A good way to think about it is that people have needs. In the case of transport: to get somewhere. This need existed prior to the car. When the car came along and people became aware of its benefits, demand for cars suddenly appeared. So even though there was no demand for the car before its invention, there was a need for a solution to the problem that cars solved.
Your statement about the relative value of income makes sense but is a bit simplified. Typically it is not the exchange rate that is important as much as the purchasing power parity, which also takes into account local costs of living, etc.
You are unlikely to, as well. Apple is famous for the ruthless efficiency of their supply chain, which makes it hard for competitors to even match their hardware at the same price, let alone exceed it or sell it more cheaply.
If you do the DCF analysis you will see that it is expectations of share price appreciation and not dividends that is the source of most of the valuation for many equities. It is only for very stable, slow-growing companies (e.g. utilities) where you can draw a strong connection between dividends and share prices.
It can be hard to believe the impact that advertising has on products, especially consumer packaged goods. For something like a toothbrush, 40-50% of the cost of the toothbrush might be advertising spend. This can seem like a waste, but companies like GM and GE are brand powerhouses because they have spent decades building and maintaining those brands. Sure, everyone knows who GE is today, and probably won't forget about them even if they stopped advertising tomorrow - but every year a new cohort of consumers comes of age, and those people may not have had exposure to the brand. Companies also need advertising to tune their changing image over time - would you buy GE just because they had the most reliable vacuum tubes in the 50s? What you care about today might be entirely different - e.g. the design aesthetic, rather than the reliability that is now a commodity in e.g. radios. And what if GE has a brand new type of product or wants to compete in a new area - how would anyone know that they were an option if they don't advertise?
Good point. I didn't mean to say there was anything wrong with this kind of analysis, just that it isn't the same as a double-blind trial. The GP seemed to be saying it was everything double-blind was and more.
This is not really true. The purpose of a double-blind experiment is to set up a study with a controlled variable and observe the outcome. This is a meta-analysis, which looks at previously gathered data and tries to see if there are interesting patterns. The problem with such analysis is that although "blind" in the sense that it does not influence results, it is not "blind" in the choice of data. Whether intentionally or not, by cherry-picking data it is easy to create associations where none exist. This is further biased by the fact that only positive results are reported - no one writes of all the "no correlation" results they may have found through different choices of matched sets.
For example, I am sure that I could take a piece of data such as daily temperature and pick a subset of the stock market that happened to correlate with it - something that is likely entirely a figment of the data sets. This is the danger in such studies and it explains why they are NOT in any way the same as a double-blind trial.
Why is this so crazy? Now, I don't actually believe that HAARP has anything to do with this, but HAARP has 3.6 million watts at its disposal, and can concentrate that to achieve an ERP of 5.1 billion watts. If you concentrate enough RF on an electronic device you can screw it up in an almost infinite number of ways.
Well, I think it is hard to generalize the way you have and be correct. I'm sure there are shops like the one you described - managers making much more than the devs, worrying more about their golf handicap than the project timeline. There are plenty of places though where the dev and manager payscales have quite a bit of overlap, where you'll find all of the senior devs making (much) more than the junior managers. I think this is right. At well-run companies there will also be quite a lot of pressure and stress put on the manager, simply because the manager is responsible for the success of every person on the team - so take all the things that can go wrong on the dev side (hit a snag and have to refactor, sick time, etc.) and multiply that by the size of the team. Good managers are also taking the heat for making the inevitable tradeoffs - "yes, we know big client X wants feature Y but we need to keep the release on track." Dealing with VPs several levels up trying to pull the project in different directions is also less than enjoyable.
Managers are also much more vulnerable to politics than individual contributors. You can be a great manager and still get canned if new upper management rolls in and doesn't like you or doesn't think you're the right person for their new policies - or if you get a tough project that doesn't go well and someone needs to be blamed. So, I think part of the compensation difference is because the job is simply riskier.
