This is fundamentally incorrect on many levels. First of all, the money supply affects inflation; it does not create wealth. If that were true, you could create wealth by printing money. Wealth of the kind you are talking about relates to the capital stock, which does increase over time as raw resources are converted into durable capital goods. Anyhow, it's monumentally obvious that wealth/capital can increase and decrease over time, and is not a fixed pie. Otherwise, how do you explain the fact that GDP, stock market value, and the quantity of housing stock have all increased over time? Economics is a positive-sum game, not a zero-sum game.
Yeah, I was quite disappointed. I'm familiar with the other test by Dr. Christopher Winter, which he references. In that test, Dr. Winter wore the devices while hooked up to a polysomnograph, which can accurately measure sleep cycles -- something these devices purport to do. The actigraph in this test only measures sleep/wake state, which is less detailed than the devices that were tested.
I'm in law, and it really depends on the kind of practice you run. In some aspects of my practice, I'm completely paperless thanks to my trusty Surface Pro 3. I can mark up and revise documents more easily on the screen than I can on paper using the excellent pen and drawing features. In other areas of practice, we are required by law to mail things to people, so there is no getting around the paper there. Real estate transactions do require a lot of paper, but it's all done in one big pile at the closing; everything up until that point is paperless.
As far as court filings go, the courts have seen the light and are migrating to electronic filing. The big advantage for them is that instead of receiving paper in the mail and having their staff enter all of the information into their computers, they can have the attorneys do all of the data entry work for them when they file electronically.
I am mostly paperless in my personal work, with the consequence that I can work from anywhere as long as I have my laptop with me. However, the one piece of paper that has resisted digitization the most is my to-do list. When I put it on the computer it's too easy to just close the file and ignore it. When it's on paper, it's always there staring me in the face.
I'm sick of people citing in despair the overwhelming amount of work it would take to slow climate change. Yes, it will take a lot of wind turbines and carbon capture and solar cells. But we are really good at producing things - literally better than anyone can imagine. We make 165,000 new cars every single day. We need about 500,000 wind turbines to replace coal. If we made wind turbines at the same rate as cars, it would take us one week to get rid of coal.
This is the problem with taking advice from successful people: it's tainted by self-selection bias. It's obvious that making a lot of money doing something you love is a good way to live, but it's also obvious that this is impossible for most people. However, nobody interviews the mediocre majority, we only interview the outliers who have successfully followed their dreams. I suppose it gives us hope that we could have been happy and successful if only we had followed our dreams, without having to actually test that hypothesis.
Normally companies use "earnings before interest, tax, depreciation, and amortization" to make it look like they are profitable when they really aren't. It's not recognized as a proper measurement of profitability by generally accepted accounting principles. In the words of Warren Buffett, "Does management think the tooth fairy pays for capital expenditures?"
This is exactly right. I used to think that I would write faster using a keyboard rather than using a pencil and paper, or using my phone, because I can type faster on a keyboard. But the vast majority of the time spent writing is in thinking about what to write, not actually writing it down. The time savings from typing is negligible. The older I get, the more I love clipboards. Writing on a phone keyboard really does suck because you have to spend most of your cognitive effort fixing the autocorrect.
Washington DC has a relatively high murder rate. Not close to St. Louis or Detroit, but 4 times higher than New York City, and slightly higher than Chicago. There are also a lot of government employees living in Washington DC since it is the capital of the USA. So chances are that some government employees will be murdered every year.
I run an XP desktop at my office. It's used exclusively for our high-speed document scanner. It's not allowed on the internet, meaning that it only accepts connections to and from our file server, which is running Debian. I don't see any reason to upgrade to Windows 10 for this use. There are five computers in my office, four of them desktops, so this means that 25% of the desktops at my firm are running Windows XP.
I own one of these, so I'm sad to see that the service is being stopped. I initially got it just for sleep tracking, since it was the best in that category at the time. But after I got it, I also started wearing it during the day because it was just a damn decent watch; that is, it was good at telling the time. The LCD display was large and clear, and the band was very comfortable. It's actually one of the best and watches I've ever owned, just as a watch. I would charge it for a few minutes each day when I took a shower, and this was enough to top up the battery.
