Noone RTFA. The foundation's not in trouble, that was taken out of context. They have four months of cash reserves, which is good for a project that uses that much bandwidth. Good for them. Next time they have a funding goal I'll donate, if I'm employed at the time.
Some people tend to not understand what a computer is doing. When someone else comes along and says, "Yeah, it's working," and knows that it's working, the problem is often in user education rather than system status. Correct operation is - especially in computers - reliant upon an understanding that the way the computer is operating is appropriate for the situation.
Bah. The cut throat and capitalistic nature of the economy is based upon the conditions which are preset. The entire BPO idea was fundamentally flawed, and invention has not solved the problem. It will not, without much higher run BPC's.
Actually, the truly uber equipment in EVE are the officer modules. But using a bunch of T2 stuff to acquire them a lot more easily sounds about par for the course. Realistically, hammering a few core devs back to absolute newbies might be a great thing for the game; they'll learn - if they really play from the absolute beginning again - a lot about how the game works. Hopefully the dev that handed out BPO's will try a manufacturing / trade char. That would be nice. Overall, though, I'm not surprised at all. Too many things are going one way in the game. There are still stories passed around in our corp about 'events' getting scheduled where the events team came around in sets of faction BS's and slaughtered everyone, allowing a different corp to finish off a POS.
Things like this can cause bad blood for years. Honestly, I wish they had absolutely emptied the inventory of the richest five chars in BoB. Cheating? Start it all over in a Velator. Alts too. Good luck, have fun.
No, the implication is that reporting something important fifty times with slightly differing results is the mean average as far as Slashdot is concerned.
Actually, wouldn't increasing gravity be a better solution?
And to do that, all we really need to do is crash the moon into Asia. That should increase gravity by, like a lot.
Well, I guess you're watching your reputation pretty closely. Good luck in your endeavor; regardless of whether it manages to reach the size you wish it to, it will definitely be useful to have a second starting point for research.
Part of the fun just might be contributing to the continued usefulness of an information resource that millions of people use. Maybe not 'fun' in the sense you're thinking of, but certainly a much more responsible type of fun than, eg, vandalism.
I just wanted to read a few articles. I can't. Sorry, but that means I have to give you an e-mail address. Major flaw, sorry, game over.
I can't even be bothered to read into the docs to find out whether they're going to try and make money on this somehow. Well written Slashvertisement, but Wikipedia is obviously a very good source or not so many would use it. Semi-anonymous editors seem to be hammering out the graffiti pretty well regardless.
What if you say, "Bugger all this, it's too pragmatic," and finish with a Philosophy degree?
The problem with creating this hierarchy is that in the end there's someone who's an idiot, when really the problem is more motivational. Neat if you're worried about your penis size, silly if you want to actually function well within the world around you.
I read all the reviews, tried all the players, and bought an iPod. They're just a little better than the rest in one or two ways that matter.
It's got to do with the interface. It's so smooth it feels like 'magic.'
Remember that the first iPods weren't that popular either; it was just in the last three years or so that they got the bugs worked out and started printing money. It's a big matter of luck, too - hard drive space is at just the absolute perfect place for 'hold all your music.' Not too big so you feel like you're wasting it, not too small. Apple's gotten really lucky, but they've also been pretty good about keeping a slight edge over the competition.
They're going to get creamed in the cell phone market.
Great. So because you can get into a school and manage to get the funding, you're supposed to be guaranteed a degree? If a professor says, "I don't like Wikipedia references because of X, Y, and Z," and then someone turns in a paper with extensive references to it, there is a problem. A problem that merits significant marking down. Saying, "We categorically will not accept Wikipedia references," is kind of silly; using the Wiki as a starting point is a decent idea. So if you turn a paper in that relies completely upon it as a source, you are guilty of not paying attention and not thinking about something you should be taking seriously. Ergo you should fail, IMHO.
