It's a probability thing, I doubt they are looking for the exact individual. But if they are, he's probably some alpha male king who collected wives from all over the world and actually mated with them. It's possible we do know him. Maybe King Solomon or Pharoah. I think it more likely to be someone in the Middle East than someone in Taiwan.
Same here, it seems if ye do try to track them in England, ye can't because so many Americans' ancestors were weirdos who didn't register their babies with the Church of England.
Ye go back far enough, we are all cousins. Does't surprise me at all. People have been known to wander nomadically all over the European-Asian-African land mass for thousands of years. Getting around by boats has also been widely available and common since prehistoric times. I wouldn't expect to go back very far to be cousins with everyone in Europe, Africa, and Asia. And now that white folks have been mixing it up with the natives in the New World for several hundred years, I'm probably cousins with everyone on this side of the world, too.
We are a very mobile species. We also have the tendency to wipe out people who are significantly different than us if we can't enslave them first.
Re:That would be Regulation FD
on
The Cost of the iPod
·
· Score: 3, Informative
That would be Regulation FD (stands for Fair Disclosure)
On December 20, 1999, the Commission proposed new Regulation FD - for "fair disclosure" - to combat selective disclosure. Selective disclosure occurs when issuers release material nonpublic information about a company to selected persons, such as securities analysts or institutional investors, before disclosing the information to the general public. This practice undermines the integrity of the securities markets and reduces investor confidence in the fairness of those markets. Selective disclosure also may create conflicts of interests for securities analysts, who may have an incentive to avoid making negative statements about an issuer for fear of losing their access to selectively disclosed information.
After reading another message about how the autodrive car only has to be better than a 15 year old (I actually have one of those), I suddenly feel much more comfortable with the notion.
I do think you make a good point about segregation of the autodrive cars and the others since even if the autodriver isn't necessarily the best driver on the road, it will "think", drive, and react differently than a human driver. I think as a human, I would eventually learn to anticipate the actions of an autodriver just as I have learned to anticipate the actions of various types of humans. It's like putting trucks, buses, taxis, and other professionals in their own lanes, local people on different roads than people headed to Florida, and maybe have teenagers on their own roads. Actually, it would be impractical to have all those lanes, but some smart traffic engineer might be able to figure out which vehicle classes might be able to safely share a piece of the road.
Re:That was actually surprisingly good article
on
The Cost of the iPod
·
· Score: 1
But if he doesn't make his case for secrecy well enough to keep his bosses confident, he may not last long enough to put his plan in action. If you can't make investment decisions or employment decisions based on future plans and timely information, they you are stuck with basing decisions on past results. To go with your general analogy, if he wants people to have confidence in him without knowing his plans, he must at least persuade his bosses that he hasn't lost his edge. Fortunately, generals aren't elected by the citizens. Their jobs depend on Presidents, advisors, and Armed Services Committees that are privy to information that they know not to leak.
Shareholders, on the other hand, can be anybody, including people affiliated with the competition. All ye do is buy even one share and you know everything that the company chooses or is required to disclose. The board of directors can be replaced very quickly if the shareholders aren't happy, but choose not to sell. So the CEO must keep the shareholders happy, either with facts or with charisma. Legally, every analyst and investor is supposed to have access to the same information. So, yeah, the analyst makes his money by doing the analysis better than his competition. At least that's how the system is supposed to work. And Jobs is still overly reliant on the charisma thing. If something ever happened to him, would Apple even survive?
Re:That was actually surprisingly good article
on
The Cost of the iPod
·
· Score: 2, Informative
Sorry to but in, but I do have info to add.
Up until they passed a disclosure law a few years back, companies would frequently accidentally or on purpose play favorites by giving some analysts exclusive access to some information. I suppose these analysts would then release the information in a manner that wouldn't cause the stock to dive, maybe by only giving it to their favorite customers. As you might see, this is bordering on insider trading, which is illegal.
