If you already know the person, and you can trust them, and have worked with them before, you no longer need RAC's services, and you won't get their escrow or mediation help either if something goes wrong. But at that point, the Coder is more like a semi-regular employee for you.
Also, I had a bad experience there. It was partly because I rushed to post the program specs, but also because the Coder was a complete dick. He'd always demand payment despite not making milestones. He'd show he understood the specs with an example, and then two phases in, "forgot" that he had to meet that, and had a solution worked out that precluded it, requiring him to start over. He tried to clarify the specs for one of the phases by putting it in his own words. It looked good, so I just made that the formal contract for that phase. Then, in arbitration, he claimed the requirements were unclear and vague. Yeah -- his own words, vague. He's since been banned since the arbitration.
Btw, what's with U.S. programmers complaining about wages? The task was a simple word-processor that handled stuff similar to html markup. It couldn't have taken a regular programmer more than 10 hours, working from pre-existing solutions (open source stuff was okay) and there were no (trustworthy) bids under $500. And none at any price from America.
Exactly. The high per-hour pay mainly results from the sporadic nature of the work. It's actually penalized in the tax code. For example, it's not uncommon for a contract employee to make $120,000 one year and not find work the next. Hey, congratulations, your effective salary over two years was $60,000/year and you get to be taxed as if you're in the $120,000 bracket!
Btw, what gave us the right to trumpet an individual's low pay for everyone to see. Anyone here want to volunteer to have an article done about them?
I was thinking kind of the same thing. It basically throws a monkey wrench into their whole plan. So Apple wants to make an app so good people switch to Mac to use it? If you actually figure out what the next "killer app" is, someone will be able to easily reverse-engineer it. Microsoft certainly will. Now, their version, I'll concede, probably won't be as good, but it won't matter. While people may switch to be able to use that app, they will not (in large numbers) switch so they can have a slightly better interface for that app.
So how many people have patented these ideas? How many patent applications will be laughed at? Wait, nevermind, don't answer the second...
Right. Or more precisely, the reasoning for counting private terrorist threats against reporters, against the country's score is that, if some government "passively endorsed" this kind of thing, and generally just let it happen, that's just as threatening to press freedom. So, failure to protect reporters can itself be a form of press suppression. "Offend terrorists, you're on your own, kid. Let us know how it goes.;-) "
That said, I can't bring myself to fully endorse their methodology, but I'll leave that to the other posters who have criticized it.
Not a lawyer (won't use the abbreviation, because it's gross), but a "contempt finding" is a separate matter from a criminal conviction. Basically, as a means to allow courts to "take care of their business", judges are given wide lattitude in punishments they can use to keep people in line while they're in the courtroom. All that is necessary is that a judge issue a finding of "contempt of court" and he can issue a variety of usually-lower-grade (compared to criminal convictions) punishments. Now, you can certainly say it's wrong that judges should have this power, but as it stands, most contempt findings don't need a jury trial, so to ask that, he'd be asking to overturn quite a bit of tradition.
I understand, but the way it's written, it doesn't imply that. It doesn't phrase it, for example, as, "the idea will be realized as an app with a free demo version". It says the idea itself will be realized as a shareware application. That is, the realization will be in shareware. It will not, this implies, be realized in the "payware" version.
Yeah, I don't understand the reward. Is it some kind of joke? The program is released as shareware, and you get the royalties? Royalties on... zero revenues? That kinda reminds me of the joke, "If you're gonna work me like a slave, you're gonna pay me like a slave, goddamnit!"
One thing to note: in the 18th century, "infringed", as in, "shall not be infringed", had a meaning closer to "eliminated" or "voided". Today, by contrast, we say a right is being "infringed", when any restriction is added to it. (That is, when it's violated "at the fringes".) But the 2nd amendment only keeps it from being voided, not from being partially restricted. In fairness, of course, a) it probably never occurred to the Framers that someone would want to put partial restrictions on the RTKBA, so a prohibition on voiding the right was probably not crafted to allow partial restrictions and b) whether or not governments should recognize a RTKBA, immune from legislation of a simple majority, has nothing to do with the wording of the US's constitution.
