A guy who isn't confident isn't going to take care of her.
You do not choose who you are attracted to-- it's emotional.
Picture girls as a computer with their own well-defined logic and set of instructions.
If you program them right, you will do well. Otherwise, you are going to get the blue screen of death.
David D'angelo has some good points and techniques- you can find a lot of his stuff on torrent sites.
Read it. Learn it. Know it.
Don't think of girls as bad/stupid but recognize if you do not press the right buttons, you are not going to get the right responses.
Mostly, you need to hit on/flirt with enough girls so that you get comfortable around women. As long as you are not comfortable, you are going to give them the creeps in subtle ways and chase them off.
1) Set a price ($1 a gig, minimum $50 a month). 2) Allow competition from providers in your area. 3) Observe the speed/bandwidth increase since it is being paid for. 4) Then observe the price drop as competition brings it down.
Without competition, you can't have this and will exceed your bandwidth eventually.
I respect the position of the expert. Great links.
And I also remember how everyone I knew in the PC user's groups talked about it and how the perception on it was at the time. Stac brought out doublespace- rather than license it, Microsoft stole it, they lost in court, they bought Stac.
---
However, it does seem you are saying the same thing with "Microsoft tried to use an LZ77/LZRW1/etc variant, specifically designed not to infringe existing patents, in its MS-DOS V6 operating system, and ended up having to pay Stac about $80m in the resulting patent lawsuit." but casting it in a positive light.
Saying that a bit less politely... Stac had a double space product, Microsoft tried to scam them and brought out a very similarly named product, got caught in court, and lost.
---
This is similar to the "DOS isn't done until Lotus won't run". Extremely common during the period but amazingly buried today.
In the copyright/patent infringement sense you are correct. But everyone at time time used the word "stole" because they didn't just accidentally implement a similar technology- they purposely took stac's exact technology and duplicated it knowing that they were violating the patent.
It was very common for microsoft to enter into technology partnerships with smaller companies and loot them of their technology. Frequently they would make the technology part of the next operating system upgrade. Sure it was not as good as the tiny companies product- but it was free and built in so the market was destroyed.
For the sound card, I was a private customer. I agreed to pay the $35 service charge for extended support and they went to town At the end after 3-4 hours when they figured it out, they waved the charge.
1) Pretend to work with another company 2) Steal the good ideas from that company 3) For bonus points, if possible make the next product from that company suck. 4) Profit!
---
Microsoft outright stole some products (Stac comes to mind)-- after they LOST in court, then they bought the company on the stock market.
---
However, they worked like demons on their own stuff too. Microsoft worked hard- very hard. It competed very hard (frequently on the edge of legality and sometimes past it). It cheated, scammed, lied, stole.
But it also polished better than ANYONE. Microsoft made things that were arcane and difficult into automatic and easy things.
And it supported (and supports) its customers extremely well. The two times that I called for customer support, they pulled out all stops to support me (a sound card problem with 5 senior engineers, a level 1 and level 2 support on the line- and by god they figured it out after 3-4 hours on the phone). When my business went through the recent DST thing, we had multiple microsoft people on site verifying everything- holding regular meetings. None of our other vendors did that.
---
I've compared M$ to an evil parent that wants the best for you as long as you stay home and never go out on your own.
After repeatedly trying OOO, saying "this sucks" and going back to word, I can't agree with you that it stinks. As of the recent release, I not only finally successfully transfered to it, but within a month, I was suffering in Word because it was illogical and missing features I'd gotten used to (that quickly) in open office.
I think the most recent word (which will be forced down my throat at work shortly) gave up some backwards compatability of interface and addressed some of those illogical areas (Why do I go to the File menu to FORMAT my page/margins???).
The OOo method for formatting pictures ("real-time preview of what your formatting is doing) is superior to the "try a blind stab until you get it right.. not really integrated formatting) in word.
