Re:This is how economics is supposed to work!
on
The SUV Is Dethroned
·
· Score: 1
I don't understand your logic. Having gas prices increase is effectively a tax on low-gas-mileage vehicles. You could cause the same market condition by... effecting a tax on low-gas-mileage vehicles. The difference? The money could go to developing alternative energy sources instead of into Big Oil's pockets.
> For too long now Linux lovers have accused Microsoft of tomfoolery, when Microsoft has only delivered > wholesome, moral, and radidly patched products.
For too long now Linux lovers have accused Microsoft of tomfoolery, when Microsoft has only delivered wholesome, moral, and rabidly patched products.
Um, no. You are exactly wrong, in fact. It is true that there are a greater quantity of troublesome.ru sites in your example, but given a.ru domain and a.hk domain, the.hk domain is more likely to be troublesome. The fact that there are more.ru troublesome sites out there is only a result of there being more.ru sites out there. The only thing that affects is the likelihood that a given domain is a.ru domain.
Consider this: Bag 1: 7 of 10 marbles are blue Bag 2: 35 of 100 marbles are blue
There are more blue marbles in bag 2, but you are far more likely to pick a blue marble in the first bag.
The point of the article is: how much of an indication is it that a.xy domain is dangerous?
> Could you sum up the traits a Democrat nominee would have to have for the Republicans to refrain > from demonizing him? The Republicans will only vote for an R, unless their own candidate is so > bad that they have to stay home.
What on gods earth (heh) are you basing this on?
I am a Republican and voted for Kerry (as much as it pained me) because Bush is useless and we have a lovely system with 2 viable options.
Are you saying that in your situation a direct file-based approach would be faster than an indexed and range-partitioned table in a database like Oracle?
Sure would be nice if the signature could be verified easily BEFORE there is a problem, don't you think? Would be even nicer if the verification wasn't based on the subjective opinion of a handwriting expert.
I didn't say it was the same, and I didn't say it wasn't news. I objected to the implication that it was innovative to provide these libraries as a hosted solution to save bandwidth and download time. That's precisely what my comment said, by the way...
It is not necessarily a good thing that people emailing you have no idea that their emails are being stored on Gmail's servers. My company would never use Gmail because sensitive data is sent all the time internally through email (that may not be wise, but that doesn't mean it wouldn't be less wise to include a third-party archive of all emails...). I'm sure it cuts both ways where we wouldn't be extremely happy if one of our clients was storing all emails we sent to them on Gmail's servers.
It's not your job to receive credit from way up in the corporate tree. Honestly, up there they don't really care about you anyway; you are an interchangeable FTE (full time equivalent). Your job is to make your boss look good and be indispensable to him. He's the one who should become convinced that you are not interchangeable.
That's how you get noticed by people. Pushing to get credit during discussions with the upper suits is just going to make you look bad to your boss, which is the person you are trying to work well with.
The reason internet2 won't pick up is because it is stuck in a catch 22.0 No one will upgrade internet2 to web 2.0 until enough people come from internet1 to internet2. But why would anyone leave internet1 with web 2.0 to go to internet2 with web 1.0? It doesn't make sense.
Ok, but it is quite a bit to SUBSIDIZE such a mission. I think that's the idea. Dear Company-who-was-already-interested-in-this, if you step up your game, we'll pay for $30m of the project.
Yeah, ok. You're right, but let's not lump everything together like they are the same. Consider a marathon of Lost and a marathon of Law&Order. Assuming you like both shows, which one are you more likely to watch longer? Law&Order is a good show, but there is little or no continuity between episodes. Lost is a good show, and the bastard writers leave you wanting to curse the TV at the end of many episodes (How could they end the episode like that?! Et cetera).
Now let's talk about games. Play Peggle for an hour and play WoW for an hour. Even assuming you enjoy both the same, it will be more difficult for you to stop playing WoW than it will be for Peggle, because WoW has no natural break points (except MAYBE levels). There is always something -- I'll just finish this quest, I'll just get one more level, This damn thing has to spawn in the next couple minutes, I bet this female character msg'ing me is a hot chick who likes WoW just like me, etc.
Either way, moderation and discipline are necessary, but I'm just saying that -- just like Lost is constructed to make you long for the next episode -- some games are constructed in a way to make it harder to play for just an hour. The terms 'Evercrack' and 'Warcrack' didn't come out of nowhere.
Nice delivery, too. I don't think I would have laughed as hard if it was all one the same line. The break had me trying to figure out what you meant, then I read the next line.
Thanks for the post; very interesting idea, and I bet you're right.
I am cherry picking here, but I did want to point out that it is not the "recency effect" that causes them to stick to their old definition rather than the new one. The recency effect describes our tendency to hold recent information more salient than less recent information. I think what you are thinking of is the "primacy effect". But in reality these effects are describing short term memory, not long term memory.
Normally I would not point this out (it is a minor point), but you used it rather casually which made me think you might use this term somewhat frequently; thus, I wanted to make sure it got cleared up before you got beaten over the head by a fundamentalist college student who happened to be taking psy101 at the time...
Dammit. I just heard yesterday that Verizon has completely run out of places to have that guy ask if the person on the other end of the line can hear him now.
NASA, you have just brought us at least another two months of pain.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't understand your logic. Having gas prices increase is effectively a tax on low-gas-mileage vehicles. You could cause the same market condition by... effecting a tax on low-gas-mileage vehicles. The difference? The money could go to developing alternative energy sources instead of into Big Oil's pockets.
