I'm sitting at beach.country.pineapple and my co-worker is at closing.rheumatoid.begin. How does that help someone find out if he's 6 feet away or 6000 miles away?
And that's why this is a lame idea. Several comments compare it to the DNS system. Well, with DNS, the user generally does not care where 2 devices are in relation to each other. With geographical location, relation between 2 points (usually where I am and where I want to go) is VERY important.
So they've reduced the signal to a form easier to communicate and remember (compared to long. and lat. coordinates), but removed all usefull information in the process.
Have you not realized that three english words are easier to remember than 12-20 random numbers?
What does that have to do with this disucssion?
In this case, it's the 3 words that are random, vs. (at most) 4 groups of 3 numbers (123.456, 123.456) that's aren't random at all.
The words may be easier to remember, but so what? I can quickly tell you 49.43N, 120.57W is close to 49.43N, 120.43W. How far is "purple.monkey.dishwasher" from "straight.cash.homey"?
It's about ease of vocal communication. I could tell you that I'm at 31.415926N 54.589793W, or I could tell you that I'm at signal.shot.fleet. Which would be easier to send over a voice channel?
Basically, it's the same reason you went to slashdot.org, not to 216.34.181.45. Words are easier than numbers for people to use.
And then what? If you send me longitude and latitude coordinates, I can tell how far away you are form me. I can tell what things are close to you.
If you let me to know to meet you at "signal.shot.fleet"...ok. Now what? Is that north of where I am? Do I take the highway? It's just a random sequence. I'm at "signal.shot.enterprise". Does that mean I'm in the next 3x3 block? The next county over? The other side of the world? You haven't transmitted any actual information.
Yes, it's easier and shorter to communicate than map coordinates or a street address with city, state, provence, etc, but you've made the communication easier by removing all the information from the signal.
As others have said here, it's so stupid there's no this isn't the biggest thing by next week.
Because most people can't remember a long string of numbers but they can easily remember three english words. It is the same reason people don't carry around 128-bit AES keys in their head, even though it would make for much better security.
And that's why phone numbers never made it in to common use.
Oh wait, they did. Because while most people have trouble with a long series of unrelated digits, such as with an AES key, they generally can remember short strings of related digits.
So remembering your location to a reasonable level of precision involves at most 10 digits: a group of 3 + group of 2 for latitude and a group of 3 + group of 2 for longitude, such as 41.43,-75.67.
And then you not only know where you are, you can divine details such as 41 is between 42 and 44. Latitude and longitude gives you an idea of the distance between two points and what things are nearby. A sustem of 3 random words tells you nothing. "Purple Monkey Dishwasher"--is that where you are? is it next door? is it the other side of the world? There's no (systematic) way to know!
The individuals at HBO entered into a conspiracy to not engage in proper do diligence before making fraudulent DMCA claims. That was part of HBO's structure and as such the following penalties shall be applied institutionally ______________. Individually the following individuals are to be convicted of misdemeanor fraud...
I would rather have a used BMW than a new KIA any day. Besides most pure electronics don't wear out the way machanical things do. My old Apple II still works fine, as does my Icom 745 HF rig from the mid 80's.
Interesting point, but I disagree 100%. I'd rather have the new Kia. BMWs are over-engineered, making them more likely to have issues and more expensive to repair then they need to be. Kia may not be stylish, but they are going to be reliable. Everyone I know with a BMW loves driving it, hates maintaining it.
For real home use (assuming OP isn't running a gold mining sweat shop out of the basement) home-market devices do great. Going with enterprise-level gear just gets you enterprise-level support headaches.
I'll echo what others have said: before buying any more routers--at any level--OP needs to figure out where the issues are coming from. I suspect at this point spending more for enterprise-level equipment will just mean more money lost when the thing dies in a year.
I've been going with Netgear for home routers since before WiFi was even a thing, when I was running Cat5 to get rooms networked. Every 3 to 4 years I upgrade to the latest and greatest to get new features. I've never had one fail before I chose to replace it. I'm on my 5th or 6th generation.
Bad capacitors aside, something is going on with the OP and it ain't the devices. (And if it is the devices, and OP is just unlucky and gets the runt of every liter, isn't that just more reason to avoid more expensive equipment?)
Besides most pure electronics don't wear out the way machanical things do.
Congratulations, you just proved that you ignored the central tenet of the parent comment, assuming you understood it to begin with. Based on the complexity of your comment, I'll go ahead and assume that you're capable of it. Perhaps I should be charitable, and assume you only missed it?
I'll grant you the same charity.:)
My point is tax-funded research is not a panacea. I am not anti-tax-funded research. I am actually quite pro-fax-funded research. But while tax funds are appropriate for basic research, it is not the best path to getting products to market where they can benefit people.
I'll put it this way: how did this conversation start? With the patent system. So now the argument you and the OP are making is that the solution is to turn over all research and development to the same ridiculous system of politics and lobbyists that gave us our current patent system?
I got your point. I understand your point. Your point is wrong.
I think pretending any attempt at conversation is an assault on business's rights to make money is disingenuous
But then you say,
IMHO, there is something sociopathic about one's business model being to make money on the suffering of others
You could argue calling someone sociopathic isn't an assault, but I'd say you were being disingenuous.
I work for a biomedical company. We make money on the suffering of others. We make money because other people are sick. We didn't cause that sickness, and I'm sure most of us would happily find other work if the diseases we treat didn't exist, and we'd love to be in the business of selling cures rather than treatments, but it is what it is.
If the business aspect and the profits and the patents were removed and access to our products was a right, our treatments would not be any cheaper. In fact they'd be infinitely more expensive, because they'd likely not exist.
These ideas--that intellectual property and patents are wrong and represent some social injustice--aren't just wrong, they're dangerous. First, these swords cut both ways. I am a strong believer in government funding for basic research. The same IP laws the private sector uses to build businesses and make profit are also necessary for We The People to get credit for the discoveries and inventions we pay for.
Second, as a practical matter, history tells us this system (in a larger sense) works. Look at the industrial revolution. Why were some areas rich with invention and progress and others not? The necessary factors included access to raw materials such as iron ore and energy sources such as coal, but another large factor was a strong IP system. In cultures where innovation is rewarded with profit, we see more innovation.
The patent system specifically as it exists today certainly has many issues. But what we have is still better than no patent system at all.
