That depends on how you define "crash". If you define it as abnormal program abort, then no. But if you consider the program just sitting there and doing nothing useful to be a crash (indeed, during DOS times, that was the typical way programs crashed), then a state machine can easily crash.
YOU please read in context. Namely in the context of the post I replied to, which was not yours. I even quoted that post, so you didn't even have to press the Parent button to find out what I replied to. All you had to do is to read the quoted post.
B) Though we're awesome guys, here to save you time and share a world class goodie with you, we're in the end business people, and we have to get paid some way. Imagine we're in the car business and we've given you a free car, we aren't going to charge you for the car, we will be charging you for servicing the car.
So our business depends on us delivering lousy cars.
Bad message. Better charge for gasoline/mileage or other constant costs of operation rather than costs of failure.
So you think that a car that requires service is a lousy car? Well, I've got bad news for you: According to your definition, all cars are lousy.
You got me seriously confused, until I noticed you started your text in the title. Please don't do that. Or at least, if you do it, start your post with three dots to indicate that the beginning of the post is not the beginning of the text.
That's today. Tomorrow there will be an additional charge for NOT sharing. Next year there will be a law that makes it illegal not to share.
The difference between a discount for sharing and an additional charge for not sharing is purely semantics. Both just mean that you'll pay more if you don't share. The only difference is which price you declare as base one. If you declare the lower price as standard, the higher means an additional charge, while if you declare the higher price as standard, the lower one means a discharge. Which one you declare as base price depends only on your marketing strategy. If you think you can better compete by making your base price as low as possible, you'll take the lower price as base price and hide the extra charges for not sharing in the fine print. If you think you can better compete by giving discounts, you declare the higher price as base price and market the savings possible when sharing as loudly as possible.
Two possible replies: (1) you didn't study very much physics (since understanding and remembering units is kinda critical), or (2) try dividing 5280 by 3 .:-)
I studied a lot of physics (indeed, I am physicist), but nobody in physics uses miles or yards. Yes, I've learned a lot of units. I can tell you how many joules an electron volt is. I can tell you how many pascals there are in a bar. Or how many fermis in a meter. And yes, understanding units in general is important, as is understanding the units actually used in physics. However miles and yards are none of those. And no, it's not just that I did choose not to learn them. They are not taught here.
(2) try dividing 5280 by 3
I can only guess: There's maybe an unit so that a yard is three of those units, and a mile is 5280 of those units?
I suppose you could do better by deconstructing down to the ISO definition of the meter in terms of wavelengths of a certain hyperfine-split atomic emission, but since this is for sailors, who cares:-)
Yeah, who cares about miles and yards when sailing, when the unit used on sea is the nautical mile (which is 1.852 km; and no, that I didn't have to look up).
And BTW, you are quite out of date with the definition of the meter. For quite some time now it has been defined as 1/99792458 of the distance the light travels in vacuum in one second.
The ProSiebenSat.1 Eu publisher (the fuck sort of name they chose?)
"ProSiebenSat.1" is just the concatenation of the identifying parts of the names of two TV companies which merged: "Pro Sieben Media AG" and "Sat.1 SatellitenFernsehen GmbH" ("Satellitenfernsehen" is just German for "satellite TV"; "AG" and "GmbH" are the legal type of the corresponding company). Those again were named after their main (German) TV channels: Pro 7 ("Sieben" is the German word for "seven") and SAT.1.
Given that almost every real number encodes an uncountable number of bits of information, I guess this isn't especially surprising in retrospect. The result though should make us suspicious of the assumption that the physical constants and properties in our physical theories can indeed take any real number value.
The number of bits needed to represent an arbitrary real number exactly is infinite, but not uncountable.
Here is the formula for an average, per-citizen, rate of consumption of entertainment, in movies per year, as a function of geek rage:
cons(rage):= 0.999*10 + 0.001*(1/rage)
What is the limit of this function with rage going to infinity?
9.99, of course.
More interestingly, given that the number of movies you can consume per year is limited, this formula means that geek rage cannot go arbitrary close to zero.
