True. I surrender and admit fault. Still, where does an inverse bell curve flatten out? At what given level? Come to think about it, I guess a reversed curve as such would still need to contain all possible outcomes (an "area" of 1) and you could thus make some calculations, but it seems very forced.
Still, I am left to wonder if a bell curve is a good thing to use when discussing such things. At any rate, thanks for pointing it out.
approaching the bottom end of their inverse market share bell curve
Wow, I wish I would have known about the existance of this kind of thing. So what you are saying is - buy Sega stock like crazy, they are heading for infinite market share. Nice advice. I think I'll go sell all my stuff now and invest.
Not sure it's actually going to play out that way, though; it doesn't seem like Sega has much of a future to me.
Damn, make up your mind. I've allready sold all my stuff and now I see this.
Wow, that is one long post for slashdot. Not that I've actually read the "article" since I already have the game, but it seems like it would have hurt to get it rejected.
Umm, if I publish a recipe for crack that uses 2 less ingredients than the normal recipe and takes only half the time to make, why would that be a valid argument for making crack legal?
Erm, I don't know. But could you publish it all the same for, erm, research reasons?
You bring up "pork barrel programs" in this context as if it is somehow related to subsidizing things, when it is not. Pork barreling is, simplistically speaking, the process of saying "sure, Ill vote for your program/bill/sugestion if you vote for mine". I guess that on some meta level that could be seen as political subsidizing of another political view, but I'm guessing that is not what you meant.
No, no no. Quiet! You are ruining a perfectly good carma increaser post that has been used at slashdot since the dawn of time. Slashdot, where posting the same thing over and over again acctualy makes sence.
This is the same complaint that is raised every single time this issue is debated. First of, let me state that I am in no way in favour of this kind of tax, but for a completely different reason. The point you, and many with you, make is similar as to saying "why should my tax money go to paying other peoples medical bills", "why should my tax money be spent on roads I never travel upon", "why should my tax money be used to subsidise food for the poor". Taxes are very rarely taken from people in proportion to usage of the service they end up paying for. If they did then you could simply charge for the service instead of taxing the community.
The real issue here, as I see it at least, is the fact that this sort of taxes are levied not to increase the funds in the government coffers but are instead supposed to be piped directly in to a privately held corporations bank accounts. Taxes, good or bad, should be used as an instrument of the government, not as an instrument for corporations.
In Sweden this would not be a problem, or at least unless the new legal sugestions haven't been signed in to law. Downloading the files are considered legal, the spreading of the same are not. In other words, perhaps it is time to start taking advantage of the fact that the internet is in fact a transnational network and stop focusing so much on the US side of things. Still, this needs someone with the energy to do this. Perhaps a local branch of the EFF should have a look at it.
X Window and not XWindows
on
Games Knoppix
·
· Score: 1, Offtopic
I am amazed. I can acctualy scroll down among the comments and not notice a godzillion posts pointing out that it's called X Window, not XWindows. What is slashdot coming too? Next thing you know you will be able to spall things wrung and nit get spalling nazis after yo.
Absolutely. Still, the nifty thing about this little network is that you can simply ignore those sites. I can't remind myself that I've ever been to a site dedicated to advicing parents on children. I'm fairly certain there is a shit load(tm) of them out there though. Fragmentation might be a bad thing on your hard drive, that doesn't mean it's bad everywhere and in every instance.
And it is avalible for free non the less. Usualy I'd make a cassual reference to irony. This beeing slashdot however and me not beeing new to this place I will refrain from that.
but in the story it worked just as well as any other type
That is the main point I'm trying to get through though. If you take the gift economy to its optimum level (in an economic/productional sence) then the outcome is just the same. Optimal gift economy = optimal capitalism. A rose by any other name...
Obviously I'll have a hard time arguing against this, mainly because what you say make, at one level, some sence. The main point I was trying to make though is the fact that if you have a pure gift economy then the best case scenario it can hope to achive will simply end up beeing a conversion of the money currency in to a "you owe me a gift"-currency. Many people associate capitalism with money when capitalism just as easily can use appels, beads of salt, favours or any other thing as a currency. In fact, many of these probably have been used.
The reason capitalism has ended up focusing on money as a currency is simply because of the exactness of money. If you charge people in silver relics depicting buda then you run the risk of not getting the same quality buda in every exchange. Some will be smaller, some bigger, some better crafted, some worse et cetera. The non-excisting need for money in a capitalist society can be seen if you study banks for example. In many transactions "pure" money does not exchange hands, simply entires in a database, entries that are as exact in nomination as money.
The concept of a gift economy is really that easy.
No, it is not. At least not if you are, as I think, refering to the classical "free as in beer". Take it to its extreme point and the issue might be clearer. Picture a world where everything is indeed free and payment is in favours. All you have done then is converted one currency, ie money, to another currency, favours. Under optimal conditions they equal - you get as much "favour value" back as you put in.
Suboptimal conditions, which are far more likely to appear, will get you less, or more, favour value then you put in. This is the same as you getting payed less, or more, then your work is worth.
