On the other hand, zero celcius is the boundary line between dealing with frozen water (as ice or snow) and dealing with liquid water (as flooding or rain). That's incredibly convenient when travelling. I don't think that the nuanced subtlety implied by indicating that it's going to be 95F instead of 94F tomorrow is really worth the tradeoff, or for that matter reflected in the precision of the model itself.
Our "ability to adapt as a species" would mean simply letting people die if they weren't already immune. Unless you're aware of some Lamarkian pressure I don't know about.
Use of vaccines does create a selective pressure for vaccines to adapt, which is why they're used for the most dangerous diseases or in the most at-risk groups, or so broadly that a disease doesn't have a chance to adapt before it loses all of its possible niches. Adios, smallpox. Time to get your coat, polio.
Hospitals were a crude example. My point is that humanitarian efforts of any sort are poorly approximated by deciding how much money you are giving each person. And of course there's the issue of whether taxation or personal charitable efforts are the correct approach, or what the right balance between them is; that's a bigger issue than I feel confident in addressing.
You say that like they just happened to have 86-DOS lying around when IBM happened to ask them for a disk OS. The fact that they kind of bluffed their way into market dominance, without even having to develop a new piece of software, displays a certain amount of cunning. They knew what they were doing.
Business intelligence and not computer intelligence, mind you.
Regarding inflation, you're just emphasising his point. If a worker's wage has only gained in fifty cents since the '70s, then that worker is, in real terms, being paid much, much less. Which is why the average worker can no longer afford to have a house and a family. Meanwhile the average CEO wage has not just kept up with inflation, but doubled.
James Marcum received $150K in compensation in 2011, not $50K. His current income is not indicated.
Given that the news stories are picked by either the Slashdot editors directly or the Slashdot readership by the Firehose, it's safe to assume that some proportion of nerds consider this news and/or something that matters.
You still don't explain what kind of trust you're talking about though. I trust my chair to support my weight, but I don't trust it to pay my rent. It's not even a sensible question in that context.
Confiscating 100% of Bill Gates wealth will only give each of them a one time payment of $61.61, less than a month of income.
And if we lived in a system where tax money was literally handed to people, you'd have a point, but that's not what tax money is used for on all but the smallest scales. Economics has shown time and time again that the impacts on quality of life from spending money on social infrastructre are disproportionately large. Suppose you built tens of billions of dollars worth of hospitals, which is a lot of hospitals by any measure, as well as the infrastructure to set up medical schools. Suddenly you've not only created a promising new career avenue, you've also made the nation healthier and, as a consequence, more productive, and as a consequence, raised their incomes.
What exactly is it that you don't trust him about? That he'll actually donate that amount, or that he won't blow it all on some ridiculous supervillain scheme to steal the moon?
Precisely. I'm not sure that having $100 Bn tied up in one person is really all that different than having it tied up in some other monolithic entity which can be expected to direct all its resources in the same direction.
If you'd bothered to read the article instead of trying to look like a wise-ass on the basis of ten seconds of reading, you'd know what they do with the waste heat.
Those lines were on a much larger (planetary) scale. It's thought that he was actually seeing the blood vessels in his own retina, like how you can see them when an optician is examining you.
You're hopelessly naive about how much a cure for HIV is going to cost to develop. The resources involved in performing medical research make Gates' entire business empire seem like a child setting up a lemonade stand.
The Tablet is a niche market that exploded [...] it will settle down, and will not take away the desktop or laptop. It wont take away servers or networking, and it wont do anything to programming.
While desktops and laptops will continue to be necessary for work tasks, and will always have that niche, the overwhelming bulk of computers sold today are being used as little more than glorified web browser and Facebook kiosks in people's homes. The tablet and smartphone market is completely devouring that. I bought a smartphone three years ago - I'm still using the same one - and since then I've found myself browsing the web on my laptop less and less because the benefits don't outweight the cumbersome nature of the machine. It has reached a point where I only use my laptop to write, perform actual work, or play games. I'm even using a streaming box when I want to watch videos on a screen larger than a postcard.
