This has increased home ownership (*mostly* a good thing even with the current debacle which, it bears noting, is affecting less than a 10th of homes) Oh boy, another person who has bought into the lie that the housing bust is confined to the "sub-prime" market!
Both homeowner and rental vacancy rates are at all-time highs nationwide, see here.
We are seeing year-over-year (factoring out seasonal differences) price declines nationwide, see here.
Even supposedly immune markets are now seeing declines, see here (two years ago CAR would never have admitted it was even possible for prices to decline).
We've seen 5 or more years of price increases that were completely uncoupled from any economic fundamentals. People were lying on loan applications left and right. Dead people got loans. Our entire economic recovery since the dot-com burst was fueled by the easy money spigot, which Greenspan opened just before he retired (and tried to absolve himself of responsibility for via his new book).
We are now going to see at least the same amount of declines. This is just beginning.
Two years ago, virtually no one would even admit that there was a housing bubble. One year ago, some were starting to acknowledge the bubble, but at the same time insisting that it wouldn't bust (and that even if it did, prices would not go down very much). Now, few would deny that there was a bubble, or that it did burst and cause price declines, however people still insist that the resulting shit-storm is confined to the "sub-prime" market. The layers are denial are getting peeled back one-by-one. The next one to go will be this ridiculous notion of it being purely a "sub-prime" problem.
WTF? Clueless? Embarrassing? Maybe you should listen to it again. He certainly did list several "real reasons" why RealID doesn't make sense. He said most of the 9/11 hijackers would have qualified for it. He said it can be obtained with a birth certificate, which as he explained is easy to forge. He mentioned the lack of federal funding. He even used the phrase "unfunded mandate", something Bruce Schneier lists on his site as well, which is funny because you wish interviewers would talk to Bruce instead, even though this guy said pretty much the same thing. Did he list everything wrong with it? No, but it was a short interview. Also, his accent was nowhere near as thick as you portray with your mocking quote at the end.
The only thing "embarrassing" here is your post and the prejudice it reveals in you.
LOL, not really. No adequate explanation has yet to be offered, and as the post I was originally replying to pointed out, the subscription model hasn't exactly caught the world by storm.
So let's hear your take on what "it" is, along with some evidence that it would do better than the current iTunes model, which has propelled it to be the #2 music seller.
People who know nothing about making money off content creation love to spout off about who does and does not "get it".
Usually they only say someone "gets it" if they give away all their shit for free (as in beer*), so I'm kinda surprised to hear it in this case. Either way that statement is really dumb, as is usual whenever it appears.
*Free Stuff(tm) is pretty much all anyone ever really wants when they go around proclaiming who "gets it" and who doesn't. They don't want Free as in Freedom, they don't want reasonable prices, they don't care if the creator gets any compensation, they just want everything ever produced given away at no cost. Gimme, gimme, gimme! If you don't, you don't "get it"!
Ok, so which one is higher priority for you, individual or corporate? The reason I ask is because there a lot of politicians who will make a big show of cutting a few million from individual programs then turn around and give away billions in the form of no-bid contracts and tax breaks. Most people who vote Republican seem to be okay with that. The phrase "penny wise but pound foolish" comes to mind.
When you say "entitlement spending", do you mean individual welfare, unemployment, etc., or do you mean large corporate-level welfare, kickbacks, etc.? Which is more important to you? Which do you think costs more?
I'd switch to another registrar in a heartbeat if I could find one that allowed privacy for WHOIS info and didn't have the "we can shut you down and steal your domain any time we feel like it, for any reason" clause in their contract. Check here:
They've all got those escape clauses somewhere. Every single alternative someone points out has at least one person popping up and posting a horror story. There are no real alternatives.
And amazingly locked down, compared with Android. Which doesn't exist. Like everyone else on slashdot who chants about OpenMoko and/or Android every time the iPhone is mentioned, you've fallen for a vaporware claim.
The person who thinks they heard the comment about the dress is almost certainly wrong. From here:
And as the audience members began to ask questions, she said, "Someone send me a message afterward about exactly why I sucked so much."
In response, someone yelled out, "What's your e-mail address?"
