Comment Re:PR smackdown (Score 1) 314
You should also try not to crash into a concrete barrier wall at 110mph, then through a reinforced buttressed concrete wall, then headlong into a tree.
Unless you're driving a Tesla, then it's no big deal.
You should also try not to crash into a concrete barrier wall at 110mph, then through a reinforced buttressed concrete wall, then headlong into a tree.
Unless you're driving a Tesla, then it's no big deal.
At the beginning of the article, you ask:
"Why do Netflix and a few other companies keep the DVD format alive, when streaming is more convenient for almost all users?
At the End of the article you then say:
I'd be interested in hearing other theories, as long as people understand the question: Why movie studios don't allow movies to be streamed in a manner that mimics, as closely as possible, the experience of checking out DVDs by mail from Netflix (including, say, a mandatory delay between the time you select the movie and the time that you can watch it).
"as long as people understand the question:"?
Which question? The second question clearly answers the first question by asking "Why movie studios don't allow movies to be streamed...". The question itself is saying that movie studios don't allow streaming in a manner to match DVD by mail, so that's why Netflix doesn't do it.
Netflix already explained why they don't license everything for streaming.
https://help.netflix.com/en/no...
http://blogs.indiewire.com/sha...
I used a almost secret hacker tool (used by the CIA, FBI, and NSA!) to get this information.
Try it: http://google.com/
This is a physical access attack and therefore not very interesting.
To do this you have to cut the ATM open at the point where the computer is installed and attach a smartphone to the USB port (or in older versions, a USB stick, or keyboard). They recommend upgrading the OS and securing the hard drive. How about putting epoxy in the computer's device ports?
"A fool makes things bigger + more complex: It takes a touch of genius & a lot of courage to move in the opposite direction." - Einstein
I think it was E.F Schumacher that wrote that.
BTW, almost none of the famous Einstein "quotes" were actually said by Einstein.
I also bet that you could break Mike Tyson's nose with a sucker punch.
That chart does no such thing. According to that chart Greece, Ireland, and Latvia have over double the productivity of France and nearly triple that of the US. You cite that, did not read it, and then go on to say the figures are worthless. Then modded up to +4 insightful. It is as if no one bothers to think or even try to learn something about the world.
RE:
That chart does no such thing
That chart does no what such thing?
I say the two charts conflict and that furthermore both charts are not useful for the comparison the OP we're responding to who said "France has higher hourly per capita productivity" and the person who essentially said "it's the opposite"
I think that you fail at reading comprehension in regards to my post.
I did read both charts and the original web sites (The Conference Board and stat.ee) that they are referenced from.
I cite the second chart only to show how the two charts conflict. I said it agrees with ebbo-10db. AT NO PLACE DID I SAY THAT I AGREE WITH EITHER CHART NOR DID I AGREE WITH ebbo-10db.
I am not ebbo-10db. That is a different person.
RE:
According to that chart Greece, Ireland, and Latvia have over double the productivity of France and nearly triple that of the US.
Which is, of course, ridiculous and would be exactly my point if it were correct. I quote myself: "I say neither chart is useful."
BTW, neither chart shows Greece, Ireland, Latvia having double/triple productivity over France/US. I can't see how you concluded that unless you had confused the chart that shows "change over previous year" with the productivity/hour charts. Your point is supported by Lativia's having 122 vs US 104.8 in 2009 in the 2005=100 relative chart (or similar years), but that's about 20%, not nearly 300%.
FWIW, I thought for sure that someone would call me out for using Estonia's economic reports.
For that reason, I suspect that you, AC, did not actually look at what I offered.
BTW, The EU has their own web site http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.... for the same kind of tables with different numbers.
Or this, which agrees with ebbo-10db: http://www.stat.ee/64454
I say neither chart is useful. It's just dividing the GDP by guesses at how many hours are worked by the people in each country. It really just tells us that some countries get their money in different ways than others.
What we would want to know is how productive a worker is in comparable industries.
Consider that Norway's economy has a huge component of production and export of natural resources (oil etc) while Luxembourg is almost all financial services and perhaps banking secrecy.
There is no meaning in comparing the dollars produced by an Norway oil platform worker to that of a Luxembourg bank's US Treasury bond manager.
I'm surprised France is as high as it is considering how much of its economy is based on agriculture. That is to say a high labor-low pay industry, and similarly for tourism.
My observations over the decades showed that the rule is this:
It's called a "law" if the person who thought it up called it a "law"
It's called a "theory" if the person who thought it up called it a "theory"
E.g., the approximations known as "Newton's Laws of Motion" compared to Einstein's "Theory of Relativity"
Consider also:
Moore's Law of processor performance.
Anything called a Law in Economics
Once so named, it stays with that name with little relation to the validity of the thought.
It's a one-time pad system. OTP systems are theoretically unbreakable. The weakness of OTP systems occurs during the exchange or transmission of the OTP to the recipient.
They claim that "Any attempt to intercept the exchange of the key causes detectable variations in the quantum states carrying the cryptographic key, alerting both sender and receiver to the attack and allowing them to take mitigating action."
It appears to me that the catch is that transmissions must remain on the fiber link of their equipment, I.E., in-house.
Did I understand that correctly?
An old joke about neighbor envy
An angel in disguise visit a peasant's hut and is brought inside. The peasant shares what little food he has, and lets him sleep under his only blanket.
The next morning the angel reveals himself and tells the peasant he will be rewarded, but the catch is, whatever the peasant asks for, his neighbor will get double.
The peasant, agonized, thinks on it all day. Finally he tells the angel "I ask that you put out one of my eyes".
I think you got that backwards. Atlanta, Charlotte, Raleigh are, and have been, consistently at top of "most wired cities" lists.
http://www.forbes.com/2010/03/...
First sentence of the article:
"In the future envisioned by Google, Internet access will be a basic human right"
a right?
"You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."
I'm from Flatland, you insensitive clod!
Turns out that if I had read the pdf to the end, I would have seen that they discussed the alternate expected outcome's implications in detail.
From the article:
The idea, essentially, is that if two quasars on opposite sides of the sky are sufficiently distant from each other, they would have been out of causal contact since the Big Bang some 14 billion years ago, with no possible means of any third party communicating with both of them since the beginning of the universe — an ideal scenario for determining each particle detector’s settings.
Why would you assume that if they're 14 billion years apart that it would be any different than 14 seconds apart in time, at least in regard to entanglement?
" with no possible means of any third party communicating" makes me think "we don't know of a means to communicate"
Could the outcome of the experiment could show either action at a distance, or some faster-than-light communication without excluding either possibility?
If it does happen that entanglement went away, it would be most interesting.
UNIX was not designed to stop you from doing stupid things, because that would also stop you from doing clever things. -- Doug Gwyn
