In this example Blogger didn't 'share' Dallas Morning News (DMN)'s product with the world. They sold it (to advertisers), and I'm pretty sure profiting from copyright infringement is a criminal offense. It's true that one cannot determine the revenue lost by DMN by counting the revenue made by Blogger, but this does not mean they don't owe DMN a portion of any proceeds made off of the (unauthorized) distribution of their work.
"There is no alternative platform, despite what others may say about Android, it's immature and their app store(s) are a wild west nightmare. It really is Apple's way or the highway..."
Australia's legislature seems to be riding some kind of runaway jesus train lately, with all the anti-porn initiatives and net-filtering. I can't imagine the majority of Aussies are behind this stuff. How is this happening? What is the election cycle like there?
The fact that I believe science is largely accurate and a better way to describe our surroundings than religion is as much faith as someone who believes in their religion.
Is that so? And here I was thinking that science is an investigative methodology and religion isn't.
Science is an investigative methodology. But because the average person does not have the time or the requisite knowledge to peer review the methods and data used to produce the results for themselves: their acceptance of the published result relies on their faith in the credibility of the source who presents said findings, those that conducted the peer-review, and the accuracy of the methods involved. The difference is that with science they have the option to verify the facts if they chose not to take anyone's word for it. With religion this is not possible (by design...)
For me, without being able to replicate experimental results personally, perform higher math easily, or penetrate the often obtuse language of scientific publications means that while I can consider a hypothesis or theory, I'm basically doing what those who follow the teachings of a religion are doing...interpreting someone else's work by using my common experience.
The fact that I believe science is largely accurate and a better way to describe our surroundings than religion is as much faith as someone who believes in their religion. Scientific Impotence is another way of saying "I'd like to recognize that alternate faith, but I still think mine is more valid."
Well said. If I hadn't already posted I'd mod you up. Most people just aren't able to make a rational assessment of the 'facts' they are handed by scientists. The media either fails to convey the supporting data, or they simply aren't able to understand the data because they haven't spent 15 years studying the fields it relates to. Thus they are forced to make a judgment call on whether to believe it or not.
I was thinking the same thing with regard to nutrition.
Eggs are good. Eggs are bad. Well, part of the egg is good, and the other part has cholesterol. And cholesterol is bad. Oh but some cholesterol is good. Wait, which kind is in that other part of the egg? God damned scientists:
Fuck it, I'm eating an egg.
Fuck eggs.
People get confused. Science is complicated, and when findings are filtered through the media, nuances get lost and often leave the scientists looking silly and making bold claims that they really aren't. Take the big bang theory, for example. Scientists say "Based on current models for the observed behavior of x, y, and z, we think can extrapolate a probable model for the state of the universe umpty-billion years ago." Then they continue for 300 pages laying out nuances, caveats, references, and details of their process so you can test the theory yourself. The media distills this into "New research proves 'The Big Bang' happened" and don't even bother to say why (beyond one or two sound bites), or what that even entails.
Cover would be in game, you would just duck/whatever. And no, bending your wrist to aim a gun is not proper form; but can Natal not tell which way your hand is pointing? I assumed it could.
Throw me a bone, civil liberty advocates. Help me catch badguys without infringing on their liberties. Real suggestions welcome.
We can either hire more police or equip them with UAV's. Require a warrant to deploy those UAVs over specific addresses and individuals. Does that make me nervous? Yes, but it wouldn't give them more legal ground to conduct surveillance, just more resources to do it. The legal burden to deploy and operate a UAV would be the same as wiretapping the persons they are being deployed against. The police don't have adequate resources to conduct reconnaissance. That is the problem here, let's fix that problem. They have more than sufficient legal muscle to lock these people up, we don't need to regulate cell phones. The more we keep expanding the net because we can't afford the proper solution, the more freedoms and innocent people are going to get caught in it.
All this law will do is create a black market for cell phones, which is going to deter a drug dealer about as much as being unable to buy cocaine at CVS would.
At least an ID can be flagged in the system that the court can say "when a person with this ID buys a disposable phone, your Warrant that the court has approved can be used to tap that disposable phone..."
