I've whitelisted many sites that I like (including slashdot), but I also have NoScript (for obvious reasons) and since most ads are in js, I still see relatively few ads. But my hope is that maybe advertisers will see that regular ads are more profitable if that's all I see.
I'm kind of torn by this whole China/Google/Microsoft thing. While I'm not a fan of the Chinese government, who are we to say what they should and shouldn't allow?
Why shouldn't we? It's called morals. There are things that nobody should allow one group of people to do to others. If one person beats another, are you saying no one should have the right to tell them that it's wrong? The Chinese government completely crosses the line in my book with respect to how they treat their citizens.
Would we want a Chinese company to come into our country and tell our government what to do?
Sure. It's always within their power to kick that company out. Which is just why China is doing to Google. So why shouldn't Google speak up?
While I've seen a great deal of discussion about human rights surrounding these stories, I've seen precious little about sovereignty.
Just because you're in power doesn't mean you can do whatever you want to the people you control. Or people in other countries for that matter. That would almost invariably lead to absolutism -- as the Chinese currently have. Simple formula: human rights > sovereignty, no matter who you are. Thing is, no one has the balls/power to stand up to them, so they can do whatever they want. All superpowers rise that way.
Trudat. But if we apply a little simple logic, we see that (for silicon at least), 10^27 atoms is about a cubic meter. They probably meant that the volume was increased by that factor which would make it closer to about a micron I'm guessing. Anything else wouldn't make much sense.
Within the principle of detailed balance which considers the solar spectrum and nonradiative emission losses, it's impossible to make solar cells with >86% energy efficiency. Quantum efficiency (electron / photon ratio) != useful energy output.
Idiot sensationalist summary. Who would really thinkk that all of a sudden we've made solar cells that are twice as efficient? Honestly...
In any case, screw TVs - I want OLED computer monitors, which are luckily very usable even once you get to around 20".
You won't get those.
Unless something drastically changes, which I highly doubt, OLED monitors just won't happen. OLED is extremely susceptible to burn-in, thus unsuitable for computer displays.
Exactly. The biggest problem facing OLED displays is the poor lifetime. With a phone, if it's junk after a few years, that's cool cause you usually end up replacing the damn thing anyways. Do you want to replace the display on your computer once every 4 years or so? I think not.
And yet, it's far less efficient. It uses the same amount of power for the Cinebench test as an i7-780 (more in fact) and doesn't even finish the test in time! Plus its idle power draw is still more than all others except the i7-900 series (although none were really impressive in this category).
The chips haven't gotten much faster, yes, but they've gotten considerably more efficient. I guess a large part of the reason is smaller fabrication, but I'm sure there are other logical technologies that make it possible too.
But does it just shoot them with a straight laser, or does it use a low-power laser with a lens to focus the energy? The latter would be considerably more energy-efficient, but it would probably also be harder to design and implement.
Yeah, it was interesting the suggestions that they chose to include and remove. I think the one that stuck out to me was their suggestion for 'How' omits 'How I met your mother' on the commercial. I'm sure that there are other examples. Shouldn't raise any eyebrows really, but obviously they wanted to hold back from appearing to endorse anything through their suggestions
For a company that doesn't advertise very much (all that they have so far is that stupid Chrome browser commercial that still barely makes sense to me), and a company that's pretty closely tied to the/. community, I think it's pretty newsworthy. And let's not forget that they didn't just crawl into the advertising realm - their first major ad on TV airing during the Super Bowl? That's pretty significant. And besides, it suggests that Google is starting to acknowledge some competition from Bing. They never had any reason to advertise much before, but it shows that they acknowledge that things are starting to change.
In any case, for a night full of silly car ads and tasteless beer commercials, I thought it was delightfully refreshing. I'm glad to see a story like this making waves.
No expert here, but one possible reason is that they have Intellectual "Property" in their codebase that they don't want to release. Same reason why you can't get, say, nVidia to open their drivers.
Yoshi's Island (Super Mario World 2 I think) was also a great game in the franchise. Different concept, but still a very similar playing style. Plus it kept you coming back to unlock new levels, similar to NSMB DS and Wii. Probably the first game in the series to do that.
What happened to judging products on their merits? Has Microsoft really damaged you so much that whatever they do meets so much resistance that the sheer *thought* of using a product would make you cringe?
