Yeah, but what company advertises that? "Hey, Americans, you should buy our product, which can do some of the same things that our European version can!"
I used to get $77k, which my boss increased from $64k just a couple of months before, because he was very pleased with my work (Excel VBA). Our competitor approached me and offered me $128k. I didn't know whether to tell my boss, but I did, because when in doubt I always pick honesty, and he said: "So what did you tell them?", so I said I told them I'd think about it. He said: "I would too, that's a lot of money!" He asked me what it would take for me to stay and I said: "I don't know, at least $100k?" He said I could have the $100k if I agreed to adding to my contract that we both have three months more notice (I had one before, they had four) and I agreed. That way he knew that if I decided to leave, they still had me for four months while they found a replacement and I trained him. If they decide to fire me, I get full pay for seven months. It's been a bit more than year now and I'm still with the company and very happy with how everything turned out.:)
2. What if it was a single atom? If you "push" an atom, does the other side move immediately or is there a small delay? I'm guessing there's a small delay, or we'd be able to transmit data faster than the speed at light, albeit only at relatively small distances, such as the width of an atom.
They hope someone else will think for them on set concept. This goes not just for computers, but also for the medical field, food industry, or anything else where it is "too complected" for set people to really give a care.
You should watch this if you haven't already, which basically says you're right.:)
It seems no technology ever dies completely, but I think most people would agree the telegraph is pretty much as dead as they come, even if the Internet can be considered a modern form of telegraphy.:)
So I'm assuming that such drops will be controlled by a weekly budget. If not regulated in such a manner it's just a matter of time until the economy comes crashing down.
Two things:
1. Yes, it's just a matter of time before everyone will get the best weapon in the game on the same day. However, it's extremely unlikely that will happen in the next billions of years. 2. Even if it happens, it won't matter much to Blizzard as they have never promised they will buy your items for a certain prices. You will just put your awesome sword in the auction house and no one will buy it and Blizzard will add a better sword that is unlikely to drop for everyone else at the same time in the next billions of years.
Then I still think they should be tested and rated individually, along with the original. "Yesterday you gave the original a 96.5% score. Today you rated this lossy codec as 99.2%."
Also, is it really fair to test two codecs by listening to one and then immediately listening to the other? Even if you can tell a difference, that doesn't mean that you're get a better listening experience. I think these tests should be done by a person listening to one codec and rating it on a scale. Then the person should take a break, wait a few hours, listen to another codec and rate that on the same scale. Then we'll see if the listening experience has really gotten better or worse, not whether the person can just tell the two codecs apart while listening to one and then immediately the other, which you would never do when just listening to music.
What I like to ask the wealthy whiners is; if you're getting treated so unfairly while these freeloading, poor, sub-human, cradle-to-grave ghetto-dwellers are living the high-life off of your tax dollars, you should be happy to trade places, right? Right?
Now let's say I started out with had nothing. I then worked really, really hard for many years and now I have a lot and no longer have to work. Now the government says I have to give half my fortune to, say, some guy who doesn't like working. Am I not allowed to be unhappy about that without wanting to switch places with him?
More than half my friend list consists of people that I don't really know.
I have less than 20 friends on Facebook. Why? Because I only added my friends. Sure, I know a lot more than 20 people, but I wouldn't call them friends, so I didn't add them as friends on Facebook.
I realize it's pointless to reply to this as I'm not telling you anything you don't already know, but eventually any true random generator would come up with a string of nines, so I still think it's pretty funny. The more nines he comes up with, the more likely you are to be right that he's not generating truly random numbers, but the closest you could ever get would be to say: "It's extremely unlikely that these numbers are truly random." and then someone would say: "So it's possible?" and you would have to say: "Yes, it's possible."
(And a true random number generator will have exactly the same chances of coming up with 99999999999999 as 65345608315823, the last one just looks a lot more random to us.)
This is probably obvious, since no one is talking about it, but how is he taking over the email addresses? Surely the bots aren't registrering on his honeypot forums with the same password as is used for the e-mail they use to register.
