The exact same thing happens when you're selling as well.
If you sell a share at $2.99, and then somebody buys at $2.99, then guess what? You still sold it at the price you asked for.
Likewise, if you place a bid for a share at $3 and then you buy at $3, then guess what? You still bought it for the price you asked for.
By the way, that quote in your signature is not only horribly misquoted, but it's horribly written English as well. Ben Franklin wouldn't have written such bad English, ("they who can"? Seriously?) and it was actually written like this:
"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
And it likely doesn't mean what you think it means:
You're way overthinking this as most of your expenses likely aren't even relevant to somebody on minimum wage.
Chances are you're dragging around a lot of crap that doesn't exactly need to be moved. If I was on minimum wage, I'd just sell all of my furniture on craigslist or in a yard sale, and then after moving go down to goodwill and buy new stuff for roughly the same price. Everything else can likely just be packed into the trunk of whatever car you're traveling to your new place in.
If your job is minimum wage, what possible expenses can be involved in actually finding a new job in your new location? And furthermore, what time is involved beyond just a few days? Finding minimum wage jobs is dead simple unless you're a total moron. Hell, just find the closest bar and they'll probably need somebody to wash dishes.
As for a deposit, not every place wants a deposit. Roommate situations almost never ask for one, and some apartments don't ask for one either, while others might ask for a really cheap deposit. The place I live in now just asked for $50 for a credit check and a choice of either $100 non-refundable deposit or a $500 refundable deposit, and gave the first month's rent free.
Either way, you still bought the shares for $3, with or without an HFT middleman. The only difference is now it happens in milliseconds rather than in minutes.
You misunderstand. Yes, he can be muscular, but the problem is with his 5'7" and a BMI of 25.1, his average fellow inmate would likely be bigger and stronger.
Just to give you a frame of reference, Tom Cruise is the EXACT same height as the AC poster of 5'7" only Cruise weighs 201lbs, giving him a BMI of 31.5. If you look at Cruise in his movies, he's not really that big of a guy. Now consider that Arnold Schwarzenegger also had a BMI of 31.5 when he was in the first Terminator movie. Given that he is 6'2", that BMI makes a massive difference in terms of appearance, even though Arnold was the same BMI as today's Tom Cruise.
But again, AC poster is 5'7" with a BMI of 25.1, so think about that for a minute. That should be enough to tell you just how small the AC poster actually is, even if he's all muscle.
Also if you follow the WHO guidelines, Cruise and Arnold are both obese by definition, hence the problem with BMI.
No, most CEOs don't count as a sociopath. As I mentioned, a psychopath will bond to a particular cause often at the expense of others. In the case of a CEO, that's usually their company. For a career like a surgeon, their cause is their patients, sometimes treating the operating room assistants like shit but devoting their utmost care and attention to the patient.
A psychopath can be a sociopath, and when that happens, their pet cause is usually themselves, though it can also be their family, their pets, etc.
You're forgetting what sociopaths like CEOs and politicians prefer to do with irrelevant parasites who are using up the sociopaths' precious resources without providing reciprocal benefit.
Actually the term you're looking for is a psychopath, and they gravitate towards (among other things) surgeons, journalists, chefs, lawyers and civil servants. They're not that likely to be politicians though. And, psychopaths in many cases have a pet cause that they'll devote all of their energy to at the expense of other things; for example they'll sometimes be animal rights activists, and in deeper manifestations become eco terrorists.
Well, define overweight please. I myself weigh 188lbs at 5'10 and have approximately 17% body fat. That is well within military standards, in case you were wondering.
I think the EU is afraid that its own citizens can't resist hate speech.
Anyways, I'm curious why they are being so aggressive about this, yet they don't raise a "great firewall of europe" to block ALL hate speech sites, sites that ignore right to be forgotten, etc. Presumably they'd need to block VPNs and tor as well.
No, not overweight. Sure, the WHO standard says BMI of 25 is the maximum for normal weight, and he's 25.1, but the WHO standard isn't as accurate as the NHANES II standard, which says he's of normal weight. This is because the former evens it to make it easy to do napkin math, whereas the later is based on hard math.
Nonetheless, how big he is would be somewhat relative. Since the average white male is 5'10", he's a little (but not a lot) short, and since his BMI is 25.1 he can't exactly be muscular. So yeah, he may get pushed around a bit.
Because if you have sex when your age is 15 years 364 days 23 hours and 59 seconds or younger, then your mind is permanently damaged and you'll probably go on a columbine style shooting spree. If you wait a second later, you'll be fine though.
Speed is not why you should want (or not) systemd. It's Linux. How often do you expect to reboot the thing, anyway?
Well, on my home rolled NAS appliance, I really like the ability to reboot all of my VMs very quickly when applying security updates, because I'm not the only one that uses it.
