The problem here is inertia. Americans seem to despise the $1 coins and don't want to give up $1 notes at all. Plus, vending machines (which are ubiquitous) almost always take dollar bills but I've never seen one (outside a post office stamp machine) that uses the dollar coins!
In the US, rules for rounding would have to be set at least at a state level, if not a federal level. Americans will scream bloody murder if there's inconsistency between how it's done when they go from one establishment to the next.
Indeed, Bitcoins aren't as far off other currencies as its proponents think. Bitcoins represent an amount of work done within the Bitcoin network (given that they are "minted" that way), while fiat currency essentially represents an amount of labor done to acquire it. You sell your labor to get money--with Bitcoin, you are "selling" your computer's labor. (A gross oversimplification, but I think it's interesting.)
Whitman's full of shit. Google has no reason to close the source of Android since Android itself is not a sold product and Google seems to have no interest in turning it into one. The only reason Android has become so popular is because it's free and open source. It saves the manufacturers money.
That said, if HP opens webOS, I would be happy to see that. It's actually a good mobile operating system and it's a shame it's gotten so little attention. Even if it doesn't end up being used for phones, it would be a good choice for tablets and other mobile devices.
Except to use cash, you have to go out in public. You know, where there are often cameras. And most stores don't take kindly to people walking in wearing ski masks and gloves to conceal their faces and fingerprints.
My argument is that the marginal cost of SMS messages is zero, so whatever it costs the cell phone carrier to offer that service to you should be a flat fee for unlimited usage, or just be bundled into your plan from the start, but not metered by how many texts you use. Essentially, it costs just as much for the carrier to offer SMS to a person who texts once a month as it does to offer that service to someone who sends 10,000 texts a month. It should be priced accordingly. Obviously, they are entitled to put a profit margin on it so it goes above and beyond what it costs to provide that service, but I think it's difficult to justify charging for texts based on how many you use.
SMS doesn't technically take any additional airtime at all: the messages are sent via the control channel required to keep your phone "alive" to nearby cells in the first place--the marginal cost of a text message is zero, since the data is going to be used regardless. Charging extra for SMS is nothing but a naked money grab.
Surely you aren't suggesting that clothed teenagers are on par with naked preteens.
(I've not viewed the "jailbait" forum at SA but I assume Lowtax isn't stupid enough to allow actual naked minors on the forums. "Jailbait" forums are usually just clothed teenagers, admittedly often in provocative poses.)
India is huge in the services sector, as well, particularly call centers of various types. They also have a booming software industry, benefiting from a lot of outsourcing from the US and Europe.
I assume you were referring to YouTube. The problem with YouTube is that any video you upload is going to be transcoded for their storage, so anything you've hidden in the bits of the video is going to be lost or at least seriously corrupted.
You know, it's fine if Microsoft wants to stop having to support old applications in their current version of Windows, but if they want to keep corporate customers happy they will have no choice but support something that can still run those old apps. Something like the "XP Mode" of Vista/7, that runs a virtualized XP instance.
There are some applications that a company simply isn't going to abandon or upgrade because it's too costly to do so, or not even possible. Think applications that someone wrote 10+ years ago, the source has been lost, the original programmer(s) no longer work there, and it's tied into a mission critical function. Programs like this do exist and no company is just going to accept Microsoft saying, "Yeah, sorry, but we don't support that anymore and we won't even sell you an OS license for a version of Windows that can run it."
As much as MS would love to keep everyone on a 2-3 year upgrade treadmill, they're never going to completely eliminate the need for legacy support. What would be nice is something like DOSBox, but for Win32 applications, and preferably with a free license. I don't know if ReactOS is there yet, but that would be a good start. It would be a bit ironic if Microsoft finally stopped having to deal with legacy apps because others implemented a free version of the Windows API, as happened with DOS.
Short of that, I hope MS is prepared to keep selling XP licenses until the end of time.:-p
Yeah, that sounds like somebody going out of their way to rip off the store. I doubt the people processing returns are going to do more than open the box and see that the contents are there and shrinkwrapped. With how many returns stores process, it may not be practical to give them more than a cursory examination.
One of the weirdest things that happened to me was when I bought PC game, took it home, and the CD was... well, it wasn't manufactured right, somehow. Where you'd normally find the silver, reflective data side of the CD, there was instead this sticky greenish-brown film. I took it back to the store, they said, "We don't do refunds on PC games." I showed them the disc and they were flabbergasted. They grabbed the other copy they still had on the shelf, opened it up, and found the same thing. Guess there was a bad batch or something. But they gave me my money back since they didn't have any other copies and it was obvious the ones they did have were defective.
