When you define "money" as including deposits at banks then sure, if someone makes a deposit at a bank then the amount of "money" increases. If you define "money" as deposits with the central bank plus currency then ordinary banks don't "create" money quite so easily (there are in fact a wide range of definitions of "money" which are usually abbreviated M1, M2, M3 and so on). So what? There is nothing magical about money....Because you are completely wrong about the influence of this on inflation. The central bank sets the overnight interest rate and this has a large influence on all other interest rates which affects the growth of the economy and consequently inflation. This isn't the dark ages of monetary targeting. Money was always an intermediate target that turned out to have a completely unreliable link with inflation. You need to update your economics (or conspiracy theories depending on your bent).
To left click and drag there is an option that allows you to double tap on the trackpad before draging to make the click and drag function work properly. You just need to turn the option on in the relevant control panel - double tap to 'pick up' something and another tap to drop it.
My three-year-old daughter who had some trouble with games that required click and drag actions has managed to pick it up so it can't be too dificult to use.
Re:RTFM = Best Evar.. BASIC, etc, etc
on
The Apple II At 30
·
· Score: 1
That little beep taught me more though...
Re:RTFM = Best Evar.. BASIC, etc, etc
on
The Apple II At 30
·
· Score: 1
I particularly remember the example that went something like this:
10 HELLFREEZESOVER = 0; (or was is FALSE?) 20 DO UNTIL HELLFREEZESOVER;
[Code]
100 ENDO;
I can still remember it after all these years. Those were good manuals and they taught me a lot.
Yes but did you time it until the computer was responsive to input? It makes a lot of difference. So what if I can see my pretty desktop picture sooner - it still takes another 30 seconds or so (I didn't time it) before the computer is responsive. That is the real benchmark - otherwise you are just falling for UI illusions designed to make the system look better than it actually is.
Many rercording engineers preview their mixes on the most attrocious speakers they can find to check that it still sounds OK on the kind of equipment. It will sound much better on better gear and they know it - but they know how 90% of people will listen to it and want to cater to that possibility. It's not about recapturing the way they intended it (that is in their head, not on a studio monitor or an audiphile rig). (Why else do you think pretty much all the CDs released have been compressed to within an inch of their life.)
To simplify (hopefully not misleadingly so), there are agressive cancers and indolent cancers. Agressive cancers do in fact divide more frequently than healthy cells. And this is the reason why treatments for agressive cancers are, in some respects, more successful than for indolent cancers. But it is very much a double edged sword - kill or cure. With indolent cancers the treatment is more difficult because the difference between these cancers and normal cells, in terms of cell division, is much less. Thus, they do not have as much success with outright cures - but people affected by these cancers have 'reasonable' life expectancies because of the slower progression of the cancer and possibility of extended remission.
Re:The value of good user interface design...
on
100 Million iPods
·
· Score: 1
You obviously take your music much more seriously than I.
Me, I just have the mono version of Pet Sounds because the stereo remix seems like overkill. What on earth would you do with 7.1 channels for music? (Mind you, Dark Side of the Moon is probably the only album where there might be a point.)
Re:The value of good user interface design...
on
100 Million iPods
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
>and I don't mind paying a few extra $$ for a high-def quality rip of Dark Side of the Moon
Why dont you pay $10 for the CD and make a lossless rip of it using, say, Apple Lossless for use on your stereo? And then have a 192kbps VBR AAC rip for your iPod when its on the go and you care about quantity rather than too much quality? All without DRM.
Perhaps proprietary is too strong then. But.avi was born of Microsoft and remains a Windows-centric container format. As such, cross-platform compatitbility issues invariably crop up (in the same way that Quicktime and.mp4 can create problems for 'not invented here' Microsoft products). These issues may stem more from cross-platform availability of the codecs - and particularly the shoehorning of certain codecs into the avi container (H.264 for example). You might find that similar content encoded in a Quicktime/MPEG-4 container would have fewer problems.
Anyway, if Perian isn't to your taste for solving the problem, try here.
I am completely unsurprised that Windows supports Microsoft proprietary formats out of the box. I could equivalently claim that I am disapointed that the Windows instals I have dealt with can't handle Quicktime out of the box, especially H.264. Seems pretty sad for PCs not to be able to cope as well by themselves and have to call on Apple to play a media file...;)
I don't know if their numbers are realistic, but Canadian piracy of American movies HAS to be detrimental to the Canadian economy to some extent. You are ignoring the benefit to Canadian consumers. Think about it for a minute. Canadian consumers are getting something that they value (otherwise they wouldn't even bother pirating the movies) for nothing. The loss to Canadian distribution businesses will be much less than that (because the distribution businesses can't make any more money than Canadians are willing to pay for the movies without pirating, and Canadian consumers aren't going to pay any more than they value the movies at).
