I use Calibre to convert XXX to/from ePub & mobi, where XXX is nearly any format, not (just) porn. It does a pretty good job at HTML, PDF, RTF, CBR, LIT, PDB - you name it, and has direct support for getting content onto a bunch of different hardware, including phones.
Surgeons don't usually operate with open hands (psychic "surgeons" aside).
Natal could potentially track a bright orange scalpel with sub-millimeter accuracy, much like Sony's Eyetoy/wand system works (or they could use a PS3 instead).
Key point is, Natal will not replace the current controller, not for most existing game genres like shooters. We'll still play tradititional games with traditional controllers. For those games, Natal might be used for supplementry "leaning" while holding a controller, face recognition, voice control etc, though I hope devs don't overdo this (ref: Lair).
Sony's wands are targeted very differently to Natal; they're much more like an accurate Wiimote, and are more suited to existing Wii-type games. While similar wand controllers could be used with Natal (it's a superset of Eyetoy), I don't think its strengths lie with the games we've already seen.
I'm more interested in what new genres devs come up with, game styles that come more naturally from what the controller allows, like how the Wii enabled, but to a greater extent. That, and the non-game aspects like facial login, object recognition, gesture navigation and voice control of system/game menus and functions (the Milo demo is a good example of where these abilities could go).
And frankly, that annoys me too. I see a game announced on a US site and I have to check what they're asking for it in my local currency (it's arbitrary, not exchange-rate based). Points can be simpler.
And then I have to add a whole $10 to my "wallet" anyway, inevitably resulting in leftover credit. No differences there.
I'm a bit out of touch, but don't arcade games cost somewhat more than a quarter these days?Last I saw here (AU), games often cost a dollar coin (US$0.90) to play, or more.
It could even have a pref that defaults to "no multitasking" or "max 1 simultaneous apps", for clueless users who only care about battery life. How hard would that be? So long as it's changeable by someone with enough knowledge, that'd be fine by me.
Apple claims they take choice away to "improve the user experience", but really they're just trying to reduce their own support costs, nothing more.
I don't think you can really judge modern RealD or Dolby3D by watching something with 1950s-standard red/blue anaglyph. They're very very different.
3D viewing does have its weak points, and not everyone is going to go for it, but it has come a long way in the last few years. Go see Avatar, then see what you think.
It is a failure of critical thinking on your part to rule out the possibility of causation before there is an explanation for the correlation.
I "ruled out" nothing. I have no specific information about whether those papers were rejected solely on the basis of viewpoint, or not.
Any correlation is meaningless, in the sense that you can not imply any meaning from it. There is a correlation between IQ and shoe size, but without more information (e.g. that it applies mostly to children), you simply can't make any useful conclusions from it. When you see correlation, you may wish to look for causation (because causation usually does imply correlation), but the correlation in itself is not evidence of anything.
Though from further reading of that particular email, other possible reasons for rejection are offered.
But unless you have a clue what the raw numbers are telling you, and what the limits of their accuracy are, how does that help you in any way? This is a lot more complex than "black" or "white". It would only guarantee that idiots around the world will misinterpret everything.
You want the numbers, show some evidence you know what to do with them. Anything else is only going to confuse the issue even further (see: CRU emails).
Or did the climate science budget suddenly, dramatically and improbably multiply by a few orders of magnitude, to overtake the global petroleum industry?
Hey, if it did - perhaps climate science should just buy any deniers to shut them up. Wouldn't that be more consistent with these allegations?
This does not follow, because it totally ignores that the scientists with the data may have intrinsic bias, or even that they could be wrong. This is exactly why when you get a diagnosis from a doctor that says "Operate!", you get a second opinion.
One problem with this analogy is that it's not just one "doctor" that's saying "operate", it's thousands. How many more "second opinions" do you want before you accept that perhaps you actually need an operation? Are all those doctors quacks, every one of them?
I do agree the data should be public - and AFAIK there already are a great many public datasets, at NOAA and other places. You can gain access to more datasets once you exhibit certain basic qualifications (like a relevant degree). Just make sure you analyse a significant proportion of the data, and not just cherry-pick the bits that appear to agree with your conclusion, like so many deniers are guilty of.
some of the leading people involved WERE actively trying to suppress papers by people with opposing viewpoints
Correlation is not causation.