I also had a minor knee surgery in December, and I found that it was very useful for tracking my steps during my recovery. Finally, when they updated it to receive notifications, I was surprised at how convenient it was to get text messages on my watch.
So all in all, it was a great piece of hardware and I'm sad to see it go.
respective - adjective - belonging or relating separately to each of two or more people or things.
The summary asks "do you think the company will soon become just another name in its respective category?" In this context, the word "respective" is meaningless because it has only a single referent. I'm not sure what the editor was trying to signify by adding it to the sentence.
That works out to about $800,000 per year. It's a lot for one person, but there are likely many people working on this. They're not even sitting back and watching the money roll in; they've been constantly working to keep up with the white hats. If there are more than 10 people working on this, they could probably get normal jobs that would pay nearly as well. So it actually looks like we're doing a pretty good job of making this unprofitable. I suppose the determining factor is local salaries, so it will be profitable in very poor countries but not in richer ones.
This is the same as the Trolley Problem, a famous philosophical dilemma, first proposed in 1967: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... Basically, a runaway trolley is going to kill five people. You can either do nothing and let the trolley kill them, or pull a lever to switch it to another track on which it will kill only one person. There are many variations, including one in which you push a fat man onto the tracks to stop the trolley. Philosophers have written a LOT about it. Here are some humorous variations: http://existentialcomics.com/c... https://xkcd.com/1455/ http://www.mcsweeneys.net/arti...
Even if these allegations are politically motivated, it doesn't mean that they are false. There is an embarrassingly large amount of sexual assault, rape, and sexism in the world, and especially in the IT industry. There is a ready-made avenue to prosecute men in the tech sector because a whole lot of them engage in criminal sexual behavior. If we could stop the culture of sexism, the ready-made discrediting and prosecution would disappear. All men can help out simply by not behaving like creepy assholes, and by calling out those who do. And if you're going to challenge government surveillance, for fuck's sake don't go around raping people all the time!
Stupid question: I'm using a TV as a monitor for the past eight years now, it works very well and is sharp enough (but I don't watch any TV on it). When I bought it, there were no monitors of that size available.
What's the advantage of having a dedicated monitor instead of using a TV as monitor?
I used to only have one display: I would unplug my desktop monitor and carry it across the living room when I wanted to watch a movie on the couch. It took about one minute to switch. Since I upgraded my monitor I have an extra that I use just for watching TV/movies. I prefer using a monitor as a TV -- rather than using a TV as a monitor -- because I like a smaller display. I don't watch TV very often, so I want something that I can move out of the way when I'm not using it. If I preferred a larger display, I might use a TV as a monitor like you suggest. For small sizes at least, a monitor will be cheaper and have a better display at a given price point.
Actually, now that you mention it, I should probably just get rid of my second monitor and go back to having a single display in my house. It will save space and look nicer. I'll donate it or something.
Looked like a good idea until I remembered that bridges exist. It would have to be at least 10 feet higher than the largest trucks, so it likely couldn't be used on any roads that have anything above them. Where I live, this is virtually all roads. However, in areas without a lot of bridges I could see this being a pretty good idea. For roads that ban trucks and also have no bridges, it would work best, but I'm not sure how common that is. Also, how the heck is it going to turn? I could see this working on some of the perfectly straight avenues in Manhattan, but you'd have to move the traffic lights. At least it's fun to think about!
Most people will sit around, eat, have sex, get fat, litter the planet with their directionless offspring, and otherwise get in trouble out of utter boredom and too-much-time-on-their-hands, all on the government dole.
Yes, this is exactly what the millions of Americans who are independently wealthy do all day. Or do they actually get a great education, work even harder than everyone else, and make great contributions to our society? Probably a little of both. If you don't think inherited wealth ruins the rich, there is no reason to think that a UBI will ruin the poor either; unless you think that the poor are inferior in an absolute and unchangeable sense.
Slashdot Mirror
This is fundamentally incorrect on many levels. First of all, the money supply affects inflation; it does not create wealth. If that were true, you could create wealth by printing money. Wealth of the kind you are talking about relates to the capital stock, which does increase over time as raw resources are converted into durable capital goods. Anyhow, it's monumentally obvious that wealth/capital can increase and decrease over time, and is not a fixed pie. Otherwise, how do you explain the fact that GDP, stock market value, and the quantity of housing stock have all increased over time? Economics is a positive-sum game, not a zero-sum game.
