In the Ukraine, they have two weightlifting leagues: the standard one, where you're allowed to take steroids, and the natural league, where you're allowed to take the expensive steroids that don't show up during testing.
Humans suck in general. Combine the two: don't allow the human driver to take control. Ever.
Getting a decent UI for fine-grained destination control might be hard (I see a gas station and want to pull over, sort of thing), but that's solvable.
I'm all for behaviorally targeted recommendations. I want to be able to opt out, but I'd definitely opt in.
I imagine this should fall under the standard behavioral targeting rules, where you must be informed that this is going on and have an option to opt out.
More to the point, they don't let you distinguish easily between different applications, since they're all the same color (with few differences) and all blocky so you can't distinguish outlines.
How about a functioning public transit system? No more drunk driving
Just obnoxious drunks on the bus/train. Assuming the bus driver isn't drunk, which happens from time to time.
A self-driving bus would not have a drunk driver. And if everyone took public transit, the ratio of drunk people to sober people would be low.
no more gas stations
Just ticket lines.
I've never seen a ticket line for a bus.
no more repairs or insurance to pay for.
Still paying for them, just through taxes.
It would be more efficient to have fewer vehicles, each of a higher capacity, all managed by the same entity. You can standardize on the models of vehicle in use, which means fewer types of parts, less training for maintenance personnel, and less time designing assembly lines to produce extremely similar but incompatible parts.
Insurance with professional drivers is, I'm guessing, cheaper than insurance with private drivers. Also, a larger entity has more bargaining power when negotiating its insurance rates.
I've heard rumors that some of them got into accidents -- when the human drivers were in control. The AD (artificial driver) is apparently very reliable, even dealing with humans on the road.
In RavenDB, you create indices by creating a query returning the field you want to index and telling RavenDB to index that. For instance, if you are going to query your User documents based on email address often, you would write an index:
from user in Users select new { user.EmailAddress }
And then you can query:
from user in Users where user.EmailAddress == "bob.dobbs@example.org"
You can do this without an index, but it will be slow. Though in the case of RavenDB, I believe the database will add indices based on query patterns -- your query will be slow for the first few times, then indexing kicks in, and eventually your query gets fast.
With Ruby, I need to *realize* that there's a child class I need to modify. With Java, the compiler does that for me.
A missing method exception is no different than a compiler complaining about an unimplemented method. I can add in a bogus implementation to silence either one. But if I'm unlucky, if I haven't tested my stuff quite as well as I thought, a customer might discover that missing method error before I do. The compiler tests everything.
Old English? Yeah, I liked it when Theoden-king stood up and said "Hwæt, we gardena in geardagum, eodcyninga rym gefrunon, hu ða æelingas ellen fremedon!"
Better yet, employ them for *non*-charity work. Either selling goods locally or exporting them. Charity is poisonous in that it increases standards of living without a persistent framework to back up those standards of living. If the charity dries up, people get a sudden drop in their standard of living, and if the charity has gone on long enough, they will have forgotten how to cope.
This is a common tactic. You split your product into different editions (which are mostly the same, just with a few added or removed features) and hope that the people who will only pay $200 will be satisfied with the $200 edition, while the people who can afford $10k will need its features. It works to some degree.
You do need to do some work to determine how much you can charge for a given set of features, though. It isn't easy. You could just ask people, but look what happens with the Humble Indie Bundle -- the average sale is something like $4. With businesses involved, it'd be worse, even though they can pay a ton more than individuals can, since the people writing the cheques need to justify expenses. It's easier to say, in a budget review meeting: "That's the best option for the job, and it costs $10,000" than to say: "I could have gotten it for free, but since I wanted to support the developer, I chose to spend $1000."
You're using the dongle largely as a means of fingerprinting in this case, and then deactivating the software based on leaked fingerprints. This doesn't require a dongle, though; you could instead construct a different binary for each customer when they download it.
I wouldn't deactivate it entirely, but turn off some advanced features, limit available file formats, and add in a nag screen. It's a bit of a dance between crackers and defenders. You want the benefits from removing the copy protection to be sufficiently limited that it's not worth the effort to these people. You want the benefits of using a legitimate copy of the software to be high enough that you get a reasonable number of your potential customers back.
