Osama would be happy to see that you've swallowed the Islamo-Facist-Propoganda hook, line, and sinker. Most people understand that a freedom fighter, well, fights for freedom for themselves and others. Most people understand that freedom fighters don't fly planes into buildings, they don't behead those who don't share their ideology, and don't shun the diplomatic processes that could actually lead to freedom. See, most people understand that there is a huge difference between someone fighting for freedom and someone who calls themselves a freedom fighter to win the support of the mentally weak and susceptible.
I guess the term "most people" doesn't include the parent or the moderators that promoted this dribble to +5 insightful.
To paraphrase Adam Smith: you're salary reflects how much society feels you are worth.
In other words, there is no such thing as "fair" distribution of rewards; the rewards are distributed by the marketplace. If you aren't making as much as someone else, that is because they are more valuable than you. The difficulty of a job does not equate to how valuable it is. I was once paid $5/hr to clean septic tanks in the Florida sun. It was incredibly shitty work. But, that doesn't mean I'm entitled to a CEO's salary.
As a coder it is important to realize that we are no different than the factory workers of the industrial revolution. We are replaceable parts. We are expendible. On the other hand, socializing is difficult. Not everyone can make friends; not everyone can close a deal. Yeah, it sucks that the guy with the corner office is an idiot and gets paid 10X the average whiz-bang coder. But who is really the idiot? The guy making 6 figures? Or you and I working so that idiot can make six figures?
OK, I'm done laughing my ass off at this article. As the parent points out, projectiles will be accelerated (slowly) to 7590 m/s, or 16,978.3465 miles per hour (according to Google). From what I remember, the fastest bullet trains run somewhere in the 200 - 300 mi / hr range.
I remember doing a project in college where we had to implement a 8 point FFT in software and hardware. I was eye-opening. The hardware implementation ran on a FPGA that had something like a 23Mhz clock. The software solution was a C program running on a 2Ghz desktop. 23 Mhz vs. 2 Ghz. The hardware solution was more than 10X faster.
I don't think that general purpose processors will ever completely replace special purpose hardware. There is simply too much to be gained by implementing certain features directly on the chip.
When a right-winged magazine like The Economist starts talking about global warming, you can be pretty sure that the business community at large accepts global warming as a fact. Most business leaders aren't paying too much attention to groups like the one this article talks about. Business leaders and politicians aren't exactly idiots, no matter how dumb they're policies seem to you or me.
However, global warming is a red-herring. Its not what most people are debating. After Hurrican Katrina-Rita-Wilma most people see that the climate has changed -- the debate is now over what to do. I, for instance, think that rebuilding New Orleans makes about as much sense as everyone in California throwing up multi-million dollar houses on 123 San Adreas Fault Dr. Global warming has changed the nature of the world, and its time to adapt.
The Kyoto Protocol is often brought up here on Slashdot, and the US is often lambasted for not joining. It was a smart move, for the US and for the world, for a number of reasons. People ignore the fact that India and China are both non-signatories of the treaty. And a gallon of gas burned in the United States is far and away better than a gallon of gas burned in China. Reducing consumption locally will not reduce consumption globally. It may have the opposite affect. Artifically taking demand out of the market will cause the price to fall. A falling price stimulates demand, but not in those countries that are legally obligated to conserve. A gallon of gas that would have been burned under the EPA's guidlines now gets shipped to China where it might as well be burned in a pit of smoldering tires. Overall the oil still gets burned, but more inefficiently.
More importantly, conservation saps resources from long term investment in better technologies. The first wave of conservation to hit the United States was in response the oil crisis of the late 70's. Conservation was amazingly successful in that it help American energy consumption stay nearly level for years. 30 more years of techonological progress has allowed oil companies to drill in deeper waters, extract more oil from existing wells using new techonolgy, and open up huge new oil fields. Now, 30 years later, we have access to more oil and gas than we ever imagined -- all we have to do is burn it.
In other words, conservation played right into the oil industries hands. Instead of an unavoidable paradigm shift to newer and cleaner technologies, conservation has bought the oil industry time to keep oil economical.
Now, imagine if all the billions of dollars pumped into conservation had, instead, been invested in nuclear fusion research. Or hydrogen liberation via enzymes. Or improving solar cell efficiencies. Or any number of other clean energy technologies. Lets start thinking like engineers and solve the problem and not treat the symptoms.
