While I agree that your post was not a troll, and that you probably meant what you said, your argumentation lacks... common sense.
1. Cameras are not invasive. They record what happens in public spaces. If you don't want to get recorded, you probably don't want to be seen either, so you should avoid public spaces. And by the way, simple logic should be enough to convince you that britain doesn't have somebody watching every camera (that would be 4.2 million employees). The cameras are used to investigate after a crime is commited. You should be feeling safer. If you are victim to a crime in a public place, chancer are higher that the perpetrator will be caught. 2. Sounds highly unlikely. While I haven't read the relevant law, I very much doubt that it means Joe Random Policeman can demand all your encryption keys. It would probably require a bit more formality higher up in the system, such as a court order, or something like that. And if you really don't want the government to read your data, then either be prepared for some jail-time, or don't depend on encryption to keep it secret. 3. Well, I get what you mean to say, although I could make fun of you and say that we already jail people who have committed crimes all over the world. But yes, I agree that this is invasive.
..swallowed the squid to catch the squid, she swallowed the squid to catch the squid, she swallowed the sperm whale *snigger* to catch the squid... She was japanese.
I've thought to myself before that much more progress could be made if fairly standard APIs could be agreed on for more things. Printing for example, how many unix "printing" solutions exist?
Sure. Everything would be easier if they were designed right from the start, and we could continue to use that indefinitely.
Originally, unix was designed to be run with dumb terminals, who could just as well be printers. Eventually the need evolved to be able to have a separate printer device to dump ASCII to. So one computer serving many users, with a single line-printer was what the design started with.
Then, as printers became more advanced, unix adopted postscript. But real postscript devices turned out to be quite rare, and the world turned out to instead consist of a myriad of different printer command languages, and even non-standard "windows printer" interfaces.
Another change was that instead of a single computer, there would be a myriad of unix boxes for different purposes (file-storage, computation, backup, development, etc), as well as incompatible mac and windows desktop systems. And not all of these computers were connected to a printer. Instead the printers were shared through the network to all the computers. The printers would exist on the network as separate entities, just like computers did.
Yet another change was that network-aware printers became less common, and instead a cheaper printer would be attached to a single computer, and "shared" with other computers on the network.
And another change was that instead of having a competent admin to handle all of this, people expected to be able to do so themselves, at their own home network.
So basically, what I'm arguing is that there's no way this API could have been "right" from the start. It needed to evolve. Sure, it would be easier for new users if this "evolution" was hidden behind a carpet untill "linux 3.0" was out. On the other hand, having an open process has allowed early adopters that needed the new functionality to start using it before "linux 3.0" was out.
I'm not some crazy saying we need to decide on a single widget set or should merge Qt and Gtk. But a flexable and extensible layer that is stable and mature would make developing easier.
I could go on in the same way. Dumb terminals, smart terminals, expensive workstations, X-terminals, Desktop computers. Or: line-oriented, terminal-oriented, graphic terminals, ad-hoc graphics, Display Postscript, The X Window System, Open Look, Xt, Motif, Tcl/Tk, Qt/Gtk, KDE/Gnome. If we had stopped at Motif, we would have a standard now. Motif was good enough. But so was Open Look. And so was Display Postscript. In fact, things seems to have turned for the worse a lot of the time (for political reasons). But today Gnome and KDE both provide stable and mature layers. There's little to complain about apart from unnecessary choice. Which I agree is annoying, but even you aren't considering merging them, so...
Ok, so what does it mean that a bubble bursts? Well, first of all, there must have been a bubble. It never was. Linux has slowly gained users. That's all.
For the Linux desktop, 2002 was an important year. Since then, we have continuously been fed point releases which added bits of functionality and speed improvements, but no major revision has yet seen the light of day. What's going on?
What's going on is that both KDE and Gnome are maturing products that are constantly being refined and improved upon. Since there has been no pressing need to do dramatic changes to the underlying infrastructure, the developers have been able to add new features without creating a new major revision. This is a bonus for most users.
A big problem with GNOME is that it lacks any form of a vision, a goal, for the next big revision. GNOME 3.0 is just that- a name. All GNOME 3.0 has are some random ideas by random people in random places. KDE developers are indeed planning big things for KDE4 -- but that is what they are stuck at. Show me where the results are.KDE's biggest problem is a lack of manpower and financial backing by big companies.
I disagree with both notions. There are people heavily involved in the GNOME project with vision, and many of these people even share the same vision. As a result, the improvements in GNOME in recent years have been focused and in tune with other GNOME improvements. I haven't followed KDE closely, but I guarantee you that it's not the same as in 2002. Things have improved.
In the meantime, the competition has not exactly been standing still. Apple has continuously been improving its Mac OS X operating system. Microsoft has not been resting on its laurels either. Windows Vista is already available.
I'm sorry. Windows and Mac OS X aren't "competition". Linux isn't out there to "compete". It's out there to offer a free unix-like operating system to people who are interested in that. If people prefer to pay for Windows or OS X it's not a big loss for linux. Only when developers prefer Windows or OS X does it become a problem for future linux development. Even then, linux users should worry more about having fun, than dominating the market. Even if every computer on earth ran linux, it wouldn't put a cent in your pocket!
Many anti-MS fanboys complain that Vista is nothing more than XP with a new coat, but anyone with an open mind realizes this is absolutely not the case."
