unusable is a terrible thing.
You laugh, but from the sounds of it, Intel is planning on putting chips in everything -- which means they'll likely become security nightmares.
I experienced this once at a previous job.
Except the scan started at 10am to be sure the machines were all likely to be powered on.
And then everybody walked away from their desks -- got so bad many of us started disabling it, then IT and HR got grumpy, and we told them that if they insisted on making our machines unusable for several hours during a working day we would either not be able to work, or we'd disable the stuff.
You could literally hear the groans spread through the office when it started scanning and everything ground to a halt.
It was definitely crappy software that wanted to use ALL of the CPU.
By the time you have the ball in the middle creating the notional 'gravity well', it's a 3d surface.
If it was still a 2d surface, it would be a terrible demonstration of the concept, because there would be nothing to see. Which is why you can't do it on a table.
I'm with you -- an ant walking on a sphere as metaphor for a 1d ant travelling in 3d is just a trick of plotting.
It adds nothing to the understanding of space/time -- "see, it's curved, just like space time" is meaningless because the metaphor doesn't add anything to me understanding what you're trying to say.
The rubber sheet analogy they highlight in the article to me (again, as a non-physicist) seems predictable , because when I looked up Kepler's Laws, the third one says "The square of the orbital period of a planet is proportional to the cube of the semi-major axis of its orbit."
So, your semi-major axis is on a downward spiral, but otherwise a circle assuming a square rubber sheet, isn't it? (Circles being special cases of ellipses, and the model enforces the circle)
Which means any movement on the z-axis changes the equation because, in planetary orbit's, they're in a plane, and falling in towards the body they orbit, but not "down" relative to the plane, that's an artifact of the metaphor.
At least, that's my layman's understanding.
I couldn't even describe the math, but the physical metaphor is necessarily affected by the fact that our own gravity is affecting the plane of the orbit and on successive 'orbits' you're actually lower on the z-axis ... so it's going to corkscrew down to a different 'bottom' than in actual orbits do.
Again, totally a layman's understanding, but from what I remember of calculus and linear algebra, it seems fairly intuitive. Then again, most everything is once someone else has figured it out. :-P
So, this is, what, Kepler's laws wrapped around a funnel or something?
TFS doesn't sound like any part actually involved in flight was printed. But essentially covers for other parts.
Now, don't get me wrong, printing your own spare parts sounds good and all -- but I'm willing to bet no piece involved in flight or flight control was actually printed and used in flight just yet.
In other words, no RAF fighter has actually flown using parts critical to flight, but just caps and covers for other things.
This isn't so much about 'secrets' as 'consumer lock-in'.
The car companies have just been doing it longer than the software companies.
Now there's an understatement -- the dealers were ecstatic to have people doing that.
You buy a new car, and it massively depreciates as you drive it off the lot. Then two years later you come in, provide them with new inventory to sell, and then sell you another car at full price.
For car dealers, that's pretty much the pipe-dream. Because you're essentially paying over and over again.
I've known people who traded in a car every 1-2 years -- and I've mostly been of the opinion they're subsidizing the dealers at their own expense.
I've always referred to the depreciation of a new car and buying another one before you've amortized the first as a "stupidity tax". Unless you're so well off you can afford to be giving up that much on depreciation and not care, you're probably getting screwed in the long run.
Yup, I definitely agree with this.
My wife's last car had in-dash GPS. Unfortunately, when we asked about getting an update to the maps, it would have cost about $900 for the new DVD.
When you can replace the damned thing for less than $150 for a dedicated unit, what's the point in having it?
By the time you get technology in a car, it's 5 years old ... and by the time the car is 5 years old, the in-dash technology is usually so outdated as to be useless.
The auto-makers are all scrambling to get this stuff into their cars because it's the new hotness. But by the time they've built and deployed it, it's old and busted. You end up paying several times what you could buy a device for at any electronics store, for a device which is mostly obsolete by the time you even have it.
My 6 year old Tom Tom, I still get map updates for.
And, really, as people are slowly learning that distracted driving is really dangerous, adding all of these "in-vehicle-infotainment" is just more crap and distraction. You want to entertain your kids in your car? Buy 'em a $200 tablet.
I have to second this ... I can type faster with Swype on a touch screen than I can with the key-press on the virtual keyboard.
Obviously, nowhere near as fast as I can with a full-sized keyboard, but the spell out the word in a continuous motion works really well for me.
My mother in law can't do it, because she finds she has to think about the key locations (she touch types, but doesn't consciously know where the keys are). For me, I think it's a pretty nice way to type.
I did, but it's one thing to have calculations, it's another thing to run a simulation, and it's yet another thing to be able to compare those to an actual system and see if your results stack up.
As I understood this, this is the first time someone will be able to actually validate the equations and simulations against something real.
As far as I can tell, that is pretty common among high school students.
They seem to be the only ones I ever see who are woefully under-dressed for the weather because they're too focused on being cool.
Me, I'm of the opinion that no winter jacket looks ridiculous if it keeps you warm, but not wearing one is a sign of being young and stupid.
It's the people who are obviously from warmer climates who I see in parkas by mid-October that I feel really sorry for -- those poor bastards will be encountering temperatures they can't even fathom.
And long before then they figured out that the bread also needed to get exposed to stuff to get the yeast, even if they had no idea of the specifics of it.
But they'd have been doing it for thousands of years by that point.
Bread and beer pretty much formed a lot of the foundations of civilization.
Fun fact, -40F == -40C.
And for some of us, with the windchill, that's the last two weeks we've already been through.
LOL, why when we were kids we had it tough ... "House! You were lucky to live in a house! We used to live in one room, all twenty-six of us, no furniture, 'alf the floor was missing, and we were all 'uddled together in one corner for fear of falling."
And you try and tell the young people of today that ..... they won't believe you.