I'd wager a lot of the price of media companies now reflects their control, not their profitability. Sure, making money by selling news is great, but the power to set society's agenda, and frame events for the history books, is infinitely more valuable.
If you think of that as the raison d' etre of the big media companies, it becomes obvious why they offer "news" free on the internet. Also, that Buffet will pay a premium for these shares...
Hey kid, you have more than twice my number, you shouldn't speak.
I don't know a single person who has kept vi(m) or emacs, because they aren't that old. They have, to a man, switched to them, and away from the CUA interfaces that were already near-universally adopted by their time. Yes, I think undue reverence for old unix gurus is the best explanation.
Curiously, those I know that are old enough to have used early 80s text editors extensively as adults (like my father), moved with the times to CUA-style editors.
However, to my eyes, it looks more like an attempt to revive the development style done on Symbolics Lisp Machines that survives to some extent in Emacs. Might be a boon to Emacs user...
Yeah, it's a classic. Oldtimers (or more often, oldtimer fanboys) trying to change the user interface on the rest of the world to work like their old favorite apps, rather than the other way around. It's so...
Say I get access to your password from three different sites where you use that scheme. Suddenly, the fact that they are 8-digit stings contributes virtually nothing to security.
I like Cameron Morris' tool. I can feed it passwords like ";4angestogungi" and it spots sense in them that make them easier to memorize; in this case "changes to fungi".
No one deliberately added it. It's a creepy consequence of statistical translation. The program noticed that "Hey, there are a lot of pompous, nationalist words in this thing, what's the equivalent of these pompous, nationalist words in English?". It basically realized it was looking at an anthem, and translated bits of it into the British anthem.
I ran some other anthems through it at the time, to test. It definitely did stuff to them. The Icelandic, for Instance: In the English translation, duplicate lines would be replaced in this way:
Original:
Íslands thúsund ár, Íslands thúsund ár!
Translation:
Iceland's thousand years, Hiduplah!
Turns out hiduplah is an Indonesian word meaning "long live!" or similar. Why the translator thought it was English I have no idea, but it got the general sentimental anthem spirit right.
I used to hang out on the Google translate forum. Every week there would be some loony nationalist who was deeply offended that
* His language was not implemented (Turks, mostly) * His language was not implemented to his satisfaction (Lithuanians in particular. "Our language is the most complex in the world!") * An "enemy" language was implemented ("Macedonian is not a language! It is a dialect of Bulgarian!" - said by Greeks) * Their national anthem inexplicably got the words "God Save The Queen" inserted into them (an Irishman, memorably) * etc.
In any case, the only explanation which they would accept was a deep conspiracy at Google to taunt and slight their proud nations.
It's not for you, it's for the developers. Who can make cross-platform apps with less pain. Which means you will find some excellent software there. Take a look at Chrome's marketplace to get an idea.
Seamonkey isn't a fork of Firefox, it's the other way around. Seamonkey is what remains of the old Mozilla suite. I'm surprised it's under active development.
Funny enough, this isn't a bunch of Linux/Apply fanbois throwing this out there... It's Forbes.
So what? Forbes doesn't write a word unless it's
* pleasing to a potential advertiser, * pleasing to the majority of readers, * it makes the stock they own rise (or the stock their friends own, or their readers own), or * they're simply paid for it.
They are corporate courtesans extraordinaire. Sometimes, they happen to say something that isn't wrong, but you can be confident that's just a happy accident.
I already said it wasn't necessary. I pointed out it can save time. The way code is split out across multiple files is rarely done in a way optimal for recompilation speed.
I see. We have no business jumping to definions to read them, it's none of our business - unless it's in that subset of definitions that can be found by ctags.
If you've used cars since the time you basically had to build them from scratch yourself, yes, I think that's a rather reasonable assumption. God, I remember the hell that was debian in the nineties.
Things are looking up. More and more gaming middleware seem to be cross-platform these days, due to the desire to support iOS and Android. Once you've paid the upfront costs to make your game portable to those platforms (and OSX), there's not much additional cost to supporting Linux.