So I'm on my laptop at home for about five hours a week, and even that's because I'm doing things most computers don't do most of the time. That should scare the everloving shit out of everyone who's making PCs. I'm not going to pony up for a $1500 Ultrabook to replace it if it breaks.
Most Windows users only upgrade their OS when they get a new computer, and they accept change only grudgingly. To the extent that the PC market is currently in crisis because it turns out that a $250 tablet and their five-year-old laptop does most of what these people need, and thus they've stopped buying.
The unacknowledged truth of the Wintel computer market is that it's built upon conservatism, basing its growth not around change and improvement but around making things cheaper ($400 laptops) and encouraging people to buy more of them (one laptop per person in a household). At some point that growth was going to stop and the lack of change was going to bite PC makers and MS in the ass, and that point is now.
"Windows 8, Web 3.0, tablets, smart televisions, and social networking is starting to become fairly common. If there is anything I have learned, it is that most humans have a desire to throw out the old and accept the new without any sort of hesitation"
Surely Windows 8 is pretty clear evidence that most people - Joe Random Computer User - will refuse to have anything to do with The New unless it's actually easier for them to use.
Well, that's just it. The additional content was framed in such a way that my opposition to it as a concept exists at an intellectual level, and not an emotional one, while my will to play the "next part" of the story exists at a sufficiently immediate emotional level that I wind up going ahead and getting it on the spur of the moment (say when it goes half price, as I did with Leviathan).
It helps that a lot of it is really, really good and came long, long after the game itself. It's easier to grudge Javik than Citadel and the overpricing on one certainly outbalances the underpricing of the other.
Slashdot Mirror
On the other hand, zero celcius is the boundary line between dealing with frozen water (as ice or snow) and dealing with liquid water (as flooding or rain). That's incredibly convenient when travelling. I don't think that the nuanced subtlety implied by indicating that it's going to be 95F instead of 94F tomorrow is really worth the tradeoff, or for that matter reflected in the precision of the model itself.
Our "ability to adapt as a species" would mean simply letting people die if they weren't already immune. Unless you're aware of some Lamarkian pressure I don't know about.
Use of vaccines does create a selective pressure for vaccines to adapt, which is why they're used for the most dangerous diseases or in the most at-risk groups, or so broadly that a disease doesn't have a chance to adapt before it loses all of its possible niches. Adios, smallpox. Time to get your coat, polio.
You're telling me that not having music and movies playing can also trigger the malware? It's unstoppable!
By "stress" he means "physiological stress", like the acceleration involved in launching. Not stress as in "boy, do I have a tight deadline".
Outstanding, thanks.
Hospitals were a crude example. My point is that humanitarian efforts of any sort are poorly approximated by deciding how much money you are giving each person. And of course there's the issue of whether taxation or personal charitable efforts are the correct approach, or what the right balance between them is; that's a bigger issue than I feel confident in addressing.
You say that like they just happened to have 86-DOS lying around when IBM happened to ask them for a disk OS. The fact that they kind of bluffed their way into market dominance, without even having to develop a new piece of software, displays a certain amount of cunning. They knew what they were doing.
Business intelligence and not computer intelligence, mind you.
Regarding inflation, you're just emphasising his point. If a worker's wage has only gained in fifty cents since the '70s, then that worker is, in real terms, being paid much, much less. Which is why the average worker can no longer afford to have a house and a family. Meanwhile the average CEO wage has not just kept up with inflation, but doubled.
James Marcum received $150K in compensation in 2011, not $50K. His current income is not indicated.
Given that the news stories are picked by either the Slashdot editors directly or the Slashdot readership by the Firehose, it's safe to assume that some proportion of nerds consider this news and/or something that matters.
You still don't explain what kind of trust you're talking about though. I trust my chair to support my weight, but I don't trust it to pay my rent. It's not even a sensible question in that context.
So, what sort of trust are we talking about here?