No, I didn't lie; the S&P example I gave was just to show the superiority of passive management. This page I gave you covers documented experiments where they compared active manager performace to that of random stock picking, and it doesn't bode well for active managers.
Now, do you want to keep trying to get a tiny face-saving victory, or actually learn something?
I didn't send you there expecting to trust their assertions. I sent you there because they compile all the research there and source it, which you can independently verify, such as the Malkiel's A Random Walk Down Wall Street. I'm really not asserting a bold thesis here; any independent source on the matter not after your money (consumer advisor Clark Howard, the various academic researchers they list) and some that aren't independent (Warren Buffet and Peter Lynch) will tell you the same thing.
Or, go to MarketWatch and run your favorite mutual fund against the S&P 500 for its life.
Yes, IFA explains the superiority of index funds, but their arguments apply to any index funds, not just theirs.
The person who you shouldn't trust is the John Edward-type mutual fund salesman who will erase the fund family's misses, show you the hits, and say, "See the ones that outperformed? That was because of great management, really! Now, cough up the cash."
If that chimp picked stocks that way, it would beat something like 80% of mutual fund managers (simply by virtue of not charging for his essentially random results).
True, but to dismiss something like this because it's still possible to detect the cloaked object would be in error. Think about the camoflauge gear militaries already use. You can still see them. HOWEVER, if you're not looking carefully enough, it's a lot easier to miss them in certain environments. The point of cloaking or camoflauge is not to make you undetectable, but to make it require more resources to detect you, just like the point of encryption is not to make the data unreadable to others but to make the threshold required to read it (in terms of money, time, etc.) high enough.
An infiltrator who appears as a dark spot will still be much more effective in how he's so hard to detect.
Other than that if they make something invisable from visable light then it wouldn't be able to see anything, so a person would be blind or a bot would be virtually impossible to navigate, because you couldn't see it or track it...
Interesting story -- one time in German class, we encountered the word "unsichtbar" (roughly, "unsightable"), and I was called upon to guess what it means. I guessed, incorrectly, "blind". (which oddly enough is also spelled "blind" in German.) The teacher then said that no, it means invisible. I tried to make the point that if it's invisible, it's also blind (for that reason), but to no avail;-)
Like the other posters said, you will have some vision abilities, you just need a workaround of some sort that allows you to see another wavelength.
I'm unsure about the water claim, although it is true that you can't tell the difference that doesn't mean that it's not different, the water has been moved all over the shop, but it looks like it hasn't been affected.
Exactly. The velocities are all as if no rock had been there -- but only if you're far enough downstream.
I remember for a while LewRockwell.com, which promoted alexa for its readers, was top-500, beating out worldnetdaily.com and gamefaqs.com. Now, nothing against LewRockwell.com, and it is indeed surprisingly popular, but there's no way in hell it's a top 500 site.
As a new company, it's hard to know if we can really trust Nielson to aggregate all the data properly. I don't know if such a big step is justified. A better idea would be to use a tried and true ratings provider like Nielsen or something.
Very good point, but, in all fairness, you haven't seen her. And this would be more as a supplement to, not a replacement for, her existing feminine satisfaction system (FSS). I mean, dude -- she's ten years older than me.
Yep. Does anyone think about how many things we use today would be banned if subjected to today's standards, and are only still in use because they got "grandfathered in"?
Cheese? No, it's old milk. Gross. Bleu cheese? Double no. Cars [in private use]? No, too unsafe. Mayonaise? No, raw egg. Sushi? Not a chance. Asbestos? AHA! Gotcha! Guns? No, too unsafe. Most French dishes? No, violates [Standard X]. Woodburning in your fireplace? No, that seriously pollutes the air, but hey -- it's so romantic.
Slashdot Mirror
If you already know the person, and you can trust them, and have worked with them before, you no longer need RAC's services, and you won't get their escrow or mediation help either if something goes wrong. But at that point, the Coder is more like a semi-regular employee for you.
Also, I had a bad experience there. It was partly because I rushed to post the program specs, but also because the Coder was a complete dick. He'd always demand payment despite not making milestones. He'd show he understood the specs with an example, and then two phases in, "forgot" that he had to meet that, and had a solution worked out that precluded it, requiring him to start over. He tried to clarify the specs for one of the phases by putting it in his own words. It looked good, so I just made that the formal contract for that phase. Then, in arbitration, he claimed the requirements were unclear and vague. Yeah -- his own words, vague. He's since been banned since the arbitration.
