Not in *recent memory* such that someone would enter it into a search engine.
There is desire to learn english by amost anyone who don't speak english as the first language.
Okay, so that point of mine was fair.
And landless workers is another problem where most of the landless people aren't workers.
I don't understand. The difference between landless people in Brazil and landless people in richer countries is that in Brazil, it means you will live in poverty. That's why it's such an important issue there.
Also squatting most of the time is organized by political organizations.
By political organizations... *of landless workers*.
Have you ever been in Brazil ? Have you ever been to south america ?...
I shouldn't criticize a country until I've been there? So, I guess you had nothing negative to say about China or the Soviet Union?
So squatting isn't a big issue there? There's no landless workers' movement? There's no history of hyperinflation or defaulting on bonds? No desire to learn English?
What do Brazilians search for anyway? I bet they see a lot of these:
"don't have land want to squat" "anti-squatting lawyer" "immigrate to Chile" "learn english quick" (obviously I'm translating their search terms) "hedge against inflation" "do government bonds default?" "how to clearcut amazon"
Children living in MY house live under MY rules. As my father told me and his father before him... you are free to do whatever you please after you move out.
That's true, they are in your house, BUT the flip side is that for most of his growing up, he's not even able to do that (to leave and earn enough to live on his own) so it's a false choice. I don't think anyone should implement this rule rigidly unless you are doing your best to teach him what he needs to live on his own.
The sentence with "price point" does not imply Sony consciously identified a price point, while the one without "point" does not imply Sony did not consciously identify a price point. Even if they did so imply, that would not be relevant to the author's point in any discussion I can conceive of. And even if someone were emphasizing something relevant to the demand curve's shape, I've always seen the term "price point" used to simply refer to the retail price they have set for it.
But I think your little fantasy that you knew some calculus and economics that I didn't was kinda cute, so I'll give you that.
I can't believe there was ever a stage where the wiimote wasn't a sword swing!!
Actually, I believe (someone has a link?) that the issue wasn't whether Zelda would have you swinging the Wiimote as a sword, but to what exent you would do so. They originally wanted all swinging to be done through the Wiimote, but then found that it tires you too quickly, so they just constrained it to "special" sorts of attacks, or something like that.
"It's not what they say, it's what they don't say."
It's "good news" that, of ALL the gui layouts out there, Sony picked a good one? Wow, tough task there. That kinda reminds me of people who say "He speaks so well" to refer to someone for whom they can't think of a substantive praise, forgetting that the same comment is used frequently to describe the progress of a mentally retarded individual in therapy.
"The interface borrows many features from the PSP GUI which got such broad acclaim, and includes simple drop down menus for accessing important settings like video resolution, audio output, and management of your virtual friends. Customizability and configurability are also some of the features gamers can expect."
Can I guess with confidence that at least some of these (imho obvious) gui features are patented, if not by Sony, someone about to hit the motherlode by suing them?
*I* am talking about engineering. *As an engineer*, I care about the desired output (whatever that is) compared to the desired input.
that's not efficiency
Yes it is; the link you gave was to energy efficiency, not efficiency in general, as I was talking about.
but efficacy:
The efficacy definition you gave is not the same as efficiency. In the link, it describes efficiency as the ability to accomplish a process, without regard for a comparison to what was used to accomplish it.
However, economists use the term more losely:
Yes, they do, but they use it in two senses -- one which was what I was using here (general ratio of desired output to required input), and the other, any one of definitions involving the achievement of agents' values. Those are two separate senses, not a single generalization of various senses. It's true that they loosely shift between the two senses, but that's because they're so often coincident.
Re:That's a Little Extreme
on
iPods at War
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
What's with the capitalism bashing? I accept that specific corporations have something to gain from lucrative military contracts. Great. But as far as I know, "capitalism" involves buying the oil from its (willing) sellers in the Middle East. What does that have to do with war?
And how is Middle Eastern oil a "fuel" of capitalism? "STOP, STOP, everyone, oil's gone up a few dollars a barrel, we're going to have to shut everything down and go to worker-owned production now! It is impossible for us to use nuclear, coal, or natural gas. We cannot change our current methods of production in any way whatsoever without granting full public ownership of all goods."
I cannot fathom your hostility to considering heat rejection as an "output". The heat rejection, for the case of an air conditioner, is what I want. Efficiency, in the most general sense, is "what I want out, divided by what I had to put in to get it". They don't have to be the same units even! A religious movement could define its recruiting efficiency as "new converts per dollar invested" or "new converts per man-hour evangelization". A railroad could use "revenues per track mile" as a gauge of its efficiency. They're nothing non-standard about picking "heat rejection" as the (desired) output of the system.
