I kind of like that - the process is odd, but the end result is a start bonus for people who descended from sailors. Unintentionally paying respects, if you will.:-)
Well, I've never had a merchant account with a real bank, so I can't do that comparison. And I agree that cost is a major driver in that industry, so much so that bad service may be optimal. But any company which makes money by freezing accounts, draining money, and making it very difficult/costly to retrieve said money (earning interest all the way) goes down as evil in my book.
It's true that people bitch about them misrepresenting themselves as a bank. I'm bitching about how PayPal takes peoples' money for the flimsiest of reasons and refuses to give it back just because they're big and lawyers are expensive.
I can't believe this was modded Interesting - it's totallywrong. Have a look at the size of the PayPalSucks forums to get an idea of what I mean - size alone should give you an idea of what you're dealing with here.
Then go read one of their draconian user agreements, the ex-employee/whistleblower interviews (PayPalSucks and elsewhere), and maybe something like this. Or just google it?
I was ripped off myself - thankfully only for US$2.50 - for the crime of living outside the US and sending verification papers a month too slow. I logged in one day to find my account locked before even the first transaction, with big red bold text to the effect of "bugger off, we don't want your money". I made several calls to get it working again before finding PayPalSucks, but couldn't be bothered spending any more time fighting their obfuscation-fu. I'd suggest my case was more incompetence than malice, but I've seen (firsthand) much worse.
No offense meant, but please do a little research before making such sweeping claims. It's really annoying to see someone sing their praises after watching them get away with the kind of shit that they do.
The king will call the prisoners in any order he pleases, and he can call and recall each prisoner as many times as he wants, as many times in a row as he wants. The only rule the king has to obey is that eventually he has to call every prisoner in an arbitrary number of times. So maybe he will call the first prisoner in a million times before ever calling in the second prisoner twice, we just don't know. But eventually we may be certain that each prisoner will be called in ten times, or twenty times, or any number you choose.
I think this part seems to invalidate any simple leader-based solutions - given that the king knows which one the leader is, he would simply not call him until right at the end, then use up all his calls at once.
That's the solution, isn't it? Since the prisoners know the maximum number of times the king can flip it, just wait for n+k flips instead of n flips, and we're guaranteed to have covered every prisoner.
I was going to bitch a little more, then I thought about it. He has a point, albeit a small one. The software industry on the whole does has a very tolerant attitude towards flaws in products. However that's just the free market at work - fixing bugs adds cost to product, to compete we cut costs, buyers don't mind bugs in most software, and software being a low personal-investment product for most people (not us), they won't shop hard to select for/reward bugfree software.
I've heard stories about how space shuttle software is proved, line-by-line, and therefore is completely bug-free but 20 years out of date and prohibitively expensive. There's a tradeoff involved. The real question is: should we be at the current tradeoff point? The free market doesn't always produce the optimal solution...
But it's much easier for a doctor to screw up than an engineer. A building generally allows for higher margins for error than, say, a screaming three-year-old running a high temperature. Basic economics - higher risk requires higher return.
(I'm an engineer-in-training, so I'm allowed to put down my course...:-)
Slashdot Mirror
I kind of like that - the process is odd, but the end result is a start bonus for people who descended from sailors. Unintentionally paying respects, if you will. :-)
Well, I've never had a merchant account with a real bank, so I can't do that comparison. And I agree that cost is a major driver in that industry, so much so that bad service may be optimal. But any company which makes money by freezing accounts, draining money, and making it very difficult/costly to retrieve said money (earning interest all the way) goes down as evil in my book.
It's true that people bitch about them misrepresenting themselves as a bank. I'm bitching about how PayPal takes peoples' money for the flimsiest of reasons and refuses to give it back just because they're big and lawyers are expensive.
I can't believe this was modded Interesting - it's totally wrong. Have a look at the size of the PayPalSucks forums to get an idea of what I mean - size alone should give you an idea of what you're dealing with here.
Then go read one of their draconian user agreements, the ex-employee/whistleblower interviews (PayPalSucks and elsewhere), and maybe something like this. Or just google it?
I was ripped off myself - thankfully only for US$2.50 - for the crime of living outside the US and sending verification papers a month too slow. I logged in one day to find my account locked before even the first transaction, with big red bold text to the effect of "bugger off, we don't want your money". I made several calls to get it working again before finding PayPalSucks, but couldn't be bothered spending any more time fighting their obfuscation-fu. I'd suggest my case was more incompetence than malice, but I've seen (firsthand) much worse.
No offense meant, but please do a little research before making such sweeping claims. It's really annoying to see someone sing their praises after watching them get away with the kind of shit that they do.
The king will call the prisoners in any order he pleases, and he can call and recall each prisoner as many times as he wants, as many times in a row as he wants. The only rule the king has to obey is that eventually he has to call every prisoner in an arbitrary number of times. So maybe he will call the first prisoner in a million times before ever calling in the second prisoner twice, we just don't know. But eventually we may be certain that each prisoner will be called in ten times, or twenty times, or any number you choose. I think this part seems to invalidate any simple leader-based solutions - given that the king knows which one the leader is, he would simply not call him until right at the end, then use up all his calls at once.
Darn, spoke too soon. I've gotta run as well, hope someone figures this sucker out :-)
No problem, that's a beautiful solution - I was nowhere near it when I read yours.
That's the solution, isn't it? Since the prisoners know the maximum number of times the king can flip it, just wait for n+k flips instead of n flips, and we're guaranteed to have covered every prisoner.
Let us beat him.
I was going to bitch a little more, then I thought about it. He has a point, albeit a small one. The software industry on the whole does has a very tolerant attitude towards flaws in products. However that's just the free market at work - fixing bugs adds cost to product, to compete we cut costs, buyers don't mind bugs in most software, and software being a low personal-investment product for most people (not us), they won't shop hard to select for/reward bugfree software.
I've heard stories about how space shuttle software is proved, line-by-line, and therefore is completely bug-free but 20 years out of date and prohibitively expensive. There's a tradeoff involved. The real question is: should we be at the current tradeoff point? The free market doesn't always produce the optimal solution...
I read that three times, and have to conclude that you just failed the Turing test. ;-)
That made me laugh out loud. Nice! :-)
Well, it's size does depend on your frame of reference...
(also, powned? Dude, that's so radical!)
..hello GoogleOS! Platfrom-independent, all online, all the applications you need. Who cares if it's viewed out of IE?
But it's much easier for a doctor to screw up than an engineer. A building generally allows for higher margins for error than, say, a screaming three-year-old running a high temperature. Basic economics - higher risk requires higher return.
:-)
(I'm an engineer-in-training, so I'm allowed to put down my course...