FTFS: "...terminals would draw one character at a time by covering the page in black and then revealing each character by erasing a character-sized rectangle from that cover, one-by-one, line-by-line."
I don't know of any terminals that ever worked that way.
That is exactly the opposite of what courses in portfolio theory and risk management teach. The amount of risk that someone can reasonably tolerate is directly related to one's time horizon. Younger investors are wise to invest in assets that have higher risk, because their performance smooths out over time. On the other hand, older investors have a greater need for stability, since they will be drawing upon those investments much sooner--they cannot afford to have a large proportion of their portfolio in asset classes that may underperform for 5-10 years. In the long run, the higher-risk assets (like equities) have average growth rates that will always outperform low-risk assets (like bonds), but an older investor does not have the luxury of time to wait for them to revert to the mean.
A desperate older investor who tries to catch up by making high-risk choices is playing a very dangerous game, with low probability of success.
“I used to think that technology could help education. I’ve probably spearheaded giving away more computer equipment to schools than anybody else on the planet. But I’ve had to come to the inevitable conclusion that the problem is not one that technology can hope to solve. What’s wrong with education cannot be fixed with technology. No amount of technology will make a dent.” -- Steve Jobs, Wired, February 1996
The lawyers aren't really interested in prior art until they think they might actually have to go to court. These days, it's all about licensing (or cross-licensing, between companies that have comparable portfolios), using the _threat_ of litigation. Coming up with prior art to invalidate a patent is absolutely the _last_ thing they consider, when all else fails.
You don't get to use prior art as a defense unless and until you actually go to trial, which is extremely expensive.
"I want you to understand something: we are not subject to city, state or federal regulation. We are omnEEpotent... OmnEEpotent. That's 'potent' with an 'omnee' in front of it. Now, then, Mr. VEEdal, when may we expect payment?"
My friend went to college, I went to work. He could design a CPU from scratch, knew how to do visual recognition. Nothing any employer I ever came across found useful.
I could design a CPU from scratch and my employer _did_ find that useful. I, however, had an engineering degree, not computer science.
What you are saying is that you have no legal standing, but you have moral outrage, so you have appointed yourself as a copyright vigilante. The law (OCILLA) doesn't permit that, so you are going to be, at the very least, frustrated in your efforts.
Strangely enough, I'm reading Schoenberg's Theory of Harmony right now. I recommend the opening chapter to everyone interested in this topic, because it's one of the most well-written rants in all of music theory.
What Schoenberg opposed was the idea, which he claimed to be prevalent among music theorists in the late 19th and early 20th century, that we could discover "laws of beauty" which could be applied to make beautiful art.
Well, yes and no. Schoenberg certainly admits that certain intervals are more pleasing than others, and that perception was based on how closely they conform to the harmonic series. (Which, to stay on-topic, happens to be exactly what the researchers in this study contend). Schoenberg's argument was that "consonant" and "dissonant" tones are not opposites, as the words imply, but differ only by a matter of degree--how far out the series you go.
We can't imagine what was in the minds of the people who rioted at the premiere of The Rite of Spring.
Most reports, other than Stravinsky's self-aggrandizing story, point to the choreography, not the music, being the target of derision. For most of the performance, the audience couldn't even hear the music!
...we now understand that music theory, and the "rules" therein, are descriptive, not prescriptive. They are a language for understanding and talking about music in the tradition of the European common practice era.
I think no one understood that better (at the time) than Schoenberg, who wrote the Theory of Harmony from his own observation and not as a compilation of rules that he had been taught.
In that sense, it's like category theory in mathematics or design patterns in software engineering. they're not recipes on how to write programs or do maths, they are a vocabulary for understanding, reasoning about and talking about programs or mathematical structure.
And that is why we still read Theory of Harmony, today. It is important to note that Schoenberg did not turn against modal tonality until later.
Eleven years ago, flooding from Tropical Storm Allison knocked out generators in the Texas Medical Center in Houston, the largest medical center in the world. Disaster planners should, by now, be well acquainted with the threat of flooding to their backup power. In any case, you are correct that they do not always have the flexibility to install such machinery on floors above ground level. The best that can be done, in many cases, is retrofit the generator rooms with seals and ventilation that can withstand outside flooding--to a certain level. Part of disaster planning involves finding the point at which the cost of insuring against a low-probability, high-impact event exceeds the risk-weighted cost of the event, and stopping short of that.