I don't know about this PIN you're referring to, but I too have had Sprint agents read me my password (the one used to log into the main sprint.com website) over the phone in the clear, without me even asking them to. Yes, they can see it in plain text. The only PIN they couldn't read me was the one to get into the pictures website. That had to be sent to my phone.
Considering the account password gives access to very sensitive info and the pictures website PIN doesn't, that seems totally backwards. I've mentioned that to agents, and they didn't exactly disagree.
The only reason why people use an OS these days is to interact with local files, but the vast majority of people only care about 2 types of files: MP3s and digital photos. Even Word documents are becoming marginalized now. You don't have a job, do you?
They probably think that if they just put enough pressure on companies via bad publicity, they'll be forced to be more "open" (read: give away all their shit for free (yes, as in beer, that's what it's really all about)).
Further, they probably think that's such an admirable and noble goal, it doesn't matter if they bend the truth in the process. As long as they get their FREE STUFF!
The Wired blog about the trial mentions him constantly arguing with his lawyer & the judge. His lawyer is constantly asking for things to be repeated because Reiser is pestering him, even when he's busy questioning a witness!
The judge has asked him if he wants to fire his lawyer, but he says "no". If he wants to try the case himself, he should. If he wants to talk to his lawyer about things, he should... at the appropriate time. But his constant interruptions have apparently antagonized everyone in the courtroom. Now apparently, his lawyer is going to try to explain that away with "well... it's because he's just that much smarter than everyone else!"
It's obviously nonsense, because if you go back and look at any of the times he was badgering people on the LKML, they are experiencing exactly the same sort of annoyance with him. He just won't shut up, and won't stop pestering everyone with his ridiculous, delusional ideas that he can't let go of (like when he said ReiserFS would become the new VFS layer, with VFS implemented "on top of" it). Is anyone really prepared to claim he's not only smarter than everyone in the courtroom and day-to-day life, but that he's smarter than everyone on LKML too? Maybe he's just annoying and can't stop talking. Maybe he's just got something like Tourettes. It certainly doesn't sound like it has all that much to do with his intelligence.
Agreed completely. I worked there around 1997-1998, and by then it was clear the browser had to be free, and the server products were the only place where there was to be any money made. Fortunately, Netscape had a pretty full suite of servers by then. I remember hearing many times that the most profitable one was, by far, the proxy server.
So what did they do with the proxy server? Improve it? Give customers more features? Improve performance? No... they cancelled it.
Yep, that's right, they cancelled their best-selling product. I asked anyone who would talk to me, managers, engineers, directors, whoever I could find... "Why?" I never got an answer. That certainly spelled trouble. I don't know if anyone in the whole company knew the reason for that idiotic action.
Oh, and around that time, rumors were flying about companies that might acquire Netscape. By far, the rumor everyone thought was the most ridiculous was the one about AOL. No one took that idea seriously. And look what happened!
Dude, holy shit. I'm bookmarking your post in case there is a news story at some point in the future about a fire killing everyone in an apartment building. Damn, son.
there are a lot of people, especially younger people (under 30) who have a warped sense of value for things online I agree, but that's not "all" or even close to "most". The kinds of people you find on slashdot might be almost exclusively in the "gimme, gimme, gimme, free, free, free" crowd, but let's put things in perspective. See the story on the front page about ThePirateBay? They're bragging about getting 10 million worldwide users. Assuming those numbers aren't inflated (haha), that's peanuts compared to the numbers of people worldwide who buy CDs, DVDs, go to movies in theaters, and yes, buy downloadable items from online stores like iTunes.
I'm sure there will be a few responses arguing with me, telling me that ThePirateBay is a revolution, preparing to take down the evil media cartels by the end of next week, and how "everyone" downloads stuff for free these days... bleh, save it. Look at the numbers. The cheapskate downloaders are a tiny, tiny minority of powerless nobodies who, incidentally, will never contribute or produce anything of their own.
According to this (PDF, scroll down to the P1100 section), the pitch was 0.24mm, which probably isn't enough. Don't really feel like doing the math, but it's doubtful at first glance that that is enough. Yes, it may have had the ability to modulate the beam at 1920x1440 @ 75Hz, but that does not mean that it was actually drawing that many pixels properly masked with no overlap. Like I said, the mask and beam spot size have to be small enough for the pixels to fit, and I've never encountered a 21" CRT that could actually do it for 1920x1440.
