The business model only works if you have a lot of people playing Second Life who only want to be consumers...
Why? In the real world most people aren't only consumers - they also sell their goods and services for money that they use to consume. The government skims a bit off the top of each transaction in taxes. This seems to be a viable business model.
Lottery tickets aren't gambling once the jackpot, in dollars, exceeds the odds against. Then it's a perfectly legitimate risk/reward investment proposition.
Before your IPO, you may wish to consider the fact that the jackpot is split when there are multiple winners. Trust me, the expectation never exceeds the cost of a lottery ticket. In fact, it's usually under 25% of the cost.
When I was working on my Master's in CS, I can tell you that cheating was rampant. I remember one class in particular in which every student (as far as I know) other than me and one other was working together on homeworks. Without the prof's permission, of course. For most of the semester, my homework average was below the class average because of this. It was quite frustrating since I could tell from classroom discussion that I knew the material better than most of the other students.
When the final exam came around, luckily, I got my revenge. I was briefly suspected of cheating myself when I got the highest grade in the class. But a discussion with the prof convinced him and I got my (deserved, if I may say so) A.
Incidentally, most of the cheaters in the class were PhD candidates.
http://docs.python.org/dev/whatsnew/pep-308.html recommends inclosing the expression in parentheses.
$var = $expr1 if $case else $expr2;
The first point in that URL is that the uncommon case should be de-emphasized and the code should be read as "$var = $expr1" (unless $case, and then "$var = $expr2"). The second point is that this can be confusing, so here's how to re-emphasize the conditional. I guess I agree, but I'm not sure how this strengthens the case for the syntax.
I guess I just don't see the point of coming up with a new syntax here. Is the ternary ?: problematic for some reason?
Or when/if the engine fails? Probably this would be coupled with a low-capacity battery sufficient for about 5 minutes of power so that if the engine failed for any reason, the battery could give you enough juice to power down safely.
Also, shouldn't they be making these run on bio-diesel?
Seems like that would be a case of too-early optimization. Do you really think tiny laptop gas turbines are going to be a big enough factor in world oil consumption to even notice for the foreseeable future?
Re:Woot -- conditional expressions!
on
Python 2.5 Released
·
· Score: 2, Informative
I don't feel particularly strongly about it, but it seems to me that the Python syntax gets unwieldy more rapidly when you have nested conditionals, like so:
"first option" if a==b else ("second option" if a==c else "third option")
My other concern is that it's immediately obvious that a C conditional is just that, but the Python syntax makes it a little obscure:
s = "first option"
if a==b else
"second option";
...versus...
s = (a==b) ?
"first option" :
"second option";
Isn't it a little tempting to read the Python version as s = "first option"? Might be just me, though. My knowledge of Python is somewhere between jack and s**t, so maybe it just makes sense there.
So you're spending $1560 more a year because gas is up $1.50 a gallon? That's 1040 gallons a year. And your car gets 33 mpg? That's 34,320 miles per year. With a 30-minute commute? How many commutes do you make per day?
To prevent inexpensive foreign labor from solving CAPTCHAs, simply ask easy math and science questions... but only only provide access for wrong answers. This should let most Americans through.
I want to close a tab that is currently in the background. Previously I could not do this. Now I can. Seems the new feature enhances usability, no?
I suppose if you're closing lots of tabs, in exactly the order in which they currently appear, then the old functionality is more usable, since you just have to keep clicking a stationary button. But is this a common use case? I would think it's more common to want to close a single tab (foreground or background) or close all tabs. The new functionality enhances the former and doesn't change the latter.
What I'm saying is that after the initial wiki process is over for a given article you could say that - as long as people agree that it's a complete and up to date article - the wiki process could be closed since there is no more to be added at the present time.
Great, but: who decides when to "close" the article? (Maybe this could be automated when no changes have been made after X amount of time.) Also, how does an article get re-opened when new information comes out?
No matter how you do this, you're going to introduce editorial controls. Not necessarily a bad thing, but OP was advocating going back to the original completely open editorial policy.
...a poor country like Cuba has better healthcare (with lower infant mortality rates) than the wealthy US.
I wish people would stop trotting out this stupid statistic. Cuba does not have "better" health care than the U.S., it merely has more universal access to what little there is. You may argue the overall system is better (I would not, but you might), but health care for those who have it (most, but not all) is essentially unequaled in the U.S.