Oh, I guess I don't have "an open mind" then, whatever that means. Sure, there are some real improvements compared to XP, but as I remember it, most of these improvements were in NT 3.5 too. Basically, it's the latest version of Windows, even if they prefer to name their releases instead of giving them numbers.
Only in the same sense that the idea of giving someone a F-15, a rotten salmon, a matchstick, a full scale replica of the Eiffel Tower, or a pile of my own poo has occured to me. But I have dismissed those ideas as well.
I realize that this is a question of definitions. But no, I have never used more than a second to consider whether I should give someone an mp3-player. And thus I feel justified to say that the thought haven't occured to me. At least not untill I replied to the GP.
As I think I made clear in my post, I was not arguing that mag-lite was "best". I was arguing that among maglites many models, there were two models that were "good enough" in their segment, and that if you needed a flashlight in either of those segments, those two were the most cost-efficient flashlights for professional users (like me).
I'm aware that there exists flashlights that costs 10 times as much as a mag, that MAY have the same build quality. I'm also aware that most anything on the market that costs 10 times as much as a maglite, will also give more light than a similarly-sized model from mag. Lightbulb-technology have improved, and we've got new ways of lighting: LED and HID. That doesn't mean that they are any tougher, or any more cost-efficient. We can't all drive around in sportscars, especially if what we are trying to do is to plow our fields.
Yes, maglite is coasting on a reputation they acquired 25 years ago. I see nothing wrong about this. Untill the other companies have been around for as long, they can't proclaim that their flashlights will have the same build-quality. (And if you are a high-volume user, you really will start to feel the cost of lithium batteries. It's like running your car on cognac instead of gasoline)
Instead of claiming that expensive is always better (which is correct, but irrelevant), maybe you can try to find a light from above-mentioned manufacturers that can replace these two lights as a cost-efficient solution. But remember, if it costs 10 times as much, it must last 10 times as long between repairs or replacements. Good luck!
We will never grant human rights to robots. If AI ever progresses so far that it would be reasonable for robots to ask for human rights, it will no longer be necessary for them to ask for it. At that point the robots will already be in control.
They might choose to give us the illusion of court trials and all that, they might act/be nice towards us, and pretend that we are in control, and/or pretend that what we say matters. But it makes no more sense for superior AIs to ask for human rights, than it does for humans to ask for "ant rights".
when you "into" flashlights, you'll find out that
1)Maglights are NOT that good - their beam quality sucks
2)Maglight is the Microsoft of flashlights - they use lawsuits to prevent a LOT of competition
I'm not into flashlights, apart from the fact that I use them a lot. And maglite makes dependable flashlights that most likely still gives you the most bang for the buck.
Ok, maglite has a lot of models, but as far as I'm concerned, there are two models worth considering.
The Maglite charger is a classic. It gives a lot of light, adjustable from flooding to a narrow beam. True enough, in some positions the beam has lots of dark rings and/or spots, but it can be adjusted to sane positions without much trouble, and once you've found your favourite position, you don't need to adjust it again unless you have lent it to someone (takes about 1 second to get it back). On the upside, they are cheap, dependable, long-lasting, repairable, easy to charge, and has all the accesories you need, such as belt-holder, car-charger, etc... And you can get parts from just about any supplier.
The other model worth considering is the 2AA minimag LED. While not up there with the most expensive surefire/inova/whatever flashlights, it's still a practical, cost-efficient, dependable performer. Most importantly, it runs from AA rechargeables, which means you don't have to spend all your cash on expensive lithium batteries (which quickly adds up, when you need a new pair every night). OK, I would prefer it to be a bit shorter (the old minimag was better in that regard), but you can't get it all.
Now, go ahead and make fun of all the other mag flashlights in existence. The old minimag, solitaire, C and D-cell models are all outdated (and yes, this includes the C and D-cell leds). But the new minimag LED is a welcome update, and the old charger will probably never become obsolete. And the competition just can't match the price AND quality of maglite, it always becomes a choice between price OR quality (I had a Pelican M6 once, which seemed like a reasonable choice between price and quality, but it lasted less than 3 months and cost me a fortune in lithium batteries, whereas my old minimag has lasted for 3 years without problems (before I got the Pelican, and now minimag LED))
As for lawsuits, sure, I've heard people complain. I don't particularly care. Just like geeks have a hard time telling non-geeks to avoid microsoft for ethical reasons, you will have a hard time telling me to avoid mag for ethical reasons. I just like two of their models, and don't care about patent issues.
Yup, the thought of giving someone an mp3 player has not occured to me. Honestly.
First of all, they are a bit expensive for a christmas gift, which is more than enough to exclude them from consideration from me. Or, if I choose a cheaper model, they are "a cheaper model". Giving away a "budget mp3 player" is about as fun as giving away a "budget whatever"...
Secondly, most people either already have one, or don't want one. Third, if they still haven't got one, but want one, they probably want to choose their favourite model themselves, and would be more happy for money. Finally, as even the article suggested, I don't want to become tech-support.
Apart from all that ranting about mp3-players as christmas gift, I must say that I find most of the suggestions on the list completely ridiculous. These are things geeks want, not things geeks should give away. If you are reading this site, you are already a geek, and knows what geeks want. The thing is, your friends, family, significant other, etc, are most likely not geeks (at least not all of them). Give them something they want, not something you want!
