Hi! It looks like you are angry. Perhaps you are in a fragile state of mind and would like to kill everybody. Would you like some assistance with that? Oh, by the way, I read that your colleagues hate you, your boss is about to fire you, your girlfriend is sleeping with your best friend, and your parents never wanted you.
I honestly think people want tasteless food, because that is what they buy. Take grapes for example. Almost all grapes had seeds 50 years ago. But some people didn't like the seeds, so breeders cross bred with a few varieties which were naturally seedless. And while they were at it, they made grapes that were crisp, sweet, won't shatter from the bunch, and thin skinned. The result is tasteless, but people loved it. Now the only grapes I can buy are tasteless red and tasteless green. That's not even down to GMO. Just cross pollination and selective breeding.
The best grapes I ever tried came from a little shop in Greece while on holiday. They had big hard seeds, thick purple-brownish skins, soft flesh so some berries at the bottom of the bunch would squash, and words can't express how good they tasted. But shops here won't sell them, because people won't buy them, because they have seeds. I planted my own grape vines now so I can get some decent grapes.
GP is talking about the stock market. The link you gave is an opinion piece about the immediate effect on the GBP/EUR exchange rate. Two different things. But because the FTSE is denominated in GBP, you can sum the drop in value of both to get the absolute drop in value of the FTSE. The GBP closed about 8% down, and the FTSE closed about 2.5% down on Friday. That's around a 10% absolute fall in the FTSE. I can't find current figures, but according to Wikipedia the total market capitalization of the FTSE 100 was GBP 1.904 trillion as of April 2015. The FTSE 100 is made up of the 100 highest value companies, representing about 81% of the total market capitalization on the London stock exchange. Not all UK companies are traded on the London stock exchange. Lets just work with GBP 1.9 trillion for simplicities sake. Ten percent of that is GBP 190 billion, lost in one day. In support of GPs comment, 20 years * 8.5 billion annual payment to EU is GBP 170 billion, which is close enough. If your point is that such market fluctuations are common, so people shouldn't complain about paying 1/20th of that to the EU, then I totally agree.
Those figures are just for the UK. Last weeks rebellion affected markets all over the world, and it's not over yet either. Markets don't like uncertainty, and there's plenty of that to go around. Market tumbles typically take weeks to run their course, so it's too early to say what the final cost will be right now.
What proportion of the population do you have to arm before deaths from gun massacres drop to an acceptably low number? About a third of American households have access to a gun of some sort, at least some of the time, and massacres happen. I guess we both agree that some people should not be allowed to own firearms. Children, the infirm, the insane, anyone already convicted of a violent crime, and maybe anyone on a watchlist would quickly add up to a third of the population. So we could comfortably arm two thirds of the population. Would massacres reduce to near zero if the proportion of households with access to a gun doubled to two thirds? I suspect not, because someone who wants to commit a massacre could still choose a soft target such as a sport event, a TSA queue, or a school bus.
And what would happen to the mundane everyday gun related deaths we hardly hear about? Wikipedia says there were just over 33,000 firearm related deaths in the US in 2013, excluding those from legal intervention because we don't want to skew the numbers;-) So if we doubled the proportion of households with access to firearms to two thirds, then we would expect the number of gun related fatalities to double to about 66,000. Some of those deaths are from firearms massacres of course which might reduce, but we hear about those on the news immediately when they happen and off the back of my hand the numbers are nowhere near 33,000.
However many lives might be saved from massacres by arming everybody will likely be offset by fatalities from accidental discharges, drunken arguments settled with violence, armed robberies gone wrong because people are too slow to pull their weapon against jacked-up thugs with the benefit of surprise, impulsive suicides, etc. We know these things happen already, they will just become more common. Massacres are rare, but everyday stupidity is everywhere every day. And if you think the police are militant now, wait until they go from suspecting that anybody could be armed to knowing for a fact that everyone is armed. We will lose that arms race.
I don't see any links, but I think given that this is 'art' (don't get me started), it would be obvious by the description that this devise will inflict pain, and people can give their hand of their own free will, knowing full well what the consequences will be. In this case people share some of the responsibility for what happens to themselves.
And since I'm at it, what the hell is the deal with that needle? Is it replaced with a sterile needle between stabbings? Or does the same needle sit there stabbing different idiots all day, spreading who knows what diseases as it goes?
