I guess most of free enterprise isn't free enterprise then.
"How *dare* you buy up food from farms on the cheap just to sell at a fat retail markup, just to profit off of people who can't make it out to the farms to buy their food!"
... *to the extent* that Obama supporters are people who somehow live their lives without needing an ID for other reasons.
That's a good thing. Republicans shouldn't want such voters either, and if they appeal to a class of people that doesn't include them, it's to the party's credit.
Your advice didn't work in any of the economies whose governments (unpredictably) collapsed or underwent severe economic turmoil: Weimar, Austria-Hungary, pre-Bolshevik Russia,...
Seriously, software development is probably the most meritocratic sector in the world. Can you do the job? Then you're hired, irrespective of the bullshit you can pad your resume with. Don't like what's asked of you? Show off your Github/website coding portfolio and jump shop to another one.
Unionization here just doesn't make sense: it would introduce a credentialism and seniority system completely foreign to how coding works. "Oh, sorry, your job description is Java, not Python, you can't take work away from the Python team."
Naive question: what would stop them from re-opening as "Non-Apple, UK", doing the exact same things Apple would want them to do, and run by the exact same people, while retaining any unused profits in a bank account until Apple can operate again, at which point it buys them up?
What is the sub-problem when running a Hadoop job that has this bottleneck and requires such low latency? Is it something that could have been avoided for a start?
And how does (or if, predictably, the media reports don't explain it, *would*) a logical abstraction layer solve this problem such that Hadoop's programmers couldn't have more easily done it within the application's own code?
Romney: "I would like to eliminate [specific deduction that everyone as of last year agreed was f*ckt*rded]."
Interest group that benefits from it: "OMG!!!! Did you hear that? Romney hates [our group] and by extension must hate puppies!"
People that hate Romney anyway: "How cruel he is to even think of torturing [interest group] by eliminating that VITAL deduction!"
Moderate commentators: "Hey everyone, all the cool kids [now] agree that [deduction] is the greatest thing since sliced bread and Romney is a fool to even consider reducing it.
[repeat for every insane deduction]
[for each voter, begin pondering why there are so many deductions]
I, for one, am sick of science "breakthrough" reporting like this. Oooh, we understand physics past the speed of light now!
Stop for a second. Do you even understand the current state of settled science on General Relativity? Do you appreciate the problems that existed in pre-GR, and how Einstein's equations were such a beautiful, innovative solution to them? Have you connected it to your general understanding of science and astronomical observation? How much would you have needed to be told to connect the rest of the dots yourself?
And yet people are so excited about the mere possibility of passing the next hurdle.
Well, dispense with chasing these bleeding edge results that you barely understand the pre-requisites for. Grab a good textbook, and just see if you can understand and appreciate the physics that physicists don't argue about anymore. You'll actually learn something.
(Too lazy to credit the article that gave me this insight.. Just google the subject.)
Those are folow up calls. You already had a business relationship - BIG difference then some scammer calling you up for their greatest and best whatever.
I think you may be able to answer this question then: are the problems hard enough that someone solving them quickly could have applications for current research? Do the problems increase in difficulty up to research level?
I remember that there was a similar effort in gamification that led to an video game player "winning" a game that thereby produced a solution to a protein folding problem. Can something similar happen here?
I'm sorry, I must have missed your stunning explanation of how computer manufacturers are not a counterexample to the claim that it's impossible to operate in a world of steadily declining nominal output prices.
Could you restate it, maybe in a different way next time?
If entry level economics proves why computer chip makers never build new plans (because of computer deflation and all...) then it's either wrong, or the world is more complicated than the trite "inflation gets people spending!" that everyone bandies about.
Slashdot Mirror
I guess most of free enterprise isn't free enterprise then.
"How *dare* you buy up food from farms on the cheap just to sell at a fat retail markup, just to profit off of people who can't make it out to the farms to buy their food!"
Not just a joke: a woman was turned away from polls because her MIT shirt was interpreted as electioneering for MITT Romney. Source
Pretty much every city has long referred to its job training/unemployment office as the "Jobs Building".
But, I thought fraud was impossible and non-existent?
Oh, right, that's only when someone suggests a voter ID law, never mind.
Only a tiny portion goes to the civilization part, the rest goes to the uncivilized political infighting over who gets the free loot.