The reason I'm not very interested in undergraduate academia anymore is because they don't tell you to get bent often enough. If you can get in, and pay some semblance of attention, you get out with a piece of paper. Is that bloody worthless or what? By lowering the bar so much, there is no real achievement in graduation.
Then fail them. The inability to think critically is something that should be a prerequisite for a college degree. Sorry, you can't even think your way out of a paper box. Try again. Anyone can figure it out given time.
You're right, I'm saying it's a zero sum game. This is not completely true, nor what I had meant to say. What I had meant to say is that currently economics - while not being a zero sum system - is not growing 'pie' fast enough to keep up with the imaginary pie. This is leading to extremely disproportionate distribution of wealth; the rich are working on projected pie, while the poor and soon-to-be-poor are working with whatever real stuff they can get their hands on. The real stuff is getting less and less available to the overall population because of the way money moves to try and change the fact that growth does not happen as fast as people with capital want it to. This means that only the people connected with the movement of the money are completely capable of defending themselves - and even them not forever.
You mentioned continually increasing quality of life, but I do not believe that this will be the case over the next few decades. Perhaps. One can hope. But I see quality of life in a broad downhill trend internationally.
In coming into the original Ponzi scheme, you invested. You made the bank worth marginally more. Then, over time, the overall value of the money you had originally invested was increased. (doubled every month, as I remember) This led to the total value of the bank being much less than its total debits.
This is the way I understand modern economics as working. The pie is 10 slices big, but 1000 of them exist on paper.
I hate to put it this way, but that's nowhere near true. If you look at the wikipedia entry on Nazi Propaganda, it will be a great enlightenment to you. Fascism always included extensive information management. Democracy shouldn't, and isn't designed to, but the last fifty years have had backsliding induced by fearmongers.
Bolshevism and Fascism are both comparatively bad forms of government by certain standards. Government rooted in non-militia military power generally is.
What, you're surprised government is a Ponzi scheme?
Try, "All of Western society." Basing large organizations on finance resembles nothing more than using a just in time compiler to me. The amusing thing is that it appears there's no way people are smart enough as a whole to either design or accept a more intelligent solution.
Reading the Wikipedia article on Ponzi shows something quite interesting - he gave people exactly what they wanted, and the only ones to get advantageous results were those who cashed out right before it all fell apart. Just another story of catastrophic market failure; I love how everyone sees these things coming and noone says, "Wait. How do we stop this before it gets too big?"
You might bring up - and this is a purely hypothetical point, because you're going to be going into the lion's den asking for fairness here - the fact that anyone who develops open source or code at all is ideologically in competition with Microsoft in some way, shape, or form.... Thus your competitors are obviously the only ones interested in editing the page in a completely negative manner at the moment. Unless your product is really that bad - I won't insert the proper dig here.
Point is, you should have a fair shake. That's not to say that the article - as I read it five minutes ago - is not pretty impartial as-is, IMHO. As soon as the legitimate beef came up, it became a pretty skeleton'ish thing with a (hopefully) intelligent attached 'talk' section that goes through the entire debate in all its horrifically standards-excited glory. Ergo, you got what you wanted and didn't even have to pay El Blogosphere for it. That's on time and under-budget if I ever saw it.
Well, since you're out in the open, I might as well ask you the question: Why not do this yourselves? If you think you can be more neutral about it than the current article is, why not follow the normal Wikipedia rules and just edit the article? Use your real name, use your professional title, do it above board, and save yourselves some money. Get authorization for someone who is NON-PR to correct the article as much as possible in a techie fashion then participate in the inevitably puerile fight until there is mediation. What ends up happening is all within the normal confines of Wikipedia's rules. Hiring someone to use their community standing to the benefit of Microsoft is apparently causing more than a few waves. And it just looks bad all around.
Slashdot Mirror
Noone RTFA. The foundation's not in trouble, that was taken out of context. They have four months of cash reserves, which is good for a project that uses that much bandwidth. Good for them. Next time they have a funding goal I'll donate, if I'm employed at the time.