Good summary. I am sure many more people stood up to this guy, and we will never read about them, so this could be the tip of the iceberg we see here. But how many victims need to come forward before you decide this guy is bad for business and should get the boot? Hundreds? Thousands? At some point you need to stop blaming victims and start blaming the creep. I don't care if this guy is a programming superstar, if other talented people say to themselves "fuck this shit, I'm out of here" because of his continuous harassment then he is a liability.
These candidates are where they are because they have the most support from the general population (votes, campaign donations, party volunteers, media coverage, etc...). They reflect the will of the average US voter. In a democracy, people really do deserve what they get. I hope they get it good and hard.
As a side note, there are about 74.2 million under 18 year olds, plus 2.2 million in prison, plus half a million officially homeless people in the US. That automatically rules out at least 77 million people.
I want to do the same with a Raspberry Pi. I could get a cheap e-ink display from an old e-reader, but I haven't figured out how to convert the video signal from a Raspberry Pi into something the e-ink can display. If I figured that out, then I can add a small bluetooth keyboard and a USB battery pack with solar panel to make an uber versatile energy efficient light-weight travel computer. I know, I could just use an Android based e-reader with browser etc instead, but that's not the point.
No need for a firewall when they can just record everything, keep it indefinitely, and trawl the data at their leisure to find dirt on someone when the need arises. Everyone has dirt somewhere, they just have to look close enough.
Many years ago a doctor asked me to pull my pants down, bend over, and cough twice, while he watched from behind. He was looking for my Anocutaneous Reflex, otherwise known as anal reflex or anal wink. I don't think I would feel more comfortable about the exam if he was watching me through a transparent display, but maybe he would. It's an interesting idea that deserves further research.
I never had a drug test in the military, ever. They had drug sniffer dogs, but no tests. Anyone who puts other peoples lives at risk will be discovered soon enough anyway and 'encouraged' to leave, regardless of whether from drugs, carelessness, or plain old stupid.
Market capitalization means the market value of a company's outstanding shares at a particular point in time (simply number of shares * stock price). If I start a company which promises to sell bottled unicorn farts and issue 1 billion shares, and some fool buys a share in my company for $1, then the market capitalization of my company is worth 1 billion shares * $1 = $1 billion. This is why Theranos is 'worth' $9 billion, or whatever. $400 million venture capital for a 4.4444% stake in the company means a market cap of $9 billion.
One particularly methodical approach to value a company is the Capital Asset Pricing Model (CAPM). You figure out the rate of return required from an asset with a given level of risk, estimate likely future earnings from that asset (hopefully based on actual data), and then calculate what price you should pay for those future earnings. I don't think CAPM works well on loss making companies, or companies with a short history.
That is not how science works. Real science always tries to disprove its own default assumption (null hypothesis). In this case the null hypothesis may be "cell phone use does not appear to cause a higher rate cancer than the population rate", and the alternate hypothesis could be "cell phones may cause higher rates of cancer". The scientists job is to gather enough evidence, analyze it, and present the findings in such a way that they can disprove the null hypothesis. They can neither prove the null hypothesis, nor prove the alternate hypothesis by disproving the null hypothesis. When they say "we are seeing no rise in the incidence of brain cancer against the background rate", they are saying that they have insufficient evidence to disprove the null hypothesis. Therefore the null hypothesis survives. Not because it is without a doubt correct, but just because there is insufficient evidence to prove it is incorrect at this moment.
Good question. If your moneys were well diversified, they would likely display mostly type S risk and minimal type I risk, leading to market average results. But if your moneys cluster together, they would display more type I risk, and therefore produce volatile results.
This article in the National Business Review, "First, lets fire all the managers", is the best example I found of the type of company you mention. Everyone is their own manager, yet each person is accountable to everyone around them. Compensation and responsibilities are peer negotiated annually. Go-to problem solvers are naturally rewarded. I hope rigid hierarchical companies die a slow death in the next century as they fail to compete with more innovative nimble companies.
UBI would speed up the process by letting people feel safe enough to quit their old job to start their own company, without worrying about how they will pay their rent for a year.
Slashdot Mirror
Hi! It looks like you are angry. Perhaps you are in a fragile state of mind and would like to kill everybody. Would you like some assistance with that? Oh, by the way, I read that your colleagues hate you, your boss is about to fire you, your girlfriend is sleeping with your best friend, and your parents never wanted you.
