The concept of the kings not being above the law goes back even further - back to ancient times.
See: Deuteronomy 17
14 When you enter the land the LORD your God is giving you and have taken possession of it and settled in it, and you say, "Let us set a king over us like all the nations around us," 15 be sure to appoint over you the king the LORD your God chooses. He must be from among your own brothers. Do not place a foreigner over you, one who is not a brother Israelite. 16 The king, moreover, must not acquire great numbers of horses for himself or make the people return to Egypt to get more of them, for the LORD has told you, "You are not to go back that way again." 17 He must not take many wives, or his heart will be led astray. He must not accumulate large amounts of silver and gold.
18 When he takes the throne of his kingdom, he is to write for himself on a scroll a copy of this law, taken from that of the priests, who are Levites. 19 It is to be with him, and he is to read it all the days of his life so that he may learn to revere the LORD his God and follow carefully all the words of this law and these decrees 20 and not consider himself better than his brothers and turn from the law to the right or to the left. Then he and his descendants will reign a long time over his kingdom in Israel.
Unlike kings of other countries (e.g. the one Jezebel was from), Ahab could not officially just execute Naboth and seize his land. Even Jezebel had to come up with a plot that worked somewhat within the restrictions of the law.
In theory you could create twitter and facebook user accounts for your servers or even services on the servers.
Then your stuff around the world could tweet stuff, and other stuff could be following them or even be fans of them. e.g. twitter NOC: @MSExchangeServer @AD1 hey are you guys up? MSExchangeServer: @NOC uptime 23:33:05
or: CorpQuiz- "20 ways to know you are a Windows 2008 R2 Enterprise Server";). AD1's score 20/20 MSExchangeServer likes this RedHatDBServer: lame...
In most security stuff a common default is "default deny".
Life is short. There is no point writing lots of lines for stuff you don't want - there's too much of it.
You might as well write lines for stuff you want:).
Artificial blurring is overrated
on
Framerates Matter
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
But why? Motion blur is overrated. Sure put it in scenes where it is "important to the story/gameplay", but to use it whenever there is fast motion is stupid.
Why? Because people aren't staring at the same spot on the screen all the time. And nowadays screens are getting bigger.
Say in real life, you're in a room where there are two moving objects that are moving around at fast but eye-trackable speeds in different directions.
If you are staring at sommething else, both objects are blurry.
But if you start to look at one, that particular object becomes _sharp_, the other object becomes blurry.
You look at the other, it becomes sharp and the other becomes blurry.
When a game or movie blurs moving stuff, it just makes stuff you are looking at look out of focus even if they are moving at speeds which your eye can track. You can't focus on it even if in real life you could!
With motion blur, I often experience eye strain when I try to track moving objects/backgrounds that have been blurred.
Then there are the artificial "out of focus" shots in static scenes. These effects should also be restricted to scenes where it is important to the story that only a few items are in focus.
In Avatar (2D), my eyes were often trying to focus on blurry images and it wasn't pleasant - initially I was wondering what was wrong with my eyes - felt like I had difficulty focusing on stuff.
When I watched it in 3D, I realized that a lot of stuff was actually blurry and it wasn't my eyes. In some fairly static scenes the focal range was low - only a few objects were in focus. Then in some scenes the moving objects were blurry. Whereas in other scenes most stuff was in focus. In Avatar 3D it was easier to figure out where I "should" be looking and avoid the eyestrain bits:).
If you ask me I prefer as much of each frame to be sharp and in focus as possible, then let the limitations of my eyes blur it.
Artificial blurring (motion or defocus) is like listening to artificially degraded music/audio. While there are some cases that call for it (distance effect) it's just silly if you use it a lot.
My toy helis can only fly for about 6-8 minutes, and they need me around to control them.
Whereas here we have something that can autonomously fly 400 miles over the ocean from place to place, and probably flying for days. Something that can navigate, find+catch food, reproduce etc.
> If you want to do human computer interface, you don't need math (or a brain).
If you want to do HCI well, you need a decent brain with understanding of the various sorts of humans that might be using the interface. And often a fair bit of creativity.
It's not easy to do well. So many GUI designers end up doing stuff like "add more themes", flashy stuff and wobbly windows, instead of actually improving things.
Just look at how UIs have changed over the years to see what have been real improvements and what have been "meh".
Dawkins did not say "atheism is something that can result from having an independent, rational mind."
