I've said it before, I'll say it again: eBay is a broken sealed-first-price-auction where suckers are allowed to show their hand before conclusion. Anyone who bids in anything but the last few seconds of an auction is a _sucker_. Why announce to the world what you're willing to pay so that competitors can re-evaluate their bid and then one-up you?
Also, uBid does exactly what you say. I've won quite a number of auctions on there because of people used to the eBay system who snipe in the last minute or so and then don't pay attention to the auction after that.
My Mac doesn't have any character video modes, so the only way you can get a console without X is virtually via a FB. Unless I'm misunderstanding how this works.
Re:If you don't know OOP by now...
on
Head First C#
·
· Score: 1
Torvalds was trashing C++ not OOP (though he has trashed OOP before too.) I'm an OOP programmer and I agree with everything he says. C++ is a shit language, but that's not an indictment of OO. C++'s OO is horrible.
Re:easy way to fill a book
on
Head First C#
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
I work with people who don't even proceduralize their code. I've got a report with a 500-line SQL statement in it.
Humans' primary evolutionary strategy is adapting the environment to meet their needs rather than evolving to match the environment. The primary theoretical risk to the long-term survival of humanity is itself, not the environment. I periodically look at things like how people sweat, overeat, and social problems that result from a largely obsolete jungle survival instinct. If only through natural evolution or eugenics such traits could be removed since we don't need them anymore. But I know that as soon as we specialized ourselves for our completely artificial social environment, any instability would result in massive deaths. Instead we put up with annoying a-holes, sweating and obesity, but these are the sacrifices we make for long-term species sustainability. The history of the world is a cycle of species evolving toward high specialization for that environment, the environment changing rapidly and the species gets wiped out. Then a different, less specialized species gains an advantage and the cycle starts over again. As long as humans resist the temptation of specialization and stay aware that only we can kill ourselves, there's not reason we shouldn't be able to go on a very long time.
This is excluding some worldwide catastrophic event like a planet buster asteroid or something.
How many people in Europe retain a passport because they work or play in another EU country that's less than an hour away? Also, we don't have a giant mass-transit system making it possible to travel to a dozen other countries. It's just not the same.
My point is that most conservatives practically revere Reagan as a god. The "flying helicopter" conspiracy-theorist conservatives frequently saw Reagan as part of the alleged conspiracy to take over the USA, thus making them distinct. I wasn't trying to make it into a value statement regarding Reagan himself, sorry for the confusion.
The "black helicopter" conservatives are a subset of conservatives. "Gun rights" conservatives are a subset of conservatives. The two overlap, but they are not the same. If you actually knew any "black helicopter" conservatives, you would know that they have been predicting this crap for years and they hold no allegiance to Bush or the police state. They believed Reagan was evil, for crying out loud--Look up REX-84, which we seem to be currently implementing (tongue in cheek, sorta.)
What happened to all those militias in the 1990's? I'll tell you what happened, they got infiltrated by the FBI and the groups basically realized they were ineffectual, became demoralized and disbanded. Whether or not you agree with them, this sort of proves that a vigilant and motivated minority of the population stands no chance against the state. So while Democrats may laugh at the poor stupid rednecks, it's a kind of Pyrrhic victory because their "defeat" came about because their worst fear was realized, the government became an overpowering oppressive state. Where are these people today? They were probably Ron Paul supporters, not Bush supporters. For the most part they don't vote because they think the whole thing is rigged anyway.
What about the other side of the equation? If you can't run a business without hiring three part time workers instead of one full time worker with health benefits, your business sucks and you ought to go bankrupt. Why does everybody just dump the responsibility on the workers who are just trying to make enough money to eat and not have to take their children to the emergency room for basic health care? One way or the other, people will mostly get food to eat or mostly get health care, but in the end it comes down to businesses paying a living wage or government providing handouts. And somehow a giant system of government handouts is more conducive to "capitalism." I don't think so, it's conducive to "getting mine."
Conversely, the minimum wage helps retain a basic standard of living in the United States if jobs that are truly not profitable in our country are moved out of the country. People don't have access to all the facts, so you can get yourself into a situation where people can't make a truly rational choice for products and everyone just chooses cheap, unreliable, unsafe products on their extremely low wages. So absolutely we can get rid of the minimum wage and other government controls, but that's the equivalent of choosing to be a third-world country.
