Perhaps it's because [...] the lenses were all made by the japanese companies anyway? [...] I still have my original Canon Digital Rebel and it still takes awesome pictures with a fixed 50mm f1/8.
Why do you have such hatred of Japanese companies? And why are you so schizophrenic about it? One moment you're complaining about Japanese companies' ability to make good camera lenses, and the next you're bragging that you're still using your Japanese camera with what is in all likelihood a Japanese lens.
We all know that obtaining information against the will of the originator(s) of that information is breach of copyright. We all know that breach of copyright helps fun the drug cartels (because they can't make money off of narcotics) We all know the drug cartels fund terrorists. We all know that if you help or fund terrorists you're a terrorist yourself.
So, all the drug cartels are terrorists. As are the people partaking in breach of copyright. And this means that what WikiLeaks does is obviously terrorism.
Right? Right?
I'm sure it must be true, because the MPAA/RIAA and the governments keep telling me so.
I think the best argument I've heard so far (granted, it's my own argument, so I'm inclined to like it, but still...) is "cultural heritage". My generation doesn't have any. Nor does my parents' generation. My great grandfathers and -mothers were born between 1908 and 1920, and they barely have any.
You know all these great authors, who have enriched our lives? Not part of our heritage. At all. Well, a few of them are. When did they die? Add 70 years and see if that number is lower than the current year. If it is, they are part of our heritage.
Tolkien - died in 1973, not part of our heritage George Orwell - died in 1950, not part of our heritage Walt Disney - died in 1966, not part of our heritage (well, duh) Boris Pasternak - died in 1960, not part of our heritage Arthur Conan Doyle - died in 1930, some of his stuff might be Arthur C. Clarke - died in 2008, not part of our heritage Robert A. Heinlein - died in 1988, not part of our heritage Agatha Christie - died in 1976, not part of our heritage A. A. Milne (Winnie the Pooh) - died in 1956, not part of our heritage
Remember all those great movies you've watched? Essentially anything made before 1928 is probably never going to make it into our heritage.
Music from after 1928? Can you even name music from before then? Jazz, sure - but that's only from about 1915.
The simple fact of life is, that the way copyright holders are acting, it will soon be illegal for you to read books aloud to your children, unless you've purchased a copy specifically for them to read. And they can't give it to anyone else either.
And forget about singing lullabies, birthday songs or anything like that as well. And remember - if you have five kids, you need to buy five licenses of every movie they watch.
If a cure for CCD can't be found, in a few years the supply of hives will be lower than the demand for pollination services.
And the market wins again.
When demand outstrips supply the suppliers can up their prices. They'll make a lot more money. Now, since the food growers can't get enough bees to pollinate their crops, the supply of food will dwindle - more expensive food, meaning more money for the growers. This means that regular workers have to work more to buy the same amount and kinds of food. That means the supply of workers will outstrip demand and salaries can be cut. That's another win for the market and the companies in particular.
It's Win/Win/Win for the market economy - what's not to like?
Why are drug smugglers being kept in Guantanamo? Wasn't that particular prison designed for highly dangerous terrorists? Drug smugglers aren't terrorists.
Now, one can argue that the drug trade funds terrorism, and that argument is being made quite a bit, but why not bring terrorism charges against every day US citizens buying and selling drugs then?
Of course it will. Just add more rockets. Again, not rocket science.
You add delta V to get into a higher orbit, and you fire retro thrusters (subtract delta V) to go into a lower orbit.
Figuring out how many rockets are in "lots and lots of rockets", how large they are and how to get the X-37B back onto the ground safely - that is rocket science.
The X-37B operates in low earth orbit about 200 miles up. The satellite is in Geosynchronous orbit at about 22,000 miles up. How do you get the X-37B to where the satellite is?
Rockets. Lots and lots of rockets.
Seriously, it's not rocket science to come up with THAT answer.
If you punch me, I'm sure as hell going to punch you right back. I might even decide to kick you in the balls. Is that seriously a threat? Do you feel threatened by that statement of fact?
What it is, is a statement to show that they are prepared to respond to violent and/or forceful attempts to silence them, and that is a very reasonable thing to do in their position. Make it clear that silencing them by force would make things worse than they are.
Except it wasn't espionage, first because he did not leak the documents with the intent of harming the country. And second because Israel is our friend and can never hurt us no matter how many wars against their neighbors that they can't get along with they get us into.
Well, at least their free books are available to all.
But don't worry. The edition of Grimm's Fairy Tales I'm looking at right now was published in 1903, and that's only 107 years ago. I'm sure that'll be removed from Public Domain within too long.
1) Like I said, the Danish statistics are about 90% failure. In other words, you essentially regret that you couldn't run a marathon on your very first attempt at running.
2) You quit on something. So what? What was the downside of quitting? Seriously - what was the downside of quitting? Every downside that you've mentioned happened before quitting. The arguments, the failure to sell the product etc. Quitting could easily have been the only correct way to act in your position, and believe it or not, it's hardly called 'quitting' if you decide to give up when playing chicken with a freight train - that's called 'being smart'. You chose not to throw more resources after something that you could see wasn't panning out. That's a victory, not a defeat.
3) Sure, it requires perseverance. You've learned that now. But what you may not have learned is that you can be the hardest working person in the world and still not succeed with a brilliant idea. Luck plays a factor, and you can't influence that.
