But the PR of RealNetworks is just too big and too loud to allow anyone to step up and say it so that the same public audience hears. Their critical mass is not just in usage, but also in PR about streaming media.
Or something that content providers want you to listen to, but not own.
This argument simply doesn't fly. If it arrives at your machine, it's yours. Just because you use the wrong "player" on the receving end doesn't mean you can't keep it longer. Digital data doesn't just self-destruct. For reference, see for example this (or numerous plug-ins for WinAMP doing the same thing).
The people could say no to you using the road, but without any police or courts to enforce it, it might not get them anywhere.
That's exactly the point. The "people" have a police, so when the poor fellow who doesn't want to pay taxes wants to use the roads of the "people", the police hired by the "people" (using their tax money) will enforce that the non-payers doesn't trespass throught THEIR roads (unless he joins in on the social contract of the people and starts paying taxes).
"We hope that someday this institution will eclipse Google itself in overall world impact by ambitiously applying innovation and significant resources to the largest of the world's problems."
- Sergey Brin & Larry Page
So Sergey moves one half of the mouth (and controls one half of the brain) and Larry moves the other half of the mouth (and controls the other half of the brain)?
'cause that's the only way how they could have both come up with ONE quote (and together)...
There's no such thing. It's your money. They take it. What's charitable about it?
They take it because they force upon you the belief that you need to contribute to some "public" spending, i.e. police, safety (fire fighting), health (ambulances and publicly available ER facilities), infrastructure (maintenance of roads, bridges, tunnels) and administration of these (bureaucracy).
This is what would happen if there were no taxes: The moment you are born (in a private hospital for example), your parents should be paying a kazillion dollars when they want to transport you from that hospital to their domicile (their private property), since they have to trespass through property that your parents did not pay to maintain.
You yourself cannot leave the premises of your private property unless you pay to the "people" for using the sidewalk, or unless you pay to the "people" for using the road. And the best part about it is that the "people" can say "no" (i.e. trespassing will not be allowed even for money) and you can go shove it if you wanted to leave your private property.
As you can see based on the simple example, taxes are part of a social contract so that people can live in this world without losing privileges that they normally take for granted.
Parent post should not be modded Funny, but +1 Good Advice.
For those not familiar with the terminology: "short" = sell asset today despite not owning it today (you temporarily borrow funds to obtain the asset so that you can sell it today, pay interest on borrowed funds), "rally" = an out-of-pattern upward movement in the stock price. When shorting, you make money on the decrease in price.
Many people apparently forgot that the public Google stock issue promises no dividends today or in the future, and has half the voting power of other stock issues. Plus the total amount of stock out on the public market is less than 50% of the total capitalization, so given status quo, no single outside investor (or group of outside investors) will ever be able to gain control over Google.
The Google stock is a perfect example of the "greater fool" theory:
Why would you possibly buy stock? a) to make profit by receiving dividends (bye-bye dividends with GOOG), b) to influence company's decisions via voting (bye-bye voting power with GOOG), c) to make profit by selling it at higher than bought.
The only sensible reason to hold GOOG stock is c). You go and buy Google stock only because "there will always be a greater fool out there who will be willing to buy it for more so you can sell it to him at profit".
So "short any rally" shouldn't really be 'Funny' to anyone but more of a reality check....
My only experience of web progamming in Python is the client end, for web-scraping scripts, and its great for that. The one problem I have is that once in every few hours urllib2 locks up whilst trying to get a page from a particular site.
Assuming that the most likely possibility why you are experiencing such a serious problem with Python (your lack of competence/experience) is not true, and assuming this problem is not something that is happening only in your environment but actually happens to other people too, isn't this proof that the whole "Python is making it in the enterprise environment" a bunch of wishful thinking ?
BTW, I RTFA and there is no real evidence cited as to who those enterprises are (beyond the ones mentioned in the text of the/. post, which were known already).
It's real money that the merchants, banks, and card processors have to cough up. Where do you think it comes from? Higher merchandise prices (or, eroded retail margins, and fewer mom-and-pop retailers as a result), higher bank fees, and higher transaction fees. All of that, all of it, trickles down to the paying consumer in one way or the other.
While credit card fraud certainly does trickle down to the consumer, it is most certainly NOT the bank or credit card companies who cough up the money. Not a dime.
If you were a merchant, you would know that every time a credit card transaction is claimed fraudulent by a customer, the credit card processing institution charges back the merchant for the FULL AMOUNT of the questionable transaction plus extra fees (to cover a brief administrative process to find out more details about the transaction from both the customer and the merchant).
So remember this: The cost of EVERY fraudulent credit card transaction is initially passed on ONLY to the merchant - they are the ones who have to cough up the money, so they will be the ones RAISING PRICES to you and me.
