how long do you suppose Apple could last if Samsung and LG decided to stop selling them LCD's?
I think there are anti-trust laws and other contracts in effect here.
There are some things you simply cannot do. It isn't to say that Samsung couldn't do certain other things that would hurt Apple's bottom line. But jacking up the prices of LCD just for Apple, irrespective of LG's involvement, is not going to fly with existing trade regulations.
Besides which, Apple, being a US company, has the backing of the US government. That's pretty much all that needs to be said there.
Don't you just love it when in the next breath, he goes on a rant about how big the federal government has become, and how intrusive it is? Only now, he's talking about businesses.
What's sad is that this kind of hypocracy is almost expected out of politician nowadays.
They see it as Mac vs. Windows all over again, and guess who won last time?
This time though, it's Google behind the reins of their fiercest competitor. And unlike Microsoft, who's only interested in eventually assimilating everything they touch, Google doesn't try to control the ecosystems they build, only their little slice of it.
It makes Android that much more dangerous for Apple, because it's the antithesis of what Apple stands for, and how Apple operates. A free (speech) and open system will always triumph over a closed system assuming the same features. All parties know this. And that's why Apple's desperately trying to reduce Android's features via patent lawsuits. They cannot compete in any other way.
When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.
If you study the science behind global warming, you'll know that all the other known potential causes of global warming have all been eliminated. The only other cause that's really up for any debate is CO2.
As for #3, well, sudden major shifts in the status quo is a destructive thing in every other situation. Any engineer can tell you that. Anyone versed in any kind of pseudo-science (political, economic, psychological) can tell you that. Any scientist can tell you that. What makes you think that a sudden shift that happens on a global level could be a good thing (and a hundred years may seem like a lifetime to us humans, but it's very, very sudden and extreme on geological timescales)? That is, unless you consider the destruction of your current way of life a good thing.
When 900 years old you reach, look as good you will not.
Re:You know what I like?
on
The Zuckerberg Tax
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
It seems a bit ridiculous to complain about this. If you had six hundred dollars worth of collateral that you could use to borrow the hundred dollars you paid in capital gains tax, I'm sure you could do it too. It may not be for the same interest rate, but it's still doable.
The only thing is, when you're borrowing that little, it's fairly pointless and not really worth anybody's time, be it yours, your accountant's, or the bank's. It takes time and money to process a loan application, irrespective of who the borrower is. That time adds up to costing about as much as or more than the amount you're borrowing.
What the wealthy have over the middle class is economies of scale. They can borrow several million or billion to cover their millions in paid taxes all in one go, which would actually be worthwhile for all parties. They pay the same flat amount as the middle class person would to apply for the loan, but their ROI is millions. The low interest rate is just icing on the cake. The bank can afford this not necessarily because of connections, but because when the loan is a billion dollars, the bank is still making a million dollars even the your interest rate is 0.1%.
Hardly. Most of Europe is bilingual. It doesn't follow that people who know English either as a second or a first language are less healthy than people who don't know English at all.
Language, like all arts, is a reflection of the predominant culture. Culture is often what determines socio-economic status. Cultures that emphasize hard working and pride in work are probably going to be better employed. Cultures that emphasize intellect will probably be smarter. Cultures that emphasize creativity will probably be more innovative. And cultures that glamorize and romanticize trash will probably follow the same pattern.
Both language and socio-economic status reflect the values of a culture, but they do so independently. The English speakers of France and Italy are probably no more or less wealthy than the non-English speakers.
That's not merely superior technology at play. There's also better training, better information, better field commanders, and other secondary factors at work.
It's not a purely numbers vs. technology game. Most of it comes down to the field commander. But with comparable commanders, numbers and technology definitely changes things.
Godwin's law just means that you shouldn't compare just anything to Nazi Germany. If the comparison is apt, by all means. But when it becomes overused for the purposes of sensationalism, then it loses meaning.
Failure to recognize this results in the fundamentally flawed analogy.
To elaborate, learning is the act of acquiring new knowledge. Practice is solidifying and refining existing knowledge. Their purposes are different, their success criteria are different, their paths to success are different.
I submit that interleaving the learning of different subjects results in a higher knowledge retention rate. This may be because different subjects active different parts of the brain. The act of switching to a new topic helps the previous part of the brain finish its digestion. A pause would work too, but the brain is too easily distracted during a pause.