Notepad has the advantage of extreme simplicity. It isn't powerful and I don't use it for my main Windows editor (I use TextPad). But when I copy from a Word or HTML document and paste into TextPad, I get a bunch of gross-looking HTML, while in Notepad I get nice clean text, ready for me to format the way I prefer. Sometimes simplicity wins.
What does the number of categories have to do with anything at all? I can change your categories to make it look more appealing the other way in this manner:
First-month Reproductive Control
Second-month Reproductive Control
Third-month Reproductive Control
.
.
.
Ninth-month Reproductive Control
Now OP has covered "more ground" according to your scale. Ridiculous, isn't it?
What makes more sense is to look at what's more common and frankly, I don't think a really high percentage of the abortions in the U.S. are due to health or rape. Some of them are, yes. But if you look at some statistics, you'll see that out of the 1.31 million abortions in the U.S. in 2000, only 8.2% were for reasons in the "moral" categories, leaving 91.8% in the "not much ground covered" category.
The situation surely differs in other countries, of course, but I suspect it is similar in post-industrial Western countries, at least.
And you're working to reduce the social/societal consequences on young unwed mothers who carry children to term?
I don't really want to step into this debate, but just as an aside: It's not inconsistent to disapprove of abortion and to disapprove of out-of-wedlock childbirth. Reducing the consequences of the latter would not be a priority for people who held both beliefs, since such a reduction would reduce the disincentives to out-of-wedlock childbirth.
I will grant you that there is some tension between the two beliefs, since an unmarried woman who becomes pregnant must do something that the hypothetical right-winger disapproves of. In this case I believe any true right-to-lifer would opt for the birth.
(Note that the statements above do not necessarily represent my own beliefs; I'm just stating the beliefs of the right-to-lifers as I understand them.)
Re:SQL book recommendation?
on
Pro MySQL
·
· Score: 1
I'm sure there are many fine ones, but I started with Understanding SQL. It's a bit old (1990), but there is a 2nd edition available (although only "used" on Amazon, which is why I didn't link to it). It's pretty DBMS-agnostic, covers the basic ground pretty well. I learned a lot without even having a DBMS to practice with (this was pre-MySQL).
When I first read this headline, I assumed it was about some new Chinese computer mouse, the "Ever-Happy Mouse", which would light up cheerfully while it was being used, thus helping users get over their depression at having to wait for Windows Vista.
Slashdot Mirror
Why? In the real world most people aren't only consumers - they also sell their goods and services for money that they use to consume. The government skims a bit off the top of each transaction in taxes. This seems to be a viable business model.
Before your IPO, you may wish to consider the fact that the jackpot is split when there are multiple winners. Trust me, the expectation never exceeds the cost of a lottery ticket. In fact, it's usually under 25% of the cost.
Given the history of Five Year Plans... let's (the US) not bother entering this "race".
When I was working on my Master's in CS, I can tell you that cheating was rampant. I remember one class in particular in which every student (as far as I know) other than me and one other was working together on homeworks. Without the prof's permission, of course. For most of the semester, my homework average was below the class average because of this. It was quite frustrating since I could tell from classroom discussion that I knew the material better than most of the other students.
When the final exam came around, luckily, I got my revenge. I was briefly suspected of cheating myself when I got the highest grade in the class. But a discussion with the prof convinced him and I got my (deserved, if I may say so) A.
Incidentally, most of the cheaters in the class were PhD candidates.
The first point in that URL is that the uncommon case should be de-emphasized and the code should be read as "$var = $expr1" (unless $case, and then "$var = $expr2"). The second point is that this can be confusing, so here's how to re-emphasize the conditional. I guess I agree, but I'm not sure how this strengthens the case for the syntax.
I guess I just don't see the point of coming up with a new syntax here. Is the ternary ?: problematic for some reason?
Or when/if the engine fails? Probably this would be coupled with a low-capacity battery sufficient for about 5 minutes of power so that if the engine failed for any reason, the battery could give you enough juice to power down safely.
Seems like that would be a case of too-early optimization. Do you really think tiny laptop gas turbines are going to be a big enough factor in world oil consumption to even notice for the foreseeable future?
I don't feel particularly strongly about it, but it seems to me that the Python syntax gets unwieldy more rapidly when you have nested conditionals, like so:
"first option" if a==b else ("second option" if a==c else "third option")...versus...
a==b ? "first option" : (a==c ? "second option" : "third option")My other concern is that it's immediately obvious that a C conditional is just that, but the Python syntax makes it a little obscure:
s = "first option" if a==b else "second option";...versus...
s = (a==b) ? "first option" : "second option";Isn't it a little tempting to read the Python version as s = "first option"? Might be just me, though. My knowledge of Python is somewhere between jack and s**t, so maybe it just makes sense there.
