Well yeah, that's true. I was just commenting on your original statement that said you were SOL, and that you simply don't lend them stuff in the future.
So your telling me that if I say, "Here have this ring, and take care of it, but I'm probably going to want it back at some point," but you turn around and sell it, it is theft? Now I know the law isn't always intuitive, and I could be wrong, but if I loan something to you, and you sell it, I think I'm SOL (and next time I won't trust you with my things.)
You're wrong. The key word here is loan. If I give you something, it's yours and you can do whatever you want with it. If I loan you something, and you sell it, you owe me the value of the object. In legal terms a loan means that the object is not yours and that you have a responsibility to return it when asked in the same condition that it was loaned in.
So even if you don't sell it, but you break it, you owe me for the cost to fix it.
In that case, you better hire a good hit man instead. Or how else do you want to keep them from talking to their colleagues outside of work ? Maybe they have their cellphone numbers, maybe they're even friends, maybe they even go out for a drink after work. Heck. Maybe they'll even us the internet in one form or another. Also, see above. The ones who do want really want to badmouth your company would be dumb if they gave any notice. They'll do what they want to do and then quit without notice.
Insightful? You're assuming that someone who leaves for another job is doing so because they hate the current one. The goal isn't to stop them from telling their friends and what not. Of course you can't stop that. What you can do, is stop them from telling every casual acquaintance that they are leaving for a "better" job.
There are a lot of people that I work near and with that I don't call and hang out with after work. If I got another job, I'd likely be telling those people that I did and why. If I weren't there they'd know I got another job, but I wouldn't be telling people how great it's going to be and what not.
Furthermore most people aren't exactly going to be 100% productive during that period. They certainly shouldn't start anything new. Also every momemnt an employee is at work there is a possibility they could injured.
I can certainly see why an employer wouldn't necessarily want to keep someone around who isn't doing much, yet is still a potential liability, and is basically telling everyone they are going to a job somewhere else which is better and maybe even saying, "Hey you should apply there too."
And I've never before owned a mobile phone, ever. I view them as universally sucking, year after year they add small features, move stuff around, and charge ever larger prices for them, trying to get people to replace them every few months. That's just put me off.
This is mostly true, except for the larger prices. Most places will give you a phone with a contract. If anything most phones are getting cheaper.
Text communication is also often slower. It takes forever to text something by typing it in, the record is what like 30-40 words a minute or something? The only way this wouldn't be true is to carry around a device with a large enough keyboard that would allow you type faster. This makes the device a lot larger, which something I do not want in a device I carry around with me everywhere. The other alternative is voice recognition, which if you're going to use you might as well just be talking to the other party. Also you have to wait for a response from the person you're texting.
To state that voice communication is going to disappear is absurd. I can only see texting people if you know that you or them can't talk or you have a real quick question like "can it run linux?" In the first case, there's very little information that I need so immediately that I couldn't call them later when we're both available or just email them. In the second case, it often takes less time to call them and go, "Hey this is so and so, can that thing run linux?" instead of spending 30 seconds punching it in.
Instant chat rooms on phones is even more ludicrous. I really don't understand that. I can maybe see texting a message or two in unusual circumstances, but to carry on full conversations this way at the amazing rate of 10 - 20 words a minute? No thanks.
Oh, and BTW.. Thanks for nothing MS... Thanks for STILL disallowing any non-MS program from being the VIEW SOURCE editor. Every occur to you that nobody likes Notepad?
Granted it's not as obvious as it should be, but it took me a few seconds to pull up how to do this on Google. I guess some people would rather rant and complain instead of searching for solutions to their problems.
What might be a good idea is a sort of email reverse dns lookup. So you can lookup the IP of the sending server and see if its registered to the domain that the message appears to be from. This probably opens up a world of other problems that I don't have time to consider though.
You've missed one possibility which is probably the most likely. If the box said it would take 80 hours, maybe he would not have bought it. Personally I don't really care myself as long as the game is good.
I can, however, understand that someone might want to take the game length into account when they have budgeted a certain amount of time for it. For example, what if a working college student with a social life decided they wanted to play for around an hour a day during the summer and they expect school to start in about a month at which point they won't have time anymore?
It may be this person has other commitments which make it difficult to play more than they've budgeted and are disappointed that they spent 40 hours playing a game that takes them 80 and as a result they won't be able to finish.
I don't know...but, aren't there more people in the US than in Canada? If so, then of course there would be more murders due to more people to kill or be killed.
The key here is murder RATES. Not just murders. Typically murder rates are per capita...you know like x number of murders for every y number people.
So basically your reasoning for being a prick was that someone else was a prick to you. Great.
That's the great thing about there being multiple languages and multiple ways of doing things. People get to choose to use the tools they like in the way they like.
