But at $100/TB, there is very little cost to this mentality - except for now, the growing cost of finding the data - but that is still minimal compared to, say, filling your house with every edition of the NYT.
I've been trying to figure out the best way to organize my data lately, and I've been looking into tagging systems. I have tried using symbolic links before, but didn't like the system I came up with because I was unable to move the original file. I think I've always avoided using hard links because a long time ago, someone told me they were dangerous for some reason (I know enough to get by in Linux, but I'm far from an expert on the details of how things work).
Your post prompted me to quickly reinvestigate hard links, and I realized exactly what you just said - they ARE identical to tagging systems. My problem is now solved.
1/4 diagonal = 1/16 area, "size" isn't a specific term.
And at 220 pixels/inch, the resolution is not quite as fine as the iphone 4 display (330 ppi), but it's close - a lot closer than my 20" 1600x1200 display, which is 100 ppi. I probably couldn't see pixelation on that, but I don't have great eyes.
Here's a related point: if 95% of schools stop having kids read the book because of that word, then the book is effectively banned. Which is worse, a total ban, or a well-publicized and well-documented censorship or "translation"? If the intent is to keep the book available and relevant, then the choice is obvious. I disagree with this logic, but I can see how the decision was made.
That was my first thought too, but Shakespeare is a lot harder to work with because of the pentameter, which makes it a bad comparison. So... just use Chaucer's Tales instead.
Nobody else saw fit to mention the eerie similarity between the publisher's name, Newsouth, and the Newspeak language from 1984? When I first saw this story, I thought "Newsouth" was a joke.
No, you're wrong. The article clearly states, in the passage that you quoted, that it is talking about performance gains due increased processors speeds which are clearly linked to Moore's law growth in transistor density. It doesn't say that Moore's law = improvement in performance. It doesn't say that algorithms are directly comparable to Moore's law. It says that both Moore's law and algorithm research lead to performance gains, and the gains in performance due to algorithm research are more significant, for a specific type of problem, over a specific time period.
Well, you have to specify whether you're talking about the average amount of time spent in lines, or the average ordering of the three lines, taken over many shopping trips. I don't think it was specified in the article - so how can you say who is right?
I essentially agree with the people you were arguing against, but before I saw your comments, it simply never occurred to me that there might be people who thought of marketing as a good thing. I'm replying again because I'm honestly curious about your reasoning, not trying to be rude or sarcastic.
I don't buy a lot of things, because I don't have a ton of money. But whenever I do buy something that costs more than $50 or so, I tend to put a good amount of thought into it before making the purchase. I've never bought a bathtub, so of course I have no idea what a normal capacity is. But if your example were about a digital camera, a type of product I am familiar with, I would have immediately recognized "1 megapixel sensor" as absurdly low, relative to the current market - and no amount of marketing prose would convince me otherwise. Even if I couldn't recognize that immediately based on my own knowledge, my research would show me pretty quickly that I don't want the product. I don't want the company to provide the context for me - I want to understand it independently.
Admittedly, there are a lot of people in this world, and they all have different shopping habits. But the only effect I can see from marketing similar to your example, is to make purchases easier for consumers, in the extremely short term, by directly lying to them. If you disagree, can you explain what other effects it has? If you agree, can you explain why you don't believe that behavior to be unethical?
I don't quite follow your second point. Are you saying that companies WANT to be held accountable for false advertising, so they provide more text in the product description, to increase their liability?
Think through your analogy: if McDonalds were one of a very small number of restaurant choices, and all other food had to be obtained by hunting or farming, then McDonalds would have introduced the very concepts of burgers, sandwiches, ice-cold drinks, fried potatoes, to millions of people - that would certainly be helpful for fine cuisine. Many people who use Windows have at least a passing familiarity with the basic hardware components of a desktop PC, the concepts of directories, files and file types, applications, etc. Yes, Windows also enables people to use a computer with almost zero knowledge of how it works, but if you're saying that nobody has gained some (extremely basic) IT literacy from using Windows, you're wrong.
(I only use Windows when necessary, I use Linux on my personal computers 99% of the time)
It isn't a meme, its just used incorrectly 95% of the time. When post A asks a question, expecting actual answers in the responses, and post B replies to post A with an actual answer, then it makes sense for post C to reply to post B with "this". I have no problem with it when it is used correctly, it just bothers me that people don't understand that it does actually make sense in a certain situation, and makes no sense in others.