What is your position on unions? I've noticed that people who promote the things that you do being intensely anti-union despite the fact that the only way that workers can effectively demand higher wages and better working conditions you folks claim they could if they want is, well, collectively.
"personhood" is a philosophical question that is only informed by science, not defined. A thing is not it's classification, and ultimately the recognition of any "thing" is a higher-order abstraction and not reality. there is not really any such thing as a "mountain," there is only a classification based on an aggregation of localized attributes according to a world-view. This is why the definition of personhood is so disputed, because, like all classifications, it relies on a context. If you want to get all science on the issue, what do you make of the fact that humans are 60% water and only a minority of the genetic material in the human body is bacteria and other stuff that doesn't even share our genetic code? In a macro view, individual humans are just self-sustaining chemical processes so any definition of "personhood" that explicitly or implicitly grants protections pretty much has to rely on a value system at some level. I cannot see anything based out of an understanding of science that tells me that humans are any more important than any other random collection of molecules floating around the universe.
Did it occur to you that the "recession" you mentioned--that is, a condition in which the supply of labor exceeds demand--means that you aren't worth as much as during times of tight supply?Why is it that people lose the ability to understand simple economics as soon as the commodity is labor? Precisely, this is why employees are explicitly not classifiable as a commodity since the Sherman Antitrust Act. Just because you are worth less to an emplyer in times of recession, employers can't make certain demands because of contract law and labor law and human rights. Because humans have those things and a bushel of corn or a gallon of milk do not.
The topic was upgrading one you have or buy new. If you have a used business class laptop, you are not going to find a decent replacement for 400 dollars. You can continue to upgrade your business class machine, but you will pay a premium for upgrade parts, especially the battery. I do have experience with this.
I think that's great, but that makes it worth the money to YOU, not to anyone else if you tried to sell it. My usage tends to go up over time, from C to Java and now to BPEL (you don't want to know the amount of money I'm going to have to spend on a laptop to set up a dev environment for that.) Upgrading so far has been necessary. I know I'm not going to recoup the cost on my old laptop, so what I do is wipe it, install anti-spyware software, firefox and a few other things, and give it to a needy relative. I feel I've gotten my "money's worth" out of doing that.
I've gone through four laptops for myself and three for my family and I've never paid less than 80 for an aftermarket laptop battery. Can you tell the audience what kind of laptop and battery you bought? It's not that I don't believe you, it's that I don't think it's that common.
When you can get a brand new and amazingly more powerful laptop for 400 dollars, five year old laptops are not worth 300 dollars. MOST people by that point sell the laptop rather than spend the money on a new battery, so let's say that I'm looking at one of these used laptops I see everywhere for 300+ dollars. I know that a new battery is going to cost me 80-140 dollars, so why the hell would I buy used when I can get a brand new one for around the same price?
Because if you are not working hard, you are not living up to your full potential. Innate intelligence is your baseline, how much you try determines your success. In the real world, people who achieve truly great things without actually trying are only statistical outliers. No matter how smart Salk was, he worked his ass off for years to find that cure. There were probably an army of scientists before him that could have found the cure if they had applied themselves to the best of their abilities.
I bet there are thousands of "unrecognized geniuses" on Slashdot that see posts and think "I could have done that, I'm smarter than that guy." Well the reason they did it and you didn't was because they actually TRIED TO DO IT. And that's why "working hard" is more important than innate intelligence, because the vast, vast majority of people are not that drastically different in the area of innate intelligence.
Corporate identity and visual advertising, then. When it wasn't possible, companies did the best with what they had. With the advent of styled email, they went to that because it was better. Newspapers and ads aren't in monospace courier type, text email is a step backwards in effectively transmitting your message. Ads tend not to be typed plain text on a white letter-size sheet of paper. Not all communication is strictly limited to transmission of objective facts.
Look up information about all the lawsuits against police departments and Glock for accidental shooting deaths as a result of the excessively light trigger on prior police standard-issue Glock models. A lot of these are still in circulation, especially in the private market.
Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft bought Virtual PC, that's the solution to backward-compatibility.
It's 2008. Dump the triumvirate of Windows design retardedness:
1. Drive letters (we are not using CP/M)
2. Backward slashes for directory separation (we are not using DOS)
3. CRLF (we are not using a typewriter!)
I've said it before, I'll say it again: eBay is a broken sealed-first-price-auction where suckers are allowed to show their hand before conclusion. Anyone who bids in anything but the last few seconds of an auction is a _sucker_. Why announce to the world what you're willing to pay so that competitors can re-evaluate their bid and then one-up you?
Also, uBid does exactly what you say. I've won quite a number of auctions on there because of people used to the eBay system who snipe in the last minute or so and then don't pay attention to the auction after that.
My Mac doesn't have any character video modes, so the only way you can get a console without X is virtually via a FB. Unless I'm misunderstanding how this works.
Torvalds was trashing C++ not OOP (though he has trashed OOP before too.) I'm an OOP programmer and I agree with everything he says. C++ is a shit language, but that's not an indictment of OO. C++'s OO is horrible.
I work with people who don't even proceduralize their code. I've got a report with a 500-line SQL statement in it.
I wonder if in the experimental phase they tried it with phrases like "Invade Iraq." That would explain a lot.
I washed computer lab iMac (the old "lickable" models) keyboards in warm mildly soapy water all the time. No problems.
Humans' primary evolutionary strategy is adapting the environment to meet their needs rather than evolving to match the environment. The primary theoretical risk to the long-term survival of humanity is itself, not the environment. I periodically look at things like how people sweat, overeat, and social problems that result from a largely obsolete jungle survival instinct. If only through natural evolution or eugenics such traits could be removed since we don't need them anymore. But I know that as soon as we specialized ourselves for our completely artificial social environment, any instability would result in massive deaths. Instead we put up with annoying a-holes, sweating and obesity, but these are the sacrifices we make for long-term species sustainability. The history of the world is a cycle of species evolving toward high specialization for that environment, the environment changing rapidly and the species gets wiped out. Then a different, less specialized species gains an advantage and the cycle starts over again. As long as humans resist the temptation of specialization and stay aware that only we can kill ourselves, there's not reason we shouldn't be able to go on a very long time.
This is excluding some worldwide catastrophic event like a planet buster asteroid or something.
Bush owns a Mac, so no he's quite possibly not computer literate.
How many people in Europe retain a passport because they work or play in another EU country that's less than an hour away? Also, we don't have a giant mass-transit system making it possible to travel to a dozen other countries. It's just not the same.
My point is that most conservatives practically revere Reagan as a god. The "flying helicopter" conspiracy-theorist conservatives frequently saw Reagan as part of the alleged conspiracy to take over the USA, thus making them distinct. I wasn't trying to make it into a value statement regarding Reagan himself, sorry for the confusion.
The "black helicopter" conservatives are a subset of conservatives. "Gun rights" conservatives are a subset of conservatives. The two overlap, but they are not the same. If you actually knew any "black helicopter" conservatives, you would know that they have been predicting this crap for years and they hold no allegiance to Bush or the police state. They believed Reagan was evil, for crying out loud--Look up REX-84, which we seem to be currently implementing (tongue in cheek, sorta.)
What happened to all those militias in the 1990's? I'll tell you what happened, they got infiltrated by the FBI and the groups basically realized they were ineffectual, became demoralized and disbanded. Whether or not you agree with them, this sort of proves that a vigilant and motivated minority of the population stands no chance against the state. So while Democrats may laugh at the poor stupid rednecks, it's a kind of Pyrrhic victory because their "defeat" came about because their worst fear was realized, the government became an overpowering oppressive state. Where are these people today? They were probably Ron Paul supporters, not Bush supporters. For the most part they don't vote because they think the whole thing is rigged anyway.
What about the other side of the equation? If you can't run a business without hiring three part time workers instead of one full time worker with health benefits, your business sucks and you ought to go bankrupt. Why does everybody just dump the responsibility on the workers who are just trying to make enough money to eat and not have to take their children to the emergency room for basic health care? One way or the other, people will mostly get food to eat or mostly get health care, but in the end it comes down to businesses paying a living wage or government providing handouts. And somehow a giant system of government handouts is more conducive to "capitalism." I don't think so, it's conducive to "getting mine."
