ICQ was widely popular in the US until AIM came around; it was the first "instant message" protocol I remember using or even seeing. Was AIM ever released in Russia? It was integrated into AOL for a long time, and I'm pretty sure AOL was US-only.
Again, this is different from suggesting that choosing who you work for (when you have that choice) is amoral, which contradicts the very fact that you have made a choice.
Great. Now let me ask you a question. WHO GIVES A FUCK?
That is, while it might eventually have that effect, you do so only through amoral means and potentially leaving a multi-generational grudge against its foundation which is likely to eventually unshackle people from that imposed following/belief once they become enlightened to just what was done to make so many people follow along.
I don't know, maybe because they enjoy working on satellite communications equipment? Or because they find radar to be a fascinating subject? Raytheon's existence is not based on microwave pain rays, you know.
Friends are people who like you for what you are and will support you in being yourself, not in spite of what you aren't.
Great, and when you're making friends with people like Barack Obama with your vocabulary you can come back and brag about how well it works for you. As long as all your friends are basement dwelling geeks or middle aged beta males that nobody gives a damn about except you and your small scattering of friends, why the hell should be care or be in any way envious of you?
That's not the point that was actually raised though. The OP used a concise, well-defined term to describe the idea that he wanted to get across. The child poster under him accused him of being too verbose, when in reality it only appeared to be too wordy because of the child's poor vocabulary.
Except that's not what actually happened at all, and you only think it did because your poor social skills prevent you from understanding the situation. Get this through your head: very few normal, socially well-adjusted people would use the phrase "rapid ambulation" in conversation. It works here because we're all geeks and we appreciate geeky jokes. In normal conversation, the word is "run", and you will not be scoring any extra points because you know what "ambulation" means. Most people don't and have no need for the word, and not knowing the word DOES NOT mean the person has a "poor vocabulary." What it means is they spent their much needed years learning social skills and learning how to blend in with society (which is the reason you are here today, and not scratching around in some cave in Africa, BTW), not poring through dictionaries trying to learn every complex word possible in an effort to appear smart in front of their peers.
No, but calling someone else's language "big words" might be an act of anti-intellect.
Except it usually isn't. It's usually just a typical human who is frustrated with some autist's weird and uncommon choice of words. Participating in a conversation is is kinda like being in a band, say, as a drummer. A good drummer is one whose playing supports and enhances the lead singer's sound, and provides a good beat for the others to follow, not one who always insists of flying off into wild drum solos, showing off his skills 24/7. OK, we get that you and other autists know complex words and enjoy using them. Great. But you need to learn that there are appropriate times and inappropriate times to bust out the 50 cent words in conversation, and autists are well known for choosing the wrong time. When you display your lack of social skills by using the wrong words at the wrong time, why would someone be impressed by that? They think you're just trying to show off, or they're confused because they don't understand your message, and this drives people away.
It is, however, an act of being an aspie. As is not understanding sarcasm.
As is as a lack of social skills. Both problems can however be overcome. The human mind, even the autistic one, is great at learning and absorbing new things, it just does it in a different way than the typical human. Good luck to you in your quest to become socially competent.
You are quite right. I hate it when I want to order something next day and then realize that tomorrow is an "off" day. The more contiguous off days, the less advantage there is for expedited shipping. That is, the ratio of time spent en route to time spent in off days decreases to the point where next day delivery would become comparable to 5-day ground shipping. It still gets there four days quicker, but as the limit of off days approaches infinity, the four day advantage becomes increasingly negligible. It would be like waiting a year for a "next day" package to arrive, and saying, "oh, I only had to wait 365 days rather than 369 days". So you can begin to see that with more off days, you are effectively devaluing next day shipping.
I applaud you sir, for your contribution of this valuable explanation. I for one was mystified as to what possible advantages could be sought or disadvantages suffered as a result of changing delivery days, but thanks to your insightful reasoning I am beginning to understand. God bless you, sir !