I have a customization that is really useful, and hasn't been wrecked by any upgrades so far. It works like this:
* Have 5 virtual desktops. * Use the compizconfig tool to make certain common programs always start in a specific desktop (2 is terminator, for instance) * Remap alt-arrow keys to move left and right across virtual desktops. * Remap alt up/down to move between tabs/subwindows/files in the common applications. Put tabs on the side, to make this visually intuitive (this is a little challenge with some apps, but it works once you've set it up) * remap alt +/- to open and close a new tab/subwindow in these common applications.
This way, I always know where I have stuff.
I originally set up this system as I was transcribing some scanned sheet music (from a PDF) into lilypond. Mentallly keeping track of where I were in both files and scrolling down all the time due to limited screen real estate, was a royal pain. This system worked fabulously, and I really miss it where I can't have it now.
Al Gore is not a hypocrite. He's just a very pro-market, pro-capitalism person. He believes - as do by far the most people in the west today - that having money and being willing to use it makes him deserve a couple of things we couldn't possibly let everyone have. Not everyone can have a swimming pool, not everyone can have the right to pollute. In both cases, those who can pay, get the privilege. So what's new?
The problem with Gore isn't this. The problem with Gore is that under the scheme he proposes, he gets off very cheaply with his excess CO2 emissions. The scheme is also quite vulnerable to corruption.
Hansen's scheme would be a lot more expensive for people like Gore, due to it being designed not only to sanction polluters, but also to seriously reward those who pollute less than average. It's still a very market-compatible approach. It still very much permits inequalities, in pollution rights as in swimming pool ownership, because contrary to what you may have been told Hansen is not a society-toppling revolutionary either.
I for one enjoy my lifestyle very much, and would want it to be better, or at least not too much worse. It's not that I "don't like" people's lifestyles (including my own) it's just that I'm worried about their sustainability in various ways.
A solution to global warming that doesn't involve anyone changing their behavior in any way? Yes, I'm sure people will be more positive to such an approach. I would, too, if I had any delusions it could work.
In the process, all you really do is set a soft cap on carbon emissions
Yes, in Hansen's scheme you do. Because a hard cap would potentially be very destructive.
without reducing actual dependence upon fossil fuels.
Well yes, if your industrial process depends on fossil fuels, this won't reduce your dependence on them, but will make it more expensive. That is by design. The idea is that less fossil-fuel hungry alternatives will get competitive. Once they are, they will benefit from economies of scale and network effects, and may well end up being more productive than the original process, even ignoring the taxes. (We frequently get stuck in local optima).
We can achieve the same goal of reducing carbon output by instead investing that money into first-world research and development of alternative fuels.
First of all: We can't know exactly which goals can and can not be achieved by improved technology. We don't know what future inventions can do until we have them. And more importantly, for any stated goal ("We want to find a cost-effective way of scrubbing the atmosphere of excess carbon!") you don't know if you will get there by using ten billions and 3 years, or 30 years and 300 billions. This is the nature of scientific uncertainty: You can't predict what science will produce in a scientific manner.
So how much would you allocate to research? One billion or 300 billion? It may still not be enough.
Both Hansen's proposal and to a lesser degree traditional cap and trade (which Hansen opposes) works around that problem. Research will still get funding under those scenarios, but it will come from businesses (and countries) which have decided that directing money to such technology is less costly than cutting emissions in other ways.
Hey, didn't you notice his confident, no-nonsense, businesslike tone? "Does it have an effect? Sure. Does it have a noticeable effect? Probably. Does it have a significant effect? Maybe. There's way too many variables to really be sure"... What's a paltry scientific consensus to first-class truthiness?
Yeah, Musopen is late... but not shockingly so. Recording music takes time, especially when it's done on terms like these (an important reason for the delay was that the first orchestra backed out at the last minute).
If it turns out Aaron has been lying to us, and there are no master tapes, then we can talk about a scandal. But I don't think that will happen.
Tabarrok's dominant assurance contacts are an improvement on the concept which I think has potential, but currently there's a lot of regulation (intended for conventional investment) that makes it problematic to implement. Kickstarter has had to specify very clearly that kickstarter donations mustn't be considered investments, for legal reasons, although from a common sense standpoint they obviously are.
Slashdot Mirror
I'd wager a lot of the price of media companies now reflects their control, not their profitability. Sure, making money by selling news is great, but the power to set society's agenda, and frame events for the history books, is infinitely more valuable.