In the olden days, an analyst would contact a company and arrange private meetings and tours with management. This is how they would find out things before the public or other analysts. They can still meet privately, but if it is discovered that they are getting exclusive info, that is illegal. So, a lot of companies will not meet privately with only one or two analysts any more. If one calls up and asks for information that isn't publicly available, the company must either have a meeting with a bunch of analysts or they must issue a press release.
I'm sure the law has a catchy name, but I haven't a clue.
GP reasons that Apple profit margins are obscenely high. Comparing the price, not cost, of Ipods and other MP3 players, I would tend to agree. They have sold enough by now that design and other R&D costs have been paid for.
But, it could be the other way around. In a public company, the market must determine a price. In the absence of information from the company, the market must assume a profit margin based on other factors. If it assumes wrong, it could be bad news either way. If real margin is lower than assumed margin, then stock is overpriced and will crash when the truth is out. Investors will pay a lot of attention to insider trading and other indicators that they are out of whack.
Remember Econ101? All us engineers had to take it, but I'm not sure about the IT types...
When a company has profits, it has to do something with the money. It can invest in more R&D, productions facilities, salaries, pretty artwork, or give it to the shareholders. The Econ101 rule is that if they can't invest internally at a better than market rate of return, then they should give it to the shareholders. The rest isn't as clearcut, if pretty artwork and fancy architecture improves morale or impresses the customers, then I suppose it is okay. If above market salaries attract and keep above market talent, then I suppose that is okay, too. But, if they are spending money on the wrong people and things, well, that's not okay. Even worse would be that the internal rate isn't as high as market rate, which means that they should be giving money to shareholders, and would be open to a class action lawsuit if the truth was known.
Driving is so much easier when you own the road, as VW probably does. That is very disappointing additional information. This vehicle wouldn't even do well on a race course with other drivers. It would be the ultimate selfish road hog. Actually, I have met drivers like that, who expect the rest of us to look out for them while they do as they please, but you can't have 2 drivers/autodrive-cars on the same road at the same time.
So this car is of use to people who have a private road and make the same trip repeatedly as in conducting road tests.
Imagine the ramificatons at the work place. The best thing about commuting is that it gets you to the office wide awake and alert and ready to settle down to the days tasks. Now you'll have to find a particularly scary and dangerous project to devote to your first hour of the day.
But the pilot is still paying attention. If he isn't, he's got a copilot and maybe others backing him up, keeping him honest. If they are all sleeping or goofing off, that just shouldn't happen if the crew is at all professional.
In the world of private automobiles, it would be different. The better the car got at driving itself, the more likely the "driver" would focus all his attention on something incompatible with monitoring the car. Just compare drivers of stick and automatic. The stick drivers must pay more attention to the sounds and feel of the car. Drivers of automatics have a hand free for other tasks and probably don't listen to the engine much either, especially if they buy cars with quiet interiors and quality sound systems. I'm teaching my kid to drive both cars. He prefers the stick, where he must listen to the car and still has a hard time when the radio is on. Just to keep him in the habit, I have him listen to automatic when it shifts. I want him to have the habit of paying attention to the car, the road, other drivers, and then maybe the radio.
I'm not going to argue with you. I doubt it would work. If most people were like you, this would be a much more dangerous and unpleasant world. Please stay out of my part of the world.
I think the real problem is that people don't pay attention to their driving and to themselves when they are driving.
Not you, of course, and me neither.
I don't think I'm any kind of uber-driver, but I pay attention to what's going on...
But you, me, and just about everyone believe that we are above average. Surveys show that.
There's no reason a responsible person... such as you, me and all those other people who think they are above average. Who decides who is a responsible person? Should there be a checkbox on the drivers license for those of us who really are responsible and can prove it to the DMV?
This is all about a group of whiny people who want to control what other people do. Punish people for what they do that actually harms others, not what could possibly harm others.
