MP3 was never a good compression algorithm. It's an audio format that uses a normalization that cause SOME audio to be lossy. It's a great demonstration on how a negligible loss across a wide range of audio could result in a more useful algorithm for sound (it's quite compact). MP3 is not a good compression algorithm and doesn't see a lot of use outside of commodity audio, where you can afford to throw away data.
> The summary can be both accurate and incendiary. Being flamebait does not mean it is inaccurate.
I didn't characterize it in any other way. Quit your kneejerk.
> =There is no situation in which there isn't a filed issue?
Apple doesn't seem to care (as per the summary) would be a situation. Apple certainly would take the opportunity to say "Nuh uh" as any corporate entity loves the PR blame game. Information isn't perfect, but it's not a case where it's really necessary. Maybe something will come out tomorrow. Today, nothing.
> Citation needed.
Apple didn't claim one. You're using "Citation needed" to ask for the assertion of something that doesn't exist? Until Apple makes a statement to that effect, none has been made. Citation needed for where you can find out? You can't.
> I have issues with the way Apple's App Store works. Your mind reading leaves something to be desired.
"Mind reading", yet calling the story flamebait...ironic. Flamebait implies that it was to provoke a response. Most readers don't take offense at the subtle distinction between "nothing" and "nothing yet" or even "nothing to satisfy the EC". You chose to interpret it and characterize it as flamebait, from your own imagination.
> it hasn't agreed to any specific actions or any time line. This is much to the commission's disapproval, but Apple doesn't seem particular concerned. In a statement to the BBC, Apple actually says that it's doing "more than others" to protect consumers from in-app purchases, pointing specifically to the upcoming iOS 8 feature Ask to Buy, which prevents children from making purchases and instead allows them to send that purchase to a parent for approval.
Lots of talk and a different approach that's specific to apple, for what apple thinks is appropriate.
> The EC notes that Apple has not yet done anything to address these concerns.
> The summary is flamebait.
The summary is accurate. If it wasn't, there would be a filed issue with the EC. You WANT Apple to be in the right...which it may be. That's irrelevant.
Reducing alcohol-related (or soda-related) deaths simply spreads certain death among other factors. Some other cause will take it's place as the 4th leader. What's the point? Trying to get accidents and natural causes to the top, doesn't seem like a worthy goal for humanity, to me.
An opinion doesn't require a solution, especially since it doesn't provide any facts to characterize.
There's no evidence that the security industry has been failing by adopting tools and methods that quite a few people use. The fact that there are few critical systems (that I use daily) which use username/password as the sole security credentials is a huge win over my experiences in '00. I think the security industry has pushed hard and made a serious dent.
Wait, Cisco wants to support a new network paradigm that would result in a market for new hardware, worldwide? This is America where lobbying new product lines into existence, is routine.
> The downside of the method is that after a server reboot you will have to wait for three trusted people to log in before you can authenticate any of them
Or automate 3+X system-known accounts that the system randomly logs into, as part of the bootup process?
> I don't know why Republicans are so blind to the black and white numbers
I'm not a Rep or a Dem. I did vote for Clinton and Obama. That's irrelevant, so get your panties unbunched.
The sources you cited are about as credible as the CBO, which I can confidently say, hasn't been credible since Clinton came to office (maybe before, but I wasn't able to cross reference facts earlier). Bush and Obama have also had their way with it, so it's no big deal anymore. While everyone in finance is very much aware (despite the feeble talk about job or spending or any CBO report influencing the stock market), somehow political bulls seem to keep relying arguing over fiction. This is the American way of socialization. Repeat the same myths until a generation has passed and the lies become truth.
I'm not sure why people can't remember or don't actually comprehend one of the most obvious lies made by a Democrat (before Obama).
> Clinton actually got us to a budget *SURPLUS* briefly, but GW Bush took care of that!
Clinton laid out a plan toward a surplus, given the government made specific budgetary changes, including not increasing spending for 7 years. I can give the government a surplus too. Cut government spending by 100% There I just did it with the same optimism and power as he had to enact it (at the end of his second term).
> he was talking complete bollocks, but continue to talk bollocks. That doesn't change the reality.
That's right, it doesn't change the reality. Please present ANY evidence to the assertion that CCTV is used (even selectively) to apprehend criminals based on Citizen reports and requests for review. I would be very interested in what doesn't exist, because that is not what the CCTV is used for. CCTV is largely run by private contract, so there are fees associated with obtaining footage for investigatory purposes. It's not in the budget to chase down personal property theft...outside of vehicles and government property and vicious crimes where they are obligated to remit the relatively bad recordings by existing policy.