It's called boycott ie. when you use an alternative product simply because you don't like the business practices of the company that produces it. Doesn't matter whether they have a better product or not; MS has demonstrated that they can't play nice. Of course Google is not perfect but they're at least better. Easy decision for me: I choose Google.
...but since the articles are publicly available, doesn't that mean that they can be more widely reviewed than traditional peer-reviewed papers?
Ideally, yes, but what difference does it make if your average slashdotter reviews it? There aren't that many people in this world that could really review a paper like this, and if they can, sure they (probably) have access to it already.
It didn't sound like it was research, but rather mathematical theory based on looking at existing principles from a different direction.
Why shouldn't it be considered research? People work, they analyze the mathematics, they try to find ways to explain things, make the math fit the data; sure, they're not in a chemistry lab blowing things up, but that's a very Hollywood perspective on what 'real' research is. Even if it's just a theoretical way to explain something, it's important because it may be used to make greater predictions or better understand current theories.
Granted, I'm no mathematician, but it just seems a bit cliquish to say "don't pay attention to this" because of where the first publication is happening.
No one's saying that, but what they are saying (or should be saying) is not to believe this yet because it hasn't been reviewed. If it were published in Physical Review or something of the sort, then it'd be _more_ credible (obviously not infallible though); if it's in arXiv, maybe you should think twice before believing it or wait for more review.
For live broadcast applications, a high-definition progressive scan format operating at 1080p at 50 or 60 frames per second is currently being evaluated as a future standard for moving picture acquisition. This format will require a whole new range of studio equipment including cameras, storage, edit and contribution links (such as Dual-link HD-SDI and 3G-SDI) as it has doubled the data rate of current 50 or 60 fields interlaced 1920 × 1080 from 1.485 Gbit/s to nominally 3 Gbit/s. It will improve final pictures because of the benefits of "oversampling" and removal of interlacing artifacts.
As 802.11n max speed is 600Mbit/s (according to wiki), there is no way that it can handle the necessary raw data stream for high-defintion input. Surely at lower resolution rates it would be fine though, for average users that don't require such high resolution, as long as you don't mind maxing out on your graphics capabilities.
Maybe in a few years when the bandwidth is available. We're not there yet
Trying to fight RIAA in the courts is a loosing effort. RIAA pay politicians handsomely, and generally gets the laws they want. If they temporarily loose in court, they just pay to have the laws changed, and than they win. The draconian penalties as well as the never expiring rights RIAA enjoy is an amazing perversion.
This is why the drafters of the constitution put the judicial branch into place. No matter how many lawmakers they bribe, the RIAA can never change the constitution, nor can they implement any unconstitutional laws.
This is all in theory of course, as there are any number of ways that this can fall apart (the RIAA could bribe them too, the judges could be as brainless as the politicians (or appointed by Obama or any other politician who heavily caters to the MAFIAA), or, as in the case of the Cherokee tribe back in the reign of Andrew Jackson IIRC, the executive branch could simply ignore their decrees). But assuming that none of these things happen, then the cat and mouse game will continue forever - the RIAA congress can make as many laws as they want and the judicial branch will continue striking them down.
India is a democratic country -- their laws are by definition reflective of their social values.
This is a fallacious correlation. Just because laws have been arrived at through a democratic process does not necessarily mean that they represent social values. There are much more important driving factors for legislation in a democracy than these social values. There are many ways (for example, lobbyists/bribery) that groups can influence democratic legislation, even in directions contrary to social values. The only possible government in which your ideals of democracy would be upheld would be one that's extremely limited socially so that no one's social values could be trampled upon.
If they want porn cencored, they are within their rights to want it.
I disagree with this. This is a case where your social values are at odds with personal liberties and just because such regulations would be arrived at through a democratic process doesn't mean that it's okay to take these liberties away. You could make the same case with racial segregation, where only a few really wanted to integrate, but the views of the majority democratically determined that segregation was legal and allowable. Another example could be gay marriage, where a majority is often against it, but since it is (arguably) within a gay couple's right to marry, these social values should not influence the democratic process to take their rights away.
Slashdot Mirror
I've whitelisted many sites that I like (including slashdot), but I also have NoScript (for obvious reasons) and since most ads are in js, I still see relatively few ads. But my hope is that maybe advertisers will see that regular ads are more profitable if that's all I see.
Do you hear me guys? Stop using JS for your ads!
