The stock market is not a video game. For a stock to be sold there must be a real buyer. And guess what happens when a market is crashing? Lots of sellers, and no buyers. That's how you can tell that the market is crashing.
So how does your foolproof plan works? You will somehow know just before the market crash so you can sell everything, then buy it back at a huge discount because the market is dead? That's pure genius, you should send your resume to JP Morgan right away.
If you invested in the "bubbling" Uber earlier and sold out now you would be anything other than poor or stupid. As long as you get out before the burst, you win.
Get out of what? Uber is not publicly traded. Unless you happen to run a VC operation from your basement (which would require millions) there is no way you could have made money with that company.
Most people fail HARD at this and should really just STFU because they have no idea what they are talking about.
9) Still thinking he's an "engineer", he applies for the C++ programming positions I have open at my company, without actually even listing C++ on his resume. 10) I have to waste a few precious seconds of my time throwing his shitty resume into the trash
If your time was precious, your company would hire a low-cost HR drone who could filter out resume with no C++ experience for a C++ programming position.
But already since you use C++ there's a case to be made that time is worth nothing in your company.
Just so we are clear: do you refer to some kind of fart, or to the lowest item in a stack of burps? Because if it's the later, I think a more sophisticated term would be "mezzanine burp".
Of course. Anyone who disagree with your flawed logic is a troll. I'm not sure where the "lying" part came from, but the important thing is that you can walk away from this discussion wrapped in the comfortable fabric of self-righteousness, so if that can help, feel free to call me a liar, a nazi, a racist or anything else.
At the end of the day you are just another dinosaur trying to pretend that everything has been invented decades ago and as such there is no need to make an effort to understand "new" things. Now why don't you go grab something to drink in the icebox and watch a show on that disguised radio they call a tv.
The other day I found out that it's impossible to use yum on a Red Hat machine with an expired RHN subscription. It proved quite unpleasant to work my way around it, as wget was not installed.
Of course you should have a valid subscription, otherwise you won't get security updates. It happens every now and then that I run into people that run five year old RHEL installations which they have never updated because they either are too cheap to pay for it or have never heard about CentOS.
The point is not about how someone should use or not use RHN subscriptions, or whether they should have gone with CentOS if they didn't plan to renew a subscription. Your advice on those topics is not needed here and is probably not needed anywhere you typically provide it.
The issue is that when you install Red Hat, yum becomes dependent on the repos that are behind Red Hat's paywall. Of course you can reconfigure yum - provided that you have an easy way to do it (try without wget or make or even unzip).
systemd is something that could make the same lock-in approach work on daemons and who knows what else.
It's people using "cloud" for just about anything that creates confusion. That cloud gaming you describe is closer to "gaming as a service" rather than it is to cloud computing.
A SaaS offering, like your gaming example, may or may not be based on cloud computing; but that distinction is not something the end user can see.
Cloud computing is pay-per-use and elastic, just like electricity. Cloud gaming is neither - you pay for a service, it's SaaS; maybe you can have in-game purchase, but from a resource perspective you don't pay more or less based on what you do, and you can't get things like burstable performance.
Time-sharing on a mainframe can be pay-per-use, it depends on the service provider, but it's not elastic, you can't get more resources on demand. And from an architecture perspective, it's not cloud computing because it's not distributed and resource allocation is not automated.
When you say that dumb terminals and mainframe computers in the 50s were cloud computing, not only are you wrong, you are also insulting the incredible work that took place at Amazon and other companies to make computing a convenient commodity. Next time you sit in your sofa to watch a movie on Netflix remember that this type of service at that price would have never been possible with a mainframe architecture. Your Netflix subscription is SaaS - but Netflix's infrastructure is running on Amazon EC2 and that's pure cloud computing.
I don't understand why some people choose a career path that exposes them to such things. It's like that guy I know who is a Tivoli Backup expert. Or that other guy who spends his days working on Oracle Forms.
The other day I found out that it's impossible to use yum on a Red Hat machine with an expired RHN subscription. It proved quite unpleasant to work my way around it, as wget was not installed.
Pretty soon we'll need a valid subscription to start daemons, something made possible by "improvements" like systemd.