Yeah, I was quite disappointed. I'm familiar with the other test by Dr. Christopher Winter, which he references. In that test, Dr. Winter wore the devices while hooked up to a polysomnograph, which can accurately measure sleep cycles -- something these devices purport to do. The actigraph in this test only measures sleep/wake state, which is less detailed than the devices that were tested.
I'm in law, and it really depends on the kind of practice you run. In some aspects of my practice, I'm completely paperless thanks to my trusty Surface Pro 3. I can mark up and revise documents more easily on the screen than I can on paper using the excellent pen and drawing features. In other areas of practice, we are required by law to mail things to people, so there is no getting around the paper there. Real estate transactions do require a lot of paper, but it's all done in one big pile at the closing; everything up until that point is paperless.
As far as court filings go, the courts have seen the light and are migrating to electronic filing. The big advantage for them is that instead of receiving paper in the mail and having their staff enter all of the information into their computers, they can have the attorneys do all of the data entry work for them when they file electronically.
I am mostly paperless in my personal work, with the consequence that I can work from anywhere as long as I have my laptop with me. However, the one piece of paper that has resisted digitization the most is my to-do list. When I put it on the computer it's too easy to just close the file and ignore it. When it's on paper, it's always there staring me in the face.
"Sounds like a case of the port not calling the kettle back." Well done, AlabasterCodefy, well done.
...just a really inconvenient way to play Quake. Super cool for 10 minutes though.
It's simple really: if it's written well enough, it's not called science fiction.
I'm sick of people citing in despair the overwhelming amount of work it would take to slow climate change. Yes, it will take a lot of wind turbines and carbon capture and solar cells. But we are really good at producing things - literally better than anyone can imagine. We make 165,000 new cars every single day. We need about 500,000 wind turbines to replace coal. If we made wind turbines at the same rate as cars, it would take us one week to get rid of coal.
They can always sell the design to a different company with expertise in this type of market.
Also, I initially imagined the "toothbrush test" as a requirement that robotic arms be able to brush someone's teeth autonomously.
This is the problem with taking advice from successful people: it's tainted by self-selection bias. It's obvious that making a lot of money doing something you love is a good way to live, but it's also obvious that this is impossible for most people. However, nobody interviews the mediocre majority, we only interview the outliers who have successfully followed their dreams. I suppose it gives us hope that we could have been happy and successful if only we had followed our dreams, without having to actually test that hypothesis.
I just won a game of Tic-Tac-Toe for the first time ever.
Normally companies use "earnings before interest, tax, depreciation, and amortization" to make it look like they are profitable when they really aren't. It's not recognized as a proper measurement of profitability by generally accepted accounting principles. In the words of Warren Buffett, "Does management think the tooth fairy pays for capital expenditures?"
This is exactly right. I used to think that I would write faster using a keyboard rather than using a pencil and paper, or using my phone, because I can type faster on a keyboard. But the vast majority of the time spent writing is in thinking about what to write, not actually writing it down. The time savings from typing is negligible. The older I get, the more I love clipboards. Writing on a phone keyboard really does suck because you have to spend most of your cognitive effort fixing the autocorrect.
Washington DC has a relatively high murder rate. Not close to St. Louis or Detroit, but 4 times higher than New York City, and slightly higher than Chicago. There are also a lot of government employees living in Washington DC since it is the capital of the USA. So chances are that some government employees will be murdered every year.
Snopes has declared all of this False. http://www.snopes.com/politics...
"Clinton was acquainted with some people who died — that's about all one can make of this list."
I run an XP desktop at my office. It's used exclusively for our high-speed document scanner. It's not allowed on the internet, meaning that it only accepts connections to and from our file server, which is running Debian. I don't see any reason to upgrade to Windows 10 for this use. There are five computers in my office, four of them desktops, so this means that 25% of the desktops at my firm are running Windows XP.
I own one of these, so I'm sad to see that the service is being stopped. I initially got it just for sleep tracking, since it was the best in that category at the time. But after I got it, I also started wearing it during the day because it was just a damn decent watch; that is, it was good at telling the time. The LCD display was large and clear, and the band was very comfortable. It's actually one of the best and watches I've ever owned, just as a watch. I would charge it for a few minutes each day when I took a shower, and this was enough to top up the battery.