Actually distorcion can be removed if you know the formula of the distorcion itself. This trick is actually used in practice for improving signals from specific sources.
However any added noise does indeed destroy (without recourse) part of the original signal.
Well, noise can be cancelled too, if you happen to know the exact noise added. There are commercial products doing that.
And all distortion is not a simple smooth 1-1 mathematical functions. If your distortion formula is e.g. x^2, you can't reproduce the original signal. If it is converting samples into e.g. 8-bit digital resolution (a step function), you can't reproduce the original signal. If the distortion function is x+0.001*sin(x*100), you can't reproduce the original signal. If the distortion function is nonlinear and involves earlier input in addition to the current input, it becomes *very* hard to discover it, and most likely just as hard to solve it mathematically, and reproduce the original signal, even if you discovered it.
Even if the distortion function is the neat and tidy kind you want, if you want to reproduce the *exact* same signal, you need infinite precision in your calculations, whereas most real-world signals have real-world S/N-ratios.
As with most things having to do with engineering i strongly suspect there was a tradeoff between cost (eg, more bits = more cost) and suitability. Thus, i suspect that the standards chosen for CDs are good enough for the vast majority of people but there is a small number which can detected the difference - for example, some people can hear beyond 22,05 KHz, while CDs can only sample sounds up to that frequency.
Most certainly there was a tradeoff. However, most people claiming to be able to hear this, are talking out of their asses. They *believe* they can hear this, mostly because they want to justify spending zillions of dollars on their hifi-system. And you can't just compare a CD and an LP side by side. There are lots of components that are different between the two systems, not just the storage medium. And it isn't necessarily the one that's most perfect that you like best. Psychological effects also come into play, such as liking the loudest one best, and maybe you also like the distortion from the analog system better than clean "perfect" digital sound.
Even if LPs are "better" (which they arguably are when new), the reason you prefer them doesn't need to have anything to do with that. It could just be a coincidence that you happen to prefer the "analog sound", or you could simply be a fashion victim. No need to come up with strange explanations of superhuman hearing abilities, when it all comes down to prejudice and maybe taste.
As for me, I became pretty convinced that DAT was perfect (enough for me) somewhere about 15 years ago, when I recognized that I was unable to detect the difference between someone speaking into the microphone in a soundstudio, played over the monitors, and a recording of the same, played back over the monitors. It must be noted that our pretty spiffy (at the time) analog tape-reels did not pass the same test. (DAT is 48kHz, which is slightly more than CD, but I doubt this matters much. Real scientists were involved in choosing 44.1kHz). And no, I don't claim to have golden ears either, but I was 16 years at the time, which should make my hearing much better than most people that claim to have golden ears.
Wanting to kill someone, and having killed someone is not the same thing. Humans are equipped with brains and do not always follow our instincts or immediate wishes. Furthermore we are moral, and also for that reason we do not always follow our instincts or immediate wishes. Finally, just because I want to be on the moon, doesn't make it so. If the grandparent wants to kill e.g. Bill Gates, that takes planning and resources that might be greater than what he gains by satisfying his wishes, it may have legal repercussions, and it might also contrast with his moral views.
The whole thing was about the suitability of saying that information is lost when an analog signal is converted to digital, independently of the compression algorith used on the digital information.
It is suitable to say this. Apart from "information is lost" being a technical term with a precisely defined meaning, it is also common sense. If you use a modem on a bad phone line, information will be lost (or more likely, the modem will detect this and compensate by reducing speed, but this is beyond the point). Or try to listen to a recording of someone speaking, that is being played through a guitar fuzz-box, while you are taking a shower. This adds distortion and noise. Most likely, information will be lost this way too, as you will not be able to understand what is being said.
Anyway, unless you are able to come up with an exact copy of the input signal, information will be lost whenever you run it through an amplifier, storage medium, etc..., or convert from analog to digital, or the other way around. Exactly how much information is lost, is a more technical question, and requires a long-winded technical answer. But these things can be quantified, even though it's usually of theoretical interest only. The important thing is that each time you do something to the signal, it degrades, and becomes less like the original. If you copy a cassette tape 10000 times, you will most likely end up with only hiss. All information will be lost. Better quality equipment might give you better results. How much the signal degrades per "operation"/copy/etc is more or less a question of how much money you want to spend (at least in the audio domain).
The other guy seems to dislike using the word "lossy" for things other than compression algorithms
The other guy is correct. "Lossy" is a technical term that applies to compression algorithms that throw away "unimportant" data, so that information content is permanently lost, yet the important stuff remains. Lossy algorithms are used in audio compression, image compression, video compression, and other more specialized fields. This is in contrast to non-lossy compression algorithms, that will always be able to recreate the original data exactly. Using "lossy" to describe the physical limitations of analog equipment and/or storage media, or digital sampling method, is incorrect usage of a technical term. Just because "information is lost", doesn't mean something is "lossy". Both are technical terms, and needs to be used correctly.
Of course, this does not mean that 16-bits per sample and a sampling rate of 44.1 kHz (what's used on CDs) is adequate for audio.
16-bits per sample at 44.1 kHz wasn't chosen completely arbitrarily. It was chosen because it is considered adequate for audio. That being said, the limits of CD audio is *very* close to what you can hear. It takes care to encode CDs properly. Most music producers these days, try the opposite thing, namely to create a CD that will play as loud as possible. No wonder even old vinyl recordings sound better!