Conversely, the minimum wage helps retain a basic standard of living in the United States if jobs that are truly not profitable in our country are moved out of the country. People don't have access to all the facts, so you can get yourself into a situation where people can't make a truly rational choice for products and everyone just chooses cheap, unreliable, unsafe products on their extremely low wages. So absolutely we can get rid of the minimum wage and other government controls, but that's the equivalent of choosing to be a third-world country.
What is your position on unions? I've noticed that people who promote the things that you do being intensely anti-union despite the fact that the only way that workers can effectively demand higher wages and better working conditions you folks claim they could if they want is, well, collectively.
Imagemagick does it's conversion entirely in-memory, so if a document is more than a hundred pages or so you are going to have to have some problems.
"personhood" is a philosophical question that is only informed by science, not defined. A thing is not it's classification, and ultimately the recognition of any "thing" is a higher-order abstraction and not reality. there is not really any such thing as a "mountain," there is only a classification based on an aggregation of localized attributes according to a world-view. This is why the definition of personhood is so disputed, because, like all classifications, it relies on a context. If you want to get all science on the issue, what do you make of the fact that humans are 60% water and only a minority of the genetic material in the human body is bacteria and other stuff that doesn't even share our genetic code? In a macro view, individual humans are just self-sustaining chemical processes so any definition of "personhood" that explicitly or implicitly grants protections pretty much has to rely on a value system at some level. I cannot see anything based out of an understanding of science that tells me that humans are any more important than any other random collection of molecules floating around the universe.
The topic was upgrading one you have or buy new. If you have a used business class laptop, you are not going to find a decent replacement for 400 dollars. You can continue to upgrade your business class machine, but you will pay a premium for upgrade parts, especially the battery. I do have experience with this.
I think that's great, but that makes it worth the money to YOU, not to anyone else if you tried to sell it. My usage tends to go up over time, from C to Java and now to BPEL (you don't want to know the amount of money I'm going to have to spend on a laptop to set up a dev environment for that.) Upgrading so far has been necessary. I know I'm not going to recoup the cost on my old laptop, so what I do is wipe it, install anti-spyware software, firefox and a few other things, and give it to a needy relative. I feel I've gotten my "money's worth" out of doing that.
I've gone through four laptops for myself and three for my family and I've never paid less than 80 for an aftermarket laptop battery. Can you tell the audience what kind of laptop and battery you bought? It's not that I don't believe you, it's that I don't think it's that common.
When you can get a brand new and amazingly more powerful laptop for 400 dollars, five year old laptops are not worth 300 dollars. MOST people by that point sell the laptop rather than spend the money on a new battery, so let's say that I'm looking at one of these used laptops I see everywhere for 300+ dollars. I know that a new battery is going to cost me 80-140 dollars, so why the hell would I buy used when I can get a brand new one for around the same price?
Because if you are not working hard, you are not living up to your full potential. Innate intelligence is your baseline, how much you try determines your success. In the real world, people who achieve truly great things without actually trying are only statistical outliers. No matter how smart Salk was, he worked his ass off for years to find that cure. There were probably an army of scientists before him that could have found the cure if they had applied themselves to the best of their abilities.
I bet there are thousands of "unrecognized geniuses" on Slashdot that see posts and think "I could have done that, I'm smarter than that guy." Well the reason they did it and you didn't was because they actually TRIED TO DO IT. And that's why "working hard" is more important than innate intelligence, because the vast, vast majority of people are not that drastically different in the area of innate intelligence.
Corporate identity and visual advertising, then. When it wasn't possible, companies did the best with what they had. With the advent of styled email, they went to that because it was better. Newspapers and ads aren't in monospace courier type, text email is a step backwards in effectively transmitting your message. Ads tend not to be typed plain text on a white letter-size sheet of paper. Not all communication is strictly limited to transmission of objective facts.
Look up information about all the lawsuits against police departments and Glock for accidental shooting deaths as a result of the excessively light trigger on prior police standard-issue Glock models. A lot of these are still in circulation, especially in the private market.