As for growing up in a "dangerous world", I can assure you that what was "normal" behaviour in the 60's towards kids would now land you in jail.
I was riding the train home from work on a Saturday afternoon, and the three-year-old kid in front of me was giggling and making faces at me. I made a face and winked at him to make him laugh. His mother saw, and took the kid into a different car. Two stops later, uniformed police corralled me to "have a chat" -- I guess she notified the conductor.
I wasn't arrested or anything, but I had to provide my ID so they could run it.
Now, unless my kids are with me, I treat all other kids as dangerous objects, since innocent interaction with them could land me in hot water -- or at the very least, inconvenience me.
On the money, except that there are also hundreds of thousands visiting from Pennsylvania, Ohio, etc. Services are expensive to provide in NJ, and though the state sees indirect revenue via sales tax from tourism, municipalities don't.
Sure, businesses do better, but a lot of the tourism doesn't really improve property values enough (luxury homes do just as well) to make up for the expensive services NJ shore municipalities provide. Emergency services, policing, etc.
It's only just that those who visit a beach, who increase the need for services, contribute to paying them.
Roger Kay, a technology consultant who does work for Microsoft, says there's legitimacy to both the Microsoft and Apple camps' differing approaches to buttons. "If you're a wonk and you want lots of controls and features, Microsoft is right for you," Mr. Kay says. "If you want a simple experience and you're not tech-savvy, then you'll probably do better with Apple."
Hah. Nice dig at Apple users.
Seriously, though, wouldn't the truly tech-savvy not need a million buttons, one for each feature/control? Wouldn't the truly "wonky" be able to do more with less?
I'd say if you're not tech-savvy, you're probably better off with the option where every command gets its own button so you don't get confused by things like so-called "menus" and "touch screens".
...the comments of ESRB President Patricia Vance on user-generated content in Unreal Tournament III... (snip) That content can vary, whether it's chat or skins or maps or what have you
Sounds very suspicious to me. I mean, this is a bureacrat who seems to have some understanding of what they are supposed to be administrating.
Look at Vista...can you imagine trying to run that on a PII or PIII CPU? You'd want to slit your wrists out of sheer boredom due to having to wait on everything to load.
I want to slit my wrists when I imagine trying to run Vista regardless of CPU.
Well, I'd guess we'd disagree til the cows come home about what a syntax error is. If improper use of a clause causes an incorrect meaning, that's an error in syntax that led to the incorrect meaning. Note that syntax is the patterned relations of the words used to create the sentence; a misuse of a relation (in this case, "the other") is a syntax error.
In grammar, incorrect syntax != does not compile. You can't equate a programming syntax error with a language syntax error; in programming, the scope of a syntax error is reduced. A substitution of values in a syntactically correct program may give you an error output, though the syntax is correct -- but as long as some value exists for which the statement is true, then the syntax is OK. Not so in language, where whether or not the syntax is correct depends largely upon the intended meaning -- and therefore the values used.
Income in the US in USD is greater than income in the UK in GBP.
Income in the US in GBP is less than income in the UK in GBP.
Yes, electronics are slightly pricier in the UK as a portion of income, but not nearly as much as the exchange rate would imply, since the wage ratio (normalized for currency) is almost as large as the price ratio (also normalized).
No, it's a syntax error. "The other 95% of programmers" refers to the complete set of programmers, less excluded subset. He defined that subset as himself, instead of himself plus others who can code properly; improper usage of "The other" is what caused his dependent clause to be false.
Note that I'm using dependency grammar here (to which class algebraic grammar belongs). Followers of looser grammatical theories may find the statement technically correct since his meaning was clear. However,this is predominatly a tech site, it follows that dependency grammars should rule the roost.
(Just for reference, the current exchange rate is: 1.00 GBP = 2.05749 USD.)
Hardware prices don't necessarily exchang along with the cash exchange rates.
For example (using another Sony product) the PS3 released at GBP 425 for the same unit that cost USD 599 in the US. Exchange was more along the lines of 1.9 at the time, but even so, the US-purchased machine was far cheaper after currency conversion.
I expect the US pricing for this laptop to be significantly under $4000 USD.
I know, everyone jokes about the 1.0000 exchange rates for electronics (and beer, FWIW) -- but they don't necessarily mention the wage exchange rate. As a percentage of income, the pricing on electronics is similar in the US and the UK.
Despite the occasional trolling and flaming that goes on at Slashdot, it still uphold its audience as the most informed and highly intelligent. I can't say that for Digg.com.
That doesn't mean the most informed and highly intelligent represent the best audience for banner ads. I'd want to serve my ads to the least informed.
I manage to write C++ and never overflow a buffer, always release all resources when I'm done with them, and never throw away an error. Why can't the other 95% of the programmers out there do the same thing?