And those watching only few movies per year have a negative geek rage. For example, if you watch only 2 movies per year, your geek rage is -1/7990.
Ehhh - someone will come along directly to tell me that I've lost all credibility with the word sheeple. Whatever . ..
I understand: You don't care about him coming along directly, because you've long run away (since 1956; you've probably reached outer space by now).:-)
It is technically possible, just prohibitively expensive: You could pay someone to paste some paper over each and every advertisement in the newspaper.
But guess what? The advertisements in the newspapers don't track me, they don't carry malware, they are not animated, and they make no sounds. Therefore I'd have no desire to block them even if I could at the press of a button.
You know what is funny? I've just checked my settings, and it indeed says that some ads are allowed. Yet I haven't seen any web ad for years (except when not browsing from my own browser). Which must be because RequestPolicy and NoScript are quite effective at blocking the ads which wouldn't be blocked by AdBlock.
Actually, RequestPolicy has something slightly different: It has *per page* whitelists. Which means you can say e.g. YouTube may access ytimg.com (without which it cannot work), but your banking site cannot.
BTW, you can also (ab)use FoxyProxy as black- or whitelist, by simply assigning a non-existent proxy to certain URLs (blacklist) or to be used by default (whitelist).
As long as I don't have to have an account at some specific third-party provider, and I'm always notified in advance whether reading or watching some content costs me something and how much (this functionality ideally being integrated in the micropayment system, so I can trust it as long as I trust my micropayment client), I wouldn't mind a micropayment system. Of course it would have to be designed so that you can also be on the receiving side without being a big name or paying large sums which only big-income sites can afford.
If Sony sold pure gold for a cent an ounce, a sure way to kill the company would be to order gold for, say, $10000. As side effect, you'd become a billionaire. Are you sure you wouldn't want to do that?
It would be technically possible to prevent you from viewing the page if you block the ads. If web pages don't do it, it can mean that either they figure that it is better to have those blocking ads see the page without ads than alienating them, or they simply don't care due to the low number of people doing that.
Slashdot Mirror
That depends on how you define "crash". If you define it as abnormal program abort, then no. But if you consider the program just sitting there and doing nothing useful to be a crash (indeed, during DOS times, that was the typical way programs crashed), then a state machine can easily crash.
Now, which one will get more comments about how it is wrong: The use of the word "Hacker", or the use of the word "stole"? :-)
YOU please read in context. Namely in the context of the post I replied to, which was not yours. I even quoted that post, so you didn't even have to press the Parent button to find out what I replied to. All you had to do is to read the quoted post.
B) Though we're awesome guys, here to save you time and share a world class goodie with you, we're in the end business people, and we have to get paid some way. Imagine we're in the car business and we've given you a free car, we aren't going to charge you for the car, we will be charging you for servicing the car.
So our business depends on us delivering lousy cars.
Bad message. Better charge for gasoline/mileage or other constant costs of operation rather than costs of failure.
So you think that a car that requires service is a lousy car? Well, I've got bad news for you: According to your definition, all cars are lousy.
by the way, Americans never apologise to anyone so if you're American then ignore this section
Sometimes, Americans apologize, though. But, usually not, since it is a sign of weakness.
Actually, not being able to apologize when it is appropriate is a sign of weakness.
You got me seriously confused, until I noticed you started your text in the title. Please don't do that. Or at least, if you do it, start your post with three dots to indicate that the beginning of the post is not the beginning of the text.
That is the second worst poem I have ever read.
I see, you've read a poem of Paula Nancy Millstone Jennings.
The difference between a discount for sharing and an additional charge for not sharing is purely semantics. Both just mean that you'll pay more if you don't share. The only difference is which price you declare as base one. If you declare the lower price as standard, the higher means an additional charge, while if you declare the higher price as standard, the lower one means a discharge. Which one you declare as base price depends only on your marketing strategy. If you think you can better compete by making your base price as low as possible, you'll take the lower price as base price and hide the extra charges for not sharing in the fine print. If you think you can better compete by giving discounts, you declare the higher price as base price and market the savings possible when sharing as loudly as possible.