Patents make sure that anyone with a better idea (perhaps someone could come up with a way to make healthcare more affordable while still making money??) is not able to actually compete. What about the right of the entrepreneur to establish a new business? Why is everything always framed in the established businesses, rather than the people prevented from creating businesses (and jobs)?
I think you have that backwards. Large corporations certainly have twisted the patent system to serve the status quo and reduce the rewards of independent innovation, but that's a political problem. We can cover that in a discussion of lobbyists and role of private money in politics.
Let's say the patent system was weakened or removed entirely. Does that make it more likely the entrepreneur can establish a new business model? Does that make it easier for the new-comer? Easier to complete with the established company that already has the brand recognition, already has the manufacturing capabilities, already has the distribution network, already has the agreements for shelf space with retailers?
The solution for protecting the independent entrepreneur from established businesses is a stronger patent system, not a weaker one.
I think patents should be for non-obvious, working implementations of novel ideas--inventions, not discoveries. Something that already exists by definition fails the "novel" test. This includes human DNA. Invent a new way to manipulate DNA to diagnose genetic issues? That might be worthy of a patent. Discover something in gene X causes disease Y? No patent.
How about we agree that if current business models are not working, we try to allow new ones to take over?
You want better, more affordable, more accessible health case? Forget patents. Even if I grant your assessment of the patent system, you have a loooooong list of issues to address that are having bigger impacts on health case costs. Start with insurance companies and the way prices for health services are determined.
But that covers issues with existing treatments and services. You want better health care through innovation? Then you should embrace the patent system. It can be better and should be stronger.
I don't dispute anything you say, however, I don't see where, in anything you say, it points to the Vatican being in charge of the local church in Boston or in Oregon. I am using the term local the way the catholic church does to mean the actual diocese, not the physical parish, which is the way you use it in your last sentence.
My point is not that those example show the Vatican is in charge in Boston or Oregon, but that those examples show the Vatican will freely change its interpretation of what it controls based on the situation and expediency of the institution, not needs of the people.
The Vatican did refuse to let US bishops resign so that they had to clean up the mess they created
Right. Just like with Bernard Law.
The goal of power is power. There is no underlying philosophy or system of beliefs. Just like Republicans and the "southern strategy." It's not that a majority of Republicans were racists, but that they recognized rather than fight with the Dems over the minority vote, they could win pandering to whites who felt threatened by the civil rights movement.
I don't think the Vatican is made up of a large number of pedophiles or that covering up past crimes is based on some interpretation of the bible. At any point those in power will do what they think will maintain and grow that power.
If it fits their narrative to say the pope appoints bishops but has no direct authority over priests, then that is their story and they'll stick to it.
I guaranty if it ever fit the pope's purpose to have direct control over priests, he'll find an excuse to make it so. For example, does the pope have direct control over nuns?
Contrary to popular belief, the Vatican doesn't control what happens in the local dioceses. The Vatican did refuse to let US bishops resign so that they had to clean up the mess they created and it also issued instructions to cooperate with the authorities on the investigations (at the time various US bishops were hiding behind "church law").
I gotta call B.S. on that. Who controls what in the Catholic Church seems very fluid and based on what is in the best interest of the Church at that moment.
A few years ago areas around Boston, MA went through a period of church closure and consolidation. When neighborhood churches closed, folks wanted donation returned. They had donated to their local church with the intention of those donations being used in the neighborhood. Those requests were refused on the basis of those donations being made to the larger Church, even if they were made through the local organization, and all church property ultimately belonging to the parent organization.
At the same time, the Church had lost a civil suit in Oregon over covering up the little kiddie rape problem. The Archdiocese claimed it didn't have any way to pay the judgement because the resources of the Church are actually owned and controlled by the local churches.
One place I worked at recently, the users had almost totally lost confidence in the ticket system. It required me to have comprehensive personal followup on tickets for a solid year before people started trusting the system again. Techs in charge of the queue were summarily deleting vague or "cannot reproduce" tickets with not so much as a response. Tickets were also silently closed whenever a tech though they had fixed the issue. (several tickets had been freshly ressubmitted over a dozen times because the tech didn't understand the user's problem and thought he had fixed it and the user was just too dumb to realize it) Tickets that had several dups in the system from the same user or few users were deleted en mass just to clear the clutter. ("if it's still a problem I'm sure they'll submit another ticket shortly") It was terrible. They had conditioned users to submit duplicates almost daily until they thought their problem had been fixed.
Overall a great comment, but I'm puzzled by "the user was just too dumb to realize it." Chances are the user realizes exactly what is going on in that situation. Techs are closing tickets without resolving issues due to either laziness or metrics which grade them on closing tickets and not on resolving issues.
With globalization and out-sourcing, walking over to the support team and standing over someone until your issue gets attention isn't an option. Then systems are put in place so submitting a ticket is the only avenue of communication for the user. When you make sure the only tool the user can access is a hammer, you can't complain when they treat everything like a nail.
The rest of your comment addresses issues within the support team and ticketing system that lead to duplicate tickets, so perhaps you meant dumb as in insane as in repeating the same action (creating a ticket) and expecting a different outcome.
To a large extent the issue of bug reports from users can be summed up as "garbage in, garbage out." You want more detail than "it doesn't work"? OK, then how much detail do you give users in your error messages? And I mean plain language messages end users can understand. Displaying the memory address of a misbehaving bit is very detailed, but not something you should expect the end user to remember or communicate.
For getting better context for issues or steps for recreation, how good are your instructions? Can the user include in a bug report, "I was performing procedure A and get the error on step 27"? If not, then don't expect that level of detail from the user. For one, most people don't have an active (and accurate) buffer of the last 5 or 10 things they did. What were you doing 3 steps before the error? Well, I didn't know an error was coming, and so I didn't know the thing I did 3 steps before was going to be important, and so I have a general idea of what I was trying to do, but I don't have the exact steps documented.
Also in many instances it is not practical for the user to try to recreate the issue. If it's an eCommerce system, I'm not going to repeatably submit an order trying to come up with a reproducible sequence to get an error and risk getting charged multiple times. There are many systems subject to regulatory and audit oversight where creating test records or dummy data is not acceptable. So, do give your users access to a non-production system where they can recreate their issue without affecting real data? If not, you're limiting their ability to provide that level of detail.
I'm not saying the issues are all on the technical side. I've been on the support side and seen the "it's not working" reports where the user doesn't even specify which application isn't working (let alone which feature or option). But there is a lot the technical side can do to provide the users with the tools to submit useful bug reports.