Why do big corporations' and private citizens' interests necessarily have to be at odds here?
I think one helpful thing would be to separate the concept of a Copyrighted Work (i.e. book, movie, etc) from the Brands (i.e. specific characters, locations, etc) contained within the work. The Work would be treated under copyright law, and the Brands under something like trademark law.
The copyright term should be something short like 5-10 years, which would normally be a bit too short, except now the brand ownership would be perpetual--as long as it's maintained. This compromise would give both the public and media owners most of what they each want. The media companies would lose perpetual income from individual works, but they would retain perpetual brand ownership, and the fair copyright term would ensure entities have a fair chance to make a profit and a living from their works. There would also now be an incentive to continue producing new works instead of just cashing in on one goldmine at the expense of the public's interest.
For the owned brands, those who wish to sell or perform new works containing these as a significant, integral, or important part of the work will need to obtain licenses for the intended use. Licensing or permission should not be required for non-profit uses.
They would never declare a common weed to be an illegal substance, and then spend billions of dollars every year to incarcerate otherwise innocent citizens.
And if they did begin to abuse their powers in this way, there's no way that millions of citizens would fight back for deacades spread the message and do everything in their power to change the law, culminating in thousands of news stories, TV shows and specials, etc about their cause over the past two years and legislation up for public vote (with a majority in support) for legalization this November.
Thinking through the implications of things is very good and a definite big step above what a lot of people are doing, but for best results it needs to be done from a neutral standpoint with your personal biases, righteous though they may be, left at the door.
Has anyone here seen any reference supporting a claim that Obama has sought such a measure? I ask because from my distant (non-US) viewpoint, this seems out of character for the man.
Everything is somehow Obama's fault these days. There are a lot of loud mounted people bitterly angry about the fact that Obama is black, and that he will be re-elected in a landslide win, and these people do everything they can to smear, attack, and hurl blame at Obama, including trying to attribute such draconian legislation to him. Not saying that's what's happening in this particular instance, but if you can't find any other explanation then it very well could be.
Yes, because it gives them a great card to play. The day they open the phone to multiple carriers, Android and other competitors will take a big hit. The downside is in the meantime, Android is allowed to grow virtually unchallenged on other carriers. As long as Apple stays exclusively on AT&T, they are betting their product is so good that people will buy it regardless of the carrier. 48 hour waits in line standing outside says they're not far off the mark. Their goal is to continue improving their product to keep ahead of the competition, but if that fails, they pull out the wildcard and drop AT&T, bumping up their numbers quite a bit for a while, giving them time to reorganize and figure out a way to get ahead, or discontinue the product in favor of a new one, as the situation may warrant.
I watched it, wanting to like it, but had to cut it off halfway through because it SUCKED SO HARD. I mean, not everything was bad, there were SOME good actors, but there were some atrocious ones. There were SOME good camera angles, and there were some really shitty ones. There was one HELL of a shitty dialogue scene (most notably the one where the "old man" is describing the almost-nuclear-war Stanislav Petrov narrowly averted, which is where I shut it off in disgust.) Etc. You can definitely tell it was shot for "under $6000", and not in a good way. The production would be MUCH improved if the producer were fired and replaced with someone competent, whose first job would then be to fire the director and replace him with someone more competent. Most of the other elements involved are not bad, they just need proper direction.
And just to be clear, I'm not "hating" on these people. I applaud their effort, but they are going to have to step up the game a bit. It doesn't matter if it's free, if it's unwatchable and unbelievable by anyone but hardcore geeks. "Stargate Universe" is "free" too, at least in point of fact since I can download both from free for the same BT site, and I know which I'd rather watch.
one has to wonder what google has achieved here if the majority of command line users in a few hours or days could just as easily have crafted the same thing.