Studies conducted on CCTV after 2000, when there was data to be had:
Assessing the impact of CCTV (2005) Data on London crime figures vs. number of cameras (2007 and the rehash Effects of Closed Circuit Television Surveillance on Crime - 2008) CCTV and its effectiveness in tackling crime (2009 and rehashed in the aggregate review A review of recent published evidence regarding the impact of CCTV on crime - 2009) took about 10 minutes to find. The personal crime statistics, where they are referenced or exist, are of specific interest. Not that these show directly that there is a policy in ignoring citizen reports, but that there's evidence they are not acted upon.
Reliance on CCTV has led to falling numbers of arrests while crime rates have not changed significantly. The UK government is notorious for lying to it's own people (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/british-birth-rate-leaps-by-18-in-a-decade-9107483.html - magical!), so it's to be expected that some are so indoctrinated they actually believe any statistics now. You've supposedly lived in the UK through the period that CCTV has not been used for pursuing personal crime, so you're a liar or ignorant. Good luck.
> Please explain typically means to give justification for a single statement
e.g. means "for example" (as opposed to i.e. "in other words")
When you said "please explain" it was not clear if you were not aware of the existing supporting documents and/or you wanted an explanation about how opinion pieces from that time "support" his argument. I gave a purely informative link because I certainly don't know what AC is thinking. I was just moderating and happened to see your post through +1 friend filter.
> Did YouTube ever positively contribute to Google's bottom line?
Google bought youtube for about 1.6 Billion
Youtube annual revenue has been over that pricepoint for a few years. CPM on video has always been in dollars, not cents. CPAs frequently pass $10. With up to 3 ads per video, you can understand how google justified the first payments to content providers.
> The police in Canada would not arrest you for an un-returned video no matter how long you had it because it is an obvious civil matter to be resolved by small claims court
IANAL but you can read about how that's not what happened.
> Yes, you have broken the law, and the owner of the video can take you to court, but you can't go to jail unless you fail to return the video after losing your small claims case, and then you would be going to jail for contempt, not theft.
There was no small claims case, because there was no appearance in a filed report of theft. Maybe it would have been thrown out for improper venue (meaning go to small claims), but more likely the fees associated with non-returning for 2 years passes the $500 (or whatever maximum for that area) that Small Claims can arbitrate. The warrant was likely for failure to appear and summary judgement of guilt. There isn't enough information here to say definitively, but deduction gives a couple possibilities. Warrants are issued to ensure other localities can arrest and hold regardless of charges (which may not even apply in the locality they are apprehended). That's part of the purpose of a warrant. It says "this person is wanted for a crime somewhere else, bring them back to us". Warrants sometimes describe what the crime was, but often do not because it can be complicated (failure to appear as a subpoena'd witness to testify about a civil case against a public defender being at a strip club instead of in court for a 3rd party contempt case, etc.)...Where the warrant applies is always present.
You seem amusingly critical for not recognizing the basic flow of events or even understanding the subtleties of the US justice system. Nobody spent tax money to chase her down, she ended up in a police station and was nabbed for a warrant. Nothing in the video cassette case seemed improper.
> Keep in mind that it's hard to return a movie to a defunct video chain.
Keep in mind she was arrested for an outstanding warrant. Returning the video would not have invalidated that. She was released on her own recognizance.
If I don't want to work on a project with an "expert", as part of my job, but I don't want to work on the project anymore because of something someone else is doing...I'd complain to my supervisor, then if I still wasn't happy, I would quit my job. If I wanted to keep my job (even if it was just to see them fail) I would manage to hobble through by doing the absolute minimum. It's not exactly controversial. How is this interesting enough to be a topic?
I've been around long enough to see ppl WHARGLBRGL about liberty all day long, but when it comes to protesting simple content inconsistency, we see total inaction. THIS IS NOT APPROPRIATE NEWS FOR THIS SITE and wrongs of the past do not change that.
Slashdot Mirror
> so MP3 would fail.
That's correct. So what?
MP3 was never a good compression algorithm. It's an audio format that uses a normalization that cause SOME audio to be lossy. It's a great demonstration on how a negligible loss across a wide range of audio could result in a more useful algorithm for sound (it's quite compact). MP3 is not a good compression algorithm and doesn't see a lot of use outside of commodity audio, where you can afford to throw away data.
> The summary can be both accurate and incendiary. Being flamebait does not mean it is inaccurate.
I didn't characterize it in any other way. Quit your kneejerk.
> =There is no situation in which there isn't a filed issue?
Apple doesn't seem to care (as per the summary) would be a situation. Apple certainly would take the opportunity to say "Nuh uh" as any corporate entity loves the PR blame game. Information isn't perfect, but it's not a case where it's really necessary. Maybe something will come out tomorrow. Today, nothing.