Consider if Hollywood was willing to give Canadian consumers $30 to buy DVDs (a sort of analogue of what goes on with piracy). Would you claim that the Canadian economy must be worse off as a result? Maybe some businesses are worse off, but Canandians are better off.
"Please provide evidence of infringing activity involving this software for which your copyrighted works are the subject."
Just because the software could do something doesn't mean that it has been so used. Your logic would equally apply to VCRs, tape recorders and, indeed, pretty much all computers. They would still have to demonstrate actual infringing activity - hypotheticals don't cut it.
"We claim that the software infringes our exclusive rights in all motion pictures sold as HD DVD or Blu-ray Disc videos in our studio's online store. A list of such motion pictures is attached as Exhibit A." "We have examined the software you identified and have found that it is not, in fact, a motion picture. As such, it is not in violation of the copyright you hold in such motion pictures."
(It may infringe other aspects of the law, but it in no way resembles a motion picture so can hardly violate copyright.)
It's pretty basic hardware. All current Macs have this ability - which means that most PCs built in the past year also have the required hardware. It's the software that is the trick.
I hear that Vista might have something like Spotlight but you truly have to experience the ease with which you can find specific files (say an email message, photo or song) using the equivalent of tags (actually the ultimate extreme of tags where every word in the document is a tag) to understand it. It doesn't matter where you stick files if you have really good searching ability.
For example, I can tell you that I have 20 songs that use the word 'fuck' and two that use the word 'idiot' (both Weird Al songs coincidentally) because the lyrics for all my songs are similarly indexed. My music is organised hierarchically by artists and album, but that has no bearing on my ability to keep them organised by lyrics and find which of my 5000 songs contains particular words.
Actually economics is a science; it is not (usually) an experimental science - and that is what creates most of the problems. (People get quite put out when you start conducting experiments by randomly firing half of them or randomly telling code monkeys to go and plant some corn or randomly doubling their taxes or foreclosing on their mortgage just for the sake of an experiment. Can you imagine what would happen to physics if physicists had to start thinking about the feelings of those atoms they are smashing together in the particle accelerators and couldn't conduct the experiments any more?)
Please explain to me how the latest F1 racing engines do not obey the laws of thermodynamics. Because they get more power out of a given litre of fuel than the first engines used by Cugnot or Otto or Daimler.
Doing things more efficiently is why the economy is not a zero-sum game.
Imagine, for a moment, that you are a country. Do you satisfy all your want and desires through your own labour?
No you don't. You outsource so much of your needs that it's incredible if you stop to think about it. Do you grow your own food? Do you make your own car? Do you make your own TV?
The reason you do this is specialisation. I don't know your profession but lets assume for the moment that you are a high-poobah. You are better at being a high-poobah than you are at being a farmer. So, rather than trying to be both a high-poobah and a mediocre famer. You devote yourself to being a full-time high-poobah and buy the food you need from the full-time farmer who is a better farmer than you will ever be. The result of this is that you will have more food and more goombahs (the highly valuvable output of high-poobahs).
We can even do it with numbers if you like:
Assume you can produce 3 goombahs if you work full time as a high-poobah. Assume you can produce 3 nutritious and delicious meals if you work full time as a farmer. (Assume you can make any linear combination of those two extremes by dividing your time.)
Now consider the farmer (who is more farmer that you will ever be). Assume he can produce 2 goombahs if he works full time as a high-poobah. (He's not a very good high-poobah.) Assume he can produce 6 nutrituous and delicious meals if he works full time as a farmer.
If you both work half time on each job, you end up with 1.5 goombahs and 1.5 meals. He has 1 goombah and 3 meals. That means that there are a total of 2.5 goombahs and 4.5 meals to be divided between you both. (How they get divided up can be left as an exercise for another time.)
Now suppose you both work full time at what you are best at. You produce 3 goombahs and he produces 6 meals. There are now 0.5 goombahs and 1.5 more meals available to divide up between you all. That is a net gain and everyone can be better off than they were before.
That is the point of outsourcing. As was stated above - it is not a zero sum game. It is about making sure that everyone is doing what they do best through specialisation.