I honestly think people want tasteless food, because that is what they buy. Take grapes for example. Almost all grapes had seeds 50 years ago. But some people didn't like the seeds, so breeders cross bred with a few varieties which were naturally seedless. And while they were at it, they made grapes that were crisp, sweet, won't shatter from the bunch, and thin skinned. The result is tasteless, but people loved it. Now the only grapes I can buy are tasteless red and tasteless green. That's not even down to GMO. Just cross pollination and selective breeding.
The best grapes I ever tried came from a little shop in Greece while on holiday. They had big hard seeds, thick purple-brownish skins, soft flesh so some berries at the bottom of the bunch would squash, and words can't express how good they tasted. But shops here won't sell them, because people won't buy them, because they have seeds. I planted my own grape vines now so I can get some decent grapes.
That only leaves Sydney and Cockburn as the obvious candidates.
GP is talking about the stock market. The link you gave is an opinion piece about the immediate effect on the GBP/EUR exchange rate. Two different things. But because the FTSE is denominated in GBP, you can sum the drop in value of both to get the absolute drop in value of the FTSE. The GBP closed about 8% down, and the FTSE closed about 2.5% down on Friday. That's around a 10% absolute fall in the FTSE. I can't find current figures, but according to Wikipedia the total market capitalization of the FTSE 100 was GBP 1.904 trillion as of April 2015. The FTSE 100 is made up of the 100 highest value companies, representing about 81% of the total market capitalization on the London stock exchange. Not all UK companies are traded on the London stock exchange. Lets just work with GBP 1.9 trillion for simplicities sake. Ten percent of that is GBP 190 billion, lost in one day. In support of GPs comment, 20 years * 8.5 billion annual payment to EU is GBP 170 billion, which is close enough. If your point is that such market fluctuations are common, so people shouldn't complain about paying 1/20th of that to the EU, then I totally agree.
Those figures are just for the UK. Last weeks rebellion affected markets all over the world, and it's not over yet either. Markets don't like uncertainty, and there's plenty of that to go around. Market tumbles typically take weeks to run their course, so it's too early to say what the final cost will be right now.
What proportion of the population do you have to arm before deaths from gun massacres drop to an acceptably low number? About a third of American households have access to a gun of some sort, at least some of the time, and massacres happen. I guess we both agree that some people should not be allowed to own firearms. Children, the infirm, the insane, anyone already convicted of a violent crime, and maybe anyone on a watchlist would quickly add up to a third of the population. So we could comfortably arm two thirds of the population. Would massacres reduce to near zero if the proportion of households with access to a gun doubled to two thirds? I suspect not, because someone who wants to commit a massacre could still choose a soft target such as a sport event, a TSA queue, or a school bus.
And what would happen to the mundane everyday gun related deaths we hardly hear about? Wikipedia says there were just over 33,000 firearm related deaths in the US in 2013, excluding those from legal intervention because we don't want to skew the numbers ;-) So if we doubled the proportion of households with access to firearms to two thirds, then we would expect the number of gun related fatalities to double to about 66,000. Some of those deaths are from firearms massacres of course which might reduce, but we hear about those on the news immediately when they happen and off the back of my hand the numbers are nowhere near 33,000.
However many lives might be saved from massacres by arming everybody will likely be offset by fatalities from accidental discharges, drunken arguments settled with violence, armed robberies gone wrong because people are too slow to pull their weapon against jacked-up thugs with the benefit of surprise, impulsive suicides, etc. We know these things happen already, they will just become more common. Massacres are rare, but everyday stupidity is everywhere every day. And if you think the police are militant now, wait until they go from suspecting that anybody could be armed to knowing for a fact that everyone is armed. We will lose that arms race.
I don't see any links, but I think given that this is 'art' (don't get me started), it would be obvious by the description that this devise will inflict pain, and people can give their hand of their own free will, knowing full well what the consequences will be. In this case people share some of the responsibility for what happens to themselves.
And since I'm at it, what the hell is the deal with that needle? Is it replaced with a sterile needle between stabbings? Or does the same needle sit there stabbing different idiots all day, spreading who knows what diseases as it goes?
When's the last time you ever saw a bunch of white people in the USA riot and loot and fuck shit up en masse?
Britain does not approve of your savage behavior and wants its land back, plus several years of unpaid taxes.
Women? They make up just over half the population. And they go bat-shit crazy sometimes. My ex threw a fork at me once.