So, you're saying you program properly, but the other 19 programmers in existence can't?
Something tells me that even if your programming is 100% spot-on, your grammar skills are slightly lacking...
For all we know they hired 10,000 janitors and have trouble finding programmers.
Or because of a lack of real talent to recruit, they had to hire 10,000 PoS programmers instead of 3000 good ones, hence high payroll and emplyee overhead expenses. Could be used as more fuel for their arguments to increase the H1B visa cap.
It's hard to go into a bar and explain your job to a woman by saying "I advertise penis enlargement pills online," Ed said. "It doesn't go down very well."
Of course it doesn't go down well, it's enlarged. Sheesh.
Under the assumption that no one does nothing for nothing, this is good news as it indicates that the risk benifit curve has shifted so that selling a book is better money than spamming.
At a certain point, would have a very small marginal effect on quality of life. Whereas, writing a book about it gains him notoriety/fame, which he cannot easily buy.
Someone who is relatively poor might be quite willing to take the risk of spamming (see Todd Moeller, the bit player who went state's evidence in the Adam Vitale case), whereas someone like this guy doesn't get much of a benefit from the same amount of cash earnings.
This is entirely a matter of parenting. Period, the end, thank you! Most parents... ... Lots of people... ... I never really... ... [several paragraphs more]
"Period, the end, thank you!" I'm not sure that means what you think it means:)
Seriously, though:
Lots of people have told me "you'd feel differently if you had children"
What I'd say to you is that you'd know differently if you had children. Acting from an authority position is just as important as acting with respect -- and the two are not mutually exclusive. While it is important for kids to learn to act on their own initiative, it is also important that they learn that respect for authority when respect is due is a necessary life skill. It takes a variety of tactics to encourage and develop good behavior patterns in kids.
You are absolutely right that instilling a sense of respect for others is important, and that a lot of parents fail to do so in favor of a more autocratic approach. But it is possible to constructively wield authority without being autocratic.
I've had many long discussions with dada21. He's got an incomplete understanding of economics, he's substituted the crap put out by the Mises Intstitute re: the "free market ideal" with what an ideal free market is.
Also, I'm not sure it's really astroturfing, which would require him being paid to build fake grassroots support -- typically there is a level of deception involved, usually a company paying the astroturfer to misrepresent an issue. I think he really believes his hogwash and honestly thinks he's spreading the good word.
He's been trying to spread his BS for a lot longer than Ron Paul has been in the news.
In a free market, there are no consumers or producers. There are two parties who negotiate a deal both hoping to get the most for themselves by giving up the least to the other party.
Sorry, should have said "purchasers and sellers". The terminology makes no difference to my point, though.
Free information is irrelevant unless the market provides that information somehow.
Your understanbding of economic theory falls short again. The free market model doesn't work without near-perfect information -- even your ballyhood Austrian School understands that.
Broadband should only be defined by the provider of the service, and the user of the service. The definition of broadband differs to different people.
Which is a problem. Why not use a term like "low-latency" to describe low latency, then? Using one term to describe a multitude of things is inefficient, are you saying that people cannot come up with other terms to describe what they want to buy or sell? Furthermore, since regulatory action is based in part by penetration data, it is important that government data be more accurate. The current loose definition of broadband is failing the market wrt regulation. Now, if the industry were completely unregulated, maybe your point would stand -- but the fact of the matter is that it is regulated.
So now they want to include labor unions, unionized educators, and the whole gamut of subsidized parties into the mix. That's a free market, right? NOT.
Are you still equating a lack of government regulation with a free market? The two are not nearly the same, and this fundamental error destroys your arguments again and again. Labor unions are not anethema to a market free from regulation (which is what you're focused on). Ditto for educators unions. Do you believe that the government should not allow people to band together to make selling and purchasing decisions? How does that jibe with your definition of a free market as one free from regulation? Never mind the problematic definition of free market that you use. As for gvernmental agencies (which is what I assume you are referring to as "subsidized" parties -- no party is free from subsidy. The big companies -- subsidized. The small businesses -- subsidized. The question is the relative amount of subsidy. Note that often subsidies are provided in a manner that counters external costs born by the public. A truly efficient free market has to account for these costs and benefits.
As to your "pro big-business" examples -- these loopholes apply just as much to small business. There's always a question of later enforcement (hence I agree with your vagueness complaint) -- but small business stands to benefit just as much as large ones; if anything, the playing field is more level under this bill than in the current setup since municipalities and states cannot forbid entrance to market.
There's no need...
You make claims you can't defend, and say that it's obvious in order to justify those claims? Please. Instead of making the same old tired "regulation is always bad!" claims, why don't you actually point out how, specifically, smaller providers will be prohibited from the market by this bill. Your Halliburton red herring is meaningless. Seems to me that this bill specifically makes regulatory compliance easier for smaller entrants (which is why the exmeption is there). Besides which, you are missing the fact that the biggest barrier to entry is not regulatory compliance, it's the cost of infrastructure that is limiting. Without access to infrastructure, small competitors are done for (which is one reason why Net Neutrality is so important).