I wonder what sea water flooding implies for the financial district.
NASDAQ is testing their systems, now. The exchanges do not seem to have suffered significant damage. The problem is going to be transportation; the exchanges may open tomorrow, but the markets will not be able to function properly if people can't get to their jobs in the financial district.
On Facebook, high profile users not only pay to get more followers, but once they do, they must pay again to actually communicate with them. Unless you pay, FB only lets postings go to a few hundred followers. If you want more people to see your post, you have to pay a fee to "promote" your post. If you have 1 million followers, it can cost close to $1k per posting.
During the dotcom bubble, companies were ridiculed for business plans that were based entirely on "selling eyeballs". FB has taken the same business concept to next level. I'd like to see an independent audit of Facebook's DAU metric and their 1 billion MAU claim. The company asserts that only about 8% of user profiles are fake and no analysts challenge that statistic. Clearly, it is not in Facebook's interest to weed out fake accounts; on the contrary, their revenue depends on them.
By any chance, was that money made by buying the stock, then posting messages online about it to generate interest and raise prices, then selling the stock at the new higher price?
That's extremely unlikely. There haven't been any new higher prices for MCP in a long time. It peaked at $77 a year an a half ago and has been crushed, ever since. It's down around $11, now. The only people who made money were the ones who were short.
Besides, message board pumping only works for thinly-traded stocks. With 6 million shares of MCP changing hands every day, a random dude on some board isn't going to move the needle.
Slashdot Mirror
FTFS: "...terminals would draw one character at a time by covering the page in black and then revealing each character by erasing a character-sized rectangle from that cover, one-by-one, line-by-line."
I don't know of any terminals that ever worked that way.
That is exactly the opposite of what courses in portfolio theory and risk management teach. The amount of risk that someone can reasonably tolerate is directly related to one's time horizon. Younger investors are wise to invest in assets that have higher risk, because their performance smooths out over time. On the other hand, older investors have a greater need for stability, since they will be drawing upon those investments much sooner--they cannot afford to have a large proportion of their portfolio in asset classes that may underperform for 5-10 years. In the long run, the higher-risk assets (like equities) have average growth rates that will always outperform low-risk assets (like bonds), but an older investor does not have the luxury of time to wait for them to revert to the mean.
A desperate older investor who tries to catch up by making high-risk choices is playing a very dangerous game, with low probability of success.
Psychology undergraduates. No, they don't get paid.
That has an operational depth of only 300m. It's an entirely different class of vehicle.
“I used to think that technology could help education. I’ve probably spearheaded giving away more computer equipment to schools than anybody else on the planet. But I’ve had to come to the inevitable conclusion that the problem is not one that technology can hope to solve. What’s wrong with education cannot be fixed with technology. No amount of technology will make a dent.”
-- Steve Jobs, Wired, February 1996
The lawyers aren't really interested in prior art until they think they might actually have to go to court. These days, it's all about licensing (or cross-licensing, between companies that have comparable portfolios), using the _threat_ of litigation. Coming up with prior art to invalidate a patent is absolutely the _last_ thing they consider, when all else fails.
You don't get to use prior art as a defense unless and until you actually go to trial, which is extremely expensive.
"I want you to understand something: we are not subject to city, state or federal regulation. We are omnEEpotent... OmnEEpotent. That's 'potent' with an 'omnee' in front of it. Now, then, Mr. VEEdal, when may we expect payment?"
i before e except after c
Einstein got it wrong twice!
That's ancient.
My friend went to college, I went to work. He could design a CPU from scratch, knew how to do visual recognition. Nothing any employer I ever came across found useful.
I could design a CPU from scratch and my employer _did_ find that useful. I, however, had an engineering degree, not computer science.
"Computer Science is not about computers, any more than astronomy is about telescopes". -- Dijkstra
...there would still be NO MANUFACTURING JOBS IN THE USA.
Do you realize that almost $2 TRILLION of goods were manufactured in the US, last year?
Do you think that was all done by robots?
Hajduk says. 'I don't believe we'll be doing anything wrong.'
Then, why does he call himself "Hajduk"?
Fire Storms!
No train in New South Wales may move.
No train may enter New South Wales.