If your definition of "any substantial inheritance" is $1,000,000+, sure, Mr. Ten Thousand Dollars Doesn't Mean Anything To Me.
Confiscating 100% of Bill Gates wealth will only give each of them a one time payment of $61.61, less than a month of income.
And if we lived in a system where tax money was literally handed to people, you'd have a point, but that's not what tax money is used for on all but the smallest scales. Economics has shown time and time again that the impacts on quality of life from spending money on social infrastructre are disproportionately large. Suppose you built tens of billions of dollars worth of hospitals, which is a lot of hospitals by any measure, as well as the infrastructure to set up medical schools. Suddenly you've not only created a promising new career avenue, you've also made the nation healthier and, as a consequence, more productive, and as a consequence, raised their incomes.
Bootstrapping, essentially.
What exactly is it that you don't trust him about? That he'll actually donate that amount, or that he won't blow it all on some ridiculous supervillain scheme to steal the moon?
The power plant side of the equation is unchanged: the energy it creates depends on there being a temperature gradient.
Precisely. I'm not sure that having $100 Bn tied up in one person is really all that different than having it tied up in some other monolithic entity which can be expected to direct all its resources in the same direction.
If you'd bothered to read the article instead of trying to look like a wise-ass on the basis of ten seconds of reading, you'd know what they do with the waste heat.
Those lines were on a much larger (planetary) scale. It's thought that he was actually seeing the blood vessels in his own retina, like how you can see them when an optician is examining you.
You're hopelessly naive about how much a cure for HIV is going to cost to develop. The resources involved in performing medical research make Gates' entire business empire seem like a child setting up a lemonade stand.
If you're going to do that, why not allow religions into the list, or corporations?
While desktops and laptops will continue to be necessary for work tasks, and will always have that niche, the overwhelming bulk of computers sold today are being used as little more than glorified web browser and Facebook kiosks in people's homes. The tablet and smartphone market is completely devouring that. I bought a smartphone three years ago - I'm still using the same one - and since then I've found myself browsing the web on my laptop less and less because the benefits don't outweight the cumbersome nature of the machine. It has reached a point where I only use my laptop to write, perform actual work, or play games. I'm even using a streaming box when I want to watch videos on a screen larger than a postcard.
So I'm on my laptop at home for about five hours a week, and even that's because I'm doing things most computers don't do most of the time. That should scare the everloving shit out of everyone who's making PCs. I'm not going to pony up for a $1500 Ultrabook to replace it if it breaks.
Most Windows users only upgrade their OS when they get a new computer, and they accept change only grudgingly. To the extent that the PC market is currently in crisis because it turns out that a $250 tablet and their five-year-old laptop does most of what these people need, and thus they've stopped buying.
The unacknowledged truth of the Wintel computer market is that it's built upon conservatism, basing its growth not around change and improvement but around making things cheaper ($400 laptops) and encouraging people to buy more of them (one laptop per person in a household). At some point that growth was going to stop and the lack of change was going to bite PC makers and MS in the ass, and that point is now.
Windows 8 being a particularly pretinent example.
"Windows 8, Web 3.0, tablets, smart televisions, and social networking is starting to become fairly common. If there is anything I have learned, it is that most humans have a desire to throw out the old and accept the new without any sort of hesitation"
Surely Windows 8 is pretty clear evidence that most people - Joe Random Computer User - will refuse to have anything to do with The New unless it's actually easier for them to use.
Well, that's just it. The additional content was framed in such a way that my opposition to it as a concept exists at an intellectual level, and not an emotional one, while my will to play the "next part" of the story exists at a sufficiently immediate emotional level that I wind up going ahead and getting it on the spur of the moment (say when it goes half price, as I did with Leviathan).
It helps that a lot of it is really, really good and came long, long after the game itself. It's easier to grudge Javik than Citadel and the overpricing on one certainly outbalances the underpricing of the other.
EA obviously doesn't do all-DLC-included editions of these games for just that reason.