there are people who are brittle, almost autistic about their signifiers
if i write:
the dog ate the bone, the dog was happy
or i write:
The dog ate the bone. The dog was happy.
i've said the same thing, communicated the same idea, made the same point
No, you have not commmunicated the same idea nor made the same point. Communication does not occur simply because you broadcast a signal. An undemodulated signal is of no more value than an unreceived one - indeed it's of less value, because the unreceived signal at least cannot be compared to unadulterated noise.
The two statements you made above will quite possibly be received by someone who doesn't know you in two completely different ways. It takes an extra effort on the part of the recipient to determine what you meant, because you have stripped away the clues that grammar provides. For someone to understand the first sentence as being equivalent to the second he must take additional time to analyze it and figure out what was meant. Depending on the circumstances, the recipient may decide to dismiss the validity of your statements, leading to dismissal of all your statements and further dismissal of your future statements as being simply not worth his time. If you don't give a shit whether the recipient understands you clearly now or ever, then feel free to continue to broadcast in l33t speak and dismiss any recipients who are not to be troubled to take the time to decode your sageness.
And finally, to be pedantic, you mean pedantic, which is a characteristic of some types of autism, and not autistic, which has such a wide range of characteristics that using it as a descriptor may get cause the recipient to completely miss the point you took the time to try to make.
it is now pretty common to read stories with interspersed pictures or hyperlinks. These types of media immersion in our writing means that we are actually maintaining a higher level of content in most cases.
I'm not sure how this affects something like paypal or eGold though
Paypal already prohibits using their service for gambling - I'm sure it's because of the draconian uberkontrol the US Government wishes to exercise in keeping site of taxable money than any sort of sudden moral code of the owners.
1. Gather taxes in some other manner - a uniform sales tax is as fair as it gets.
2. Create a government owned website similar to PayPal. Make a law that US citizens can gamble on the internet if they use this site. Collect a percentage of money in and out. Spend immense new tax revenues lavishly on junkets and reelection.
f Florida was smart, they would sink a few of these off the keys. But it will probably take a change in the current Florida admin. before that will be allowed.
Yeah - it would take a change to someone who was dumb on the concept of cost/benefit analysis.
So if you searched while logged in (then Yahoo! doesn't even need forever-cookie to track a user's activity), you will accumulate some credits and when you have reached certain threshold, you can exchange for things that you actually want.
How long would it take to write a little bot to search for random stuff at a high rate giving a specific user all the credit? How long to create 10,000 accounts, all vectored through AOL since they're kind enough to obfuscate your IP address, and spread that searching out over all the accounts equally?
I don't want to go to a private library and ask for a book that they don't have because their religious sponsors don't condone the contents.
In an unregulated world you could then go next door to the unregulated competitor and get your material instead. It's in your regulated world that allows those with influence to control what everyone else gets to see and do.
Nobody would be stupid enough to entrust their business to a competitor, potential or otherwise.
Companies frequently outsource a portion of their business to competitors - or they lose out to those who do, because it's cheaper, and cheaper wins in the long run.
Seriously, where is the IT world going if a 50-less company can't do all their stuff with only one (two max: one sysadmin and one helpdesk/hardware) IT people?
Last firm I worked for with 50 people had 2 full time IT geeks - one existed simply to keep email (Exchange) alive. So, do the math - 50 person company requires single $50,000 annual geek, equating to $1000 a year per other productive employees, vice overhead of IT geek. Offered outsource email service for $100 per employes vice $1000 annually. Accepts deal. Applies $900 per employee times 50 employees equaling $45,000 saving to boss's bonus. As boss, it's an easy choice.
Mailing lists should be doing the same thing (and mailman does by default now)
Yeah, and I really hate it. It confused the hell out of my several hundred mailing list members for awhile. It's still ugly. It shouldn't be the default. Being in the viewable headers alone is sufficient and much cleaner.
Because of this law, it is no coincidence that at my agency our server deletes all mail in our inbox after 15 days. You can keep special mail in your other folders indefinitely, though.
Maybe with the technology now in place we could pass laws requiring all public employees to retain all their business email.
One thing I would add was told to me by a prof. back in college:... Essentially, use VC's to validate and proof read your plan and have nothing else to do with them.
A brilliant example of those who can't do, teach
A VC is not there to hold your hand for free - the world is full of good ideas, and full of money. Marrying the two along with the third of someone hungry enough and smart enough and humble enough and confident enough to spend it the right way to succeed where the vast majority fail is not as easy as the academic world would lead you to believe. VCs are well rewarded for their successes, and well punished for their failures - because the guy putting up the money won't use 'em again.
VC's are in the business of purely making money from your idea without a care about how you do it, and when you don't follow their advice on any issues it becomes a major thing
Yeah, go figure. You come begging to some guy for a few million bucks and he thinks he has a say in how you spend it...