Actually, my physics teacher demonstrated hos to get energy out of magnets.
It's easy for hos to get energy out of magnets -- just use a vibrator.:-P
On a more serious note, parent is right. If you measure "output" in terms of heat energy rejected into the environment, and input in terms of electrical energy used, it is trivially easy to have an efficiency (output/input) greater than one. It violates no law of thermodynamics because you're just moving heat. That's why it's important to pin down what exactly their "coefficient of performance" refers to. But then, free energy cranks just *love* to be precise, don't they?
Actually, drops is pretty standard terminology when speaking plainly. It's slang, get over it.
People usually say "PS3 drops" in terms of the "price dropping". It's great if it is used to mean "released", but you need to be careful when it usually has the opposite meaning of what you intended.
I also understand the difference between a price point and a price.
Yet you don't understand context. You think you're more educated because you know that a "price point" is a place on the demand curve where the slope changes sharply. What you didn't realize, however, was that people (likely you) use it in places where it conveys no *additional* meaning. Example:
"One flaw in Sony's strategy was the PS3's high price point."
Now, what additional information does one conveny in saying that as opposed to:
"One flaw in Sony's strategy was the PS3's high price."
Though the terms have different definitions, the additional word "point" was clearly irrelevant in that context. But I bet you're proud every time you say "price point". Am I right?
I wanted to supplement Goober's explanation. Insurance can only handle quantifiable, actuarial risk. It can handle large risks. But they have to somehow be quantifiable. If you want to insure against a hurricane, you can sum up the value of all property in the area, and payouts for injuries and loss of life, and find the expected amount of damange over a period.
But now, imagine that there's a nuclear accident, for whatever reason. Then, on the news, they will parade mutated bodies, the mushroom cloud, etc. EXTREME emotional factors. Now, it comes time to pay out claims. So, it goes to trial. What jury, that could be empaneled, could NOT award the biggest amount they possibly could to the victims? The insurance could pay out $10 million to all killed, and the full value of all property destroyed. It wouldn't be enough. Why? "It's an insurance company, they can afford it." The damage award will be designed to suck out every penny from anyone associated with the accident, including the government, and all insurers.
"$10 trillion" is insurable. "How much you got?" isn't.
Similar problems occur in corporate and medical liability, in which juries apply the "you can afford it" standard liability/damage size.
So yes, they *cannot* insure the artificially high amount the jury will award, because the jury system is so messed up. But they *can* insure a realistic amount. But because we're not in that sensible justice system, they won't be able to buy the insurance. So, the government, being itself a part of the problem, must step in an cap liability, assuming part of the risk. But nuclear power companies are more than willing and able to insure the *actual* damage.
Try to use standard terminology, if you would. At least, don't use a term whose primary meaning in that context is the opposite, or siginificantly different from, what you meant.
Let me guess: you prefer to say "price point" where "price" would convey no less meaning?
Aren't all the other players trying to decouple the link between what they bet and what they have? If so, doesn't that make a program designed to win by inferring from this rather... pointless, especially since everyone else is doing the same thing? This seems along the lines of guessing the "optimal" rock-paper-scissors play. In real poker the difficulty is in cloaking *all* outward signals you give that are related to your hand -- your facial expression (poker face), sweating, eye contact, delay in placing bet, etc. (For those that want to bring up online play, the last, before the et cetera, applies.) Then again, I'm not a regular poker player, so someone can correct me.
Yet I have had more than one of my friends tell me they are buying a PS3 when it drops.
This is actually a bad sign for the PS3. If a console has robust initial sales, then these late-buyers will supplement its success. But if everyone, or most people, plans to "buy it later", the sales won't pick up, developers abandon it, and the would-be late buyers just don't buy because, "hey, there aren't many good games for it". Network effects are very strong for consoles.
I see people claim this all the time, and it's completely false. The fact that an author has a copyright on his music is what makes the "rich fatcat exec" want to pay for it in the first place. If there were no copyright, the author would be paid anything.
Slashdot Mirror
did the Germans there say "wee" or "vee" (for "Wii")?
There is history of hiperinflation in all world.
... *of landless workers*.
...
Not in *recent memory* such that someone would enter it into a search engine.
There is desire to learn english by amost anyone who don't speak english as the first language.
Okay, so that point of mine was fair.
And landless workers is another problem where most of the landless people aren't workers.