Um......................
Some people tend to not understand what a computer is doing. When someone else comes along and says, "Yeah, it's working," and knows that it's working, the problem is often in user education rather than system status. Correct operation is - especially in computers - reliant upon an understanding that the way the computer is operating is appropriate for the situation.
Bah. The cut throat and capitalistic nature of the economy is based upon the conditions which are preset. The entire BPO idea was fundamentally flawed, and invention has not solved the problem. It will not, without much higher run BPC's.
Actually, the truly uber equipment in EVE are the officer modules. But using a bunch of T2 stuff to acquire them a lot more easily sounds about par for the course. Realistically, hammering a few core devs back to absolute newbies might be a great thing for the game; they'll learn - if they really play from the absolute beginning again - a lot about how the game works. Hopefully the dev that handed out BPO's will try a manufacturing / trade char. That would be nice. Overall, though, I'm not surprised at all. Too many things are going one way in the game. There are still stories passed around in our corp about 'events' getting scheduled where the events team came around in sets of faction BS's and slaughtered everyone, allowing a different corp to finish off a POS.
Things like this can cause bad blood for years. Honestly, I wish they had absolutely emptied the inventory of the richest five chars in BoB. Cheating? Start it all over in a Velator. Alts too. Good luck, have fun.
No, the implication is that reporting something important fifty times with slightly differing results is the mean average as far as Slashdot is concerned.
Actually, wouldn't increasing gravity be a better solution? And to do that, all we really need to do is crash the moon into Asia. That should increase gravity by, like a lot.
Well, I guess you're watching your reputation pretty closely. Good luck in your endeavor; regardless of whether it manages to reach the size you wish it to, it will definitely be useful to have a second starting point for research.
Part of the fun just might be contributing to the continued usefulness of an information resource that millions of people use. Maybe not 'fun' in the sense you're thinking of, but certainly a much more responsible type of fun than, eg, vandalism.
That was just an act to get into your pants. Sorry to have to tell you this way.
I just wanted to read a few articles. I can't. Sorry, but that means I have to give you an e-mail address. Major flaw, sorry, game over.
I can't even be bothered to read into the docs to find out whether they're going to try and make money on this somehow. Well written Slashvertisement, but Wikipedia is obviously a very good source or not so many would use it. Semi-anonymous editors seem to be hammering out the graffiti pretty well regardless.
What if you say, "Bugger all this, it's too pragmatic," and finish with a Philosophy degree?
The problem with creating this hierarchy is that in the end there's someone who's an idiot, when really the problem is more motivational. Neat if you're worried about your penis size, silly if you want to actually function well within the world around you.
I read all the reviews, tried all the players, and bought an iPod. They're just a little better than the rest in one or two ways that matter.
It's got to do with the interface. It's so smooth it feels like 'magic.'
Remember that the first iPods weren't that popular either; it was just in the last three years or so that they got the bugs worked out and started printing money. It's a big matter of luck, too - hard drive space is at just the absolute perfect place for 'hold all your music.' Not too big so you feel like you're wasting it, not too small. Apple's gotten really lucky, but they've also been pretty good about keeping a slight edge over the competition.
They're going to get creamed in the cell phone market.
(Boston Mayor): Tonight..... You!
Just went over the Hawthorne eastbound. Didn't see any. Wasn't really looking.
I would. Don't know where they'd put them, though.... Entrances to bridges maybe?
Great. So because you can get into a school and manage to get the funding, you're supposed to be guaranteed a degree? If a professor says, "I don't like Wikipedia references because of X, Y, and Z," and then someone turns in a paper with extensive references to it, there is a problem. A problem that merits significant marking down. Saying, "We categorically will not accept Wikipedia references," is kind of silly; using the Wiki as a starting point is a decent idea. So if you turn a paper in that relies completely upon it as a source, you are guilty of not paying attention and not thinking about something you should be taking seriously. Ergo you should fail, IMHO.