> For too long now Linux lovers have accused Microsoft of tomfoolery, when Microsoft has only delivered
> wholesome, moral, and radidly patched products.
For too long now Linux lovers have accused Microsoft of tomfoolery, when Microsoft has only delivered
wholesome, moral, and rabidly patched products.
There, I fixed your typo for you.
Um, no. You are exactly wrong, in fact. It is true that there are a greater quantity of troublesome .ru sites in your example, but given a .ru domain and a .hk domain, the .hk domain is more likely to be troublesome. The fact that there are more .ru troublesome sites out there is only a result of there being more .ru sites out there. The only thing that affects is the likelihood that a given domain is a .ru domain.
.xy domain is dangerous?
Consider this:
Bag 1: 7 of 10 marbles are blue
Bag 2: 35 of 100 marbles are blue
There are more blue marbles in bag 2, but you are far more likely to pick a blue marble in the first bag.
The point of the article is: how much of an indication is it that a
> Could you sum up the traits a Democrat nominee would have to have for the Republicans to refrain
> from demonizing him? The Republicans will only vote for an R, unless their own candidate is so
> bad that they have to stay home.
What on gods earth (heh) are you basing this on?
I am a Republican and voted for Kerry (as much as it pained me) because Bush is useless and we have a lovely system with 2 viable options.
Ok, just trying to make sure I understood what you were claiming.
Are you saying that in your situation a direct file-based approach would be faster than an indexed and range-partitioned table in a database like Oracle?
Sure would be nice if the signature could be verified easily BEFORE there is a problem, don't you think? Would be even nicer if the verification wasn't based on the subjective opinion of a handwriting expert.
Geekier.
I didn't say it was the same, and I didn't say it wasn't news. I objected to the implication that it was innovative to provide these libraries as a hosted solution to save bandwidth and download time. That's precisely what my comment said, by the way...
This isn't something Google came up with. It's great that they're doing it, but YUI did it quite a while ago. http://developer.yahoo.com/yui/articles/hosting/
Thanks, but that doesn't change my point at all...
Very cool, thanks for the tip. Any specifics around your experience?
It is not necessarily a good thing that people emailing you have no idea that their emails are being stored on Gmail's servers. My company would never use Gmail because sensitive data is sent all the time internally through email (that may not be wise, but that doesn't mean it wouldn't be less wise to include a third-party archive of all emails...). I'm sure it cuts both ways where we wouldn't be extremely happy if one of our clients was storing all emails we sent to them on Gmail's servers.
It's not your job to receive credit from way up in the corporate tree. Honestly, up there they don't really care about you anyway; you are an interchangeable FTE (full time equivalent). Your job is to make your boss look good and be indispensable to him. He's the one who should become convinced that you are not interchangeable.
That's how you get noticed by people. Pushing to get credit during discussions with the upper suits is just going to make you look bad to your boss, which is the person you are trying to work well with.
Think locally.
I knew Jack Handy read /.
... it shows up on ebay
The reason internet2 won't pick up is because it is stuck in a catch 22.0 No one will upgrade internet2 to web 2.0 until enough people come from internet1 to internet2. But why would anyone leave internet1 with web 2.0 to go to internet2 with web 1.0? It doesn't make sense.
It is not illegal to be rude to a police officer.
http://www.jinx.com/men/shirts/video_games/jesus_saves.html
Ok, but it is quite a bit to SUBSIDIZE such a mission. I think that's the idea. Dear Company-who-was-already-interested-in-this, if you step up your game, we'll pay for $30m of the project.
Yeah, ok. You're right, but let's not lump everything together like they are the same. Consider a marathon of Lost and a marathon of Law&Order. Assuming you like both shows, which one are you more likely to watch longer? Law&Order is a good show, but there is little or no continuity between episodes. Lost is a good show, and the bastard writers leave you wanting to curse the TV at the end of many episodes (How could they end the episode like that?! Et cetera).
Now let's talk about games. Play Peggle for an hour and play WoW for an hour. Even assuming you enjoy both the same, it will be more difficult for you to stop playing WoW than it will be for Peggle, because WoW has no natural break points (except MAYBE levels). There is always something -- I'll just finish this quest, I'll just get one more level, This damn thing has to spawn in the next couple minutes, I bet this female character msg'ing me is a hot chick who likes WoW just like me, etc.
Either way, moderation and discipline are necessary, but I'm just saying that -- just like Lost is constructed to make you long for the next episode -- some games are constructed in a way to make it harder to play for just an hour. The terms 'Evercrack' and 'Warcrack' didn't come out of nowhere.
Absolutely hilarious.
Nice delivery, too. I don't think I would have laughed as hard if it was all one the same line. The break had me trying to figure out what you meant, then I read the next line.
Good stuff, man
Thanks for the post; very interesting idea, and I bet you're right.
I am cherry picking here, but I did want to point out that it is not the "recency effect" that causes them to stick to their old definition rather than the new one. The recency effect describes our tendency to hold recent information more salient than less recent information. I think what you are thinking of is the "primacy effect". But in reality these effects are describing short term memory, not long term memory.
Normally I would not point this out (it is a minor point), but you used it rather casually which made me think you might use this term somewhat frequently; thus, I wanted to make sure it got cleared up before you got beaten over the head by a fundamentalist college student who happened to be taking psy101 at the time...
Dammit. I just heard yesterday that Verizon has completely run out of places to have that guy ask if the person on the other end of the line can hear him now.
NASA, you have just brought us at least another two months of pain.
Don't worry; you're the only one here who even looked at TFA