You outsource your needs as an individual - why can't the country outsource its needs as a country. Both you and the country are better off as a result.
Actually, here in the Australian colonies, the Metric Pint is 600ml. We would get our milk delivered in 600ml pints when I was a kid.
As for beer - it is a complete mess. It varies from state to state but seems to have some relation to fluid ounces. The Pint wasn't really used much as a unit of beer measurement until recently. And I don't know what a fluid ounce is so that's no help.
If you melt only the ice that is above the waterline there will be less ice below the waterline as the whole iceberg now weighs less and displaces less water to make it buoyant. You can't meaningfully melt only the ice above the waterline (or below the waterline). Your thought experiment is like saying: cut the top off the iceberg and hold the remaining portion of it down in the water using exactly the same force as the top of the iceberg used to exert, then melt the top of the iceberg and look at what happens - just silly.
In fact, the ice above the waterline that melts will cause the whole iceberg to displace a weight of water that is smaller by exactly the weight of whatever melted - whose volume exactly equals the volume of water that melted off the iceberg above the waterline and then, presumably, fell into the ocean to replace the volume that was no longer displaced by the weight of ice. It seems you get this but your talk about melting only the water above or below the waterline makes me wonder.
Economic growth. As we get richer we are less willing to tolerate pollution and can afford to pay for the removal of pollution. (It's just the growth of the NIMBY movement writ large.)
Compare, say, Taiwan and China who are at lower levels of economic development with big US or UK cities. The US and UK cities are immesurably cleaner. Furthermore, these same US or UK cities that you are complaining about are much cleaner than they were, say, 100 or even 50 years ago. Why do you think countries moved to unleaded petrol? Because they could afford to. Lead is cheaper as an additive, but the side effects in terms of smog are pretty dire. Consider, even, the move to diesel as a more environmentally friendly fuel. It happened because we could afford to develop high efficiency diesel engines and low-sulphur fuels.
So people are not ignoring pollution - its just that they prefer to have functional hospitals and schools and police forces. And when they can afford to they'll get rid of as much pollution as they want to. And when enough people care enough about greenhouse gas emissions to actually pay for it in their electricity bill (using the alternative energy suppliers that seem to be popping up in many countries) they will switch.
you need three independent studies before most scientists will draw a conclusion Could you show me the three independent studies that prove this fact?
Actually, what has been more often proved is that it doesn't matter how many studies you do - some people are terminally clue resistant and will continue to believe whatever the hell they feel like regardless of evidence.
Slashdot Mirror
When you define "money" as including deposits at banks then sure, if someone makes a deposit at a bank then the amount of "money" increases. If you define "money" as deposits with the central bank plus currency then ordinary banks don't "create" money quite so easily (there are in fact a wide range of definitions of "money" which are usually abbreviated M1, M2, M3 and so on). So what? There is nothing magical about money. ...Because you are completely wrong about the influence of this on inflation. The central bank sets the overnight interest rate and this has a large influence on all other interest rates which affects the growth of the economy and consequently inflation. This isn't the dark ages of monetary targeting. Money was always an intermediate target that turned out to have a completely unreliable link with inflation. You need to update your economics (or conspiracy theories depending on your bent).
To left click and drag there is an option that allows you to double tap on the trackpad before draging to make the click and drag function work properly. You just need to turn the option on in the relevant control panel - double tap to 'pick up' something and another tap to drop it.
My three-year-old daughter who had some trouble with games that required click and drag actions has managed to pick it up so it can't be too dificult to use.
That little beep taught me more though...
I particularly remember the example that went something like this:
10 HELLFREEZESOVER = 0; (or was is FALSE?)
20 DO UNTIL HELLFREEZESOVER;
[Code]
100 ENDO;
I can still remember it after all these years. Those were good manuals and they taught me a lot.
OS X uses CUPS too you know.
...to the desktop coming up.
Yes but did you time it until the computer was responsive to input? It makes a lot of difference. So what if I can see my pretty desktop picture sooner - it still takes another 30 seconds or so (I didn't time it) before the computer is responsive. That is the real benchmark - otherwise you are just falling for UI illusions designed to make the system look better than it actually is.
Kinda, sorta, but not really.