You can already do it in VLC! http://www.instantfundas.com/2009/09/watch-movies-in-ascii-in-vlc-media.html
Great! Before I had to download it and open it in VLC to do this. This cuts one step out of my day - productivity increase!
I'm kind of torn by this whole China/Google/Microsoft thing. While I'm not a fan of the Chinese government, who are we to say what they should and shouldn't allow?
Why shouldn't we? It's called morals. There are things that nobody should allow one group of people to do to others. If one person beats another, are you saying no one should have the right to tell them that it's wrong? The Chinese government completely crosses the line in my book with respect to how they treat their citizens.
Would we want a Chinese company to come into our country and tell our government what to do?
Sure. It's always within their power to kick that company out. Which is just why China is doing to Google. So why shouldn't Google speak up?
While I've seen a great deal of discussion about human rights surrounding these stories, I've seen precious little about sovereignty.
Just because you're in power doesn't mean you can do whatever you want to the people you control. Or people in other countries for that matter. That would almost invariably lead to absolutism -- as the Chinese currently have. Simple formula: human rights > sovereignty, no matter who you are. Thing is, no one has the balls/power to stand up to them, so they can do whatever they want. All superpowers rise that way.
That or he meant a new version rather than a full install.
Of course. He left after joining the Super Adventure Club.
Trudat. But if we apply a little simple logic, we see that (for silicon at least), 10^27 atoms is about a cubic meter. They probably meant that the volume was increased by that factor which would make it closer to about a micron I'm guessing. Anything else wouldn't make much sense.
They're all lies. Fucking lies.
Within the principle of detailed balance which considers the solar spectrum and nonradiative emission losses, it's impossible to make solar cells with >86% energy efficiency. Quantum efficiency (electron / photon ratio) != useful energy output.
Idiot sensationalist summary. Who would really thinkk that all of a sudden we've made solar cells that are twice as efficient? Honestly...
ssh.
In any case, screw TVs - I want OLED computer monitors, which are luckily very usable even once you get to around 20".
You won't get those.
Unless something drastically changes, which I highly doubt, OLED monitors just won't happen. OLED is extremely susceptible to burn-in, thus unsuitable for computer displays.
Exactly. The biggest problem facing OLED displays is the poor lifetime. With a phone, if it's junk after a few years, that's cool cause you usually end up replacing the damn thing anyways. Do you want to replace the display on your computer once every 4 years or so? I think not.
And yet, it's far less efficient. It uses the same amount of power for the Cinebench test as an i7-780 (more in fact) and doesn't even finish the test in time! Plus its idle power draw is still more than all others except the i7-900 series (although none were really impressive in this category).
The chips haven't gotten much faster, yes, but they've gotten considerably more efficient. I guess a large part of the reason is smaller fabrication, but I'm sure there are other logical technologies that make it possible too.
But does it just shoot them with a straight laser, or does it use a low-power laser with a lens to focus the energy? The latter would be considerably more energy-efficient, but it would probably also be harder to design and implement.
Yeah, it was interesting the suggestions that they chose to include and remove. I think the one that stuck out to me was their suggestion for 'How' omits 'How I met your mother' on the commercial. I'm sure that there are other examples. Shouldn't raise any eyebrows really, but obviously they wanted to hold back from appearing to endorse anything through their suggestions
For a company that doesn't advertise very much (all that they have so far is that stupid Chrome browser commercial that still barely makes sense to me), and a company that's pretty closely tied to the /. community, I think it's pretty newsworthy. And let's not forget that they didn't just crawl into the advertising realm - their first major ad on TV airing during the Super Bowl? That's pretty significant. And besides, it suggests that Google is starting to acknowledge some competition from Bing. They never had any reason to advertise much before, but it shows that they acknowledge that things are starting to change.
In any case, for a night full of silly car ads and tasteless beer commercials, I thought it was delightfully refreshing. I'm glad to see a story like this making waves.
No expert here, but one possible reason is that they have Intellectual "Property" in their codebase that they don't want to release. Same reason why you can't get, say, nVidia to open their drivers.
Yoshi's Island (Super Mario World 2 I think) was also a great game in the franchise. Different concept, but still a very similar playing style. Plus it kept you coming back to unlock new levels, similar to NSMB DS and Wii. Probably the first game in the series to do that.
Ah, nostalgia.
Add in the $500 Bing agreement with Verizon.
$500?? A true bargain!