> Citation needed.
Apple didn't claim one. You're using "Citation needed" to ask for the assertion of something that doesn't exist? Until Apple makes a statement to that effect, none has been made. Citation needed for where you can find out? You can't.
> I have issues with the way Apple's App Store works. Your mind reading leaves something to be desired.
"Mind reading", yet calling the story flamebait...ironic. Flamebait implies that it was to provoke a response. Most readers don't take offense at the subtle distinction between "nothing" and "nothing yet" or even "nothing to satisfy the EC". You chose to interpret it and characterize it as flamebait, from your own imagination.
> it hasn't agreed to any specific actions or any time line. This is much to the commission's disapproval, but Apple doesn't seem particular concerned. In a statement to the BBC, Apple actually says that it's doing "more than others" to protect consumers from in-app purchases, pointing specifically to the upcoming iOS 8 feature Ask to Buy, which prevents children from making purchases and instead allows them to send that purchase to a parent for approval.
Lots of talk and a different approach that's specific to apple, for what apple thinks is appropriate.
> The EC notes that Apple has not yet done anything to address these concerns.
> The summary is flamebait.
The summary is accurate. If it wasn't, there would be a filed issue with the EC. You WANT Apple to be in the right...which it may be. That's irrelevant.
Welding. It's great money, a specialized skill, transferable to almost any local/regional economy, stable technology, and you get a union.
> a great many people take me very seriously indeed.
I don't believe that, based on evidence ... starting with: it's the Slashdot forums.
Reducing alcohol-related (or soda-related) deaths simply spreads certain death among other factors. Some other cause will take it's place as the 4th leader. What's the point? Trying to get accidents and natural causes to the top, doesn't seem like a worthy goal for humanity, to me.
> an opinion
An opinion doesn't require a solution, especially since it doesn't provide any facts to characterize.
There's no evidence that the security industry has been failing by adopting tools and methods that quite a few people use. The fact that there are few critical systems (that I use daily) which use username/password as the sole security credentials is a huge win over my experiences in '00. I think the security industry has pushed hard and made a serious dent.
I participated in the Supermechanical/Twine kickstarter. Apparently lots of people are making this stuff.
Wait, Cisco wants to support a new network paradigm that would result in a market for new hardware, worldwide? This is America where lobbying new product lines into existence, is routine.
> In other words, the education system is about to get a whole lot more one-size-fits-all in California.
That was the whole point of the suit.
+1 insightful answer.
Nothing landed at 600 kilotons. That event would have been noticed, so I'm not sure about the purpose of the hyperbole.
> The downside of the method is that after a server reboot you will have to wait for three trusted people to log in before you can authenticate any of them
Or automate 3+X system-known accounts that the system randomly logs into, as part of the bootup process?
> I don't know why Republicans are so blind to the black and white numbers
I'm not a Rep or a Dem. I did vote for Clinton and Obama. That's irrelevant, so get your panties unbunched.
The sources you cited are about as credible as the CBO, which I can confidently say, hasn't been credible since Clinton came to office (maybe before, but I wasn't able to cross reference facts earlier). Bush and Obama have also had their way with it, so it's no big deal anymore. While everyone in finance is very much aware (despite the feeble talk about job or spending or any CBO report influencing the stock market), somehow political bulls seem to keep relying arguing over fiction. This is the American way of socialization. Repeat the same myths until a generation has passed and the lies become truth.
I'm not sure why people can't remember or don't actually comprehend one of the most obvious lies made by a Democrat (before Obama).
> Clinton actually got us to a budget *SURPLUS* briefly, but GW Bush took care of that!
Clinton laid out a plan toward a surplus, given the government made specific budgetary changes, including not increasing spending for 7 years. I can give the government a surplus too. Cut government spending by 100% There I just did it with the same optimism and power as he had to enact it (at the end of his second term).
> he was talking complete bollocks, but continue to talk bollocks. That doesn't change the reality.
That's right, it doesn't change the reality. Please present ANY evidence to the assertion that CCTV is used (even selectively) to apprehend criminals based on Citizen reports and requests for review. I would be very interested in what doesn't exist, because that is not what the CCTV is used for. CCTV is largely run by private contract, so there are fees associated with obtaining footage for investigatory purposes. It's not in the budget to chase down personal property theft...outside of vehicles and government property and vicious crimes where they are obligated to remit the relatively bad recordings by existing policy.