I believe the reasoning is for reverse compatiblity with older scripts. I think perl 6 may make use strict the default.
Why are you so combative? I never said perl was better than ruby or python (I do like it, however), I merely said it had the feature they said it lacked. That doesn't imply that I think it's better, no does it imply that I think it's worse.
I don't recall saying I had a problem with snipers. In fact, I said I don't care about the snipers. I bid my max, if someone snipes the auction and wins that means they were willing to pay more then me for the item. In that case, they can have it because whether they sniped or not they were going to get it.
I said that snipers frustrate the incremental bidders. The people who would pay more but don't bid more and thus lose the item. If you bid the max amount you're willing to pay and let ebay take over, it doesn't matter what other people do you'll either get the item for a price you're willing to deal with (or less) or someone else will get it for more.
The main point of my post was that incremental bidding is irrational. When multiple people do it, it can dramatically raise the cost of the item to the bidder's own detriment. This is the precise thing the sellers want to have happen. Why would a buyer want to do this? The max bid strategy protects you from many of ebay's frustrations. You don't have to worry about being sniped, you don't have to worry that the seller is bidding it up, and you always pay what you feel is a fair price.
If the item is a common one, just bid your max (unless your max is significantly under the value of the item) and you'll eventually get it. If the item is a rare one, again bid your max. If you don't win you weren't willing to pay as much as someone else anyway.
The only reason sniping works at all is because people bid irrationally. I don't care whether people snipe my auctions or not because I do not bid irrationally. I don't care if people bid irrationally either because again, either they'll end up bidding more than me or they won't.
Obviously getting the item at a lower price is better. That, however, is not the point. Deciding the max you wish to spend ahead of time, bidding that, and allowing the ebay proxy bidding system to take over ensures that you always get a good deal. It's the incremental bidding that the poster describes that ensures the item goes for the highest price and provides the most frustration for getting sniped.
In my book, my maximum price means I won't feel bad about the purchase afterwards. The original poster stated they would pay $500 but would feel bad if they paid $475 while the others went for $100. By my definition, and I'd wager most others you've paid over the max if you feel bad about the purchase afterwards.
Basically there's two types of purchases on ebay. The first is common items, for which you can pick a max and bid until you win. The second is rare items that you really want. In both cases bidding the max price you're willing to pay ensures you'll find the best value with the least amount of frustration.
Let's say, for example, that there is some old game on eBay that I want to buy. I really want it, and I'd personally pay $500 for one to get my hands on it. But, from the eBay past auction history, I see that they usually sell for about $100. Now I don't know about you, but if I know something usually goes for about $100, I'd rather pay about $100 and use the extra $400 on something else. (See that? I would pay up to $500, if that was what they sold for. But, since they don't, I'd prefer to pay less.) I would hate to be the person who won one for $475 when the ones the week before and the week after went for $100.
This statement is contradictory. If you'd pay $500 to get a hold of something, you shouldn't feel bad about getting it for $475. The fact of the matter is you are saying you would not be willing to pay $500 after checking previous auctions and seeing that the item in question goes for $100.
So I put my early bid in at the average selling price, about $100. If I see the price go up to $101 and it's less than a few hours before it ends, I might bump it up to $110. That's still well below my maximum, but it's reasonable to me. If it goes up to $115, I might bump it up to $120. Or, maybe by then another one is listed, and I'll move to it. Or, I'll see that I'm bidding against 5-6 others, and so I'll pass this one up and wait for the demand to die down. I can't do any of those things if I start out with a bid of $150 - maybe I'd lose it, or maybe I'd pay $149 when five more were listed during the week - oversupplying the demand - at $100 each
If the item is worth $500 to you, you should be overjoyed at getting it for $150. If you get it for $150 and are upset the others went for $100, you paid too much, you should've bid a max of $100. The strategy you discuss above is irrational and is the only reason why sniping works. It does not make any sense to bid $100 if you would be willing to bump it to $120 later. Just start with $120. If someone snipes you for $125 they paid more than you were willing to pay. Simple as that.
Winning an auction isn't about getting the item at the lowest cost. It's about getting the item for less than or equal to what you were willing to pay.
I just put it in the system wide procmailrc file and it runs for everyone.
It will rename files based on a file extension list that you designate. In addition it changes the MIME type headers. This forces the user to save and rename the file before launching it.
The author indicates it's no longer maintained, but it works quite well nonetheless.
Slashdot Mirror
You give it to people who engage in high risk behavior and compare the infection rate with already established rates.
Well yeah, that's true. I was just commenting on your original statement that said you were SOL, and that you simply don't lend them stuff in the future.
So your telling me that if I say, "Here have this ring, and take care of it, but I'm probably going to want it back at some point," but you turn around and sell it, it is theft? Now I know the law isn't always intuitive, and I could be wrong, but if I loan something to you, and you sell it, I think I'm SOL (and next time I won't trust you with my things.)
