I'm not so sure about this. I agree that what you're saying about compression is objectively true, but I don't imagine I'd stop finding popular music trite and boring if it were mixed better. For what it's worth, I also sometimes find the converse true: Articles about compression always mention the mix of Red Hot Chili Pepper's Californication as an example of how this ruins music, but I actually like that mix. It makes the album sound like it's always coming from a blown out PA system at a party, which I think suits it pretty well.
The above research is interesting, but doesn't mean that pop music is getting worse as the author indicates. The change in tempo, lyric repetitiveness and focus, and simpler chord structures may just reflect changing tastes. I think any argument that complicated song structures are objectively better than simpler ones is going to sound pretty silly, especially for popular music. No one wants to shake their ass to odd time signatures.
The point that people across generational lines say that pop music from the 2010s is the worst is somewhat compelling, but I'd bet that people would say pop music from the current decade is the worst no matter what decade it was. What would be more interesting is to look at only the votes for worst decade other than the current one, as those people probably gave it some real thought instead of just remembering whatever atrocity was playing on the radio on their way to work that morning.
On one hand it's a somewhat reasonable choice. Once you're four node hops from someone in a social network the coverage explodes to include a significant percentage of the population. It's very unlikely that the connections at that depth are meaningful. On the other hand, this is still probably tens of thousands of people for each investigated person. If this is done for everyone on a terrorism watch list, it basically covers everyone.
Keep in mind that by social network I don't necessarily mean something like facebook, but someone's actual social graph: who are they calling, emailing, etc.
You can live and work where you want, but it might not make much economic sense. Suburban areas require more energy expenditure for transportation: they offer few employment possibilities and are too spread out to efficiently import and distribute products made elsewhere. The suburban lifestyle demands cheap energy. The question then becomes, "do you believe that cheap energy is our future or was it more of a historical aberration?" To me, it looks more like the latter.
I have to admit that I was sort of impressed with myself when I wrote that. Feel free to use it if you like! I've always just wanted people to understand that the economy isn't the sort of system that can be manipulated in a predictable fashion. We're not particularly rational actors.
I'm basically just trying to move the browser window with a lot of tabs open so that I can see a bit of some other window (a terminal or checkbook, usually). What ends up happening is one of the following:
I forget to click on the active tab as I drag and it selects a new tab. Sometimes.
Once, and I'm not sure how I did this, but the tab detached from the window and became a new window.
Sometimes I click on a tab to activate it, but because my finger wobbles a bit on the track pad it thinks I want to drag the window and so nothing happens.
Other times it does what I want, but even then it doesn't feel right. I drag windows around the desktop by using the title bar drag space. When I click a control, I expect it to have some sort of effect on something. When the two are combined, I have no intuition about what it will do. Will it behave like a control, or a drag space?
I don't feel that the UI confusion is a good trade off for saving a couple pixels, and it adds no new capability that I care about. I hope title bar tabs go the way of the pull out drawer and the awkward gestures associated with it. Or at least that I can turn it off.
Agree. There's an ambiguity between "I'm clicking this to drag the window" vs. "I'm clicking this to change the active tab" that's really irritating.
Even though it was the only change I didn't like, it was enough to get me to stop using it. Or it would've been if they hadn't preserved a way to get the old tab behavior back via the command line (someone mentions it in another response).
Not at all. In fact, to further refine it, I'd say "That's like saying your car broke down because the truck hauling it from the manufacturer to the dealership was actually a rocket propelling it into orbit which failed to separate properly from your car which is actually a satellite and then they crashed into the ocean near Antarctica."
I'm unfortunately failing to recall the term for a good with an inflexible rate of consumption.
The term most frequently used for this situation is inelastic demand. Gasoline is the poster child for inelastic demand. Consumption only dropped from 9.29 million barrels a day in 2007 to an average of 8.99 million barrels a day in 2008. Perhaps data of finer resolution might show a more interesting drop off, but the high prices of earlier this year appear to have made little difference in the yearly data.
I agree. Although, I think they should have to get two seats; I just think they should have to pay for them both. It really sucks being stuck next to some fat guy whose thick layer of blubber can't be contained by his armrest and it starts pouring into your lap. And then you get to listen to them struggle to breath for two hours. And why are fat people so sweaty even when they're sitting down?
I think I would be unsatisfied with any candidate that didn't recognize that it depends on the project. But what do I make of the wrong answers? Do they really not understand the idea of requirements? Did they recognize it but didn't want to argue with someone they were interviewing with? It's still an interesting question, although it might be a little more interesting if they were given an example system to prioritize for.
I understand what you're saying, but even if that's what you're looking for you should say it some other way. If you bring up age during interviews, you're opening yourself and your company to lawsuits. I would just demand a certain number of years of experience at the general task if that was what I was after.
I believe video games as a hobby or habit to be a tragic waste of time for anyone over 15.