It's also worth noting that a number of your potential customers will simply balk at paying $10k on a piece of software. You might want to have another product line for them.
Space is big. Really, really big. You might think it's a long way down to the chemist's, but that's just PEANUTS to space! Listen--
Space is so huge that you aren't just going to wander into the interstellar void and come across an enemy armada. Unless your enemy armada spans light-years, anyway. You need to force an engagement at a particular location.
Well, more likely, you concentrate your forces at a particular enemy target, and either the enemy spies found out where your armada will be and then you're doing a head-on engagement (or it's otherwise obvious; for instance, only one planet of any value); or your forces come in and crush everything in sight.
In the meanwhile, your enemies who don't know where you're going to engage but have managed to find out that your armada is on maneuvers have launched a counterattack. Don't bother going home; your family's dead as soon as you move out.
So all engagements happen near planets, and all engagements are MAD.
There's an alternative. Animals will rush at each other with their horns, trying to knock each other down. They swat each other with their paws -- with claws sheathed. Why not bare your claws? Surely that would give you a better chance to win? But then your enemy will unsheathe their claws, and a battle that would have ended with a victor and a loser, each walking off unharmed, would likely end with two heavily injured animals.
Another type of war, then, would be to send a small force off to attack your enemy. Keep a lot of ships back for defense, hoping that whichever target your enemy picks will be sufficiently defended. Make your attack large enough that hopefully you can take the territory you want, but small enough that your enemy won't respond with an all-out attack guaranteeing your destruction.
Let's say there was some sort of pollutant that got out into the general population that extended the average lifespan to 250 years (and in full health, and looking good). Would you then volunteer for euthanasia when you reached 100? Would you support research into reversing this age-extending pollution?
The most sensible suggestion I've heard in this regard: a $1 tax annual on copyrighted works to keep them in copyright after, say, 10 years. If you fail to pay a tax (with some reasonable grace period), your works go into public domain.
This would cost Disney a few thousand dollars per year, which they could hardly care less about. It would cost the Isaac Asimov estate $400 per year, and he's the most prolific author I know of. A typical author wouldn't have more than about $20 in annual fees.
With music, you're looking at $20 per album per year, so maybe $100 total for a successful, or at least perseverant, artist. That pay scale can probably use some work -- $1 per album rather than $1 per song, perhaps -- but the idea's sound.
But it would be unquestionably useful to have code in one pane and a browser window in the other, so you can update the code and see immediately what effects your changes had.
Epiphany ( http://projects.gnome.org/epiphany/ ) will automatically reload any page opened on the local filesystem when that page changes, so it's a reasonable standin for that use case. Not a great one, mind, but it should work.
Wow, that's remarkable. Your entire discourse is unfounded.
1. It's reasonable to take on some extra responsibilities. Writing a major application is pretty far beyond IT tasks, though. 2. The reason people take employers is for money. 3. He has an interest in improving his company's efficiency. Otherwise he wouldn't have written the application. 4. The implication is that he gets to go home early because he completes tasks faster than expected. And he states: "The entire source was developed on personal equipment off company hours." This is self-managing one's time pretty damn well. 5. This wasn't mentioned anywhere. You have no reason to hold any belief about the amount of time this person spends training others. 6. He demonstrated his skill set to himself. He's just considering terms on which to demonstrate it to his company. 7. While there's no indication he did due diligence in investigating existing solutions, there's nothing saying he hadn't.
In short, this person seems to be an employee in good standing, and he happened to create something as a hobby that would generally cost probably 30-100% more than he's making. It's reasonable to want more than a pat on the head for doing something like that.
It's a lot easier to understand something that you've taken the past three days to write than to understand what forty other people took three years to write.
Throwing half a million lines of optimized C/C++ at someone who's new to programming is a way to scare them off forever.
Slashdot Mirror
In the Ukraine, they have two weightlifting leagues: the standard one, where you're allowed to take steroids, and the natural league, where you're allowed to take the expensive steroids that don't show up during testing.
Humans suck in general. Combine the two: don't allow the human driver to take control. Ever.