I'm not whining, I don't give a shit what you do as long as it doesn't involve me. But, if you want to drive on the same roads as me, I wish you would humble yourself long enough to realize that driving is not a solitary occupation and you are probably not as good and responsible as you think you are. And please, asking you to pull over to talk on the phone is not punishment. If you collide with me, we will both be punished for your poor judgement.
This is exactly why rumor control is so important. When people only have partial information, such as a list of names and a date, it is natural for them to prepare for the worst and hope for the best.
Yes, I don't mess with the handbrake and I don't roll back either. Not sure if the clutch minds, but it works. But, maybe, it's that "Hillholder" thing that Subaru mentions in the documentation.
Children aren't sent to school for their parents' benefit. This isn't like doggy daycare. Kids are sent to school for all our collective benefit. Education benefits mostly the child, but the community as a whole is more prosperous when it consists of educated citizens.
I know that there is much wrong with state run education systems, but I recommend you consider what goes on in some countries that don't have it. There are many countries in Africa where poor kids are put to work (or begging) as soon as they are able, reproduce as soon as they are able, and raise kids to repeat the cycle. And then there are places (Afganistan is a recent example) where the rich educate their kids in school that a westerner would recognize as such, but the poor kids, if schooled, are educated by missionaries who have a faith to spread. Faith based schools aren't necessarily bad, but in the case of the Moslem financed madrassas in Afganistan, which are free to the students, the coursework is almost exclusively religous.
Rich people can segregate themselves from an uneducated or badly educated proletariat, but that isn't considered desirable in a classless society. While the US and Western Europe have room for improvement, much of our success comes from having more literate, better educated lower classes, relatively speaking, of course.
I guess this means that they don't have to pass the plate in Finland. Do Finns even know what it means to pass the plate?
However, the tithes and offerings and other contributions that a taxpaying American pays to his church and various other institutions are deductable. So churches do get a little help from Uncle Sam in that if I donate to a church, I can substract that amount from my gross income before I calculate my tax. This is why some businesses, Scientology, for an easy example, structure themselves to conform to the IRS definition of a church.
Here's something from the irs.gov website, an excerpt from a discussion based on a court case.
A. DEFINING "CHURCH" - THE CONCEPT OF A CONGREGATION by Robert Louthian and Thomas Miller
...
In applying the analysis to determine whether a religious organization may properly be characterized as a church, the Service considers whether the organization has the following characteristics: (a) a distinct legal existence, (b) a recognized creed and form of worship, (c) a definite and distinct ecclesiastical government, (d) a formal code of doctrine and discipline, (e) a distinct religious history, (f) a membership not associated with any other church or denomination, (g) an organization of ordained ministers, (h) ordained ministers selected after completing prescribed studies, (i) a literature of its own, (j) established places of worship, (k) regular congregations, (l) regular religious services, (m) Sunday schools for religious instruction of the young, (n) schools for the preparation of its ministers, and (o) any other facts and circumstances that may bear upon the organization's claim for church status. See IRM 7(10)69, Exempt Organizations Examination Guidelines Handbook, text 321.3(3). The fifteen criteria are not an attempt to quantify the factual circumstances required for recognition as a church. Determinations are not made solely on the number of characteristics an organization possesses.
Management gets to set the real world priorities. It seems we've been stuck in a world where "first-to-market" is everything, because that's how you get the early adopters. There is a lot of truth to that because the early adopters obviously wants the first thing out, and the rest wait to see if they have a good experience. But, early adopters don't mind a few bugs, and good software kills the bugs in new designs fast. So the important thing is to make a good first impression and get rid of the bugs fast. If you can get the.1 version out while the competition is still working on the.0, ya win. Unfortunately, this prioritizes the bugs that customers easily notice ahead of the rest.
The term was introduced in 1970 by W. W. Royce; ironically, Royce himself advocated an iterative approach to software development. Royce originally proposed what is now known as the waterfall model as an example of a system that he argued "is risky and invites failure"
I suppose it's like venture capital, a creative someone without much money or business experience hooks up with someone who will provide the money and various services for some equity and control. In either case, it is a shame when the person(s) in control don't have the vision of the creator/founder.