So you're spending $1560 more a year because gas is up $1.50 a gallon? That's 1040 gallons a year. And your car gets 33 mpg? That's 34,320 miles per year. With a 30-minute commute? How many commutes do you make per day?
I would but I couldn't find any videos about it.
"And the number of its parts shall be five!"
"Four, sir."
"Four!"
Wait... I've got it!
To prevent inexpensive foreign labor from solving CAPTCHAs, simply ask easy math and science questions... but only only provide access for wrong answers. This should let most Americans through.
I want to close a tab that is currently in the background. Previously I could not do this. Now I can. Seems the new feature enhances usability, no?
I suppose if you're closing lots of tabs, in exactly the order in which they currently appear, then the old functionality is more usable, since you just have to keep clicking a stationary button. But is this a common use case? I would think it's more common to want to close a single tab (foreground or background) or close all tabs. The new functionality enhances the former and doesn't change the latter.
Y-E Data may be OK for some, but I prefer the English firm Y. E. Olde Data Shoppe.
Great, but: who decides when to "close" the article? (Maybe this could be automated when no changes have been made after X amount of time.) Also, how does an article get re-opened when new information comes out?
No matter how you do this, you're going to introduce editorial controls. Not necessarily a bad thing, but OP was advocating going back to the original completely open editorial policy.
I wish people would stop trotting out this stupid statistic. Cuba does not have "better" health care than the U.S., it merely has more universal access to what little there is. You may argue the overall system is better (I would not, but you might), but health care for those who have it (most, but not all) is essentially unequaled in the U.S.
Notepad has the advantage of extreme simplicity. It isn't powerful and I don't use it for my main Windows editor (I use TextPad). But when I copy from a Word or HTML document and paste into TextPad, I get a bunch of gross-looking HTML, while in Notepad I get nice clean text, ready for me to format the way I prefer. Sometimes simplicity wins.
Dude, he didn't even use the term "here" correctly, and you're arguing about "meme"?!
:)
What does the number of categories have to do with anything at all? I can change your categories to make it look more appealing the other way in this manner:
First-month Reproductive ControlSecond-month Reproductive Control
Third-month Reproductive Control
. . . Ninth-month Reproductive Control
Now OP has covered "more ground" according to your scale. Ridiculous, isn't it?
What makes more sense is to look at what's more common and frankly, I don't think a really high percentage of the abortions in the U.S. are due to health or rape. Some of them are, yes. But if you look at some statistics, you'll see that out of the 1.31 million abortions in the U.S. in 2000, only 8.2% were for reasons in the "moral" categories, leaving 91.8% in the "not much ground covered" category.
The situation surely differs in other countries, of course, but I suspect it is similar in post-industrial Western countries, at least.
I don't really want to step into this debate, but just as an aside: It's not inconsistent to disapprove of abortion and to disapprove of out-of-wedlock childbirth. Reducing the consequences of the latter would not be a priority for people who held both beliefs, since such a reduction would reduce the disincentives to out-of-wedlock childbirth.
I will grant you that there is some tension between the two beliefs, since an unmarried woman who becomes pregnant must do something that the hypothetical right-winger disapproves of. In this case I believe any true right-to-lifer would opt for the birth.
(Note that the statements above do not necessarily represent my own beliefs; I'm just stating the beliefs of the right-to-lifers as I understand them.)
I'm sure there are many fine ones, but I started with Understanding SQL. It's a bit old (1990), but there is a 2nd edition available (although only "used" on Amazon, which is why I didn't link to it). It's pretty DBMS-agnostic, covers the basic ground pretty well. I learned a lot without even having a DBMS to practice with (this was pre-MySQL).
Yeah, but this is an entire company. Baby steps, dude. Baby steps.
I wish they'd done a 540. I've always wanted to see a company do a 540.
Whooosh!
Sound of a jet-powered joke flying past your head.
FYI: the UK is an isle.
Maybe they're writing from the UK...
When I first read this headline, I assumed it was about some new Chinese computer mouse, the "Ever-Happy Mouse", which would light up cheerfully while it was being used, thus helping users get over their depression at having to wait for Windows Vista.
But, I guess I was wrong.