So you think that you understood? You are the one suggesting that killing someone before the end of their natural span can be considered the same as the other two cases. It can not. The article never suggested that it could and you alone have twisted what was said to try and make your point.
The enforced automatic updater is quite strange. I guess that is what my underlying point was really supposed to be. In most apps we expect / don't expects changes in behaviour based on when we've chosen to update, and if too many things break then we can always downgrade. In Chrome I'm just used to random changes in behaviour. I guess the real-test will be over the long-term, will the enforced updates and usage feedback let them improve faster despite the temporary setbacks.
In a fantasy world where we are discussing a single book you may be right.
In the real world the market for many books is made up of many markets for individual books. If you disagree with that basic axiom of economics then you and I are discussing entirely different subjects and there is nothing productive to be gained from doing it further.
Ignore that the market is made up of lots of books. Just consider a single book for a moment:
You raised the argument that the global market had to be larger than the sum of the local markets. But it does not have to be all of the markets. For each book individually the global market has to be larger than the sum of those local markets that sell that one book.
I pointed out to you that stores are not interchangeable. The size of the global market is constant - because an online retailer has unlimited storage. But each local store only carries some of those books, and the sum of the local markets for each book is only the sum of the stores that carry that book.
You cannot claim that the reach of a book is increased by local stores that do not carry that book. So you are wrong, the total is not the cumulative reach of all local stores.
When I got a mac 2.5 years ago Firefox was really nice: lean and fast. Something happened with one particular update (perhaps only on my configuration) and it started to use 25% of the CPU all the time it was running. It was so bad that I switched to Safari for a while...
I've tried a few versions since then. All had the same problem. There are already bug reports filed about the issue so other than adding "me too!" there isn't much to do other than change browser.
Ha ha ha, and yet you're the one trying to defend a retarded position against all-comers on an internet forum.
Let's see shall we: 1. Chrome updates its version. 2. All You-tube videos break. The error is very unhelpful, it reads "An error has occurred, please try later". 3. None of the suggested fixes (restarting the browser, clearing cookies, clearing history, restarting the machine, logging in/out Youtube account) work. 4. Two other browsers on the same machine continue to work fine. 5. Problem randomly disappears a month later with another Chrome update. 6. End result is that anything above 480p stutters where-as before the problems started HD content on Youtube worked fine. 7. On the same machine other browsers continue to work fine.
Apparently I'm too stupid to spot the cause, although I'm pretty sure it's Chrome. Enlighten me genius: where is the fault?
Your reading comprehension is poor. I'll repeat: "If you randomly hit then there is no fix". Admittedly I missed a word in there and didn't spot it when I pressed submit, but I think that my meaning is clear:
This is not an issue across all installs of Chrome on the Mac. This is a randomly appearing issue that affects some installs of Chrome on the Mac.
If, after reading and understanding, you still don't trust me then fuck you; you're a retard.
It would nice if it improves Youtube playback. It worked at some point, but then after some mandatory sneaky update it broke. For those of you that haven't experienced Youtube breakage: you get a completely incorrect error message and no video. Not only on the main site, but also the 90% of internet video that is just an embedded Youtube player. It can't be diagnosed or fixed and there are thousands of complaints out there on forums about the problem. If you randomly hit then there is no fix.
Then that started working again (was it with 5.0 or 6.0, I forget). But now anything above 480p stutters like crazy. It is a real shame because Chrome is a nice browser, but if they can't even maintain compatibility with one of the largest sites on the web (which they own FFS) then they have issues. Every other browser on my machine can play the same video though the same drivers without a problem.
At this point I might go back to the bloated piece of crap that Firefox has become on the mac....
But if we had technology that could boot that quickly then you would do it a lot more. Sure at the moment the only time that you see it is when you start a machine up - but hibernation would work a lot better if it really stopped drawing power. The instant-on from most laptops is provided by powering the memory during sleep. That's one application that this technology would find - my laptop loses about 5-10% of its battery per day that it is in sleep. I live with that so that it switches on instantly, but ideally I would like it to both start instantly and not use power.
