I was thinking "isn't this at odds with the authorities' view on white-hat hackers, and those who disclose flaws in security generally", but then I realised that the authorities wish to create and enforce law: that it "order"; individuals who act in such a way as to make such laws less necessary count as competition in the power struggle.
Your close friends and family may be relatively few, but that is a distortion, given how much time you spend with them. Five minutes with a clerk does not compare with an evening at the pub with good friends.
The store clerk you chat to would still be there if the economy was less productive, and so everyone had lower wages, so for the intended purpose of the example (the importance of production), it doesn't count.
Specific examples, where you meet other like-minded engineers (for example) do count, as engineers design new things, so less growth means fewer engineers, so that the network effects would be weaker (more of your interactions would be with those with whom you have less in common).
I agree that business transactions are social, but that is far from the whole transaction; you also need to look to the opportunity cost of business. Is the person that you're talking to the individual that you would really most want to talk to right now? Business restricts, as well as enabling social interaction.
On the other side of the coin, maybe necessity aids society: easier travel through wealth has meant that we interact with more people every day. This has got to be a factor in increasing divorce rates (say). By encouraging us to be open to new social encounters, it will weaken existing commitments (on both sides), as well as bringing new opportunities. Similarly with commitment to friends.
I'm not arguing both sides to appear stupid: I'm positing that there's no reason why the balance is optimal when the criterion is productivity rather than the state of society. You get what you optimise for.
Unless you're government, of course, and this is the crunch. Politicians and bureaucrats neglect the intrinsic value of concepts such as freedom, but although freedom is important to business, substituting productivity for freedom is to distort what freedom is. Look at the latest batch of anti-terrorism laws, or the DMCA to see this. Because freedom can come into conflict with (eg. 'intellectual') property, taking the side of business is too unsubtle.
However, it's still a middle-ground between non-progammable dedicated hardware and another CPU.
Also, power consumption matters if you've got a rack of these things in a small space and need to keep them cool. Five times as many systems might need a larger server room.
We've see the evidence. It appears that piracy has near enough a zero effect on sales.
This makes sense when you realise that people have x amount of disposable income to spend on such items as CDs and DVDs; in such a context, file sharing acts a little like radio play. The advertising effect appears to roughly cancel out the displacement effect. More precisely, for older and wealthier people, they are drawn to buy more when they have more information upon which to make their purchases, whereas students buy less. The effects upon different demographics roughly cancel out, to all appearences.
Please let me say here that this does not justify breaking the law, except as a deliberate act of civil disobedience, which means that one then admits the crime for the purposes of being charged. One should instead seek to change the law.
However, the state of evidence reveals that the real issue is not one of lost sales, as the data is in contradiction to the thesis that sales are being lost. Rather, the issue is one of control, and the steady elimination of a particular form of property, so that one then has to rent creative works on a pay-to-play basis, rather than purchasing them.
But then it's easy to ignore any group warning about anything.
Ignoring end-times psychosis, what is the reason why the "mark of the beast" is evil? Could it be something to do with the commoditisation of human beings? RFID would fit right in... I'm not saying that these groups are right, but when you look at why such things are seen as being evil or wrong by religious groups, they often have a certain consistency, and are in fact a pretty mainstream view.
Quoting from revelations isn't going to help their cause, but it is surely entirely possible that such things as RFID could, in some sense, be symptomatic, or even causative of what people who consider themselves spiritual would perceive to be a decline of civilisation.
Even if the delivery and mythos is nutty, this doesn't mean that the message itself is!
I get the impression that the BBC are attempting to tax the whole of Britian 'blindly'; after all it fits with their "Public Service" ethos. The fact that they haven't thought of a broadband tax, but rather one on televisions is indicative of this.
A computer could after all be disconnected, just as a telly could be from the aerial. I think that those at the BBC consider individuals with such televisions to be exploiting a loophole, and so they're trying to close the "computer without an internet connection" loophole now, by lobbying for a tax on computers themselves.