What happened to judging products on their merits? Has Microsoft really damaged you so much that whatever they do meets so much resistance that the sheer *thought* of using a product would make you cringe?
It's called boycott ie. when you use an alternative product simply because you don't like the business practices of the company that produces it. Doesn't matter whether they have a better product or not; MS has demonstrated that they can't play nice. Of course Google is not perfect but they're at least better. Easy decision for me: I choose Google.
Sunlight costs lightbulb makers nearly 100 bazillion dollars!
Simpsons did it
...but since the articles are publicly available, doesn't that mean that they can be more widely reviewed than traditional peer-reviewed papers?
Ideally, yes, but what difference does it make if your average slashdotter reviews it? There aren't that many people in this world that could really review a paper like this, and if they can, sure they (probably) have access to it already.
It didn't sound like it was research, but rather mathematical theory based on looking at existing principles from a different direction.
Why shouldn't it be considered research? People work, they analyze the mathematics, they try to find ways to explain things, make the math fit the data; sure, they're not in a chemistry lab blowing things up, but that's a very Hollywood perspective on what 'real' research is. Even if it's just a theoretical way to explain something, it's important because it may be used to make greater predictions or better understand current theories.
Granted, I'm no mathematician, but it just seems a bit cliquish to say "don't pay attention to this" because of where the first publication is happening.
No one's saying that, but what they are saying (or should be saying) is not to believe this yet because it hasn't been reviewed. If it were published in Physical Review or something of the sort, then it'd be _more_ credible (obviously not infallible though); if it's in arXiv, maybe you should think twice before believing it or wait for more review.
Just a little research:
For live broadcast applications, a high-definition progressive scan format operating at 1080p at 50 or 60 frames per second is currently being evaluated as a future standard for moving picture acquisition. This format will require a whole new range of studio equipment including cameras, storage, edit and contribution links (such as Dual-link HD-SDI and 3G-SDI) as it has doubled the data rate of current 50 or 60 fields interlaced 1920 × 1080 from 1.485 Gbit/s to nominally 3 Gbit/s. It will improve final pictures because of the benefits of "oversampling" and removal of interlacing artifacts.
source
As 802.11n max speed is 600Mbit/s (according to wiki), there is no way that it can handle the necessary raw data stream for high-defintion input. Surely at lower resolution rates it would be fine though, for average users that don't require such high resolution, as long as you don't mind maxing out on your graphics capabilities.
Maybe in a few years when the bandwidth is available. We're not there yet
Trying to fight RIAA in the courts is a loosing effort. RIAA pay politicians handsomely, and generally gets the laws they want. If they temporarily loose in court, they just pay to have the laws changed, and than they win. The draconian penalties as well as the never expiring rights RIAA enjoy is an amazing perversion.
This is why the drafters of the constitution put the judicial branch into place. No matter how many lawmakers they bribe, the RIAA can never change the constitution, nor can they implement any unconstitutional laws.
This is all in theory of course, as there are any number of ways that this can fall apart (the RIAA could bribe them too, the judges could be as brainless as the politicians (or appointed by Obama or any other politician who heavily caters to the MAFIAA), or, as in the case of the Cherokee tribe back in the reign of Andrew Jackson IIRC, the executive branch could simply ignore their decrees). But assuming that none of these things happen, then the cat and mouse game will continue forever - the RIAA congress can make as many laws as they want and the judicial branch will continue striking them down.
India is a democratic country -- their laws are by definition reflective of their social values.
This is a fallacious correlation. Just because laws have been arrived at through a democratic process does not necessarily mean that they represent social values. There are much more important driving factors for legislation in a democracy than these social values. There are many ways (for example, lobbyists/bribery) that groups can influence democratic legislation, even in directions contrary to social values. The only possible government in which your ideals of democracy would be upheld would be one that's extremely limited socially so that no one's social values could be trampled upon.
If they want porn cencored, they are within their rights to want it.
I disagree with this. This is a case where your social values are at odds with personal liberties and just because such regulations would be arrived at through a democratic process doesn't mean that it's okay to take these liberties away. You could make the same case with racial segregation, where only a few really wanted to integrate, but the views of the majority democratically determined that segregation was legal and allowable. Another example could be gay marriage, where a majority is often against it, but since it is (arguably) within a gay couple's right to marry, these social values should not influence the democratic process to take their rights away.
Better yet, if those batteries eplode, say good-bye to any future family members!
C-x M-c M-butterfly