And there's something wrong with that? That's the natural result of enthusiasm. What's more, when you have divisions as diverse as this, they are more like Tribe B of Exciting Company A. You're not going to get a lot of coordination.
If you hire competent executives and managers rather than a friend of a friend, you can get that.
I'm guessing this is either a case of NIH or an admission that the idea won't work in any sort of reasonable time frame. What's more, this is an idea that is likely to compete with SpaceX in the long run.
In the long run his competition is with space. Space flight between two cities is quite fast, and doesn't require the huge tracts of land that this would.
Yes and the quality was effectively crap compared to what it is now. Yes, people did have skills, but because they were beholden to a specific patron, they couldn't typically push the boundaries, as their patron may only like dogs playing poker, so that's what they would do.
What's more, in the modern world, there's little or no interest in developing talent, just find somebody that's already good at it and hire them.
What are you blathering on about? This wouldn't affect people living in other parts of the world, but it would mean that nobody would be able to use BTC in the US and if they wanted to trade BTC for USD or the other way around, they would have to trade for an intermediary currency.
And they most certainly can enforce this. Anybody caught sending money to an exchange would have to substantiate where the money is going and the exchanges would probably be prevented from accepting money for US citizens.
Currency speculators affect anybody that buys or sells items that involve international trade. So, if you sell a product made domestically with resources gained domestically to domestic buyers, then currency speculators don't affect you to any meaningful extent. But if any of that is international, then currency speculation affects you.
The point isn't so much that it's good or bad, just that the SEC does have regulatory authority over it in the US.
It's something that would have to be tested in the courts as the statute literally only applies to physical currency, however, with so much "money" these days being digital only, it would seem that the USC would have to be interpreted to include those digital dollars as well.
Ultimately, if not, then the code will likely need to be updated to deal with that change.
The SEC regulates this because the BTC is being treated like a commodity. People are buying the BTC with the hopes of selling it later on. Making it similar to people who buy barrels of oil to sell at a future date. And like those oil barrels, there's people buying and selling purely as a way of profiting on movements in the price of the commodity.
Bartering is normally just trading one item for another item. Now, you might then take that item you got and trade it to somebody else, but you're not usually trying to turn a profit on that extra trade, you're trying to get something you need in exchange for something you don't.
In terms of bartering, the transactions there are more or less the same as with cash, but the process is complicated by the logistical aspect of needing to take delivery immediately of the good or service you're accepting in exchange.
No, that's 3D, 3D is when the eyes see slightly differing images and interpret that as a scene with depth.
The definition you're using is highly non-standard and completely misses the point. A movie will always require that you be sitting in the right place. Just as one doesn't typically watch a Broadway play from backstage. Or aren't those plays 3D?
The reason would be that many people wouldn't bother sharing their work because it could be appropriated by somebody else that wouldn't have to pay the development costs.
I don't mind giving my artwork away, but I'll be damned if somebody else is going to be making money off of it.
That's a detail that you're missing. Where's my incentive to share my work with strangers if I have no control over what they do with it? At least under the current system, I can ensure that I'm the only one that can charge for it.
I disagree, apart from a few phenomenally talented individuals, creating something that will move the art form ahead, takes a huge amount of time and energy. Sure, there will be exceptions, but the truth is that to fully develop ones ability to shade or to make marks on a canvass takes years. To draw as well as Jim Dine, would take decades, if you're even capable of drawing that well.
Day jobs might be necessary, but they shouldn't be necessary because we don't provide adequate protections to them. The money is only a part of the equation because that's how people get food and shelter. Few of the greatest artists of all time were rich, but they could earn enough, in one way or another from their art, to work on it full time.
My 4 year old nephew can do that with paint. That doesn't mean that he's an artist, that means that he's a 4 year old that can splatter paint all over the place.
Computers aren't presently capable of the sort of intuitive leaps that define brilliant artists. They can't presently show you something in a new way and what they do show you is based upon what a programmer created.
Perhaps someday AI will reach the point where it can do so, but that's not something that I expect to live to see. Or at very least, I don't expect to see it in the next 30-50 years.