There is no reason you can't use leverage with something like BitCoins. Example: I pay you X bitcoins, you give me Y shares of GOOG for the next month. If the value of those shares is >X then you have leverage.
Now that is a strong argument that the salicylic acid had no real effect, and that all three went away when your immune system figured out how to combat the virus. I believe the research has shown that most wart removal techniques, including surgery, are no more effective than waiting for it to go away. I think the theory is that eventually your body figures out how to kill the virus but until then, all of the above techniques are of limited value because unless you excise the wart with huge margins, you are still likely to have infected cells ready to begin multiplying again.
The math here is not remotely correct. For one thing, the plumber is not taxed on his income but upon his profits. In fact, typical net margins for businesses are in the 2-8% range, meaning the portion of cost due to tax is as much as 50x lower than you state.
Sadly, the answer is probably "both". If the network is really shoddy, it would be best to fix it. But if the files are "mission critical", then it is worth your time to use a reliable transport even if the network is solid. If three things have to break (network, TCP, plus transport) it will always be more reliable than if only one or two things need go wrong to jeopardize your system. Plus, if you don't validate your data, the kinds of errors that causes can often be really bad, much worse in some cases than something just failing outright.
I think AC has the only correct response to this post. All of the people talking about CRs must not have any experience using FTP over a spotty connection, because it is quite common to run into these kinds of issues, especially on lengthy transfers.
Bonuses are taxed at the same rate as the rest of your income...perhaps you mean that because the bonus is "on top of" your normal income, it is taxed at your marginal rate? In that sense it is at the highest rate you pay, but so is that 5% raise. You can't game the system and get more take-home pay via that method.
What might be confusing the issue is that I believe the IRS has larger withholding requirements for bonus payments, but the withholding is just to make sure you have paid enough by tax time -- if it was set too high you'll get a refund. This makes it look like take-home pay is lower than it really is.
You were right the first time: 220V * 100A = 22000W = $22000 @ $1/W.
Of course, most designs would require a much smaller up-front investment, because you'll run off the grid when you are using the dryer/stove/ironing/AC, but take advantage of cheaper power for the base load (lights, computer, fridge).
That might be one motivation but it is hardly the whole truth. Until recently, banks were required to process the actual pieces of paper, so they needed to physically transfer the checks in order to clear them. Now they use an electronic process, but I'm certain that many small banks have not fully updated their systems yet.
That's really true only if you view the US as a closed system. Rising numbers of degree holders can strain the system and cause realignments in industry, but really more education means that people in the US are more competitive with the rest of the world. History has shown that real wages will rise if such a competitive advantage exists.
There is a commercial implementation of Andrew called DFS (distributed filed system) and sold by IBM. It is mostly used by banks and universities AFAIK due to the mentioned strong integrity and security features.
It IS possible to chuff things up, mainly by making administrative errors.
>That's called the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis and >most linguists have never believed in it. Your >language does not limit your ability to think.
I've read a little bit about this. I think it is intuitively clear that Sapir-Whorf is false; for example, while the Eskimo might have 100+ words for different snow, I can still understand the distinctions even if I lack the vocabulary to express them as clearly as the Eskimo can.
Let me ask you this, though. Even if language doesn't restrict your ability to think, it seems clear to me that language and culture are inseperable. Culture informs language, and language seems to have the power to affect a nation's culture as well in the opposite direction. Is there consensus on this?
I'll give an example here. In Japanese, you need to know your social standing and in-group/out-group relationship relative to your audience in order to speak politely. Though these linguistic features were likely the product of a heirarchical society, don't they now serve as a feedback mechanism that reinforces that culture?
Slashdot Mirror
A good way to think about it is that people have needs. In the case of transport: to get somewhere. This need existed prior to the car. When the car came along and people became aware of its benefits, demand for cars suddenly appeared. So even though there was no demand for the car before its invention, there was a need for a solution to the problem that cars solved.