No rail building in the area.
What you are saying is that you have no legal standing, but you have moral outrage, so you have appointed yourself as a copyright vigilante. The law (OCILLA) doesn't permit that, so you are going to be, at the very least, frustrated in your efforts.
Why were you trying to use the takedown process if you are not the copyright holder?
Strangely enough, I'm reading Schoenberg's Theory of Harmony right now. I recommend the opening chapter to everyone interested in this topic, because it's one of the most well-written rants in all of music theory.
What Schoenberg opposed was the idea, which he claimed to be prevalent among music theorists in the late 19th and early 20th century, that we could discover "laws of beauty" which could be applied to make beautiful art.
Well, yes and no. Schoenberg certainly admits that certain intervals are more pleasing than others, and that perception was based on how closely they conform to the harmonic series. (Which, to stay on-topic, happens to be exactly what the researchers in this study contend). Schoenberg's argument was that "consonant" and "dissonant" tones are not opposites, as the words imply, but differ only by a matter of degree--how far out the series you go.
We can't imagine what was in the minds of the people who rioted at the premiere of The Rite of Spring.
Most reports, other than Stravinsky's self-aggrandizing story, point to the choreography, not the music, being the target of derision. For most of the performance, the audience couldn't even hear the music!
...we now understand that music theory, and the "rules" therein, are descriptive, not prescriptive. They are a language for understanding and talking about music in the tradition of the European common practice era.
I think no one understood that better (at the time) than Schoenberg, who wrote the Theory of Harmony from his own observation and not as a compilation of rules that he had been taught.
In that sense, it's like category theory in mathematics or design patterns in software engineering. they're not recipes on how to write programs or do maths, they are a vocabulary for understanding, reasoning about and talking about programs or mathematical structure.
And that is why we still read Theory of Harmony, today. It is important to note that Schoenberg did not turn against modal tonality until later.
in the Theory of Harmony by (guess who)... Arnold Schoenberg, before he started experimenting with atonal composition.
I don't think it was a particularly new idea, even then.
Students must turn in the full image. Much simpler than watermarking.
...seems to be the one kind of bigotry that is not only tolerated but considered fashionable.
or old farts who remember Pete Seeger.
Eleven years ago, flooding from Tropical Storm Allison knocked out generators in the Texas Medical Center in Houston, the largest medical center in the world. Disaster planners should, by now, be well acquainted with the threat of flooding to their backup power. In any case, you are correct that they do not always have the flexibility to install such machinery on floors above ground level. The best that can be done, in many cases, is retrofit the generator rooms with seals and ventilation that can withstand outside flooding--to a certain level. Part of disaster planning involves finding the point at which the cost of insuring against a low-probability, high-impact event exceeds the risk-weighted cost of the event, and stopping short of that.
I wonder what sea water flooding implies for the financial district.
NASDAQ is testing their systems, now. The exchanges do not seem to have suffered significant damage. The problem is going to be transportation; the exchanges may open tomorrow, but the markets will not be able to function properly if people can't get to their jobs in the financial district.
There's an app for that. $1.99 at iTunes.
On Facebook, high profile users not only pay to get more followers, but once they do, they must pay again to actually communicate with them. Unless you pay, FB only lets postings go to a few hundred followers. If you want more people to see your post, you have to pay a fee to "promote" your post. If you have 1 million followers, it can cost close to $1k per posting.
During the dotcom bubble, companies were ridiculed for business plans that were based entirely on "selling eyeballs". FB has taken the same business concept to next level. I'd like to see an independent audit of Facebook's DAU metric and their 1 billion MAU claim. The company asserts that only about 8% of user profiles are fake and no analysts challenge that statistic. Clearly, it is not in Facebook's interest to weed out fake accounts; on the contrary, their revenue depends on them.
I made a bunch of $$$$ last year with this one.
By any chance, was that money made by buying the stock, then posting messages online about it to generate interest and raise prices, then selling the stock at the new higher price?
That's extremely unlikely. There haven't been any new higher prices for MCP in a long time. It peaked at $77 a year an a half ago and has been crushed, ever since. It's down around $11, now. The only people who made money were the ones who were short.
Besides, message board pumping only works for thinly-traded stocks. With 6 million shares of MCP changing hands every day, a random dude on some board isn't going to move the needle.