He didn't use a cop-out phrase like that.
He said: "Atheists should be proud, not apologetic, because atheism is evidence of a healthy, independent mind".
So do you really think that has effectively the same meaning as: "Atheists should be proud, because it is something that can result from having a healthy, independent mind"? Which is what you seem to be implying with your arguments.
I think not. It'd be rather stupid to say "Hey you people, be proud of what you are because, it just may be a result of a healthy independent mind". Why be proud then?
To me, what he said is closer to: "Atheists should be proud, because being an atheist shows (is proof, is evidence that) you have a healthy, independent mind", than what you claim he was implying/saying.
And that statement and his original statement are certainly not true. Being an atheist does not prove you have a healthy, independent mind.
p.s. Using bad car analogies doesn't help prove your point.
Driving a Lambo is not evidence that you are rich. You should not use poorly matching analogies to disprove stuff. Unless you're trying to imply with your analogy that being an Atheist is not good evidence that you have a healthy mind (in which case you should be agreeing with me;) ).
Owning a Lambo is better evidence. If a rich person let you drive his Lambo that doesn't make you richer in $$$ terms. If the rich person gave you his Lambo, you become richer.
If you like bad car analogies:
Dawkins didn't say "People who borrow cars with 'I am an Atheist' stickers should be proud because driving one of those cars shows you have a healthy, independent mind".
Driving a Lamborghini is not evidence that you are rich, any more than driving an atheist's car is evidence that you have a healthy, independent mind.
I think their main grievance was not that they were paid so little, it was that they weren't paid at all or not paid what they were promised. And living/working conditions were crap.
> Hardware light years ahead is it? So can I have multiple resolutions present at the same time on my monitor? No? Amiga wins again!:p
The main reason you needed multiple resolutions at the same time on the Amiga was back then you could only have lots of colours and low res, or few colours and high res.
Nowadays you can have 24 bit colour in high res.
Saying that feature is a "win" is like saying a feature that's useful for horse drawn carriages but not cars, is a "win".
"Thus the world's present measured resources of uranium (5.5 Mt) in the cost category somewhat below present spot prices and used only in conventional reactors, are enough to last for over 80 years"
"This is in fact suggested in the IAEA-NEA figures if those covering estimates of all conventional resources are considered - 10.5 million tonnes (beyond the 5.5 Mt known economic resources), which takes us to over 200 years' supply at today's rate of consumption"
80-200 years at current consumption rates isn't very long IMO.
1) If the USA and China replace all their coal and fossil fuel power plants with uranium nuclear reactors, that 200 years is going to be a lot shorter. And you'd have to start figuring out how to get more uranium in fancier ways. Saying that there must be other sources doesn't make it so. It's far from the old days of oil where it was just gushing out when you dig a hole.
As it is, my reading of the article sure doesn't give me much confidence that "Peak Uranium" would be that far away.
2) There seems to be only one company in the whole world that can build a reactor containment vessel in a single piece (to reduce risk of radiation leaks), and it's already build at max capacity (four per year). http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601109&sid=aaVMzCTMz3ms
3) After spending lots of money, resources and time on building reactors and the super expensive tools to build the parts to build them, and you hit "Peak Uranium" within 100 years, it might not be really worth it. Might be better to look for something else to bet big on.
Slashdot Mirror
Hmm, but the sky is already blue where I am...
The concept of the kings not being above the law goes back even further - back to ancient times.
See: Deuteronomy 17
14 When you enter the land the LORD your God is giving you and have taken possession of it and settled in it, and you say, "Let us set a king over us like all the nations around us," 15 be sure to appoint over you the king the LORD your God chooses. He must be from among your own brothers. Do not place a foreigner over you, one who is not a brother Israelite. 16 The king, moreover, must not acquire great numbers of horses for himself or make the people return to Egypt to get more of them, for the LORD has told you, "You are not to go back that way again." 17 He must not take many wives, or his heart will be led astray. He must not accumulate large amounts of silver and gold.
18 When he takes the throne of his kingdom, he is to write for himself on a scroll a copy of this law, taken from that of the priests, who are Levites. 19 It is to be with him, and he is to read it all the days of his life so that he may learn to revere the LORD his God and follow carefully all the words of this law and these decrees 20 and not consider himself better than his brothers and turn from the law to the right or to the left. Then he and his descendants will reign a long time over his kingdom in Israel.