Whether or not they are a tragic waste of time depends on what an individual wants out of life. Anything could be a tragic waste of time. Especially slashdot.
Games, those which are purely for amusement, belong to the children.
I'm going to extrapolate from this that you think that anything which is purely for amusement is for children. That being the case, why does anyone pay anymore for good food when cheap food will work fine? Why do people bother to listen to music or read fiction? Why do we like to go to parties? If you're not going to enjoy life, what's the point of living it?
(2) I consider corporate welfare to be a worse evil than individual welfare. In my opinion, rather than spend ~$1.5 trillion on various bailouts, we should have left those companies die. They dug themselves into a hole with foolish investments; they can either dig themselves out, or collapse.
This part of your post hit home for me. One of the most vitally important pieces of capitalism is that businesses need to be able to fail. When a business that isn't run properly is kept alive by government intervention it's nothing more than a tragic waste of human effort.
Your favorite candidate is absolutely terrible and will completely destroy our country. If they are elected we'll all end up subsistence farming and living in tent cities. I can't believe you would vote for them. Why do you hate America?
Yes, but apart from the roads, the hospitals, the civic security, law and order, education, and social welfare, what have the government ever done for us?
Nothing we couldn't have done for ourselves. The only money they have is the money we give them and the money they borrow in our names, after all.
Additionally, I don't think they do better than a fair job at any of the items in your list. And I'm being generous.
Well, sure I think that they deserve the profits. They invested in the land and drilled the stuff. It's their good fortune that people think black goop is worth a lot at the moment.
But I'm not really interested in my own opinion. I already know what it is. I'm more interested in why you think it isn't fair. What can I say, I enjoy fresh perspectives.
Most traders profit by understanding that the market is irrational but (mostly) predictable. If you had to rely on it making sense you wouldn't ever make any money.
That's a pretty reasonable answer. Although I have to wonder why a company would buy back outstanding stock that isn't costing them anything. Or does it cost them something?
I suppose my original question still stands, however. Why is stock that doesn't pay dividends valuable to anyone? Someone might be willing to pay more for it then I did, but he'll never benefit from it unless someone else is willing to pay more for it than he did. The profits of appreciation are nothing more than a chain of people paying more than the last for something that won't ever produce any profit itself.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm not so sure about this. I agree that what you're saying about compression is objectively true, but I don't imagine I'd stop finding popular music trite and boring if it were mixed better. For what it's worth, I also sometimes find the converse true: Articles about compression always mention the mix of Red Hot Chili Pepper's Californication as an example of how this ruins music, but I actually like that mix. It makes the album sound like it's always coming from a blown out PA system at a party, which I think suits it pretty well.
The above research is interesting, but doesn't mean that pop music is getting worse as the author indicates. The change in tempo, lyric repetitiveness and focus, and simpler chord structures may just reflect changing tastes. I think any argument that complicated song structures are objectively better than simpler ones is going to sound pretty silly, especially for popular music. No one wants to shake their ass to odd time signatures.
The point that people across generational lines say that pop music from the 2010s is the worst is somewhat compelling, but I'd bet that people would say pop music from the current decade is the worst no matter what decade it was. What would be more interesting is to look at only the votes for worst decade other than the current one, as those people probably gave it some real thought instead of just remembering whatever atrocity was playing on the radio on their way to work that morning.
On one hand it's a somewhat reasonable choice. Once you're four node hops from someone in a social network the coverage explodes to include a significant percentage of the population. It's very unlikely that the connections at that depth are meaningful. On the other hand, this is still probably tens of thousands of people for each investigated person. If this is done for everyone on a terrorism watch list, it basically covers everyone. Keep in mind that by social network I don't necessarily mean something like facebook, but someone's actual social graph: who are they calling, emailing, etc.
That's all right. We just live fast and die young baby. The streets are littered with our overweight corpses.
You can live and work where you want, but it might not make much economic sense. Suburban areas require more energy expenditure for transportation: they offer few employment possibilities and are too spread out to efficiently import and distribute products made elsewhere. The suburban lifestyle demands cheap energy. The question then becomes, "do you believe that cheap energy is our future or was it more of a historical aberration?" To me, it looks more like the latter.
I have to admit that I was sort of impressed with myself when I wrote that. Feel free to use it if you like! I've always just wanted people to understand that the economy isn't the sort of system that can be manipulated in a predictable fashion. We're not particularly rational actors.
I'm basically just trying to move the browser window with a lot of tabs open so that I can see a bit of some other window (a terminal or checkbook, usually). What ends up happening is one of the following:
I don't feel that the UI confusion is a good trade off for saving a couple pixels, and it adds no new capability that I care about. I hope title bar tabs go the way of the pull out drawer and the awkward gestures associated with it. Or at least that I can turn it off.