It's possible to make a digital system which is as good as an analog system, only it would be much more expensive than the equivalent analog system (not to mention requiring a lot more storage space per minute recorded), so nobody does it (at least not in the consumer space).
Sorry, it's the other way around. Analog sound systems does, for all practical purposes, no longer exist. In the marketplace they are completely replaced by more cost-efficient and practical digital equipment. And this certainly includes the professional segment. Both analog and digital systems are perfectly capable of reproducing sound much better than a human ear can distinguish anyway, so other factors will determine what you choose. These factors are cost, convenience, and features. Digital wins all the way.
The only reason people choose analog today, is because they want the "warm analog sound", which has nothing to do with reproducing sound, and all to do about coloring it just the way you like it. Just the same way pepper doesn't reproduce the taste of beef.
Anyway, arguing about which is "best", is like arguing about what is "best" about an old-fashioned steam engine and a modern four-stroke combustion engine. They both have their uses, but for 99% of the cases, the modern four-stroke combustion engine wins out in terms of cost, convenience and features.
Information is not lost when copying analog signals, at most it's distorted and noise might be added.
Distortion reduces the amount of information. Noise reduces the amount of information. Sorry, you lost.
The reason why audiophiles prefer vinyl is preciselly because there is no loss of information during recording due to digitalization (it goes directly from the microfone to the master disc) and vinyl is the storage medium that introduces the least amount of distortion.
Audiophiles are not a reasonable group to use for judging the quality of audio hardware and/or recording/playback techniques. Their claims stopped being credible long before the advent of monster cables, and green felt-pens. Like most subcultures, audiophiles have their own ideas about a lot of things. And like wicca, their claims isn't something most knowledgeable people give a damn shit about.
If audiophiles prefer vinyl, it's probably because vinyl is an unpractical but fashionable medium, having an air of exclusivity, low production volumes, and being more expensive. This makes audiophiles feel superior to the average consumer who can buy the same recording in a form that will last longer, at less cost, in the form of a normal CD. Not unlike how a practitioner of wicca will feel superior to someone who is not menstruating on pentagrams, or whatever...
You still haven't shown that even a single of those guns you claim were used for defensive purposes, actually performed a useful defensive function, either as a deterrent, threat, or weapon. You could just as well argue that having ice-cream in the house works as a deterrent against random evil people attacking your family in your house.
Actually, I find the whole scenario you are worried about so remote that I fail to see why people worry about it. Random burglars will run when they are spotted, regardless of whether you have a gun or not. Only real enemies will stay to mutilate you and your family. Most people know whether they have real enemies who are likely to do that. (And besides, if someone plans to mutilate you and your family, a gun probably isn't going to stop them)
I would rather be mugged by someone with a knife, than someone with a gun. If owning an unregistered gun is illegal, once the police find out about someone with a gun but no license, they have reason to arrest him, search his house for evidence, etc... This will reduce the amount of criminals with guns.
And a small side-note. Yes, weapons used in crime, are surprisingly often weapons that are designed especially for killing humans. Although a filet knife is perfectly adequate for killing someone, if you are ever killed by a random stranger with knife, I bet the chance that he's using a tough-looking combat-knife is much higher than that he is using an equally tough-performing but domestic-looking filet-knife. The reason for this must be that criminals aren't usually the brightest of the bunch. And yes, this is a side note, because if no rambo-knives are available, the lunatic killer is probably going to use a filet-knife, so outlawing tough-looking knives won't help much.
Marihuana isn't regulated. It's illegal. (OK, there are some very few exceptions of medical marihuana). And I'm not against you smoking that fat joint. I'm against the violence and crime that is a natural consequence of the prohibition against marihuana. Your point was?
Regulation reduces the amount of unregistered guns in circulation. Criminals will not get access to registered guns, unless they steal them. Registered guns will be stored safely, to reduce the risk of that happening. Which means that, over time, the number of guns available to criminals drops. And the number of legal, registered guns, increase. Do I really need to spell this out for you? Are you really that stupid?
And just because you are a criminal, doesn't mean that you will do anything criminal. There are at the moment, relatively few serial killer/rapists compared to petty thieves. Yet both are criminal. Do I really need to spell this out for you? Are you really that stupid?
Yes. And the nazis also built roads and infrastructure. They almost completely removed unemployment. And they invested in industry and completely rebuilt their contrys failing economy. That they also regulated guns come into the same (good) category. Just because the nazis did something, doesn't mean it's evil or a bad idea. Without the nazis, we may not even have reached the moon yet!
And I challenge you to find any statistic that at least vaguely indicates that keeping loaded guns at home is a good idea. Even in the military, they don't generally handle loaded guns unless they have to. And they keep a lot more discipline there, than you can do with your family!
But isn't that exactly the same rationale I used? Only when it becomes a problem, or it becomes common enough for us to see that it will become a problem, should regulation be introduced. Otherwise, we are creating regulation, solely for the purpose of creating regulation. Which helps no-one.
Then please explain whatever else you may have meant by the two sentences quoted at the top of my post. Such a card-only lifestyle is not unthinkable in Europe. And if people choose to still use cash, generally, it will not be because of privacy concerns, but for practical reasons.