I could go on and on, but the fundamental flaw with your logic is your faulty assumption of what a free market is. The ideal free market is *not* a market free from regulation, though it appears
I wasn't aware that the biotech industries, manufacturers, and large research universities were the ones voting on it.
Do you really think Congresspeople don't vote for the interests of those that fund their campaigns and push lobbyists in their faces?
Besides that cynical view, it's also true that a lot of politicians feel that one of their repsonsibilities is to ensure the health of industry for economic reasons. Many politicians would worry that overly zealous patent reform would cause unemployment in their district, or even an economic downturn across the board. Even if the negative effects are only in the short-term, and are outweighed by the long-term positive effects of real patent reform, politicians won't be willing to take the risk. Voters have short memories.
No one is stopping anyone else from competing. Oh, waitaminute, someone is stopping them -- check with your local village/city, county and State laws. They might be preventing your community from getting more than 2 providers. They likely are.
And yet you oppose this bill for its supposedly anti-competitive effect. This bill expressly forbids states and municipalities from limiting broadband providers, which addresses that concern.
RTFBill (or even an executive summary) before you try to make comments on it.
As an aside, more generally, will you ever accept the concept that sometimes government regulation is necvessary to guarantee a free market? Or do you use the perverted meaning of "free market" where free == free from government influence?
Slashdot Mirror
I wasn't arrested or anything, but I had to provide my ID so they could run it.
Now, unless my kids are with me, I treat all other kids as dangerous objects, since innocent interaction with them could land me in hot water -- or at the very least, inconvenience me.
On the money, except that there are also hundreds of thousands visiting from Pennsylvania, Ohio, etc. Services are expensive to provide in NJ, and though the state sees indirect revenue via sales tax from tourism, municipalities don't.
Sure, businesses do better, but a lot of the tourism doesn't really improve property values enough (luxury homes do just as well) to make up for the expensive services NJ shore municipalities provide. Emergency services, policing, etc.
It's only just that those who visit a beach, who increase the need for services, contribute to paying them.
Then again, maybe Verizon is your carrier... so maybe you would be directed to Sprint at Sprint.
Seriously, though, wouldn't the truly tech-savvy not need a million buttons, one for each feature/control? Wouldn't the truly "wonky" be able to do more with less?
I'd say if you're not tech-savvy, you're probably better off with the option where every command gets its own button so you don't get confused by things like so-called "menus" and "touch screens".
Is it me, or is this ESRB bureacracy now broken?
And somehow this same Congress wants to pull the funding out from under (fuel efficient) Amtrak.
Or even sequestration?
77/58 == 1.33 (income in PS3s).
2.05/1.0 == 2.05 (cost of PS3s if only exchange rate is used).
I'd say that compared to 2:1, 4:3 is relatively similar.
Well, I'd guess we'd disagree til the cows come home about what a syntax error is. If improper use of a clause causes an incorrect meaning, that's an error in syntax that led to the incorrect meaning. Note that syntax is the patterned relations of the words used to create the sentence; a misuse of a relation (in this case, "the other") is a syntax error.
In grammar, incorrect syntax != does not compile. You can't equate a programming syntax error with a language syntax error; in programming, the scope of a syntax error is reduced. A substitution of values in a syntactically correct program may give you an error output, though the syntax is correct -- but as long as some value exists for which the statement is true, then the syntax is OK. Not so in language, where whether or not the syntax is correct depends largely upon the intended meaning -- and therefore the values used.
Income in the US in USD is greater than income in the UK in GBP.
Income in the US in GBP is less than income in the UK in GBP.
Yes, electronics are slightly pricier in the UK as a portion of income, but not nearly as much as the exchange rate would imply, since the wage ratio (normalized for currency) is almost as large as the price ratio (also normalized).
No, it's a syntax error. "The other 95% of programmers" refers to the complete set of programmers, less excluded subset. He defined that subset as himself, instead of himself plus others who can code properly; improper usage of "The other" is what caused his dependent clause to be false.
Note that I'm using dependency grammar here (to which class algebraic grammar belongs). Followers of looser grammatical theories may find the statement technically correct since his meaning was clear. However,this is predominatly a tech site, it follows that dependency grammars should rule the roost.
For example (using another Sony product) the PS3 released at GBP 425 for the same unit that cost USD 599 in the US. Exchange was more along the lines of 1.9 at the time, but even so, the US-purchased machine was far cheaper after currency conversion.
I expect the US pricing for this laptop to be significantly under $4000 USD.
