back to the fact - i hate me. i hate everything about me. i hate myself for feeling this way.
When you feel that way it's not something you can be talked out of. But you have some days when you feel better than others. On one of your better days consider that it's really just chemistry that makes you feel one way or the other. It's not "truth". Acknowledging that does not make it something you can control. But you can ignore it.
That is what he said. ""There's nothing wrong with the company as it exists right now," according to Reuter's.
He went on to say "I'm not talking about the company as I, kind of, took it over six months ago. I'm talking about the company (in the) state it's in right now."
So apparently he has magically turned things around in unexplained ways. He seems deluded.
...enabling users to upgrade the devices themselves? And actually forcing all carriers to open source everything?
I know it seems crazy, but Google doesn't really care at all about the people who are capable of upgrading their own phones.
You are not the ones who click on ads. How often does anyone reading this post actually click on a Google ad? Almost never, I'm sure.
Google doesn't make its money from you. It makes its money from the average user who barely understands how browsing and URLs and the internet works. Those are the people who click on ads. Everyone else is just a burden that Google has to tolerate.
Google doesn't make squat from you. And when it sells its new tablet at cost it still won't make squat from you. When you buy an Android phone it does Google no good at all. You are not Google's market.
The problem is that (unlike slot machines) there are conflicting goals - keeping verifiable totals while at the same time preventing any individual's vote from being revealed.
I'm not sure if you are old enough to know or remember what a cathode ray tube is
I owned an original 128K Mac. I also remember black and white TV, rotary telephones, phone numbers like "Greenleaf 5-9709", and the Beatles appearing on Ed Sullivan. So yeah, I remember what a cathode ray tube is.:-)
AND if they can keep the price competitive to an iPad
They can't. They would have announced pricing if it were good news. And the battery life sucks or they'd have announced that. And they talk about vents, so you know it gets too hot to use as a tablet for very long. In the end, whenever they do finally get some of the problems worked out, it will be mostly a laptop that can kinda act like a tablet, but be less powerful than traditional laptops.
However, I hope I'm wrong. I like my iPad, but it needs real competition to keep Apple on its toes.
I (and every one else in line) had to take off my shoes in Costa Rica, Taiwan, and Korea. CR shoe removal has happened 100% of the time, while Taiwan and Korea are under 50%.
I've also heard it's due to Russia's love of chess, which score one for them, I *really* wish would catch on here.
In my youth I held a master's rating in chess, and my profession is software development, but I don't really think chess was particularly helpful in that. (But then I was a competent but less-than-great chess player and certainly not a superstar developer, so maybe that doesn't mean so much.)
It wouldn't have lasted. Amazon was going to sell at a loss for only as long as it took to drive other sellers out of the market. Then things would get much worse.
If, for instance, China did the same thing until US companies collapsed, the government would be doing everything it could to stop it. But instead they are taking the other side.
It was not a legitimate market before. Now it is. Amazon is not at a disadvantage, they simply have lost their stranglehold. They wanted to do what people scream about Walmart doing. Now they can't.
They sound like the only ones that show up in the studies, easy to find.
I think that's a good point. My mother, whose father lived to 101 and mother to 95, will be 86 this year. She's a sharp as she ever was, drives like a 30 year old, and worked full time until last year when they laid off half the office. She'd still be working if that hadn't happened. She'll make it to 100 easy.
And I guarantee that she would not be bothered to answer any kind of questionnaire or participate in a study like that.
No matter what anyone says, there are very little difference between hard drive vendors products.
That's what happens when margins are thin. Every corner must be cut, and so the products all perform about the same. When there's more margin there more room for added quality. But it takes time to happen.
Most of the money goes to publishers. The studio makes a fraction on the sale of the game. It wasn't even getting $39 for each copy sold when the game was selling for $60.
I'm not sure that statement fits the meaning of "most."
On the other hand, the person who slipped could sue me for medical bills, etc.
It's probably the other way around. If they slip after you've modified the conditions it's more likely to be seen as your fault than when you simply leave it in its natural state.
What if it causes the dependent to start popping out welfare babies instead?
That's selection also. Perhaps not the kind you envisioned, but evolution doesn't care what you think it should do. As conditions change different characteristics get selected. That's all there is to it.
There's no long-term goal, or drive to "improve". Sometimes a species takes a turn that happens to work out well for a short while but leads to its eventual doom. That's just the way it goes.
the cherry-picking to which he's referring is not done by Siri, it's by the original poster in choosing that example.
By the way, the answer that *I* get from Siri on that is "This might answer your question: (data not available)". I like Siri a lot and use it every day, but come on. It ain't that smart. And in many places outside the US its usefulness drops off markedly. If I ask it for a place to eat, for instance, it says "Sorry Pete, I can't look for restaurants there."
I think the correct strategy, in his case, would have been to bet big at one casino and then if he won, go to a different casino that was also giving him the 10-20% loss discount.
Yes, ideally he would limit his sessions to a single hand. Ignoring all the practical issues, that would maximize his advantage (per dollar wagered). In a real-world situation of course he would not be able to do so, but shorter sessions are always better because it "resets" where the discount starts.
IF you get a "only pay 90% of your debt", you put $100 on red, $100 on black, and there's a 98% chance you'll walk away with $220 -- a 10% profit.
Pretty impressive how many errors you were able to cram into a single sentence (I won't even bother with your earlier "on average you walk away with $90" silliness.)