This subscription model is becoming quite the rage (Microsoft, Adobe, Red Hat, etc) and this is leading real fast to absurd situations like in the novel from Philip K. Dick (Ubik) where the guy has to pay a few dimes each time he wants to use the door of his apartment.
I have 20+ year old network diagrams with a "cloud" that represents the server farm in a client-server environment. "The cloud" has been around ever since Visio shipped with a cloud graphic
You are rewriting history. The cloud symbol was not used back then to represent servers, it was used to represent a network location (usually internet).
I won't spend forever trying to prove an obvious point but see this example:
In every discussion about cloud computing there's always the same technology adoption laggard that has to come up with the same tired "it's client-server it has existed for 50 years" argument. It's exhausting.
Eventually, we'll probably have massive swarms of small, cheap, robotic drones that can swarm the oceans and search for them with active methods (not caring if they get detected themselves). That will probably signal the end of practical, stealthy submarines.
Until someone removes the salt from the ocean it will be difficult to remote-control submarine drones. Training dolphins or creating a new breed of soldiers that can breath, eat and drink underwater is probably less ambitious.
"cloud computing" is a new buzzword for an old concept
I'm guessing that you refer to dumb terminals and mainframes, but it's not the same concept at all - it's actually almost the opposite. In a cloud scenario, quite often the client has more computing power than the average server used by the cloud provider. It's the sheer number of commodity servers and the high level of automation that makes the cloud what it is.
Damn thing sat there, then autoplayed right over a KMFDM song I had playing... took me nearly a minute before I realized the voiceover wasn't part of the song...
The exact opposite happens to me all the time with my Kitaro playlist (there's also an Air Sculpture song in there to mix things up).
It's buying 2+ tickets that aren't worth the money,
Unless you buy 2 tickets with the same numbers. Which could make sense because if someone else has the same numbers you will get 2/3 instead of 1/2. Even better: buy 99 tickets with the same numbers. Just the face of that other dude who ends up winning 1% of the jackpot would be well worth the $198 investment.
According to Numbeo, the buy/rent ratio in Seattle is 10. That'sobscenely expensive (Boston is 3), but that's still pocket change compared to Geneva, Switzerland, where it's 35!!! Look at the numbers, the price *per square meter* in Geneva is 2x the average monthly disposable income.
The big difference between renting and buying is that instead of throwing away money to pay someone else's mortgage, you are building equity in your own property.
This was common sense in the 1960s and 1970s. Now with debt consolidation, second/third mortgages and other similar schemes, home equity is frequently tiny or illusory.
there's an excellent report on this matter that was published more than 10 years ago.
I guess we're making advances on answering trivia questions and adding appointments to the calendar, but it's not exactly ready to hold a conversation.
It's a good thing. If I have to start holding a conversation with my computer to get it to manage my calendar it will become higher maintenance than my secretary, who only needs a cheap gift basket on Secretary Day and a small smack on the butt when she remembers the extra espresso shot in my latte.
unlikely. I would retire after somewhere around 6 weeks and my short tenure would be spent redistributing our insane fortune among our 100 employees.
Khrushchev meets a farmer just outside Moscow.
Khrushchev: If you had a billion diamonds, would you share them with all your Soviet comrades? Farmer: Of course. Khrushchev: If you had one thousand mansions, would you share them with all your Soviet comrades? Farmer: Of course. Khrushchev: If you had one hundred cars, would you share them with all your Soviet comrades? Farmer: Of course. Khrushchev: If you had ten chickens, would you share them with all your Soviet comrades? Farmer: Absolutely not! Khrushchev: If you are ready to share expensive objects, why wouldn't you share simple chickens? Farmer: Because right now I have ten chickens and I'm keeping them.
Slashdot Mirror
The stock market is not a video game. For a stock to be sold there must be a real buyer. And guess what happens when a market is crashing? Lots of sellers, and no buyers. That's how you can tell that the market is crashing.
So how does your foolproof plan works? You will somehow know just before the market crash so you can sell everything, then buy it back at a huge discount because the market is dead? That's pure genius, you should send your resume to JP Morgan right away.
