I must be doing something wrong because every program I use on a daily basis was around 10 years ago in more or less the same form except with less features, and that includes my own programs.
The most important thing is probably not to use anything that might change anytime from one type of service to another one. That's also the reason why I avoid Google docs whenever possible. I don't want my documents to be converted automatically into farts for the new Google Fart app when Google docs is closed.
That's not the right way, you need to give power to the actual content creators, not the companies who make the money with their works.
Think about it, it's fucking crazy and also hypocritical of society as a whole that an author can earn the Nobel Prize in Literature and will still have to sign away his copyright and all further rights on his works to some company in order to be able to make a living.
Copyright could easily be adjusted to be beneficial to society. Limit it to twenty years, make it non-transferable and nullify any contracts that bind the exclusive marketing of copyrightable material to one company. That would allow the copyright holder to (i) make some money from his works for some time, and (ii) would get limit the power of the publishing industry in a way that is beneficial to the artists. The publisher could still market and sell the works and pay only lousy percentages, but at least you could change to another publisher at any time.
Right now, the problem are the publishers (and Amazon's POD, regarding books). They make most of the money and use their existing grip of death on the market to coerce artists into their scheme. For example, young authors are warned from the start that if they just publish one book by their own publishing company (as opposed to POD, which is accepted because everybody wants a piece of that cake), they will be burned forever and never can have a book published at a larger publishing house. Or take record labels who make artists sign so-called 360 contracts.
The English/US market is huge but don't forget that in many if not most countries even fairly successful writers and musicians can barely make a living - the markets are simply not big enough. So if you want to read books and listen to music produced by independently thinking individuals and not just marketing/advertising companies, you should not to abolish copyright but modify it to empower the actual artists.
I'm also flying X-plane 10 and with the R9 280 textures flicker like hell - especially roads, distant buildings, distant lakes. In fact, for the past ten years every version of X-Plane flickers with every ATI card I've owned so far (except at 16xAA), which is one of the main reasons why I'd like to try out Nvidia. It must be a mixture of the way X-Plane is programmed and OpenGL issues, I suspect, because there is less flickering in DirectX games. So perhaps it's not really related to the card.
Anyway, I might be too demanding, but it pisses me off that relatively expensive mid-range cards with theoretically good specs can't get rid of flickering textures at normal settings except with insane and impractical amounts of AA.
But I remember many more mentions of problems with NVIDIA drivers at Gearslutz. Obviously, that doesn't mean that there are always problems, I just took such comments as a sign to be cautious about switching to NVIDIA. I'll probably still do it, because I'm fed up with ATI. It's good to hear that you don't have any problems.
I know I'm ranting, but graphics cards are without doubt the most annoying piece of gear I own. I have used ATI cards so far but they always have problems, be it overheating at normal clock speed (my current R9 280), driver problems, crashes, flickering in OpenGL. So I'm thinking about switching to NVIDIA for my next machine, only to hear from reliable pro-audio people that these cards often cause problems with the audio drivers of professional external sound cards like horrible crackling noises.
Do I really need to buy two expensive PCs in order to work on GNU/Linux, play a flight simulator and record music?
It may be irrelevant now, but it could become very relevant from one day to another if Microsoft decided to attack Linux, either directly or indirectly indirectly (e.g. by funding SCO again), in order to grab royalties and thereby delay their own inevitable demise. That's not such an unlikely scenario, and it seems good to have something else up one's sleeve...
what are the practical applications of this observation
Mathematicians don't need practical applications. When they speak about "applications" they mean "applications to other fields of mathematics". And that is good so.
That being said, I know Diaconis primarily for his earlier work on ranking methods, which have many practical applications in CS -- like page ranking algorithms, for instance.
To add to this, people seem to forget everything that happened more than a month ago or so. I'd like to see the computer that would have ditched US flight Airways 1549 perfectly into the Hudson River just minutes after the start.
Sorry I don't buy it. No matter which age, anyone who doesn't roughly understand how the internet works after detailed explanations can only be a complete moron or demented, or both. It's not like these people have to go to the public library to find out how the internet works, they have a support staff and access to expert panels. Or, they could just grab a phone and ask someone who knows.
They are crying now because some companies no longer want to cooperate with them by developing deliberately weak standards (e.g. cell phone encryption) and by providing illegal backdoors for wiretapping without warrant. So they want to be able to force them by law, which means that they need to convince politicians first.
In my pessimistic opinion, the most probable outcome of this debate is that companies will bow (again) to the authorities like they did before and provide the backdoors voluntarily, presumably in the form of vulnerabilities that are not published.
