Apple makes great software; its just that they make the worst Windows software you could ever use. iLife is half the reason why I was using a Mac for so many years. General rule of thumb for all Apple software: If it ends in.exe, it will be slow, bloated, and unintuitive If it ends in.app, it will be fast, slick, and makes sense
how does this guarantee its an ascii character though?
["/", "\\"]
This creates an array of strings.
rand(2)
This picks a number 0 or 1.
[...]->[...]
That gets an element from the array, which since it's a string has to be ASCII. (Strictly there's some funky stuff with references going on there, too, which is unnecessary.)
Really, these particular regulations (requiring businesses to track and report who is selling copper) are an extension of the police power to enforce the common prohibition against dealing in stolen property.
I'm realize that there's a creeping intrusion of government into all aspects of life, and that there are any number of destructive cartels and various nonsense regulations, but I'm still surprised that so many people find this controversial.
Most everyone supports police power directed at criminals.
Fewer support police power for a "show us your papers" society, tracking our lawful actions and transactions, and harassing the law abiding with costs and regulations, turning them into criminals when they don't properly fill out the required paperwork.
Just to be clear, then, do you agree that the state has an obligation to act in this case since people really are being robbed? Because that's why I don't see this as turning us into a "show us your papers society". This action, being an admittedly imperfect remedy to a concrete crime against someone's livelihood, is fundamentally different from all the safety inspections, cartels, stimulus, fake jobs, wealth transfers, price fixing, drugs wars and such that are the hallmarks of the modern welfare/police state.
The *sole* reason for stock splits is psychological (and the economic changes from those psychological tricks on investors, which are indirect).
That doesn't even make sense. People who want to feel rich cash their paycheck in $100 bills, they don't get a stack of singles.
To quote my earlier comment:
If by economics you're talking about supply and demand, a high stock price is obviously a classic diseconomy of scale: it's just easier to find buyers who might want $80 of stuff instead of $100.
Now, if you disagree that this is an issue, please explain why we don't simply get rid of all cash except for $100 bills. After all, carrying around 5 $20 bills is simply a waste of paper.
If it's something like this (and I'm not familiar with it, but am assuming that ERP apps tend to attract large organizations), it could be that you're getting calls from departments that are far removed from that which made the decision to adopt and have no idea of the arrangements (or lack thereof). So you may be getting calls from a harried operations manager who has no idea who brought your software into their organization, or how that was done - or why.
If you're going to work with large organizations, this is an occupational hazard.
But is that ops manager doing this:
These same people are then resorting to social media in an attempt to 'spread the word' with the same false accusations, which is starting to take its toll on our reviews, ratings, and in turn our bottom line.
That makes me think the "businesses" making these complaints are small operations run by some nut. There are an awful lot of them, and they, especially, assume that anything on a computer ought to be free.
And if policing has an "overall" benefit, how does that justify the *particular* regulations promoted here?
The individuals whose copper is being stolen are being injured by being trespassed, burglarized and robbed, right, often with additional destruction of their property? Again, this is not a victimless crime like drugs. Their material rights are being harmed and the state has and obligations to defend their rights.
Really, these particular regulations (requiring businesses to track and report who is selling copper) are an extension of the police power to enforce the common prohibition against dealing in stolen property.
I'm realize that there's a creeping intrusion of government into all aspects of life, and that there are any number of destructive cartels and various nonsense regulations, but I'm still surprised that so many people find this controversial.
No, that doesn't change the number of bitcoins. You might as well be saying that there are enough US pennies on the planet for everyone to share because if you run out, you can divide the last few into 1,000,000,000 pieces. Sure, you could, but it is less than one per person, the initial complaint.
The initial complaint is only relevant to a government managed currency, since they have to provide enough money for the entire economy. Bitcoin only has to sustain a portion of the economy, and if it becomes too small, it will simply be less competitive with other currencies.
It's much like the psychology behind stock splits. As stock splits aren't based in economics (Apple at $571 isn't different than 5 shares at $571/5).
What do you mean "stock splits aren't based in economics"? The whole premise behind economic activity is a balance sheet, and you can draw one up for a stock split quite easily. Before the split, the company's equity might be $10,000,000, with 100,000 stocks at $100 each. After the split the equity is the same, but there are now 1 million stocks at $10 each.
So for any given shareholder, they each hold the same amount of equity.
If by economics you're talking about supply and demand, a high stock price is obviously a classic diseconomy of scale: it's just easier to find buyers who might want $80 of stuff instead of $100.
I would wager that Aristotle *could* comprehend calculus given proper instruction. I mean, he was one of the premier thinkers of his time. Great minds also make mistakes, but still...
Zeno's Paradox is about 98% of what it takes to invent differential calculus. All that remained to be added was limits.