Obviously there is no issue of "bit density" as you describe it, but what are the telcos supposed to do as traffic increases significantly? Does it really make more sense to increase service charges uniformly for everybody? If you can clearly identify the 1% of users that create 20% of the traffic, then isn't it best for everybody to charge those users appropriately?
Don't get me wrong, I'm no fan of these companies, and I absolutely dread the day that practices like this start to go into effect. But I have trouble seeing alternatives.
A "power law" just states that the relationship follows frequency = K*magnitude^P, for some values of K and P which are obviously dependent on time. The answer to your question is yes, during any period in which P is approximately -1. Then frequency*magnitude = K. "Magnitude" here is proportional to "number of people affected".
In general, both possessives and contractions have apostrophes. This is easy to remember. The rules are different for "its" and "it's". Should I violate the possessive rule, or the contraction rule? I can't remember this because it is totally arbitrary.
As a practical, personal matter, I'm not particularly bothered by spam either. But try to estimate the total amount of resources that go into creating, transmitting, filtering and storing all the spam that has ever been sent. I have no idea what the answer is, but surely those resources would have been put to better use solving other problems?
Does it bother you when a stoplight is red for 30 seconds longer than it should be? It only costs you a few seconds of time, and a few drops of gas, each commute... I think it's equally reasonable to be bothered by both of these things.
But I already have the "mark" of a bank account number..? Even my cash is manufactured by the "Majority". Everyone who exists within society is hopelessly trapped in the system already.
The "cellphone effect" causes polls to under-represent certain demographics, say by 10%. Those demographics also tend to be under-represented in the voting population, say by 50%. That 50% reduces the magnitude of the cellphone effect, so you expect the overall correction to be 5% in favor of democrats. This is how I interpreted "demographic weighting" in the summary, I'm not sure what problem you're seeing with it.
Slashdot Mirror
Watch more Robocop.
But at $100/TB, there is very little cost to this mentality - except for now, the growing cost of finding the data - but that is still minimal compared to, say, filling your house with every edition of the NYT.
Thank you.
I've been trying to figure out the best way to organize my data lately, and I've been looking into tagging systems. I have tried using symbolic links before, but didn't like the system I came up with because I was unable to move the original file. I think I've always avoided using hard links because a long time ago, someone told me they were dangerous for some reason (I know enough to get by in Linux, but I'm far from an expert on the details of how things work).
Your post prompted me to quickly reinvestigate hard links, and I realized exactly what you just said - they ARE identical to tagging systems. My problem is now solved.
Then you just have the site enforce a size limit - jpeg compression is inherently lossy, so lossless jpeg images have very bad compression ratios.
"=" is a relation.
1/4 diagonal = 1/16 area, "size" isn't a specific term.
And at 220 pixels/inch, the resolution is not quite as fine as the iphone 4 display (330 ppi), but it's close - a lot closer than my 20" 1600x1200 display, which is 100 ppi. I probably couldn't see pixelation on that, but I don't have great eyes.
Ok, so the two games share luck. How is skill required in picking lottery numbers?
Here's a related point: if 95% of schools stop having kids read the book because of that word, then the book is effectively banned. Which is worse, a total ban, or a well-publicized and well-documented censorship or "translation"? If the intent is to keep the book available and relevant, then the choice is obvious. I disagree with this logic, but I can see how the decision was made.
That was my first thought too, but Shakespeare is a lot harder to work with because of the pentameter, which makes it a bad comparison. So... just use Chaucer's Tales instead.
Nobody else saw fit to mention the eerie similarity between the publisher's name, Newsouth, and the Newspeak language from 1984? When I first saw this story, I thought "Newsouth" was a joke.
The trick is to have it print a fully functional, but half-size replica of itself.
No, you're wrong. The article clearly states, in the passage that you quoted, that it is talking about performance gains due increased processors speeds which are clearly linked to Moore's law growth in transistor density. It doesn't say that Moore's law = improvement in performance. It doesn't say that algorithms are directly comparable to Moore's law. It says that both Moore's law and algorithm research lead to performance gains, and the gains in performance due to algorithm research are more significant, for a specific type of problem, over a specific time period.
