From an economical standpoint, you could've spent those 120 hours into creating more value which would exponentially enlarge your initial investment and pay someone 50$ to be entertained in your place, so you could free up those 120 hours for a decent return-investment.
Just saying...
Just saying that the only value in life is in making money? Personally I prefer to see money as a tool to make my life enjoyable, rather than a goal that requires the sacrifice of all joy in my life.
Depends. If you see it as an investment (it costs you, and you want something back for your precious time), then it's poor value. If you see it as "play time" (you pay $50 to enjoy yourself for 40+ hours), then it's excellent value for money.
Under whose sovereignity is the new island going to be under? Do we really want the Netherlands to have it?
Anyone else though about how rich the Dutch are going to be if global warming keeps up and Greenland thaws out?
Rich? If Greenland thaws out, we're going to need a new place to live. So yeah, why not let us have that floating island in the Pacific that we're going to make?
This is, frankly, bullshit. Human brains don't work that way. You can't simply decide to become more confident and reprogram your subconscious responses to conform.
Actually, you can. It's not easy, certainly not trivial, but it can be done.
I don't see what's so wrong about helping the victims.
I'd make this a multiplication rather than a simple addition. I don't think lots and lots and lots of success without any happiness or freedom is terribly fulfilling. If it's addition, it doesn't matter which one you raise. You might as well increase what you already have. With multiplication, increasing the lowest value increases the total score a lot more than if you increase the highest value. So it's best to work on what's missing.
I don't see why browsers can't add a similar fullscreen button to their video. There's nothing magical about Flash that allows it to do stuff other programs can't.
The HTML5 canvas element and Java's AWT "Graphics" element are very alike. I wonder how long it takes for someone to program a converter, so all java applet/mobile games are available as HTML5 games?
It still seems odd to me that in the US, paid-for female companionship is so common as you suggest. It's by no means illegal here, but my impression is most women would have too much pride for that. Cultural differences I guess.
Even $10k for a wedding sounds horribly expensive to me. Why do you need 100 guests?
To share. It's a choice. One of the greatest weddings I've attended (other than my own) was probably far, far cheaper than that. A farm, a caterer, and a hundred people eating out in the field on simple wooden benches.
And how many women do you see with plain gold wedding bands? That's a male thing; women always want giant diamonds.
Not in my country. Men and women traditionally wear the same design (though men a few sizes larger). I don't think I've ever seen anyone with a diamond wedding ring. It seems silly to turn something so serious into something so garish.
I'm not bitching about my choices; I spent far less than even your numbers. I'm bitching about what I see other Americans doing.
It's their choice. As long as they can afford it and want to pay that much, why not let them? As long as they're aware of the choices they're making.
For most men in our society, having female companionship is very expensive: $20,000 diamond rings, $100,000 weddings, giant wardrobes full of designer clothes, hundreds of shoes, etc.
What society is that, where most people can afford that? Or do you live in a country that has a dollar that's worth about US$0.10?
Where I live, you can marry for free if you want to. $10,000 gets you a very nice wedding with over a hundred guests. Wedding rings tend to be plain gold (a couple of hundred dollars if they have a unique design), though wedding tattoos are gaining in popularity.
Of course if you want more than that, you can always choose to spend more. But if you don't, then don't. Don't go bitching about the choices you make.
To me, a walk with my wife costs me time that I don't have, and maybe $20 for a babysitter, but otherwise it's free.
WISE, especially, according to projections based on pre-launch specs will be able to identify the following: * Gliese 229B to 150 lightyears * A brown dwarf warmer than 200 K to 4 lightyears * A freefloating planet like Jupiter to 1 lightyear.
When you have a University of 10,000~30,000 kids, it is literally a small town of its own.
It's easier for everyone to deputize the security force and let them deal with things on campus.
Keeping the peace, handing out minor fines, sure I can see that. But handling actual crime? That sounds like an amazingly bad idea to put that in the hands of a private security firm.
I recently read an article that pointed out that the best geniuses are terribly lazy. You don't invent an easier way of doing something when you're okay with doing all the old-fashioned hard work. The wheel wasn't invented by someone who thought it was normal to carry heavy loads on his back.
Any first-year CS student can write a fart-app or flashlight-app in 10 minutes, and thus there are hundreds of them in the app store and the price is driven down to $0.99 (or even free).
Are you seriously saying anyone would pay as much as $1 for a fart app?
How is that better than perl, python, javascript, ruby, php, (ok not php), or any other interpreted language with an eval() function?
Not perl or javascript either, I hope. Python and Ruby are a very similar crowd to Groovy, as far as I can tell. (Personally I prefer Ruby; Groovy has too many Javaisms.)
It's a shame. Superficially it looks a lot like Java with all the good stuff from Ruby in it, but Groovy is really hampered by its compatibility with Java.
0 evaluating as false is really incredibly annoying, and a major cause of bugs.
You don't need to write/generate lexers/parsers. The DSL can be legal Groovy. You just need a handful of methods that read it and turn it into the datastructures you need. It would be a lot of extra work in a more static language.
Slashdot Mirror
From an economical standpoint, you could've spent those 120 hours into creating more value which would exponentially enlarge your initial investment and pay someone 50$ to be entertained in your place, so you could free up those 120 hours for a decent return-investment.
Just saying...
Just saying that the only value in life is in making money? Personally I prefer to see money as a tool to make my life enjoyable, rather than a goal that requires the sacrifice of all joy in my life.
Depends. If you see it as an investment (it costs you, and you want something back for your precious time), then it's poor value. If you see it as "play time" (you pay $50 to enjoy yourself for 40+ hours), then it's excellent value for money.