Sure, but isn't the trend for hi-tech stuff to go down?
It does go down if you measure price vs. capability. Modern toys have more memory, speed, widgets, etc. vs old toys. Getting that capability in the old toys, if it was even possible, would have cost more than it does today.
Slashdot Mirror
if i write:
the dog ate the bone, the dog was happy
or i write:
The dog ate the bone. The dog was happy.
i've said the same thing, communicated the same idea, made the same point
No, you have not commmunicated the same idea nor made the same point. Communication does not occur simply because you broadcast a signal. An undemodulated signal is of no more value than an unreceived one - indeed it's of less value, because the unreceived signal at least cannot be compared to unadulterated noise.
The two statements you made above will quite possibly be received by someone who doesn't know you in two completely different ways. It takes an extra effort on the part of the recipient to determine what you meant, because you have stripped away the clues that grammar provides. For someone to understand the first sentence as being equivalent to the second he must take additional time to analyze it and figure out what was meant. Depending on the circumstances, the recipient may decide to dismiss the validity of your statements, leading to dismissal of all your statements and further dismissal of your future statements as being simply not worth his time. If you don't give a shit whether the recipient understands you clearly now or ever, then feel free to continue to broadcast in l33t speak and dismiss any recipients who are not to be troubled to take the time to decode your sageness.
And finally, to be pedantic, you mean pedantic, which is a characteristic of some types of autism, and not autistic, which has such a wide range of characteristics that using it as a descriptor may get cause the recipient to completely miss the point you took the time to try to make.
Sadly, I find it tends to mean the opposite.
Was the first example of "I'd like to buy a vowel"?
Who do yours sell out to? The secretly lowest bidder?
Paypal already prohibits using their service for gambling - I'm sure it's because of the draconian uberkontrol the US Government wishes to exercise in keeping site of taxable money than any sort of sudden moral code of the owners.
I kkep several hundred dollars there, and have used it dozens of times over the years, and never had a single hint of a problem.
It forces money to flow where the government can see it, under penalty of federal prison, and so force the "voluntary" payment of tax on it.
There are several trivial solutions.
1. Gather taxes in some other manner - a uniform sales tax is as fair as it gets.
2. Create a government owned website similar to PayPal. Make a law that US citizens can gamble on the internet if they use this site. Collect a percentage of money in and out. Spend immense new tax revenues lavishly on junkets and reelection.
Sufficient quantity of either one precludes any need for the other. Choice: prison state or free state.
"... the right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness" ... unless we can't tax it.
Yeah - it would take a change to someone who was dumb on the concept of cost/benefit analysis.
When I can 'agt-get install picasso' and it "just works" (well) then I'll use it.
I don't have any recollection of Bush calling for the death of others based on any cartoons.
How long would it take to write a little bot to search for random stuff at a high rate giving a specific user all the credit? How long to create 10,000 accounts, all vectored through AOL since they're kind enough to obfuscate your IP address, and spread that searching out over all the accounts equally?
There's no such thing as free. Selling the idea that there is was the best marketing effort for unrestricted government growth that ever existed.
In an unregulated world you could then go next door to the unregulated competitor and get your material instead. It's in your regulated world that allows those with influence to control what everyone else gets to see and do.
Companies frequently outsource a portion of their business to competitors - or they lose out to those who do, because it's cheaper, and cheaper wins in the long run.
Last firm I worked for with 50 people had 2 full time IT geeks - one existed simply to keep email (Exchange) alive. So, do the math - 50 person company requires single $50,000 annual geek, equating to $1000 a year per other productive employees, vice overhead of IT geek. Offered outsource email service for $100 per employes vice $1000 annually. Accepts deal. Applies $900 per employee times 50 employees equaling $45,000 saving to boss's bonus. As boss, it's an easy choice.
Yeah, and I really hate it. It confused the hell out of my several hundred mailing list members for awhile. It's still ugly. It shouldn't be the default. Being in the viewable headers alone is sufficient and much cleaner.
"I'm sorry Dave ... I can't answer that."
Give it time.
Maybe with the technology now in place we could pass laws requiring all public employees to retain all their business email.
A brilliant example of those who can't do, teach
A VC is not there to hold your hand for free - the world is full of good ideas, and full of money. Marrying the two along with the third of someone hungry enough and smart enough and humble enough and confident enough to spend it the right way to succeed where the vast majority fail is not as easy as the academic world would lead you to believe. VCs are well rewarded for their successes, and well punished for their failures - because the guy putting up the money won't use 'em again.
Yeah, go figure. You come begging to some guy for a few million bucks and he thinks he has a say in how you spend it ...
It does go down if you measure price vs. capability. Modern toys have more memory, speed, widgets, etc. vs old toys. Getting that capability in the old toys, if it was even possible, would have cost more than it does today.