Good summary. I am sure many more people stood up to this guy, and we will never read about them, so this could be the tip of the iceberg we see here. But how many victims need to come forward before you decide this guy is bad for business and should get the boot? Hundreds? Thousands? At some point you need to stop blaming victims and start blaming the creep. I don't care if this guy is a programming superstar, if other talented people say to themselves "fuck this shit, I'm out of here" because of his continuous harassment then he is a liability.
I root as real sysadmins work...
These candidates are where they are because they have the most support from the general population (votes, campaign donations, party volunteers, media coverage, etc...). They reflect the will of the average US voter. In a democracy, people really do deserve what they get. I hope they get it good and hard.
As a side note, there are about 74.2 million under 18 year olds, plus 2.2 million in prison, plus half a million officially homeless people in the US. That automatically rules out at least 77 million people.
I'd be very concerned if you weren't.
I want to do the same with a Raspberry Pi. I could get a cheap e-ink display from an old e-reader, but I haven't figured out how to convert the video signal from a Raspberry Pi into something the e-ink can display. If I figured that out, then I can add a small bluetooth keyboard and a USB battery pack with solar panel to make an uber versatile energy efficient light-weight travel computer. I know, I could just use an Android based e-reader with browser etc instead, but that's not the point.
Then the dog comes in and drinks from the toilet o_O
No need for a firewall when they can just record everything, keep it indefinitely, and trawl the data at their leisure to find dirt on someone when the need arises. Everyone has dirt somewhere, they just have to look close enough.
Did you check the Onion? Probably got slashdotted. I am sure the article will be up again soon.
Slow motion replay is priceless.
Many years ago a doctor asked me to pull my pants down, bend over, and cough twice, while he watched from behind. He was looking for my Anocutaneous Reflex, otherwise known as anal reflex or anal wink. I don't think I would feel more comfortable about the exam if he was watching me through a transparent display, but maybe he would. It's an interesting idea that deserves further research.
I never had a drug test in the military, ever. They had drug sniffer dogs, but no tests. Anyone who puts other peoples lives at risk will be discovered soon enough anyway and 'encouraged' to leave, regardless of whether from drugs, carelessness, or plain old stupid.
It depends what is meant by 'value' or 'worth'.
Market capitalization means the market value of a company's outstanding shares at a particular point in time (simply number of shares * stock price). If I start a company which promises to sell bottled unicorn farts and issue 1 billion shares, and some fool buys a share in my company for $1, then the market capitalization of my company is worth 1 billion shares * $1 = $1 billion. This is why Theranos is 'worth' $9 billion, or whatever. $400 million venture capital for a 4.4444% stake in the company means a market cap of $9 billion.
One particularly methodical approach to value a company is the Capital Asset Pricing Model (CAPM). You figure out the rate of return required from an asset with a given level of risk, estimate likely future earnings from that asset (hopefully based on actual data), and then calculate what price you should pay for those future earnings. I don't think CAPM works well on loss making companies, or companies with a short history.
That is not how science works. Real science always tries to disprove its own default assumption (null hypothesis). In this case the null hypothesis may be "cell phone use does not appear to cause a higher rate cancer than the population rate", and the alternate hypothesis could be "cell phones may cause higher rates of cancer". The scientists job is to gather enough evidence, analyze it, and present the findings in such a way that they can disprove the null hypothesis. They can neither prove the null hypothesis, nor prove the alternate hypothesis by disproving the null hypothesis. When they say "we are seeing no rise in the incidence of brain cancer against the background rate", they are saying that they have insufficient evidence to disprove the null hypothesis. Therefore the null hypothesis survives. Not because it is without a doubt correct, but just because there is insufficient evidence to prove it is incorrect at this moment.
I am sure he will take it in his stride.
Good question. If your moneys were well diversified, they would likely display mostly type S risk and minimal type I risk, leading to market average results. But if your moneys cluster together, they would display more type I risk, and therefore produce volatile results.
This article in the National Business Review, "First, lets fire all the managers", is the best example I found of the type of company you mention. Everyone is their own manager, yet each person is accountable to everyone around them. Compensation and responsibilities are peer negotiated annually. Go-to problem solvers are naturally rewarded. I hope rigid hierarchical companies die a slow death in the next century as they fail to compete with more innovative nimble companies.
UBI would speed up the process by letting people feel safe enough to quit their old job to start their own company, without worrying about how they will pay their rent for a year.