But practice is not learning. It is effectively a slow form of problem solving. Practicing involves repetition and focus. It requires intense analysis of the previous attempt in order to improve next attempt. And it requires numerous attempts, both to solidify the general concept so that the knowledge moves from the conscious to the sub- or un-conscious, to generate enough attempts at variation so that the ideal variation has a chance to appear, and to attain the maximum level of focus possible.
Interleaving during practice would be disastrous. The level of focus would never be attained, and the practitioner will not improve much, if at all. It would amount to a lot of aimless flailing around.
What does help is taking a break after a certain amount of repetitions. Clearing the mind and starting from scratch helps when the practitioner is stuck. Sleeping also helps. But this must happen only after having reached the maximum level of focus, irrespective of failure or success. But I don't think that's the type of interleaving that TFA is talking about at all.
Taking notes helps you remember what was being said in class, by forcing you to actively recognize and repeat the information you are hearing. If you don't remember what your professor said thirty minutes prior, you won't even have a chance at trying to process that information after class.
Not to mention that sometimes, classes happen back-to-back. Which means that before you can even think about your first class, you're beginning your second class. You won't have time to do your processing and internalizing of that first class until after the second one. Your notes serve as a reminder to jog your memory.
Yeah, his techniques may be useful in an ideal world. But both the learning environment and the state of the brain while learning is far from ideal. His strategies don't seem to take those external factors into account. i.e., they're missing the little extra bit that brings them out of the realm of academics and into reality.
They made loads of money with a game that didn't even require some kind of per-copy authentication code. You technically only need the jar file to play it. Even the initial log in is completely unnecessary for single player, and even occasionally for multiplayer. And yet, they somehow can continue to release updates and new content, and make tons while doing so.
MBAs like to talk about maximizing profit, but what they don't realize is that maximizing profit simultaneously means minimizing customers. Nowadays, people can smell this kind of stuff; they know when they're being treated like crap. And I'm pretty sure they've just about had enough of it.
Wrong. Defendent is still liable for copyright infringement, but not for producing a new photograph. Defendent is liable for the damages from having previously used the other copyrighted photograph without permission.
To say that the new photograph somehow infringes on the old photograph is utter crap.
I advocate bringing back the deprecated civil trial methods, starting with dueling. How much could words matter when it's actions that determine the outcome.
That may have been the definition of copyright infringement yesterday, but in case you haven't noticed, what constitutes as copyright infringement has changed recently.
Oh, and it's not profit either: the word you're looking for is revenue. You can't sell copies of the copyrighted work, period. Now, you can't even make them without infringing on the copyright, much less distribute them, much less distribute them for money.
Yeah, but extensions are the cause of memory leaks.
You can't have it both ways. You can't point to extensions as a way to make up for deliberately discarded functionality, and then point to extensions as a source of your user's problems. One or the other needs to be remedied*. Otherwise, your user is going to be fed up and go away to a suitable alternative when one presents itself.
* Given that you have control over one of these, while you have little control over the other, I'd say there's only one real choice--assuming you want to stop hemorrhaging users that is.
It's only a GC and cache problem IFF the GC actually knows the memory needs to be freed. If the GC doesn't realize that the memory needs to be freed (even though it's not being used), it's a memory leak.
The garbage collector isn't some magical plastic memory cover that makes memory leaks bullet proof. Just because you don't have to manage your memory in Java doesn't mean a shoddy programmer can't write something that'll take up more and more memory, if only because he neglected to design the program in such a way that the stuff he's not using any longer falls out of scope and can be picked up by the GC (for example, instantiating everything in main).
GC just makes it so that programmers don't have to explicitly manage their program's memory. But the programmer still has to understand memory management and design in such a way that the GC can do its intended work.
Slashdot Mirror
how long do you suppose Apple could last if Samsung and LG decided to stop selling them LCD's?
I think there are anti-trust laws and other contracts in effect here.
There are some things you simply cannot do. It isn't to say that Samsung couldn't do certain other things that would hurt Apple's bottom line. But jacking up the prices of LCD just for Apple, irrespective of LG's involvement, is not going to fly with existing trade regulations.