I don't understand. The difference between landless people in Brazil and landless people in richer countries is that in Brazil, it means you will live in poverty. That's why it's such an important issue there.
Also squatting most of the time is organized by political organizations.
By political organizations
Have you ever been in Brazil ? Have you ever been to south america ?
I shouldn't criticize a country until I've been there? So, I guess you had nothing negative to say about China or the Soviet Union?
So squatting isn't a big issue there? There's no landless workers' movement? There's no history of hyperinflation or defaulting on bonds? No desire to learn English?
What do Brazilians search for anyway? I bet they see a lot of these:
"don't have land want to squat"
"anti-squatting lawyer"
"immigrate to Chile"
"learn english quick" (obviously I'm translating their search terms)
"hedge against inflation"
"do government bonds default?"
"how to clearcut amazon"
Children living in MY house live under MY rules. As my father told me and his father before him... you are free to do whatever you please after you move out.
That's true, they are in your house, BUT the flip side is that for most of his growing up, he's not even able to do that (to leave and earn enough to live on his own) so it's a false choice. I don't think anyone should implement this rule rigidly unless you are doing your best to teach him what he needs to live on his own.
The sentence with "price point" does not imply Sony consciously identified a price point, while the one without "point" does not imply Sony did not consciously identify a price point. Even if they did so imply, that would not be relevant to the author's point in any discussion I can conceive of. And even if someone were emphasizing something relevant to the demand curve's shape, I've always seen the term "price point" used to simply refer to the retail price they have set for it.
But I think your little fantasy that you knew some calculus and economics that I didn't was kinda cute, so I'll give you that.
I can't believe there was ever a stage where the wiimote wasn't a sword swing!!
Actually, I believe (someone has a link?) that the issue wasn't whether Zelda would have you swinging the Wiimote as a sword, but to what exent you would do so. They originally wanted all swinging to be done through the Wiimote, but then found that it tires you too quickly, so they just constrained it to "special" sorts of attacks, or something like that.
Okay, explain to me what a real engineer thinks? Or were you just trolling?
"It's not what they say, it's what they don't say."
It's "good news" that, of ALL the gui layouts out there, Sony picked a good one? Wow, tough task there. That kinda reminds me of people who say "He speaks so well" to refer to someone for whom they can't think of a substantive praise, forgetting that the same comment is used frequently to describe the progress of a mentally retarded individual in therapy.
"The interface borrows many features from the PSP GUI which got such broad acclaim, and includes simple drop down menus for accessing important settings like video resolution, audio output, and management of your virtual friends. Customizability and configurability are also some of the features gamers can expect."
Can I guess with confidence that at least some of these (imho obvious) gui features are patented, if not by Sony, someone about to hit the motherlode by suing them?
That wasn't the meaning of "sanction" that I was using. *hoping you get the point by now*
YES!!!! I found an example -- you -- of a person I was referring to here! (Note the timestamp on the post. Hope you feel proud of yourself.)
I really can't sanction what you have said.
Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong.
As we're talking about science/engineering,
*I* am talking about engineering. *As an engineer*, I care about the desired output (whatever that is) compared to the desired input.
that's not efficiency
Yes it is; the link you gave was to energy efficiency, not efficiency in general, as I was talking about.
but efficacy:
The efficacy definition you gave is not the same as efficiency. In the link, it describes efficiency as the ability to accomplish a process, without regard for a comparison to what was used to accomplish it.
However, economists use the term more losely:
Yes, they do, but they use it in two senses -- one which was what I was using here (general ratio of desired output to required input), and the other, any one of definitions involving the achievement of agents' values. Those are two separate senses, not a single generalization of various senses. It's true that they loosely shift between the two senses, but that's because they're so often coincident.
What's with the capitalism bashing? I accept that specific corporations have something to gain from lucrative military contracts. Great. But as far as I know, "capitalism" involves buying the oil from its (willing) sellers in the Middle East. What does that have to do with war?
And how is Middle Eastern oil a "fuel" of capitalism? "STOP, STOP, everyone, oil's gone up a few dollars a barrel, we're going to have to shut everything down and go to worker-owned production now! It is impossible for us to use nuclear, coal, or natural gas. We cannot change our current methods of production in any way whatsoever without granting full public ownership of all goods."
I cannot fathom your hostility to considering heat rejection as an "output". The heat rejection, for the case of an air conditioner, is what I want. Efficiency, in the most general sense, is "what I want out, divided by what I had to put in to get it". They don't have to be the same units even! A religious movement could define its recruiting efficiency as "new converts per dollar invested" or "new converts per man-hour evangelization". A railroad could use "revenues per track mile" as a gauge of its efficiency. They're nothing non-standard about picking "heat rejection" as the (desired) output of the system.