Is this an actual question? Who is asking this? Please tell me someone else told you to ask this, and you naively agreed and clicked Submit before reading it, unaware that you were just about to look like a dumb ass in front of the entire world. (Hi mom!) I mean, what has Ford achieved by building a car that you could have spent a few hours and days yourself building, given that you had the knowledge, resources, and means to do it? Seriously man, give it some thought.
And just how is any of this relevant, given that the script in question deals with NETWORK access? Something I assume Python provides a stable and known interface to?
These devices cost less to make than a DVD player, yet are being sold for a thousand times the price.
Except that's not the case at all. The commercial radar you buy for your aircraft, your naval destroyer, etc is not some cheap POS garage door opener bought out of a yard sale and hacked up by some geek. It goes without saying that the design for a commercial radar is completely different, the construction is different, everything is different--and much more complex--than some crap you might hack together for your own uses. Try manufacturing a COMMERCIAL QUALITY radar, with any and all required testing, certifications, etc, then try selling it profitably for less than $10k (or whatever), and then we'll talk about "price gouging" etc.
Does your $50 test equipment have a warranty? Support? Certification? Documentation? Insurance covering damages if it should short out and burn down the lab? Can a replacement be overnighted from the factory if need be? Are you factoring in the fact that your university is subsidized by research grants, donors, and possibly the government (if it's a public school) which distorts true costs? Are your scavenged parts going to be reliable? Are you providing health insurance for the people building the gear? Unemployment insurance? FICA? Paying rent on the facility? Allowing for a middle salesman who'll be vital to getting your product into customers' hands?
Point taken, but who gives a fuck, if all you want to do is take a measurement for $50 that would otherwise require you to spend $10k?
Slashdot Mirror
ICQ was widely popular in the US until AIM came around; it was the first "instant message" protocol I remember using or even seeing. Was AIM ever released in Russia? It was integrated into AOL for a long time, and I'm pretty sure AOL was US-only.
Again, this is different from suggesting that choosing who you work for (when you have that choice) is amoral, which contradicts the very fact that you have made a choice.
Great. Now let me ask you a question. WHO GIVES A FUCK?
Gas milage quotes on new cars are meaningless hype because everyone drives differently
No they're not. If you have two cars and one is rated at 15 mpg, and the other 30, what does that tell you?
That is, while it might eventually have that effect, you do so only through amoral means and potentially leaving a multi-generational grudge against its foundation which is likely to eventually unshackle people from that imposed following/belief once they become enlightened to just what was done to make so many people follow along.
Then explain the American Revolution, asshole.
I don't know, maybe because they enjoy working on satellite communications equipment? Or because they find radar to be a fascinating subject? Raytheon's existence is not based on microwave pain rays, you know.
Friends are people who like you for what you are and will support you in being yourself, not in spite of what you aren't.
Great, and when you're making friends with people like Barack Obama with your vocabulary you can come back and brag about how well it works for you. As long as all your friends are basement dwelling geeks or middle aged beta males that nobody gives a damn about except you and your small scattering of friends, why the hell should be care or be in any way envious of you?
That's not the point that was actually raised though. The OP used a concise, well-defined term to describe the idea that he wanted to get across. The child poster under him accused him of being too verbose, when in reality it only appeared to be too wordy because of the child's poor vocabulary.
Except that's not what actually happened at all, and you only think it did because your poor social skills prevent you from understanding the situation. Get this through your head: very few normal, socially well-adjusted people would use the phrase "rapid ambulation" in conversation. It works here because we're all geeks and we appreciate geeky jokes. In normal conversation, the word is "run", and you will not be scoring any extra points because you know what "ambulation" means. Most people don't and have no need for the word, and not knowing the word DOES NOT mean the person has a "poor vocabulary." What it means is they spent their much needed years learning social skills and learning how to blend in with society (which is the reason you are here today, and not scratching around in some cave in Africa, BTW), not poring through dictionaries trying to learn every complex word possible in an effort to appear smart in front of their peers.
No, but calling someone else's language "big words" might be an act of anti-intellect.