The processor inside your desktop or your laptop sleeps a lot more frequently than you realise. Hundreds of times a second it switches into a sleep mode that doesn't consume as much power. But it can't switch into the really deep sleep modes without affecting responsiveness. This technology could solve that problem increases power efficiency, which you would mainly see as increased battery life in mobile devices.
Sadly all research grants require an "idiot-proof explanation" of what they are doing. In this case if they had though about this technology a little harder then they could have done better than instant boots.
Did Galileo have a strong opinion on whether electrons orbited a nucleus? No wonder he kept that one quiet with all the heat he took over the planets thing
You are assuming that all small bookstores are interchangeable and carry the same stock. Only if this is the case can we talk about their "cumulative total" and assume that we multiply the size of a small market by the number of small markets. If they all carry a unique stock then their total is much smaller.
So while it would be possible, if the total of all book stores was smaller than the total of all online sale, for your argument to hold: it does not. An online book seller has both a huge catalogue and a huge number of customers. I doubt very much that the market using online stores is smaller than the market using small book stores.
As your argument doesn't hold I won't bother with what you feel the implications for society are.
It seems that we are separated by a common language. I deliberately split the issue into ease of access and price. Then you try to make the ease of access issue about price.
When you say "Unless they don't have the money" you are thinking of some specific hypothetical individual who wants the item but can't afford it. But given the market we are talking about items wanted by many people, some of whom can afford the higher price. For those people it is easier to access the item.
You argue that the larger market with people who can afford the price should have a harder time accessing the item to benefit some smaller number of people with less money. Last time I checked bookstores were not a social program. If you believe that they should be run as one then how can you justify any price for the book other than zero?
He is taking high desirability items from a low-volume local market and reselling them in a high-volume global market. If anything he is making it easier for people to acquire the books that they want. As far as the difference in price goes: that is true of anyone who trades between different markets in any product. Why should there be special rules that make it immoral in this case?
Did you notice that this patent was filed in 1993. That is a long time before many versions of the HTML standard. I would guess that obviousness would be a better line of attack, or just waiting it out. How long are software patents in the states? 17 years or so...
Basic, Z80 assembler and Java for university. I sense another 80s child in the room. Put down your copy of Devpac and back away from the keyboard slowly...
No I'm not, and like the other reply you have "helpfully" tried to prove something that I don't have an issue with. Try reading more carefully.
I'm not at all worried about "executing" the proof, although if I was the word that you are searching for is "constructavist". The reason that I pointed out that he is using an undefined operation is that there are different possible number systems that can be defined depending on that operation. In some of them 0.999...=1 holds and in others it does not. As I said before, that is the point of the article and they cover it in depth.
There is no point in trying to convince me: I am well aware that 0.999... = 1. It is a very basic fact about decimals that I was taught in school at a young age.
I said nothing about multiplication by 10. I know that is trivial, but if you read the GP you will see that he claimed it is easy to multiply an infinite series of digits by a number that was not the base. It's not trivial and it requires some definitions far deeper than what he was alluding to. This is why his "simple" proof can only be proven correct using more complex methods.
Try reading the posts that you respond to. It does help.
And how do you do multiplication of an infinite series of digits? I'm guessing that you don't start from the right-hand side.... but beyond that your approach seems to be simple because it is incomplete. Kind of the point of the article really.
Ok, fair enough. I hadn't heard of that. A fully programmable GPU in the 80s. I've learnt something then, thanks for the reference, ignore my other replies.
Slashdot Mirror
But the difference is that what you have suggested is not a good idea.
So you think that you understood? You are the one suggesting that killing someone before the end of their natural span can be considered the same as the other two cases. It can not. The article never suggested that it could and you alone have twisted what was said to try and make your point.