The use of an exact payment such as money (exact since it can be given an exact numerical value) makes it much more easy to reach the opimal levels. To give you an example, have a look at the often cited communist* attempts at just this. The idea is a very nice one but due to the suboptimal use of production inputs the system falls appart. The goverment simply couldn't descide well what and how much should be produced. This is exactly what a free-beer-system would ammount too.
* No, I didn't say that the OSS/Free Software/Et Cetera modell equals to communism. These movements focus on free as in freedom, not free as in beer.
So in fact, most people refere to the 1st post (1) and not, as you asumed, the 1th (2726912.25) post. Easy mistake to make since these constants are a bit tricky to keep in mind. Tomorrow we will be talking about the constant 'nd'.
Down to your left you will see a little area indicating where you are in the filesystem. Granted it won't show the entire path unless you click it. Also, clicking one of the shown dirs will take you to that directory instantly.
especially when spatial mode decides you need 3 windows open to traverse 3 directorys
Clicking a directory with the middle button will close the current dir window and open a new for the one you just clicked. No spreading like cancer if you don't want it.
I suspect that the stock buy-back is aimed more at trying to increase the share price for those thousands of disgruntled employees holding worthless options than anything else
Buying back some shares is no different then the one time divident payout they are talking about. It can be seen upon as asking their investors "do you want us to keep the money or do you want them as divident". Those that want it as divident sells the stock to MS (on the open market of course and possibly not with that exact mindset, but that is the effect). Those that want MS to keep the money simply doesn't sell any stock on the market. It might take a little thinking to see that this is indeed what happens. Granted my explanation wasn't the best in the world but my point still stands. If you don't take my word for it then there is always google to point you in the right direction.
Point is, this should not be seen as "creating deman for the stock by buying it yourself and thus making the price go up". Buyback programs can generate movements in either direction depending on how the market reacts to it. What is important is the "divident effect", for a lack of a better expression, that it generates.
So instead of bothering to do that you manualy keep track of your conversations here? Well, getting a bit off topic here. I'll save the recruitment campaign for some other time. =)
Doh! I got it the first time it was pointed out and I got it the second time it was pointed out, hence the reason I told "telstar" to read my reply to "pjt33". Makes a bit more sense now, doesnt it?
Perhaps telling you to read that post is not the best idea after all, since there I refered to this thread. This will all cause a loop of refering that might never end if the reader does not pay attention.
So why not save themselves some energy and just split the difference; the US sends 90,000 (165,000 - 75,000) people to canada, put the 75,000 to their own shipping quota and Canada doesn't have to send anyone at all. Makes perfect sence. =)
You don't come here wery often, do you? Of course we are on the side that happens to be prefered this very instance. Tomorrow we'll go back to hating ICANN again.
Slashdot Mirror
True. I surrender and admit fault. Still, where does an inverse bell curve flatten out? At what given level? Come to think about it, I guess a reversed curve as such would still need to contain all possible outcomes (an "area" of 1) and you could thus make some calculations, but it seems very forced.
Still, I am left to wonder if a bell curve is a good thing to use when discussing such things. At any rate, thanks for pointing it out.
Wow, I wish I would have known about the existance of this kind of thing. So what you are saying is - buy Sega stock like crazy, they are heading for infinite market share. Nice advice. I think I'll go sell all my stuff now and invest.
Damn, make up your mind. I've allready sold all my stuff and now I see this.
Wow, that is one long post for slashdot. Not that I've actually read the "article" since I already have the game, but it seems like it would have hurt to get it rejected.
$200k isn't that much. No realy, it isn't. Just imagine how many rich people spend that kind of money on a second, third or n'th car.
Erm, I don't know. But could you publish it all the same for, erm, research reasons?
You bring up "pork barrel programs" in this context as if it is somehow related to subsidizing things, when it is not. Pork barreling is, simplistically speaking, the process of saying "sure, Ill vote for your program/bill/sugestion if you vote for mine". I guess that on some meta level that could be seen as political subsidizing of another political view, but I'm guessing that is not what you meant.
Can't wait for the Obelisk fighters.
No, no no. Quiet! You are ruining a perfectly good carma increaser post that has been used at slashdot since the dawn of time. Slashdot, where posting the same thing over and over again acctualy makes sence.
This is the same complaint that is raised every single time this issue is debated. First of, let me state that I am in no way in favour of this kind of tax, but for a completely different reason. The point you, and many with you, make is similar as to saying "why should my tax money go to paying other peoples medical bills", "why should my tax money be spent on roads I never travel upon", "why should my tax money be used to subsidise food for the poor". Taxes are very rarely taken from people in proportion to usage of the service they end up paying for. If they did then you could simply charge for the service instead of taxing the community.
The real issue here, as I see it at least, is the fact that this sort of taxes are levied not to increase the funds in the government coffers but are instead supposed to be piped directly in to a privately held corporations bank accounts. Taxes, good or bad, should be used as an instrument of the government, not as an instrument for corporations.
