I think we can all agree that the ideal plan is one where you pay per usage, but have the ability to set and change daily/monthly/continuous limits, with no commitment, and in an environment where you can switch to a different provider at the drop of a hat.
Why can't we go back to the good old days when the marketing meant finding out what people want* and directing R&D toward that thing, instead of what we have now, where they take any old product and just tell people it's the thing they want....
He would adapt by using window switching features. The company execs probably wouldn't even notice the cost because it wouldn't appear on a balance sheet anywhere, but all the switching would cost the company in terms of efficiency: it's just as bad for programmers to have to page things in and out of view and current thoughts as it is for programs to page things in and out of disk.
If economizing to a single monitor costs even 1% of the developer's efficiency (and I suspect it is, in fact, far more), is it really saving the company anything?
Maybe. But the gp's proposed solution is still a good one. Laws shouldn't stay on the books for longer than the generation that passed them without the consent the future generations constrained by them.
I think Martian is trying to say that the only thing preventing them from passing it is partisanship: right now, the "leading party" doesn't have enough votes to pass it and the other parties are voting it down out of spite. But if any of them gets an actual majority, it's going to go through faster than you can say, "wait.. what just happened?"
Yeah, but how many of those are "spam accounts" that those 100 million users use to sign up for things that require email, but which they don't want to give their real email....
The goal of an economy is to make the stuff. As in, the stuff that people want and need.
The government can try to guess what that is, but every hour of a worker's time that the government directs is an hour that isn't spent making the stuff.. It doesn't matter whether they "legitimately" took that time at the point of a gun, or sneakily took the time by printing more tokens when no one was looking....
This should be an easy challenge, right? find some examples of situations where keynsian principles were applied and the description of the result wasn't, "well, it would've been even worse..."
It would cost a lot less if, instead of publishing the documents, they stored them in some kind of machine-readable form, and used automatons to fetch, copy, and deliver responses to requests made using a standardized set of machine instructions....
Your definition of "progressive" bears very little resemblance to any actual political party or movement bearing that label. I fear that you have taken the bait and fallen enamored with the word --- "Oh yeah, progressive, that must be good. I'm for progress" --- and failed to recognize the only thing that they have a desire to progress is the power of the state.
You've even invented the obvious complementary position with which to paint the "foes of making things better"
Well, let me remind you of one of the policies of the actual progressive movement. A policy that lead to the rise in power of organized crime: Prohibition.
So, let's stop demonizing people here. Everyone with a political philosophy has the goal of fixing what's wrong, although there are wildly varying opinions on how to achieve that, and what exactly it is that is wrong.
Well, everyone that is, except those whose philosophy is "say anything to get as much for myself as possible, and to hell with everyone else." Unfortunately, this latter group, although I'd like to believe it is the smallest of the philosophies, is uncommonly good at actually achieving office...
Most people would've shortened that to "Yank Prez" and it's a perfectly cromulent way for a foreigner to refer to a US president, since we ourselves often refer to the president as "da prez" informally.
I'm sure Australians rarely refer to the "australian X" in their government though, since it's quicker to just say, "the X" Adding the qualifier when it doesn't really need to be qualified seems a little patronizing.
Wait... bittersweet robocalypse? What's the good part?
Secondly.. the robot can sneak up on buildings, which last I checked, were not known for their agility. I'm pretty sure even the greenest new recruit can sneak up on a building...
Which ironically makes them less safe, because of the increased shadow area and because their eyes adjust to the light source, making those shadows even darker...
Yeah, but there was a time between 1996 and 2003 where many search engines actually provided mostly useful results....
What we used to do was migrate to the next search engine where the SEOs hadn't yet managed to pollute the database with cruft, but through some combination of the sheer number of accessible sites and the advent of "everybody using the internet", google became the forever default, and no one seems to be putting in a real effort to compete any more.
It shouldn't be based on the author's lifespan at all. It should be based on the readers' expectation lifespan, and be set to expire well before more than half of the original readers do.
30 to 50 years is still too long, but a fixed term is much better than one that floats on the author's obituary. For one thing it lets older authors cash out to the full extent that their younger contemporaries might be able to, since the time for any companies buying their works to recoup the investment would be the same regardless of the age of the author.
When the barriers to entry lower enough that new players have a shot at getting in. I mean, you might as well ask why Uncle Curmudgeon wants you damn kids off his lawn: it doesn't matter, it's not like the whole neighborhood is composed of grumpy hermits.
The free market sees stuff like this as damage and routes around it. It just takes time for viable competitors to step up, especially when there are significant financial and legislative burdens to entry.
At the moment, you really can't have a successful ebook business without an ebook reader, i think was the lesson of Borders. That may change if someone decides to develop an agnostic reader, but until such a time, the barrier to entry from the ebook side is quite high, because you need the hardware. And the content isn't exactly cheap to develop either, if you want to do a good job. And the advertising is especially important for a new business.
So the answer is.. lower the barrier to entry. And I think that'll happen. I'd lay even odds that in the next decade or so a coalition of public libraries will put out their own eBook reader. And unfortunately it will be inferior in almost every way to the hardware offered by for-profit companies (being designed by the same committee that got a camel from a horse), except one: it'll have access to these libraries' library of ebooks.
Slashdot Mirror
I think we can all agree that the ideal plan is one where you pay per usage, but have the ability to set and change daily/monthly/continuous limits, with no commitment, and in an environment where you can switch to a different provider at the drop of a hat.
I don't know how seriously you can take someone that compares "N>1" to the horrible crime of rape. And not just any rape, but brutal rape....
Why can't we go back to the good old days when the marketing meant finding out what people want* and directing R&D toward that thing, instead of what we have now, where they take any old product and just tell people it's the thing they want....