And that will work for 5 minutes until someone realizes they can hire a crackhead to buy their phones. In Canada
Then we'll get to see laws stating the police may request to see your ID if they suspect you are using a 'stolen' cell phone or, as the law will read: "unregistered communication device," to cover non-phones with 3G and VoIP. Only criminals who hired third parties to buy their phones will have unregistered phones, so no harm done to the general public.
I agree, that as an input device, Natal adds little to no value to a free roaming FPS, but aiming a gun is probably something Natal would do well; and if supplemented with a controller to pull the trigger it would work fine for something like duck hunt, or TimeCrisis-style rails shooter where you can hide behind cover. It's silly to think that isn't possible, as the GP stated, it isn't going to burst into flames because the player is using 2 input devices.
It is, however, also silly to think this system would be any good at controlling player movement through a 3D world. Would you have to run in place? Make some counter intuitive motion to indicate movement in a direction? All while still trying to aim effectively? It would probably be awful. These are plenty of good reasons Natal would not be ideal for a(n) FPS, not recognizing your trigger finger doesn't seem like one of them.
You're right, I watched it a dozen more times, I thought they were disappearing where the screen was bending, and other times they were just hard to see after an unroll because the color of the video obscured them.
So if you study steel, all steel structures should be yours?
Sure, who cares about steel; steel is weak. What is steel compared to the synthetic flesh that wields it? Now go and contemplate this on my re-sequenced Tree of Woe (patent pending*)
My sentence was poorly written. You're right, instead of majority, I should have said "a lot".
So yes, you're correct, it is not a majority. But in this space...is there really a majority?
No, there is not a majority share holder in the global cell phone market. But if we're going with 3% share for the iPhone, then for every person who chose the iPhone, there are 12 who chose Nokia, 7 who went Samsung, 3 for LG, 1.5 for Rimm, 1.5 for Ericsson, and 7 who chose "other". Q1 2010 citation.
Apple has great PR and marketing, but they are still a marginal player in the overall cell phone market.
I don't want to be prejudiced against yet undiscovered beings of pure energy, but I object to fire being considered "alive" due to it's lack of self-organized physical form.
1. The JCVI team designed specific cassettes of DNA that were 1,080 base pairs long with overlaps of 80 base pairs
(bp) at their ends to aid in building the longer stretches of DNA. These were made according to JCVI’s
specifications by the DNA synthesis company, Blue Heron Biotechnology.
2. Then the team employed a three stage process using yeast to build the genome using 1,078 cassettes that are
1,080 bp in length. The first stage involves taking 10 cassettes of DNA at a time to build 10,000 bp long segments.
In the second stage, these 10,000 bp segments are taken 10 at a time to produce eleven 100,000 bp long
segments. Finally, all 11 segments are assembled into a complete synthetic genome as an extra chromosome in a
yeast cell, by using yeast genetic systems.
3. The complete synthetic M. mycoides genome is then released from the yeast cell and transplanted into
M. capricolum recipient cells that have had the gene for a restriction enzyme removed. Following incubation,
viable M. mycoides cells are produced in which the only DNA present is the synthetic genome. These cells are
controlled only by that synthetic genome.
Which then makes sense of the chart which states the sequence as:
1. Oligonucleotides in 1,080 bp cassettes (1,078) (Assemble109X)
2. 10,080 bp assemblies (109)
(Assemble 11X)
3. 100,000 bp assemblies (11)
(Assemble 1X)
4. 1,077,947 bp
So I guess the ?? in step 3 is the E. coli, which assembles the 10,000bp segments into 100,000 bp segments, which are finally stitched together back in the yeast as an extra genome.
Because current machines can only assemble relatively short strings of DNA letters at a time, the researchers inserted the shorter sequences into yeast, whose DNA-repair enzymes linked the strings together. They then transferred the medium-sized strings into E. coli and back into yeast. After three rounds of assembly, the researchers had produced a genome over a million base pairs long.