Except it usually isn't. It's usually just a typical human who is frustrated with some autist's weird and uncommon choice of words. Participating in a conversation is is kinda like being in a band, say, as a drummer. A good drummer is one whose playing supports and enhances the lead singer's sound, and provides a good beat for the others to follow, not one who always insists of flying off into wild drum solos, showing off his skills 24/7. OK, we get that you and other autists know complex words and enjoy using them. Great. But you need to learn that there are appropriate times and inappropriate times to bust out the 50 cent words in conversation, and autists are well known for choosing the wrong time. When you display your lack of social skills by using the wrong words at the wrong time, why would someone be impressed by that? They think you're just trying to show off, or they're confused because they don't understand your message, and this drives people away.
It is, however, an act of being an aspie. As is not understanding sarcasm.
As is as a lack of social skills. Both problems can however be overcome. The human mind, even the autistic one, is great at learning and absorbing new things, it just does it in a different way than the typical human. Good luck to you in your quest to become socially competent.
signed,
a fellow autist
You are quite right. I hate it when I want to order something next day and then realize that tomorrow is an "off" day. The more contiguous off days, the less advantage there is for expedited shipping. That is, the ratio of time spent en route to time spent in off days decreases to the point where next day delivery would become comparable to 5-day ground shipping. It still gets there four days quicker, but as the limit of off days approaches infinity, the four day advantage becomes increasingly negligible. It would be like waiting a year for a "next day" package to arrive, and saying, "oh, I only had to wait 365 days rather than 369 days". So you can begin to see that with more off days, you are effectively devaluing next day shipping.
I applaud you sir, for your contribution of this valuable explanation. I for one was mystified as to what possible advantages could be sought or disadvantages suffered as a result of changing delivery days, but thanks to your insightful reasoning I am beginning to understand. God bless you, sir !
Why do big corporations' and private citizens' interests necessarily have to be at odds here?
I think one helpful thing would be to separate the concept of a Copyrighted Work (i.e. book, movie, etc) from the Brands (i.e. specific characters, locations, etc) contained within the work. The Work would be treated under copyright law, and the Brands under something like trademark law.
The copyright term should be something short like 5-10 years, which would normally be a bit too short, except now the brand ownership would be perpetual--as long as it's maintained. This compromise would give both the public and media owners most of what they each want. The media companies would lose perpetual income from individual works, but they would retain perpetual brand ownership, and the fair copyright term would ensure entities have a fair chance to make a profit and a living from their works. There would also now be an incentive to continue producing new works instead of just cashing in on one goldmine at the expense of the public's interest.
For the owned brands, those who wish to sell or perform new works containing these as a significant, integral, or important part of the work will need to obtain licenses for the intended use. Licensing or permission should not be required for non-profit uses.
What do you think?
They would never declare a common weed to be an illegal substance, and then spend billions of dollars every year to incarcerate otherwise innocent citizens.
And if they did begin to abuse their powers in this way, there's no way that millions of citizens would fight back for deacades spread the message and do everything in their power to change the law, culminating in thousands of news stories, TV shows and specials, etc about their cause over the past two years and legislation up for public vote (with a majority in support) for legalization this November.
Thinking through the implications of things is very good and a definite big step above what a lot of people are doing, but for best results it needs to be done from a neutral standpoint with your personal biases, righteous though they may be, left at the door.
Has anyone here seen any reference supporting a claim that Obama has sought such a measure? I ask because from my distant (non-US) viewpoint, this seems out of character for the man.
Everything is somehow Obama's fault these days. There are a lot of loud mounted people bitterly angry about the fact that Obama is black, and that he will be re-elected in a landslide win, and these people do everything they can to smear, attack, and hurl blame at Obama, including trying to attribute such draconian legislation to him. Not saying that's what's happening in this particular instance, but if you can't find any other explanation then it very well could be.
They all laughed when i put my tinfoil hat on and encased my computer in led.