Besides which, Apple, being a US company, has the backing of the US government. That's pretty much all that needs to be said there.
Don't you just love it when in the next breath, he goes on a rant about how big the federal government has become, and how intrusive it is? Only now, he's talking about businesses.
What's sad is that this kind of hypocracy is almost expected out of politician nowadays.
They see it as Mac vs. Windows all over again, and guess who won last time?
This time though, it's Google behind the reins of their fiercest competitor. And unlike Microsoft, who's only interested in eventually assimilating everything they touch, Google doesn't try to control the ecosystems they build, only their little slice of it.
It makes Android that much more dangerous for Apple, because it's the antithesis of what Apple stands for, and how Apple operates. A free (speech) and open system will always triumph over a closed system assuming the same features. All parties know this. And that's why Apple's desperately trying to reduce Android's features via patent lawsuits. They cannot compete in any other way.
42
To answer #2, I quote Sherlock Holmes:
When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.
If you study the science behind global warming, you'll know that all the other known potential causes of global warming have all been eliminated. The only other cause that's really up for any debate is CO2.
As for #3, well, sudden major shifts in the status quo is a destructive thing in every other situation. Any engineer can tell you that. Anyone versed in any kind of pseudo-science (political, economic, psychological) can tell you that. Any scientist can tell you that. What makes you think that a sudden shift that happens on a global level could be a good thing (and a hundred years may seem like a lifetime to us humans, but it's very, very sudden and extreme on geological timescales)? That is, unless you consider the destruction of your current way of life a good thing.
Same thing you do with every other mostly-dead drive: Go through it and look for pr0n.
When 900 years old you reach, look as good you will not.
It seems a bit ridiculous to complain about this. If you had six hundred dollars worth of collateral that you could use to borrow the hundred dollars you paid in capital gains tax, I'm sure you could do it too. It may not be for the same interest rate, but it's still doable.
The only thing is, when you're borrowing that little, it's fairly pointless and not really worth anybody's time, be it yours, your accountant's, or the bank's. It takes time and money to process a loan application, irrespective of who the borrower is. That time adds up to costing about as much as or more than the amount you're borrowing.
What the wealthy have over the middle class is economies of scale. They can borrow several million or billion to cover their millions in paid taxes all in one go, which would actually be worthwhile for all parties. They pay the same flat amount as the middle class person would to apply for the loan, but their ROI is millions. The low interest rate is just icing on the cake. The bank can afford this not necessarily because of connections, but because when the loan is a billion dollars, the bank is still making a million dollars even the your interest rate is 0.1%.
Yeah, I bet it was the guys from the Sith Academy a few blocks over.
After all, Jedi don't steal.
Internalize your misfortunes, and externalize any good fortune you may come across.
Hardly. Most of Europe is bilingual. It doesn't follow that people who know English either as a second or a first language are less healthy than people who don't know English at all.
Language, like all arts, is a reflection of the predominant culture. Culture is often what determines socio-economic status. Cultures that emphasize hard working and pride in work are probably going to be better employed. Cultures that emphasize intellect will probably be smarter. Cultures that emphasize creativity will probably be more innovative. And cultures that glamorize and romanticize trash will probably follow the same pattern.
Both language and socio-economic status reflect the values of a culture, but they do so independently. The English speakers of France and Italy are probably no more or less wealthy than the non-English speakers.
Don't worry. The U.S. will eventually destroy itself from the inside out. It'll only be a matter of time.
That's not merely superior technology at play. There's also better training, better information, better field commanders, and other secondary factors at work.
It's not a purely numbers vs. technology game. Most of it comes down to the field commander. But with comparable commanders, numbers and technology definitely changes things.
Hardly.
Godwin's law just means that you shouldn't compare just anything to Nazi Germany. If the comparison is apt, by all means. But when it becomes overused for the purposes of sensationalism, then it loses meaning.
And that's probably the worst that could happen.
nobody falls asleep standing up.
I beg to differ. Wasn't asleep for very long before the floor quite suddenly woke me up.
In four words: Practicing is not learning.
Failure to recognize this results in the fundamentally flawed analogy.
To elaborate, learning is the act of acquiring new knowledge. Practice is solidifying and refining existing knowledge. Their purposes are different, their success criteria are different, their paths to success are different.