In the spirit of "Do one thing and do it well", systemd's goal is "manage services and dependencies". To that end, the only real interaction you normally have with systemd is to start or stop a service, and view the associated logs if some service is misbehaving. In my opinion, them, I don't really see the point in changing one's distro (including support lifecycles, development trust, and organization philosophy) just to swap out init. It's just not that big a deal.
I personally don't have a problem with systemd. The thing is, there's so much damn drama over it that I'm curious what its detractors want to use in its place. And why are some people going to go out of their way to say "you don't need a faster boot time" when they don't know my use case? Furthermore, with the way I hack my Android smartphone, I'd love it if it booted faster.
Do any of these alternatives offer the same speed benefit of systemd? Serious question as I've never tried to replace the init system on any linux distro.
I usually do not like repetitive work (though sometimes I want to do it, say, taking a caddy out of a server, removing the plastic, installing a hard drive, putting caddy back and doing that 30 times). However, if bolting panel A to panel B was my job, I would do it and would not like it if somebody decided to automate it (because it would mean I no longer get paid). If I myself could automate it (and still get paid as if I have done that myself) then it would be great. In short - I am lazy and do not like repetitive work, but I like getting paid and food.
Well consider this: If people became irrelevant for making stuff, then who is going to be able to afford to buy said stuff? And on the other hand, automation makes the cost of things go down. Historically what happens in situations like this for any given good is the supply/demand equilibrium declines and the price lowers to where even poor people can afford it. This has been true of practically everything, including luxury goods that were once exclusive to wealthy people, like cars and big screen TVs.
This "evolution" this time around is driving humans out of employment permanently. Cash is still king in this world, and humans will still need to eat, sleep, and fuck. The population rate will likely increase out of boredom alone (look at pregnancy rates when a major city suffers an extended blackout), and thus more and more resources will be consumed.
The next generation will dream of doing exactly what when they grow up? Champion thinkers? Master debaters?
Well, let's see: You just listed three things that people want that are quite profitable because there is a demand for them. One is much more profitable than the other two, and you listed them in the wrong order, which means you probably have a narrow understanding of what people want, much less the difference between a want and a need. And "want" is ultimately where economic growth comes from.
Tomorrow, AI will prove it can write your script 10 times faster, and will never need to stop to eat, sleep, or fuck.
Actually I wrote the script ten times faster than that; most of that time was spent building a test setup to make sure the script did its job correctly before I let it have its way with precious production equipment.
There is a difference. You wrote a script to save yourself from doing a tedious task (I also do the same). Good. You can spend the time saved by doing something else (to get more money from another client) or watching youtube (the client probably expected you to take all day to do it, so you might as well say you did).
Most jobs that automation replaces ARE tedious. Name one manufacturing job that isn't.
1. Pick up panel A 2. Bolt on to panel B 3. Go to 1.
That's manufacturing in a nutshell. Other jobs are equally lame even without being repetitive, such as retail.
OTOH, imagine that copying the configuration to all devices was your primary job - someone else creates a template and you now have to apply it to all devices.
I've had jobs analogous to that, and they fucking suck. One that comes to mind is I had to fill sample jars at a chemical company. That job had a super high turnover because most people quit after their second week, and then they have to go train a new person. It only makes sense to automate stuff like that.
It's not common sense at all, and is in fact rather short sighted.
We're driven by evolution to want to do as little work as possible as a matter of survival, (this mainly comes down to food energy conservation) and that inevitably extends to spending as few resources as possible.
Thus, the desire for automation comes naturally. Hell, just the other day I was asked to make a small change to a ton of network devices that should have taken all day, but instead when I was given the task, I just wrote a script to do it that took me all of about 10 minutes. How is that supposed to be greedy when nobody asked me to do it that way? I just didn't feel like individually shelling into each device one by one, and this way guaranteed that I didn't make any human errors in the process.
Actually American manufacturing is still tough to beat. China only beats us in quantity, but even then we're still the number two manufacturing country. Our main manufacturing exports are jumbo jets and earth movers, and both do really well.
Even in electronics, we still do quite well. We have the most advanced semiconductor fabs in the world, and we even make other parts like resistors, diodes, capacitors, etc. Sure, the final product is assembled elsewhere, but typically many of its components are made here.
Slashdot Mirror
It's WAAS.
Windows As A Superbug
Fortunately, Apple doesn't make routers anymore.
The exact same thing happens when you're selling as well.
If you sell a share at $2.99, and then somebody buys at $2.99, then guess what? You still sold it at the price you asked for.
Likewise, if you place a bid for a share at $3 and then you buy at $3, then guess what? You still bought it for the price you asked for.