Well, you have to specify whether you're talking about the average amount of time spent in lines, or the average ordering of the three lines, taken over many shopping trips. I don't think it was specified in the article - so how can you say who is right?
I essentially agree with the people you were arguing against, but before I saw your comments, it simply never occurred to me that there might be people who thought of marketing as a good thing. I'm replying again because I'm honestly curious about your reasoning, not trying to be rude or sarcastic.
I don't buy a lot of things, because I don't have a ton of money. But whenever I do buy something that costs more than $50 or so, I tend to put a good amount of thought into it before making the purchase. I've never bought a bathtub, so of course I have no idea what a normal capacity is. But if your example were about a digital camera, a type of product I am familiar with, I would have immediately recognized "1 megapixel sensor" as absurdly low, relative to the current market - and no amount of marketing prose would convince me otherwise. Even if I couldn't recognize that immediately based on my own knowledge, my research would show me pretty quickly that I don't want the product. I don't want the company to provide the context for me - I want to understand it independently.
Admittedly, there are a lot of people in this world, and they all have different shopping habits. But the only effect I can see from marketing similar to your example, is to make purchases easier for consumers, in the extremely short term, by directly lying to them. If you disagree, can you explain what other effects it has? If you agree, can you explain why you don't believe that behavior to be unethical?
I don't quite follow your second point. Are you saying that companies WANT to be held accountable for false advertising, so they provide more text in the product description, to increase their liability?
Think through your analogy: if McDonalds were one of a very small number of restaurant choices, and all other food had to be obtained by hunting or farming, then McDonalds would have introduced the very concepts of burgers, sandwiches, ice-cold drinks, fried potatoes, to millions of people - that would certainly be helpful for fine cuisine. Many people who use Windows have at least a passing familiarity with the basic hardware components of a desktop PC, the concepts of directories, files and file types, applications, etc. Yes, Windows also enables people to use a computer with almost zero knowledge of how it works, but if you're saying that nobody has gained some (extremely basic) IT literacy from using Windows, you're wrong.
(I only use Windows when necessary, I use Linux on my personal computers 99% of the time)
See here: http://idle.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1919386&cid=34630114
It isn't a meme, its just used incorrectly 95% of the time. When post A asks a question, expecting actual answers in the responses, and post B replies to post A with an actual answer, then it makes sense for post C to reply to post B with "this". I have no problem with it when it is used correctly, it just bothers me that people don't understand that it does actually make sense in a certain situation, and makes no sense in others.
Obviously there is no issue of "bit density" as you describe it, but what are the telcos supposed to do as traffic increases significantly? Does it really make more sense to increase service charges uniformly for everybody? If you can clearly identify the 1% of users that create 20% of the traffic, then isn't it best for everybody to charge those users appropriately?
Don't get me wrong, I'm no fan of these companies, and I absolutely dread the day that practices like this start to go into effect. But I have trouble seeing alternatives.
What's wrong with "capacity: 120 liters" as a reason to buy a damn bathtub?
A "power law" just states that the relationship follows frequency = K*magnitude^P, for some values of K and P which are obviously dependent on time. The answer to your question is yes, during any period in which P is approximately -1. Then frequency*magnitude = K. "Magnitude" here is proportional to "number of people affected".
In general, both possessives and contractions have apostrophes. This is easy to remember. The rules are different for "its" and "it's". Should I violate the possessive rule, or the contraction rule? I can't remember this because it is totally arbitrary.
As a practical, personal matter, I'm not particularly bothered by spam either. But try to estimate the total amount of resources that go into creating, transmitting, filtering and storing all the spam that has ever been sent. I have no idea what the answer is, but surely those resources would have been put to better use solving other problems?
Does it bother you when a stoplight is red for 30 seconds longer than it should be? It only costs you a few seconds of time, and a few drops of gas, each commute... I think it's equally reasonable to be bothered by both of these things.
Sounds like you learned the lesson.
But I already have the "mark" of a bank account number..? Even my cash is manufactured by the "Majority". Everyone who exists within society is hopelessly trapped in the system already.
The "cellphone effect" causes polls to under-represent certain demographics, say by 10%. Those demographics also tend to be under-represented in the voting population, say by 50%. That 50% reduces the magnitude of the cellphone effect, so you expect the overall correction to be 5% in favor of democrats. This is how I interpreted "demographic weighting" in the summary, I'm not sure what problem you're seeing with it.