True, but I wouldn't do that. If I start to watch a movie, I will finish watching it, no matter how bored I am, because for me the ending and the final impressions left by movie can change it into something that was definitely worth watching, even if it was two hours of boredom at the time.
So what does this mean? It probably just means that in a perfect world, there would be different ratings for "hated it, so I turned it off" and "finished watching it, hated it". Imagine an extreme example where a movie was rated like this:
95% of the viewers: Hated it, turned it off 5% of the viewers: Hated it, but finished watching it, eventually loved it
Assuming I also fall into one of those two categories, it obviously wouldn't be the first one, as I would always finish watching even a terrible movie. That means that I would end up in the group of people who eventually love the movie and would be really glad I sat through it.
However, these are probably the only ratings I can see:
95% of the viewers: Hated it 5% of the viewers: Loved it
So I probably wouldn't bother with that movie, because I would think I would be unlikely to love it when 95% hate it.
Alright, this is an extreme and contrived example, but my point is that you should be able to decide whether you want to see only reviews from people who finish watching the movie or everyone who's sat down to see it, even if they only watched the first 15 minutes. The first option would be for me, the last option would be for someone who still thinks an hour and a half is wasted if you're bored to death, even if it's the kind of ending you can't stop thinking about for the next two weeks.
I've rated about 3600 titles... but honestly, you don't have to watch an entire movie all the way through to give it a one star "I Hated it" or two star "I didn't like it".
It feels like I have seen hundreds of movies where a brilliant ending changed my impression of the movie from "huge waste of time" to "OMG, that was very clever, I'm going to be thinking about that for a long time!".
Slashdot Mirror
I feel the same way. Any data that can be put in a file can be viewed as a number. No one should be able to own a number, whether small or large.
I tried out the app just now, at the range of 22 inch (width of my monitor)
I'm 99.6% sure you got it right, considering this is slashdot and all, but you're sure your monitor is 22" wide, aren't you?
(Just checking in case you're thinking you have a 22" monitor, so it must be 22" wide. Unlikely all things considered, but I still have to ask.) :)
It's not a game: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diaspora
Yeah, but what company advertises that? "Hey, Americans, you should buy our product, which can do some of the same things that our European version can!"
I used to get $77k, which my boss increased from $64k just a couple of months before, because he was very pleased with my work (Excel VBA). Our competitor approached me and offered me $128k. I didn't know whether to tell my boss, but I did, because when in doubt I always pick honesty, and he said: "So what did you tell them?", so I said I told them I'd think about it. He said: "I would too, that's a lot of money!" He asked me what it would take for me to stay and I said: "I don't know, at least $100k?" He said I could have the $100k if I agreed to adding to my contract that we both have three months more notice (I had one before, they had four) and I agreed. That way he knew that if I decided to leave, they still had me for four months while they found a replacement and I trained him. If they decide to fire me, I get full pay for seven months. It's been a bit more than year now and I'm still with the company and very happy with how everything turned out. :)
2. What if it was a single atom? If you "push" an atom, does the other side move immediately or is there a small delay? I'm guessing there's a small delay, or we'd be able to transmit data faster than the speed at light, albeit only at relatively small distances, such as the width of an atom.
They hope someone else will think for them on set concept. This goes not just for computers, but also for the medical field, food industry, or anything else where it is "too complected" for set people to really give a care.
You should watch this if you haven't already, which basically says you're right. :)
http://www.ted.com/talks/dan_ariely_asks_are_we_in_control_of_our_own_decisions.html
I'm pretty sure he was joking. :)
Well, doing it in one year is kind of optimistic. Why did you assume that was the time periode he meant?
It seems no technology ever dies completely, but I think most people would agree the telegraph is pretty much as dead as they come, even if the Internet can be considered a modern form of telegraphy. :)
So I'm assuming that such drops will be controlled by a weekly budget. If not regulated in such a manner it's just a matter of time until the economy comes crashing down.
Two things:
1. Yes, it's just a matter of time before everyone will get the best weapon in the game on the same day. However, it's extremely unlikely that will happen in the next billions of years.
2. Even if it happens, it won't matter much to Blizzard as they have never promised they will buy your items for a certain prices. You will just put your awesome sword in the auction house and no one will buy it and Blizzard will add a better sword that is unlikely to drop for everyone else at the same time in the next billions of years.