I say that as someone who does not schmooze...Roughly every other month I send an invite to bunch of people I know in my area to meet at a bar or tavern.
I got news for you: that's schmoozing.
And if you're a programmer or developer and not self-employed, it absolutely 100% IS part of your job.
So if you're a programmer and you're not self-employed, then throwing regular parties for business contacts is part of your job? Yeah... I don't think so. It might be a smart thing to do, but it's not your job. If you're a programmer and you're not self-employed, then your job is to program. If you *are* self-employed, I could see a better argument that schmoozing is part of your job.
Or else, what's the implication here? Programmers who don't throw parties for you aren't doing their jobs? So if I interview someone that hasn't invited me to parties and won't invite me to parties, I shouldn't hire him even if he's a brilliant and productive programmer? If I employ such a programmer, I should fire him, because he's not doing his job?
I don't imagine you'd actually say that, but that's what it means when you say, "it absolutely 100% IS part of your job."
Where did you get the idea I throw parties? I basically send out an email with "I'm having a drink at this bar on this day. Feel free to join me." I say I don't schmooze because every time I do this, my only hope is either no one or more than 2 other people show up so I'm not left 1-on-1 to try to carry a conversation.
(I don't consider that throwing a party.)
As for the "it absolutely 100% IS part of your job," that has nothing to do with going out for drinks. What it does have to do with it, WHAT are you programming?
"If you're a programmer and you're not self-employed, then your job is to program." OK, what are you programming? What's your user interface? Any data interfaces with other systems? Who's testing this code you produce? Who's maintaining it? Any government or regulatory requirements you need to meet? What are the coding standards you need to keep?
If you work for yourself in a 1-person shop, then maybe you get away with programming without social interaction. If you're programming for someone else, it's a fair assumption interactions with other people will come in to the picture at some point. (I'm talking about programming. When it comes to sales, yes, working for yourself is likely to involve more sales interactions than as a programmer employee.)
A programmer who isn't talking to other people to get requirements isn't doing the job. A programmer who doesn't communicate with customers isn't doing the job. A programmer who isn't talking with other people on the team isn't doing the job.
The implication is, if you just keep your head down and churn out code, 1) how do you know you're churning out the right code? And 2) you risk ending up like the OP, where you think you have this long history of great accomplishment, but no one in any position to help you professionally knows about it.
Dismissing their magic is very different than dismissing their potential for dirty tricks. That madman staggering toward you with a knife babbling about the New World Order and lizard people? He's still got a knife.
And that's not so bad. It doesn't mean your bad at your job. It doesn't make you a deficient human being. On the contrary, it might mean that you're more interested in doing your job than on climbing the ladder. Frankly, the world would probably be a better place if more focus were placed on doing your current job properly, and less on attaining the next promotion.
But I guess people don't like to hear that, and businesses don't really value people who do their jobs.
This response and others like it remind of the post in the Online Presence thread, "I don't do twitter and facebook," as if those were the only aspects of online presence.
Networking is not just "schmoozing" and not always about climbing the corporate ladder. And if you're a programmer or developer and not self-employed, it absolutely 100% IS part of your job.
Addressing the later point first, where do your requirements come from? Who is testing your software? Who's going to maintain it? If you have a job or are looking for a job, getting to know your customers (aka people) is part of doing your job. Ignoring the social aspect of software development is a great way to produce crappy software.
To the point of networking not being a natural skill, or coming at the expense of your current position or life outside of work, it's not that hard. And I say that as someone who does not schmooze, does not make small talk well, has never picked up someone in a bar, has never left a plane or train or bus knowing someone I did not know when I got on that plane/train/bus. What I do is this:
Roughly every other month I send an invite to bunch of people I know in my area to meet at a bar or tavern. I don't take a poll on what night is good everyone. I don't triangulate the best location based on where everyone is working now. I pick a time and place that 1) is good for me, and 2) I expect to not be busy, so I don't have to worry about reservations. That way I don't have to track responses and worry about people who accept the invitation and then no-show.
It's clear anyone is free to forward the invite to anyone else they know. Combine that rule with a few rounds of lay-offs and natural employee mobility, and I now have contacts at pretty much every major employer in my area. The only other "rule" is, folks who accept the invitation and don't show are off the list.
Back to the OP's question: there's a good chance there's something missing from the question. If you do good work for a long period of time, you will get noticed and will have opportunities to work. Are there shops out there with mindless HR that reject candidates for lacking unimportant criteria? Yes. Are there managers who will reject a candidate for lacking a degree or even a degree from the wrong school? Yes. But those are the exceptions.
My wife has no degree--didn't even finish her first semester at college--and is very antisocial. She does not schmooze, she does not golf, she does not suffer fools (FSM only knows how she puts up with me). And yet she has unsolicited job offers coming to her. She's been doing software QA for about 12 years and does good work. Again through lay-offs and employee mobility, there are people at many companies in the area who have worked with her and know her by reputation.
I wonder if the OP's long track record of success is as long or as successful as we're being told. The traditional hiring process is all about getting your foot in the door. A good resume with an impressive degree is one way of doing that. Having someone on the inside who knows you and your work is a better way of doing that.
Are people so trained on sub-par, cheap Asian electronics that there's an expectation of suckage on a device that "only" costs $99 ? Is $99 the new throwaway price, where you use something, expect it to fail, then go buy another one? It's the Walmart generation I guess.
Different features set doesn't mean "suckage" or "throwaway." Do you expect the Rav4 to have the same features and capacity as a Land Cruiser? I don't. That doesn't mean if I bought a new Rav4 I'd expect it to quickly fail, and I'd ust buy another one when it does. It means, when I pay less than one third the price, I expect to get to less.
Likewise, the folks that expect less from a $99 console than they'd expect from a $400 console don't necessarily expect the cheaper one to be disposable or "sub-par, cheap Asian electronics." They're just realistic.
If he's submitting code as his own containing a copyright notice changed by a new developer, what other changes in the code is subby passing off as his own work?
This whole situation is very sketchy. I've kept samples of code I've done for previous employers as a portfolio, but I wouldn't take code done after I passed off the project to another developer.
Unless subby has a personal relationship with someone still with the former employer and has reason to think this "put the situation right" thing might happen, contacting the former employer is a very wrong move. "Hi, I used to work there...and I've been using code written after I left to get new jobs. Think you can take the new dev's name out of the comments?"
Any reason to think that conversation goes well?