An engineer wanted something to mark pages in choir books at church. He found an adhesive that they'd previously dismissed as too weak to be useful, diluted it further, and now we don't have to paint our monitors and walls . . .
First of all, he was NOT an engineer, but a scientist. Second of all, the 3M inventor of the Post-It note, Dr. Spence Silver, was NOT looking for a way to mark pages at churg, but rather "looking for ways to improve the acrylate adhesives that 3M uses in many of its tapes". Spencer walked around for 5 years with it an wasn't able to find an application for it.
It was Art Fry, again NOT an engineer, but a new product development researcher, who found an application for it. And only then the whole church bookmark idea came into the picutre.
Just because your point was that 3M had a similar approach to empowering employees to innovate, that doesn't give you the right to oversimplify and spread convoluted versions of history.
I hate to be the one to break this to you, but most people fantisize during sex. Men and women both.
I hate to be the one to break this to you, but most imagined and fabricated claims like the one you mentioned are just that, imagined and fabricated claims.
For very practical reasons. One would be productivity and Java-like powers with automating businesses which use the Windows platform for its end user (from teh secretary, to a PHB).
I am sure being a Java person, you are not particularly likely to check what's happening with the.NET job market, but if you check, you'll see it's boiling hot, especially for peoeple with experience in the financial industry.
WTF, to classify such a bug as a showstopper is simply incompetence in the use of the term. A showstopper makes an implementation effectively unusable. Just because you don't consider changing the font of a block of text AFTER you finished typing it a workaround, that doesn't make this bug a showstopper, coward.
While you raise an absolutely valid point ('why use hardware to simulate physically when you can use software to simulate virtually'), you should know what you talk about first before you talk. You are misusing the term "cellular automata" where in reality what you were looking for was the term "autonomous agents".
The U-Bots according to the article follow a few rules. However, while one rule contains 'drop item', NONE of the rules contain 'pick up item'. This means that either all N U-bots must have been carrying one item each (a total of N items) in the beginning, which means the place where items get dropped off highly depends on the initial configuration of the robots in the arena. Or, the article is flawed in describing the rules, because they are not sufficient to perform a 'discover, collect and concentrate' algorithm.
But the thing that strikes me most is WHY THE HELL DO YOU NEED TO BUILD ACTUAL PHYSICAL ROBOTS TO DO THIS!!!??!??
You can simulate all of this in a very simple piece of software. Especially when you later decide to increase complexity by building in any 'feromone trail' aspect, using physical robots just seems a foolish waste of engineering resources.
It's what makes such projects great, people's gratitude. Not money. Just the fact that you're the hero.
Sure, but do you pay your living costs with a "thank you" (also known by cynics as the 'Vatican currency'). If you are not one of those open source developers who lives in their parents' basement, then donations of money in support of the product are what you have to rely on. (This also assumes that you are not doing any other revenue-generating work.)
Donations often are a driver of new functionality. In extreme cases, people often donate together with a request for the developer to add in a particular feature. This helps prioritize feature lists with accuracy, making this model a really efficient market. But like any market, it doesn't work without money (=as long as you eliminate living cost as the developer's main problem in life).
The sources on dictionary.reference.com which present that "internet" is actually a word are:
- WordNet (r) 2.0 (August 2003)
- The Free On-line Dictionary of Computing
- Jargon File 4.2.0
The ones which do not are:
- American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language
In addition, in support of the capitalized version are:
- Merriam Webster Dictionary (also online at www.m-w.com)
- Encyclopaedia Britannica (online at www.encyclopediabritannica.com)
- Oxford English Dictionary (accessible also via http://www.askoxford.com/?view=uk)
If you don't see the obvious implications of what these two lists consist of, then you are the idiot here, not me.
Instinctive means prompted by impusle, spontaneous and unthinking, not reason. While instinctive behavior might be considered "natural", "natural" is not the same as "rational", especially not in "economically rational" (or maybe I should say "cost-rational").
I guess I'm a little bit of... a jerk... when it comes to stuff like that. If a salesman is being pushy or otherwise "slick" I'll say so and walk out of a store, no matter how good the deal might have been.
This is a big mistake. This behavior is clearly irrational, as you admit yourself. This irrationality is, as you have demonstrated, what makes you take a choice less favorable for you.
In the long run, you'll make more mistakes with this attitude than as if you were without it.
Slashdot Mirror
Of course it does.
But the PR of RealNetworks is just too big and too loud to allow anyone to step up and say it so that the same public audience hears. Their critical mass is not just in usage, but also in PR about streaming media.
Or something that content providers want you to listen to, but not own.
This argument simply doesn't fly. If it arrives at your machine, it's yours. Just because you use the wrong "player" on the receving end doesn't mean you can't keep it longer. Digital data doesn't just self-destruct. For reference, see for example this (or numerous plug-ins for WinAMP doing the same thing).