What bothers me is that in the humanities there are whole communities and sub-disciplines in which there is barely any real peer reviewing. These are small niche areas in which everyone knows everyone and basically the whole research is based on invited contributions and papers that are not properly blind peer reviewed - they are cursorily scanned by colleagues who know who wrote the article. In such a field there are about 5-10 journals in total and the authors jump back and forth between them. Most of them are unable to publish articles in top journals of the discipline as a whole. I personally know professors who have built a whole career on the basis of quoting themselves and by doing light editorial work. I know a cross-disciplinary field of study in the humanities that is entirely dominated by two professors, all the rest are scholars of them, and each of them wrote around 40 books, always on the same topic, and all of them more or less repeating the same two pseudo-competing themes over and over.
It's pretty sad to see these people recognized as experts when at the same time in other fields there is hard work and real progress.
Einstein lived one year as a toddler in Württemberg, he was educated in Munich and Switzerland (Aarau and Zürich). Later he worked at Zürich, Bern and Prague, and then for the Humboldt University of Berlin and the Prussian Academy of Sciences, before he emigrated to the US because of the nazis in 1933, where he spent the rest of his life mostly at the Institute for Advanced Studies in Princeton.
He loved your Eberhard's Württemberg so much, he even denounced his citizenship of Württemberg in 1896 in order to avoid military service!
It would be easy to prevent such attacks by requiring a physical switch to make any changes to the BIOS possible. But that would give power to the end users instead of big industry, and we cannot have that, can we.
That's not entirely true. There are watches with standard movements that are not handmade except for final assembly. These are relatively cheap, and most of the popular garbage/fake brands belong to this category. Some of them bought a name that rings a bell, but has in reality no real tradition in watch making or has been revived only for the branding.
But there are also chronographs whose movements are assembled by hand, and these are, for obvious reasons, very expensive. There are also huge differences in overall quality and precision of mechanical watches. For example, you will definitely not find a cheap mechanical watch that is in fact waterproof (and doesn't just claim to be). That's because it's damn hard to make a mechanical watch waterproof.
Slashdot Mirror
I must be doing something wrong because every program I use on a daily basis was around 10 years ago in more or less the same form except with less features, and that includes my own programs.
The most important thing is probably not to use anything that might change anytime from one type of service to another one. That's also the reason why I avoid Google docs whenever possible. I don't want my documents to be converted automatically into farts for the new Google Fart app when Google docs is closed.
That's not the right way, you need to give power to the actual content creators, not the companies who make the money with their works.
Think about it, it's fucking crazy and also hypocritical of society as a whole that an author can earn the Nobel Prize in Literature and will still have to sign away his copyright and all further rights on his works to some company in order to be able to make a living.
Copyright could easily be adjusted to be beneficial to society. Limit it to twenty years, make it non-transferable and nullify any contracts that bind the exclusive marketing of copyrightable material to one company. That would allow the copyright holder to (i) make some money from his works for some time, and (ii) would get limit the power of the publishing industry in a way that is beneficial to the artists. The publisher could still market and sell the works and pay only lousy percentages, but at least you could change to another publisher at any time.
Right now, the problem are the publishers (and Amazon's POD, regarding books). They make most of the money and use their existing grip of death on the market to coerce artists into their scheme. For example, young authors are warned from the start that if they just publish one book by their own publishing company (as opposed to POD, which is accepted because everybody wants a piece of that cake), they will be burned forever and never can have a book published at a larger publishing house. Or take record labels who make artists sign so-called 360 contracts.
The English/US market is huge but don't forget that in many if not most countries even fairly successful writers and musicians can barely make a living - the markets are simply not big enough. So if you want to read books and listen to music produced by independently thinking individuals and not just marketing/advertising companies, you should not to abolish copyright but modify it to empower the actual artists.
Who wants to pay someone who calls himself "Brute Logic"?
If he'd called himself "dark wizard" he'd get his reward!
How is this gamble? The watch will be garbage in 2-3 years from now.
The problems with flickering or "swimming" textures in the distance are not related to Linux at all, they occur in Windows and Linux.
Anyway, thanks for explaining the problems away, I guess I'm just "abnormally sensitive".
I'm also flying X-plane 10 and with the R9 280 textures flicker like hell - especially roads, distant buildings, distant lakes. In fact, for the past ten years every version of X-Plane flickers with every ATI card I've owned so far (except at 16xAA), which is one of the main reasons why I'd like to try out Nvidia. It must be a mixture of the way X-Plane is programmed and OpenGL issues, I suspect, because there is less flickering in DirectX games. So perhaps it's not really related to the card.
Anyway, I might be too demanding, but it pisses me off that relatively expensive mid-range cards with theoretically good specs can't get rid of flickering textures at normal settings except with insane and impractical amounts of AA.
For example here, here and here.