Not even close. For useful limits you need L'hopital's rule, which is not at all obvious from what they knew. Even then, that gets you derivatives, but you then have to go through many iterations to work out the notation. But the Greeks were working mostly with compass and edges, so they still needed to flesh out the functional notation to have the building blocks for differential calculus as we know it.
" If you want to succeed, you'll likely have to sell out."
I'm fine with that. What are the steps required to sell out? Count me in.
So, first, you do something that a handful of people like, and they hardly buy any merchandise or CDs because they're broke moochers. But they tell some other people how cool they are that they listen to you.
Over time you refine your act so that a lot of people now like it and they buy a lot of your merchandise and CDs. The original handful of fans assume that because they were your fans first that they own you. When they start to see that other people like you, they demand that you never alter your product from how they first heard it. When you ignore them, you have "sold out".
This has been happening at least since outraged hippies threw shit at folk bands for experimenting with instruments other than guitars, and probably far before that.
Technical problems aside, there is no way the powers that be in the US will let any technology like this come to production. Our congress critters are heavily invested in OIL. They will only invest in clean energy that will certainly fail. They may invest research money into this, but only to find a way to make it fail. It has happened time and time again.
Except that natural gas is rapidly becoming a dominant player in the US, so you're completely full of shit.
No, she was found not guilty and acquitted. There is a rather large difference. In the United States, the is a presumption of innocence which means that in the absence of proof beyond a reasonable doubt the person is acquitted of the charge. There is no statement about the innocence of the person.
No statement, except for the original presumption of innocence. We are all, for instance, affirmatively innocent of every conceivable crime that we haven't been tried for.
But why does it matter it's natural or not? Is it somehow better to be killed by a bear than a human just because the bear killed you in a natural way?
Also, why does the solution have to be to shut down everything and use less energy, why is it not acceptable to just build more nuclear?
The natural / not natural aspect matters because of the assumption that we're at a climate optimum. If, in fact, the climate were better if it were warmer (or more energetic or whatever) then we're actually doing twice the harm trying to cool it.
We can't use nuclear because the progressive, pro-science left won't allow it.
Preventing theft and fraud, though, is a vital part of a free market and an entirely legitimate role of government. There is a cost, certainly, but the cost of crime* is invariably far higher than the cost of policing.
The government never spends more to fix a problem, than the economic costs of the problem in the first place? Yes, indeed, central planning invariably turns a profit for society as a whole. Whatever was I thinking?
I said that policing actual crimes like fraud, murder and theft is beneficial overall. I said nothing about central planning.
Lol no it isn't. Seriously, its quite an effective absorber.
You're being dishonest. Per unit, it's quite weak compared to methane, water vapor or ozone, and water vapor is by far the largest overall contributor to the greenhouse effect.
Yeah, because regulatory compliance and associated paperwork, government inspections, lawsuits, and penalties impose 0 costs on businesses.
And since everyone wants to be recorded in government registries, because everyone wants to fill in forms, because everyone is literate enough to fill in forms, it won't deter anyone from recycling either.
Preventing theft and fraud, though, is a vital part of a free market and an entirely legitimate role of government. There is a cost, certainly, but the cost of crime* is invariably far higher than the cost of policing.
* where said crimes are actual crimes with real victims and damages suffered.
2) We know CO2 significantly traps infra red radiation. This was known since the 1800s when researchers first started putting alarm bells out about climate change after Fourier first demonstrated CO2s effect on IR spectrum light in the laboratory.
No, we know that CO2 is a very weak greenhouse gas, and we think that the slight affect of CO2 will cause greater concentrations of other green house gases, especially water vapor and methane, which will have the much larger effect that's supposed to lead to catastrophe.
Once you start considering a bunch more greenhouse gases that we're not producing in tremendous quantity, the argument that we may not be doing it at all becomes far more reasonable.
In retrospect, the fate of the Science-Fiction Channel/Sci-Fi/Syfy was inevitable. Attractive science fiction television is expensive to produce and there's no way a channel could have all its programming at the level of even a ST: TNG.
I take it you mean TNG's production quality by today's standards... yeah, what's happening is that branding yourself as "the channel for X" is proving to be an unsustainable business model and we're watching channels restructure.
Slashdot Mirror
Money is severely over-rated as a driver.
As is my wife.
Just drive with your other hand, then.
One advantage of the term "autism spectrum" is that it doesn't have a double entendre of "ass boogers".
Disclosure: I have this condition.
You might try wet wipes for that.
Apple makes great software; its just that they make the worst Windows software you could ever use. iLife is half the reason why I was using a Mac for so many years. General rule of thumb for all Apple software: .exe, it will be slow, bloated, and unintuitive .app, it will be fast, slick, and makes sense
If it ends in
If it ends in
That's because .exe stands for 'execrable'.
how does this guarantee its an ascii character though?