I also had a minor knee surgery in December, and I found that it was very useful for tracking my steps during my recovery. Finally, when they updated it to receive notifications, I was surprised at how convenient it was to get text messages on my watch.
So all in all, it was a great piece of hardware and I'm sad to see it go.
respective - adjective - belonging or relating separately to each of two or more people or things.
The summary asks "do you think the company will soon become just another name in its respective category?" In this context, the word "respective" is meaningless because it has only a single referent. I'm not sure what the editor was trying to signify by adding it to the sentence.
That works out to about $800,000 per year. It's a lot for one person, but there are likely many people working on this. They're not even sitting back and watching the money roll in; they've been constantly working to keep up with the white hats. If there are more than 10 people working on this, they could probably get normal jobs that would pay nearly as well. So it actually looks like we're doing a pretty good job of making this unprofitable. I suppose the determining factor is local salaries, so it will be profitable in very poor countries but not in richer ones.
This is the same as the Trolley Problem, a famous philosophical dilemma, first proposed in 1967: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Basically, a runaway trolley is going to kill five people. You can either do nothing and let the trolley kill them, or pull a lever to switch it to another track on which it will kill only one person. There are many variations, including one in which you push a fat man onto the tracks to stop the trolley. Philosophers have written a LOT about it. Here are some humorous variations:
http://existentialcomics.com/c...
https://xkcd.com/1455/
http://www.mcsweeneys.net/arti...
Even if these allegations are politically motivated, it doesn't mean that they are false. There is an embarrassingly large amount of sexual assault, rape, and sexism in the world, and especially in the IT industry. There is a ready-made avenue to prosecute men in the tech sector because a whole lot of them engage in criminal sexual behavior. If we could stop the culture of sexism, the ready-made discrediting and prosecution would disappear. All men can help out simply by not behaving like creepy assholes, and by calling out those who do. And if you're going to challenge government surveillance, for fuck's sake don't go around raping people all the time!
Here is one of several articles: http://www.economist.com/blogs...
Stupid question: I'm using a TV as a monitor for the past eight years now, it works very well and is sharp enough (but I don't watch any TV on it). When I bought it, there were no monitors of that size available.
What's the advantage of having a dedicated monitor instead of using a TV as monitor?
I used to only have one display: I would unplug my desktop monitor and carry it across the living room when I wanted to watch a movie on the couch. It took about one minute to switch. Since I upgraded my monitor I have an extra that I use just for watching TV/movies. I prefer using a monitor as a TV -- rather than using a TV as a monitor -- because I like a smaller display. I don't watch TV very often, so I want something that I can move out of the way when I'm not using it. If I preferred a larger display, I might use a TV as a monitor like you suggest. For small sizes at least, a monitor will be cheaper and have a better display at a given price point.
Actually, now that you mention it, I should probably just get rid of my second monitor and go back to having a single display in my house. It will save space and look nicer. I'll donate it or something.
I don't even want a regular TV. I watch Netflix on a 25" monitor that I plug into a laptop.
Looked like a good idea until I remembered that bridges exist. It would have to be at least 10 feet higher than the largest trucks, so it likely couldn't be used on any roads that have anything above them. Where I live, this is virtually all roads. However, in areas without a lot of bridges I could see this being a pretty good idea. For roads that ban trucks and also have no bridges, it would work best, but I'm not sure how common that is. Also, how the heck is it going to turn? I could see this working on some of the perfectly straight avenues in Manhattan, but you'd have to move the traffic lights. At least it's fun to think about!
Most people will sit around, eat, have sex, get fat, litter the planet with their directionless offspring, and otherwise get in trouble out of utter boredom and too-much-time-on-their-hands, all on the government dole.
Yes, this is exactly what the millions of Americans who are independently wealthy do all day. Or do they actually get a great education, work even harder than everyone else, and make great contributions to our society? Probably a little of both. If you don't think inherited wealth ruins the rich, there is no reason to think that a UBI will ruin the poor either; unless you think that the poor are inferior in an absolute and unchangeable sense.