In that case, you can just as well claim that the problem is that you aren't allowed to kill criminals and other people you dislike. Having a gun will not defend you from criminals. Killing the criminals does!
Look, if somebody points a gun at you, and fires, it doesn't matter a damn thing whether you have a gun in your hand, pocket, car, bedroom, hunting cabin, or whatever... You are still dead. Guns don't protect people - Regulation does!
Uhm, the vast majority of guns in the US have never, nor will they ever, be used for hunting. And a typical hand-gun is also completely useless for hunting. However, I have nothing against people who are gun-nuts either. If they want to spend their time down at the shooting range, firing at cardboard silhuettes of arabs, it's their choice. What I want to do, is to limit the number of people who choose to keep a loaded gun somewhere in their house, where it waits to be stolen, played with by their children, etc... just because they believe it will somehow "protect" them if 69 ninjas suddenly attack them.
And I didn't say anywhere that I was against guns. I said I was for gun control! Which is a completely different thing than being against guns in general.
Gun control would imply such things as
Every gun is registered in a central register
It is the responsibility of the owner to make sure this register is updated if there is a change of owner, etc...
Gun owners must have a police attest, declaring that they are not convicted criminals
Gun owners must get a license, which prove they know how to safely store, transport, and handle a gun
You are not allowed to own or handle a gun without that license, unless it is under supervision by a licensed instructor
Your license can be revoked if you fail to comply with regulations of how to safely store, transport, and handle a gun.
It's amazing that we have this for cars, but not for guns.
Slashdot Mirror
While I agree that your post was not a troll, and that you probably meant what you said, your argumentation lacks... common sense.
1. Cameras are not invasive. They record what happens in public spaces. If you don't want to get recorded, you probably don't want to be seen either, so you should avoid public spaces. And by the way, simple logic should be enough to convince you that britain doesn't have somebody watching every camera (that would be 4.2 million employees). The cameras are used to investigate after a crime is commited. You should be feeling safer. If you are victim to a crime in a public place, chancer are higher that the perpetrator will be caught. 2. Sounds highly unlikely. While I haven't read the relevant law, I very much doubt that it means Joe Random Policeman can demand all your encryption keys. It would probably require a bit more formality higher up in the system, such as a court order, or something like that. And if you really don't want the government to read your data, then either be prepared for some jail-time, or don't depend on encryption to keep it secret. 3. Well, I get what you mean to say, although I could make fun of you and say that we already jail people who have committed crimes all over the world. But yes, I agree that this is invasive.
Easy now!
Sure. Everything would be easier if they were designed right from the start, and we could continue to use that indefinitely.
Originally, unix was designed to be run with dumb terminals, who could just as well be printers. Eventually the need evolved to be able to have a separate printer device to dump ASCII to. So one computer serving many users, with a single line-printer was what the design started with.
Then, as printers became more advanced, unix adopted postscript. But real postscript devices turned out to be quite rare, and the world turned out to instead consist of a myriad of different printer command languages, and even non-standard "windows printer" interfaces.
Another change was that instead of a single computer, there would be a myriad of unix boxes for different purposes (file-storage, computation, backup, development, etc), as well as incompatible mac and windows desktop systems. And not all of these computers were connected to a printer. Instead the printers were shared through the network to all the computers. The printers would exist on the network as separate entities, just like computers did.
Yet another change was that network-aware printers became less common, and instead a cheaper printer would be attached to a single computer, and "shared" with other computers on the network.
And another change was that instead of having a competent admin to handle all of this, people expected to be able to do so themselves, at their own home network.
So basically, what I'm arguing is that there's no way this API could have been "right" from the start. It needed to evolve. Sure, it would be easier for new users if this "evolution" was hidden behind a carpet untill "linux 3.0" was out. On the other hand, having an open process has allowed early adopters that needed the new functionality to start using it before "linux 3.0" was out.
I could go on in the same way. Dumb terminals, smart terminals, expensive workstations, X-terminals, Desktop computers. Or: line-oriented, terminal-oriented, graphic terminals, ad-hoc graphics, Display Postscript, The X Window System, Open Look, Xt, Motif, Tcl/Tk, Qt/Gtk, KDE/Gnome. If we had stopped at Motif, we would have a standard now. Motif was good enough. But so was Open Look. And so was Display Postscript. In fact, things seems to have turned for the worse a lot of the time (for political reasons). But today Gnome and KDE both provide stable and mature layers. There's little to complain about apart from unnecessary choice. Which I agree is annoying, but even you aren't considering merging them, so...
Ok, so what does it mean that a bubble bursts? Well, first of all, there must have been a bubble. It never was. Linux has slowly gained users. That's all.
What's going on is that both KDE and Gnome are maturing products that are constantly being refined and improved upon. Since there has been no pressing need to do dramatic changes to the underlying infrastructure, the developers have been able to add new features without creating a new major revision. This is a bonus for most users.
I disagree with both notions. There are people heavily involved in the GNOME project with vision, and many of these people even share the same vision. As a result, the improvements in GNOME in recent years have been focused and in tune with other GNOME improvements. I haven't followed KDE closely, but I guarantee you that it's not the same as in 2002. Things have improved.
I'm sorry. Windows and Mac OS X aren't "competition". Linux isn't out there to "compete". It's out there to offer a free unix-like operating system to people who are interested in that. If people prefer to pay for Windows or OS X it's not a big loss for linux. Only when developers prefer Windows or OS X does it become a problem for future linux development. Even then, linux users should worry more about having fun, than dominating the market. Even if every computer on earth ran linux, it wouldn't put a cent in your pocket!