What about viaducts like I85 that goes on for many miles through Atlanta? It is divided, so it is at least 2 bridges, but in all those miles, it has many supports which could be considered borders to a new bridge, not to mention ramps down to the "surface roads". Are those ramps bridges in their own right?
...God forbid they vote for a third party. After all, they have no chance of winning!
If Canada has a Plurality voting system similar to what we have down south, it isn't simply a self-fullfilling prophecy, it is an effect first observed by French sociologist Maurice Duverger. It works so reliably that political scientists have "promoted" it to being a "law". See my sig for more info.
Slashdot Mirror
It's a probability thing, I doubt they are looking for the exact individual. But if they are, he's probably some alpha male king who collected wives from all over the world and actually mated with them. It's possible we do know him. Maybe King Solomon or Pharoah. I think it more likely to be someone in the Middle East than someone in Taiwan.
Same here, it seems if ye do try to track them in England, ye can't because so many Americans' ancestors were weirdos who didn't register their babies with the Church of England.
Ye go back far enough, we are all cousins. Does't surprise me at all. People have been known to wander nomadically all over the European-Asian-African land mass for thousands of years. Getting around by boats has also been widely available and common since prehistoric times. I wouldn't expect to go back very far to be cousins with everyone in Europe, Africa, and Asia. And now that white folks have been mixing it up with the natives in the New World for several hundred years, I'm probably cousins with everyone on this side of the world, too.
We are a very mobile species. We also have the tendency to wipe out people who are significantly different than us if we can't enslave them first.
Here's some links:
SEC's Fact Sheet:http://www.sec.gov/news/extra/seldsfct.htm
How one corporation explains it on its website:http://www.investor.jnj.com/guidelines.cf
How Wikipedia describes it:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulation_FD
After reading another message about how the autodrive car only has to be better than a 15 year old (I actually have one of those), I suddenly feel much more comfortable with the notion.
I do think you make a good point about segregation of the autodrive cars and the others since even if the autodriver isn't necessarily the best driver on the road, it will "think", drive, and react differently than a human driver. I think as a human, I would eventually learn to anticipate the actions of an autodriver just as I have learned to anticipate the actions of various types of humans. It's like putting trucks, buses, taxis, and other professionals in their own lanes, local people on different roads than people headed to Florida, and maybe have teenagers on their own roads. Actually, it would be impractical to have all those lanes, but some smart traffic engineer might be able to figure out which vehicle classes might be able to safely share a piece of the road.
But if he doesn't make his case for secrecy well enough to keep his bosses confident, he may not last long enough to put his plan in action. If you can't make investment decisions or employment decisions based on future plans and timely information, they you are stuck with basing decisions on past results. To go with your general analogy, if he wants people to have confidence in him without knowing his plans, he must at least persuade his bosses that he hasn't lost his edge. Fortunately, generals aren't elected by the citizens. Their jobs depend on Presidents, advisors, and Armed Services Committees that are privy to information that they know not to leak.
Shareholders, on the other hand, can be anybody, including people affiliated with the competition. All ye do is buy even one share and you know everything that the company chooses or is required to disclose. The board of directors can be replaced very quickly if the shareholders aren't happy, but choose not to sell. So the CEO must keep the shareholders happy, either with facts or with charisma. Legally, every analyst and investor is supposed to have access to the same information. So, yeah, the analyst makes his money by doing the analysis better than his competition. At least that's how the system is supposed to work. And Jobs is still overly reliant on the charisma thing. If something ever happened to him, would Apple even survive?
Sorry to but in, but I do have info to add.
Up until they passed a disclosure law a few years back, companies would frequently accidentally or on purpose play favorites by giving some analysts exclusive access to some information. I suppose these analysts would then release the information in a manner that wouldn't cause the stock to dive, maybe by only giving it to their favorite customers. As you might see, this is bordering on insider trading, which is illegal.