See also: 1 Kings 21
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+Kings+21&version=NIV
Unlike kings of other countries (e.g. the one Jezebel was from), Ahab could not officially just execute Naboth and seize his land. Even Jezebel had to come up with a plot that worked somewhat within the restrictions of the law.
> In the end, GOD gets the thanks?
;)
But don't some doctors think they are God?
So if you said "Thank God", he/she will just grunt in acknowledgment.
In theory you could create twitter and facebook user accounts for your servers or even services on the servers.
;).
Then your stuff around the world could tweet stuff, and other stuff could be following them or even be fans of them.
e.g.
twitter
NOC: @MSExchangeServer @AD1 hey are you guys up?
MSExchangeServer: @NOC uptime 23:33:05
or:
CorpQuiz- "20 ways to know you are a Windows 2008 R2 Enterprise Server"
AD1's score 20/20
MSExchangeServer likes this
RedHatDBServer: lame...
CorpQuiz- "Group Policies checklist #1"
AD1's score 90/100
AD2: Uh oh...
macbookpro1 is a fan of Steve Jobs
Oops "focal range" should be "depth of field".
Or is it related to part 2.
;).
Maybe people respect the authority of his golf swing
In most security stuff a common default is "default deny".
:).
Life is short. There is no point writing lots of lines for stuff you don't want - there's too much of it.
You might as well write lines for stuff you want
But why? Motion blur is overrated. Sure put it in scenes where it is "important to the story/gameplay", but to use it whenever there is fast motion is stupid.
:).
Why? Because people aren't staring at the same spot on the screen all the time. And nowadays screens are getting bigger.
Say in real life, you're in a room where there are two moving objects that are moving around at fast but eye-trackable speeds in different directions.
If you are staring at sommething else, both objects are blurry.
But if you start to look at one, that particular object becomes _sharp_, the other object becomes blurry.
You look at the other, it becomes sharp and the other becomes blurry.
When a game or movie blurs moving stuff, it just makes stuff you are looking at look out of focus even if they are moving at speeds which your eye can track. You can't focus on it even if in real life you could!
With motion blur, I often experience eye strain when I try to track moving objects/backgrounds that have been blurred.
Then there are the artificial "out of focus" shots in static scenes. These effects should also be restricted to scenes where it is important to the story that only a few items are in focus.
In Avatar (2D), my eyes were often trying to focus on blurry images and it wasn't pleasant - initially I was wondering what was wrong with my eyes - felt like I had difficulty focusing on stuff.
When I watched it in 3D, I realized that a lot of stuff was actually blurry and it wasn't my eyes. In some fairly static scenes the focal range was low - only a few objects were in focus. Then in some scenes the moving objects were blurry. Whereas in other scenes most stuff was in focus. In Avatar 3D it was easier to figure out where I "should" be looking and avoid the eyestrain bits
If you ask me I prefer as much of each frame to be sharp and in focus as possible, then let the limitations of my eyes blur it.
Artificial blurring (motion or defocus) is like listening to artificially degraded music/audio. While there are some cases that call for it (distance effect) it's just silly if you use it a lot.
Very impressive.
My toy helis can only fly for about 6-8 minutes, and they need me around to control them.
Whereas here we have something that can autonomously fly 400 miles over the ocean from place to place, and probably flying for days. Something that can navigate, find+catch food, reproduce etc.
Our tech is still very behind in so many ways.
> If you want to do human computer interface, you don't need math (or a brain).
If you want to do HCI well, you need a decent brain with understanding of the various sorts of humans that might be using the interface. And often a fair bit of creativity.
It's not easy to do well. So many GUI designers end up doing stuff like "add more themes", flashy stuff and wobbly windows, instead of actually improving things.
Just look at how UIs have changed over the years to see what have been real improvements and what have been "meh".
Some people already do that in the financial world.
Oh yeah, they do treat it as a game.
> if you can see 3d (I know some folks can't).
I'm just waiting for the "laser", "you insensitive clod" quip now.
Just like those anime/manga - only some people can achieve maximum augmentation AND do it safely (and without going too crazy in the process).
;)
Poor unfortunate souls like you may have to be limited to using it just for turning table lamps on and off (not even controlling all room lights...).
But maybe one day you might discover the hidden power deep within you, and unleash it to save the world...
Dawkins did not say "atheism is something that can result from having an independent, rational mind."
;) ).
He didn't use a cop-out phrase like that.