I submit that interleaving the learning of different subjects results in a higher knowledge retention rate. This may be because different subjects active different parts of the brain. The act of switching to a new topic helps the previous part of the brain finish its digestion. A pause would work too, but the brain is too easily distracted during a pause.
But practice is not learning. It is effectively a slow form of problem solving. Practicing involves repetition and focus. It requires intense analysis of the previous attempt in order to improve next attempt. And it requires numerous attempts, both to solidify the general concept so that the knowledge moves from the conscious to the sub- or un-conscious, to generate enough attempts at variation so that the ideal variation has a chance to appear, and to attain the maximum level of focus possible.
Interleaving during practice would be disastrous. The level of focus would never be attained, and the practitioner will not improve much, if at all. It would amount to a lot of aimless flailing around.
What does help is taking a break after a certain amount of repetitions. Clearing the mind and starting from scratch helps when the practitioner is stuck. Sleeping also helps. But this must happen only after having reached the maximum level of focus, irrespective of failure or success. But I don't think that's the type of interleaving that TFA is talking about at all.
Taking notes helps you remember what was being said in class, by forcing you to actively recognize and repeat the information you are hearing. If you don't remember what your professor said thirty minutes prior, you won't even have a chance at trying to process that information after class.
Not to mention that sometimes, classes happen back-to-back. Which means that before you can even think about your first class, you're beginning your second class. You won't have time to do your processing and internalizing of that first class until after the second one. Your notes serve as a reminder to jog your memory.
Yeah, his techniques may be useful in an ideal world. But both the learning environment and the state of the brain while learning is far from ideal. His strategies don't seem to take those external factors into account. i.e., they're missing the little extra bit that brings them out of the realm of academics and into reality.
They made loads of money with a game that didn't even require some kind of per-copy authentication code. You technically only need the jar file to play it. Even the initial log in is completely unnecessary for single player, and even occasionally for multiplayer. And yet, they somehow can continue to release updates and new content, and make tons while doing so.
MBAs like to talk about maximizing profit, but what they don't realize is that maximizing profit simultaneously means minimizing customers. Nowadays, people can smell this kind of stuff; they know when they're being treated like crap. And I'm pretty sure they've just about had enough of it.
More like after the 720, you're so disoriented that they can just snatch your wallet from you without you noticing.
Or maybe you're so dizzy they can kick you in the balls while you're trying to stand up straight.
One of these is probably appropriate.
That's like traveling across the ocean and then coming home and sitting on your front porch for the next 30 years.
That's just retirement.
Wrong. Defendent is still liable for copyright infringement, but not for producing a new photograph. Defendent is liable for the damages from having previously used the other copyrighted photograph without permission.
To say that the new photograph somehow infringes on the old photograph is utter crap.
I advocate bringing back the deprecated civil trial methods, starting with dueling. How much could words matter when it's actions that determine the outcome.
That may have been the definition of copyright infringement yesterday, but in case you haven't noticed, what constitutes as copyright infringement has changed recently.
Oh, and it's not profit either: the word you're looking for is revenue. You can't sell copies of the copyrighted work, period. Now, you can't even make them without infringing on the copyright, much less distribute them, much less distribute them for money.
Yeah, but extensions are the cause of memory leaks.
You can't have it both ways. You can't point to extensions as a way to make up for deliberately discarded functionality, and then point to extensions as a source of your user's problems. One or the other needs to be remedied*. Otherwise, your user is going to be fed up and go away to a suitable alternative when one presents itself.
* Given that you have control over one of these, while you have little control over the other, I'd say there's only one real choice--assuming you want to stop hemorrhaging users that is.
It's only a GC and cache problem IFF the GC actually knows the memory needs to be freed. If the GC doesn't realize that the memory needs to be freed (even though it's not being used), it's a memory leak.
The garbage collector isn't some magical plastic memory cover that makes memory leaks bullet proof. Just because you don't have to manage your memory in Java doesn't mean a shoddy programmer can't write something that'll take up more and more memory, if only because he neglected to design the program in such a way that the stuff he's not using any longer falls out of scope and can be picked up by the GC (for example, instantiating everything in main).
GC just makes it so that programmers don't have to explicitly manage their program's memory. But the programmer still has to understand memory management and design in such a way that the GC can do its intended work.