I read this as:
Sequencer-> Yeast -> E. coli -> Yeast -> Repeat
Short segments-> Merged segment -> ? -> ??? -> Full M. mycoides Genome
I feel like I'm iGodwin'ing this discussion, but it's going to happen eventually. Isn't Android on a netbook essentially the (apparently successful) idea behind the iPad? You and I may decry its applicability, but the gadget-crazed masses seem to love it. A smart-phone OS essentially delivers a web browser and just a little something extra through installation of programmable apps. This is apparently all people want from a 'netbook'. I think* Android would actually be better than iPhone OS in this regard, if only because it is the more open platform.
*Historically, the device market tends to disagree with me.
Yeah, he mentioned that right underneath the test, but it sounds more like a poorly written implementation by the Browser, than the code itself. A 2 stroke line should not have that kind of impact; and changing it to 1 stroke did not fix the problem on Opera or PC.
Flash on the Mac, as well as HTML5 and Flash on PC were largely unaffected by this change though, gaining maybe a single frame rate by changing to 1 pixel strokes. I’m not sure what to make of these findings. What kind of bug causes this and what side effects might be introduced by fixing it? Will a change allow both 1 and 2 pixel strokes to run at higher speeds, or will they both settle somewhere near Operas numbers.
On mine, (XP FF 3.6) I get 19.64fps on the 1 stroke HTML5 test, and 52.56fps on the FP10
Note: He hasn't tried testing the new FP10 text rendering engine, I'm interested to see what performance increases it has made. In several cases my own benchmark scores (with FF) are much higher with flash, but I see no improvement on the HTML5 side. Flash is more than a video plug-in, and for most of what it does HTML5's Canvas performance still lags far behind.
Slashdot Mirror
So does this make them the 1st or the 10nd type of person?
In this example Blogger didn't 'share' Dallas Morning News (DMN)'s product with the world. They sold it (to advertisers), and I'm pretty sure profiting from copyright infringement is a criminal offense. It's true that one cannot determine the revenue lost by DMN by counting the revenue made by Blogger, but this does not mean they don't owe DMN a portion of any proceeds made off of the (unauthorized) distribution of their work.
Is he hoping that Steve reads:
"There is no alternative platform, despite what others may say about Android, it's immature and their app store(s) are a wild west nightmare. It really is Apple's way or the highway..."
and rewards his loyalty with an exception?
Intelligent Design fits well between all the other failed theories: Earth-centric universe; immovable stars; bleeding patients;
And my favorite: Phlogiston
Australia's legislature seems to be riding some kind of runaway jesus train lately, with all the anti-porn initiatives and net-filtering. I can't imagine the majority of Aussies are behind this stuff. How is this happening? What is the election cycle like there?
The fact that I believe science is largely accurate and a better way to describe our surroundings than religion is as much faith as someone who believes in their religion.
Is that so? And here I was thinking that science is an investigative methodology and religion isn't.
Science is an investigative methodology. But because the average person does not have the time or the requisite knowledge to peer review the methods and data used to produce the results for themselves: their acceptance of the published result relies on their faith in the credibility of the source who presents said findings, those that conducted the peer-review, and the accuracy of the methods involved. The difference is that with science they have the option to verify the facts if they chose not to take anyone's word for it. With religion this is not possible (by design...)
For me, without being able to replicate experimental results personally, perform higher math easily, or penetrate the often obtuse language of scientific publications means that while I can consider a hypothesis or theory, I'm basically doing what those who follow the teachings of a religion are doing...interpreting someone else's work by using my common experience.
The fact that I believe science is largely accurate and a better way to describe our surroundings than religion is as much faith as someone who believes in their religion. Scientific Impotence is another way of saying "I'd like to recognize that alternate faith, but I still think mine is more valid."
Well said. If I hadn't already posted I'd mod you up. Most people just aren't able to make a rational assessment of the 'facts' they are handed by scientists. The media either fails to convey the supporting data, or they simply aren't able to understand the data because they haven't spent 15 years studying the fields it relates to. Thus they are forced to make a judgment call on whether to believe it or not.
Eggs are good.
Eggs are bad.
Well, part of the egg is good, and the other part has cholesterol. And cholesterol is bad.