Thank you.
Then I still think they should be tested and rated individually, along with the original. "Yesterday you gave the original a 96.5% score. Today you rated this lossy codec as 99.2%."
Also, is it really fair to test two codecs by listening to one and then immediately listening to the other? Even if you can tell a difference, that doesn't mean that you're get a better listening experience. I think these tests should be done by a person listening to one codec and rating it on a scale. Then the person should take a break, wait a few hours, listen to another codec and rate that on the same scale. Then we'll see if the listening experience has really gotten better or worse, not whether the person can just tell the two codecs apart while listening to one and then immediately the other, which you would never do when just listening to music.
Thank you for at least not making the same old Ovaltine joke.
What I like to ask the wealthy whiners is; if you're getting treated so unfairly while these freeloading, poor, sub-human, cradle-to-grave ghetto-dwellers are living the high-life off of your tax dollars, you should be happy to trade places, right? Right?
Now let's say I started out with had nothing. I then worked really, really hard for many years and now I have a lot and no longer have to work. Now the government says I have to give half my fortune to, say, some guy who doesn't like working. Am I not allowed to be unhappy about that without wanting to switch places with him?
More than half my friend list consists of people that I don't really know.
I have less than 20 friends on Facebook. Why? Because I only added my friends. Sure, I know a lot more than 20 people, but I wouldn't call them friends, so I didn't add them as friends on Facebook.
I realize it's pointless to reply to this as I'm not telling you anything you don't already know, but eventually any true random generator would come up with a string of nines, so I still think it's pretty funny. The more nines he comes up with, the more likely you are to be right that he's not generating truly random numbers, but the closest you could ever get would be to say: "It's extremely unlikely that these numbers are truly random." and then someone would say: "So it's possible?" and you would have to say: "Yes, it's possible."
(And a true random number generator will have exactly the same chances of coming up with 99999999999999 as 65345608315823, the last one just looks a lot more random to us.)
That's my favorite episode. :)
Much better analogy than the others.
The short version is that the word "piracy" has been used for unauthorized copying for hundreds of years, the long version is... well, Google it. :)
Well, in that case this should be pretty easy to fix for the spammers, assuming they care.
This is probably obvious, since no one is talking about it, but how is he taking over the email addresses? Surely the bots aren't registrering on his honeypot forums with the same password as is used for the e-mail they use to register.
True, but I wouldn't do that. If I start to watch a movie, I will finish watching it, no matter how bored I am, because for me the ending and the final impressions left by movie can change it into something that was definitely worth watching, even if it was two hours of boredom at the time.
So what does this mean? It probably just means that in a perfect world, there would be different ratings for "hated it, so I turned it off" and "finished watching it, hated it". Imagine an extreme example where a movie was rated like this:
95% of the viewers: Hated it, turned it off
5% of the viewers: Hated it, but finished watching it, eventually loved it
Assuming I also fall into one of those two categories, it obviously wouldn't be the first one, as I would always finish watching even a terrible movie. That means that I would end up in the group of people who eventually love the movie and would be really glad I sat through it.
However, these are probably the only ratings I can see:
95% of the viewers: Hated it
5% of the viewers: Loved it
So I probably wouldn't bother with that movie, because I would think I would be unlikely to love it when 95% hate it.
Alright, this is an extreme and contrived example, but my point is that you should be able to decide whether you want to see only reviews from people who finish watching the movie or everyone who's sat down to see it, even if they only watched the first 15 minutes. The first option would be for me, the last option would be for someone who still thinks an hour and a half is wasted if you're bored to death, even if it's the kind of ending you can't stop thinking about for the next two weeks.
it's just people being people (and by people, I mean dicks)
Dicks being people? WTF does that mean?
I've rated about 3600 titles... but honestly, you don't have to watch an entire movie all the way through to give it a one star "I Hated it" or two star "I didn't like it".
It feels like I have seen hundreds of movies where a brilliant ending changed my impression of the movie from "huge waste of time" to "OMG, that was very clever, I'm going to be thinking about that for a long time!".