The reason I'm not very interested in undergraduate academia anymore is because they don't tell you to get bent often enough. If you can get in, and pay some semblance of attention, you get out with a piece of paper. Is that bloody worthless or what? By lowering the bar so much, there is no real achievement in graduation.
Then fail them. The inability to think critically is something that should be a prerequisite for a college degree. Sorry, you can't even think your way out of a paper box. Try again. Anyone can figure it out given time.
Heh. Why not? They're great games. Just great stuff all around. :>
You're right, I'm saying it's a zero sum game. This is not completely true, nor what I had meant to say. What I had meant to say is that currently economics - while not being a zero sum system - is not growing 'pie' fast enough to keep up with the imaginary pie. This is leading to extremely disproportionate distribution of wealth; the rich are working on projected pie, while the poor and soon-to-be-poor are working with whatever real stuff they can get their hands on. The real stuff is getting less and less available to the overall population because of the way money moves to try and change the fact that growth does not happen as fast as people with capital want it to. This means that only the people connected with the movement of the money are completely capable of defending themselves - and even them not forever.
You mentioned continually increasing quality of life, but I do not believe that this will be the case over the next few decades. Perhaps. One can hope. But I see quality of life in a broad downhill trend internationally.
In coming into the original Ponzi scheme, you invested. You made the bank worth marginally more. Then, over time, the overall value of the money you had originally invested was increased. (doubled every month, as I remember) This led to the total value of the bank being much less than its total debits.
This is the way I understand modern economics as working. The pie is 10 slices big, but 1000 of them exist on paper.
I hate to put it this way, but that's nowhere near true. If you look at the wikipedia entry on Nazi Propaganda, it will be a great enlightenment to you. Fascism always included extensive information management. Democracy shouldn't, and isn't designed to, but the last fifty years have had backsliding induced by fearmongers.
Bolshevism and Fascism are both comparatively bad forms of government by certain standards. Government rooted in non-militia military power generally is.
What, you're surprised government is a Ponzi scheme?
Try, "All of Western society." Basing large organizations on finance resembles nothing more than using a just in time compiler to me. The amusing thing is that it appears there's no way people are smart enough as a whole to either design or accept a more intelligent solution.
Reading the Wikipedia article on Ponzi shows something quite interesting - he gave people exactly what they wanted, and the only ones to get advantageous results were those who cashed out right before it all fell apart. Just another story of catastrophic market failure; I love how everyone sees these things coming and noone says, "Wait. How do we stop this before it gets too big?"
You might bring up - and this is a purely hypothetical point, because you're going to be going into the lion's den asking for fairness here - the fact that anyone who develops open source or code at all is ideologically in competition with Microsoft in some way, shape, or form.... Thus your competitors are obviously the only ones interested in editing the page in a completely negative manner at the moment. Unless your product is really that bad - I won't insert the proper dig here.
Point is, you should have a fair shake. That's not to say that the article - as I read it five minutes ago - is not pretty impartial as-is, IMHO. As soon as the legitimate beef came up, it became a pretty skeleton'ish thing with a (hopefully) intelligent attached 'talk' section that goes through the entire debate in all its horrifically standards-excited glory. Ergo, you got what you wanted and didn't even have to pay El Blogosphere for it. That's on time and under-budget if I ever saw it.
Well, since you're out in the open, I might as well ask you the question:
Why not do this yourselves? If you think you can be more neutral about it than the current article is, why not follow the normal Wikipedia rules and just edit the article? Use your real name, use your professional title, do it above board, and save yourselves some money. Get authorization for someone who is NON-PR to correct the article as much as possible in a techie fashion then participate in the inevitably puerile fight until there is mediation. What ends up happening is all within the normal confines of Wikipedia's rules. Hiring someone to use their community standing to the benefit of Microsoft is apparently causing more than a few waves. And it just looks bad all around.
Bah. Who wants to interface at only 100Mbit?
My question is whether this will affect spinal column injuries.