Don't question what Oracle provides, simply pray they do not alter the deal further.
IBM isn't putting out a "unique offering" because they're focusing on using generic standards-based tools, and selling the full corporate servicing you mention.
As a consultant, I want to use the same technologies that IBM is using, and I want to be able to tell my clients, "If you outgrow my services, you can go to IBM and keep using the same stuff you started with."
That's way better marketing than, "If you outgrow my services, you have to start over from scratch, and you wouldn't want to see that happen to a nice business like yours."
It isn't a ridiculous attitude, it is basic Law of Identity: I am not you, and you are not me. The upstream software exists for whatever the purposes and preferences of its developers are; the distribution that includes that software is merely a user. Their preferences may or may not be part of the development process, according to the prerogatives of the upstream developer.
If a volunteer maintainer at a distro feels entitled to dictate changes, maybe they've been volunteering too long and should move on to richer pastures?
If it was diamonds that would be a game-changer for the space race, because the industrial uses of diamonds are highly constrained by price and availability.
Without the speculative market where people keep sacks of gold in a safe in case the economy collapses, gold would currently have an industrial value of about $350. So it would have to be economical at that price to make it worth investing in something that might crash the market price. But it is a useful metal that would be in much more widespread use if there was greater supply. Gold could be the copper of the future!
Some humans have 20/20 vision. Some humans have 20/200 vision. Some humans have 20/10 vision. Some humans have much better vision than that.
If you do a strip mine on the front side, people will see it. Unaided. Also: contrast, and shadows. Remember, the Sun is reflecting directly, without having been attenuated by an atmosphere. That totally changes the visibility distance calculations.
That's old, fossil thinking right there. You don't bring it back to Earth now, today, at current launch prices! No way. The point is, you dig it up now, put your name on it, and put shares on a blockchain. That way you can get it onto a market right now, today. And worry about bringing it back in few hundred years, when we need it, and transportation costs are lower.
This is a whole new market, it won't compete with metals that are here on Earth; those need to be used now, before they oxidize, if they were already dug up and processed. This is about building your family's legacy. This is about your personal immortality, as ensured by that same family legacy. You can't buy that with an Earthly investment.
Man, that was good, I wish I had some snake oil to sell at the end of that one.
You might want to re-check your tulip market myth, it is a modern fiction not some sort of economic insight.
People get really confused by the historical writings, because the sort of courtiers who were investing in things like tulips were people who phrased everything as if their own family budget was the only money in the nation, and their own interests the only interests that mattered. So a personal bankruptcy would be described as the death of the nation's economy, etc. If a person's favorite restaurant stopped serving hummingbird tongues, to a courtier that is a major food shortage signaling the end of life as we know it. And yet, the economy might have actually grown.;)
You can always subdivide and repackage the ownership certificates for something like stocks that are a paperwork-based item of value.
If they tricked you into taking their question at face value, they already tricked you and are done. Now they're an "innovator" and you're a "skeptic" and they've created a lot of "interest."
Never ask "could they" on these things. Of course they could. What a person should be asking is, what value is actually added? And for who? The answer is usually that it adds value for the financial planner selling it to you, and that value comes from the presumption of low risk until proven otherwise. In reality, a new product should be presumed to lack value until proven otherwise. But people rely on the same person to give them that advice that gets the commission from the sale, so good luck!
The main difference is that tuna is used mostly as a filler fish, not a main course, so it makes sense to intensively farm it.
When you do that, you're going to sacrifice a lot of flavor, but canning already does that, so canned farmed tuna might not be much different from canned wild tuna.
But salmon isn't usually canned, and when it is, it loses most of its price premium. GMO farmed salmon is really risky bet, because they might only be able to get lower prices comparable to canned pink salmon. Also the fact that they're comparing their flavor to freshwater-farmed salmon, which taste more like trout than salmon, instead of the more common saltwater-farmed salmon, suggests they already know the flavor will be weak.
As far as broader food supply issues go, doing this same work with a vegetarian freshwater fish could really improve protein access in many parts of the world; imagine a tilapia that grows like a salmon! And those already taste bad, they might taste better if grown fast.
Let's see why don't we alter the natural progression of growth and see what happens
I'll tell you what happens right now, you get all the meat and very little of the flavor, just like with over-fertilized vegetables.