["/", "\\"]
This creates an array of strings.
rand(2)
This picks a number 0 or 1.
[...]->[...]
That gets an element from the array, which since it's a string has to be ASCII. (Strictly there's some funky stuff with references going on there, too, which is unnecessary.)
And get rid of pennies, too.
Really, these particular regulations (requiring businesses to track and report who is selling copper) are an extension of the police power to enforce the common prohibition against dealing in stolen property.
I'm realize that there's a creeping intrusion of government into all aspects of life, and that there are any number of destructive cartels and various nonsense regulations, but I'm still surprised that so many people find this controversial.
Most everyone supports police power directed at criminals.
Fewer support police power for a "show us your papers" society, tracking our lawful actions and transactions, and harassing the law abiding with costs and regulations, turning them into criminals when they don't properly fill out the required paperwork.
Just to be clear, then, do you agree that the state has an obligation to act in this case since people really are being robbed? Because that's why I don't see this as turning us into a "show us your papers society". This action, being an admittedly imperfect remedy to a concrete crime against someone's livelihood, is fundamentally different from all the safety inspections, cartels, stimulus, fake jobs, wealth transfers, price fixing, drugs wars and such that are the hallmarks of the modern welfare/police state.
The *sole* reason for stock splits is psychological (and the economic changes from those psychological tricks on investors, which are indirect).
That doesn't even make sense. People who want to feel rich cash their paycheck in $100 bills, they don't get a stack of singles.
To quote my earlier comment:
If by economics you're talking about supply and demand, a high stock price is obviously a classic diseconomy of scale: it's just easier to find buyers who might want $80 of stuff instead of $100.
Now, if you disagree that this is an issue, please explain why we don't simply get rid of all cash except for $100 bills. After all, carrying around 5 $20 bills is simply a waste of paper.
I've experienced this myself: I think those people are just assholes who think they can bully the poster's company into giving free support.
There's a whole website devoted to these motherfuckers. I flip through it and, jaded as I am, I still occasionally see one that has me picking my jaw up off the floor.
If it's something like this (and I'm not familiar with it, but am assuming that ERP apps tend to attract large organizations), it could be that you're getting calls from departments that are far removed from that which made the decision to adopt and have no idea of the arrangements (or lack thereof). So you may be getting calls from a harried operations manager who has no idea who brought your software into their organization, or how that was done - or why.
If you're going to work with large organizations, this is an occupational hazard.
But is that ops manager doing this:
These same people are then resorting to social media in an attempt to 'spread the word' with the same false accusations, which is starting to take its toll on our reviews, ratings, and in turn our bottom line.
That makes me think the "businesses" making these complaints are small operations run by some nut. There are an awful lot of them, and they, especially, assume that anything on a computer ought to be free.
And if policing has an "overall" benefit, how does that justify the *particular* regulations promoted here?
The individuals whose copper is being stolen are being injured by being trespassed, burglarized and robbed, right, often with additional destruction of their property? Again, this is not a victimless crime like drugs. Their material rights are being harmed and the state has and obligations to defend their rights.
Really, these particular regulations (requiring businesses to track and report who is selling copper) are an extension of the police power to enforce the common prohibition against dealing in stolen property.
I'm realize that there's a creeping intrusion of government into all aspects of life, and that there are any number of destructive cartels and various nonsense regulations, but I'm still surprised that so many people find this controversial.
No, that doesn't change the number of bitcoins. You might as well be saying that there are enough US pennies on the planet for everyone to share because if you run out, you can divide the last few into 1,000,000,000 pieces. Sure, you could, but it is less than one per person, the initial complaint.
The initial complaint is only relevant to a government managed currency, since they have to provide enough money for the entire economy. Bitcoin only has to sustain a portion of the economy, and if it becomes too small, it will simply be less competitive with other currencies.
It's much like the psychology behind stock splits. As stock splits aren't based in economics (Apple at $571 isn't different than 5 shares at $571/5).
What do you mean "stock splits aren't based in economics"? The whole premise behind economic activity is a balance sheet, and you can draw one up for a stock split quite easily. Before the split, the company's equity might be $10,000,000, with 100,000 stocks at $100 each. After the split the equity is the same, but there are now 1 million stocks at $10 each.
So for any given shareholder, they each hold the same amount of equity.
If by economics you're talking about supply and demand, a high stock price is obviously a classic diseconomy of scale: it's just easier to find buyers who might want $80 of stuff instead of $100.
I would wager that Aristotle *could* comprehend calculus given proper instruction. I mean, he was one of the premier thinkers of his time. Great minds also make mistakes, but still...
Zeno's Paradox is about 98% of what it takes to invent differential calculus. All that remained to be added was limits.