So which is better:
Patient A: 9 years dementia free, 1 year of dementia, death.
Patient B: 1 year dementia free, 9 years of dementia, death.
Or did you genuinely not understand the point being made?
The enforced automatic updater is quite strange. I guess that is what my underlying point was really supposed to be. In most apps we expect / don't expects changes in behaviour based on when we've chosen to update, and if too many things break then we can always downgrade. In Chrome I'm just used to random changes in behaviour. I guess the real-test will be over the long-term, will the enforced updates and usage feedback let them improve faster despite the temporary setbacks.
In the real world the market for many books is made up of many markets for individual books. If you disagree with that basic axiom of economics then you and I are discussing entirely different subjects and there is nothing productive to be gained from doing it further.
Why are you using multiple accounts?
Ignore that the market is made up of lots of books. Just consider a single book for a moment:
You raised the argument that the global market had to be larger than the sum of the local markets. But it does not have to be all of the markets. For each book individually the global market has to be larger than the sum of those local markets that sell that one book.
I pointed out to you that stores are not interchangeable. The size of the global market is constant - because an online retailer has unlimited storage. But each local store only carries some of those books, and the sum of the local markets for each book is only the sum of the stores that carry that book.
You cannot claim that the reach of a book is increased by local stores that do not carry that book. So you are wrong, the total is not the cumulative reach of all local stores.
When I got a mac 2.5 years ago Firefox was really nice: lean and fast. Something happened with one particular update (perhaps only on my configuration) and it started to use 25% of the CPU all the time it was running. It was so bad that I switched to Safari for a while...
I've tried a few versions since then. All had the same problem. There are already bug reports filed about the issue so other than adding "me too!" there isn't much to do other than change browser.
Ha ha ha, and yet you're the one trying to defend a retarded position against all-comers on an internet forum.
Let's see shall we:
1. Chrome updates its version.
2. All You-tube videos break. The error is very unhelpful, it reads "An error has occurred, please try later".
3. None of the suggested fixes (restarting the browser, clearing cookies, clearing history, restarting the machine, logging in/out Youtube account) work.
4. Two other browsers on the same machine continue to work fine.
5. Problem randomly disappears a month later with another Chrome update.
6. End result is that anything above 480p stutters where-as before the problems started HD content on Youtube worked fine.
7. On the same machine other browsers continue to work fine.
Apparently I'm too stupid to spot the cause, although I'm pretty sure it's Chrome. Enlighten me genius: where is the fault?
Your reading comprehension is poor. I'll repeat: "If you randomly hit then there is no fix". Admittedly I missed a word in there and didn't spot it when I pressed submit, but I think that my meaning is clear:
This is not an issue across all installs of Chrome on the Mac.
This is a randomly appearing issue that affects some installs of Chrome on the Mac.
If, after reading and understanding, you still don't trust me then fuck you; you're a retard.
It would nice if it improves Youtube playback. It worked at some point, but then after some mandatory sneaky update it broke. For those of you that haven't experienced Youtube breakage: you get a completely incorrect error message and no video. Not only on the main site, but also the 90% of internet video that is just an embedded Youtube player. It can't be diagnosed or fixed and there are thousands of complaints out there on forums about the problem. If you randomly hit then there is no fix.
Then that started working again (was it with 5.0 or 6.0, I forget). But now anything above 480p stutters like crazy. It is a real shame because Chrome is a nice browser, but if they can't even maintain compatibility with one of the largest sites on the web (which they own FFS) then they have issues. Every other browser on my machine can play the same video though the same drivers without a problem.
At this point I might go back to the bloated piece of crap that Firefox has become on the mac....
But if we had technology that could boot that quickly then you would do it a lot more. Sure at the moment the only time that you see it is when you start a machine up - but hibernation would work a lot better if it really stopped drawing power. The instant-on from most laptops is provided by powering the memory during sleep. That's one application that this technology would find - my laptop loses about 5-10% of its battery per day that it is in sleep. I live with that so that it switches on instantly, but ideally I would like it to both start instantly and not use power.