The regular farmed fish already has mushy flesh with little flavor compared to wild fish. This is going to taste more like pollack than salmon; it will just be boring. But it will be fish, and it will taste like "a fish."
I'm not gonna be the guinea pig for this experiment either, if I wanted to eat bland mushy fish I'd go down to the river a catch a Northern Pikeminnow or 50.
They have new groups now, the IRA doesn't exist anymore.
But if there is a hard border inside Ireland again, expect people to start singing Kevin Barry and detonating ordinance. The Irish people don't tolerate internal obstacles to trade.
The point of the "backstop" is to prevent war, it is as simple as that. Any trade border has to run in the sea, if it runs across land it will be an unmitigated disaster, and also violate the peace treaty.
You can challenge information you believe is false and have it removed from your credit report.
When you challenge it, they have to be able to prove the debt to continue pressing it. If it is over a charge-back, the charge-back being successful makes that close to impossible for them; the best evidence everybody has, including them, is that you were in the right.
If you clear the charge-back step, you already won. They have to win at that stage to have any hope, and their chances depend entirely on your CC company. If your CC company gives good service, this really works.
It is even worse than that, the decision that had been made was that nothing could be done except comfort care; waiting to tell him would have meant withholding the comfort care, too! He would have suffered more that way.
Naw, they understand the situation and that time is a limited resource. You're just an asshole calling names.
I don't mind assholes in the general case, but you should really own your ideas more; worry about your own "high" if that is the root of the problem.
You'd rather some other patient get less care so that something that is routinely done over the phone could be done in person by the highest demand person available. I think that's disgusting. If you were in charge, you'd be a murderer with that directive.
I'm no fan of May, but I can't hold this against her. Other parties have been repeatedly invited to come up with alternatives to the red lines only to spew back garbage, wishfull thinking, and legal impossibilities.
It isn't "wishful thinking" to point out that the alternatives to an impossible policy are actually all entirely different policies, which is what other parties have offered. It isn't up to the parties who disagree with the impossible plan to fix it; their duty is to promote better policies.
The idiots simply asserted that they could negotiate some sort of sweatheart deal with the EU, when actually the EU needs to withhold any sort of special privileges at all, or else they'd see a whole raft of countries also wanting half-way-out.
That was never something Brussels would agree to. And yet, it is what was presented to the British people to vote on. Absurd.
This is the value of a written Constitution that is difficult to change; you don't have some 51% vote that changes the very legal basic of the country.
"Barnier's Staircase" was the obvious reality even before the Brexit vote; these are well-established diplomatic concepts in the EU already when dealing with potential new members.
It is all a giant sack of lies and false promises, and it always was. If you don't want a "hard" exit, then you can't reasonably exit; a soft exit has to be on the EU's terms, because they have to protect themselves from a mass-exit. The EU has to offer "soft" exit deals that protect themselves at the expense of the country leaving, otherwise they have to hold their ground and say, "Don't leave unless you mean it."
Here in the US, a State would have to win a war with the rest of the country to leave. In most cases, unless they were given an option historically. Hawaii and Texas, for example, entered on special terms. But anybody else, no, they can't just vote locally to leave, because it affects everybody in the country. Agreeing to not have totally open borders between different political areas is a really big step, it is like a national marriage; you're not supposed to divorce on a whim, and you have to expect it will be painful and expensive for everybody.
Slashdot Mirror
With internet as a service, you would never even worry about buying more internets; you'd have all the internet you needed right at your fingertips!
I guess the alternative to internet-as-a-service would be to lay some fiber to the backbone and try to sign a peering agreement with somebody?
Don't question what Oracle provides, simply pray they do not alter the deal further.
IBM isn't putting out a "unique offering" because they're focusing on using generic standards-based tools, and selling the full corporate servicing you mention.
As a consultant, I want to use the same technologies that IBM is using, and I want to be able to tell my clients, "If you outgrow my services, you can go to IBM and keep using the same stuff you started with."
That's way better marketing than, "If you outgrow my services, you have to start over from scratch, and you wouldn't want to see that happen to a nice business like yours."