Not even close. For useful limits you need L'hopital's rule, which is not at all obvious from what they knew. Even then, that gets you derivatives, but you then have to go through many iterations to work out the notation. But the Greeks were working mostly with compass and edges, so they still needed to flesh out the functional notation to have the building blocks for differential calculus as we know it.
Is that all we aspire to be now here at /.? Just a news aggregator? Oh, how we have fallen!
Don't forget the shitty book reviews!
" If you want to succeed, you'll likely have to sell out."
I'm fine with that. What are the steps required to sell out? Count me in.
So, first, you do something that a handful of people like, and they hardly buy any merchandise or CDs because they're broke moochers. But they tell some other people how cool they are that they listen to you.
Over time you refine your act so that a lot of people now like it and they buy a lot of your merchandise and CDs. The original handful of fans assume that because they were your fans first that they own you. When they start to see that other people like you, they demand that you never alter your product from how they first heard it. When you ignore them, you have "sold out".
This has been happening at least since outraged hippies threw shit at folk bands for experimenting with instruments other than guitars, and probably far before that.
Technical problems aside, there is no way the powers that be in the US will let any technology like this come to production. Our congress critters are heavily invested in OIL. They will only invest in clean energy that will certainly fail. They may invest research money into this, but only to find a way to make it fail. It has happened time and time again.
Except that natural gas is rapidly becoming a dominant player in the US, so you're completely full of shit.
Depends what state you live in. Lethal injection is very painful.
Still quicker and less painful than 50 years in the pen living with society's worst.
No, she was found not guilty and acquitted. There is a rather large difference. In the United States, the is a presumption of innocence which means that in the absence of proof beyond a reasonable doubt the person is acquitted of the charge. There is no statement about the innocence of the person.
No statement, except for the original presumption of innocence. We are all, for instance, affirmatively innocent of every conceivable crime that we haven't been tried for.
But why does it matter it's natural or not? Is it somehow better to be killed by a bear than a human just because the bear killed you in a natural way?
Also, why does the solution have to be to shut down everything and use less energy, why is it not acceptable to just build more nuclear?
The natural / not natural aspect matters because of the assumption that we're at a climate optimum. If, in fact, the climate were better if it were warmer (or more energetic or whatever) then we're actually doing twice the harm trying to cool it.
We can't use nuclear because the progressive, pro-science left won't allow it.
Preventing theft and fraud, though, is a vital part of a free market and an entirely legitimate role of government. There is a cost, certainly, but the cost of crime* is invariably far higher than the cost of policing.
The government never spends more to fix a problem, than the economic costs of the problem in the first place? Yes, indeed, central planning invariably turns a profit for society as a whole. Whatever was I thinking?
I said that policing actual crimes like fraud, murder and theft is beneficial overall. I said nothing about central planning.
Lol no it isn't. Seriously, its quite an effective absorber.
You're being dishonest. Per unit, it's quite weak compared to methane, water vapor or ozone, and water vapor is by far the largest overall contributor to the greenhouse effect.
Yeah, because regulatory compliance and associated paperwork, government inspections, lawsuits, and penalties impose 0 costs on businesses.
And since everyone wants to be recorded in government registries, because everyone wants to fill in forms, because everyone is literate enough to fill in forms, it won't deter anyone from recycling either.
Preventing theft and fraud, though, is a vital part of a free market and an entirely legitimate role of government. There is a cost, certainly, but the cost of crime* is invariably far higher than the cost of policing.
* where said crimes are actual crimes with real victims and damages suffered.
2) We know CO2 significantly traps infra red radiation. This was known since the 1800s when researchers first started putting alarm bells out about climate change after Fourier first demonstrated CO2s effect on IR spectrum light in the laboratory.
No, we know that CO2 is a very weak greenhouse gas, and we think that the slight affect of CO2 will cause greater concentrations of other green house gases, especially water vapor and methane, which will have the much larger effect that's supposed to lead to catastrophe.
Once you start considering a bunch more greenhouse gases that we're not producing in tremendous quantity, the argument that we may not be doing it at all becomes far more reasonable.
In retrospect, the fate of the Science-Fiction Channel/Sci-Fi/Syfy was inevitable. Attractive science fiction television is expensive to produce and there's no way a channel could have all its programming at the level of even a ST: TNG.
I take it you mean TNG's production quality by today's standards... yeah, what's happening is that branding yourself as "the channel for X" is proving to be an unsustainable business model and we're watching channels restructure.
A bastion of openness and counterculture, Silicon Valley imagines itself as the un-Chick-fil-A.
When has Chick-fil-A ever called for censorship? Last I checked, progressives were abusing government power to silence Chick-fil-A, not the other way around.
Horses used to canter just fine without internal combustion, why do we need it?
Strangely, though, even American auto consumers never quite cottoned on to the idea of hydrogen bomb powered engines.