But I remember many more mentions of problems with NVIDIA drivers at Gearslutz. Obviously, that doesn't mean that there are always problems, I just took such comments as a sign to be cautious about switching to NVIDIA. I'll probably still do it, because I'm fed up with ATI. It's good to hear that you don't have any problems.
I know I'm ranting, but graphics cards are without doubt the most annoying piece of gear I own. I have used ATI cards so far but they always have problems, be it overheating at normal clock speed (my current R9 280), driver problems, crashes, flickering in OpenGL. So I'm thinking about switching to NVIDIA for my next machine, only to hear from reliable pro-audio people that these cards often cause problems with the audio drivers of professional external sound cards like horrible crackling noises.
Do I really need to buy two expensive PCs in order to work on GNU/Linux, play a flight simulator and record music?
It may be irrelevant now, but it could become very relevant from one day to another if Microsoft decided to attack Linux, either directly or indirectly indirectly (e.g. by funding SCO again), in order to grab royalties and thereby delay their own inevitable demise. That's not such an unlikely scenario, and it seems good to have something else up one's sleeve...
what are the practical applications of this observation
Mathematicians don't need practical applications. When they speak about "applications" they mean "applications to other fields of mathematics". And that is good so.
That being said, I know Diaconis primarily for his earlier work on ranking methods, which have many practical applications in CS -- like page ranking algorithms, for instance.
He's damn right that this wouldn't have happened with cat pictures, though...
To add to this, people seem to forget everything that happened more than a month ago or so. I'd like to see the computer that would have ditched US flight Airways 1549 perfectly into the Hudson River just minutes after the start.
Sorry I don't buy it. No matter which age, anyone who doesn't roughly understand how the internet works after detailed explanations can only be a complete moron or demented, or both. It's not like these people have to go to the public library to find out how the internet works, they have a support staff and access to expert panels. Or, they could just grab a phone and ask someone who knows.
I don't have a FB or LinkedIn account and get along just fine.
They are crying now because some companies no longer want to cooperate with them by developing deliberately weak standards (e.g. cell phone encryption) and by providing illegal backdoors for wiretapping without warrant. So they want to be able to force them by law, which means that they need to convince politicians first.
In my pessimistic opinion, the most probable outcome of this debate is that companies will bow (again) to the authorities like they did before and provide the backdoors voluntarily, presumably in the form of vulnerabilities that are not published.
What bothers me is that in the humanities there are whole communities and sub-disciplines in which there is barely any real peer reviewing. These are small niche areas in which everyone knows everyone and basically the whole research is based on invited contributions and papers that are not properly blind peer reviewed - they are cursorily scanned by colleagues who know who wrote the article. In such a field there are about 5-10 journals in total and the authors jump back and forth between them. Most of them are unable to publish articles in top journals of the discipline as a whole. I personally know professors who have built a whole career on the basis of quoting themselves and by doing light editorial work. I know a cross-disciplinary field of study in the humanities that is entirely dominated by two professors, all the rest are scholars of them, and each of them wrote around 40 books, always on the same topic, and all of them more or less repeating the same two pseudo-competing themes over and over.
It's pretty sad to see these people recognized as experts when at the same time in other fields there is hard work and real progress.
Why do you think you are now afraid of AI too, Just like Elon Musk, Wozzie?
Also, just imagine how offended they would be if the project was full of female anatomy jokes...
LOL, another right-wing history crackpot...
Einstein lived one year as a toddler in Württemberg, he was educated in Munich and Switzerland (Aarau and Zürich). Later he worked at Zürich, Bern and Prague, and then for the Humboldt University of Berlin and the Prussian Academy of Sciences, before he emigrated to the US because of the nazis in 1933, where he spent the rest of his life mostly at the Institute for Advanced Studies in Princeton.
He loved your Eberhard's Württemberg so much, he even denounced his citizenship of Württemberg in 1896 in order to avoid military service!
It would be easy to prevent such attacks by requiring a physical switch to make any changes to the BIOS possible. But that would give power to the end users instead of big industry, and we cannot have that, can we.
That's not entirely true. There are watches with standard movements that are not handmade except for final assembly. These are relatively cheap, and most of the popular garbage/fake brands belong to this category. Some of them bought a name that rings a bell, but has in reality no real tradition in watch making or has been revived only for the branding.
But there are also chronographs whose movements are assembled by hand, and these are, for obvious reasons, very expensive. There are also huge differences in overall quality and precision of mechanical watches. For example, you will definitely not find a cheap mechanical watch that is in fact waterproof (and doesn't just claim to be). That's because it's damn hard to make a mechanical watch waterproof.
Security patches/updates will work fine.
Hahaha, that's a good one...
Neither of the two, I merely stated a fact.