It isn't a ridiculous attitude, it is basic Law of Identity: I am not you, and you are not me. The upstream software exists for whatever the purposes and preferences of its developers are; the distribution that includes that software is merely a user. Their preferences may or may not be part of the development process, according to the prerogatives of the upstream developer.
If a volunteer maintainer at a distro feels entitled to dictate changes, maybe they've been volunteering too long and should move on to richer pastures?
If it was diamonds that would be a game-changer for the space race, because the industrial uses of diamonds are highly constrained by price and availability.
Without the speculative market where people keep sacks of gold in a safe in case the economy collapses, gold would currently have an industrial value of about $350. So it would have to be economical at that price to make it worth investing in something that might crash the market price. But it is a useful metal that would be in much more widespread use if there was greater supply. Gold could be the copper of the future!
Just push it down, and Earth will pay to catch it for you.
Didn't you ever read The Moon is a Harsh Mistress?!?!
Some humans have 20/20 vision. Some humans have 20/200 vision. Some humans have 20/10 vision. Some humans have much better vision than that.
If you do a strip mine on the front side, people will see it. Unaided. Also: contrast, and shadows. Remember, the Sun is reflecting directly, without having been attenuated by an atmosphere. That totally changes the visibility distance calculations.
That's old, fossil thinking right there. You don't bring it back to Earth now, today, at current launch prices! No way. The point is, you dig it up now, put your name on it, and put shares on a blockchain. That way you can get it onto a market right now, today. And worry about bringing it back in few hundred years, when we need it, and transportation costs are lower.
This is a whole new market, it won't compete with metals that are here on Earth; those need to be used now, before they oxidize, if they were already dug up and processed. This is about building your family's legacy. This is about your personal immortality, as ensured by that same family legacy. You can't buy that with an Earthly investment.
Man, that was good, I wish I had some snake oil to sell at the end of that one.
You might want to re-check your tulip market myth, it is a modern fiction not some sort of economic insight.
People get really confused by the historical writings, because the sort of courtiers who were investing in things like tulips were people who phrased everything as if their own family budget was the only money in the nation, and their own interests the only interests that mattered. So a personal bankruptcy would be described as the death of the nation's economy, etc. If a person's favorite restaurant stopped serving hummingbird tongues, to a courtier that is a major food shortage signaling the end of life as we know it. And yet, the economy might have actually grown. ;)
LOL, were you in a coma in 2008, or what?
Could they? Absofuckinlutely.
You can always subdivide and repackage the ownership certificates for something like stocks that are a paperwork-based item of value.
If they tricked you into taking their question at face value, they already tricked you and are done. Now they're an "innovator" and you're a "skeptic" and they've created a lot of "interest."
Never ask "could they" on these things. Of course they could. What a person should be asking is, what value is actually added? And for who? The answer is usually that it adds value for the financial planner selling it to you, and that value comes from the presumption of low risk until proven otherwise. In reality, a new product should be presumed to lack value until proven otherwise. But people rely on the same person to give them that advice that gets the commission from the sale, so good luck!
flat-chested
Yeah, this is slashdot. Chests here come in XXL and up.
With boobs that big, it is no wonder most of these guys never leave the basement. Well, that, and that they can't reach their shoelaces.
So you can make an informed choice, by weighing up all the misinformation you're being told from both sides.
This is the level of philosophy that slashdot is capable of, right here.
"I cannot understand, therefore you cannot understand."
Sad. But also true.
Not seafood.
Good luck convincing me to say "waterfood" without the quotes, though.
The main difference is that tuna is used mostly as a filler fish, not a main course, so it makes sense to intensively farm it.
When you do that, you're going to sacrifice a lot of flavor, but canning already does that, so canned farmed tuna might not be much different from canned wild tuna.
But salmon isn't usually canned, and when it is, it loses most of its price premium. GMO farmed salmon is really risky bet, because they might only be able to get lower prices comparable to canned pink salmon. Also the fact that they're comparing their flavor to freshwater-farmed salmon, which taste more like trout than salmon, instead of the more common saltwater-farmed salmon, suggests they already know the flavor will be weak.
As far as broader food supply issues go, doing this same work with a vegetarian freshwater fish could really improve protein access in many parts of the world; imagine a tilapia that grows like a salmon! And those already taste bad, they might taste better if grown fast.