If you think of that as the raison d' etre of the big media companies, it becomes obvious why they offer "news" free on the internet. Also, that Buffet will pay a premium for these shares...
Hey kid, you have more than twice my number, you shouldn't speak.
I don't know a single person who has kept vi(m) or emacs, because they aren't that old. They have, to a man, switched to them, and away from the CUA interfaces that were already near-universally adopted by their time. Yes, I think undue reverence for old unix gurus is the best explanation.
Curiously, those I know that are old enough to have used early 80s text editors extensively as adults (like my father), moved with the times to CUA-style editors.
Yeah, it's a classic. Oldtimers (or more often, oldtimer fanboys) trying to change the user interface on the rest of the world to work like their old favorite apps, rather than the other way around. It's so ...
*facepalm*
Say I get access to your password from three different sites where you use that scheme. Suddenly, the fact that they are 8-digit stings contributes virtually nothing to security.
I like Cameron Morris' tool. I can feed it passwords like ";4angestogungi" and it spots sense in them that make them easier to memorize; in this case "changes to fungi".
No one deliberately added it. It's a creepy consequence of statistical translation. The program noticed that "Hey, there are a lot of pompous, nationalist words in this thing, what's the equivalent of these pompous, nationalist words in English?". It basically realized it was looking at an anthem, and translated bits of it into the British anthem.
I ran some other anthems through it at the time, to test. It definitely did stuff to them. The Icelandic, for Instance: In the English translation, duplicate lines would be replaced in this way:
Original:
Translation:
Turns out hiduplah is an Indonesian word meaning "long live!" or similar. Why the translator thought it was English I have no idea, but it got the general sentimental anthem spirit right.
Oh, the many ways to provoke a nationalist!
I used to hang out on the Google translate forum. Every week there would be some loony nationalist who was deeply offended that
* His language was not implemented (Turks, mostly)
* His language was not implemented to his satisfaction (Lithuanians in particular. "Our language is the most complex in the world!")
* An "enemy" language was implemented ("Macedonian is not a language! It is a dialect of Bulgarian!" - said by Greeks)
* Their national anthem inexplicably got the words "God Save The Queen" inserted into them (an Irishman, memorably)
* etc.
In any case, the only explanation which they would accept was a deep conspiracy at Google to taunt and slight their proud nations.
It's not for you, it's for the developers. Who can make cross-platform apps with less pain. Which means you will find some excellent software there. Take a look at Chrome's marketplace to get an idea.
Seamonkey isn't a fork of Firefox, it's the other way around. Seamonkey is what remains of the old Mozilla suite. I'm surprised it's under active development.
So what? Forbes doesn't write a word unless it's
* pleasing to a potential advertiser,
* pleasing to the majority of readers,
* it makes the stock they own rise (or the stock their friends own, or their readers own), or
* they're simply paid for it.
They are corporate courtesans extraordinaire. Sometimes, they happen to say something that isn't wrong, but you can be confident that's just a happy accident.
I already said it wasn't necessary. I pointed out it can save time. The way code is split out across multiple files is rarely done in a way optimal for recompilation speed.
Also, if code optimization is what you want, gcc is not the best C compiler either.
Now what could that be? Apple isn't involved in any dubious patent litigation, are they? /s
Necessary? Well no, I guess not, but then makefiles aren't necessary either. You could just recompile everything every time.
I see. We have no business jumping to definions to read them, it's none of our business - unless it's in that subset of definitions that can be found by ctags.
If you've used cars since the time you basically had to build them from scratch yourself, yes, I think that's a rather reasonable assumption. God, I remember the hell that was debian in the nineties.
Things are looking up. More and more gaming middleware seem to be cross-platform these days, due to the desire to support iOS and Android. Once you've paid the upfront costs to make your game portable to those platforms (and OSX), there's not much additional cost to supporting Linux.
I have a customization that is really useful, and hasn't been wrecked by any upgrades so far. It works like this:
* Have 5 virtual desktops.
* Use the compizconfig tool to make certain common programs always start in a specific desktop (2 is terminator, for instance)
* Remap alt-arrow keys to move left and right across virtual desktops.