In the olden days, an analyst would contact a company and arrange private meetings and tours with management. This is how they would find out things before the public or other analysts. They can still meet privately, but if it is discovered that they are getting exclusive info, that is illegal. So, a lot of companies will not meet privately with only one or two analysts any more. If one calls up and asks for information that isn't publicly available, the company must either have a meeting with a bunch of analysts or they must issue a press release.
I'm sure the law has a catchy name, but I haven't a clue.
GP reasons that Apple profit margins are obscenely high. Comparing the price, not cost, of Ipods and other MP3 players, I would tend to agree. They have sold enough by now that design and other R&D costs have been paid for.
But, it could be the other way around. In a public company, the market must determine a price. In the absence of information from the company, the market must assume a profit margin based on other factors. If it assumes wrong, it could be bad news either way. If real margin is lower than assumed margin, then stock is overpriced and will crash when the truth is out. Investors will pay a lot of attention to insider trading and other indicators that they are out of whack.
Remember Econ101? All us engineers had to take it, but I'm not sure about the IT types...
When a company has profits, it has to do something with the money. It can invest in more R&D, productions facilities, salaries, pretty artwork, or give it to the shareholders. The Econ101 rule is that if they can't invest internally at a better than market rate of return, then they should give it to the shareholders. The rest isn't as clearcut, if pretty artwork and fancy architecture improves morale or impresses the customers, then I suppose it is okay. If above market salaries attract and keep above market talent, then I suppose that is okay, too. But, if they are spending money on the wrong people and things, well, that's not okay. Even worse would be that the internal rate isn't as high as market rate, which means that they should be giving money to shareholders, and would be open to a class action lawsuit if the truth was known.
Driving is so much easier when you own the road, as VW probably does. That is very disappointing additional information. This vehicle wouldn't even do well on a race course with other drivers. It would be the ultimate selfish road hog. Actually, I have met drivers like that, who expect the rest of us to look out for them while they do as they please, but you can't have 2 drivers/autodrive-cars on the same road at the same time.
So this car is of use to people who have a private road and make the same trip repeatedly as in conducting road tests.
Imagine the ramificatons at the work place. The best thing about commuting is that it gets you to the office wide awake and alert and ready to settle down to the days tasks. Now you'll have to find a particularly scary and dangerous project to devote to your first hour of the day.
But the pilot is still paying attention. If he isn't, he's got a copilot and maybe others backing him up, keeping him honest. If they are all sleeping or goofing off, that just shouldn't happen if the crew is at all professional.
In the world of private automobiles, it would be different. The better the car got at driving itself, the more likely the "driver" would focus all his attention on something incompatible with monitoring the car. Just compare drivers of stick and automatic. The stick drivers must pay more attention to the sounds and feel of the car. Drivers of automatics have a hand free for other tasks and probably don't listen to the engine much either, especially if they buy cars with quiet interiors and quality sound systems. I'm teaching my kid to drive both cars. He prefers the stick, where he must listen to the car and still has a hard time when the radio is on. Just to keep him in the habit, I have him listen to automatic when it shifts. I want him to have the habit of paying attention to the car, the road, other drivers, and then maybe the radio.
I'm not going to argue with you. I doubt it would work. If most people were like you, this would be a much more dangerous and unpleasant world. Please stay out of my part of the world.
I think the real problem is that people don't pay attention to their driving and to themselves when they are driving.
...
... such as you, me and all those other people who think they are above average. Who decides who is a responsible person? Should there be a checkbox on the drivers license for those of us who really are responsible and can prove it to the DMV?
Not you, of course, and me neither.
I don't think I'm any kind of uber-driver, but I pay attention to what's going on
But you, me, and just about everyone believe that we are above average. Surveys show that.
There's no reason a responsible person
This is all about a group of whiny people who want to control what other people do. Punish people for what they do that actually harms others, not what could possibly harm others.