Your statement about the relative value of income makes sense but is a bit simplified. Typically it is not the exchange rate that is important as much as the purchasing power parity, which also takes into account local costs of living, etc.
You are unlikely to, as well. Apple is famous for the ruthless efficiency of their supply chain, which makes it hard for competitors to even match their hardware at the same price, let alone exceed it or sell it more cheaply.
If you do the DCF analysis you will see that it is expectations of share price appreciation and not dividends that is the source of most of the valuation for many equities. It is only for very stable, slow-growing companies (e.g. utilities) where you can draw a strong connection between dividends and share prices.
It can be hard to believe the impact that advertising has on products, especially consumer packaged goods. For something like a toothbrush, 40-50% of the cost of the toothbrush might be advertising spend. This can seem like a waste, but companies like GM and GE are brand powerhouses because they have spent decades building and maintaining those brands. Sure, everyone knows who GE is today, and probably won't forget about them even if they stopped advertising tomorrow - but every year a new cohort of consumers comes of age, and those people may not have had exposure to the brand. Companies also need advertising to tune their changing image over time - would you buy GE just because they had the most reliable vacuum tubes in the 50s? What you care about today might be entirely different - e.g. the design aesthetic, rather than the reliability that is now a commodity in e.g. radios. And what if GE has a brand new type of product or wants to compete in a new area - how would anyone know that they were an option if they don't advertise?
Good point. I didn't mean to say there was anything wrong with this kind of analysis, just that it isn't the same as a double-blind trial. The GP seemed to be saying it was everything double-blind was and more.
This is not really true. The purpose of a double-blind experiment is to set up a study with a controlled variable and observe the outcome. This is a meta-analysis, which looks at previously gathered data and tries to see if there are interesting patterns. The problem with such analysis is that although "blind" in the sense that it does not influence results, it is not "blind" in the choice of data. Whether intentionally or not, by cherry-picking data it is easy to create associations where none exist. This is further biased by the fact that only positive results are reported - no one writes of all the "no correlation" results they may have found through different choices of matched sets.
For example, I am sure that I could take a piece of data such as daily temperature and pick a subset of the stock market that happened to correlate with it - something that is likely entirely a figment of the data sets. This is the danger in such studies and it explains why they are NOT in any way the same as a double-blind trial.
Why is this so crazy? Now, I don't actually believe that HAARP has anything to do with this, but HAARP has 3.6 million watts at its disposal, and can concentrate that to achieve an ERP of 5.1 billion watts. If you concentrate enough RF on an electronic device you can screw it up in an almost infinite number of ways.
Well, I think it is hard to generalize the way you have and be correct. I'm sure there are shops like the one you described - managers making much more than the devs, worrying more about their golf handicap than the project timeline. There are plenty of places though where the dev and manager payscales have quite a bit of overlap, where you'll find all of the senior devs making (much) more than the junior managers. I think this is right. At well-run companies there will also be quite a lot of pressure and stress put on the manager, simply because the manager is responsible for the success of every person on the team - so take all the things that can go wrong on the dev side (hit a snag and have to refactor, sick time, etc.) and multiply that by the size of the team. Good managers are also taking the heat for making the inevitable tradeoffs - "yes, we know big client X wants feature Y but we need to keep the release on track." Dealing with VPs several levels up trying to pull the project in different directions is also less than enjoyable.
Managers are also much more vulnerable to politics than individual contributors. You can be a great manager and still get canned if new upper management rolls in and doesn't like you or doesn't think you're the right person for their new policies - or if you get a tough project that doesn't go well and someone needs to be blamed. So, I think part of the compensation difference is because the job is simply riskier.
There is no reason you can't use leverage with something like BitCoins. Example: I pay you X bitcoins, you give me Y shares of GOOG for the next month. If the value of those shares is >X then you have leverage.
>Another thing I've wanted to work on is figuring out if P=NP or not.
Always best to start with something small.