Now this is grey territory as it the client who owns the source...
the alleged "benefits" of the Fifth Amendment apply equally to the innocent and guilty, or disproportionately favor the guilty. Yes, it's harder for the state to get a conviction if you're allowed to remain silent and no inferences can be made from that, and yes, that will benefit some innocent people who refuse to speak to the government as a matter of deeply held principle, but it's going to benefit guilty people at least as often who just don't want to be caught in a lie. As I said, if you want to benefit all criminal defendants equally, you could just roll a dice and acquit whenever it comes up a 6. In terms of helping the innocent vs. helping the guilty, the right to silence scores even worse than that, since it disproportionately benefits the guilty (who might make a mistake while coming up with an alibi).
And that is why you fail.
1) At the point the right against self-incrimination comes in to play, THERE ARE NO GUILTY. There are only accused. And yes, rights afforded us folks in the USA should apply to all accused. I wholly reject the notion that our rights are somehow invalid or unwarranted because they might lead to a failure to convict.
2) How does rolling a die and acquitting whenever it comes up 6 benefit all defendants equally? Assuming a 20-sided die, I'd say that system would benefit about 5% of defendants more than it benefits the rest.
3) This point is partially a restatement of my first point, but for emphasis, and in SW development terms, applying equally to the innocent and the guilty is a feature not a bug. Rights should apply equally to the innocent and the guilty.
4) Your idea of "outcome is better" is ridiculous (as in worthy of ridicule). The implication is a scenario where an individual who breaks the law and is acquitted in an individual trial is a worse outcome. Not that this is a better outcome--it is an irrelevant outcome. The outcome at stake here is the functioning of our society and justice system. If you're looking for microscopic examples of specific scenarios of individual court cases to support/disprove your argument, you're missing the point. The rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights are principles to be enacted on a societal level. The positive outcome is, while the bad guy might "get away with it," we all live in a free society.
5) You miss the point (as many do) of the Bill of Rights. It's not to protect us from each other--no government can reasonably do that. It's to protect us from the government. So the idea of a right that benefits the innocent or guilty equally is a right we don't need is a complete FAIL. I'd go so far as to say the exact opposite. It's the accused who needs MORE rights, who is in need of MORE protection from the government.
6) The blanket dismissal of false confessions shows an extraordinary degree of ignorance of current events. I'm not talking about history of the American Revolution and the conditions that led to witting of the Bill of Rights. I'm not talking about Constitutional and US legal history. I'd talking "ripped from the headlines" type stuff. The prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment is extremely vague. Apparently techniques which were considered torture in the 1940s, are now acceptable.
7) The question shows an ignorance of how the justice system works. The assumption is the person who didn't do anything illegal would just say, I didn't do it, while the person who knows he/she did something illegal would invoke the right. Saying, I didn't do it, is not the same as not answering the question.
Just going back to the McCarthy example, I reject a) the premise that "if it hampers all law enforcement efforts equally" it is a bad thing. I reject b) the premise that if "it would if "help" all other criminal defendants, too, most people would consider it a silly idea."
I think subby breaks his own rules by introducing the concept of an unjust law. You can't use that as a defense. You can't walk in to court and say, I did it, but doing it should
I mean, if anything it should be better, it's much easier to vet and eliminate chicks online. If they send a message 'how r u 2day??' you know to move on. I met my wife online and have been married for 3 years.
And the broads know, if the guy refers to them as "chicks" they move on.;)
I met my wife on a MUD 20 years ago and we've been married for 10.
It is still a retarded question. He has a MacBook. MacBooks have Thunderbolt. There are adapters for Thunderbolt -> DVI, Thunderbolt ->VGA, Thunderbolt -> HDMI. Which means he can use pretty much any monitor in existence. The only thing that determines whether it is "portable" or not, is the size of his backpack. So basically his question is: "Can someone tell me how big my backpack is?"
I am fairly confident that by portable, he means he wants it to fit in a large laptop bag along with a laptop, a few papers/books, and likely a tablet. A convenient stand would also likely be a requirement, or the ability for it to flip open like a laptop. Being powered by USB would be nice, but probably not a requirement.
So the question isn't, "can someone tell me how big my backpack is?" It's "Can someone tell me how big my laptop bag is?"
May be I don't move my computer set-ups enough, but I don't get the issue this questions is trying to address. In the age of thin LCD monitors, the screens on my desk are thin, light, and require 2 cables--1 signal, 1 power. How would a "portable" monitor be different?
1 cable instead of 2? If you compare the 30 seconds to plug in a cable vs. the hours spent looking at the monitor, it's doesn't make sense to sacrifice resolution or size just to get USB powered.
The best bet for size/mass per image size is a projector.
While births indeed should mean insertions in to the database, deaths should not be deletions. They should be updating the Living flag to 'N' and populating the Date of Death and Cause of Death fields.
They're going to want reports and stats not just on the current living animals. I didn't RTFA ('natch) but if they missed that requirement, what else have they overlooked?
Problem? Worse? This is twitter we're talking about right?
If sending an unencrypted email is like sending a postcard (kids, ask your parents) in pencil, twitter is like a sign you stick in your lawn.
Anyone can drive by and stick a sign in your lawn, make it look like you support any cause, or take any sign you've put out.
Now if people put undue weight to those signs, it they swing the markets, then the issue--the problem--is people who don't know the difference between reliable and unreliable sources.
The problem isn't twitter, it's employees in the media and so-called journalists who'd rather sit on their bum checking their cell phone than go out and do their job.
Most of GameStop's profits come from used game sales. They make next to no profit on new games--that money goes almost wholly to the publisher. Reselling used games, especially recent ones, permits much higher profits. A new game is $60. While GameStop doesn't publish their trade-in prices, from what I can tell they pay $20 or less for all used games, and most games are going to pull in $10 or less. So, that $60 game you sold back to GameStop for (generously) $20, they will resell for $55. That's a quick and easy $35 profit for them.
Who buys a used game when a new game is less than 10% more? I often buy used (games, books, cars, houses), but I expect a discount for picking up someone else's cast off--more in the range of 30 to 40%, at least.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm sitting at beach.country.pineapple and my co-worker is at closing.rheumatoid.begin. How does that help someone find out if he's 6 feet away or 6000 miles away?
And that's why this is a lame idea. Several comments compare it to the DNS system. Well, with DNS, the user generally does not care where 2 devices are in relation to each other. With geographical location, relation between 2 points (usually where I am and where I want to go) is VERY important.