I'm not whining, I don't give a shit what you do as long as it doesn't involve me. But, if you want to drive on the same roads as me, I wish you would humble yourself long enough to realize that driving is not a solitary occupation and you are probably not as good and responsible as you think you are. And please, asking you to pull over to talk on the phone is not punishment. If you collide with me, we will both be punished for your poor judgement.
The scariest is the men shaving, especially since they always seem to be gazing intently in an upwards directions.
This is exactly why rumor control is so important. When people only have partial information, such as a list of names and a date, it is natural for them to prepare for the worst and hope for the best.
Yes, I don't mess with the handbrake and I don't roll back either. Not sure if the clutch minds, but it works. But, maybe, it's that "Hillholder" thing that Subaru mentions in the documentation.
Children aren't sent to school for their parents' benefit. This isn't like doggy daycare. Kids are sent to school for all our collective benefit. Education benefits mostly the child, but the community as a whole is more prosperous when it consists of educated citizens.
I know that there is much wrong with state run education systems, but I recommend you consider what goes on in some countries that don't have it. There are many countries in Africa where poor kids are put to work (or begging) as soon as they are able, reproduce as soon as they are able, and raise kids to repeat the cycle. And then there are places (Afganistan is a recent example) where the rich educate their kids in school that a westerner would recognize as such, but the poor kids, if schooled, are educated by missionaries who have a faith to spread. Faith based schools aren't necessarily bad, but in the case of the Moslem financed madrassas in Afganistan, which are free to the students, the coursework is almost exclusively religous.
Rich people can segregate themselves from an uneducated or badly educated proletariat, but that isn't considered desirable in a classless society. While the US and Western Europe have room for improvement, much of our success comes from having more literate, better educated lower classes, relatively speaking, of course.
However, the tithes and offerings and other contributions that a taxpaying American pays to his church and various other institutions are deductable. So churches do get a little help from Uncle Sam in that if I donate to a church, I can substract that amount from my gross income before I calculate my tax. This is why some businesses, Scientology, for an easy example, structure themselves to conform to the IRS definition of a church.
Here's something from the irs.gov website, an excerpt from a discussion based on a court case.
http://64.233.187.104/search?q=cache:tEDJRX9wbPQJ
Management gets to set the real world priorities. It seems we've been stuck in a world where "first-to-market" is everything, because that's how you get the early adopters. There is a lot of truth to that because the early adopters obviously wants the first thing out, and the rest wait to see if they have a good experience. But, early adopters don't mind a few bugs, and good software kills the bugs in new designs fast. So the important thing is to make a good first impression and get rid of the bugs fast. If you can get the .1 version out while the competition is still working on the .0, ya win. Unfortunately, this prioritizes the bugs that customers easily notice ahead of the rest.
The term was introduced in 1970 by W. W. Royce; ironically, Royce himself advocated an iterative approach to software development. Royce originally proposed what is now known as the waterfall model as an example of a system that he argued "is risky and invites failure"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waterfall_model
Thankfully, I'm a hardware engineer and never had to learn about such nonsense.
What is the point of that seenonslash site? I just went there and it looked like a weak echo of /.
just roll up the death vans [edmunds.com] and execute those criminals.
That is creepy. So clean and efficient. Another thing not to like about that country.
I suppose it's like venture capital, a creative someone without much money or business experience hooks up with someone who will provide the money and various services for some equity and control. In either case, it is a shame when the person(s) in control don't have the vision of the creator/founder.
What about viaducts like I85 that goes on for many miles through Atlanta? It is divided, so it is at least 2 bridges, but in all those miles, it has many supports which could be considered borders to a new bridge, not to mention ramps down to the "surface roads". Are those ramps bridges in their own right?
...God forbid they vote for a third party. After all, they have no chance of winning!
If Canada has a Plurality voting system similar to what we have down south, it isn't simply a self-fullfilling prophecy, it is an effect first observed by French sociologist Maurice Duverger. It works so reliably that political scientists have "promoted" it to being a "law". See my sig for more info.