Yeah, and then their rates skyrocket because they had an accident. The implication of the post I replied to seemed to be that this program created a perverse incentive to have accidents or drive in such a way that you'll have more accidents. But if that actually happens, then those people's rates are gonna get jacked up anyway. That means the real behavior modification involved by the knowledge that you're being monitored is likely minimal, aside from encourage you to consciously drive in a safer manner.
Yeah, that was a really retarded thing for him to say. YouTube complies with the DMCA and takes down anything it gets notified about. There will not be some huge lawsuit because YouTube isn't actively policing its content, unless something like SOPA/PIPA becomes law. Besides that, he even admitted most of it is really lousy quality. So what the fuck is he worried about? If someone cares about quality, they'll go get the music from a more quality source--and perhaps pay for it! How novel!
And YouTube even provides links to purchase songs, so it's completely asinine to imply YouTube is somehow promoting infringement and thus ripping off artists. It's helping artists, so maybe he should shut the fuck up.
I could be wrong (or my information out of date), but my understanding is that modern reactors produce much less waste because the waste they do produce can actually be used to fuel other reactors, and so on for a few production generations, so that the final waste products are much less than what used to be typical. There is still waste, of course, but the situation is not nearly as bad as it used to be.
This particular problem could be solved by requiring auto insurance companies to be run as nonprofits. Let them do all the monitoring they want and set rates based on risk--but they don't get to shave money off the top for executives/investors to pocket. You'd pay what it actually costs to insure you, rather than that amount plus a budget-mandated profit margin.
You're assuming someone's first thought when encountering a potential accident situation is, "How will this affect my insurance?" Given that there's typically a split-second decision required, it's not going to have a damn thing to do with one's insurance rates. A driver will react to the extent that they can size up the situation and formulate a response quickly. Driving is a skill like anything else--some accidents may be avoidable in the hands of a more skilled driver.
No one's going to avoid braking sharply in a potential accident just to keep their insurance rates low. Not because they wouldn't want to, but because situations like that are decided by baser skills and instincts. You'll be thinking, "Fuck, I don't want to have an accident!" not "Gee, I better not brake too hard in avoiding this accident because of what it will do to my rates."
For that matter, if you find yourself in a situation where you do have to brake hard to avoid an accident, you've just demonstrated that you have a risk of accidents. If such a situation occurs once every six months or so, and you don't have an accident, I doubt the insurance company is going to worry much about it. If you're having close calls several times a week? Well, no shit they are going to charge you more. But then people who drive like that are probably not going to sign up for a program like this anyway.
Sorry, but this is bullshit. I wasn't "born with [a] personalit[y] where this all comes so easily." I used to be quite shy and lacking in confidence, but I got tired of not getting what I wanted out of life and made a conscious change to behave differently. And you know what? It works.
No, it's not easy, and results don't come overnight, but the sort of change you need to make it happen can only come from yourself.
A lot of guys who claim to be "nice guys" are in fact timid doormats who secretly crush on their female friends then get upset when they finally try to act upon their feelings, only to get "friend-zoned." Guys like that think they're owed something for all the time and energy they put into the friendship, which makes them pretty fucking sleazy when you get right down to it.
If you're interested in someone, be up front about it, be confident, and don't take rejection personally. Yes, I know it's easy to say that, but that's really all there is to it. Women aren't going to fall all over you just because you're there, you have to go out and do the work yourself.
Riiiight. Because it couldn't at all be possible to have a settings page like this:
From which sites do you wish to permit push notifications? slashdot.org news.google.com cnn.com
No, your browser would have to accept (and display!) every single notification ever sent to you. Makes perfect sense.
And for each little notification bubble, why couldn't there be a little button? "Don't allow any more notifications from this service." Done.
It's like saying you just have to deal with spam emails. No, you don't. That's what spam filters, whitelists, etc. are for. This sort of service sounds like it would be whitelist-based to begin with, so anyone who abuses the service can easily be blocked.
Slashdot Mirror
The problem here is inertia. Americans seem to despise the $1 coins and don't want to give up $1 notes at all. Plus, vending machines (which are ubiquitous) almost always take dollar bills but I've never seen one (outside a post office stamp machine) that uses the dollar coins!