The rest of us should call the BBC on this. The non-receiving television "loophole" exists because it would appear unreasonable to MPs and the courts that the "loophole" should be "closed". So we should make sure that unconnected computers receive a similar "loophole", perhaps by putting forward a broadband tax in its place before the BBC get their way.
'responsible editing should promote truth over political advantage'
This suggests that political advantage was the intent. I was seeking to point out the danger in carelessness, that it might mislead some, rather than make an accusation.
Given the modern controversy over the role of natural selection, the article is misleading, and the headline is wrong.
The professor hasn't challenged evolution by natural selection, but rather gradualism, as did Steven J. Gould. Darwin did posit gradualism, so an accurate headline would have been to say that the professor had challenged Darwin. As it is, it appears that it is the theory of evolution, rather than the detail of Charles Darwin's theories that is being challenged.
The article is to be commended upon the elucidation of the "dual mutation theory"; is it a shame that it did not make clearer that this theory restores natural selection to the driving seat.
This is important, since responsible editing that promotes truth over political advantage should seek avoid false inferences from being drawn by the less sophisticated.
That is interesting. However, it leaves open one question: what do film-goers think of the brand, that is: the film company, after they've gone to see a sequel that they're less happy with?
I'm sure that you can squeeze value out of the film's own brand; the real question has to be: does this come at a cost to the studio?
How much less does the sequel cost? Required advertising will certainly be lower, but special effects, the cost of the setting are likely to be as costly as ever. I expect that the real attraction to the studio is that the sequel is less risky for the capital at risk, so that it doesn't need to make the same returns.
I suppose that people are sophisticated enough to see sequels as sequels, so I suppose that it cannot harm the original brand too much. But I don't know enough to make a clear judgement here...
Is Disney buying Pixar or is Pixar buying out Disney with Disney's own money?
It would be very cool if Pixar were to change Disney's ethos. Disney's got such a brand name that they don't need to hang on the brand of the specific production itself.
Does this herald the rise of creativity in Disney's output? If so, it'll be a difficult one to sell to the accountants and the more conservative shareholders: re-runs are provably successful; improving the brand is more nebulous. Ultimately, you can never know the real cause for higher sales across the board.
Slashdot Mirror
Only in some places, they get away with more than in others.
Consider this Ambulance Driver.
Heretic!
The store clerk you chat to would still be there if the economy was less productive, and so everyone had lower wages, so for the intended purpose of the example (the importance of production), it doesn't count.
Specific examples, where you meet other like-minded engineers (for example) do count, as engineers design new things, so less growth means fewer engineers, so that the network effects would be weaker (more of your interactions would be with those with whom you have less in common).
I agree that business transactions are social, but that is far from the whole transaction; you also need to look to the opportunity cost of business. Is the person that you're talking to the individual that you would really most want to talk to right now? Business restricts, as well as enabling social interaction.
On the other side of the coin, maybe necessity aids society: easier travel through wealth has meant that we interact with more people every day. This has got to be a factor in increasing divorce rates (say). By encouraging us to be open to new social encounters, it will weaken existing commitments (on both sides), as well as bringing new opportunities. Similarly with commitment to friends.
I'm not arguing both sides to appear stupid: I'm positing that there's no reason why the balance is optimal when the criterion is productivity rather than the state of society. You get what you optimise for.
Unless you're government, of course, and this is the crunch. Politicians and bureaucrats neglect the intrinsic value of concepts such as freedom, but although freedom is important to business, substituting productivity for freedom is to distort what freedom is. Look at the latest batch of anti-terrorism laws, or the DMCA to see this. Because freedom can come into conflict with (eg. 'intellectual') property, taking the side of business is too unsubtle.
eg. http://slashdot.org.nyud.net:8080/article.pl?sid=0 6/05/11/1329254
Good coding practice to stop exactly that bug.
Unless you're really sure that you never do typos.
Also, power consumption matters if you've got a rack of these things in a small space and need to keep them cool. Five times as many systems might need a larger server room.
I'm doing Folding@Home, myself. I don't mind spare capacity being used, but I was thinking more selfishly, I'll have to admit :o)
Flight simulation might be fun. Not just the graphics: air turbulance, AI for other aircraft, birds, etcetera...