Get a clue. When the Department of Justice demanded thousands of our search records who was more than happy to hand them over? Microsoft and Yahoo. On the other hand, who fought (and won) to keep our search records private? Google.
I don't know when it became cool to Google-bash, but it's not deserved. Who knows why Google hired these people. But the fact of the matter is Google is way more trustworthy than any of the other big players. When Google said "Do no evil" what they really meant to say was "Don't be Microsoft". And they aren't. Google competes in the market place by hiring the best and brightest, by innovating, and by providing those products free the end user.
Cocoa Beach, south of Daytona Beach in Florida, is a pretty good spot to watch the shuttle launch. The parking is free (in some places), there's plenty of it, and, if the shuttle launch gets scrubbed, at least you get a day at the beach.
For one, the buyback raises the overall price of the shares on the market by increasing demand. This is good for shareholders and good for management since they will both benefit from the increased stock price. It can be bad for the company in the long run because it requires the company to use its cash hoard for non-productive use.
That's one of the dumbest things I ever heard. There, I said it, its out there, I can't take it back.
1. Drawing a sweeping conclusion about an entire economic system based on one article about one statistic is assinine. Let me try: the United States has the highest rate of car ownership in the entire world, therefore American car makers must be the best.
2. Suggesting that Cuba's economic system is better than the US completely ignores that fact that no one, ever, has been arrested trying to float from Florida to Cuba on a styrofoam boat. Cuba has good health care (I don't know why you assume it is better) partly because they became the Mayo Clinic of the communist world and partly because of huge subsidies from the USSR. In other words, they became the best because their economic system was so bad at producing good doctors.
3. The US telecom industry is NOT A FREE MARKET. If it was, I could buy my internet service from Verizon or Road Runner or anyone else. As is, I have two choices in my city: the cable company or the phone company. Regulation is exactly what makes my choices so limited.
4. Sweden: 450,000 sq. km and 9 million people, US: 9,631,000 sq. km. with 300 million people. Congratulations, you've wired the hell out of Ohio. You deserve a pat on the back for the accomplishment. Even with all that success, I still can't see the Americans adopting a King and your socialist system of government. Maybe one day, people will see the advantages of heridatary power and lowest common denominator economics and build some sort of system on it. Someday.
Exactly. Any reasonable person can see that its 100% infeasible for this to ever happen. I would think that a professional journalist for the Financial Times wouldn't be so blind, but I stand corrected. At least it will sell some subscriptions.
Google stands a better chance of a buyout than Microsoft (I'm not saying this would happen either). Google has a smaller market capitilization (around $120 billion) and has unrealized revenue in the form of "evil". Seriously, an "evil" Google would be much more profitable than an non-evil version because evil is just so lucrative. On the other hand, no has ever accussed Microsoft of not being evil enough -- I doubt there is much room for growth.
Believable? Yeah right. I'd say its about as believable as the any news story coming out of China or Russia. Personally, I'd love it to happen but I'll believe it when I see it.
There seems to be a general trend amongst countries to talk the talk, but not walk the walk. China and Russia want to show that they're capable of showing the US up and beating by returning a martian sample first, but its no more than propoganda. I mean, seriously, didn't you hear that Somalia and Ethiopia a paring up to send a mission to the sun to collect solar flares and return them to Earth? If they said it, it must be true.
China and Russia, over the last few years, have been posturing to create a bipolar world, one with more than one superpower. But that's all it is: posturing. Its the same sort of mentallity that allows them to criticize Iran, but block any UN votes. Russia claims to be against the proliferation of nuclear weapons, while at the same time supplying reactors to every rogue nation in existence. Ejecting the UN weapons inspectors hasn't kept China from making billions of dollars in deals with Iran (or North Korea). Say what you want about the greedy capitalists, but its the greedy (ex-)communists that are financing our destruction.
Back to the point at hand, the article is nothing more than overt braggado: "Look at me and what I can do." Ok, then, do it.
I'm confused as to why others are confused about Google's direction. I think they've made it pretty clear what they intend to do:
Organize the world's information.
The hardest thing about organizing the world's information isn't developing algorithms but actually getting the data in the first place. If you look at Google's offerings, each and every product helps Google collect more information or present that information. I wouldn't think of them as Google products so much as Google "sensors".