By the way, that quote in your signature is not only horribly misquoted, but it's horribly written English as well. Ben Franklin wouldn't have written such bad English, ("they who can"? Seriously?) and it was actually written like this:
"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
And it likely doesn't mean what you think it means:
http://www.npr.org/2015/03/02/...
You're way overthinking this as most of your expenses likely aren't even relevant to somebody on minimum wage.
Chances are you're dragging around a lot of crap that doesn't exactly need to be moved. If I was on minimum wage, I'd just sell all of my furniture on craigslist or in a yard sale, and then after moving go down to goodwill and buy new stuff for roughly the same price. Everything else can likely just be packed into the trunk of whatever car you're traveling to your new place in.
If your job is minimum wage, what possible expenses can be involved in actually finding a new job in your new location? And furthermore, what time is involved beyond just a few days? Finding minimum wage jobs is dead simple unless you're a total moron. Hell, just find the closest bar and they'll probably need somebody to wash dishes.
As for a deposit, not every place wants a deposit. Roommate situations almost never ask for one, and some apartments don't ask for one either, while others might ask for a really cheap deposit. The place I live in now just asked for $50 for a credit check and a choice of either $100 non-refundable deposit or a $500 refundable deposit, and gave the first month's rent free.
Or, you know, people could just get paid what somebody thinks their labor is worth.
For example, would you want to pay somebody $30 an hour just to empty all of the trash cans where you work?
Either way, you still bought the shares for $3, with or without an HFT middleman. The only difference is now it happens in milliseconds rather than in minutes.
You misunderstand. Yes, he can be muscular, but the problem is with his 5'7" and a BMI of 25.1, his average fellow inmate would likely be bigger and stronger.
Just to give you a frame of reference, Tom Cruise is the EXACT same height as the AC poster of 5'7" only Cruise weighs 201lbs, giving him a BMI of 31.5. If you look at Cruise in his movies, he's not really that big of a guy. Now consider that Arnold Schwarzenegger also had a BMI of 31.5 when he was in the first Terminator movie. Given that he is 6'2", that BMI makes a massive difference in terms of appearance, even though Arnold was the same BMI as today's Tom Cruise.
But again, AC poster is 5'7" with a BMI of 25.1, so think about that for a minute. That should be enough to tell you just how small the AC poster actually is, even if he's all muscle.
Also if you follow the WHO guidelines, Cruise and Arnold are both obese by definition, hence the problem with BMI.
No, most CEOs don't count as a sociopath. As I mentioned, a psychopath will bond to a particular cause often at the expense of others. In the case of a CEO, that's usually their company. For a career like a surgeon, their cause is their patients, sometimes treating the operating room assistants like shit but devoting their utmost care and attention to the patient.
A psychopath can be a sociopath, and when that happens, their pet cause is usually themselves, though it can also be their family, their pets, etc.
You're forgetting what sociopaths like CEOs and politicians prefer to do with irrelevant parasites who are using up the sociopaths' precious resources without providing reciprocal benefit.
Actually the term you're looking for is a psychopath, and they gravitate towards (among other things) surgeons, journalists, chefs, lawyers and civil servants. They're not that likely to be politicians though. And, psychopaths in many cases have a pet cause that they'll devote all of their energy to at the expense of other things; for example they'll sometimes be animal rights activists, and in deeper manifestations become eco terrorists.
Are you that guy from emutalk?
Well, define overweight please. I myself weigh 188lbs at 5'10 and have approximately 17% body fat. That is well within military standards, in case you were wondering.
I think the EU is afraid that its own citizens can't resist hate speech.
Anyways, I'm curious why they are being so aggressive about this, yet they don't raise a "great firewall of europe" to block ALL hate speech sites, sites that ignore right to be forgotten, etc. Presumably they'd need to block VPNs and tor as well.
No, not overweight. Sure, the WHO standard says BMI of 25 is the maximum for normal weight, and he's 25.1, but the WHO standard isn't as accurate as the NHANES II standard, which says he's of normal weight. This is because the former evens it to make it easy to do napkin math, whereas the later is based on hard math.
Nonetheless, how big he is would be somewhat relative. Since the average white male is 5'10", he's a little (but not a lot) short, and since his BMI is 25.1 he can't exactly be muscular. So yeah, he may get pushed around a bit.
Because if you have sex when your age is 15 years 364 days 23 hours and 59 seconds or younger, then your mind is permanently damaged and you'll probably go on a columbine style shooting spree. If you wait a second later, you'll be fine though.
You are lost in Microsoft land. You don't reboot after applying updates unless they are kernel updates.
If I shell in and the Ubuntu login banner says "system restart required", then what do you suppose I do?
(yes, automatic security updates are enabled)
Speed is not why you should want (or not) systemd. It's Linux. How often do you expect to reboot the thing, anyway?