Oh but some cholesterol is good.
Wait, which kind is in that other part of the egg?
God damned scientists:
Fuck eggs.
People get confused. Science is complicated, and when findings are filtered through the media, nuances get lost and often leave the scientists looking silly and making bold claims that they really aren't. Take the big bang theory, for example. Scientists say "Based on current models for the observed behavior of x, y, and z, we think can extrapolate a probable model for the state of the universe umpty-billion years ago." Then they continue for 300 pages laying out nuances, caveats, references, and details of their process so you can test the theory yourself. The media distills this into "New research proves 'The Big Bang' happened" and don't even bother to say why (beyond one or two sound bites), or what that even entails.
Cover would be in game, you would just duck/whatever. And no, bending your wrist to aim a gun is not proper form; but can Natal not tell which way your hand is pointing? I assumed it could.
Throw me a bone, civil liberty advocates. Help me catch badguys without infringing on their liberties. Real suggestions welcome.
We can either hire more police or equip them with UAV's. Require a warrant to deploy those UAVs over specific addresses and individuals. Does that make me nervous? Yes, but it wouldn't give them more legal ground to conduct surveillance, just more resources to do it. The legal burden to deploy and operate a UAV would be the same as wiretapping the persons they are being deployed against. The police don't have adequate resources to conduct reconnaissance. That is the problem here, let's fix that problem. They have more than sufficient legal muscle to lock these people up, we don't need to regulate cell phones. The more we keep expanding the net because we can't afford the proper solution, the more freedoms and innocent people are going to get caught in it.
All this law will do is create a black market for cell phones, which is going to deter a drug dealer about as much as being unable to buy cocaine at CVS would.
At least an ID can be flagged in the system that the court can say "when a person with this ID buys a disposable phone, your Warrant that the court has approved can be used to tap that disposable phone..."
And that will work for 5 minutes until someone realizes they can hire a crackhead to buy their phones. In Canada
Then we'll get to see laws stating the police may request to see your ID if they suspect you are using a 'stolen' cell phone or, as the law will read: "unregistered communication device," to cover non-phones with 3G and VoIP. Only criminals who hired third parties to buy their phones will have unregistered phones, so no harm done to the general public.
I agree, that as an input device, Natal adds little to no value to a free roaming FPS, but aiming a gun is probably something Natal would do well; and if supplemented with a controller to pull the trigger it would work fine for something like duck hunt, or TimeCrisis-style rails shooter where you can hide behind cover. It's silly to think that isn't possible, as the GP stated, it isn't going to burst into flames because the player is using 2 input devices.
It is, however, also silly to think this system would be any good at controlling player movement through a 3D world. Would you have to run in place? Make some counter intuitive motion to indicate movement in a direction? All while still trying to aim effectively? It would probably be awful. These are plenty of good reasons Natal would not be ideal for a(n) FPS, not recognizing your trigger finger doesn't seem like one of them.
You're right, I watched it a dozen more times, I thought they were disappearing where the screen was bending, and other times they were just hard to see after an unroll because the color of the video obscured them.
Gizmodo has a video. The 'dead' strips seem to change as it get's bent. It's cool.. but that doesn't seem like a problem easily solved.
Granted, it's the best video quality I have seen wrapped around a pencil, but those artifacts are pretty unacceptable. Are they supposed to be there?
So if you study steel, all steel structures should be yours?
Sure, who cares about steel; steel is weak. What is steel compared to the synthetic flesh that wields it? Now go and contemplate this on my re-sequenced Tree of Woe (patent pending*)
*That is power.
My sentence was poorly written. You're right, instead of majority, I should have said "a lot".
So yes, you're correct, it is not a majority. But in this space...is there really a majority?
No, there is not a majority share holder in the global cell phone market. But if we're going with 3% share for the iPhone, then for every person who chose the iPhone, there are 12 who chose Nokia, 7 who went Samsung, 3 for LG, 1.5 for Rimm, 1.5 for Ericsson, and 7 who chose "other". Q1 2010 citation.
Apple has great PR and marketing, but they are still a marginal player in the overall cell phone market.