Under whose sovereignity is the new island going to be under? Do we really want the Netherlands to have it?
Anyone else though about how rich the Dutch are going to be if global warming keeps up and Greenland thaws out?
Rich? If Greenland thaws out, we're going to need a new place to live. So yeah, why not let us have that floating island in the Pacific that we're going to make?
This is, frankly, bullshit. Human brains don't work that way. You can't simply decide to become more confident and reprogram your subconscious responses to conform.
Actually, you can. It's not easy, certainly not trivial, but it can be done.
I don't see what's so wrong about helping the victims.
Jail and self-defense training are two different things. Teaching someone to stand up for themselves doesn't have to be a punishment.
Fulfillment = happiness (from emotion) + success (from intelligence) + freedom (from wisdom)
I'd make this a multiplication rather than a simple addition. I don't think lots and lots and lots of success without any happiness or freedom is terribly fulfilling. If it's addition, it doesn't matter which one you raise. You might as well increase what you already have. With multiplication, increasing the lowest value increases the total score a lot more than if you increase the highest value. So it's best to work on what's missing.
So what is "emotion" here? Is that Charisma? Because I always thought that was a dump stat. Maybe that's the problem.
I don't see why browsers can't add a similar fullscreen button to their video. There's nothing magical about Flash that allows it to do stuff other programs can't.
The HTML5 canvas element and Java's AWT "Graphics" element are very alike. I wonder how long it takes for someone to program a converter, so all java applet/mobile games are available as HTML5 games?
Hasn't Google already done something like that?
It still seems odd to me that in the US, paid-for female companionship is so common as you suggest. It's by no means illegal here, but my impression is most women would have too much pride for that. Cultural differences I guess.
It's a derivative of "leg godt" in Dutch, which means "play well"
Danish. I thought the fad of Americans confusing Dutch with Danish had finally disappeared. How hard can it be to use the correct name for a language?
Even $10k for a wedding sounds horribly expensive to me. Why do you need 100 guests?
To share. It's a choice. One of the greatest weddings I've attended (other than my own) was probably far, far cheaper than that. A farm, a caterer, and a hundred people eating out in the field on simple wooden benches.
And how many women do you see with plain gold wedding bands? That's a male thing; women always want giant diamonds.
Not in my country. Men and women traditionally wear the same design (though men a few sizes larger). I don't think I've ever seen anyone with a diamond wedding ring. It seems silly to turn something so serious into something so garish.
I'm not bitching about my choices; I spent far less than even your numbers. I'm bitching about what I see other Americans doing.
It's their choice. As long as they can afford it and want to pay that much, why not let them? As long as they're aware of the choices they're making.
For most men in our society, having female companionship is very expensive: $20,000 diamond rings, $100,000 weddings, giant wardrobes full of designer clothes, hundreds of shoes, etc.
What society is that, where most people can afford that? Or do you live in a country that has a dollar that's worth about US$0.10?
Where I live, you can marry for free if you want to. $10,000 gets you a very nice wedding with over a hundred guests. Wedding rings tend to be plain gold (a couple of hundred dollars if they have a unique design), though wedding tattoos are gaining in popularity.
Of course if you want more than that, you can always choose to spend more. But if you don't, then don't. Don't go bitching about the choices you make.
To me, a walk with my wife costs me time that I don't have, and maybe $20 for a babysitter, but otherwise it's free.
WISE, especially, according to projections based on pre-launch specs will be able to identify the following:
* Gliese 229B to 150 lightyears
* A brown dwarf warmer than 200 K to 4 lightyears
* A freefloating planet like Jupiter to 1 lightyear.
Nice, but how do you figure out where to look?
When you have a University of 10,000~30,000 kids,
it is literally a small town of its own.
It's easier for everyone to deputize the security force and let them deal with things on campus.
Keeping the peace, handing out minor fines, sure I can see that. But handling actual crime? That sounds like an amazingly bad idea to put that in the hands of a private security firm.
I recently read an article that pointed out that the best geniuses are terribly lazy. You don't invent an easier way of doing something when you're okay with doing all the old-fashioned hard work. The wheel wasn't invented by someone who thought it was normal to carry heavy loads on his back.
Any first-year CS student can write a fart-app or flashlight-app in 10 minutes, and thus there are hundreds of them in the app store and the price is driven down to $0.99 (or even free).
Are you seriously saying anyone would pay as much as $1 for a fart app?
But also that it's worth it in the end.
What you're referring to as Linux, is in fact, GNU/Linux, or as I've recently taken to calling it, GNU plus Linux.
Here's a kleenex.
Note that Apple granting OLPC a free license to use multi-touch doesn't mean everybody else can use it for free too.
(I already posted this, but Slashdot seems to be very buggy today.)
Note that Apple granting OLPC a free license to use multi-touch doesn't mean everybody else can use it for free too.
How is that better than perl, python, javascript, ruby, php, (ok not php), or any other interpreted language with an eval() function?
Not perl or javascript either, I hope. Python and Ruby are a very similar crowd to Groovy, as far as I can tell. (Personally I prefer Ruby; Groovy has too many Javaisms.)
It's a shame. Superficially it looks a lot like Java with all the good stuff from Ruby in it, but Groovy is really hampered by its compatibility with Java.
0 evaluating as false is really incredibly annoying, and a major cause of bugs.
yeah and contraly to groovy it is type-safe and functional
And fast!
You don't need to write/generate lexers/parsers. The DSL can be legal Groovy. You just need a handful of methods that read it and turn it into the datastructures you need. It would be a lot of extra work in a more static language.