Plus, Office has no equivalent for Draw which as an old Coreldraw hound, I love (it's still primative and can't paste objects on a curve but I'm sure that will be addressed).
They thought they could win and they did. They couldn't see in advance that the market would route around that victory.
Now they go to the next step, infiltrating the open committees with apparently neutral people that they own to poison the open source movement directly.
And they don't see that the market will route around that too. Word processing is not... well, it's not rocket science. These days it is a very well defined set of business rules and any group of 100 motivated people can probably turn a decent word processor out.
The days of their selling word processors for $578 are probably done and in 10 years, they probably go for $100 ($50 in today's dollars).
And, if it resists being corrupted, openoffice will just continue to get better through the next 10 years until anyone with any brains will ask "Why are we spending $100 a copy when we can download OO for free?"
Just like $150 oil, the solution comes from the problem. (The longer we are at $150-- the longer we will be at $60 oil when that price collapses). If Word had been $75, no one would have bothered to write a replacement for it.
No. The top category is capable of almost infinite improvement.
"nor does it gain you anything." And there is the problem. People ALWAYS do what you incent them to do. In this case, there is no incentive to get top students above the minimum bar for 'exceeding standards" and there is incentive to work on other students.
The problem with reasonable doubt is judges who are techno idiots and believe thing like "An I.P. address is as good as a fingerprint in identifying the computer user."
The second you can see the child porn he is downloading (and you don't report it to the police and you are not the police) you are committing a crime. This is like that anti-porn bishop that got caught with porn who said he was building a case against them-- he can't- he's not the police.
The correct action would be 1) call in the police 2) the police get a warrant 3) you/police install a camera and observe his actions 4) while intercepting his data stream 5) and you hire someone to do forensics on his machine
or
1) You give him another CLEAN laptop and erase the current one 2) You see if the problem stops before escalating it
--- At my corp we had a 12 year vet fired when someone else used his laptop and found porn and reported it. Now you have to wonder if the same thing happened to him.
Because in some cases the remote boxes serve the images onwards (acting as remote storage for the malware developer).
It's not the developer trying to get the person fire- it's the developer using the person's bandwidth, disk storage, and cpu to serve/restore the images.
There are plenty of intelligent, well educated people that would be fine with that.
More likely it's
1 low pay (but not so much) 2 lots of bureaucracy (sooo sooo much... the bain of smart people and the joy of stupid people or controlling people) 3 stupid micro-managing managers (see 2)
---
Back after WWII, the government paid "okay" but gave you money and freedom to produce results.
You *could not* produce the space program today in 9 years. The bureaucratic overhead would smother it (it smothers the current program).
So as a person currently being "gouged" for $100 a copy so they can sell it to a person in china or india for $20, I want the price to rationalize at $35 a copy for everyone as soon as possible. And it pisses me off that I have to compete for work against people who pay Microsoft less for their O.S. and I.D.E.
If they show that they can sell Windows for a profit at $20 a copy in China, it's the beginning of the end for charging $300 a copy elsewhere. The fact is that an extra copy at $1 is profitable for them.
So they want to sell all the $300 copies, then all the $200 copies, then all the... $20 copies. To maximize their profits. So they have to manage perceptions. Folks are already balking at their quality/prices.
Slashdot Mirror
A young boy will "fall in love" with a girl and ignore all others.
What they should be doing is flirting with and being nice to every girl they see regardless of if they have a chance or not.
And taking baths and brushing their teeth. Lots of young guys have no idea how horrible their mouths smell.
Today.
Not a blink of an eye ago only 300 years ago.
Motorcycle gangs are loaded with chicks- the leader types get them and the rest ride solo.
It's the leader, not the bad boy.
At least, put yourself in a situation (that has women) where you can be seen as the leader- even if it is just head GM at a gaming convention.
A guy who isn't confident isn't going to take care of her.
You do not choose who you are attracted to-- it's emotional.
Picture girls as a computer with their own well-defined logic and set of instructions.