Unless you have evidence that papers were suppressed specifically because, and only because of their opposing viewpoints - i.e. that there was no other valid reason to suppress them, then this is meaningless.
You can even publish your opinion, almost anywhere you like. Just don't expect to publish it in a journal unless it meets the journal's stated criteria for accuracy and methodology.
You are only supposed to trust the work of peer reviewed climate scientists. And only known trusted warmers can peer review the climate change data.
Well, since 97% of the people best qualified to judge the methodology of an article about climate science are already convinced by their own observations that AGW is a critical issue, good luck finding someone sufficiently educated who disagrees. Basically you're claiming that virtually all climate scientists are either a) corrupted or b) morons, and I think that's a very tough charge to make stick.
I certainly agree that peer review should not be an argument-ender (and there's plenty of sites like realclimate who are willing to discuss further). However I can also see that time spent battling the publicity of big-dollar vested interests for the "mindshare" of those who don't have the (significant) time or education to make a truly informed decision, is precious time that could be spent actually learning more about what the globe is up against, and could quickly get exasperating. Nevertheless, it's clear that the scientific community needs to make more of an effort to explain their conclusions to the lay public who doesn't know who to believe.
On that last point, for the last couple of hundred years it was qualified scientists whose opinions were generally given more weight; now apparently it's half-educated bloggers. When did that change, and why?
since we have found they were suppressing opposing viewpoints in journals
[Citation needed]
The point of peer review is to suppress demonstrably inaccurate articles, or articles with such poor methodology that you can't tell whether they're accurate or not. If you have good evidence that some articles were dismissed on the sole basis of their viewpoints, please cite it - and perhaps suggest to the authors of those articles that they re-submit to some different journals.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but it's the same deal if you want to put your own code on your iPhone. Even the fee is the same ($99).
In Microsoft's case, you have to take into account that the hardware is subsidised (they might actually be making a small profit by now, perhaps still amortising development costs), so expect to pay more elsewhere, otherwise people could buy an Xbox below cost and run nothing but their own software on it, which isn't a successful business model.
In Apple's case, the $99 fee applies whether your phone was subsidised or not.
Unfortunately, since the StreetView camera only records a single image, you can't get the parallax needed for stereo.
Well, you can, sorta, if you take two adjacent streetview scenes, for the left and right eyes, and look perpendicularly away from the direction of travel. You can even take a sequence of these and play them as an animation, with the "trailing" eye being delayed by a frame. But with an eye separation in the order of metres, it really only works with very long views, and makes everything seem kinda tiny.
The separation of Telstra's wholesale and retail divisions has been discussedheatedly for many years, long before the change of government. The previous administration was happy to let it stand, which made Telstra investors happy but pissed off Telstra customers as well as competitors, not to mention holding back innovation. You only have to look at the number of times Telstra has lost in fights with the ACCC, the courts and even the government to see why this was a mistake.
The only group of people who are opposed to Telstra being split are the (unlucky) shareholders. Pretty much everyone else who has had to deal with Telstra are unhappy with their service and pricing, their treatment of retail customers and wholesale customers.
I'm not saying that the government's NBN plan is well-thought-out or anything, but Telstra's joke of a proposal and their juvenile "change the law to suit us or we take our toys and leave" attitude is even worse for the competitive landscape and the general Australian public. A split can't come soon enough.
Unless he's referring to the actually-quite-good BBC TV series, that was first aired in 1981 - after the first book, before the adventure game, etc etc.
Slashdot Mirror
I use Calibre to convert XXX to/from ePub & mobi, where XXX is nearly any format, not (just) porn. It does a pretty good job at HTML, PDF, RTF, CBR, LIT, PDB - you name it, and has direct support for getting content onto a bunch of different hardware, including phones.
Any other suggestions for this job?
What would YOU do if your perception of time was slowed down by a factor of, say, 100?
I'd finally have time to play Fallout 3 :-)
...retrospectively.