In the US, rules for rounding would have to be set at least at a state level, if not a federal level. Americans will scream bloody murder if there's inconsistency between how it's done when they go from one establishment to the next.
Indeed, Bitcoins aren't as far off other currencies as its proponents think. Bitcoins represent an amount of work done within the Bitcoin network (given that they are "minted" that way), while fiat currency essentially represents an amount of labor done to acquire it. You sell your labor to get money--with Bitcoin, you are "selling" your computer's labor. (A gross oversimplification, but I think it's interesting.)
Whitman's full of shit. Google has no reason to close the source of Android since Android itself is not a sold product and Google seems to have no interest in turning it into one. The only reason Android has become so popular is because it's free and open source. It saves the manufacturers money.
That said, if HP opens webOS, I would be happy to see that. It's actually a good mobile operating system and it's a shame it's gotten so little attention. Even if it doesn't end up being used for phones, it would be a good choice for tablets and other mobile devices.
Except to use cash, you have to go out in public. You know, where there are often cameras. And most stores don't take kindly to people walking in wearing ski masks and gloves to conceal their faces and fingerprints.
My argument is that the marginal cost of SMS messages is zero, so whatever it costs the cell phone carrier to offer that service to you should be a flat fee for unlimited usage, or just be bundled into your plan from the start, but not metered by how many texts you use. Essentially, it costs just as much for the carrier to offer SMS to a person who texts once a month as it does to offer that service to someone who sends 10,000 texts a month. It should be priced accordingly. Obviously, they are entitled to put a profit margin on it so it goes above and beyond what it costs to provide that service, but I think it's difficult to justify charging for texts based on how many you use.
SMS doesn't technically take any additional airtime at all: the messages are sent via the control channel required to keep your phone "alive" to nearby cells in the first place--the marginal cost of a text message is zero, since the data is going to be used regardless. Charging extra for SMS is nothing but a naked money grab.
No, you're thinking of Rodgers and Hammerstein.
Even once he finds his Blackberry, there's not much chance of the email getting to anyone.
Oh!
Surely you aren't suggesting that clothed teenagers are on par with naked preteens.
(I've not viewed the "jailbait" forum at SA but I assume Lowtax isn't stupid enough to allow actual naked minors on the forums. "Jailbait" forums are usually just clothed teenagers, admittedly often in provocative poses.)
India is huge in the services sector, as well, particularly call centers of various types. They also have a booming software industry, benefiting from a lot of outsourcing from the US and Europe.
That's one of my biggest peeves about Slashdot. "I wouldn't use this, therefore it can't possibly be of use to anyone!" Grow up already.
I assume you were referring to YouTube. The problem with YouTube is that any video you upload is going to be transcoded for their storage, so anything you've hidden in the bits of the video is going to be lost or at least seriously corrupted.
You know, it's fine if Microsoft wants to stop having to support old applications in their current version of Windows, but if they want to keep corporate customers happy they will have no choice but support something that can still run those old apps. Something like the "XP Mode" of Vista/7, that runs a virtualized XP instance.
There are some applications that a company simply isn't going to abandon or upgrade because it's too costly to do so, or not even possible. Think applications that someone wrote 10+ years ago, the source has been lost, the original programmer(s) no longer work there, and it's tied into a mission critical function. Programs like this do exist and no company is just going to accept Microsoft saying, "Yeah, sorry, but we don't support that anymore and we won't even sell you an OS license for a version of Windows that can run it."
As much as MS would love to keep everyone on a 2-3 year upgrade treadmill, they're never going to completely eliminate the need for legacy support. What would be nice is something like DOSBox, but for Win32 applications, and preferably with a free license. I don't know if ReactOS is there yet, but that would be a good start. It would be a bit ironic if Microsoft finally stopped having to deal with legacy apps because others implemented a free version of the Windows API, as happened with DOS.
Short of that, I hope MS is prepared to keep selling XP licenses until the end of time. :-p
Yeah, that sounds like somebody going out of their way to rip off the store. I doubt the people processing returns are going to do more than open the box and see that the contents are there and shrinkwrapped. With how many returns stores process, it may not be practical to give them more than a cursory examination.
One of the weirdest things that happened to me was when I bought PC game, took it home, and the CD was... well, it wasn't manufactured right, somehow. Where you'd normally find the silver, reflective data side of the CD, there was instead this sticky greenish-brown film. I took it back to the store, they said, "We don't do refunds on PC games." I showed them the disc and they were flabbergasted. They grabbed the other copy they still had on the shelf, opened it up, and found the same thing. Guess there was a bad batch or something. But they gave me my money back since they didn't have any other copies and it was obvious the ones they did have were defective.