There are 38 numbers on the wheel. Two of them are losers in your plan. That's more than 5%. So less than 95% of the time you win. And when you win, assuming somehow you can get the casino to treat the two bets as separate "sessions" (roll eyes here as appropriate), You win $100 and lose $90, so you'll "walk away" with $210, not $220 - a 5% "profit", not 10%. And since more than 5% of the time you lose the entire $200, that's slightly more than $10 on average. So your little scheme is actually a money loser. Nice going.
Slashdot Mirror
When you feel that way it's not something you can be talked out of. But you have some days when you feel better than others. On one of your better days consider that it's really just chemistry that makes you feel one way or the other. It's not "truth". Acknowledging that does not make it something you can control. But you can ignore it.
That is what he said. ""There's nothing wrong with the company as it exists right now," according to Reuter's.
He went on to say "I'm not talking about the company as I, kind of, took it over six months ago. I'm talking about the company (in the) state it's in right now."
So apparently he has magically turned things around in unexplained ways. He seems deluded.
I know it seems crazy, but Google doesn't really care at all about the people who are capable of upgrading their own phones.
You are not the ones who click on ads. How often does anyone reading this post actually click on a Google ad? Almost never, I'm sure.
Google doesn't make its money from you. It makes its money from the average user who barely understands how browsing and URLs and the internet works. Those are the people who click on ads. Everyone else is just a burden that Google has to tolerate.
Google doesn't make squat from you. And when it sells its new tablet at cost it still won't make squat from you. When you buy an Android phone it does Google no good at all. You are not Google's market.
The problem is that (unlike slot machines) there are conflicting goals - keeping verifiable totals while at the same time preventing any individual's vote from being revealed.
I owned an original 128K Mac. I also remember black and white TV, rotary telephones, phone numbers like "Greenleaf 5-9709", and the Beatles appearing on Ed Sullivan. So yeah, I remember what a cathode ray tube is. :-)
I'm guessing typo-by-autocorrection. Still pretty funny though.
It certainly was a management decision to show it now. I'm sure the people working on it weren't ready to show it.
I'm gonna call BS on this one. Why would a ram disc need a fan?
Propaganda is by definition biased and misleading information. Including the truth in the definition neuters and diminishes the word.
They can't. They would have announced pricing if it were good news. And the battery life sucks or they'd have announced that. And they talk about vents, so you know it gets too hot to use as a tablet for very long. In the end, whenever they do finally get some of the problems worked out, it will be mostly a laptop that can kinda act like a tablet, but be less powerful than traditional laptops.
However, I hope I'm wrong. I like my iPad, but it needs real competition to keep Apple on its toes.
My guess is that then they got to "confiscate" it.
I (and every one else in line) had to take off my shoes in Costa Rica, Taiwan, and Korea. CR shoe removal has happened 100% of the time, while Taiwan and Korea are under 50%.
In my youth I held a master's rating in chess, and my profession is software development, but I don't really think chess was particularly helpful in that. (But then I was a competent but less-than-great chess player and certainly not a superstar developer, so maybe that doesn't mean so much.)
Considering that you have missed the obvious point of my post, and instead invented one of your own, calling *me* a stupid fuck seems misplaced.
If, for instance, China did the same thing until US companies collapsed, the government would be doing everything it could to stop it. But instead they are taking the other side.
It was not a legitimate market before. Now it is. Amazon is not at a disadvantage, they simply have lost their stranglehold. They wanted to do what people scream about Walmart doing. Now they can't.
I think that's a good point. My mother, whose father lived to 101 and mother to 95, will be 86 this year. She's a sharp as she ever was, drives like a 30 year old, and worked full time until last year when they laid off half the office. She'd still be working if that hadn't happened. She'll make it to 100 easy.
And I guarantee that she would not be bothered to answer any kind of questionnaire or participate in a study like that.
That's what happens when margins are thin. Every corner must be cut, and so the products all perform about the same. When there's more margin there more room for added quality. But it takes time to happen.
I'm not sure that statement fits the meaning of "most."
It's probably the other way around. If they slip after you've modified the conditions it's more likely to be seen as your fault than when you simply leave it in its natural state.
So you give free access to your servers and services to anyone who asks for it? Cool! What's the ip address? I need to do some work.
That's selection also. Perhaps not the kind you envisioned, but evolution doesn't care what you think it should do. As conditions change different characteristics get selected. That's all there is to it.
There's no long-term goal, or drive to "improve". Sometimes a species takes a turn that happens to work out well for a short while but leads to its eventual doom. That's just the way it goes.
By the way, the answer that *I* get from Siri on that is "This might answer your question: (data not available)". I like Siri a lot and use it every day, but come on. It ain't that smart. And in many places outside the US its usefulness drops off markedly. If I ask it for a place to eat, for instance, it says "Sorry Pete, I can't look for restaurants there."
Yes, ideally he would limit his sessions to a single hand. Ignoring all the practical issues, that would maximize his advantage (per dollar wagered). In a real-world situation of course he would not be able to do so, but shorter sessions are always better because it "resets" where the discount starts.
Pretty impressive how many errors you were able to cram into a single sentence (I won't even bother with your earlier "on average you walk away with $90" silliness.)
There are 38 numbers on the wheel. Two of them are losers in your plan. That's more than 5%. So less than 95% of the time you win. And when you win, assuming somehow you can get the casino to treat the two bets as separate "sessions" (roll eyes here as appropriate), You win $100 and lose $90, so you'll "walk away" with $210, not $220 - a 5% "profit", not 10%. And since more than 5% of the time you lose the entire $200, that's slightly more than $10 on average. So your little scheme is actually a money loser. Nice going.
He was arrested about 9 months ago.