Getting a decent UI for fine-grained destination control might be hard (I see a gas station and want to pull over, sort of thing), but that's solvable.
A niche product probably shouldn't get that much time at IO.
I'm all for behaviorally targeted recommendations. I want to be able to opt out, but I'd definitely opt in.
I imagine this should fall under the standard behavioral targeting rules, where you must be informed that this is going on and have an option to opt out.
Which is not to say you are unfit for the position. It's an indicator, but people get bad interview loops. Google knows this.
More to the point, they don't let you distinguish easily between different applications, since they're all the same color (with few differences) and all blocky so you can't distinguish outlines.
Just obnoxious drunks on the bus/train. Assuming the bus driver isn't drunk, which happens from time to time.
A self-driving bus would not have a drunk driver. And if everyone took public transit, the ratio of drunk people to sober people would be low.
Just ticket lines.
I've never seen a ticket line for a bus.
Still paying for them, just through taxes.
It would be more efficient to have fewer vehicles, each of a higher capacity, all managed by the same entity. You can standardize on the models of vehicle in use, which means fewer types of parts, less training for maintenance personnel, and less time designing assembly lines to produce extremely similar but incompatible parts.
Insurance with professional drivers is, I'm guessing, cheaper than insurance with private drivers. Also, a larger entity has more bargaining power when negotiating its insurance rates.
I've heard rumors that some of them got into accidents -- when the human drivers were in control. The AD (artificial driver) is apparently very reliable, even dealing with humans on the road.
In RavenDB, you create indices by creating a query returning the field you want to index and telling RavenDB to index that. For instance, if you are going to query your User documents based on email address often, you would write an index:
from user in Users select new { user.EmailAddress }
And then you can query:
from user in Users where user.EmailAddress == "bob.dobbs@example.org"
You can do this without an index, but it will be slow. Though in the case of RavenDB, I believe the database will add indices based on query patterns -- your query will be slow for the first few times, then indexing kicks in, and eventually your query gets fast.
A household with two kids on $100k in a mid-size city in the US...that's not a grand life by any means.
I agree. My computer is a linear bounded automaton.
With Ruby, I need to *realize* that there's a child class I need to modify. With Java, the compiler does that for me.
A missing method exception is no different than a compiler complaining about an unimplemented method. I can add in a bogus implementation to silence either one. But if I'm unlucky, if I haven't tested my stuff quite as well as I thought, a customer might discover that missing method error before I do. The compiler tests everything.
With the aid of an Electric Monk, I'll believe it.
Try this? http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/ebs/ebs_225_report_en.pdf
18% of Europe explicitly disbelieves, and 3% doesn't venture an opinion. France seems to have the highest level of atheism at one in three people.
Old English? Yeah, I liked it when Theoden-king stood up and said "Hwæt, we gardena in geardagum, eodcyninga rym gefrunon, hu ða æelingas ellen fremedon!"
Better yet, employ them for *non*-charity work. Either selling goods locally or exporting them. Charity is poisonous in that it increases standards of living without a persistent framework to back up those standards of living. If the charity dries up, people get a sudden drop in their standard of living, and if the charity has gone on long enough, they will have forgotten how to cope.
This is a common tactic. You split your product into different editions (which are mostly the same, just with a few added or removed features) and hope that the people who will only pay $200 will be satisfied with the $200 edition, while the people who can afford $10k will need its features. It works to some degree.
You do need to do some work to determine how much you can charge for a given set of features, though. It isn't easy. You could just ask people, but look what happens with the Humble Indie Bundle -- the average sale is something like $4. With businesses involved, it'd be worse, even though they can pay a ton more than individuals can, since the people writing the cheques need to justify expenses. It's easier to say, in a budget review meeting: "That's the best option for the job, and it costs $10,000" than to say: "I could have gotten it for free, but since I wanted to support the developer, I chose to spend $1000."
You're using the dongle largely as a means of fingerprinting in this case, and then deactivating the software based on leaked fingerprints. This doesn't require a dongle, though; you could instead construct a different binary for each customer when they download it.