Google Web Crawler Google Personalized Search History GMail Google Base Google Spreadsheet Google Notebook Google Page Maker Google Blogger
All of these tools help people to create information. Google doesn't care if you use MS Excel or Google Spreadsheets to create your spreadsheets, they are both sources of information. But, by offering a spreadsheet program Google makes it easier for us to create information and puts Google closer to the creation of that information. Google wants to be positioned as close to the information creators as possible so that data is instantly indexed.
Think back a couple years ago when Google spent the big bucks to become a domain registrar. I've yet to see a Google Domains, the reason being they were buying information, not a buying a business. Becoming a registrar gives you all sorts of information about every domain and domain changes. Information that is invaluable when trying to discern the importance of the data those domains carry.
Google Checkout may be the most important sensor deployed yet. It gives Google access to a piece of information that no other search engine has and is worth billions: conversion rate. Its easy to tell how many people click on an ad, its a lot harder to tell what they actually buy (if anything) after clicking on that ad. Google Checkout gives Google that information.
Moreover, it doesn't matter to Google what market share they end up with against PayPal -- so long as their market share gives them a big enough sampling of the data to provide good useful statistics on conversion rates. Even if PayPal ends up with 90% of the business, Google will still have access to millions upon millions of customers who searched, clicked, and bought (or didn't buy). They can easily extrapolate those statitics to provide their advertising partners the information they really want: How much money will I make if I run this ad?
I varies for each type of top level domain. A.COM/.NET/.ORG is around $6.25 per year per domain + a.25 ICANN Fee. For other domains like.tv it can be as high as $50. Different bodies control different TLD's and they control the pricing for each.
A few hundred years ago, it might have made a difference what they thought.
You must not be Catholic. The word of the pope is as good as the word of God. In fact, the pope can speak for God if he wants to (Papal infallibility). And lots of people take this stuff seriously. For an illustration of what I'm talking about look at all the people who still refuse to use birth control.
I've just started a new company Kangaroo Software, LLC that is offers a product similar to what you're asking for: KangarooTrax. It has invoicing, inventory, purchase orders, and customer management built in. The company is new, but the software has been around for a few years.
You may be more interested in the fact that it's built on MySQL and has an open architecture that can integrate into whatever applications your build in-house or drag around for historical reasons.
We're in beta testing right now, but feel free to take a look at our web site: http://www.kangaroosoftware.com/. I apologize for the incomplete state of the web site, but, like I said, we're just getting off the ground.
Hopefully someone a lot smarter than me reads this. I've read that a particle and anti-particle can appear out of the vaccuum of space. From what I understand both particles exists for a few moments until they destroy each other.
Question: Can more than one particle / anti-particle pair spring out of the vaccuum at once? Could two pairs, or four pairs, or 100 million pairs sprint out of the vaccuum nearly at the same time? Given long enough, would a universe and anti-universe spring out of the vaccuum, exist for some time, and then destroy themselves?
"I'm sure the French thought something similar when they built the Maginot line..."
For those who don't know:
In 1914 the Germans invaded France by passing through Belgium. This was in the early stages of WWI. After WWI the France began building massive fortifications on their border with Germany.
In 1939 the Germans again decided to conquer France (for the 6th time in 100 years). They saw the massive defenses built along their border and decided to circumvent them by attacking, once again, through Belgium.
You make the assumption that sending the perp's picture to the police means something. My truck was stolen a few months back. The only help I got from the police was a letter asking if I had found my car yet.
"Can't you people take the law into your own hands? I mean, we can't be policing the entire city!" - Police Chief Wiggum
Don't lie. Walmart didn't hire illegals. Walmart contracted with another firm to have some of their parking lots cleaned. That company hired the illegals. Its pretty much the same story as anyone who has ever hired a lawn mowing service.
Slashdot Mirror
Osama would be happy to see that you've swallowed the Islamo-Facist-Propoganda hook, line, and sinker. Most people understand that a freedom fighter, well, fights for freedom for themselves and others. Most people understand that freedom fighters don't fly planes into buildings, they don't behead those who don't share their ideology, and don't shun the diplomatic processes that could actually lead to freedom. See, most people understand that there is a huge difference between someone fighting for freedom and someone who calls themselves a freedom fighter to win the support of the mentally weak and susceptible.