Never encountered anything like it since then.
Yeah, and then their rates skyrocket because they had an accident. The implication of the post I replied to seemed to be that this program created a perverse incentive to have accidents or drive in such a way that you'll have more accidents. But if that actually happens, then those people's rates are gonna get jacked up anyway. That means the real behavior modification involved by the knowledge that you're being monitored is likely minimal, aside from encourage you to consciously drive in a safer manner.
Yeah, that was a really retarded thing for him to say. YouTube complies with the DMCA and takes down anything it gets notified about. There will not be some huge lawsuit because YouTube isn't actively policing its content, unless something like SOPA/PIPA becomes law. Besides that, he even admitted most of it is really lousy quality. So what the fuck is he worried about? If someone cares about quality, they'll go get the music from a more quality source--and perhaps pay for it! How novel!
And YouTube even provides links to purchase songs, so it's completely asinine to imply YouTube is somehow promoting infringement and thus ripping off artists. It's helping artists, so maybe he should shut the fuck up.
I could be wrong (or my information out of date), but my understanding is that modern reactors produce much less waste because the waste they do produce can actually be used to fuel other reactors, and so on for a few production generations, so that the final waste products are much less than what used to be typical. There is still waste, of course, but the situation is not nearly as bad as it used to be.
This particular problem could be solved by requiring auto insurance companies to be run as nonprofits. Let them do all the monitoring they want and set rates based on risk--but they don't get to shave money off the top for executives/investors to pocket. You'd pay what it actually costs to insure you, rather than that amount plus a budget-mandated profit margin.
But hey, that would be socialism or something.
You're assuming someone's first thought when encountering a potential accident situation is, "How will this affect my insurance?" Given that there's typically a split-second decision required, it's not going to have a damn thing to do with one's insurance rates. A driver will react to the extent that they can size up the situation and formulate a response quickly. Driving is a skill like anything else--some accidents may be avoidable in the hands of a more skilled driver.
No one's going to avoid braking sharply in a potential accident just to keep their insurance rates low. Not because they wouldn't want to, but because situations like that are decided by baser skills and instincts. You'll be thinking, "Fuck, I don't want to have an accident!" not "Gee, I better not brake too hard in avoiding this accident because of what it will do to my rates."
For that matter, if you find yourself in a situation where you do have to brake hard to avoid an accident, you've just demonstrated that you have a risk of accidents. If such a situation occurs once every six months or so, and you don't have an accident, I doubt the insurance company is going to worry much about it. If you're having close calls several times a week? Well, no shit they are going to charge you more. But then people who drive like that are probably not going to sign up for a program like this anyway.
Sorry, but this is bullshit. I wasn't "born with [a] personalit[y] where this all comes so easily." I used to be quite shy and lacking in confidence, but I got tired of not getting what I wanted out of life and made a conscious change to behave differently. And you know what? It works.
No, it's not easy, and results don't come overnight, but the sort of change you need to make it happen can only come from yourself.
A lot of guys who claim to be "nice guys" are in fact timid doormats who secretly crush on their female friends then get upset when they finally try to act upon their feelings, only to get "friend-zoned." Guys like that think they're owed something for all the time and energy they put into the friendship, which makes them pretty fucking sleazy when you get right down to it.
If you're interested in someone, be up front about it, be confident, and don't take rejection personally. Yes, I know it's easy to say that, but that's really all there is to it. Women aren't going to fall all over you just because you're there, you have to go out and do the work yourself.
Slashdot headlines (and summaries) are almost always editorialized to fit the audience. Deal with it, or find another news source.
Riiiight. Because it couldn't at all be possible to have a settings page like this:
From which sites do you wish to permit push notifications?
slashdot.org
news.google.com
cnn.com
No, your browser would have to accept (and display!) every single notification ever sent to you. Makes perfect sense.
And for each little notification bubble, why couldn't there be a little button? "Don't allow any more notifications from this service." Done.
It's like saying you just have to deal with spam emails. No, you don't. That's what spam filters, whitelists, etc. are for. This sort of service sounds like it would be whitelist-based to begin with, so anyone who abuses the service can easily be blocked.
+5 Insightful to such idiocy! Slashdotters love a good platitude, I guess.