Oh, I guess I don't have "an open mind" then, whatever that means. Sure, there are some real improvements compared to XP, but as I remember it, most of these improvements were in NT 3.5 too. Basically, it's the latest version of Windows, even if they prefer to name their releases instead of giving them numbers.
Only in the same sense that the idea of giving someone a F-15, a rotten salmon, a matchstick, a full scale replica of the Eiffel Tower, or a pile of my own poo has occured to me. But I have dismissed those ideas as well.
I realize that this is a question of definitions. But no, I have never used more than a second to consider whether I should give someone an mp3-player. And thus I feel justified to say that the thought haven't occured to me. At least not untill I replied to the GP.
Hey, why are you talking about penis on the dollar. Oh wait, it's actually ponies.
As I think I made clear in my post, I was not arguing that mag-lite was "best". I was arguing that among maglites many models, there were two models that were "good enough" in their segment, and that if you needed a flashlight in either of those segments, those two were the most cost-efficient flashlights for professional users (like me).
I'm aware that there exists flashlights that costs 10 times as much as a mag, that MAY have the same build quality. I'm also aware that most anything on the market that costs 10 times as much as a maglite, will also give more light than a similarly-sized model from mag. Lightbulb-technology have improved, and we've got new ways of lighting: LED and HID. That doesn't mean that they are any tougher, or any more cost-efficient. We can't all drive around in sportscars, especially if what we are trying to do is to plow our fields.
Yes, maglite is coasting on a reputation they acquired 25 years ago. I see nothing wrong about this. Untill the other companies have been around for as long, they can't proclaim that their flashlights will have the same build-quality. (And if you are a high-volume user, you really will start to feel the cost of lithium batteries. It's like running your car on cognac instead of gasoline)
Instead of claiming that expensive is always better (which is correct, but irrelevant), maybe you can try to find a light from above-mentioned manufacturers that can replace these two lights as a cost-efficient solution. But remember, if it costs 10 times as much, it must last 10 times as long between repairs or replacements. Good luck!
We will never grant human rights to robots. If AI ever progresses so far that it would be reasonable for robots to ask for human rights, it will no longer be necessary for them to ask for it. At that point the robots will already be in control.
They might choose to give us the illusion of court trials and all that, they might act/be nice towards us, and pretend that we are in control, and/or pretend that what we say matters. But it makes no more sense for superior AIs to ask for human rights, than it does for humans to ask for "ant rights".
I'm not into flashlights, apart from the fact that I use them a lot. And maglite makes dependable flashlights that most likely still gives you the most bang for the buck.
Ok, maglite has a lot of models, but as far as I'm concerned, there are two models worth considering.
The Maglite charger is a classic. It gives a lot of light, adjustable from flooding to a narrow beam. True enough, in some positions the beam has lots of dark rings and/or spots, but it can be adjusted to sane positions without much trouble, and once you've found your favourite position, you don't need to adjust it again unless you have lent it to someone (takes about 1 second to get it back). On the upside, they are cheap, dependable, long-lasting, repairable, easy to charge, and has all the accesories you need, such as belt-holder, car-charger, etc... And you can get parts from just about any supplier.
The other model worth considering is the 2AA minimag LED. While not up there with the most expensive surefire/inova/whatever flashlights, it's still a practical, cost-efficient, dependable performer. Most importantly, it runs from AA rechargeables, which means you don't have to spend all your cash on expensive lithium batteries (which quickly adds up, when you need a new pair every night). OK, I would prefer it to be a bit shorter (the old minimag was better in that regard), but you can't get it all.
Now, go ahead and make fun of all the other mag flashlights in existence. The old minimag, solitaire, C and D-cell models are all outdated (and yes, this includes the C and D-cell leds). But the new minimag LED is a welcome update, and the old charger will probably never become obsolete. And the competition just can't match the price AND quality of maglite, it always becomes a choice between price OR quality (I had a Pelican M6 once, which seemed like a reasonable choice between price and quality, but it lasted less than 3 months and cost me a fortune in lithium batteries, whereas my old minimag has lasted for 3 years without problems (before I got the Pelican, and now minimag LED))
As for lawsuits, sure, I've heard people complain. I don't particularly care. Just like geeks have a hard time telling non-geeks to avoid microsoft for ethical reasons, you will have a hard time telling me to avoid mag for ethical reasons. I just like two of their models, and don't care about patent issues.
Yup, the thought of giving someone an mp3 player has not occured to me. Honestly.
First of all, they are a bit expensive for a christmas gift, which is more than enough to exclude them from consideration from me. Or, if I choose a cheaper model, they are "a cheaper model". Giving away a "budget mp3 player" is about as fun as giving away a "budget whatever"...
Secondly, most people either already have one, or don't want one. Third, if they still haven't got one, but want one, they probably want to choose their favourite model themselves, and would be more happy for money. Finally, as even the article suggested, I don't want to become tech-support.
Apart from all that ranting about mp3-players as christmas gift, I must say that I find most of the suggestions on the list completely ridiculous. These are things geeks want, not things geeks should give away. If you are reading this site, you are already a geek, and knows what geeks want. The thing is, your friends, family, significant other, etc, are most likely not geeks (at least not all of them). Give them something they want, not something you want!