Now that is a strong argument that the salicylic acid had no real effect, and that all three went away when your immune system figured out how to combat the virus. I believe the research has shown that most wart removal techniques, including surgery, are no more effective than waiting for it to go away. I think the theory is that eventually your body figures out how to kill the virus but until then, all of the above techniques are of limited value because unless you excise the wart with huge margins, you are still likely to have infected cells ready to begin multiplying again.
The math here is not remotely correct. For one thing, the plumber is not taxed on his income but upon his profits. In fact, typical net margins for businesses are in the 2-8% range, meaning the portion of cost due to tax is as much as 50x lower than you state.
Sadly, the answer is probably "both". If the network is really shoddy, it would be best to fix it. But if the files are "mission critical", then it is worth your time to use a reliable transport even if the network is solid. If three things have to break (network, TCP, plus transport) it will always be more reliable than if only one or two things need go wrong to jeopardize your system. Plus, if you don't validate your data, the kinds of errors that causes can often be really bad, much worse in some cases than something just failing outright.
I think AC has the only correct response to this post. All of the people talking about CRs must not have any experience using FTP over a spotty connection, because it is quite common to run into these kinds of issues, especially on lengthy transfers.
Bonuses are taxed at the same rate as the rest of your income...perhaps you mean that because the bonus is "on top of" your normal income, it is taxed at your marginal rate? In that sense it is at the highest rate you pay, but so is that 5% raise. You can't game the system and get more take-home pay via that method.
What might be confusing the issue is that I believe the IRS has larger withholding requirements for bonus payments, but the withholding is just to make sure you have paid enough by tax time -- if it was set too high you'll get a refund. This makes it look like take-home pay is lower than it really is.
You were right the first time: 220V * 100A = 22000W = $22000 @ $1/W.
Of course, most designs would require a much smaller up-front investment, because you'll run off the grid when you are using the dryer/stove/ironing/AC, but take advantage of cheaper power for the base load (lights, computer, fridge).
Very interesting. Looks like a neat house too!
Looks like people are confusing bits and bytes. 48GB does not appear in the article anywhere, so I assume this is obtained by dividing 384Gb by 8.
24 layers x 16Gb package = 384Gb, so the article itself is consistent.
That might be one motivation but it is hardly the whole truth. Until recently, banks were required to process the actual pieces of paper, so they needed to physically transfer the checks in order to clear them. Now they use an electronic process, but I'm certain that many small banks have not fully updated their systems yet.
It literally means "where is here?" It could have multiple glosses depending on the context.
That's clever reasoning, but the dictionary disagrees with you:
atheist: one who believes that there is no deity
agnostic: one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god
http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/atheist
http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/agnostic
That's really true only if you view the US as a closed system. Rising numbers of degree holders can strain the system and cause realignments in industry, but really more education means that people in the US are more competitive with the rest of the world. History has shown that real wages will rise if such a competitive advantage exists.
There is a commercial implementation of Andrew called DFS (distributed filed system) and sold by IBM. It is mostly used by banks and universities AFAIK due to the mentioned strong integrity and security features.
It IS possible to chuff things up, mainly by making administrative errors.
>That's called the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis and
>most linguists have never believed in it. Your
>language does not limit your ability to think.
I've read a little bit about this. I think it is intuitively clear that Sapir-Whorf is false; for example, while the Eskimo might have 100+ words for different snow, I can still understand the distinctions even if I lack the vocabulary to express them as clearly as the Eskimo can.
Let me ask you this, though. Even if language doesn't restrict your ability to think, it seems clear to me that language and culture are inseperable. Culture informs language, and language seems to have the power to affect a nation's culture as well in the opposite direction. Is there consensus on this?
I'll give an example here. In Japanese, you need to know your social standing and in-group/out-group relationship relative to your audience in order to speak politely. Though these linguistic features were likely the product of a heirarchical society, don't they now serve as a feedback mechanism that reinforces that culture?