If you program them right, you will do well. Otherwise, you are going to get the blue screen of death.
David D'angelo has some good points and techniques- you can find a lot of his stuff on torrent sites.
Read it. Learn it. Know it.
Don't think of girls as bad/stupid but recognize if you do not press the right buttons, you are not going to get the right responses.
Mostly, you need to hit on/flirt with enough girls so that you get comfortable around women. As long as you are not comfortable, you are going to give them the creeps in subtle ways and chase them off.
1) Set a price ($1 a gig, minimum $50 a month).
2) Allow competition from providers in your area.
3) Observe the speed/bandwidth increase since it is being paid for.
4) Then observe the price drop as competition brings it down.
Without competition, you can't have this and will exceed your bandwidth eventually.
The hole in this is the huge microsoft patches and downloads (tho the largest I ever got was double digit megabytes- never gigabytes).
While with a positive slant, your version is basically true also.
On a side note: I disagree with patenting software. It is destroying the reuse ('stealing') that used to make software grow so fast.
I respect the position of the expert. Great links.
And I also remember how everyone I knew in the PC user's groups talked about it and how the perception on it was at the time.
Stac brought out doublespace- rather than license it, Microsoft stole it, they lost in court, they bought Stac.
---
However, it does seem you are saying the same thing with "Microsoft tried to use an LZ77/LZRW1/etc variant, specifically designed not to infringe existing patents, in its MS-DOS V6 operating system, and ended up having to pay Stac about $80m in the resulting patent lawsuit." but casting it in a positive light.
Saying that a bit less politely... Stac had a double space product, Microsoft tried to scam them and brought out a very similarly named product, got caught in court, and lost.
---
This is similar to the "DOS isn't done until Lotus won't run". Extremely common during the period but amazingly buried today.
In the copyright/patent infringement sense you are correct. But everyone at time time used the word "stole" because they didn't just accidentally implement a similar technology- they purposely took stac's exact technology and duplicated it knowing that they were violating the patent.
http://www.msversus.org/archive/stac.html
It was very common for microsoft to enter into technology partnerships with smaller companies and loot them of their technology. Frequently they would make the technology part of the next operating system upgrade. Sure it was not as good as the tiny companies product- but it was free and built in so the market was destroyed.
For the sound card, I was a private customer. I agreed to pay the $35 service charge for extended support and they went to town At the end after 3-4 hours when they figured it out, they waved the charge.
It was all three.
Microsoft repeatedly used this tactic.
1) Pretend to work with another company
2) Steal the good ideas from that company
3) For bonus points, if possible make the next product from that company suck.
4) Profit!
---
Microsoft outright stole some products (Stac comes to mind)-- after they LOST in court, then they bought the company on the stock market.
---
However, they worked like demons on their own stuff too. Microsoft worked hard- very hard. It competed very hard (frequently on the edge of legality and sometimes past it). It cheated, scammed, lied, stole.
But it also polished better than ANYONE. Microsoft made things that were arcane and difficult into automatic and easy things.
And it supported (and supports) its customers extremely well. The two times that I called for customer support, they pulled out all stops to support me (a sound card problem with 5 senior engineers, a level 1 and level 2 support on the line- and by god they figured it out after 3-4 hours on the phone). When my business went through the recent DST thing, we had multiple microsoft people on site verifying everything- holding regular meetings. None of our other vendors did that.
---
I've compared M$ to an evil parent that wants the best for you as long as you stay home and never go out on your own.
I agree with most of your post.
After repeatedly trying OOO, saying "this sucks" and going back to word, I can't agree with you that it stinks.
As of the recent release, I not only finally successfully transfered to it, but within a month, I was suffering in Word because it was illogical and missing features I'd gotten used to (that quickly) in open office.
I think the most recent word (which will be forced down my throat at work shortly) gave up some backwards compatability of interface and addressed some of those illogical areas (Why do I go to the File menu to FORMAT my page/margins???).