And the law's sponsor, everybody's least favorite attorney general, Michael Atkinson, has stated that the law won't be enforced.
He's right about that at least.
Surgeons don't usually operate with open hands (psychic "surgeons" aside).
Natal could potentially track a bright orange scalpel with sub-millimeter accuracy, much like Sony's Eyetoy/wand system works (or they could use a PS3 instead).
Perhaps six people who aren't decapitated corpses. That sounds like more fun to me (YMMV).
Key point is, Natal will not replace the current controller, not for most existing game genres like shooters. We'll still play tradititional games with traditional controllers. For those games, Natal might be used for supplementry "leaning" while holding a controller, face recognition, voice control etc, though I hope devs don't overdo this (ref: Lair).
Sony's wands are targeted very differently to Natal; they're much more like an accurate Wiimote, and are more suited to existing Wii-type games. While similar wand controllers could be used with Natal (it's a superset of Eyetoy), I don't think its strengths lie with the games we've already seen.
I'm more interested in what new genres devs come up with, game styles that come more naturally from what the controller allows, like how the Wii enabled, but to a greater extent. That, and the non-game aspects like facial login, object recognition, gesture navigation and voice control of system/game menus and functions (the Milo demo is a good example of where these abilities could go).
Or did you buy original copies of all those game ROMs you're playing for "free"?
And frankly, that annoys me too. I see a game announced on a US site and I have to check what they're asking for it in my local currency (it's arbitrary, not exchange-rate based). Points can be simpler.
And then I have to add a whole $10 to my "wallet" anyway, inevitably resulting in leftover credit. No differences there.
I'm a bit out of touch, but don't arcade games cost somewhat more than a quarter these days?Last I saw here (AU), games often cost a dollar coin (US$0.90) to play, or more.
Electrical energy -> increased gravitational potential energy, not heat.
Though arguably, counter-weighting means any overall increase in potential energy is likely outweighed by friction losses (i.e. heat)
.
It could even have a pref that defaults to "no multitasking" or "max 1 simultaneous apps", for clueless users who only care about battery life. How hard would that be? So long as it's changeable by someone with enough knowledge, that'd be fine by me.
Apple claims they take choice away to "improve the user experience", but really they're just trying to reduce their own support costs, nothing more.
I don't think you can really judge modern RealD or Dolby3D by watching something with 1950s-standard red/blue anaglyph. They're very very different.
3D viewing does have its weak points, and not everyone is going to go for it, but it has come a long way in the last few years. Go see Avatar, then see what you think.
It is a failure of critical thinking on your part to rule out the possibility of causation before there is an explanation for the correlation.
I "ruled out" nothing. I have no specific information about whether those papers were rejected solely on the basis of viewpoint, or not.
Any correlation is meaningless, in the sense that you can not imply any meaning from it. There is a correlation between IQ and shoe size, but without more information (e.g. that it applies mostly to children), you simply can't make any useful conclusions from it. When you see correlation, you may wish to look for causation (because causation usually does imply correlation), but the correlation in itself is not evidence of anything.
Though from further reading of that particular email, other possible reasons for rejection are offered.
Sure, they could - and in many cases, they have.
But unless you have a clue what the raw numbers are telling you, and what the limits of their accuracy are, how does that help you in any way? This is a lot more complex than "black" or "white". It would only guarantee that idiots around the world will misinterpret everything.
You want the numbers, show some evidence you know what to do with them. Anything else is only going to confuse the issue even further (see: CRU emails).
Or did the climate science budget suddenly, dramatically and improbably multiply by a few orders of magnitude, to overtake the global petroleum industry?
Hey, if it did - perhaps climate science should just buy any deniers to shut them up. Wouldn't that be more consistent with these allegations?
This does not follow, because it totally ignores that the scientists with the data may have intrinsic bias, or even that they could be wrong. This is exactly why when you get a diagnosis from a doctor that says "Operate!", you get a second opinion.
One problem with this analogy is that it's not just one "doctor" that's saying "operate", it's thousands . How many more "second opinions" do you want before you accept that perhaps you actually need an operation? Are all those doctors quacks, every one of them?