I guess the term "most people" doesn't include the parent or the moderators that promoted this dribble to +5 insightful.
Your philosophy might work in the Candyland you live in, but not in the real world.
To paraphrase Adam Smith: you're salary reflects how much society feels you are worth.
In other words, there is no such thing as "fair" distribution of rewards; the rewards are distributed by the marketplace. If you aren't making as much as someone else, that is because they are more valuable than you. The difficulty of a job does not equate to how valuable it is. I was once paid $5/hr to clean septic tanks in the Florida sun. It was incredibly shitty work. But, that doesn't mean I'm entitled to a CEO's salary.
As a coder it is important to realize that we are no different than the factory workers of the industrial revolution. We are replaceable parts. We are expendible. On the other hand, socializing is difficult. Not everyone can make friends; not everyone can close a deal. Yeah, it sucks that the guy with the corner office is an idiot and gets paid 10X the average whiz-bang coder. But who is really the idiot? The guy making 6 figures? Or you and I working so that idiot can make six figures?
That's one way of looking at it.
Another way of looking at is, the reason the rest of the world's economy keeps growing is because the US is buying their goods.
Hahahaha, hahahaha, hahaha.
OK, I'm done laughing my ass off at this article. As the parent points out, projectiles will be accelerated (slowly) to 7590 m/s, or 16,978.3465 miles per hour (according to Google). From what I remember, the fastest bullet trains run somewhere in the 200 - 300 mi / hr range.
Yeah, I'm sure it will work just fine.
I remember doing a project in college where we had to implement a 8 point FFT in software and hardware. I was eye-opening. The hardware implementation ran on a FPGA that had something like a 23Mhz clock. The software solution was a C program running on a 2Ghz desktop. 23 Mhz vs. 2 Ghz. The hardware solution was more than 10X faster.
I don't think that general purpose processors will ever completely replace special purpose hardware. There is simply too much to be gained by implementing certain features directly on the chip.
When a right-winged magazine like The Economist starts talking about global warming, you can be pretty sure that the business community at large accepts global warming as a fact. Most business leaders aren't paying too much attention to groups like the one this article talks about. Business leaders and politicians aren't exactly idiots, no matter how dumb they're policies seem to you or me.
However, global warming is a red-herring. Its not what most people are debating. After Hurrican Katrina-Rita-Wilma most people see that the climate has changed -- the debate is now over what to do. I, for instance, think that rebuilding New Orleans makes about as much sense as everyone in California throwing up multi-million dollar houses on 123 San Adreas Fault Dr. Global warming has changed the nature of the world, and its time to adapt.
The Kyoto Protocol is often brought up here on Slashdot, and the US is often lambasted for not joining. It was a smart move, for the US and for the world, for a number of reasons. People ignore the fact that India and China are both non-signatories of the treaty. And a gallon of gas burned in the United States is far and away better than a gallon of gas burned in China. Reducing consumption locally will not reduce consumption globally. It may have the opposite affect. Artifically taking demand out of the market will cause the price to fall. A falling price stimulates demand, but not in those countries that are legally obligated to conserve. A gallon of gas that would have been burned under the EPA's guidlines now gets shipped to China where it might as well be burned in a pit of smoldering tires. Overall the oil still gets burned, but more inefficiently.
More importantly, conservation saps resources from long term investment in better technologies. The first wave of conservation to hit the United States was in response the oil crisis of the late 70's. Conservation was amazingly successful in that it help American energy consumption stay nearly level for years. 30 more years of techonological progress has allowed oil companies to drill in deeper waters, extract more oil from existing wells using new techonolgy, and open up huge new oil fields. Now, 30 years later, we have access to more oil and gas than we ever imagined -- all we have to do is burn it.
In other words, conservation played right into the oil industries hands. Instead of an unavoidable paradigm shift to newer and cleaner technologies, conservation has bought the oil industry time to keep oil economical.
Now, imagine if all the billions of dollars pumped into conservation had, instead, been invested in nuclear fusion research. Or hydrogen liberation via enzymes. Or improving solar cell efficiencies. Or any number of other clean energy technologies. Lets start thinking like engineers and solve the problem and not treat the symptoms.
Get a clue. When the Department of Justice demanded thousands of our search records who was more than happy to hand them over? Microsoft and Yahoo. On the other hand, who fought (and won) to keep our search records private? Google.