I know, everyone jokes about the 1.0000 exchange rates for electronics (and beer, FWIW) -- but they don't necessarily mention the wage exchange rate. As a percentage of income, the pricing on electronics is similar in the US and the UK.
Something tells me that even if your programming is 100% spot-on, your grammar skills are slightly lacking...
Either that, or we need to begin teaching nubile drunken 22-year-olds to hack.
Second, what does TOS stand for? Is it a takeoff on DOS, or POS?
That is, is it a 'Tari Operating System, or a 'Tari of Shit?*
Of course it doesn't go down well, it's enlarged. Sheesh.
Someone who is relatively poor might be quite willing to take the risk of spamming (see Todd Moeller, the bit player who went state's evidence in the Adam Vitale case), whereas someone like this guy doesn't get much of a benefit from the same amount of cash earnings.
Seriously, though:What I'd say to you is that you'd know differently if you had children. Acting from an authority position is just as important as acting with respect -- and the two are not mutually exclusive. While it is important for kids to learn to act on their own initiative, it is also important that they learn that respect for authority when respect is due is a necessary life skill. It takes a variety of tactics to encourage and develop good behavior patterns in kids.
You are absolutely right that instilling a sense of respect for others is important, and that a lot of parents fail to do so in favor of a more autocratic approach. But it is possible to constructively wield authority without being autocratic.
I've had many long discussions with dada21. He's got an incomplete understanding of economics, he's substituted the crap put out by the Mises Intstitute re: the "free market ideal" with what an ideal free market is.
Also, I'm not sure it's really astroturfing, which would require him being paid to build fake grassroots support -- typically there is a level of deception involved, usually a company paying the astroturfer to misrepresent an issue. I think he really believes his hogwash and honestly thinks he's spreading the good word.
He's been trying to spread his BS for a lot longer than Ron Paul has been in the news.
Sorry, should have said "purchasers and sellers". The terminology makes no difference to my point, though.
Your understanbding of economic theory falls short again. The free market model doesn't work without near-perfect information -- even your ballyhood Austrian School understands that.
Which is a problem. Why not use a term like "low-latency" to describe low latency, then? Using one term to describe a multitude of things is inefficient, are you saying that people cannot come up with other terms to describe what they want to buy or sell? Furthermore, since regulatory action is based in part by penetration data, it is important that government data be more accurate. The current loose definition of broadband is failing the market wrt regulation. Now, if the industry were completely unregulated, maybe your point would stand -- but the fact of the matter is that it is regulated.
Are you still equating a lack of government regulation with a free market? The two are not nearly the same, and this fundamental error destroys your arguments again and again. Labor unions are not anethema to a market free from regulation (which is what you're focused on). Ditto for educators unions. Do you believe that the government should not allow people to band together to make selling and purchasing decisions? How does that jibe with your definition of a free market as one free from regulation? Never mind the problematic definition of free market that you use. As for gvernmental agencies (which is what I assume you are referring to as "subsidized" parties -- no party is free from subsidy. The big companies -- subsidized. The small businesses -- subsidized. The question is the relative amount of subsidy. Note that often subsidies are provided in a manner that counters external costs born by the public. A truly efficient free market has to account for these costs and benefits.
As to your "pro big-business" examples -- these loopholes apply just as much to small business. There's always a question of later enforcement (hence I agree with your vagueness complaint) -- but small business stands to benefit just as much as large ones; if anything, the playing field is more level under this bill than in the current setup since municipalities and states cannot forbid entrance to market.
You make claims you can't defend, and say that it's obvious in order to justify those claims? Please. Instead of making the same old tired "regulation is always bad!" claims, why don't you actually point out how, specifically, smaller providers will be prohibited from the market by this bill. Your Halliburton red herring is meaningless. Seems to me that this bill specifically makes regulatory compliance easier for smaller entrants (which is why the exmeption is there). Besides which, you are missing the fact that the biggest barrier to entry is not regulatory compliance, it's the cost of infrastructure that is limiting. Without access to infrastructure, small competitors are done for (which is one reason why Net Neutrality is so important).
I could go on and on, but the fundamental flaw with your logic is your faulty assumption of what a free market is. The ideal free market is *not* a market free from regulation, though it appears
Besides that cynical view, it's also true that a lot of politicians feel that one of their repsonsibilities is to ensure the health of industry for economic reasons. Many politicians would worry that overly zealous patent reform would cause unemployment in their district, or even an economic downturn across the board. Even if the negative effects are only in the short-term, and are outweighed by the long-term positive effects of real patent reform, politicians won't be willing to take the risk. Voters have short memories.
RTFBill (or even an executive summary) before you try to make comments on it.
As an aside, more generally, will you ever accept the concept that sometimes government regulation is necvessary to guarantee a free market? Or do you use the perverted meaning of "free market" where free == free from government influence?