You're wrong. The key word here is loan. If I give you something, it's yours and you can do whatever you want with it. If I loan you something, and you sell it, you owe me the value of the object. In legal terms a loan means that the object is not yours and that you have a responsibility to return it when asked in the same condition that it was loaned in.
So even if you don't sell it, but you break it, you owe me for the cost to fix it.
Your lack of ability to recognize sarcasm is rather scary.
In that case, you better hire a good hit man instead. Or how else do you want to keep them from talking to their colleagues outside of work ? Maybe they have their cellphone numbers, maybe they're even friends, maybe they even go out for a drink after work. Heck. Maybe they'll even us the internet in one form or another. Also, see above. The ones who do want really want to badmouth your company would be dumb if they gave any notice. They'll do what they want to do and then quit without notice.
Insightful? You're assuming that someone who leaves for another job is doing so because they hate the current one. The goal isn't to stop them from telling their friends and what not. Of course you can't stop that. What you can do, is stop them from telling every casual acquaintance that they are leaving for a "better" job.
There are a lot of people that I work near and with that I don't call and hang out with after work. If I got another job, I'd likely be telling those people that I did and why. If I weren't there they'd know I got another job, but I wouldn't be telling people how great it's going to be and what not.
Furthermore most people aren't exactly going to be 100% productive during that period. They certainly shouldn't start anything new. Also every momemnt an employee is at work there is a possibility they could injured.
I can certainly see why an employer wouldn't necessarily want to keep someone around who isn't doing much, yet is still a potential liability, and is basically telling everyone they are going to a job somewhere else which is better and maybe even saying, "Hey you should apply there too."
Maybe you should send out some resumes. Doesn't sound like a fun work environment to me.
And I've never before owned a mobile phone, ever. I view them as universally sucking, year after year they add small features, move stuff around, and charge ever larger prices for them, trying to get people to replace them every few months. That's just put me off.
This is mostly true, except for the larger prices. Most places will give you a phone with a contract. If anything most phones are getting cheaper.
I don't get it. You can't be this clueless, so it must be a joke. Could someone explain it to me?
Text communication is also often slower. It takes forever to text something by typing it in, the record is what like 30-40 words a minute or something? The only way this wouldn't be true is to carry around a device with a large enough keyboard that would allow you type faster. This makes the device a lot larger, which something I do not want in a device I carry around with me everywhere. The other alternative is voice recognition, which if you're going to use you might as well just be talking to the other party. Also you have to wait for a response from the person you're texting.
To state that voice communication is going to disappear is absurd. I can only see texting people if you know that you or them can't talk or you have a real quick question like "can it run linux?" In the first case, there's very little information that I need so immediately that I couldn't call them later when we're both available or just email them. In the second case, it often takes less time to call them and go, "Hey this is so and so, can that thing run linux?" instead of spending 30 seconds punching it in.
Instant chat rooms on phones is even more ludicrous. I really don't understand that. I can maybe see texting a message or two in unusual circumstances, but to carry on full conversations this way at the amazing rate of 10 - 20 words a minute? No thanks.
Oh, and BTW
Granted it's not as obvious as it should be, but it took me a few seconds to pull up how to do this on Google. I guess some people would rather rant and complain instead of searching for solutions to their problems.
Here, this one's for you:
http://www.google.com/search?&q=explorer+view+sou
What might be a good idea is a sort of email reverse dns lookup. So you can lookup the IP of the sending server and see if its registered to the domain that the message appears to be from. This probably opens up a world of other problems that I don't have time to consider though.
o rk
Congradulations, you've invented SPF: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sender_Policy_Framew
Unfortunately, while somewhat effective, SPF breaks mail forwarding.
Mmm...depends on your preferences I guess. ;-p
Just go to pornotube.com instead.
You've missed one possibility which is probably the most likely. If the box said it would take 80 hours, maybe he would not have bought it. Personally I don't really care myself as long as the game is good.
I can, however, understand that someone might want to take the game length into account when they have budgeted a certain amount of time for it. For example, what if a working college student with a social life decided they wanted to play for around an hour a day during the summer and they expect school to start in about a month at which point they won't have time anymore?
It may be this person has other commitments which make it difficult to play more than they've budgeted and are disappointed that they spent 40 hours playing a game that takes them 80 and as a result they won't be able to finish.
And Sept 23rd is talk like A Homosexual Coming-Out to His Parents Day!!!
Ah yes, talk like a butt pirate day. Can't we just lump that in with talk like a pirate day?
You wrote Firefox? I'm impressed.
I don't know...but, aren't there more people in the US than in Canada? If so, then of course there would be more murders due to more people to kill or be killed.
The key here is murder RATES. Not just murders. Typically murder rates are per capita...you know like x number of murders for every y number people.
