The want to demand that my ISP increases their costs (which naturally will be passed on to me) to store data to be used against me, despite that I have done nothing illegal.
Yeah, man! Where does this end? Next thing you know they'll be taking money straight out of our paychecks to build prisons and shit!
1) TPB and MiniNova don't host content, only torrent files, therefore 0% is fake.
2) The S/L ratio and/or the trust status of the uploader are fairly reliable indicators of the status of the torrent in question, which makes the number of fake torrents all but irrelevant.
The $1 club gets paid in stock options, which have their own tax structure, and the occasional comped service. While it is a good way to avoid taxes, they are usually still taking a big hit in the pocket book for doing so.
Yes, a huge hit -- or roughly half of my tax rate (NOT including payroll taxes). Those poor CEOs, working out of the goodness of their little hearts for $1 and a few stock options, and the government has the nerve to actually take a portion of their pittance?!?
Capital gain income from assets held longer than one year are generally taxed at a special long-term capital gains rate. The rate that applies depends on which ordinary income tax bracket you fall under.
Zero percent rate if your total income (including capital gain income) places you in the ten or fifteen percent tax brackets.
15% rate if your total income (including capital gain income) places you in the twenty-five percent tax bracket or higher.
The problem isn't so much with your logic as with the definition of "mainstream media," which invariably refers to the media sources that the opposing side uses. If you're on the right, then Mainstream = CNN, NYT, and possibly MSNBC. If you're on the left, then Mainstream = FOX News, the WSJ, and possibly CNN. Both sides are justified, because all of those sources can be considered "mainstream," which is basically synonymous with popular, and because those sources subjectively (or objectively) oppose their viewpoints.
And taking advantage of dumb consumers is friendly how exactly? There are similar services for the PC that are completely free (GameSpy, Blizzard Net) that get by on advertising. MS not only charges money for it, but disallows competing networks AND still has advertising. Sorry, there's really no way to spin Live fees as anything other than anti-consumer.
Ah yes, because the 360 is *so* much more open than the PS3. Oh wait, it's not. There is no jailbreak for the 360, only a DVD firmware mod to play "backups" (for which they've banned thousands of consoles, if not more). There was never an OtherOS for the 360. There's no official support for 3rd party hard drive installation. It only plays MS-approved media formats. And if all that weren't enough, they also charge a FEE for online play, Netflix access, and other "value added" services that don't cost them a penny. Their multiplayer is P2P by the way, which means they're charging you to use your own bandwidth.
I'm not blowing Sony's trumpet by any means, but the idea that the 360 is somehow more consumer friendly is absurd.
The best reason for leaving your cell phone off during flight is your own battery life.
Which is why I just place it in "airplane mode" to switch off the radios. The airline gets what they want (no source of EMI) and I get what I want (Angry Birds). Win-win.
You're right that the odds don't change with any single event, but you're wrong that the expected frequency does not change with more events occurring. If you flip a coin at a rate of once per second, the expected frequency of heads over a given time period is 60 times higher than if you flipped once per minute.
Sure, but suppose you drive 600 miles at 80MPH instead of 65MPH -- that saves you nearly two hours. Or drive at 130 and save a full 4.5 hours! The problem isn't that speeding doesn't pay; it's that speeding a little over a short distance doesn't pay. The shorter your trip, the more you have to exceed the speed limit to make it worthwhile. So if you're going to speed, do it right!;)
I think you should post the it one more time just to see how many times the same post by the same person can get modded up in the same thread of the same discussion.:D
I think way too many Slashdotters think that Steve's RDF extends beyond geekdom. My mom doesn't watch his keynotes or product announcements, and neither do most iphone users.
On the contrary -- you know it's a powerful RDF when you don't even need to watch him to be affected!
Jobs' main asset isn't so much his business acumen as it is his charismatic RDF generation. Without a piper to follow, the children may well become lost and disillusioned.
The iPhone is a good product (or is it?) and I own one, but without the drool-inducing promotional talents of Steve, it almost certainly wouldn't have achieved the level of success it enjoys today. And even though that level has been dizzying, it's all too easy to become the next MySpace, Napster, or TiVo in the tech sector, especially when your target market is the consumer segment where tastes and fashion can and do change on a whim. As for the "Apple formula," if you can define it, then so can Apple's competition, which is a good reason to be cautious about Apple's future. And if you *can't* define it, then I wouldn't be so quick to assume Steve isn't a huge part of it, which is yet another reason to be cautious. Any way you look at it, Steve Jobs leaving Apple has lots of potential downsides and essentially zero potential upsides.
To be more detailed, there is literally no limit to how much you can lose by shorting.
Not literally, just theoretically. Buyers literally have a finite supply of money, therefore there must be a limit somewhere, however vaguely defined that limit might be.
Slashdot Mirror
What do you suggest?
Hello Slashdotters and your almight power of click. Thanks for coming to the site. If you can wait about 30 minutes, we'll have it back up.
BTW, we tried to plan for a Slashdotting as much as we could when we setup the server for the site. Apparently still not enough.
I call BS. We all know nobody reads TFA. This post is a lie, just like the cake!
The want to demand that my ISP increases their costs (which naturally will be passed on to me) to store data to be used against me, despite that I have done nothing illegal.
Yeah, man! Where does this end? Next thing you know they'll be taking money straight out of our paychecks to build prisons and shit!
1) TPB and MiniNova don't host content, only torrent files, therefore 0% is fake.