Btw, what's with U.S. programmers complaining about wages? The task was a simple word-processor that handled stuff similar to html markup. It couldn't have taken a regular programmer more than 10 hours, working from pre-existing solutions (open source stuff was okay) and there were no (trustworthy) bids under $500. And none at any price from America.
Exactly. The high per-hour pay mainly results from the sporadic nature of the work. It's actually penalized in the tax code. For example, it's not uncommon for a contract employee to make $120,000 one year and not find work the next. Hey, congratulations, your effective salary over two years was $60,000/year and you get to be taxed as if you're in the $120,000 bracket!
Btw, what gave us the right to trumpet an individual's low pay for everyone to see. Anyone here want to volunteer to have an article done about them?
Yes, it would be too harsh.
*please mod informative, please mod informative*
I was thinking kind of the same thing. It basically throws a monkey wrench into their whole plan. So Apple wants to make an app so good people switch to Mac to use it? If you actually figure out what the next "killer app" is, someone will be able to easily reverse-engineer it. Microsoft certainly will. Now, their version, I'll concede, probably won't be as good, but it won't matter. While people may switch to be able to use that app, they will not (in large numbers) switch so they can have a slightly better interface for that app.
So how many people have patented these ideas? How many patent applications will be laughed at? Wait, nevermind, don't answer the second...
Right. Or more precisely, the reasoning for counting private terrorist threats against reporters, against the country's score is that, if some government "passively endorsed" this kind of thing, and generally just let it happen, that's just as threatening to press freedom. So, failure to protect reporters can itself be a form of press suppression. "Offend terrorists, you're on your own, kid. Let us know how it goes. ;-) "
That said, I can't bring myself to fully endorse their methodology, but I'll leave that to the other posters who have criticized it.
It's not just that, it's that it makes a statement: IANAL = "I anal."
Now imagine saying it as if the second word is a verb.
Think about it.*
*This post is intended only as an expression of personal preference and not a condemnation or praise of any particular lifestyle.
Not a lawyer (won't use the abbreviation, because it's gross), but a "contempt finding" is a separate matter from a criminal conviction. Basically, as a means to allow courts to "take care of their business", judges are given wide lattitude in punishments they can use to keep people in line while they're in the courtroom. All that is necessary is that a judge issue a finding of "contempt of court" and he can issue a variety of usually-lower-grade (compared to criminal convictions) punishments. Now, you can certainly say it's wrong that judges should have this power, but as it stands, most contempt findings don't need a jury trial, so to ask that, he'd be asking to overturn quite a bit of tradition.
I understand, but the way it's written, it doesn't imply that. It doesn't phrase it, for example, as, "the idea will be realized as an app with a free demo version". It says the idea itself will be realized as a shareware application. That is, the realization will be in shareware. It will not, this implies, be realized in the "payware" version.
See my (naive) confusion?
Yeah, I don't understand the reward. Is it some kind of joke? The program is released as shareware, and you get the royalties? Royalties on ... zero revenues? That kinda reminds me of the joke, "If you're gonna work me like a slave, you're gonna pay me like a slave, goddamnit!"
Most developers I've talked to said they're going to drop ACID because of IE7 issues.
One thing to note: in the 18th century, "infringed", as in, "shall not be infringed", had a meaning closer to "eliminated" or "voided". Today, by contrast, we say a right is being "infringed", when any restriction is added to it. (That is, when it's violated "at the fringes".) But the 2nd amendment only keeps it from being voided, not from being partially restricted. In fairness, of course, a) it probably never occurred to the Framers that someone would want to put partial restrictions on the RTKBA, so a prohibition on voiding the right was probably not crafted to allow partial restrictions and b) whether or not governments should recognize a RTKBA, immune from legislation of a simple majority, has nothing to do with the wording of the US's constitution.
But it's just something to think about.
Dude, how about instead of roaming all over google and heckling me, you maybe start reading the 12 steps thing?
Okay, so an index beats darts and analysts.