Well, on my home rolled NAS appliance, I really like the ability to reboot all of my VMs very quickly when applying security updates, because I'm not the only one that uses it.
In the spirit of "Do one thing and do it well", systemd's goal is "manage services and dependencies". To that end, the only real interaction you normally have with systemd is to start or stop a service, and view the associated logs if some service is misbehaving. In my opinion, them, I don't really see the point in changing one's distro (including support lifecycles, development trust, and organization philosophy) just to swap out init. It's just not that big a deal.
I personally don't have a problem with systemd. The thing is, there's so much damn drama over it that I'm curious what its detractors want to use in its place. And why are some people going to go out of their way to say "you don't need a faster boot time" when they don't know my use case? Furthermore, with the way I hack my Android smartphone, I'd love it if it booted faster.
Humans become irrelevant in making things - prices of stuff drop - money for most people (who used to work in manufacturing) runs out - big problems.
You're essentially arguing that, by necessity, they'll stop being consumers. That's just unlikely.
Do any of these alternatives offer the same speed benefit of systemd? Serious question as I've never tried to replace the init system on any linux distro.
I usually do not like repetitive work (though sometimes I want to do it, say, taking a caddy out of a server, removing the plastic, installing a hard drive, putting caddy back and doing that 30 times). However, if bolting panel A to panel B was my job, I would do it and would not like it if somebody decided to automate it (because it would mean I no longer get paid). If I myself could automate it (and still get paid as if I have done that myself) then it would be great. In short - I am lazy and do not like repetitive work, but I like getting paid and food.
Well consider this: If people became irrelevant for making stuff, then who is going to be able to afford to buy said stuff? And on the other hand, automation makes the cost of things go down. Historically what happens in situations like this for any given good is the supply/demand equilibrium declines and the price lowers to where even poor people can afford it. This has been true of practically everything, including luxury goods that were once exclusive to wealthy people, like cars and big screen TVs.
This "evolution" this time around is driving humans out of employment permanently. Cash is still king in this world, and humans will still need to eat, sleep, and fuck. The population rate will likely increase out of boredom alone (look at pregnancy rates when a major city suffers an extended blackout), and thus more and more resources will be consumed.
The next generation will dream of doing exactly what when they grow up? Champion thinkers? Master debaters?
Well, let's see: You just listed three things that people want that are quite profitable because there is a demand for them. One is much more profitable than the other two, and you listed them in the wrong order, which means you probably have a narrow understanding of what people want, much less the difference between a want and a need. And "want" is ultimately where economic growth comes from.
Tomorrow, AI will prove it can write your script 10 times faster, and will never need to stop to eat, sleep, or fuck.
Actually I wrote the script ten times faster than that; most of that time was spent building a test setup to make sure the script did its job correctly before I let it have its way with precious production equipment.
There is a difference. You wrote a script to save yourself from doing a tedious task (I also do the same). Good. You can spend the time saved by doing something else (to get more money from another client) or watching youtube (the client probably expected you to take all day to do it, so you might as well say you did).
Most jobs that automation replaces ARE tedious. Name one manufacturing job that isn't.
1. Pick up panel A
2. Bolt on to panel B
3. Go to 1.
That's manufacturing in a nutshell. Other jobs are equally lame even without being repetitive, such as retail.
OTOH, imagine that copying the configuration to all devices was your primary job - someone else creates a template and you now have to apply it to all devices.
I've had jobs analogous to that, and they fucking suck. One that comes to mind is I had to fill sample jars at a chemical company. That job had a super high turnover because most people quit after their second week, and then they have to go train a new person. It only makes sense to automate stuff like that.
It's not common sense at all, and is in fact rather short sighted.
We're driven by evolution to want to do as little work as possible as a matter of survival, (this mainly comes down to food energy conservation) and that inevitably extends to spending as few resources as possible.
Thus, the desire for automation comes naturally. Hell, just the other day I was asked to make a small change to a ton of network devices that should have taken all day, but instead when I was given the task, I just wrote a script to do it that took me all of about 10 minutes. How is that supposed to be greedy when nobody asked me to do it that way? I just didn't feel like individually shelling into each device one by one, and this way guaranteed that I didn't make any human errors in the process.
That's not greed at all, it's called technology.
Are you saying we should give all of the homeless people there a free bus ticket to Portland?
Actually American manufacturing is still tough to beat. China only beats us in quantity, but even then we're still the number two manufacturing country. Our main manufacturing exports are jumbo jets and earth movers, and both do really well.
Even in electronics, we still do quite well. We have the most advanced semiconductor fabs in the world, and we even make other parts like resistors, diodes, capacitors, etc. Sure, the final product is assembled elsewhere, but typically many of its components are made here.
I know because I just pointed it out to you, and before I did that you flat out denied it, which means you didn't read your own source.