* Remap alt up/down to move between tabs/subwindows/files in the common applications. Put tabs on the side, to make this visually intuitive (this is a little challenge with some apps, but it works once you've set it up)
* remap alt +/- to open and close a new tab/subwindow in these common applications.
This way, I always know where I have stuff.
I originally set up this system as I was transcribing some scanned sheet music (from a PDF) into lilypond. Mentallly keeping track of where I were in both files and scrolling down all the time due to limited screen real estate, was a royal pain. This system worked fabulously, and I really miss it where I can't have it now.
Why do you hate America, hairyfeet?
Al Gore is not a hypocrite. He's just a very pro-market, pro-capitalism person. He believes - as do by far the most people in the west today - that having money and being willing to use it makes him deserve a couple of things we couldn't possibly let everyone have. Not everyone can have a swimming pool, not everyone can have the right to pollute. In both cases, those who can pay, get the privilege. So what's new?
The problem with Gore isn't this. The problem with Gore is that under the scheme he proposes, he gets off very cheaply with his excess CO2 emissions. The scheme is also quite vulnerable to corruption.
Hansen's scheme would be a lot more expensive for people like Gore, due to it being designed not only to sanction polluters, but also to seriously reward those who pollute less than average. It's still a very market-compatible approach. It still very much permits inequalities, in pollution rights as in swimming pool ownership, because contrary to what you may have been told Hansen is not a society-toppling revolutionary either.
I for one enjoy my lifestyle very much, and would want it to be better, or at least not too much worse. It's not that I "don't like" people's lifestyles (including my own) it's just that I'm worried about their sustainability in various ways.
A solution to global warming that doesn't involve anyone changing their behavior in any way? Yes, I'm sure people will be more positive to such an approach. I would, too, if I had any delusions it could work.
Nice buzzwords, but ...
Yes, in Hansen's scheme you do. Because a hard cap would potentially be very destructive.
Well yes, if your industrial process depends on fossil fuels, this won't reduce your dependence on them, but will make it more expensive. That is by design. The idea is that less fossil-fuel hungry alternatives will get competitive. Once they are, they will benefit from economies of scale and network effects, and may well end up being more productive than the original process, even ignoring the taxes. (We frequently get stuck in local optima).
First of all: We can't know exactly which goals can and can not be achieved by improved technology. We don't know what future inventions can do until we have them. And more importantly, for any stated goal ("We want to find a cost-effective way of scrubbing the atmosphere of excess carbon!") you don't know if you will get there by using ten billions and 3 years, or 30 years and 300 billions. This is the nature of scientific uncertainty: You can't predict what science will produce in a scientific manner.
So how much would you allocate to research? One billion or 300 billion? It may still not be enough.
Both Hansen's proposal and to a lesser degree traditional cap and trade (which Hansen opposes) works around that problem. Research will still get funding under those scenarios, but it will come from businesses (and countries) which have decided that directing money to such technology is less costly than cutting emissions in other ways.
Hey, didn't you notice his confident, no-nonsense, businesslike tone? "Does it have an effect? Sure. Does it have a noticeable effect? Probably. Does it have a significant effect? Maybe. There's way too many variables to really be sure" ... What's a paltry scientific consensus to first-class truthiness?
Apparently, 1985 or something was "last you knew" anything.
Volcanoes emit around 0.3 billion tonnes of CO2 per year. This is about 1% of human CO2 emissions which is around 29 billion tonnes per year.
Doesn't prevent that particular duck being drawn out again and again, no matter how many times it's been pointed out.
It was all they were confident they could sell, not exactly the same thing. Board game companies need to be conservative in their estimates.
Yeah, Musopen is late... but not shockingly so. Recording music takes time, especially when it's done on terms like these (an important reason for the delay was that the first orchestra backed out at the last minute).
If it turns out Aaron has been lying to us, and there are no master tapes, then we can talk about a scandal. But I don't think that will happen.
Kelsey and Schneier weren't the first either; libertarian economists had been advocating variants on the scheme since at least the late eighties:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assurance_contract
Tabarrok's dominant assurance contacts are an improvement on the concept which I think has potential, but currently there's a lot of regulation (intended for conventional investment) that makes it problematic to implement. Kickstarter has had to specify very clearly that kickstarter donations mustn't be considered investments, for legal reasons, although from a common sense standpoint they obviously are.