I studied a lot of physics (indeed, I am physicist), but nobody in physics uses miles or yards. Yes, I've learned a lot of units. I can tell you how many joules an electron volt is. I can tell you how many pascals there are in a bar. Or how many fermis in a meter. And yes, understanding units in general is important, as is understanding the units actually used in physics. However miles and yards are none of those. And no, it's not just that I did choose not to learn them. They are not taught here.
I can only guess: There's maybe an unit so that a yard is three of those units, and a mile is 5280 of those units?
Yeah, who cares about miles and yards when sailing, when the unit used on sea is the nautical mile (which is 1.852 km; and no, that I didn't have to look up).
And BTW, you are quite out of date with the definition of the meter. For quite some time now it has been defined as 1/99792458 of the distance the light travels in vacuum in one second.
"ProSiebenSat.1" is just the concatenation of the identifying parts of the names of two TV companies which merged: "Pro Sieben Media AG" and "Sat.1 SatellitenFernsehen GmbH" ("Satellitenfernsehen" is just German for "satellite TV"; "AG" and "GmbH" are the legal type of the corresponding company). Those again were named after their main (German) TV channels: Pro 7 ("Sieben" is the German word for "seven") and SAT.1.
The number of bits needed to represent an arbitrary real number exactly is infinite, but not uncountable.
Sorry, I've studied physics, but I have no idea how many yards are in a mile.
If everyone did this, the game would change.
Here is the formula for an average, per-citizen, rate of consumption of entertainment, in movies per year, as a function of geek rage:
cons(rage) := 0.999*10 + 0.001*(1/rage)
What is the limit of this function with rage going to infinity?
9.99, of course.
More interestingly, given that the number of movies you can consume per year is limited, this formula means that geek rage cannot go arbitrary close to zero.
And those watching only few movies per year have a negative geek rage. For example, if you watch only 2 movies per year, your geek rage is -1/7990.
I understand: You don't care about him coming along directly, because you've long run away (since 1956; you've probably reached outer space by now). :-)
Maybe. Can it learn to run Linux?
It is also the logical conclusion to Apple's stance on mouse buttons: You cannot right-click on a touch screen.
It is technically possible, just prohibitively expensive: You could pay someone to paste some paper over each and every advertisement in the newspaper.
But guess what? The advertisements in the newspapers don't track me, they don't carry malware, they are not animated, and they make no sounds. Therefore I'd have no desire to block them even if I could at the press of a button.
I'll give up my Adblock when you pry it from my cold, dead hands.
Your proposal is acceptable.
You know what is funny? I've just checked my settings, and it indeed says that some ads are allowed. Yet I haven't seen any web ad for years (except when not browsing from my own browser). Which must be because RequestPolicy and NoScript are quite effective at blocking the ads which wouldn't be blocked by AdBlock.
Thank you. I've now installed Moderatrix. Can't say how well it works until I get mod points again, though.
Actually a ethical ad would have no user-facing script at all. Just some text or an image.
Actually, RequestPolicy has something slightly different: It has *per page* whitelists. Which means you can say e.g. YouTube may access ytimg.com (without which it cannot work), but your banking site cannot.
BTW, you can also (ab)use FoxyProxy as black- or whitelist, by simply assigning a non-existent proxy to certain URLs (blacklist) or to be used by default (whitelist).
As long as I don't have to have an account at some specific third-party provider, and I'm always notified in advance whether reading or watching some content costs me something and how much (this functionality ideally being integrated in the micropayment system, so I can trust it as long as I trust my micropayment client), I wouldn't mind a micropayment system. Of course it would have to be designed so that you can also be on the receiving side without being a big name or paying large sums which only big-income sites can afford.
If Sony sold pure gold for a cent an ounce, a sure way to kill the company would be to order gold for, say, $10000. As side effect, you'd become a billionaire. Are you sure you wouldn't want to do that?
It would be technically possible to prevent you from viewing the page if you block the ads. If web pages don't do it, it can mean that either they figure that it is better to have those blocking ads see the page without ads than alienating them, or they simply don't care due to the low number of people doing that.