I don't want to be prejudiced against yet undiscovered beings of pure energy, but I object to fire being considered "alive" due to it's lack of self-organized physical form.
1. The JCVI team designed specific cassettes of DNA that were 1,080 base pairs long with overlaps of 80 base pairs (bp) at their ends to aid in building the longer stretches of DNA. These were made according to JCVI’s specifications by the DNA synthesis company, Blue Heron Biotechnology.
2. Then the team employed a three stage process using yeast to build the genome using 1,078 cassettes that are 1,080 bp in length. The first stage involves taking 10 cassettes of DNA at a time to build 10,000 bp long segments. In the second stage, these 10,000 bp segments are taken 10 at a time to produce eleven 100,000 bp long segments. Finally, all 11 segments are assembled into a complete synthetic genome as an extra chromosome in a
yeast cell, by using yeast genetic systems. 3. The complete synthetic M. mycoides genome is then released from the yeast cell and transplanted into M. capricolum recipient cells that have had the gene for a restriction enzyme removed. Following incubation, viable M. mycoides cells are produced in which the only DNA present is the synthetic genome. These cells are controlled only by that synthetic genome.
Which then makes sense of the chart which states the sequence as:
1. Oligonucleotide Synthesizer
2. Yeast
3. ?
4. Extract Complete Genome from Yeast
1. Oligonucleotides in 1,080 bp cassettes (1,078)
(Assemble109X)
2. 10,080 bp assemblies (109)
(Assemble 11X)
3. 100,000 bp assemblies (11)
(Assemble 1X)
4. 1,077,947 bp
So I guess the ?? in step 3 is the E. coli, which assembles the 10,000bp segments into 100,000 bp segments, which are finally stitched together back in the yeast as an extra genome.
Because current machines can only assemble relatively short strings of DNA letters at a time, the researchers inserted the shorter sequences into yeast, whose DNA-repair enzymes linked the strings together. They then transferred the medium-sized strings into E. coli and back into yeast. After three rounds of assembly, the researchers had produced a genome over a million base pairs long.
I read this as:
Sequencer-> Yeast -> E. coli -> Yeast -> Repeat
Short segments-> Merged segment -> ? -> ??? -> Full M. mycoides Genome
I pose a question then:
A) What would a private citizen have to do to be considered a Library in the eyes for Fair Use?
B) What would then prevent them from Lending digital copies online?
I feel like I'm iGodwin'ing this discussion, but it's going to happen eventually. Isn't Android on a netbook essentially the (apparently successful) idea behind the iPad? You and I may decry its applicability, but the gadget-crazed masses seem to love it. A smart-phone OS essentially delivers a web browser and just a little something extra through installation of programmable apps. This is apparently all people want from a 'netbook'. I think* Android would actually be better than iPhone OS in this regard, if only because it is the more open platform.
*Historically, the device market tends to disagree with me.
1 Pixel Stroke Results Safari – 23.59 fps Firefox – 17.43 fps Chrome – 17.12 fps Opera – 12.12 fps
Flash on the Mac, as well as HTML5 and Flash on PC were largely unaffected by this change though, gaining maybe a single frame rate by changing to 1 pixel strokes. I’m not sure what to make of these findings. What kind of bug causes this and what side effects might be introduced by fixing it? Will a change allow both 1 and 2 pixel strokes to run at higher speeds, or will they both settle somewhere near Operas numbers.
On mine, (XP FF 3.6) I get 19.64fps on the 1 stroke HTML5 test, and 52.56fps on the FP10
3- It misused -a lot- for obnoxious ads.
I don't expect point 3 to be cured with HTML5. It may even get worse until someone writes 'NoHTML5'.
People that do sloppy and annoying things with Flash, will do sloppy and annoying things with Canvas.
http://www.craftymind.com/guimark2/
Note: He hasn't tried testing the new FP10 text rendering engine, I'm interested to see what performance increases it has made. In several cases my own benchmark scores (with FF) are much higher with flash, but I see no improvement on the HTML5 side. Flash is more than a video plug-in, and for most of what it does HTML5's Canvas performance still lags far behind.