If you invested in the "bubbling" Uber earlier and sold out now you would be anything other than poor or stupid. As long as you get out before the burst, you win.
Get out of what? Uber is not publicly traded. Unless you happen to run a VC operation from your basement (which would require millions) there is no way you could have made money with that company.
Most people fail HARD at this and should really just STFU because they have no idea what they are talking about.
Exactly.
9) Still thinking he's an "engineer", he applies for the C++ programming positions I have open at my company, without actually even listing C++ on his resume.
10) I have to waste a few precious seconds of my time throwing his shitty resume into the trash
If your time was precious, your company would hire a low-cost HR drone who could filter out resume with no C++ experience for a C++ programming position.
But already since you use C++ there's a case to be made that time is worth nothing in your company.
You are an irredeemable bottom burp!
Just so we are clear: do you refer to some kind of fart, or to the lowest item in a stack of burps? Because if it's the later, I think a more sophisticated term would be "mezzanine burp".
Things posted to the internet aren't always true...
Since you posted this on internet, maybe it's not true, which would mean that it's true, which would mean that it's not! *tilt*
you are a lying troll
Of course. Anyone who disagree with your flawed logic is a troll. I'm not sure where the "lying" part came from, but the important thing is that you can walk away from this discussion wrapped in the comfortable fabric of self-righteousness, so if that can help, feel free to call me a liar, a nazi, a racist or anything else.
At the end of the day you are just another dinosaur trying to pretend that everything has been invented decades ago and as such there is no need to make an effort to understand "new" things. Now why don't you go grab something to drink in the icebox and watch a show on that disguised radio they call a tv.
The other day I found out that it's impossible to use yum on a Red Hat machine with an expired RHN subscription. It proved quite unpleasant to work my way around it, as wget was not installed.
Of course you should have a valid subscription, otherwise you won't get security updates. It happens every now and then that I run into people that run five year old RHEL installations which they have never updated because they either are too cheap to pay for it or have never heard about CentOS.
The point is not about how someone should use or not use RHN subscriptions, or whether they should have gone with CentOS if they didn't plan to renew a subscription. Your advice on those topics is not needed here and is probably not needed anywhere you typically provide it.
The issue is that when you install Red Hat, yum becomes dependent on the repos that are behind Red Hat's paywall. Of course you can reconfigure yum - provided that you have an easy way to do it (try without wget or make or even unzip).
systemd is something that could make the same lock-in approach work on daemons and who knows what else.
It's people using "cloud" for just about anything that creates confusion. That cloud gaming you describe is closer to "gaming as a service" rather than it is to cloud computing.
A SaaS offering, like your gaming example, may or may not be based on cloud computing; but that distinction is not something the end user can see.
Cloud computing is pay-per-use and elastic, just like electricity. Cloud gaming is neither - you pay for a service, it's SaaS; maybe you can have in-game purchase, but from a resource perspective you don't pay more or less based on what you do, and you can't get things like burstable performance.
Time-sharing on a mainframe can be pay-per-use, it depends on the service provider, but it's not elastic, you can't get more resources on demand. And from an architecture perspective, it's not cloud computing because it's not distributed and resource allocation is not automated.
When you say that dumb terminals and mainframe computers in the 50s were cloud computing, not only are you wrong, you are also insulting the incredible work that took place at Amazon and other companies to make computing a convenient commodity. Next time you sit in your sofa to watch a movie on Netflix remember that this type of service at that price would have never been possible with a mainframe architecture. Your Netflix subscription is SaaS - but Netflix's infrastructure is running on Amazon EC2 and that's pure cloud computing.
Cadence software
I don't understand why some people choose a career path that exposes them to such things. It's like that guy I know who is a Tivoli Backup expert. Or that other guy who spends his days working on Oracle Forms.
Life is too short for that!
The other day I found out that it's impossible to use yum on a Red Hat machine with an expired RHN subscription. It proved quite unpleasant to work my way around it, as wget was not installed.
Pretty soon we'll need a valid subscription to start daemons, something made possible by "improvements" like systemd.
This subscription model is becoming quite the rage (Microsoft, Adobe, Red Hat, etc) and this is leading real fast to absurd situations like in the novel from Philip K. Dick (Ubik) where the guy has to pay a few dimes each time he wants to use the door of his apartment.