So they've reduced the signal to a form easier to communicate and remember (compared to long. and lat. coordinates), but removed all usefull information in the process.
Have you not realized that three english words are easier to remember than 12-20 random numbers?
What does that have to do with this disucssion?
In this case, it's the 3 words that are random, vs. (at most) 4 groups of 3 numbers (123.456, 123.456) that's aren't random at all.
The words may be easier to remember, but so what? I can quickly tell you 49.43N, 120.57W is close to 49.43N, 120.43W. How far is "purple.monkey.dishwasher" from "straight.cash.homey"?
It's about ease of vocal communication. I could tell you that I'm at 31.415926N 54.589793W, or I could tell you that I'm at signal.shot.fleet. Which would be easier to send over a voice channel?
Basically, it's the same reason you went to slashdot.org, not to 216.34.181.45. Words are easier than numbers for people to use.
And then what? If you send me longitude and latitude coordinates, I can tell how far away you are form me. I can tell what things are close to you.
If you let me to know to meet you at "signal.shot.fleet"...ok. Now what? Is that north of where I am? Do I take the highway? It's just a random sequence. I'm at "signal.shot.enterprise". Does that mean I'm in the next 3x3 block? The next county over? The other side of the world? You haven't transmitted any actual information.
Yes, it's easier and shorter to communicate than map coordinates or a street address with city, state, provence, etc, but you've made the communication easier by removing all the information from the signal.
As others have said here, it's so stupid there's no this isn't the biggest thing by next week.
Because most people can't remember a long string of numbers but they can easily remember three english words. It is the same reason people don't carry around 128-bit AES keys in their head, even though it would make for much better security.
And that's why phone numbers never made it in to common use.
Oh wait, they did. Because while most people have trouble with a long series of unrelated digits, such as with an AES key, they generally can remember short strings of related digits.
So remembering your location to a reasonable level of precision involves at most 10 digits: a group of 3 + group of 2 for latitude and a group of 3 + group of 2 for longitude, such as 41.43,-75.67.
And then you not only know where you are, you can divine details such as 41 is between 42 and 44. Latitude and longitude gives you an idea of the distance between two points and what things are nearby. A sustem of 3 random words tells you nothing. "Purple Monkey Dishwasher"--is that where you are? is it next door? is it the other side of the world? There's no (systematic) way to know!
I see no use for this 3 word system.
The individuals at HBO entered into a conspiracy to not engage in proper do diligence before making fraudulent DMCA claims. That was part of HBO's structure and as such the following penalties shall be applied institutionally ______________. Individually the following individuals are to be convicted of misdemeanor fraud ...
do diligence?
I would rather have a used BMW than a new KIA any day. Besides most pure electronics don't wear out the way machanical things do. My old Apple II still works fine, as does my Icom 745 HF rig from the mid 80's.
Interesting point, but I disagree 100%. I'd rather have the new Kia. BMWs are over-engineered, making them more likely to have issues and more expensive to repair then they need to be. Kia may not be stylish, but they are going to be reliable. Everyone I know with a BMW loves driving it, hates maintaining it.
For real home use (assuming OP isn't running a gold mining sweat shop out of the basement) home-market devices do great. Going with enterprise-level gear just gets you enterprise-level support headaches.
I'll echo what others have said: before buying any more routers--at any level--OP needs to figure out where the issues are coming from. I suspect at this point spending more for enterprise-level equipment will just mean more money lost when the thing dies in a year.
I've been going with Netgear for home routers since before WiFi was even a thing, when I was running Cat5 to get rooms networked. Every 3 to 4 years I upgrade to the latest and greatest to get new features. I've never had one fail before I chose to replace it. I'm on my 5th or 6th generation.
Bad capacitors aside, something is going on with the OP and it ain't the devices. (And if it is the devices, and OP is just unlucky and gets the runt of every liter, isn't that just more reason to avoid more expensive equipment?)
Besides most pure electronics don't wear out the way machanical things do.
So why is the OP going through routers so fast?
Congratulations, you just proved that you ignored the central tenet of the parent comment, assuming you understood it to begin with. Based on the complexity of your comment, I'll go ahead and assume that you're capable of it. Perhaps I should be charitable, and assume you only missed it?
I'll grant you the same charity. :)
My point is tax-funded research is not a panacea. I am not anti-tax-funded research. I am actually quite pro-fax-funded research. But while tax funds are appropriate for basic research, it is not the best path to getting products to market where they can benefit people.
I'll put it this way: how did this conversation start? With the patent system. So now the argument you and the OP are making is that the solution is to turn over all research and development to the same ridiculous system of politics and lobbyists that gave us our current patent system?
I got your point. I understand your point. Your point is wrong.
I think pretending any attempt at conversation is an assault on business's rights to make money is disingenuous
But then you say,
IMHO, there is something sociopathic about one's business model being to make money on the suffering of others
You could argue calling someone sociopathic isn't an assault, but I'd say you were being disingenuous.
I work for a biomedical company. We make money on the suffering of others. We make money because other people are sick. We didn't cause that sickness, and I'm sure most of us would happily find other work if the diseases we treat didn't exist, and we'd love to be in the business of selling cures rather than treatments, but it is what it is.
If the business aspect and the profits and the patents were removed and access to our products was a right, our treatments would not be any cheaper. In fact they'd be infinitely more expensive, because they'd likely not exist.
These ideas--that intellectual property and patents are wrong and represent some social injustice--aren't just wrong, they're dangerous. First, these swords cut both ways. I am a strong believer in government funding for basic research. The same IP laws the private sector uses to build businesses and make profit are also necessary for We The People to get credit for the discoveries and inventions we pay for.
Second, as a practical matter, history tells us this system (in a larger sense) works. Look at the industrial revolution. Why were some areas rich with invention and progress and others not? The necessary factors included access to raw materials such as iron ore and energy sources such as coal, but another large factor was a strong IP system. In cultures where innovation is rewarded with profit, we see more innovation.
The patent system specifically as it exists today certainly has many issues. But what we have is still better than no patent system at all.
Patents make sure that anyone with a better idea (perhaps someone could come up with a way to make healthcare more affordable while still making money??) is not able to actually compete. What about the right of the entrepreneur to establish a new business? Why is everything always framed in the established businesses, rather than the people prevented from creating businesses (and jobs)?