Agree. There's an ambiguity between "I'm clicking this to drag the window" vs. "I'm clicking this to change the active tab" that's really irritating. Even though it was the only change I didn't like, it was enough to get me to stop using it. Or it would've been if they hadn't preserved a way to get the old tab behavior back via the command line (someone mentions it in another response).
Don't these circular relationships represent the defintion of a "downward spiral"?
Absolutely. This is why economists get spooked when they hear the word deflation. Even now they can't bear to say it, and resort to euphemisms.
Are we sure we understand the impact of these actions?
We understand the economy in almost exactly the same sense as we understand the weather.
In the meantime I will buckle under and keep working my ass off.
That's probably the only thing anyone can do. Good luck, this year is going to be a brutal adjustment for a lot of people.
But perhaps I'm just nitpicking. :)
Not at all. In fact, to further refine it, I'd say "That's like saying your car broke down because the truck hauling it from the manufacturer to the dealership was actually a rocket propelling it into orbit which failed to separate properly from your car which is actually a satellite and then they crashed into the ocean near Antarctica."
Do Game Demos Have an Adverse Effect On Sales?
Yes, if after playing the demo I realize the game sucks. Case closed?
I'm unfortunately failing to recall the term for a good with an inflexible rate of consumption.
The term most frequently used for this situation is inelastic demand. Gasoline is the poster child for inelastic demand. Consumption only dropped from 9.29 million barrels a day in 2007 to an average of 8.99 million barrels a day in 2008. Perhaps data of finer resolution might show a more interesting drop off, but the high prices of earlier this year appear to have made little difference in the yearly data.
Well, in that case a hike is probably out of the picture.
I agree. Although, I think they should have to get two seats; I just think they should have to pay for them both. It really sucks being stuck next to some fat guy whose thick layer of blubber can't be contained by his armrest and it starts pouring into your lap. And then you get to listen to them struggle to breath for two hours. And why are fat people so sweaty even when they're sitting down?
I think I would be unsatisfied with any candidate that didn't recognize that it depends on the project. But what do I make of the wrong answers? Do they really not understand the idea of requirements? Did they recognize it but didn't want to argue with someone they were interviewing with? It's still an interesting question, although it might be a little more interesting if they were given an example system to prioritize for.
I understand what you're saying, but even if that's what you're looking for you should say it some other way. If you bring up age during interviews, you're opening yourself and your company to lawsuits. I would just demand a certain number of years of experience at the general task if that was what I was after.
I believe video games as a hobby or habit to be a tragic waste of time for anyone over 15.
Whether or not they are a tragic waste of time depends on what an individual wants out of life. Anything could be a tragic waste of time. Especially slashdot.
Games, those which are purely for amusement, belong to the children.
I'm going to extrapolate from this that you think that anything which is purely for amusement is for children. That being the case, why does anyone pay anymore for good food when cheap food will work fine? Why do people bother to listen to music or read fiction? Why do we like to go to parties? If you're not going to enjoy life, what's the point of living it?
(2) I consider corporate welfare to be a worse evil than individual welfare. In my opinion, rather than spend ~$1.5 trillion on various bailouts, we should have left those companies die. They dug themselves into a hole with foolish investments; they can either dig themselves out, or collapse.
This part of your post hit home for me. One of the most vitally important pieces of capitalism is that businesses need to be able to fail. When a business that isn't run properly is kept alive by government intervention it's nothing more than a tragic waste of human effort.
Your favorite candidate is absolutely terrible and will completely destroy our country. If they are elected we'll all end up subsistence farming and living in tent cities. I can't believe you would vote for them. Why do you hate America?
Yes, but apart from the roads, the hospitals, the civic security, law and order, education, and social welfare, what have the government ever done for us?
Nothing we couldn't have done for ourselves. The only money they have is the money we give them and the money they borrow in our names, after all.
Additionally, I don't think they do better than a fair job at any of the items in your list. And I'm being generous.
Well, sure I think that they deserve the profits. They invested in the land and drilled the stuff. It's their good fortune that people think black goop is worth a lot at the moment. But I'm not really interested in my own opinion. I already know what it is. I'm more interested in why you think it isn't fair. What can I say, I enjoy fresh perspectives.
Most traders profit by understanding that the market is irrational but (mostly) predictable. If you had to rely on it making sense you wouldn't ever make any money.
What differentiates a fair profit from an outrageous one? If a gallon of gas is worth $4, why not sell it for that much?
That's a pretty reasonable answer. Although I have to wonder why a company would buy back outstanding stock that isn't costing them anything. Or does it cost them something?
I suppose my original question still stands, however. Why is stock that doesn't pay dividends valuable to anyone? Someone might be willing to pay more for it then I did, but he'll never benefit from it unless someone else is willing to pay more for it than he did. The profits of appreciation are nothing more than a chain of people paying more than the last for something that won't ever produce any profit itself.