I wouldn't deactivate it entirely, but turn off some advanced features, limit available file formats, and add in a nag screen. It's a bit of a dance between crackers and defenders. You want the benefits from removing the copy protection to be sufficiently limited that it's not worth the effort to these people. You want the benefits of using a legitimate copy of the software to be high enough that you get a reasonable number of your potential customers back.
It's also worth noting that a number of your potential customers will simply balk at paying $10k on a piece of software. You might want to have another product line for them.
Space is big. Really, really big. You might think it's a long way down to the chemist's, but that's just PEANUTS to space! Listen--
Space is so huge that you aren't just going to wander into the interstellar void and come across an enemy armada. Unless your enemy armada spans light-years, anyway. You need to force an engagement at a particular location.
Well, more likely, you concentrate your forces at a particular enemy target, and either the enemy spies found out where your armada will be and then you're doing a head-on engagement (or it's otherwise obvious; for instance, only one planet of any value); or your forces come in and crush everything in sight.
In the meanwhile, your enemies who don't know where you're going to engage but have managed to find out that your armada is on maneuvers have launched a counterattack. Don't bother going home; your family's dead as soon as you move out.
So all engagements happen near planets, and all engagements are MAD.
There's an alternative. Animals will rush at each other with their horns, trying to knock each other down. They swat each other with their paws -- with claws sheathed. Why not bare your claws? Surely that would give you a better chance to win? But then your enemy will unsheathe their claws, and a battle that would have ended with a victor and a loser, each walking off unharmed, would likely end with two heavily injured animals.
Another type of war, then, would be to send a small force off to attack your enemy. Keep a lot of ships back for defense, hoping that whichever target your enemy picks will be sufficiently defended. Make your attack large enough that hopefully you can take the territory you want, but small enough that your enemy won't respond with an all-out attack guaranteeing your destruction.
Let's say there was some sort of pollutant that got out into the general population that extended the average lifespan to 250 years (and in full health, and looking good). Would you then volunteer for euthanasia when you reached 100? Would you support research into reversing this age-extending pollution?
1. Convert ocean to ethanol.
2. Smoke cigarette on boat.
3. Profit!
The most sensible suggestion I've heard in this regard: a $1 tax annual on copyrighted works to keep them in copyright after, say, 10 years. If you fail to pay a tax (with some reasonable grace period), your works go into public domain.
This would cost Disney a few thousand dollars per year, which they could hardly care less about. It would cost the Isaac Asimov estate $400 per year, and he's the most prolific author I know of. A typical author wouldn't have more than about $20 in annual fees.
With music, you're looking at $20 per album per year, so maybe $100 total for a successful, or at least perseverant, artist. That pay scale can probably use some work -- $1 per album rather than $1 per song, perhaps -- but the idea's sound.
But it would be unquestionably useful to have code in one pane and a browser window in the other, so you can update the code and see immediately what effects your changes had.
Epiphany ( http://projects.gnome.org/epiphany/ ) will automatically reload any page opened on the local filesystem when that page changes, so it's a reasonable standin for that use case. Not a great one, mind, but it should work.
Wow, that's remarkable. Your entire discourse is unfounded.
1. It's reasonable to take on some extra responsibilities. Writing a major application is pretty far beyond IT tasks, though.
2. The reason people take employers is for money.
3. He has an interest in improving his company's efficiency. Otherwise he wouldn't have written the application.
4. The implication is that he gets to go home early because he completes tasks faster than expected. And he states: "The entire source was developed on personal equipment off company hours." This is self-managing one's time pretty damn well.
5. This wasn't mentioned anywhere. You have no reason to hold any belief about the amount of time this person spends training others.
6. He demonstrated his skill set to himself. He's just considering terms on which to demonstrate it to his company.
7. While there's no indication he did due diligence in investigating existing solutions, there's nothing saying he hadn't.
In short, this person seems to be an employee in good standing, and he happened to create something as a hobby that would generally cost probably 30-100% more than he's making. It's reasonable to want more than a pat on the head for doing something like that.
It's a lot easier to understand something that you've taken the past three days to write than to understand what forty other people took three years to write.
Throwing half a million lines of optimized C/C++ at someone who's new to programming is a way to scare them off forever.