I don't know when it became cool to Google-bash, but it's not deserved. Who knows why Google hired these people. But the fact of the matter is Google is way more trustworthy than any of the other big players. When Google said "Do no evil" what they really meant to say was "Don't be Microsoft". And they aren't. Google competes in the market place by hiring the best and brightest, by innovating, and by providing those products free the end user.
I would have seen this article earlier, but our corporate internet just came back up after being down all day. Thank god that's a thing of the past.
Cocoa Beach, south of Daytona Beach in Florida, is a pretty good spot to watch the shuttle launch. The parking is free (in some places), there's plenty of it, and, if the shuttle launch gets scrubbed, at least you get a day at the beach.
For one, the buyback raises the overall price of the shares on the market by increasing demand. This is good for shareholders and good for management since they will both benefit from the increased stock price. It can be bad for the company in the long run because it requires the company to use its cash hoard for non-productive use.
"Turns out for some things regulation is better"
That's one of the dumbest things I ever heard. There, I said it, its out there, I can't take it back.
1. Drawing a sweeping conclusion about an entire economic system based on one article about one statistic is assinine. Let me try: the United States has the highest rate of car ownership in the entire world, therefore American car makers must be the best.
2. Suggesting that Cuba's economic system is better than the US completely ignores that fact that no one, ever, has been arrested trying to float from Florida to Cuba on a styrofoam boat. Cuba has good health care (I don't know why you assume it is better) partly because they became the Mayo Clinic of the communist world and partly because of huge subsidies from the USSR. In other words, they became the best because their economic system was so bad at producing good doctors.
3. The US telecom industry is NOT A FREE MARKET. If it was, I could buy my internet service from Verizon or Road Runner or anyone else. As is, I have two choices in my city: the cable company or the phone company. Regulation is exactly what makes my choices so limited.
4. Sweden: 450,000 sq. km and 9 million people, US: 9,631,000 sq. km. with 300 million people. Congratulations, you've wired the hell out of Ohio. You deserve a pat on the back for the accomplishment. Even with all that success, I still can't see the Americans adopting a King and your socialist system of government. Maybe one day, people will see the advantages of heridatary power and lowest common denominator economics and build some sort of system on it. Someday.
Exactly. Any reasonable person can see that its 100% infeasible for this to ever happen. I would think that a professional journalist for the Financial Times wouldn't be so blind, but I stand corrected. At least it will sell some subscriptions.
Google stands a better chance of a buyout than Microsoft (I'm not saying this would happen either). Google has a smaller market capitilization (around $120 billion) and has unrealized revenue in the form of "evil". Seriously, an "evil" Google would be much more profitable than an non-evil version because evil is just so lucrative. On the other hand, no has ever accussed Microsoft of not being evil enough -- I doubt there is much room for growth.
Believable? Yeah right. I'd say its about as believable as the any news story coming out of China or Russia. Personally, I'd love it to happen but I'll believe it when I see it.
There seems to be a general trend amongst countries to talk the talk, but not walk the walk. China and Russia want to show that they're capable of showing the US up and beating by returning a martian sample first, but its no more than propoganda. I mean, seriously, didn't you hear that Somalia and Ethiopia a paring up to send a mission to the sun to collect solar flares and return them to Earth? If they said it, it must be true.
China and Russia, over the last few years, have been posturing to create a bipolar world, one with more than one superpower. But that's all it is: posturing. Its the same sort of mentallity that allows them to criticize Iran, but block any UN votes. Russia claims to be against the proliferation of nuclear weapons, while at the same time supplying reactors to every rogue nation in existence. Ejecting the UN weapons inspectors hasn't kept China from making billions of dollars in deals with Iran (or North Korea). Say what you want about the greedy capitalists, but its the greedy (ex-)communists that are financing our destruction.
Back to the point at hand, the article is nothing more than overt braggado: "Look at me and what I can do." Ok, then, do it.
I'm confused as to why others are confused about Google's direction. I think they've made it pretty clear what they intend to do:
Organize the world's information.
The hardest thing about organizing the world's information isn't developing algorithms but actually getting the data in the first place. If you look at Google's offerings, each and every product helps Google collect more information or present that information. I wouldn't think of them as Google products so much as Google "sensors".