Many rercording engineers preview their mixes on the most attrocious speakers they can find to check that it still sounds OK on the kind of equipment. It will sound much better on better gear and they know it - but they know how 90% of people will listen to it and want to cater to that possibility. It's not about recapturing the way they intended it (that is in their head, not on a studio monitor or an audiphile rig). (Why else do you think pretty much all the CDs released have been compressed to within an inch of their life.)
Re #2
It depends on the cancer.
To simplify (hopefully not misleadingly so), there are agressive cancers and indolent cancers. Agressive cancers do in fact divide more frequently than healthy cells. And this is the reason why treatments for agressive cancers are, in some respects, more successful than for indolent cancers. But it is very much a double edged sword - kill or cure. With indolent cancers the treatment is more difficult because the difference between these cancers and normal cells, in terms of cell division, is much less. Thus, they do not have as much success with outright cures - but people affected by these cancers have 'reasonable' life expectancies because of the slower progression of the cancer and possibility of extended remission.
You obviously take your music much more seriously than I.
Me, I just have the mono version of Pet Sounds because the stereo remix seems like overkill. What on earth would you do with 7.1 channels for music? (Mind you, Dark Side of the Moon is probably the only album where there might be a point.)
>and I don't mind paying a few extra $$ for a high-def quality rip of Dark Side of the Moon
Why dont you pay $10 for the CD and make a lossless rip of it using, say, Apple Lossless for use on your stereo? And then have a 192kbps VBR AAC rip for your iPod when its on the go and you care about quantity rather than too much quality? All without DRM.
Perhaps proprietary is too strong then. But .avi was born of Microsoft and remains a Windows-centric container format. As such, cross-platform compatitbility issues invariably crop up (in the same way that Quicktime and .mp4 can create problems for 'not invented here' Microsoft products). These issues may stem more from cross-platform availability of the codecs - and particularly the shoehorning of certain codecs into the avi container (H.264 for example). You might find that similar content encoded in a Quicktime/MPEG-4 container would have fewer problems.
Anyway, if Perian isn't to your taste for solving the problem, try here.
Try Perian.
;)
I am completely unsurprised that Windows supports Microsoft proprietary formats out of the box. I could equivalently claim that I am disapointed that the Windows instals I have dealt with can't handle Quicktime out of the box, especially H.264. Seems pretty sad for PCs not to be able to cope as well by themselves and have to call on Apple to play a media file...
Consider if Hollywood was willing to give Canadian consumers $30 to buy DVDs (a sort of analogue of what goes on with piracy). Would you claim that the Canadian economy must be worse off as a result? Maybe some businesses are worse off, but Canandians are better off.
To which the response might be:
"Please provide evidence of infringing activity involving this software for which your copyrighted works are the subject."
Just because the software could do something doesn't mean that it has been so used. Your logic would equally apply to VCRs, tape recorders and, indeed, pretty much all computers. They would still have to demonstrate actual infringing activity - hypotheticals don't cut it.
(It may infringe other aspects of the law, but it in no way resembles a motion picture so can hardly violate copyright.)
Well, you were talking about a plaintext attack - so it's only right that you post in plain text.
It's pretty basic hardware. All current Macs have this ability - which means that most PCs built in the past year also have the required hardware. It's the software that is the trick.
I hear that Vista might have something like Spotlight but you truly have to experience the ease with which you can find specific files (say an email message, photo or song) using the equivalent of tags (actually the ultimate extreme of tags where every word in the document is a tag) to understand it. It doesn't matter where you stick files if you have really good searching ability.
For example, I can tell you that I have 20 songs that use the word 'fuck' and two that use the word 'idiot' (both Weird Al songs coincidentally) because the lyrics for all my songs are similarly indexed. My music is organised hierarchically by artists and album, but that has no bearing on my ability to keep them organised by lyrics and find which of my 5000 songs contains particular words.
Actually economics is a science; it is not (usually) an experimental science - and that is what creates most of the problems. (People get quite put out when you start conducting experiments by randomly firing half of them or randomly telling code monkeys to go and plant some corn or randomly doubling their taxes or foreclosing on their mortgage just for the sake of an experiment. Can you imagine what would happen to physics if physicists had to start thinking about the feelings of those atoms they are smashing together in the particle accelerators and couldn't conduct the experiments any more?)
Because we are talking about efficiency.
Please explain to me how the latest F1 racing engines do not obey the laws of thermodynamics. Because they get more power out of a given litre of fuel than the first engines used by Cugnot or Otto or Daimler.
Doing things more efficiently is why the economy is not a zero-sum game.