Let's see why don't we alter the natural progression of growth and see what happens
I'll tell you what happens right now, you get all the meat and very little of the flavor, just like with over-fertilized vegetables.
The regular farmed fish already has mushy flesh with little flavor compared to wild fish. This is going to taste more like pollack than salmon; it will just be boring. But it will be fish, and it will taste like "a fish."
I'm not gonna be the guinea pig for this experiment either, if I wanted to eat bland mushy fish I'd go down to the river a catch a Northern Pikeminnow or 50.
They have new groups now, the IRA doesn't exist anymore.
But if there is a hard border inside Ireland again, expect people to start singing Kevin Barry and detonating ordinance. The Irish people don't tolerate internal obstacles to trade.
The point of the "backstop" is to prevent war, it is as simple as that. Any trade border has to run in the sea, if it runs across land it will be an unmitigated disaster, and also violate the peace treaty.
Parliament is going to cancel Brexit next week, most likely.
England will be modeled after Albania, and Scotland will Brexit and rejoin the EU.
Wait, wait, what if the numbers existed separately and were not actually celestial movements? What if the numbers were arbitrary?
What if we had a 25 hour day, would the Sun not still come and go as it will?
And if Friday consisted of 3 hours, would the Sun not still come and go the same?
The BBQ lobby can cite lots of reasons, like more daylight evening hours for outdoor BBQ.
That's who asked Congress to extend it, when they extended it.
You can challenge information you believe is false and have it removed from your credit report.
When you challenge it, they have to be able to prove the debt to continue pressing it. If it is over a charge-back, the charge-back being successful makes that close to impossible for them; the best evidence everybody has, including them, is that you were in the right.
If you clear the charge-back step, you already won. They have to win at that stage to have any hope, and their chances depend entirely on your CC company. If your CC company gives good service, this really works.
It is even worse than that, the decision that had been made was that nothing could be done except comfort care; waiting to tell him would have meant withholding the comfort care, too! He would have suffered more that way.
" There's a finite number of doctors "
And whose fault is that?
Death. The same jerk responsible for the other part of the story.
But he grants us Evolution in return, so it isn't all bad.
Naw, they understand the situation and that time is a limited resource. You're just an asshole calling names.
I don't mind assholes in the general case, but you should really own your ideas more; worry about your own "high" if that is the root of the problem.
You'd rather some other patient get less care so that something that is routinely done over the phone could be done in person by the highest demand person available. I think that's disgusting. If you were in charge, you'd be a murderer with that directive.
I'm no fan of May, but I can't hold this against her. Other parties have been repeatedly invited to come up with alternatives to the red lines only to spew back garbage, wishfull thinking, and legal impossibilities.
It isn't "wishful thinking" to point out that the alternatives to an impossible policy are actually all entirely different policies, which is what other parties have offered. It isn't up to the parties who disagree with the impossible plan to fix it; their duty is to promote better policies.
The idiots simply asserted that they could negotiate some sort of sweatheart deal with the EU, when actually the EU needs to withhold any sort of special privileges at all, or else they'd see a whole raft of countries also wanting half-way-out.
That was never something Brussels would agree to. And yet, it is what was presented to the British people to vote on. Absurd.
This is the value of a written Constitution that is difficult to change; you don't have some 51% vote that changes the very legal basic of the country.
"Barnier's Staircase" was the obvious reality even before the Brexit vote; these are well-established diplomatic concepts in the EU already when dealing with potential new members.
It is all a giant sack of lies and false promises, and it always was. If you don't want a "hard" exit, then you can't reasonably exit; a soft exit has to be on the EU's terms, because they have to protect themselves from a mass-exit. The EU has to offer "soft" exit deals that protect themselves at the expense of the country leaving, otherwise they have to hold their ground and say, "Don't leave unless you mean it."
Here in the US, a State would have to win a war with the rest of the country to leave. In most cases, unless they were given an option historically. Hawaii and Texas, for example, entered on special terms. But anybody else, no, they can't just vote locally to leave, because it affects everybody in the country. Agreeing to not have totally open borders between different political areas is a really big step, it is like a national marriage; you're not supposed to divorce on a whim, and you have to expect it will be painful and expensive for everybody.