Google Web Crawler
Google Personalized Search History
GMail
Google Base
Google Spreadsheet
Google Notebook
Google Page Maker
Google Blogger
All of these tools help people to create information. Google doesn't care if you use MS Excel or Google Spreadsheets to create your spreadsheets, they are both sources of information. But, by offering a spreadsheet program Google makes it easier for us to create information and puts Google closer to the creation of that information. Google wants to be positioned as close to the information creators as possible so that data is instantly indexed.
Think back a couple years ago when Google spent the big bucks to become a domain registrar. I've yet to see a Google Domains, the reason being they were buying information, not a buying a business. Becoming a registrar gives you all sorts of information about every domain and domain changes. Information that is invaluable when trying to discern the importance of the data those domains carry.
Google Checkout may be the most important sensor deployed yet. It gives Google access to a piece of information that no other search engine has and is worth billions: conversion rate. Its easy to tell how many people click on an ad, its a lot harder to tell what they actually buy (if anything) after clicking on that ad. Google Checkout gives Google that information.
Moreover, it doesn't matter to Google what market share they end up with against PayPal -- so long as their market share gives them a big enough sampling of the data to provide good useful statistics on conversion rates. Even if PayPal ends up with 90% of the business, Google will still have access to millions upon millions of customers who searched, clicked, and bought (or didn't buy). They can easily extrapolate those statitics to provide their advertising partners the information they really want: How much money will I make if I run this ad?
I varies for each type of top level domain. A .COM/.NET/.ORG is around $6.25 per year per domain + a .25 ICANN Fee. For other domains like .tv it can be as high as $50. Different bodies control different TLD's and they control the pricing for each.
A few hundred years ago, it might have made a difference what they thought.
You must not be Catholic. The word of the pope is as good as the word of God. In fact, the pope can speak for God if he wants to (Papal infallibility). And lots of people take this stuff seriously. For an illustration of what I'm talking about look at all the people who still refuse to use birth control.
I've just started a new company Kangaroo Software, LLC that is offers a product similar to what you're asking for: KangarooTrax. It has invoicing, inventory, purchase orders, and customer management built in. The company is new, but the software has been around for a few years.
You may be more interested in the fact that it's built on MySQL and has an open architecture that can integrate into whatever applications your build in-house or drag around for historical reasons.
We're in beta testing right now, but feel free to take a look at our web site: http://www.kangaroosoftware.com/. I apologize for the incomplete state of the web site, but, like I said, we're just getting off the ground.
Where do baby universes come from?
Hopefully someone a lot smarter than me reads this. I've read that a particle and anti-particle can appear out of the vaccuum of space. From what I understand both particles exists for a few moments until they destroy each other.
Question: Can more than one particle / anti-particle pair spring out of the vaccuum at once? Could two pairs, or four pairs, or 100 million pairs sprint out of the vaccuum nearly at the same time? Given long enough, would a universe and anti-universe spring out of the vaccuum, exist for some time, and then destroy themselves?
Sorry, sorry. France successfully invaded by Germany (Prussia) 5 times in 125 years. My mistake:
Napoleanic Wars (6th coalition) 1814
Napoleanic Wars (7th coalition) 1815
Franco-Prussian War 1871
WWI 1914
WWII 1939
"I'm sure the French thought something similar when they built the Maginot line..."
For those who don't know:
In 1914 the Germans invaded France by passing through Belgium. This was in the early stages of WWI. After WWI the France began building massive fortifications on their border with Germany.
In 1939 the Germans again decided to conquer France (for the 6th time in 100 years). They saw the massive defenses built along their border and decided to circumvent them by attacking, once again, through Belgium.
The French were surprised.
You make the assumption that sending the perp's picture to the police means something. My truck was stolen a few months back. The only help I got from the police was a letter asking if I had found my car yet.
"Can't you people take the law into your own hands? I mean, we can't be policing the entire city!" - Police Chief Wiggum
Don't lie. Walmart didn't hire illegals. Walmart contracted with another firm to have some of their parking lots cleaned. That company hired the illegals. Its pretty much the same story as anyone who has ever hired a lawn mowing service.
And comments like this are what is wrong with France. They have great worker's rights laws, and 10% unemployment (20% if you're under 25).
Suck it up or get a new job.
Yeah, you're right. Sometimes that extra chromosome makes it really hard for me to type.