I have 20+ year old network diagrams with a "cloud" that represents the server farm in a client-server environment. "The cloud" has been around ever since Visio shipped with a cloud graphic
You are rewriting history. The cloud symbol was not used back then to represent servers, it was used to represent a network location (usually internet).
I won't spend forever trying to prove an obvious point but see this example:
http://www.tech-archive.net/Ar...
In every discussion about cloud computing there's always the same technology adoption laggard that has to come up with the same tired "it's client-server it has existed for 50 years" argument. It's exhausting.
Eventually, we'll probably have massive swarms of small, cheap, robotic drones that can swarm the oceans and search for them with active methods (not caring if they get detected themselves). That will probably signal the end of practical, stealthy submarines.
Until someone removes the salt from the ocean it will be difficult to remote-control submarine drones. Training dolphins or creating a new breed of soldiers that can breath, eat and drink underwater is probably less ambitious.
"cloud computing" is a new buzzword for an old concept
I'm guessing that you refer to dumb terminals and mainframes, but it's not the same concept at all - it's actually almost the opposite. In a cloud scenario, quite often the client has more computing power than the average server used by the cloud provider. It's the sheer number of commodity servers and the high level of automation that makes the cloud what it is.
I'm sure he learned his lesson.
Damn thing sat there, then autoplayed right over a KMFDM song I had playing... took me nearly a minute before I realized the voiceover wasn't part of the song...
The exact opposite happens to me all the time with my Kitaro playlist (there's also an Air Sculpture song in there to mix things up).
See here:
http://www.numbeo.com/property...
this is the buy-to-rent ratio.
Did you read the report before talking about short-sighted comments?
It's buying 2+ tickets that aren't worth the money,
Unless you buy 2 tickets with the same numbers. Which could make sense because if someone else has the same numbers you will get 2/3 instead of 1/2. Even better: buy 99 tickets with the same numbers. Just the face of that other dude who ends up winning 1% of the jackpot would be well worth the $198 investment.
According to Numbeo, the buy/rent ratio in Seattle is 10. That'sobscenely expensive (Boston is 3), but that's still pocket change compared to Geneva, Switzerland, where it's 35!!! Look at the numbers, the price *per square meter* in Geneva is 2x the average monthly disposable income.
The big difference between renting and buying is that instead of throwing away money to pay someone else's mortgage, you are building equity in your own property.
This was common sense in the 1960s and 1970s. Now with debt consolidation, second/third mortgages and other similar schemes, home equity is frequently tiny or illusory.
there's an excellent report on this matter that was published more than 10 years ago.
A Home Without Equity is Just a Rental with Debt:
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/pa...
I guess we're making advances on answering trivia questions and adding appointments to the calendar, but it's not exactly ready to hold a conversation.
It's a good thing. If I have to start holding a conversation with my computer to get it to manage my calendar it will become higher maintenance than my secretary, who only needs a cheap gift basket on Secretary Day and a small smack on the butt when she remembers the extra espresso shot in my latte.
Do you always get 98%? I've noticed that the recognition rate I get goes down about 2% for each increment of 0.01% of my blood alcohol content.
Somehow I suspect that if you were offered a CEO position that pays 500x more than the office workers, your position would change.
Of course. This is why in civilized nations we let the people vote, not the money.
What nation are you talking about?
unlikely. I would retire after somewhere around 6 weeks and my short tenure would be spent redistributing our insane fortune among our 100 employees.
Khrushchev meets a farmer just outside Moscow.
Khrushchev: If you had a billion diamonds, would you share them with all your Soviet comrades?
Farmer: Of course.
Khrushchev: If you had one thousand mansions, would you share them with all your Soviet comrades?
Farmer: Of course.
Khrushchev: If you had one hundred cars, would you share them with all your Soviet comrades?
Farmer: Of course.
Khrushchev: If you had ten chickens, would you share them with all your Soviet comrades?
Farmer: Absolutely not!
Khrushchev: If you are ready to share expensive objects, why wouldn't you share simple chickens?
Farmer: Because right now I have ten chickens and I'm keeping them.