I do agree the data should be public - and AFAIK there already are a great many public datasets, at NOAA and other places. You can gain access to more datasets once you exhibit certain basic qualifications (like a relevant degree). Just make sure you analyse a significant proportion of the data, and not just cherry-pick the bits that appear to agree with your conclusion, like so many deniers are guilty of.
some of the leading people involved WERE actively trying to suppress papers by people with opposing viewpoints
Correlation is not causation.
Unless you have evidence that papers were suppressed specifically because, and only because of their opposing viewpoints - i.e. that there was no other valid reason to suppress them, then this is meaningless.
You can even publish your opinion, almost anywhere you like. Just don't expect to publish it in a journal unless it meets the journal's stated criteria for accuracy and methodology.
You are only supposed to trust the work of peer reviewed climate scientists. And only known trusted warmers can peer review the climate change data.
Well, since 97% of the people best qualified to judge the methodology of an article about climate science are already convinced by their own observations that AGW is a critical issue, good luck finding someone sufficiently educated who disagrees. Basically you're claiming that virtually all climate scientists are either a) corrupted or b) morons, and I think that's a very tough charge to make stick.
I certainly agree that peer review should not be an argument-ender (and there's plenty of sites like realclimate who are willing to discuss further). However I can also see that time spent battling the publicity of big-dollar vested interests for the "mindshare" of those who don't have the (significant) time or education to make a truly informed decision, is precious time that could be spent actually learning more about what the globe is up against, and could quickly get exasperating. Nevertheless, it's clear that the scientific community needs to make more of an effort to explain their conclusions to the lay public who doesn't know who to believe.
On that last point, for the last couple of hundred years it was qualified scientists whose opinions were generally given more weight; now apparently it's half-educated bloggers. When did that change, and why?
since we have found they were suppressing opposing viewpoints in journals
[Citation needed]
The point of peer review is to suppress demonstrably inaccurate articles, or articles with such poor methodology that you can't tell whether they're accurate or not. If you have good evidence that some articles were dismissed on the sole basis of their viewpoints, please cite it - and perhaps suggest to the authors of those articles that they re-submit to some different journals.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but it's the same deal if you want to put your own code on your iPhone. Even the fee is the same ($99).
In Microsoft's case, you have to take into account that the hardware is subsidised (they might actually be making a small profit by now, perhaps still amortising development costs), so expect to pay more elsewhere, otherwise people could buy an Xbox below cost and run nothing but their own software on it, which isn't a successful business model.
In Apple's case, the $99 fee applies whether your phone was subsidised or not.
Not for using known-bogus props as an excuse to conduct searches, which would be clever, but for deliberately paying $60,000 for each of them!
Unfortunately, since the StreetView camera only records a single image, you can't get the parallax needed for stereo.
Well, you can, sorta, if you take two adjacent streetview scenes, for the left and right eyes, and look perpendicularly away from the direction of travel. You can even take a sequence of these and play them as an animation, with the "trailing" eye being delayed by a frame. But with an eye separation in the order of metres, it really only works with very long views, and makes everything seem kinda tiny.
That's exactly what they said about Windows Mobile's apps when iPhone came out.
The separation of Telstra's wholesale and retail divisions has been discussed heatedly for many years, long before the change of government. The previous administration was happy to let it stand, which made Telstra investors happy but pissed off Telstra customers as well as competitors, not to mention holding back innovation. You only have to look at the number of times Telstra has lost in fights with the ACCC, the courts and even the government to see why this was a mistake.
The only group of people who are opposed to Telstra being split are the (unlucky) shareholders. Pretty much everyone else who has had to deal with Telstra are unhappy with their service and pricing, their treatment of retail customers and wholesale customers.
I'm not saying that the government's NBN plan is well-thought-out or anything, but Telstra's joke of a proposal and their juvenile "change the law to suit us or we take our toys and leave" attitude is even worse for the competitive landscape and the general Australian public. A split can't come soon enough.
Unless he's referring to the actually-quite-good BBC TV series, that was first aired in 1981 - after the first book, before the adventure game, etc etc.