He said: "Atheists should be proud, not apologetic, because atheism is evidence of a healthy, independent mind".
So do you really think that has effectively the same meaning as: "Atheists should be proud, because it is something that can result from having a healthy, independent mind"? Which is what you seem to be implying with your arguments.
I think not. It'd be rather stupid to say "Hey you people, be proud of what you are because, it just may be a result of a healthy independent mind". Why be proud then?
To me, what he said is closer to: "Atheists should be proud, because being an atheist shows (is proof, is evidence that) you have a healthy, independent mind", than what you claim he was implying/saying.
And that statement and his original statement are certainly not true. Being an atheist does not prove you have a healthy, independent mind.
p.s. Using bad car analogies doesn't help prove your point.
Driving a Lambo is not evidence that you are rich. You should not use poorly matching analogies to disprove stuff. Unless you're trying to imply with your analogy that being an Atheist is not good evidence that you have a healthy mind (in which case you should be agreeing with me
Owning a Lambo is better evidence. If a rich person let you drive his Lambo that doesn't make you richer in $$$ terms. If the rich person gave you his Lambo, you become richer.
If you like bad car analogies:
Dawkins didn't say "People who borrow cars with 'I am an Atheist' stickers should be proud because driving one of those cars shows you have a healthy, independent mind".
Driving a Lamborghini is not evidence that you are rich, any more than driving an atheist's car is evidence that you have a healthy, independent mind.
If VT matters to you, don't buy it. Buy something else instead.
I think their main grievance was not that they were paid so little, it was that they weren't paid at all or not paid what they were promised. And living/working conditions were crap.
> They have incredible population density, but no sewage system to speak of.
;).
> Anything you see that is green must be watered constantly or it'll die.
The sewage might help turn some stuff green...
Like that MichaelSmith guy
How can you be sure that methicillin would not exist? After all the famous antibiotic penicillin came from bread mold.
It's not just humans that want/need to kill undesirable bacteria.
fungi, bacteria etc have been killing each other for the past billion years or so.
How do stacked circuits do a better job of dissipating heat than a flatter circuit that can dump heat to a heatsink on at least one side?
A BOFH might find it more fun to manipulate data from certain websites, rather than block sites.
;).
e.g. the BOFH substitutes some images, and/or inserts a rather loud audioclip.
Go figure out the details yourself.
Even if you use SSL, the BOFH probably controls what CA certs are installed in your browser
Why should you hate the "stupid" players that spend actual money on it?
They pay for the servers you use to play your game for free.
Nah, it's more likely the same bunch that did excel 2007... Anyone remember the infamous 77.1 * 850 = 100000 Excel 2007 bug? :)
The person I was responding to was talking about uranium.
> Hardware light years ahead is it? So can I have multiple resolutions present at the same time on my monitor? No? Amiga wins again! :p
The main reason you needed multiple resolutions at the same time on the Amiga was back then you could only have lots of colours and low res, or few colours and high res.
Nowadays you can have 24 bit colour in high res.
Saying that feature is a "win" is like saying a feature that's useful for horse drawn carriages but not cars, is a "win".
From your link:
"Thus the world's present measured resources of uranium (5.5 Mt) in the cost category somewhat below present spot prices and used only in conventional reactors, are enough to last for over 80 years"
"This is in fact suggested in the IAEA-NEA figures if those covering estimates of all conventional resources are considered - 10.5 million tonnes (beyond the 5.5 Mt known economic resources), which takes us to over 200 years' supply at today's rate of consumption"
80-200 years at current consumption rates isn't very long IMO.
1) If the USA and China replace all their coal and fossil fuel power plants with uranium nuclear reactors, that 200 years is going to be a lot shorter. And you'd have to start figuring out how to get more uranium in fancier ways. Saying that there must be other sources doesn't make it so. It's far from the old days of oil where it was just gushing out when you dig a hole.
As it is, my reading of the article sure doesn't give me much confidence that "Peak Uranium" would be that far away.
2) There seems to be only one company in the whole world that can build a reactor containment vessel in a single piece (to reduce risk of radiation leaks), and it's already build at max capacity (four per year). http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601109&sid=aaVMzCTMz3ms
3) After spending lots of money, resources and time on building reactors and the super expensive tools to build the parts to build them, and you hit "Peak Uranium" within 100 years, it might not be really worth it. Might be better to look for something else to bet big on.