Well, noise can be cancelled too, if you happen to know the exact noise added. There are commercial products doing that.
And all distortion is not a simple smooth 1-1 mathematical functions. If your distortion formula is e.g. x^2, you can't reproduce the original signal. If it is converting samples into e.g. 8-bit digital resolution (a step function), you can't reproduce the original signal. If the distortion function is x+0.001*sin(x*100), you can't reproduce the original signal. If the distortion function is nonlinear and involves earlier input in addition to the current input, it becomes *very* hard to discover it, and most likely just as hard to solve it mathematically, and reproduce the original signal, even if you discovered it.
Even if the distortion function is the neat and tidy kind you want, if you want to reproduce the *exact* same signal, you need infinite precision in your calculations, whereas most real-world signals have real-world S/N-ratios.
Most certainly there was a tradeoff. However, most people claiming to be able to hear this, are talking out of their asses. They *believe* they can hear this, mostly because they want to justify spending zillions of dollars on their hifi-system. And you can't just compare a CD and an LP side by side. There are lots of components that are different between the two systems, not just the storage medium. And it isn't necessarily the one that's most perfect that you like best. Psychological effects also come into play, such as liking the loudest one best, and maybe you also like the distortion from the analog system better than clean "perfect" digital sound.
Even if LPs are "better" (which they arguably are when new), the reason you prefer them doesn't need to have anything to do with that. It could just be a coincidence that you happen to prefer the "analog sound", or you could simply be a fashion victim. No need to come up with strange explanations of superhuman hearing abilities, when it all comes down to prejudice and maybe taste.
As for me, I became pretty convinced that DAT was perfect (enough for me) somewhere about 15 years ago, when I recognized that I was unable to detect the difference between someone speaking into the microphone in a soundstudio, played over the monitors, and a recording of the same, played back over the monitors. It must be noted that our pretty spiffy (at the time) analog tape-reels did not pass the same test. (DAT is 48kHz, which is slightly more than CD, but I doubt this matters much. Real scientists were involved in choosing 44.1kHz). And no, I don't claim to have golden ears either, but I was 16 years at the time, which should make my hearing much better than most people that claim to have golden ears.
Wanting to kill someone, and having killed someone is not the same thing. Humans are equipped with brains and do not always follow our instincts or immediate wishes. Furthermore we are moral, and also for that reason we do not always follow our instincts or immediate wishes. Finally, just because I want to be on the moon, doesn't make it so. If the grandparent wants to kill e.g. Bill Gates, that takes planning and resources that might be greater than what he gains by satisfying his wishes, it may have legal repercussions, and it might also contrast with his moral views.
It is suitable to say this. Apart from "information is lost" being a technical term with a precisely defined meaning, it is also common sense. If you use a modem on a bad phone line, information will be lost (or more likely, the modem will detect this and compensate by reducing speed, but this is beyond the point). Or try to listen to a recording of someone speaking, that is being played through a guitar fuzz-box, while you are taking a shower. This adds distortion and noise. Most likely, information will be lost this way too, as you will not be able to understand what is being said.
Anyway, unless you are able to come up with an exact copy of the input signal, information will be lost whenever you run it through an amplifier, storage medium, etc..., or convert from analog to digital, or the other way around. Exactly how much information is lost, is a more technical question, and requires a long-winded technical answer. But these things can be quantified, even though it's usually of theoretical interest only. The important thing is that each time you do something to the signal, it degrades, and becomes less like the original. If you copy a cassette tape 10000 times, you will most likely end up with only hiss. All information will be lost. Better quality equipment might give you better results. How much the signal degrades per "operation"/copy/etc is more or less a question of how much money you want to spend (at least in the audio domain).
The other guy is correct. "Lossy" is a technical term that applies to compression algorithms that throw away "unimportant" data, so that information content is permanently lost, yet the important stuff remains. Lossy algorithms are used in audio compression, image compression, video compression, and other more specialized fields. This is in contrast to non-lossy compression algorithms, that will always be able to recreate the original data exactly. Using "lossy" to describe the physical limitations of analog equipment and/or storage media, or digital sampling method, is incorrect usage of a technical term. Just because "information is lost", doesn't mean something is "lossy". Both are technical terms, and needs to be used correctly.
16-bits per sample at 44.1 kHz wasn't chosen completely arbitrarily. It was chosen because it is considered adequate for audio. That being said, the limits of CD audio is *very* close to what you can hear. It takes care to encode CDs properly. Most music producers these days, try the opposite thing, namely to create a CD that will play as loud as possible. No wonder even old vinyl recordings sound better!
Sorry, it's the other way around. Analog sound systems does, for all practical purposes, no longer exist. In the marketplace they are completely replaced by more cost-efficient and practical digital equipment. And this certainly includes the professional segment. Both analog and digital systems are perfectly capable of reproducing sound much better than a human ear can distinguish anyway, so other factors will determine what you choose. These factors are cost, convenience, and features. Digital wins all the way.
The only reason people choose analog today, is because they want the "warm analog sound", which has nothing to do with reproducing sound, and all to do about coloring it just the way you like it. Just the same way pepper doesn't reproduce the taste of beef.