I think you have that backwards. Large corporations certainly have twisted the patent system to serve the status quo and reduce the rewards of independent innovation, but that's a political problem. We can cover that in a discussion of lobbyists and role of private money in politics.
Let's say the patent system was weakened or removed entirely. Does that make it more likely the entrepreneur can establish a new business model? Does that make it easier for the new-comer? Easier to complete with the established company that already has the brand recognition, already has the manufacturing capabilities, already has the distribution network, already has the agreements for shelf space with retailers?
The solution for protecting the independent entrepreneur from established businesses is a stronger patent system, not a weaker one.
I think patents should be for non-obvious, working implementations of novel ideas--inventions, not discoveries. Something that already exists by definition fails the "novel" test. This includes human DNA. Invent a new way to manipulate DNA to diagnose genetic issues? That might be worthy of a patent. Discover something in gene X causes disease Y? No patent.
How about we agree that if current business models are not working, we try to allow new ones to take over?
You want better, more affordable, more accessible health case? Forget patents. Even if I grant your assessment of the patent system, you have a loooooong list of issues to address that are having bigger impacts on health case costs. Start with insurance companies and the way prices for health services are determined.
But that covers issues with existing treatments and services. You want better health care through innovation? Then you should embrace the patent system. It can be better and should be stronger.
I don't dispute anything you say, however, I don't see where, in anything you say, it points to the Vatican being in charge of the local church in Boston or in Oregon. I am using the term local the way the catholic church does to mean the actual diocese, not the physical parish, which is the way you use it in your last sentence.
My point is not that those example show the Vatican is in charge in Boston or Oregon, but that those examples show the Vatican will freely change its interpretation of what it controls based on the situation and expediency of the institution, not needs of the people.
The Vatican did refuse to let US bishops resign so that they had to clean up the mess they created
Right. Just like with Bernard Law.
The goal of power is power. There is no underlying philosophy or system of beliefs. Just like Republicans and the "southern strategy." It's not that a majority of Republicans were racists, but that they recognized rather than fight with the Dems over the minority vote, they could win pandering to whites who felt threatened by the civil rights movement.
I don't think the Vatican is made up of a large number of pedophiles or that covering up past crimes is based on some interpretation of the bible. At any point those in power will do what they think will maintain and grow that power.
If it fits their narrative to say the pope appoints bishops but has no direct authority over priests, then that is their story and they'll stick to it.
I guaranty if it ever fit the pope's purpose to have direct control over priests, he'll find an excuse to make it so. For example, does the pope have direct control over nuns?
Contrary to popular belief, the Vatican doesn't control what happens in the local dioceses. The Vatican did refuse to let US bishops resign so that they had to clean up the mess they created and it also issued instructions to cooperate with the authorities on the investigations (at the time various US bishops were hiding behind "church law").
I gotta call B.S. on that. Who controls what in the Catholic Church seems very fluid and based on what is in the best interest of the Church at that moment.
A few years ago areas around Boston, MA went through a period of church closure and consolidation. When neighborhood churches closed, folks wanted donation returned. They had donated to their local church with the intention of those donations being used in the neighborhood. Those requests were refused on the basis of those donations being made to the larger Church, even if they were made through the local organization, and all church property ultimately belonging to the parent organization.
At the same time, the Church had lost a civil suit in Oregon over covering up the little kiddie rape problem. The Archdiocese claimed it didn't have any way to pay the judgement because the resources of the Church are actually owned and controlled by the local churches.
One place I worked at recently, the users had almost totally lost confidence in the ticket system. It required me to have comprehensive personal followup on tickets for a solid year before people started trusting the system again. Techs in charge of the queue were summarily deleting vague or "cannot reproduce" tickets with not so much as a response. Tickets were also silently closed whenever a tech though they had fixed the issue. (several tickets had been freshly ressubmitted over a dozen times because the tech didn't understand the user's problem and thought he had fixed it and the user was just too dumb to realize it) Tickets that had several dups in the system from the same user or few users were deleted en mass just to clear the clutter. ("if it's still a problem I'm sure they'll submit another ticket shortly") It was terrible. They had conditioned users to submit duplicates almost daily until they thought their problem had been fixed.
Overall a great comment, but I'm puzzled by "the user was just too dumb to realize it." Chances are the user realizes exactly what is going on in that situation. Techs are closing tickets without resolving issues due to either laziness or metrics which grade them on closing tickets and not on resolving issues.
With globalization and out-sourcing, walking over to the support team and standing over someone until your issue gets attention isn't an option. Then systems are put in place so submitting a ticket is the only avenue of communication for the user. When you make sure the only tool the user can access is a hammer, you can't complain when they treat everything like a nail.
The rest of your comment addresses issues within the support team and ticketing system that lead to duplicate tickets, so perhaps you meant dumb as in insane as in repeating the same action (creating a ticket) and expecting a different outcome.
To a large extent the issue of bug reports from users can be summed up as "garbage in, garbage out." You want more detail than "it doesn't work"? OK, then how much detail do you give users in your error messages? And I mean plain language messages end users can understand. Displaying the memory address of a misbehaving bit is very detailed, but not something you should expect the end user to remember or communicate.
For getting better context for issues or steps for recreation, how good are your instructions? Can the user include in a bug report, "I was performing procedure A and get the error on step 27"? If not, then don't expect that level of detail from the user. For one, most people don't have an active (and accurate) buffer of the last 5 or 10 things they did. What were you doing 3 steps before the error? Well, I didn't know an error was coming, and so I didn't know the thing I did 3 steps before was going to be important, and so I have a general idea of what I was trying to do, but I don't have the exact steps documented.
Also in many instances it is not practical for the user to try to recreate the issue. If it's an eCommerce system, I'm not going to repeatably submit an order trying to come up with a reproducible sequence to get an error and risk getting charged multiple times. There are many systems subject to regulatory and audit oversight where creating test records or dummy data is not acceptable. So, do give your users access to a non-production system where they can recreate their issue without affecting real data? If not, you're limiting their ability to provide that level of detail.
I'm not saying the issues are all on the technical side. I've been on the support side and seen the "it's not working" reports where the user doesn't even specify which application isn't working (let alone which feature or option). But there is a lot the technical side can do to provide the users with the tools to submit useful bug reports.
It's not like he was asking for anything of value in return.
I say that as someone who does not schmooze...Roughly every other month I send an invite to bunch of people I know in my area to meet at a bar or tavern.
I got news for you: that's schmoozing.