So ... like Pentadactyl, Vimperator, and Vimium then?
... *to the extent* that Obama supporters are people who somehow live their lives without needing an ID for other reasons.
That's a good thing. Republicans shouldn't want such voters either, and if they appeal to a class of people that doesn't include them, it's to the party's credit.
Your advice didn't work in any of the economies whose governments (unpredictably) collapsed or underwent severe economic turmoil: Weimar, Austria-Hungary, pre-Bolshevik Russia, ...
Stupid question: Is Malaysia the only country that can export Singapore it's most needed goods?
Generally speaking, most high end professions don't have unions: doctors, lawyers, engineers.
AMA, Bar Association, NSPE (in decreasing order of counterproductivity).
Mild to severe mental retardation.
Seriously, software development is probably the most meritocratic sector in the world. Can you do the job? Then you're hired, irrespective of the bullshit you can pad your resume with. Don't like what's asked of you? Show off your Github/website coding portfolio and jump shop to another one.
Unionization here just doesn't make sense: it would introduce a credentialism and seniority system completely foreign to how coding works. "Oh, sorry, your job description is Java, not Python, you can't take work away from the Python team."
Please don't kill this with unionization.
Naive question: what would stop them from re-opening as "Non-Apple, UK", doing the exact same things Apple would want them to do, and run by the exact same people, while retaining any unused profits in a bank account until Apple can operate again, at which point it buys them up?
But Linux == GNU/Linux [evaluates to True]
What is the sub-problem when running a Hadoop job that has this bottleneck and requires such low latency? Is it something that could have been avoided for a start?
And how does (or if, predictably, the media reports don't explain it, *would*) a logical abstraction layer solve this problem such that Hadoop's programmers couldn't have more easily done it within the application's own code?
Pretty bold claim there. What about "take down the Soviet Empire though an arms buildup they can't compete with"?
In fairness, we all know how that would work out:
Romney: "I would like to eliminate [specific deduction that everyone as of last year agreed was f*ckt*rded]."
Interest group that benefits from it: "OMG!!!! Did you hear that? Romney hates [our group] and by extension must hate puppies!"
People that hate Romney anyway: "How cruel he is to even think of torturing [interest group] by eliminating that VITAL deduction!"
Moderate commentators: "Hey everyone, all the cool kids [now] agree that [deduction] is the greatest thing since sliced bread and Romney is a fool to even consider reducing it.
[repeat for every insane deduction]
[for each voter, begin pondering why there are so many deductions]
I know, and wasn't trying to disagree -- I just wanted to make the inference explicit.
The First Amendment?
Isn't a negative frequency just the wave flipped about an axis (or perhaps unchanged)?
cos (-w t) = cos (w t)
sin (-w t) = -sin(w t)
Did you maybe mean imaginary frequencies?
I, for one, am sick of science "breakthrough" reporting like this. Oooh, we understand physics past the speed of light now!
Stop for a second. Do you even understand the current state of settled science on General Relativity? Do you appreciate the problems that existed in pre-GR, and how Einstein's equations were such a beautiful, innovative solution to them? Have you connected it to your general understanding of science and astronomical observation? How much would you have needed to be told to connect the rest of the dots yourself?
And yet people are so excited about the mere possibility of passing the next hurdle.
Well, dispense with chasing these bleeding edge results that you barely understand the pre-requisites for. Grab a good textbook, and just see if you can understand and appreciate the physics that physicists don't argue about anymore. You'll actually learn something.
(Too lazy to credit the article that gave me this insight.. Just google the subject.)
Nice try, telescammer.
I think you may be able to answer this question then: are the problems hard enough that someone solving them quickly could have applications for current research? Do the problems increase in difficulty up to research level?
I remember that there was a similar effort in gamification that led to an video game player "winning" a game that thereby produced a solution to a protein folding problem. Can something similar happen here?
I'm sorry, I must have missed your stunning explanation of how computer manufacturers are not a counterexample to the claim that it's impossible to operate in a world of steadily declining nominal output prices.
Could you restate it, maybe in a different way next time?
If entry level economics proves why computer chip makers never build new plans (because of computer deflation and all ...) then it's either wrong, or the world is more complicated than the trite "inflation gets people spending!" that everyone bandies about.
But don't you see how it would hurt GDP if people could enjoy the same works but spend less money on them? /s