The processor inside your desktop or your laptop sleeps a lot more frequently than you realise. Hundreds of times a second it switches into a sleep mode that doesn't consume as much power. But it can't switch into the really deep sleep modes without affecting responsiveness. This technology could solve that problem increases power efficiency, which you would mainly see as increased battery life in mobile devices.
Sadly all research grants require an "idiot-proof explanation" of what they are doing. In this case if they had though about this technology a little harder then they could have done better than instant boots.
Did Galileo have a strong opinion on whether electrons orbited a nucleus? No wonder he kept that one quiet with all the heat he took over the planets thing
For the wrong reasons. Sheesh dude, he said that.
You are assuming that all small bookstores are interchangeable and carry the same stock. Only if this is the case can we talk about their "cumulative total" and assume that we multiply the size of a small market by the number of small markets. If they all carry a unique stock then their total is much smaller.
So while it would be possible, if the total of all book stores was smaller than the total of all online sale, for your argument to hold: it does not. An online book seller has both a huge catalogue and a huge number of customers. I doubt very much that the market using online stores is smaller than the market using small book stores.
As your argument doesn't hold I won't bother with what you feel the implications for society are.
And you say this because you think that books for sale on Amazon are a market for 0.5% of the population?
It seems that we are separated by a common language. I deliberately split the issue into ease of access and price. Then you try to make the ease of access issue about price.
When you say "Unless they don't have the money" you are thinking of some specific hypothetical individual who wants the item but can't afford it. But given the market we are talking about items wanted by many people, some of whom can afford the higher price. For those people it is easier to access the item.
You argue that the larger market with people who can afford the price should have a harder time accessing the item to benefit some smaller number of people with less money. Last time I checked bookstores were not a social program. If you believe that they should be run as one then how can you justify any price for the book other than zero?
How do you figure that?
He is taking high desirability items from a low-volume local market and reselling them in a high-volume global market. If anything he is making it easier for people to acquire the books that they want. As far as the difference in price goes: that is true of anyone who trades between different markets in any product. Why should there be special rules that make it immoral in this case?
Did you notice that this patent was filed in 1993. That is a long time before many versions of the HTML standard. I would guess that obviousness would be a better line of attack, or just waiting it out. How long are software patents in the states? 17 years or so...
Basic, Z80 assembler and Java for university. I sense another 80s child in the room. Put down your copy of Devpac and back away from the keyboard slowly...
No I'm not, and like the other reply you have "helpfully" tried to prove something that I don't have an issue with. Try reading more carefully.
I'm not at all worried about "executing" the proof, although if I was the word that you are searching for is "constructavist". The reason that I pointed out that he is using an undefined operation is that there are different possible number systems that can be defined depending on that operation. In some of them 0.999...=1 holds and in others it does not. As I said before, that is the point of the article and they cover it in depth.
There is no point in trying to convince me: I am well aware that 0.999... = 1. It is a very basic fact about decimals that I was taught in school at a young age.
I said nothing about multiplication by 10. I know that is trivial, but if you read the GP you will see that he claimed it is easy to multiply an infinite series of digits by a number that was not the base. It's not trivial and it requires some definitions far deeper than what he was alluding to. This is why his "simple" proof can only be proven correct using more complex methods.
Try reading the posts that you respond to. It does help.
And how do you do multiplication of an infinite series of digits? I'm guessing that you don't start from the right-hand side.... but beyond that your approach seems to be simple because it is incomplete. Kind of the point of the article really.
Ok, fair enough. I hadn't heard of that. A fully programmable GPU in the 80s. I've learnt something then, thanks for the reference, ignore my other replies.
Yawn. Why don't you look up what the mainstream nVidia and ATi boards of 2004 could do.