[...] but it still consumed a lot of RAM and CPU cycles on my 68040.
On your what?? Don't you mean 80486?
An even better solution is to uninstall Adobe's Reader, and install FoxIt PDF Reader [foxitsoftware.com], which is free.
And Adobe Acrobat Reader costs how much....?
Odd, there's plenty of girls under 18 in jail for murder.
Slashdot, how the fuck does an absolutely unsupported and unsubstantiated claim like this climb up to Score 4, Insightful !???!!!
The people could say no to you using the road, but without any police or courts to enforce it, it might not get them anywhere.
That's exactly the point. The "people" have a police, so when the poor fellow who doesn't want to pay taxes wants to use the roads of the "people", the police hired by the "people" (using their tax money) will enforce that the non-payers doesn't trespass throught THEIR roads (unless he joins in on the social contract of the people and starts paying taxes).
Directly from the site:
"We hope that someday this institution will eclipse Google itself in overall world impact by ambitiously applying innovation and significant resources to the largest of the world's problems."
- Sergey Brin & Larry Page
So Sergey moves one half of the mouth (and controls one half of the brain) and Larry moves the other half of the mouth (and controls the other half of the brain)?
'cause that's the only way how they could have both come up with ONE quote (and together)...
There's no such thing. It's your money. They take it. What's charitable about it?
They take it because they force upon you the belief that you need to contribute to some "public" spending, i.e. police, safety (fire fighting), health (ambulances and publicly available ER facilities), infrastructure (maintenance of roads, bridges, tunnels) and administration of these (bureaucracy).
This is what would happen if there were no taxes: The moment you are born (in a private hospital for example), your parents should be paying a kazillion dollars when they want to transport you from that hospital to their domicile (their private property), since they have to trespass through property that your parents did not pay to maintain. You yourself cannot leave the premises of your private property unless you pay to the "people" for using the sidewalk, or unless you pay to the "people" for using the road. And the best part about it is that the "people" can say "no" (i.e. trespassing will not be allowed even for money) and you can go shove it if you wanted to leave your private property.
As you can see based on the simple example, taxes are part of a social contract so that people can live in this world without losing privileges that they normally take for granted.
short any rally
Parent post should not be modded Funny, but +1 Good Advice.
For those not familiar with the terminology: "short" = sell asset today despite not owning it today (you temporarily borrow funds to obtain the asset so that you can sell it today, pay interest on borrowed funds), "rally" = an out-of-pattern upward movement in the stock price. When shorting, you make money on the decrease in price.
Many people apparently forgot that the public Google stock issue promises no dividends today or in the future, and has half the voting power of other stock issues. Plus the total amount of stock out on the public market is less than 50% of the total capitalization, so given status quo, no single outside investor (or group of outside investors) will ever be able to gain control over Google.
The Google stock is a perfect example of the "greater fool" theory:
Why would you possibly buy stock? a) to make profit by receiving dividends (bye-bye dividends with GOOG), b) to influence company's decisions via voting (bye-bye voting power with GOOG), c) to make profit by selling it at higher than bought.
The only sensible reason to hold GOOG stock is c). You go and buy Google stock only because "there will always be a greater fool out there who will be willing to buy it for more so you can sell it to him at profit".
So "short any rally" shouldn't really be 'Funny' to anyone but more of a reality check....
My only experience of web progamming in Python is the client end, for web-scraping scripts, and its great for that. The one problem I have is that once in every few hours urllib2 locks up whilst trying to get a page from a particular site.
/. post, which were known already).
Assuming that the most likely possibility why you are experiencing such a serious problem with Python (your lack of competence/experience) is not true, and assuming this problem is not something that is happening only in your environment but actually happens to other people too, isn't this proof that the whole "Python is making it in the enterprise environment" a bunch of wishful thinking ?
BTW, I RTFA and there is no real evidence cited as to who those enterprises are (beyond the ones mentioned in the text of the
It's real money that the merchants, banks, and card processors have to cough up. Where do you think it comes from? Higher merchandise prices (or, eroded retail margins, and fewer mom-and-pop retailers as a result), higher bank fees, and higher transaction fees. All of that, all of it, trickles down to the paying consumer in one way or the other.
While credit card fraud certainly does trickle down to the consumer, it is most certainly NOT the bank or credit card companies who cough up the money. Not a dime.
If you were a merchant, you would know that every time a credit card transaction is claimed fraudulent by a customer, the credit card processing institution charges back the merchant for the FULL AMOUNT of the questionable transaction plus extra fees (to cover a brief administrative process to find out more details about the transaction from both the customer and the merchant).
So remember this: The cost of EVERY fraudulent credit card transaction is initially passed on ONLY to the merchant - they are the ones who have to cough up the money, so they will be the ones RAISING PRICES to you and me.