So basically your reasoning for being a prick was that someone else was a prick to you. Great.
That's the great thing about there being multiple languages and multiple ways of doing things. People get to choose to use the tools they like in the way they like.
I believe the reasoning is for reverse compatiblity with older scripts. I think perl 6 may make use strict the default.
Why are you so combative? I never said perl was better than ruby or python (I do like it, however), I merely said it had the feature they said it lacked. That doesn't imply that I think it's better, no does it imply that I think it's worse.
Did you hear that? That was the sound of a joke going right over your head.
Put this at the top of your fragment:
use strict;
You should put this up there too:
use warnings;
I don't recall saying I had a problem with snipers. In fact, I said I don't care about the snipers. I bid my max, if someone snipes the auction and wins that means they were willing to pay more then me for the item. In that case, they can have it because whether they sniped or not they were going to get it.
I said that snipers frustrate the incremental bidders. The people who would pay more but don't bid more and thus lose the item. If you bid the max amount you're willing to pay and let ebay take over, it doesn't matter what other people do you'll either get the item for a price you're willing to deal with (or less) or someone else will get it for more.
The main point of my post was that incremental bidding is irrational. When multiple people do it, it can dramatically raise the cost of the item to the bidder's own detriment. This is the precise thing the sellers want to have happen. Why would a buyer want to do this? The max bid strategy protects you from many of ebay's frustrations. You don't have to worry about being sniped, you don't have to worry that the seller is bidding it up, and you always pay what you feel is a fair price.
If the item is a common one, just bid your max (unless your max is significantly under the value of the item) and you'll eventually get it. If the item is a rare one, again bid your max. If you don't win you weren't willing to pay as much as someone else anyway.
The only reason sniping works at all is because people bid irrationally. I don't care whether people snipe my auctions or not because I do not bid irrationally. I don't care if people bid irrationally either because again, either they'll end up bidding more than me or they won't.
Obviously getting the item at a lower price is better. That, however, is not the point. Deciding the max you wish to spend ahead of time, bidding that, and allowing the ebay proxy bidding system to take over ensures that you always get a good deal. It's the incremental bidding that the poster describes that ensures the item goes for the highest price and provides the most frustration for getting sniped.
In my book, my maximum price means I won't feel bad about the purchase afterwards. The original poster stated they would pay $500 but would feel bad if they paid $475 while the others went for $100. By my definition, and I'd wager most others you've paid over the max if you feel bad about the purchase afterwards.
Basically there's two types of purchases on ebay. The first is common items, for which you can pick a max and bid until you win. The second is rare items that you really want. In both cases bidding the max price you're willing to pay ensures you'll find the best value with the least amount of frustration.
Let's say, for example, that there is some old game on eBay that I want to buy. I really want it, and I'd personally pay $500 for one to get my hands on it. But, from the eBay past auction history, I see that they usually sell for about $100. Now I don't know about you, but if I know something usually goes for about $100, I'd rather pay about $100 and use the extra $400 on something else. (See that? I would pay up to $500, if that was what they sold for. But, since they don't, I'd prefer to pay less.) I would hate to be the person who won one for $475 when the ones the week before and the week after went for $100.
This statement is contradictory. If you'd pay $500 to get a hold of something, you shouldn't feel bad about getting it for $475. The fact of the matter is you are saying you would not be willing to pay $500 after checking previous auctions and seeing that the item in question goes for $100.
So I put my early bid in at the average selling price, about $100. If I see the price go up to $101 and it's less than a few hours before it ends, I might bump it up to $110. That's still well below my maximum, but it's reasonable to me. If it goes up to $115, I might bump it up to $120. Or, maybe by then another one is listed, and I'll move to it. Or, I'll see that I'm bidding against 5-6 others, and so I'll pass this one up and wait for the demand to die down. I can't do any of those things if I start out with a bid of $150 - maybe I'd lose it, or maybe I'd pay $149 when five more were listed during the week - oversupplying the demand - at $100 each
If the item is worth $500 to you, you should be overjoyed at getting it for $150. If you get it for $150 and are upset the others went for $100, you paid too much, you should've bid a max of $100. The strategy you discuss above is irrational and is the only reason why sniping works. It does not make any sense to bid $100 if you would be willing to bump it to $120 later. Just start with $120. If someone snipes you for $125 they paid more than you were willing to pay. Simple as that.
Winning an auction isn't about getting the item at the lowest cost. It's about getting the item for less than or equal to what you were willing to pay.
I use this:
http://www.pc-tools.net/unix/renattach/
I just put it in the system wide procmailrc file and it runs for everyone.
It will rename files based on a file extension list that you designate. In addition it changes the MIME type headers. This forces the user to save and rename the file before launching it.
The author indicates it's no longer maintained, but it works quite well nonetheless.