Studies conducted on CCTV after 2000, when there was data to be had:
Assessing the impact of CCTV (2005)
Data on London crime figures vs. number of cameras (2007 and the rehash Effects of Closed Circuit
Television Surveillance on
Crime - 2008)
CCTV and its effectiveness in tackling crime (2009 and rehashed in the aggregate review A review of recent published evidence
regarding the impact of CCTV on crime - 2009)
took about 10 minutes to find. The personal crime statistics, where they are referenced or exist, are of specific interest. Not that these show directly that there is a policy in ignoring citizen reports, but that there's evidence they are not acted upon.
Reliance on CCTV has led to falling numbers of arrests while crime rates have not changed significantly. The UK government is notorious for lying to it's own people (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/british-birth-rate-leaps-by-18-in-a-decade-9107483.html - magical!), so it's to be expected that some are so indoctrinated they actually believe any statistics now. You've supposedly lived in the UK through the period that CCTV has not been used for pursuing personal crime, so you're a liar or ignorant. Good luck.
> But lying about the uses it's put to isn't helpful.
> (Those personal crimes are not considered "important enough" to justify checking the video records.
He was specific and correct based on my experience in the UK of 2007.
Continue to troll away. That doesn't change the reality.
> Please explain typically means to give justification for a single statement
e.g. means "for example" (as opposed to i.e. "in other words")
When you said "please explain" it was not clear if you were not aware of the existing supporting documents and/or you wanted an explanation about how opinion pieces from that time "support" his argument. I gave a purely informative link because I certainly don't know what AC is thinking. I was just moderating and happened to see your post through +1 friend filter.
e.g. The Federalist Papers? - http://www.let.rug.nl/usa/docu...
> Did YouTube ever positively contribute to Google's bottom line?
Google bought youtube for about 1.6 Billion
Youtube annual revenue has been over that pricepoint for a few years. CPM on video has always been in dollars, not cents. CPAs frequently pass $10. With up to 3 ads per video, you can understand how google justified the first payments to content providers.
Ballpark numbers:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/ti...
You seem ridiculously pessimistic for someone who hasn't done any research.
> The police in Canada would not arrest you for an un-returned video no matter how long you had it because it is an obvious civil matter to be resolved by small claims court
IANAL but you can read about how that's not what happened.
> Yes, you have broken the law, and the owner of the video can take you to court, but you can't go to jail unless you fail to return the video after losing your small claims case, and then you would be going to jail for contempt, not theft.
There was no small claims case, because there was no appearance in a filed report of theft. Maybe it would have been thrown out for improper venue (meaning go to small claims), but more likely the fees associated with non-returning for 2 years passes the $500 (or whatever maximum for that area) that Small Claims can arbitrate. The warrant was likely for failure to appear and summary judgement of guilt. There isn't enough information here to say definitively, but deduction gives a couple possibilities. Warrants are issued to ensure other localities can arrest and hold regardless of charges (which may not even apply in the locality they are apprehended). That's part of the purpose of a warrant. It says "this person is wanted for a crime somewhere else, bring them back to us". Warrants sometimes describe what the crime was, but often do not because it can be complicated (failure to appear as a subpoena'd witness to testify about a civil case against a public defender being at a strip club instead of in court for a 3rd party contempt case, etc.)...Where the warrant applies is always present.
You seem amusingly critical for not recognizing the basic flow of events or even understanding the subtleties of the US justice system. Nobody spent tax money to chase her down, she ended up in a police station and was nabbed for a warrant. Nothing in the video cassette case seemed improper.
> Keep in mind that it's hard to return a movie to a defunct video chain.
Keep in mind she was arrested for an outstanding warrant. Returning the video would not have invalidated that. She was released on her own recognizance.
>> That's a beautiful and inspiring speech, but nothing that you pointed out can be distilled down to X and Y chromosomes like sex can.
Um, that's exactly what he just did (2 of 3).
f(n) == true | false
ambient temperature > 32F
f(x) 1 for all born in USA
>> distilled down to X and Y chromosomes like sex can
You seem to be a bit ignorant about the topic you are arguing.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M...
If I don't want to work on a project with an "expert", as part of my job, but I don't want to work on the project anymore because of something someone else is doing...I'd complain to my supervisor, then if I still wasn't happy, I would quit my job. If I wanted to keep my job (even if it was just to see them fail) I would manage to hobble through by doing the absolute minimum. It's not exactly controversial. How is this interesting enough to be a topic?
I've been around long enough to see ppl WHARGLBRGL about liberty all day long, but when it comes to protesting simple content inconsistency, we see total inaction. THIS IS NOT APPROPRIATE NEWS FOR THIS SITE and wrongs of the past do not change that.
Please REPEAT.
This is NOT tech news.