Rendering comes to mind, but I'm biased. But I'm sure that a glorified graphics card isn't the most interesting use...
If these become popular enough, will we be seeing a back-end to GCC for this FPGA?
Your .sig sits oddly with the content of your message.
We've see the evidence. It appears that piracy has near enough a zero effect on sales.
This makes sense when you realise that people have x amount of disposable income to spend on such items as CDs and DVDs; in such a context, file sharing acts a little like radio play. The advertising effect appears to roughly cancel out the displacement effect. More precisely, for older and wealthier people, they are drawn to buy more when they have more information upon which to make their purchases, whereas students buy less. The effects upon different demographics roughly cancel out, to all appearences.
Please let me say here that this does not justify breaking the law, except as a deliberate act of civil disobedience, which means that one then admits the crime for the purposes of being charged. One should instead seek to change the law.
However, the state of evidence reveals that the real issue is not one of lost sales, as the data is in contradiction to the thesis that sales are being lost. Rather, the issue is one of control, and the steady elimination of a particular form of property, so that one then has to rent creative works on a pay-to-play basis, rather than purchasing them.
So is a Kosher Faggot an oxymoron?
Ignoring end-times psychosis, what is the reason why the "mark of the beast" is evil? Could it be something to do with the commoditisation of human beings? RFID would fit right in... I'm not saying that these groups are right, but when you look at why such things are seen as being evil or wrong by religious groups, they often have a certain consistency, and are in fact a pretty mainstream view.
Quoting from revelations isn't going to help their cause, but it is surely entirely possible that such things as RFID could, in some sense, be symptomatic, or even causative of what people who consider themselves spiritual would perceive to be a decline of civilisation.
Even if the delivery and mythos is nutty, this doesn't mean that the message itself is!
are terrorism, surely?
Looks like you're right!
"televisions" should read "computers".
I get the impression that the BBC are attempting to tax the whole of Britian 'blindly'; after all it fits with their "Public Service" ethos. The fact that they haven't thought of a broadband tax, but rather one on televisions is indicative of this.
A computer could after all be disconnected, just as a telly could be from the aerial. I think that those at the BBC consider individuals with such televisions to be exploiting a loophole, and so they're trying to close the "computer without an internet connection" loophole now, by lobbying for a tax on computers themselves.
The rest of us should call the BBC on this. The non-receiving television "loophole" exists because it would appear unreasonable to MPs and the courts that the "loophole" should be "closed". So we should make sure that unconnected computers receive a similar "loophole", perhaps by putting forward a broadband tax in its place before the BBC get their way.
Less sophisticated than the writer.
The professor hasn't challenged evolution by natural selection, but rather gradualism, as did Steven J. Gould. Darwin did posit gradualism, so an accurate headline would have been to say that the professor had challenged Darwin. As it is, it appears that it is the theory of evolution, rather than the detail of Charles Darwin's theories that is being challenged.
The article is to be commended upon the elucidation of the "dual mutation theory"; is it a shame that it did not make clearer that this theory restores natural selection to the driving seat.
This is important, since responsible editing that promotes truth over political advantage should seek avoid false inferences from being drawn by the less sophisticated.
Faithfully,
I'm sorry that it took me a few days!
I'm sure that you can squeeze value out of the film's own brand; the real question has to be: does this come at a cost to the studio?
How much less does the sequel cost? Required advertising will certainly be lower, but special effects, the cost of the setting are likely to be as costly as ever. I expect that the real attraction to the studio is that the sequel is less risky for the capital at risk, so that it doesn't need to make the same returns.
I suppose that people are sophisticated enough to see sequels as sequels, so I suppose that it cannot harm the original brand too much. But I don't know enough to make a clear judgement here...
Does this herald the rise of creativity in Disney's output? If so, it'll be a difficult one to sell to the accountants and the more conservative shareholders: re-runs are provably successful; improving the brand is more nebulous. Ultimately, you can never know the real cause for higher sales across the board.
Now a JE!