Actually, my physics teacher demonstrated hos to get energy out of magnets.
:-P
It's easy for hos to get energy out of magnets -- just use a vibrator.
On a more serious note, parent is right. If you measure "output" in terms of heat energy rejected into the environment, and input in terms of electrical energy used, it is trivially easy to have an efficiency (output/input) greater than one. It violates no law of thermodynamics because you're just moving heat. That's why it's important to pin down what exactly their "coefficient of performance" refers to. But then, free energy cranks just *love* to be precise, don't they?
Actually, drops is pretty standard terminology when speaking plainly. It's slang, get over it.
People usually say "PS3 drops" in terms of the "price dropping". It's great if it is used to mean "released", but you need to be careful when it usually has the opposite meaning of what you intended.
I also understand the difference between a price point and a price.
Yet you don't understand context. You think you're more educated because you know that a "price point" is a place on the demand curve where the slope changes sharply. What you didn't realize, however, was that people (likely you) use it in places where it conveys no *additional* meaning. Example:
"One flaw in Sony's strategy was the PS3's high price point."
Now, what additional information does one conveny in saying that as opposed to:
"One flaw in Sony's strategy was the PS3's high price."
Though the terms have different definitions, the additional word "point" was clearly irrelevant in that context. But I bet you're proud every time you say "price point". Am I right?
I wanted to supplement Goober's explanation. Insurance can only handle quantifiable, actuarial risk. It can handle large risks. But they have to somehow be quantifiable. If you want to insure against a hurricane, you can sum up the value of all property in the area, and payouts for injuries and loss of life, and find the expected amount of damange over a period.
But now, imagine that there's a nuclear accident, for whatever reason. Then, on the news, they will parade mutated bodies, the mushroom cloud, etc. EXTREME emotional factors. Now, it comes time to pay out claims. So, it goes to trial. What jury, that could be empaneled, could NOT award the biggest amount they possibly could to the victims? The insurance could pay out $10 million to all killed, and the full value of all property destroyed. It wouldn't be enough. Why? "It's an insurance company, they can afford it." The damage award will be designed to suck out every penny from anyone associated with the accident, including the government, and all insurers.
"$10 trillion" is insurable. "How much you got?" isn't.
Similar problems occur in corporate and medical liability, in which juries apply the "you can afford it" standard liability/damage size.
So yes, they *cannot* insure the artificially high amount the jury will award, because the jury system is so messed up. But they *can* insure a realistic amount. But because we're not in that sensible justice system, they won't be able to buy the insurance. So, the government, being itself a part of the problem, must step in an cap liability, assuming part of the risk. But nuclear power companies are more than willing and able to insure the *actual* damage.
Try to use standard terminology, if you would. At least, don't use a term whose primary meaning in that context is the opposite, or siginificantly different from, what you meant.
Let me guess: you prefer to say "price point" where "price" would convey no less meaning?
Aren't all the other players trying to decouple the link between what they bet and what they have? If so, doesn't that make a program designed to win by inferring from this rather ... pointless, especially since everyone else is doing the same thing? This seems along the lines of guessing the "optimal" rock-paper-scissors play. In real poker the difficulty is in cloaking *all* outward signals you give that are related to your hand -- your facial expression (poker face), sweating, eye contact, delay in placing bet, etc. (For those that want to bring up online play, the last, before the et cetera, applies.) Then again, I'm not a regular poker player, so someone can correct me.
Yet I have had more than one of my friends tell me they are buying a PS3 when it drops.
This is actually a bad sign for the PS3. If a console has robust initial sales, then these late-buyers will supplement its success. But if everyone, or most people, plans to "buy it later", the sales won't pick up, developers abandon it, and the would-be late buyers just don't buy because, "hey, there aren't many good games for it". Network effects are very strong for consoles.
only free software respects users software freedoms (the freedoms to run, inspect, share, and modify software
Yes, it respects their FREEDOMS to do those, just not their ability.
for(int i=0;i23;i+=1){for(int j=1;j45;j+=1){checkstatus();}}//does something
I see people claim this all the time, and it's completely false. The fact that an author has a copyright on his music is what makes the "rich fatcat exec" want to pay for it in the first place. If there were no copyright, the author would be paid anything.
There were no crabs in feudal Japan that were as large as the one depicted in the E3 demo.
*please mod informative, please mod informative*