The point that these interviewers are probably wanting to know, is why the submitter hasn't been promoted. Not everybody can be promoted, but generally you're probably only interested in hiring the people who were valued enough to be promoted.
It's not perfect, as that tends to skew psychopathic, but ultimately, if you want somebody that works hard, knows their stuff and contributes, they're probably not going to be going for long periods of time without being promoted. Either via a promotion or by quitting and getting a job that's more matching their ambition.
Coders that lack ambition aren't always happy where they are, some of them are too stupid or too lazy to go any further.
You might not care about that, but I personally care more about the crap they show on screen. As long as what they're showing was shot in 2D and turned into 3D using computer manipulation, I'm not interested.
From the sound of this, they can use one lens to create an image that's effectively 3D and do so for the entire scene, rather than portions. That I'd consider seeing.
When they get that down, then worrying about the eye wear will make some sense. At this point the 3D just isn't good enough in most cases to waste money viewing it.
Obamacare doesn't encourage massive cost increases in health care. Since the ACA was passed, my premiums have increased at the slowest rate in memory. In fact this year was the first year I can recall where my premiums didn't increase at all.
And with the incentives to lower costs and improve outcomes, that should continue. We haven't yet seen the increases in efficiency that come from the preventative care mandates. Those can easily take 10 years or more to fully materialize, depending upon the condition.
Then again, why bother with facts, it's not like somebody stupid enough to think that Obamacare was his idea is going to listen. It was a conservative proposal from the start.
Sigh, do some research. In case people wonder why I'm so opposed to conservatives, this ignorant tripe is why.
Sounds like you have a bad insurance company and or live in a state with inadequate regulation of the industry. Around here, mistakes like that are relatively few and far between. And BTW, I have a non-profit health insurer, so any yachts being purchased are minimal.
As for the blood pressure, get a better health insurer, I have no problem getting an appointment with mine. Just because some insurers are incompetently run, doesn't mean all of them are, and if you're being treated like that, call the insurance commissioner and file a complaint.
Having people refuse to pay for charity care isn't profitable either, but at least with prevention there's less expenditure on health care in the long run. Also, around here one of the biggest health insurance companies is a non-profit.
Color E-ink is still on the way, AFAIK, the problem with them is still the limited number of colors, slow response time and lack of saturation. It definitely will be here eventually, but color E-ink isn't particularly impressive at this point. Last I saw, it was similar to where the GBC was when Nintendo released it. There was color, but it was lacking in muchness.
Sunbird and Lightning are about as related as Linux and Windows are. They both deal with calendars, and that's about that. One is a standalone and the other is an extension.
The problem there is that turning Thunderbird into offline mode, means that the entirety of Thunderbird is offline, not just my email, which means that if I want to sync with a server, I have to take it out of offline mode. And setting it to only check when I ask it to, means that I have to not just remember to open the application, but also click on the icon. Which is stupid because an offline mail client should only be disconnected from the server when there is no internet connection. Otherwise, I would just use webmail.
It might seem like the wrong move, but Thunderbird has a huge amount of emails stored in it, and I don't need to constantly look at them. So, running it only when I want to read my emails makes sense. My calendar stays up all day as that's something that I usually need. It doesn't make any sense to lard up my calendar program with years worth of emails, just so that I can use one program to do both.
Fx has an option to reset the browser settings, presumably if he clicked to disable JS and couldn't figure out what he did, he would just click that option and that setting would be reset.
Sunbird doesn't exist any longer, Lightning is a completely different product. And not quite as good IMHO, as you have to run the entirety of Thunderbird to use it, whereas I often times liked to just run the calendar so that I didn't have to be distracted by emails coming in.
Now, I'm stuck with running a second Thunderbird and closing the calendar whenever I want to check email. Which is a stupid move.
Slashdot Mirror
And there's something wrong with that? That's the natural result of enthusiasm. What's more, when you have divisions as diverse as this, they are more like Tribe B of Exciting Company A. You're not going to get a lot of coordination.
If you hire competent executives and managers rather than a friend of a friend, you can get that.