Imagine, for a moment, that you are a country. Do you satisfy all your want and desires through your own labour?
No you don't. You outsource so much of your needs that it's incredible if you stop to think about it. Do you grow your own food? Do you make your own car? Do you make your own TV?
The reason you do this is specialisation. I don't know your profession but lets assume for the moment that you are a high-poobah. You are better at being a high-poobah than you are at being a farmer. So, rather than trying to be both a high-poobah and a mediocre famer. You devote yourself to being a full-time high-poobah and buy the food you need from the full-time farmer who is a better farmer than you will ever be. The result of this is that you will have more food and more goombahs (the highly valuvable output of high-poobahs).
We can even do it with numbers if you like:
Assume you can produce 3 goombahs if you work full time as a high-poobah.
Assume you can produce 3 nutritious and delicious meals if you work full time as a farmer.
(Assume you can make any linear combination of those two extremes by dividing your time.)
Now consider the farmer (who is more farmer that you will ever be).
Assume he can produce 2 goombahs if he works full time as a high-poobah. (He's not a very good high-poobah.)
Assume he can produce 6 nutrituous and delicious meals if he works full time as a farmer.
If you both work half time on each job, you end up with 1.5 goombahs and 1.5 meals. He has 1 goombah and 3 meals.
That means that there are a total of 2.5 goombahs and 4.5 meals to be divided between you both. (How they get divided up can be left as an exercise for another time.)
Now suppose you both work full time at what you are best at. You produce 3 goombahs and he produces 6 meals. There are now 0.5 goombahs and 1.5 more meals available to divide up between you all. That is a net gain and everyone can be better off than they were before.
That is the point of outsourcing. As was stated above - it is not a zero sum game. It is about making sure that everyone is doing what they do best through specialisation.
You outsource your needs as an individual - why can't the country outsource its needs as a country. Both you and the country are better off as a result.
Actually, here in the Australian colonies, the Metric Pint is 600ml. We would get our milk delivered in 600ml pints when I was a kid.
As for beer - it is a complete mess. It varies from state to state but seems to have some relation to fluid ounces. The Pint wasn't really used much as a unit of beer measurement until recently. And I don't know what a fluid ounce is so that's no help.
If you melt only the ice that is above the waterline there will be less ice below the waterline as the whole iceberg now weighs less and displaces less water to make it buoyant. You can't meaningfully melt only the ice above the waterline (or below the waterline). Your thought experiment is like saying: cut the top off the iceberg and hold the remaining portion of it down in the water using exactly the same force as the top of the iceberg used to exert, then melt the top of the iceberg and look at what happens - just silly.
In fact, the ice above the waterline that melts will cause the whole iceberg to displace a weight of water that is smaller by exactly the weight of whatever melted - whose volume exactly equals the volume of water that melted off the iceberg above the waterline and then, presumably, fell into the ocean to replace the volume that was no longer displaced by the weight of ice. It seems you get this but your talk about melting only the water above or below the waterline makes me wonder.
I've no idea why the would do that.
Using Google Image search or Sloth Radio allowed me to get cover art for practically all my albums.
(And using pearLyrics got me practically all the lyrics which iTunes still doesn't provide.)
Do you know the greatest cure for that?
Economic growth. As we get richer we are less willing to tolerate pollution and can afford to pay for the removal of pollution. (It's just the growth of the NIMBY movement writ large.)
Compare, say, Taiwan and China who are at lower levels of economic development with big US or UK cities. The US and UK cities are immesurably cleaner. Furthermore, these same US or UK cities that you are complaining about are much cleaner than they were, say, 100 or even 50 years ago. Why do you think countries moved to unleaded petrol? Because they could afford to. Lead is cheaper as an additive, but the side effects in terms of smog are pretty dire. Consider, even, the move to diesel as a more environmentally friendly fuel. It happened because we could afford to develop high efficiency diesel engines and low-sulphur fuels.
So people are not ignoring pollution - its just that they prefer to have functional hospitals and schools and police forces. And when they can afford to they'll get rid of as much pollution as they want to. And when enough people care enough about greenhouse gas emissions to actually pay for it in their electricity bill (using the alternative energy suppliers that seem to be popping up in many countries) they will switch.
you need three independent studies before most scientists will draw a conclusion
Could you show me the three independent studies that prove this fact?
Actually, what has been more often proved is that it doesn't matter how many studies you do - some people are terminally clue resistant and will continue to believe whatever the hell they feel like regardless of evidence.