*or will want, when they find out it exists.
How do we know that the FTC's intent is to impose an upper bound....
No, but I think he's the guy who wrote, "The Hobbit"
He would adapt by using window switching features. The company execs probably wouldn't even notice the cost because it wouldn't appear on a balance sheet anywhere, but all the switching would cost the company in terms of efficiency: it's just as bad for programmers to have to page things in and out of view and current thoughts as it is for programs to page things in and out of disk.
If economizing to a single monitor costs even 1% of the developer's efficiency (and I suspect it is, in fact, far more), is it really saving the company anything?
Maybe. But the gp's proposed solution is still a good one. Laws shouldn't stay on the books for longer than the generation that passed them without the consent the future generations constrained by them.
I think Martian is trying to say that the only thing preventing them from passing it is partisanship: right now, the "leading party" doesn't have enough votes to pass it and the other parties are voting it down out of spite. But if any of them gets an actual majority, it's going to go through faster than you can say, "wait.. what just happened?"
That is incorrect. There two layers are, in addition to being sensor sites, also color filters.
Yeah, but how many of those are "spam accounts" that those 100 million users use to sign up for things that require email, but which they don't want to give their real email....
No.. it's still keynsian nonsense.
The goal of an economy is to make the stuff. As in, the stuff that people want and need.
The government can try to guess what that is, but every hour of a worker's time that the government directs is an hour that isn't spent making the stuff.. It doesn't matter whether they "legitimately" took that time at the point of a gun, or sneakily took the time by printing more tokens when no one was looking....
This should be an easy challenge, right? find some examples of situations where keynsian principles were applied and the description of the result wasn't, "well, it would've been even worse..."
It would cost a lot less if, instead of publishing the documents, they stored them in some kind of machine-readable form, and used automatons to fetch, copy, and deliver responses to requests made using a standardized set of machine instructions....
Your definition of "progressive" bears very little resemblance to any actual political party or movement bearing that label. I fear that you have taken the bait and fallen enamored with the word --- "Oh yeah, progressive, that must be good. I'm for progress" --- and failed to recognize the only thing that they have a desire to progress is the power of the state.
You've even invented the obvious complementary position with which to paint the "foes of making things better"
Well, let me remind you of one of the policies of the actual progressive movement. A policy that lead to the rise in power of organized crime: Prohibition.
So, let's stop demonizing people here. Everyone with a political philosophy has the goal of fixing what's wrong, although there are wildly varying opinions on how to achieve that, and what exactly it is that is wrong.
Well, everyone that is, except those whose philosophy is "say anything to get as much for myself as possible, and to hell with everyone else." Unfortunately, this latter group, although I'd like to believe it is the smallest of the philosophies, is uncommonly good at actually achieving office...
I was talking about the ancient coral beds....
Most people would've shortened that to "Yank Prez" and it's a perfectly cromulent way for a foreigner to refer to a US president, since we ourselves often refer to the president as "da prez" informally.
I'm sure Australians rarely refer to the "australian X" in their government though, since it's quicker to just say, "the X" Adding the qualifier when it doesn't really need to be qualified seems a little patronizing.
Isn't florida basically the compressed skelletons of billions of sea creatures anyway? What's a little trash on top of that...
So.. the tiger repelling rock is as good at repelling tigers as the stimulus was at repelling unemployment?
Wait... bittersweet robocalypse? What's the good part?
Secondly.. the robot can sneak up on buildings, which last I checked, were not known for their agility. I'm pretty sure even the greenest new recruit can sneak up on a building...
You do realize that the UK also has a thriving automotive industry....
As it turns out though, pasting in the reuters feed with a few opinion essays isn't reporting....
Which ironically makes them less safe, because of the increased shadow area and because their eyes adjust to the light source, making those shadows even darker...
Yeah, but there was a time between 1996 and 2003 where many search engines actually provided mostly useful results....
What we used to do was migrate to the next search engine where the SEOs hadn't yet managed to pollute the database with cruft, but through some combination of the sheer number of accessible sites and the advent of "everybody using the internet", google became the forever default, and no one seems to be putting in a real effort to compete any more.
It shouldn't be based on the author's lifespan at all. It should be based on the readers' expectation lifespan, and be set to expire well before more than half of the original readers do.
30 to 50 years is still too long, but a fixed term is much better than one that floats on the author's obituary. For one thing it lets older authors cash out to the full extent that their younger contemporaries might be able to, since the time for any companies buying their works to recoup the investment would be the same regardless of the age of the author.
When the barriers to entry lower enough that new players have a shot at getting in. I mean, you might as well ask why Uncle Curmudgeon wants you damn kids off his lawn: it doesn't matter, it's not like the whole neighborhood is composed of grumpy hermits.
The free market sees stuff like this as damage and routes around it. It just takes time for viable competitors to step up, especially when there are significant financial and legislative burdens to entry.
At the moment, you really can't have a successful ebook business without an ebook reader, i think was the lesson of Borders. That may change if someone decides to develop an agnostic reader, but until such a time, the barrier to entry from the ebook side is quite high, because you need the hardware. And the content isn't exactly cheap to develop either, if you want to do a good job. And the advertising is especially important for a new business.
So the answer is.. lower the barrier to entry. And I think that'll happen. I'd lay even odds that in the next decade or so a coalition of public libraries will put out their own eBook reader. And unfortunately it will be inferior in almost every way to the hardware offered by for-profit companies (being designed by the same committee that got a camel from a horse), except one: it'll have access to these libraries' library of ebooks.
It was because of the training that he was able to stand still enough that it couldn't acquire him, too.