I'm guessing this is either a case of NIH or an admission that the idea won't work in any sort of reasonable time frame. What's more, this is an idea that is likely to compete with SpaceX in the long run.
In the long run his competition is with space. Space flight between two cities is quite fast, and doesn't require the huge tracts of land that this would.
Why wouldn't it work? Is he personally qualified to design and build this thing on his own? Somehow I doubt that.
Not really, being a douche is a full time job. Hence why he's so busy.
Yes and the quality was effectively crap compared to what it is now. Yes, people did have skills, but because they were beholden to a specific patron, they couldn't typically push the boundaries, as their patron may only like dogs playing poker, so that's what they would do.
What's more, in the modern world, there's little or no interest in developing talent, just find somebody that's already good at it and hire them.
What are you blathering on about? This wouldn't affect people living in other parts of the world, but it would mean that nobody would be able to use BTC in the US and if they wanted to trade BTC for USD or the other way around, they would have to trade for an intermediary currency.
And they most certainly can enforce this. Anybody caught sending money to an exchange would have to substantiate where the money is going and the exchanges would probably be prevented from accepting money for US citizens.
So, in other words, you're granting a free pass to Netflix and Pandora, but holding Amazon to a higher standard.
Currency speculators affect anybody that buys or sells items that involve international trade. So, if you sell a product made domestically with resources gained domestically to domestic buyers, then currency speculators don't affect you to any meaningful extent. But if any of that is international, then currency speculation affects you.
The point isn't so much that it's good or bad, just that the SEC does have regulatory authority over it in the US.
Is that show not provided by Amazon Prime? Because that's a relatively affordable service, plus you get free shipping as well.
Sure they can. They can arguably prosecute the individuals that are creating these BTC on US soil. Under http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/486
It's something that would have to be tested in the courts as the statute literally only applies to physical currency, however, with so much "money" these days being digital only, it would seem that the USC would have to be interpreted to include those digital dollars as well.
Ultimately, if not, then the code will likely need to be updated to deal with that change.
The SEC regulates this because the BTC is being treated like a commodity. People are buying the BTC with the hopes of selling it later on. Making it similar to people who buy barrels of oil to sell at a future date. And like those oil barrels, there's people buying and selling purely as a way of profiting on movements in the price of the commodity.
Bartering is normally just trading one item for another item. Now, you might then take that item you got and trade it to somebody else, but you're not usually trying to turn a profit on that extra trade, you're trying to get something you need in exchange for something you don't.
In terms of bartering, the transactions there are more or less the same as with cash, but the process is complicated by the logistical aspect of needing to take delivery immediately of the good or service you're accepting in exchange.
No, that's 3D, 3D is when the eyes see slightly differing images and interpret that as a scene with depth.
The definition you're using is highly non-standard and completely misses the point. A movie will always require that you be sitting in the right place. Just as one doesn't typically watch a Broadway play from backstage. Or aren't those plays 3D?
The reason would be that many people wouldn't bother sharing their work because it could be appropriated by somebody else that wouldn't have to pay the development costs.
I don't mind giving my artwork away, but I'll be damned if somebody else is going to be making money off of it.
That's a detail that you're missing. Where's my incentive to share my work with strangers if I have no control over what they do with it? At least under the current system, I can ensure that I'm the only one that can charge for it.
I disagree, apart from a few phenomenally talented individuals, creating something that will move the art form ahead, takes a huge amount of time and energy. Sure, there will be exceptions, but the truth is that to fully develop ones ability to shade or to make marks on a canvass takes years. To draw as well as Jim Dine, would take decades, if you're even capable of drawing that well.
Day jobs might be necessary, but they shouldn't be necessary because we don't provide adequate protections to them. The money is only a part of the equation because that's how people get food and shelter. Few of the greatest artists of all time were rich, but they could earn enough, in one way or another from their art, to work on it full time.
My 4 year old nephew can do that with paint. That doesn't mean that he's an artist, that means that he's a 4 year old that can splatter paint all over the place.