And if you're a programmer or developer and not self-employed, it absolutely 100% IS part of your job.
So if you're a programmer and you're not self-employed, then throwing regular parties for business contacts is part of your job? Yeah... I don't think so. It might be a smart thing to do, but it's not your job. If you're a programmer and you're not self-employed, then your job is to program. If you *are* self-employed, I could see a better argument that schmoozing is part of your job.
Or else, what's the implication here? Programmers who don't throw parties for you aren't doing their jobs? So if I interview someone that hasn't invited me to parties and won't invite me to parties, I shouldn't hire him even if he's a brilliant and productive programmer? If I employ such a programmer, I should fire him, because he's not doing his job?
I don't imagine you'd actually say that, but that's what it means when you say, "it absolutely 100% IS part of your job."
Where did you get the idea I throw parties? I basically send out an email with "I'm having a drink at this bar on this day. Feel free to join me." I say I don't schmooze because every time I do this, my only hope is either no one or more than 2 other people show up so I'm not left 1-on-1 to try to carry a conversation.
(I don't consider that throwing a party.)
As for the "it absolutely 100% IS part of your job," that has nothing to do with going out for drinks. What it does have to do with it, WHAT are you programming?
"If you're a programmer and you're not self-employed, then your job is to program." OK, what are you programming? What's your user interface? Any data interfaces with other systems? Who's testing this code you produce? Who's maintaining it? Any government or regulatory requirements you need to meet? What are the coding standards you need to keep?
If you work for yourself in a 1-person shop, then maybe you get away with programming without social interaction. If you're programming for someone else, it's a fair assumption interactions with other people will come in to the picture at some point. (I'm talking about programming. When it comes to sales, yes, working for yourself is likely to involve more sales interactions than as a programmer employee.)
A programmer who isn't talking to other people to get requirements isn't doing the job. A programmer who doesn't communicate with customers isn't doing the job. A programmer who isn't talking with other people on the team isn't doing the job.
The implication is, if you just keep your head down and churn out code, 1) how do you know you're churning out the right code? And 2) you risk ending up like the OP, where you think you have this long history of great accomplishment, but no one in any position to help you professionally knows about it.
Dismissing their magic is very different than dismissing their potential for dirty tricks. That madman staggering toward you with a knife babbling about the New World Order and lizard people? He's still got a knife.
Don't let the lizard people here you say that.
And that's not so bad. It doesn't mean your bad at your job. It doesn't make you a deficient human being. On the contrary, it might mean that you're more interested in doing your job than on climbing the ladder. Frankly, the world would probably be a better place if more focus were placed on doing your current job properly, and less on attaining the next promotion.
But I guess people don't like to hear that, and businesses don't really value people who do their jobs.
This response and others like it remind of the post in the Online Presence thread, "I don't do twitter and facebook," as if those were the only aspects of online presence.
Networking is not just "schmoozing" and not always about climbing the corporate ladder. And if you're a programmer or developer and not self-employed, it absolutely 100% IS part of your job.
Addressing the later point first, where do your requirements come from? Who is testing your software? Who's going to maintain it? If you have a job or are looking for a job, getting to know your customers (aka people) is part of doing your job. Ignoring the social aspect of software development is a great way to produce crappy software.
To the point of networking not being a natural skill, or coming at the expense of your current position or life outside of work, it's not that hard. And I say that as someone who does not schmooze, does not make small talk well, has never picked up someone in a bar, has never left a plane or train or bus knowing someone I did not know when I got on that plane/train/bus. What I do is this:
Roughly every other month I send an invite to bunch of people I know in my area to meet at a bar or tavern. I don't take a poll on what night is good everyone. I don't triangulate the best location based on where everyone is working now. I pick a time and place that 1) is good for me, and 2) I expect to not be busy, so I don't have to worry about reservations. That way I don't have to track responses and worry about people who accept the invitation and then no-show.
It's clear anyone is free to forward the invite to anyone else they know. Combine that rule with a few rounds of lay-offs and natural employee mobility, and I now have contacts at pretty much every major employer in my area. The only other "rule" is, folks who accept the invitation and don't show are off the list.
Back to the OP's question: there's a good chance there's something missing from the question. If you do good work for a long period of time, you will get noticed and will have opportunities to work. Are there shops out there with mindless HR that reject candidates for lacking unimportant criteria? Yes. Are there managers who will reject a candidate for lacking a degree or even a degree from the wrong school? Yes. But those are the exceptions.
My wife has no degree--didn't even finish her first semester at college--and is very antisocial. She does not schmooze, she does not golf, she does not suffer fools (FSM only knows how she puts up with me). And yet she has unsolicited job offers coming to her. She's been doing software QA for about 12 years and does good work. Again through lay-offs and employee mobility, there are people at many companies in the area who have worked with her and know her by reputation.
I wonder if the OP's long track record of success is as long or as successful as we're being told. The traditional hiring process is all about getting your foot in the door. A good resume with an impressive degree is one way of doing that. Having someone on the inside who knows you and your work is a better way of doing that.
Are people so trained on sub-par, cheap Asian electronics that there's an expectation of suckage on a device that "only" costs $99 ? Is $99 the new throwaway price, where you use something, expect it to fail, then go buy another one? It's the Walmart generation I guess.
Different features set doesn't mean "suckage" or "throwaway." Do you expect the Rav4 to have the same features and capacity as a Land Cruiser? I don't. That doesn't mean if I bought a new Rav4 I'd expect it to quickly fail, and I'd ust buy another one when it does. It means, when I pay less than one third the price, I expect to get to less.
Likewise, the folks that expect less from a $99 console than they'd expect from a $400 console don't necessarily expect the cheaper one to be disposable or "sub-par, cheap Asian electronics." They're just realistic.
I'm not calling objection hysteria. I'm calling statements like "untold acres" when one plot was found hysteria.
They're not telling us how many acres of this stuff is out there. Sounds like "untold acres" to me.
...and inform them of...
subby's unethical behavior?
If he's submitting code as his own containing a copyright notice changed by a new developer, what other changes in the code is subby passing off as his own work?
This whole situation is very sketchy. I've kept samples of code I've done for previous employers as a portfolio, but I wouldn't take code done after I passed off the project to another developer.
Unless subby has a personal relationship with someone still with the former employer and has reason to think this "put the situation right" thing might happen, contacting the former employer is a very wrong move. "Hi, I used to work there...and I've been using code written after I left to get new jobs. Think you can take the new dev's name out of the comments?"