Or maybe you're just angry you paid to see a Will Smith movie. He didn't pay. He said he watched I am Legend on a TV, but it's not available on home video yet. As the Chinese say, "Those who have free seats at a play hiss first."
Depends on where you go. I went to public schools in a fairly well-off north Dallas suburb and, upon moving to California, was surprised to meet a lot of people who knew less about history than me. Of course, they were all convinced they knew more, just because I was merely a dumb Texan and they were obviously superior Californians (most of whom had never set foot outside their state in their lives).
a 21" CRT @ 1920x1440 3 years ago It's very doubtful that the aperture grille (or shadow mask, depending on the monitor type) was small enough to actually show that many pixels. Hell, even the beam's spot size might have been too big to prevent pixel overlap. With LCD and other monitor types that offer physically discrete pixels, you are guaranteed to actually get the advertised resolution. And many of these monitor types have the side effect of allowing sub-pixel antialiasing on some graphics, increasing the effective resolution beyond the number of discrete pixels.
It gets worse. Whenever there is the slightest hint of criticism, the Wikipedia admins will immediately go into to a mode where they ignore the merits of what you are saying, and simply try to tie you to one of the "bad" sites/people. After all, we know a priori that they are "bad", so as long as you can prove your critics are one of THEM, then there's nothing further to say.
Lots of people would get offended at the "let me carry that, I'm stronger" bit. By insisting that you take over the task, you are not just implying that you are stronger (which may be true), but that they are too weak to do it effectively (which may not be true even though you really are stronger).
Similarly, insisting you take over a mental task because you are smarter is not just saying something about you being smarter, but about them being too dumb to do the task effectively.
It should be pretty clear why it's offensive, in both cases. For extra credit, it should also be clear why it's not always offensive in the "let me reach that, I'm taller" case.
Slashdot Mirror
- Both homeowner and rental vacancy rates are at all-time highs nationwide, see here.
- We are seeing year-over-year (factoring out seasonal differences) price declines nationwide, see here.
- Even supposedly immune markets are now seeing declines, see here (two years ago CAR would never have admitted it was even possible for prices to decline).
We've seen 5 or more years of price increases that were completely uncoupled from any economic fundamentals. People were lying on loan applications left and right. Dead people got loans. Our entire economic recovery since the dot-com burst was fueled by the easy money spigot, which Greenspan opened just before he retired (and tried to absolve himself of responsibility for via his new book).We are now going to see at least the same amount of declines. This is just beginning.
Two years ago, virtually no one would even admit that there was a housing bubble. One year ago, some were starting to acknowledge the bubble, but at the same time insisting that it wouldn't bust (and that even if it did, prices would not go down very much). Now, few would deny that there was a bubble, or that it did burst and cause price declines, however people still insist that the resulting shit-storm is confined to the "sub-prime" market. The layers are denial are getting peeled back one-by-one. The next one to go will be this ridiculous notion of it being purely a "sub-prime" problem.
The only thing "embarrassing" here is your post and the prejudice it reveals in you.
So let's hear your take on what "it" is, along with some evidence that it would do better than the current iTunes model, which has propelled it to be the #2 music seller.
Usually they only say someone "gets it" if they give away all their shit for free (as in beer*), so I'm kinda surprised to hear it in this case. Either way that statement is really dumb, as is usual whenever it appears.
*Free Stuff(tm) is pretty much all anyone ever really wants when they go around proclaiming who "gets it" and who doesn't. They don't want Free as in Freedom, they don't want reasonable prices, they don't care if the creator gets any compensation, they just want everything ever produced given away at no cost. Gimme, gimme, gimme! If you don't, you don't "get it"!
Ok, so which one is higher priority for you, individual or corporate? The reason I ask is because there a lot of politicians who will make a big show of cutting a few million from individual programs then turn around and give away billions in the form of no-bid contracts and tax breaks. Most people who vote Republican seem to be okay with that. The phrase "penny wise but pound foolish" comes to mind.