An engineer wanted something to mark pages in choir books at church. He found an adhesive that they'd previously dismissed as too weak to be useful, diluted it further, and now we don't have to paint our monitors and walls . . .
First of all, he was NOT an engineer, but a scientist. Second of all, the 3M inventor of the Post-It note, Dr. Spence Silver, was NOT looking for a way to mark pages at churg, but rather "looking for ways to improve the acrylate adhesives that 3M uses in many of its tapes". Spencer walked around for 5 years with it an wasn't able to find an application for it.
It was Art Fry, again NOT an engineer, but a new product development researcher, who found an application for it. And only then the whole church bookmark idea came into the picutre.
Here is a full article.
Just because your point was that 3M had a similar approach to empowering employees to innovate, that doesn't give you the right to oversimplify and spread convoluted versions of history.
I hate to be the one to break this to you, but most people fantisize during sex. Men and women both.
I hate to be the one to break this to you, but most imagined and fabricated claims like the one you mentioned are just that, imagined and fabricated claims.
That quote was priceless.
no spyware/malware and it's an amazing program
So is LimeWire.
AIDS is not a virus, but the desease. HIV is the virus.
Why the fuck was this modded 'Funny'??!!
Yeah, Slashdot, yeah, bend over for Google, spread those cheeks for them. Some more. There you go....
Why the hell would I want to use C#?
.NET job market, but if you check, you'll see it's boiling hot, especially for peoeple with experience in the financial industry.
For very practical reasons. One would be productivity and Java-like powers with automating businesses which use the Windows platform for its end user (from teh secretary, to a PHB).
I am sure being a Java person, you are not particularly likely to check what's happening with the
WTF, to classify such a bug as a showstopper is simply incompetence in the use of the term. A showstopper makes an implementation effectively unusable. Just because you don't consider changing the font of a block of text AFTER you finished typing it a workaround, that doesn't make this bug a showstopper, coward.
While you raise an absolutely valid point ('why use hardware to simulate physically when you can use software to simulate virtually'), you should know what you talk about first before you talk. You are misusing the term "cellular automata" where in reality what you were looking for was the term "autonomous agents".
And two more things.
The U-Bots according to the article follow a few rules. However, while one rule contains 'drop item', NONE of the rules contain 'pick up item'. This means that either all N U-bots must have been carrying one item each (a total of N items) in the beginning, which means the place where items get dropped off highly depends on the initial configuration of the robots in the arena. Or, the article is flawed in describing the rules, because they are not sufficient to perform a 'discover, collect and concentrate' algorithm.
But the thing that strikes me most is WHY THE HELL DO YOU NEED TO BUILD ACTUAL PHYSICAL ROBOTS TO DO THIS!!!??!??
You can simulate all of this in a very simple piece of software. Especially when you later decide to increase complexity by building in any 'feromone trail' aspect, using physical robots just seems a foolish waste of engineering resources.
It's what makes such projects great, people's gratitude. Not money. Just the fact that you're the hero.
Sure, but do you pay your living costs with a "thank you" (also known by cynics as the 'Vatican currency'). If you are not one of those open source developers who lives in their parents' basement, then donations of money in support of the product are what you have to rely on. (This also assumes that you are not doing any other revenue-generating work.)
Donations often are a driver of new functionality. In extreme cases, people often donate together with a request for the developer to add in a particular feature. This helps prioritize feature lists with accuracy, making this model a really efficient market. But like any market, it doesn't work without money (=as long as you eliminate living cost as the developer's main problem in life).
The sources on dictionary.reference.com which present that "internet" is actually a word are:
- WordNet (r) 2.0 (August 2003)
- The Free On-line Dictionary of Computing
- Jargon File 4.2.0
The ones which do not are:
- American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language
In addition, in support of the capitalized version are:
- Merriam Webster Dictionary (also online at www.m-w.com)
- Encyclopaedia Britannica (online at www.encyclopediabritannica.com)
- Oxford English Dictionary (accessible also via http://www.askoxford.com/?view=uk)
If you don't see the obvious implications of what these two lists consist of, then you are the idiot here, not me.
It seems to me you are contradicting yourself.
Instinctive means prompted by impusle, spontaneous and unthinking, not reason. While instinctive behavior might be considered "natural", "natural" is not the same as "rational", especially not in "economically rational" (or maybe I should say "cost-rational").
I guess I'm a little bit of ... a jerk ... when it comes to stuff like that. If a salesman is being pushy or otherwise "slick" I'll say so and walk out of a store, no matter how good the deal might have been.
This is a big mistake. This behavior is clearly irrational, as you admit yourself. This irrationality is, as you have demonstrated, what makes you take a choice less favorable for you.
In the long run, you'll make more mistakes with this attitude than as if you were without it.