Now, remind me, how does that contradict my claim that darts beat analysts (or rather the "experts" at mutual fund management)?
And where did I disparage index funds?
Oh right -- that face-saving victory you were looking for.
No, I didn't lie; the S&P example I gave was just to show the superiority of passive management. This page I gave you covers documented experiments where they compared active manager performace to that of random stock picking, and it doesn't bode well for active managers.
Now, do you want to keep trying to get a tiny face-saving victory, or actually learn something?
I didn't send you there expecting to trust their assertions. I sent you there because they compile all the research there and source it, which you can independently verify, such as the Malkiel's A Random Walk Down Wall Street. I'm really not asserting a bold thesis here; any independent source on the matter not after your money (consumer advisor Clark Howard, the various academic researchers they list) and some that aren't independent (Warren Buffet and Peter Lynch) will tell you the same thing.
Or, go to MarketWatch and run your favorite mutual fund against the S&P 500 for its life.
Yes, IFA explains the superiority of index funds, but their arguments apply to any index funds, not just theirs.
The person who you shouldn't trust is the John Edward-type mutual fund salesman who will erase the fund family's misses, show you the hits, and say, "See the ones that outperformed? That was because of great management, really! Now, cough up the cash."
The Index Funds Advisors site pretty much sums it up.
No, I meant 80%. They actually do worse than randomness once you subtract their fees. Well, even before that.
If that chimp picked stocks that way, it would beat something like 80% of mutual fund managers (simply by virtue of not charging for his essentially random results).
(I know, I know, "but not my mutual fund!")
True, but to dismiss something like this because it's still possible to detect the cloaked object would be in error. Think about the camoflauge gear militaries already use. You can still see them. HOWEVER, if you're not looking carefully enough, it's a lot easier to miss them in certain environments. The point of cloaking or camoflauge is not to make you undetectable, but to make it require more resources to detect you, just like the point of encryption is not to make the data unreadable to others but to make the threshold required to read it (in terms of money, time, etc.) high enough.
An infiltrator who appears as a dark spot will still be much more effective in how he's so hard to detect.
Other than that if they make something invisable from visable light then it wouldn't be able to see anything, so a person would be blind or a bot would be virtually impossible to navigate, because you couldn't see it or track it...
;-)
Interesting story -- one time in German class, we encountered the word "unsichtbar" (roughly, "unsightable"), and I was called upon to guess what it means. I guessed, incorrectly, "blind". (which oddly enough is also spelled "blind" in German.) The teacher then said that no, it means invisible. I tried to make the point that if it's invisible, it's also blind (for that reason), but to no avail
Like the other posters said, you will have some vision abilities, you just need a workaround of some sort that allows you to see another wavelength.
I'm unsure about the water claim, although it is true that you can't tell the difference that doesn't mean that it's not different, the water has been moved all over the shop, but it looks like it hasn't been affected.
Exactly. The velocities are all as if no rock had been there -- but only if you're far enough downstream.
I remember for a while LewRockwell.com, which promoted alexa for its readers, was top-500, beating out worldnetdaily.com and gamefaqs.com. Now, nothing against LewRockwell.com, and it is indeed surprisingly popular, but there's no way in hell it's a top 500 site.
As a new company, it's hard to know if we can really trust Nielson to aggregate all the data properly. I don't know if such a big step is justified. A better idea would be to use a tried and true ratings provider like Nielsen or something.
I think the "posted by Zonk" bit sufficed as a warning to be careful when reading the summary.
Very good point, but, in all fairness, you haven't seen her. And this would be more as a supplement to, not a replacement for, her existing feminine satisfaction system (FSS). I mean, dude -- she's ten years older than me.
Yep. Does anyone think about how many things we use today would be banned if subjected to today's standards, and are only still in use because they got "grandfathered in"?
Cheese? No, it's old milk. Gross.
Bleu cheese? Double no.
Cars [in private use]? No, too unsafe.
Mayonaise? No, raw egg.
Sushi? Not a chance.
Asbestos? AHA! Gotcha!
Guns? No, too unsafe.
Most French dishes? No, violates [Standard X].
Woodburning in your fireplace? No, that seriously pollutes the air, but hey -- it's so romantic.