When you say "entitlement spending", do you mean individual welfare, unemployment, etc., or do you mean large corporate-level welfare, kickbacks, etc.? Which is more important to you? Which do you think costs more?
http://forums.nodaddy.com/index.php?board=3.0
They've all got those escape clauses somewhere. Every single alternative someone points out has at least one person popping up and posting a horror story. There are no real alternatives.
Lovely. Don't think I'll be donating any time soon.
In response, someone yelled out, "What's your e-mail address?"
And someone else shouted, "Check Twitter."
Considering the account password gives access to very sensitive info and the pictures website PIN doesn't, that seems totally backwards. I've mentioned that to agents, and they didn't exactly disagree.
Further, they probably think that's such an admirable and noble goal, it doesn't matter if they bend the truth in the process. As long as they get their FREE STUFF!
The judge has asked him if he wants to fire his lawyer, but he says "no". If he wants to try the case himself, he should. If he wants to talk to his lawyer about things, he should ... at the appropriate time. But his constant interruptions have apparently antagonized everyone in the courtroom. Now apparently, his lawyer is going to try to explain that away with "well ... it's because he's just that much smarter than everyone else!"
It's obviously nonsense, because if you go back and look at any of the times he was badgering people on the LKML, they are experiencing exactly the same sort of annoyance with him. He just won't shut up, and won't stop pestering everyone with his ridiculous, delusional ideas that he can't let go of (like when he said ReiserFS would become the new VFS layer, with VFS implemented "on top of" it). Is anyone really prepared to claim he's not only smarter than everyone in the courtroom and day-to-day life, but that he's smarter than everyone on LKML too? Maybe he's just annoying and can't stop talking. Maybe he's just got something like Tourettes. It certainly doesn't sound like it has all that much to do with his intelligence.
So what did they do with the proxy server? Improve it? Give customers more features? Improve performance? No ... they cancelled it.
Yep, that's right, they cancelled their best-selling product. I asked anyone who would talk to me, managers, engineers, directors, whoever I could find ... "Why?" I never got an answer. That certainly spelled trouble. I don't know if anyone in the whole company knew the reason for that idiotic action.
Oh, and around that time, rumors were flying about companies that might acquire Netscape. By far, the rumor everyone thought was the most ridiculous was the one about AOL. No one took that idea seriously. And look what happened!
Dude, holy shit. I'm bookmarking your post in case there is a news story at some point in the future about a fire killing everyone in an apartment building. Damn, son.
I'm sure there will be a few responses arguing with me, telling me that ThePirateBay is a revolution, preparing to take down the evil media cartels by the end of next week, and how "everyone" downloads stuff for free these days... bleh, save it. Look at the numbers. The cheapskate downloaders are a tiny, tiny minority of powerless nobodies who, incidentally, will never contribute or produce anything of their own.
According to this (PDF, scroll down to the P1100 section), the pitch was 0.24mm, which probably isn't enough. Don't really feel like doing the math, but it's doubtful at first glance that that is enough. Yes, it may have had the ability to modulate the beam at 1920x1440 @ 75Hz, but that does not mean that it was actually drawing that many pixels properly masked with no overlap. Like I said, the mask and beam spot size have to be small enough for the pixels to fit, and I've never encountered a 21" CRT that could actually do it for 1920x1440.
Depends on where you go. I went to public schools in a fairly well-off north Dallas suburb and, upon moving to California, was surprised to meet a lot of people who knew less about history than me. Of course, they were all convinced they knew more, just because I was merely a dumb Texan and they were obviously superior Californians (most of whom had never set foot outside their state in their lives).
It gets worse. Whenever there is the slightest hint of criticism, the Wikipedia admins will immediately go into to a mode where they ignore the merits of what you are saying, and simply try to tie you to one of the "bad" sites/people. After all, we know a priori that they are "bad", so as long as you can prove your critics are one of THEM, then there's nothing further to say.
And as we've seen, the in crowd are not the ones who really contribute in the first place.
So what are these people good for, again?
Similarly, insisting you take over a mental task because you are smarter is not just saying something about you being smarter, but about them being too dumb to do the task effectively.
It should be pretty clear why it's offensive, in both cases. For extra credit, it should also be clear why it's not always offensive in the "let me reach that, I'm taller" case.