In Sweden this would not be a problem, or at least unless the new legal sugestions haven't been signed in to law. Downloading the files are considered legal, the spreading of the same are not. In other words, perhaps it is time to start taking advantage of the fact that the internet is in fact a transnational network and stop focusing so much on the US side of things. Still, this needs someone with the energy to do this. Perhaps a local branch of the EFF should have a look at it.
I am amazed. I can acctualy scroll down among the comments and not notice a godzillion posts pointing out that it's called X Window, not XWindows. What is slashdot coming too? Next thing you know you will be able to spall things wrung and nit get spalling nazis after yo.
Absolutely. Still, the nifty thing about this little network is that you can simply ignore those sites. I can't remind myself that I've ever been to a site dedicated to advicing parents on children. I'm fairly certain there is a shit load(tm) of them out there though. Fragmentation might be a bad thing on your hard drive, that doesn't mean it's bad everywhere and in every instance.
That is the main point I'm trying to get through though. If you take the gift economy to its optimum level (in an economic/productional sence) then the outcome is just the same. Optimal gift economy = optimal capitalism. A rose by any other name...
Obviously I'll have a hard time arguing against this, mainly because what you say make, at one level, some sence. The main point I was trying to make though is the fact that if you have a pure gift economy then the best case scenario it can hope to achive will simply end up beeing a conversion of the money currency in to a "you owe me a gift"-currency. Many people associate capitalism with money when capitalism just as easily can use appels, beads of salt, favours or any other thing as a currency. In fact, many of these probably have been used.
The reason capitalism has ended up focusing on money as a currency is simply because of the exactness of money. If you charge people in silver relics depicting buda then you run the risk of not getting the same quality buda in every exchange. Some will be smaller, some bigger, some better crafted, some worse et cetera. The non-excisting need for money in a capitalist society can be seen if you study banks for example. In many transactions "pure" money does not exchange hands, simply entires in a database, entries that are as exact in nomination as money.
No, it is not. At least not if you are, as I think, refering to the classical "free as in beer". Take it to its extreme point and the issue might be clearer. Picture a world where everything is indeed free and payment is in favours. All you have done then is converted one currency, ie money, to another currency, favours. Under optimal conditions they equal - you get as much "favour value" back as you put in.
Suboptimal conditions, which are far more likely to appear, will get you less, or more, favour value then you put in. This is the same as you getting payed less, or more, then your work is worth.
The use of an exact payment such as money (exact since it can be given an exact numerical value) makes it much more easy to reach the opimal levels. To give you an example, have a look at the often cited communist* attempts at just this. The idea is a very nice one but due to the suboptimal use of production inputs the system falls appart. The goverment simply couldn't descide well what and how much should be produced. This is exactly what a free-beer-system would ammount too.
* No, I didn't say that the OSS/Free Software/Et Cetera modell equals to communism. These movements focus on free as in freedom, not free as in beer.
Fox? So you are saying it will be canceled mid-season? Makes sence.
You are not familiar with the constant 'st'
st = 1
1st = 1*1=1
So in fact, most people refere to the 1st post (1) and not, as you asumed, the 1th (2726912.25) post. Easy mistake to make since these constants are a bit tricky to keep in mind. Tomorrow we will be talking about the constant 'nd'.
I shampoo with ketchup, you insensitive clod!
Down to your left you will see a little area indicating where you are in the filesystem. Granted it won't show the entire path unless you click it. Also, clicking one of the shown dirs will take you to that directory instantly.
Clicking a directory with the middle button will close the current dir window and open a new for the one you just clicked. No spreading like cancer if you don't want it.
Buying back some shares is no different then the one time divident payout they are talking about. It can be seen upon as asking their investors "do you want us to keep the money or do you want them as divident". Those that want it as divident sells the stock to MS (on the open market of course and possibly not with that exact mindset, but that is the effect). Those that want MS to keep the money simply doesn't sell any stock on the market. It might take a little thinking to see that this is indeed what happens. Granted my explanation wasn't the best in the world but my point still stands. If you don't take my word for it then there is always google to point you in the right direction.
Point is, this should not be seen as "creating deman for the stock by buying it yourself and thus making the price go up". Buyback programs can generate movements in either direction depending on how the market reacts to it. What is important is the "divident effect", for a lack of a better expression, that it generates.
So instead of bothering to do that you manualy keep track of your conversations here? Well, getting a bit off topic here. I'll save the recruitment campaign for some other time. =)
All is well that ends well. Now all you have to do is get an account. ;)
Doh! I got it the first time it was pointed out and I got it the second time it was pointed out, hence the reason I told "telstar" to read my reply to "pjt33". Makes a bit more sense now, doesnt it?
Perhaps telling you to read that post is not the best idea after all, since there I refered to this thread. This will all cause a loop of refering that might never end if the reader does not pay attention.
So why not save themselves some energy and just split the difference; the US sends 90,000 (165,000 - 75,000) people to canada, put the 75,000 to their own shipping quota and Canada doesn't have to send anyone at all. Makes perfect sence. =)
You don't come here wery often, do you? Of course we are on the side that happens to be prefered this very instance. Tomorrow we'll go back to hating ICANN again.