2) The S/L ratio and/or the trust status of the uploader are fairly reliable indicators of the status of the torrent in question, which makes the number of fake torrents all but irrelevant.
3) 2 out of 3 ain't bad.
Ah, indeed it does. Slashdot's misleading nested layout wins again. [Shakes fist]
The $1 club gets paid in stock options, which have their own tax structure, and the occasional comped service. While it is a good way to avoid taxes, they are usually still taking a big hit in the pocket book for doing so.
Yes, a huge hit -- or roughly half of my tax rate (NOT including payroll taxes). Those poor CEOs, working out of the goodness of their little hearts for $1 and a few stock options, and the government has the nerve to actually take a portion of their pittance?!?
http://www.smartmoney.com/personal-finance/taxes/taxes-on-incentive-stock-options-12196/
http://taxes.about.com/od/capitalgains/a/CapitalGainsTax_4.htm
That's weird, cause I too read it as "mother in law" the first time around, but it clearly says father. Maybe Freud was onto someone after all.
"mainstream media,...invariably refers to the media sources that the opposing side uses
Thanks for demonstrating my point so thoroughly.
I'm thinking that he's probably confuzzling the war on terror with the war efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Mikey Steezily? Izzat be you my bruzza from anozza huzza? Wuzza???!!!
The problem isn't so much with your logic as with the definition of "mainstream media," which invariably refers to the media sources that the opposing side uses. If you're on the right, then Mainstream = CNN, NYT, and possibly MSNBC. If you're on the left, then Mainstream = FOX News, the WSJ, and possibly CNN. Both sides are justified, because all of those sources can be considered "mainstream," which is basically synonymous with popular, and because those sources subjectively (or objectively) oppose their viewpoints.
Avast!
[This post has been removed.]
Last edited by cdrtaco Friday January 21.
And taking advantage of dumb consumers is friendly how exactly? There are similar services for the PC that are completely free (GameSpy, Blizzard Net) that get by on advertising. MS not only charges money for it, but disallows competing networks AND still has advertising. Sorry, there's really no way to spin Live fees as anything other than anti-consumer.
Ah yes, because the 360 is *so* much more open than the PS3. Oh wait, it's not. There is no jailbreak for the 360, only a DVD firmware mod to play "backups" (for which they've banned thousands of consoles, if not more). There was never an OtherOS for the 360. There's no official support for 3rd party hard drive installation. It only plays MS-approved media formats. And if all that weren't enough, they also charge a FEE for online play, Netflix access, and other "value added" services that don't cost them a penny. Their multiplayer is P2P by the way, which means they're charging you to use your own bandwidth.
I'm not blowing Sony's trumpet by any means, but the idea that the 360 is somehow more consumer friendly is absurd.
The best reason for leaving your cell phone off during flight is your own battery life.
Which is why I just place it in "airplane mode" to switch off the radios. The airline gets what they want (no source of EMI) and I get what I want (Angry Birds). Win-win.
You're right that the odds don't change with any single event, but you're wrong that the expected frequency does not change with more events occurring. If you flip a coin at a rate of once per second, the expected frequency of heads over a given time period is 60 times higher than if you flipped once per minute.
By that logic, we shouldn't allow electronic devices on trains or busses at any time.
I don't really care as long as it dies. Not to put to fine a point on it, but sci-fi where the fictional part is the science is not my cup of tea.
Sure, but suppose you drive 600 miles at 80MPH instead of 65MPH -- that saves you nearly two hours. Or drive at 130 and save a full 4.5 hours! The problem isn't that speeding doesn't pay; it's that speeding a little over a short distance doesn't pay. The shorter your trip, the more you have to exceed the speed limit to make it worthwhile. So if you're going to speed, do it right! ;)
I think you should post the it one more time just to see how many times the same post by the same person can get modded up in the same thread of the same discussion. :D
if you claim that P==NP, as this paper does, then I require you to show that it is so for all possible inputs.
Even if he did that, does it necessarily follow that P=NP, or could it mean that the proof of NP-completeness for 3-SAT is flawed?
Articles like this remind me of my true status, which is helpful in not getting cocky.
It would be humbling, yes, if it were not indicative of just how stupid most people are.
I think way too many Slashdotters think that Steve's RDF extends beyond geekdom. My mom doesn't watch his keynotes or product announcements, and neither do most iphone users.
On the contrary -- you know it's a powerful RDF when you don't even need to watch him to be affected!
Jobs' main asset isn't so much his business acumen as it is his charismatic RDF generation. Without a piper to follow, the children may well become lost and disillusioned.
The iPhone is a good product (or is it?) and I own one, but without the drool-inducing promotional talents of Steve, it almost certainly wouldn't have achieved the level of success it enjoys today. And even though that level has been dizzying, it's all too easy to become the next MySpace, Napster, or TiVo in the tech sector, especially when your target market is the consumer segment where tastes and fashion can and do change on a whim. As for the "Apple formula," if you can define it, then so can Apple's competition, which is a good reason to be cautious about Apple's future. And if you *can't* define it, then I wouldn't be so quick to assume Steve isn't a huge part of it, which is yet another reason to be cautious. Any way you look at it, Steve Jobs leaving Apple has lots of potential downsides and essentially zero potential upsides.
To be more detailed, there is literally no limit to how much you can lose by shorting.
Not literally, just theoretically. Buyers literally have a finite supply of money, therefore there must be a limit somewhere, however vaguely defined that limit might be.