Any reason to think that conversation goes well?
Now this is grey territory as it the client who owns the source...
I'm not seeing the grey area.
the alleged "benefits" of the Fifth Amendment apply equally to the innocent and guilty, or disproportionately favor the guilty. Yes, it's harder for the state to get a conviction if you're allowed to remain silent and no inferences can be made from that, and yes, that will benefit some innocent people who refuse to speak to the government as a matter of deeply held principle, but it's going to benefit guilty people at least as often who just don't want to be caught in a lie. As I said, if you want to benefit all criminal defendants equally, you could just roll a dice and acquit whenever it comes up a 6. In terms of helping the innocent vs. helping the guilty, the right to silence scores even worse than that, since it disproportionately benefits the guilty (who might make a mistake while coming up with an alibi).
And that is why you fail.
1) At the point the right against self-incrimination comes in to play, THERE ARE NO GUILTY. There are only accused. And yes, rights afforded us folks in the USA should apply to all accused. I wholly reject the notion that our rights are somehow invalid or unwarranted because they might lead to a failure to convict.
2) How does rolling a die and acquitting whenever it comes up 6 benefit all defendants equally? Assuming a 20-sided die, I'd say that system would benefit about 5% of defendants more than it benefits the rest.
3) This point is partially a restatement of my first point, but for emphasis, and in SW development terms, applying equally to the innocent and the guilty is a feature not a bug. Rights should apply equally to the innocent and the guilty.
4) Your idea of "outcome is better" is ridiculous (as in worthy of ridicule). The implication is a scenario where an individual who breaks the law and is acquitted in an individual trial is a worse outcome. Not that this is a better outcome--it is an irrelevant outcome. The outcome at stake here is the functioning of our society and justice system. If you're looking for microscopic examples of specific scenarios of individual court cases to support/disprove your argument, you're missing the point. The rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights are principles to be enacted on a societal level. The positive outcome is, while the bad guy might "get away with it," we all live in a free society.
5) You miss the point (as many do) of the Bill of Rights. It's not to protect us from each other--no government can reasonably do that. It's to protect us from the government. So the idea of a right that benefits the innocent or guilty equally is a right we don't need is a complete FAIL. I'd go so far as to say the exact opposite. It's the accused who needs MORE rights, who is in need of MORE protection from the government.
6) The blanket dismissal of false confessions shows an extraordinary degree of ignorance of current events. I'm not talking about history of the American Revolution and the conditions that led to witting of the Bill of Rights. I'm not talking about Constitutional and US legal history. I'd talking "ripped from the headlines" type stuff. The prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment is extremely vague. Apparently techniques which were considered torture in the 1940s, are now acceptable.
7) The question shows an ignorance of how the justice system works. The assumption is the person who didn't do anything illegal would just say, I didn't do it, while the person who knows he/she did something illegal would invoke the right. Saying, I didn't do it, is not the same as not answering the question.
Just going back to the McCarthy example, I reject a) the premise that "if it hampers all law enforcement efforts equally" it is a bad thing. I reject b) the premise that if "it would if "help" all other criminal defendants, too, most people would consider it a silly idea."
I think subby breaks his own rules by introducing the concept of an unjust law. You can't use that as a defense. You can't walk in to court and say, I did it, but doing it should
So, it's just boring old multiplexing and not unraveling the fabric of the universe? I'm kind of disappointed, to be honest.
Just wait til Hedley lemarr hears about this!
I mean, if anything it should be better, it's much easier to vet and eliminate chicks online. If they send a message 'how r u 2day??' you know to move on. I met my wife online and have been married for 3 years.
And the broads know, if the guy refers to them as "chicks" they move on. ;)
I met my wife on a MUD 20 years ago and we've been married for 10.
It is still a retarded question. He has a MacBook. MacBooks have Thunderbolt. There are adapters for Thunderbolt -> DVI, Thunderbolt ->VGA, Thunderbolt -> HDMI. Which means he can use pretty much any monitor in existence. The only thing that determines whether it is "portable" or not, is the size of his backpack. So basically his question is: "Can someone tell me how big my backpack is?"
I am fairly confident that by portable, he means he wants it to fit in a large laptop bag along with a laptop, a few papers/books, and likely a tablet. A convenient stand would also likely be a requirement, or the ability for it to flip open like a laptop. Being powered by USB would be nice, but probably not a requirement.
So the question isn't, "can someone tell me how big my backpack is?" It's "Can someone tell me how big my laptop bag is?"
May be I don't move my computer set-ups enough, but I don't get the issue this questions is trying to address. In the age of thin LCD monitors, the screens on my desk are thin, light, and require 2 cables--1 signal, 1 power. How would a "portable" monitor be different?
1 cable instead of 2? If you compare the 30 seconds to plug in a cable vs. the hours spent looking at the monitor, it's doesn't make sense to sacrifice resolution or size just to get USB powered.
The best bet for size/mass per image size is a projector.
Just no.
While births indeed should mean insertions in to the database, deaths should not be deletions. They should be updating the Living flag to 'N' and populating the Date of Death and Cause of Death fields.
They're going to want reports and stats not just on the current living animals. I didn't RTFA ('natch) but if they missed that requirement, what else have they overlooked?
the problem is worse than that, a lot worse
Problem? Worse? This is twitter we're talking about right?
If sending an unencrypted email is like sending a postcard (kids, ask your parents) in pencil, twitter is like a sign you stick in your lawn.
Anyone can drive by and stick a sign in your lawn, make it look like you support any cause, or take any sign you've put out.
Now if people put undue weight to those signs, it they swing the markets, then the issue--the problem--is people who don't know the difference between reliable and unreliable sources.
The problem isn't twitter, it's employees in the media and so-called journalists who'd rather sit on their bum checking their cell phone than go out and do their job.
Most of GameStop's profits come from used game sales. They make next to no profit on new games--that money goes almost wholly to the publisher. Reselling used games, especially recent ones, permits much higher profits. A new game is $60. While GameStop doesn't publish their trade-in prices, from what I can tell they pay $20 or less for all used games, and most games are going to pull in $10 or less. So, that $60 game you sold back to GameStop for (generously) $20, they will resell for $55. That's a quick and easy $35 profit for them.
Who buys a used game when a new game is less than 10% more? I often buy used (games, books, cars, houses), but I expect a discount for picking up someone else's cast off--more in the range of 30 to 40%, at least.