Anyway, arguing about which is "best", is like arguing about what is "best" about an old-fashioned steam engine and a modern four-stroke combustion engine. They both have their uses, but for 99% of the cases, the modern four-stroke combustion engine wins out in terms of cost, convenience and features.
Distortion reduces the amount of information. Noise reduces the amount of information. Sorry, you lost.
Audiophiles are not a reasonable group to use for judging the quality of audio hardware and/or recording/playback techniques. Their claims stopped being credible long before the advent of monster cables, and green felt-pens. Like most subcultures, audiophiles have their own ideas about a lot of things. And like wicca, their claims isn't something most knowledgeable people give a damn shit about.
If audiophiles prefer vinyl, it's probably because vinyl is an unpractical but fashionable medium, having an air of exclusivity, low production volumes, and being more expensive. This makes audiophiles feel superior to the average consumer who can buy the same recording in a form that will last longer, at less cost, in the form of a normal CD. Not unlike how a practitioner of wicca will feel superior to someone who is not menstruating on pentagrams, or whatever...
You want to always carry around a bunch of live CDs? Let me set you straight: Don't!
If your friends ask you for help so often that this is even an option you consider, either learn to say no, or get new friends. This is plain madness!
You still haven't shown that even a single of those guns you claim were used for defensive purposes, actually performed a useful defensive function, either as a deterrent, threat, or weapon. You could just as well argue that having ice-cream in the house works as a deterrent against random evil people attacking your family in your house.
Actually, I find the whole scenario you are worried about so remote that I fail to see why people worry about it. Random burglars will run when they are spotted, regardless of whether you have a gun or not. Only real enemies will stay to mutilate you and your family. Most people know whether they have real enemies who are likely to do that. (And besides, if someone plans to mutilate you and your family, a gun probably isn't going to stop them)
I wasn't talking about hypothetical statistics...
I would rather be mugged by someone with a knife, than someone with a gun. If owning an unregistered gun is illegal, once the police find out about someone with a gun but no license, they have reason to arrest him, search his house for evidence, etc... This will reduce the amount of criminals with guns.
And a small side-note. Yes, weapons used in crime, are surprisingly often weapons that are designed especially for killing humans. Although a filet knife is perfectly adequate for killing someone, if you are ever killed by a random stranger with knife, I bet the chance that he's using a tough-looking combat-knife is much higher than that he is using an equally tough-performing but domestic-looking filet-knife. The reason for this must be that criminals aren't usually the brightest of the bunch. And yes, this is a side note, because if no rambo-knives are available, the lunatic killer is probably going to use a filet-knife, so outlawing tough-looking knives won't help much.
Marihuana isn't regulated. It's illegal. (OK, there are some very few exceptions of medical marihuana). And I'm not against you smoking that fat joint. I'm against the violence and crime that is a natural consequence of the prohibition against marihuana. Your point was?
Regulation reduces the amount of unregistered guns in circulation. Criminals will not get access to registered guns, unless they steal them. Registered guns will be stored safely, to reduce the risk of that happening. Which means that, over time, the number of guns available to criminals drops. And the number of legal, registered guns, increase. Do I really need to spell this out for you? Are you really that stupid?
And just because you are a criminal, doesn't mean that you will do anything criminal. There are at the moment, relatively few serial killer/rapists compared to petty thieves. Yet both are criminal. Do I really need to spell this out for you? Are you really that stupid?
Yes. And the nazis also built roads and infrastructure. They almost completely removed unemployment. And they invested in industry and completely rebuilt their contrys failing economy. That they also regulated guns come into the same (good) category. Just because the nazis did something, doesn't mean it's evil or a bad idea. Without the nazis, we may not even have reached the moon yet!
And I challenge you to find any statistic that at least vaguely indicates that keeping loaded guns at home is a good idea. Even in the military, they don't generally handle loaded guns unless they have to. And they keep a lot more discipline there, than you can do with your family!
But isn't that exactly the same rationale I used? Only when it becomes a problem, or it becomes common enough for us to see that it will become a problem, should regulation be introduced. Otherwise, we are creating regulation, solely for the purpose of creating regulation. Which helps no-one.
Then please explain whatever else you may have meant by the two sentences quoted at the top of my post. Such a card-only lifestyle is not unthinkable in Europe. And if people choose to still use cash, generally, it will not be because of privacy concerns, but for practical reasons.
In that case, you can just as well claim that the problem is that you aren't allowed to kill criminals and other people you dislike. Having a gun will not defend you from criminals. Killing the criminals does!
Look, if somebody points a gun at you, and fires, it doesn't matter a damn thing whether you have a gun in your hand, pocket, car, bedroom, hunting cabin, or whatever... You are still dead. Guns don't protect people - Regulation does!
Uhm, the vast majority of guns in the US have never, nor will they ever, be used for hunting. And a typical hand-gun is also completely useless for hunting. However, I have nothing against people who are gun-nuts either. If they want to spend their time down at the shooting range, firing at cardboard silhuettes of arabs, it's their choice. What I want to do, is to limit the number of people who choose to keep a loaded gun somewhere in their house, where it waits to be stolen, played with by their children, etc... just because they believe it will somehow "protect" them if 69 ninjas suddenly attack them.
And I didn't say anywhere that I was against guns. I said I was for gun control! Which is a completely different thing than being against guns in general.
Gun control would imply such things as
It's amazing that we have this for cars, but not for guns.