The OOo method for formatting pictures ("real-time preview of what your formatting is doing) is superior to the "try a blind stab until you get it right.. not really integrated formatting) in word.
Plus, Office has no equivalent for Draw which as an old Coreldraw hound, I love (it's still primative and can't paste objects on a curve but I'm sure that will be addressed).
They thought they could win and they did.
They couldn't see in advance that the market would route around that victory.
Now they go to the next step, infiltrating the open committees with apparently neutral people that they own to poison the open source movement directly.
And they don't see that the market will route around that too. Word processing is not... well, it's not rocket science. These days it is a very well defined set of business rules and any group of 100 motivated people can probably turn a decent word processor out.
The days of their selling word processors for $578 are probably done and in 10 years, they probably go for $100 ($50 in today's dollars).
And, if it resists being corrupted, openoffice will just continue to get better through the next 10 years until anyone with any brains will ask "Why are we spending $100 a copy when we can download OO for free?"
Just like $150 oil, the solution comes from the problem. (The longer we are at $150-- the longer we will be at $60 oil when that price collapses). If Word had been $75, no one would have bothered to write a replacement for it.
I suffer for my humor...
Mine was a play on 'F'ahrenheit and 'C'elcious.
Ah well...
Are you saying you don't get an F for what they think?
... C.
I
Actually, he meant 70 Kevin.
Trees, not being human are actually 70 degrees of seperation from Keven Bacon.
You know where his geolocation in canada is... actually, he lives in Nebraska.
"top category to improve, as they can't,"
No.
The top category is capable of almost infinite improvement.
"nor does it gain you anything."
And there is the problem. People ALWAYS do what you incent them to do. In this case, there is no incentive to get top students above the minimum bar for 'exceeding standards" and there is incentive to work on other students.
The problem with reasonable doubt is judges who are techno idiots and believe thing like "An I.P. address is as good as a fingerprint in identifying the computer user."
The second you can see the child porn he is downloading (and you don't report it to the police and you are not the police) you are committing a crime. This is like that anti-porn bishop that got caught with porn who said he was building a case against them-- he can't- he's not the police.
The correct action would be
1) call in the police
2) the police get a warrant
3) you/police install a camera and observe his actions
4) while intercepting his data stream
5) and you hire someone to do forensics on his machine
or
1) You give him another CLEAN laptop and erase the current one
2) You see if the problem stops before escalating it
---
At my corp we had a 12 year vet fired when someone else used his laptop and found porn and reported it. Now you have to wonder if the same thing happened to him.
One obvious question is:
So they noticed that the bandwidth usage was 4x the other users--- did that start after he got the new laptop?
why would the malware developer do that?
Because in some cases the remote boxes serve the images onwards (acting as remote storage for the malware developer).
It's not the developer trying to get the person fire- it's the developer using the person's bandwidth, disk storage, and cpu to serve/restore the images.
Nah.
There are plenty of intelligent, well educated people that would be fine with that.
More likely it's
1 low pay (but not so much)
2 lots of bureaucracy (sooo sooo much... the bain of smart people and the joy of stupid people or controlling people)
3 stupid micro-managing managers (see 2)
---
Back after WWII, the government paid "okay" but gave you money and freedom to produce results.
You *could not* produce the space program today in 9 years. The bureaucratic overhead would smother it (it smothers the current program).
I agree.
So as a person currently being "gouged" for $100 a copy so they can sell it to a person in china or india for $20, I want the price to rationalize at $35 a copy for everyone as soon as possible. And it pisses me off that I have to compete for work against people who pay Microsoft less for their O.S. and I.D.E.
This is lost.
... $20 copies. To maximize their profits. So they have to manage perceptions. Folks are already balking at their quality/prices.
If they show that they can sell Windows for a profit at $20 a copy in China, it's the beginning of the end for charging $300 a copy elsewhere. The fact is that an extra copy at $1 is profitable for them.
So they want to sell all the $300 copies, then all the $200 copies, then all the