Does the bright, cheerful light ward away bit-flipping spirits?
I don't get it.
Yes, because it gives them a great card to play. The day they open the phone to multiple carriers, Android and other competitors will take a big hit. The downside is in the meantime, Android is allowed to grow virtually unchallenged on other carriers. As long as Apple stays exclusively on AT&T, they are betting their product is so good that people will buy it regardless of the carrier. 48 hour waits in line standing outside says they're not far off the mark. Their goal is to continue improving their product to keep ahead of the competition, but if that fails, they pull out the wildcard and drop AT&T, bumping up their numbers quite a bit for a while, giving them time to reorganize and figure out a way to get ahead, or discontinue the product in favor of a new one, as the situation may warrant.
They are for our grandmothers.
How many grandmothers stood in line for 48 hours to get this thing?
Wow, your wife really has you by the balls
It wasn't computer skills that got me into a university.
Conversely, you won't make a million bucks from going to a university.
I watched it, wanting to like it, but had to cut it off halfway through because it SUCKED SO HARD. I mean, not everything was bad, there were SOME good actors, but there were some atrocious ones. There were SOME good camera angles, and there were some really shitty ones. There was one HELL of a shitty dialogue scene (most notably the one where the "old man" is describing the almost-nuclear-war Stanislav Petrov narrowly averted, which is where I shut it off in disgust.) Etc. You can definitely tell it was shot for "under $6000", and not in a good way. The production would be MUCH improved if the producer were fired and replaced with someone competent, whose first job would then be to fire the director and replace him with someone more competent. Most of the other elements involved are not bad, they just need proper direction.
And just to be clear, I'm not "hating" on these people. I applaud their effort, but they are going to have to step up the game a bit. It doesn't matter if it's free, if it's unwatchable and unbelievable by anyone but hardcore geeks. "Stargate Universe" is "free" too, at least in point of fact since I can download both from free for the same BT site, and I know which I'd rather watch.
one has to wonder what google has achieved here if the majority of command line users in a few hours or days
could just as easily have crafted the same thing.
Is this an actual question? Who is asking this? Please tell me someone else told you to ask this, and you naively agreed and clicked Submit before reading it, unaware that you were just about to look like a dumb ass in front of the entire world. (Hi mom!) I mean, what has Ford achieved by building a car that you could have spent a few hours and days yourself building, given that you had the knowledge, resources, and means to do it? Seriously man, give it some thought.
And just how is any of this relevant, given that the script in question deals with NETWORK access? Something I assume Python provides a stable and known interface to?
Windows has always been an open platform (in policy or de facto), in terms of the tools needed to develop for it.
These devices cost less to make than a DVD player, yet are being sold for a thousand times the price.
Except that's not the case at all. The commercial radar you buy for your aircraft, your naval destroyer, etc is not some cheap POS garage door opener bought out of a yard sale and hacked up by some geek. It goes without saying that the design for a commercial radar is completely different, the construction is different, everything is different--and much more complex--than some crap you might hack together for your own uses. Try manufacturing a COMMERCIAL QUALITY radar, with any and all required testing, certifications, etc, then try selling it profitably for less than $10k (or whatever), and then we'll talk about "price gouging" etc.
Does your $50 test equipment have a warranty? Support? Certification? Documentation? Insurance covering damages if it should short out and burn down the lab? Can a replacement be overnighted from the factory if need be? Are you factoring in the fact that your university is subsidized by research grants, donors, and possibly the government (if it's a public school) which distorts true costs? Are your scavenged parts going to be reliable? Are you providing health insurance for the people building the gear? Unemployment insurance? FICA? Paying rent on the facility? Allowing for a middle salesman who'll be vital to getting your product into customers' hands?
Point taken, but who gives a fuck, if all you want to do is take a measurement for $50 that would otherwise require you to spend $10k?
i type this in my console an it formmated my hard drive u dick