Computers aren't presently capable of the sort of intuitive leaps that define brilliant artists. They can't presently show you something in a new way and what they do show you is based upon what a programmer created.
Perhaps someday AI will reach the point where it can do so, but that's not something that I expect to live to see. Or at very least, I don't expect to see it in the next 30-50 years.
The point that these interviewers are probably wanting to know, is why the submitter hasn't been promoted. Not everybody can be promoted, but generally you're probably only interested in hiring the people who were valued enough to be promoted.
It's not perfect, as that tends to skew psychopathic, but ultimately, if you want somebody that works hard, knows their stuff and contributes, they're probably not going to be going for long periods of time without being promoted. Either via a promotion or by quitting and getting a job that's more matching their ambition.
Coders that lack ambition aren't always happy where they are, some of them are too stupid or too lazy to go any further.
You might not care about that, but I personally care more about the crap they show on screen. As long as what they're showing was shot in 2D and turned into 3D using computer manipulation, I'm not interested.
From the sound of this, they can use one lens to create an image that's effectively 3D and do so for the entire scene, rather than portions. That I'd consider seeing.
When they get that down, then worrying about the eye wear will make some sense. At this point the 3D just isn't good enough in most cases to waste money viewing it.
Obamacare doesn't encourage massive cost increases in health care. Since the ACA was passed, my premiums have increased at the slowest rate in memory. In fact this year was the first year I can recall where my premiums didn't increase at all.
And with the incentives to lower costs and improve outcomes, that should continue. We haven't yet seen the increases in efficiency that come from the preventative care mandates. Those can easily take 10 years or more to fully materialize, depending upon the condition.
Then again, why bother with facts, it's not like somebody stupid enough to think that Obamacare was his idea is going to listen. It was a conservative proposal from the start.
Sigh, do some research. In case people wonder why I'm so opposed to conservatives, this ignorant tripe is why.
Sounds like you have a bad insurance company and or live in a state with inadequate regulation of the industry. Around here, mistakes like that are relatively few and far between. And BTW, I have a non-profit health insurer, so any yachts being purchased are minimal.
As for the blood pressure, get a better health insurer, I have no problem getting an appointment with mine. Just because some insurers are incompetently run, doesn't mean all of them are, and if you're being treated like that, call the insurance commissioner and file a complaint.
Spoken like somebody who doesn't get it.
Having people refuse to pay for charity care isn't profitable either, but at least with prevention there's less expenditure on health care in the long run. Also, around here one of the biggest health insurance companies is a non-profit.
Color E-ink is still on the way, AFAIK, the problem with them is still the limited number of colors, slow response time and lack of saturation. It definitely will be here eventually, but color E-ink isn't particularly impressive at this point. Last I saw, it was similar to where the GBC was when Nintendo released it. There was color, but it was lacking in muchness.
Sunbird and Lightning are about as related as Linux and Windows are. They both deal with calendars, and that's about that. One is a standalone and the other is an extension.
The problem there is that turning Thunderbird into offline mode, means that the entirety of Thunderbird is offline, not just my email, which means that if I want to sync with a server, I have to take it out of offline mode. And setting it to only check when I ask it to, means that I have to not just remember to open the application, but also click on the icon. Which is stupid because an offline mail client should only be disconnected from the server when there is no internet connection. Otherwise, I would just use webmail.
It might seem like the wrong move, but Thunderbird has a huge amount of emails stored in it, and I don't need to constantly look at them. So, running it only when I want to read my emails makes sense. My calendar stays up all day as that's something that I usually need. It doesn't make any sense to lard up my calendar program with years worth of emails, just so that I can use one program to do both.
Fx has an option to reset the browser settings, presumably if he clicked to disable JS and couldn't figure out what he did, he would just click that option and that setting would be reset.
Sunbird doesn't exist any longer, Lightning is a completely different product. And not quite as good IMHO, as you have to run the entirety of Thunderbird to use it, whereas I often times liked to just run the calendar so that I didn't have to be distracted by emails coming in.
Now, I'm stuck with running a second Thunderbird and closing the calendar whenever I want to check email. Which is a stupid move.