And you're not in the same position as before. Like I said in my previous post, you've learned something about yourself, you've learned something about your wife, you've learned something about your friends and family, you've found a new job (where they seem to appreciate you quite a bit), and you've learned something about how to run a start-up. How is that being in the same position? For all you know, the reason the start-up wanted to hire you, was to get some more experience with starting a company under their collective belt. Someone extra to recognize the danger signs.
The "only" reason your confidence has taken a hit, is because you (and the people around you) haven't managed to position your experience in a positive light.
1) Are you still lacking in confidence, because your first attempt at Hello World didn't compile properly? 2) Are you still lacking in confidence, because your first sexual encounter ended in less than a minute? 3) Are you still lacking in confidence, because you now know that both programming and sex require lots and lots of training in order to be a guru?
I doubt it. And yes, I realize that I sound a bit 'angry', and really my opinion doesn't matter, but if you take your first unsuccessful venture into the business world as anything other than a time consuming (and sometimes expensive) learning experience, then you're quite frankly an idiot. Not confidence inspiring, but it's honest.
Of course not. A mathematician might have a PhD, but we all know he's not a doctor, and thus he's not a peer, and you need a peer to peer-review an article.
It will upload addresses you visit to a huge anonymous pool, and retrieve random addresses from this pool as well, loading them (fully) in the background. Say a random page once every 10 seconds (or even better - at random time intervals). It will also visit a minimum of four links from each page it visits.
It will install random plug-ins as well (preferably making them inactive, but without revealing it), just to hide that as a potential signature.
It uploads tracking cookies to a huge anonymous pool, and downloads random replacement ones instead, confusing the hell out of anyone trying to make sense of it.
Instead of passively sifting through the crap they feed us, feed them crap in return.
This is something I rarely understand. Why regret it?
If you hadn't gone through this, think of all the things you wouldn't have learned/discovered.
You wouldn't have discovered that your wife is extremely supportive, even in rough times. You wouldn't have learned that you lacked perseverance and patience, and thus know to work on them (you write lacked, indicating that you rectified it) You wouldn't have started working at a seemingly supportive company. You wouldn't be able to give good advice to people looking to start their own company. You wouldn't have learned, that large companies are very keen on fighting wars of attrition without their counterpart knowing it, hoping to swoop in later and have a really cheap feast.
Unless you ended up divorcing your wife, why regret learning this?
When I took a college class on starting your own company, the most interesting examples were always from people who had failed. A wealthy entrepreneur told of two of his companies - one a billion dollar company that's been successful for 20 years, the other a million dollar start-up that crashed, and by far the crash was the more interesting one.
Sure, the successful one had its share of ups and downs, but the crash one had a brilliant idea, patents, proof of concept, EMEA approved human testing (on himself), a story about peeing blood, and ends up with him telling us that the then 15 year old prototype is still stored in a basement lab at a university hospital.
Granted, he was in a much more financial secure position (helps when you're a multi-millionaire who can put more than a million dollars into an idea and not be too concerned) than you were, but at least you managed to sell your product to three clients. I don't know about the US, but in Denmark the rate of successful startups are around 10%, and luck plays a big factor.
I'm sorry, but who was calling whom a terrorist again? (Not you, but in general.)
I only ask because my definition of terror doesn't include "stupid stuff I said, that I don't want people to know about" (that's what Facebook and Twitter are for), but it certainly does include "explicit, implicit, thinly veiled or perceived threat to my life, livelihood, family and friends"
Considering that the parent was talking about actual trucks (notice the bit about reversing a 50 foot articulated truck) and not a pick-up, I doubt that there are similar roll-over laws.
And due to the masses and sizes involved, I doubt a glass door would make any difference in any collision type, as anything big enough to make its way into the driver's side would do so anyway (think juggernaut or train).
Basic logic error or not, you're still very much in the wrong. He's not setting up a tautology, he's explaining people's reaction to a particular sign. Or to put it in mathematical terms: 1 + 1 = 2, but you're still an idiot.
That's why cyclists should _never_ undertake trucks... I'm not talking about who is in the right or wrong, just about potential outcomes.
Most of the times I read about these accidents, the cyclist is caught under the front of the truck, and I can't help but wonder why the hell they don't replace large parts of the passenger side door with glass panels?
Wouldn't that kind of added visibility be a boon to the driver? Hell, you could add a full length mirror to aid in catching things along your side.
That's not a logic error (except on your part). You being able to see the mirror, does not mean you can see the driver's face. Here's a nifty experiment to show my point: Find a friend and a dressing mirror. Now place yourselves 10 feet apart, facing the mirror and turn so you can see each other. Now move sideways parallel to the mirror. You can still see the mirror, but at some point your friend will disappear from the mirror.
Now, this is with a mirror that is usually something like 2 feet wide and 4 feet tall. Try doing it with a mirror that's maybe 4 inches by 3 inches.
If you cannot see the driver's face in the mirror, he cannot see you!
Slashdot Mirror
Ah, you mean the Japanese company Canon, right? The ones that apparently makes crappy lenses? Just like Nikon, Sigma, Minolta, Olympus, Panasonic, Pentax/Hoya, Ricoh, Sony, Tamron and Tokina right?
They're ALL Japanese companies, and they all make really really crappy lenses, right? Unlike Kodak - that All American company.
Now, if we remove the Japanese lens manufacturers, what are we left with? Samsung (Korean), Carl Zeiss (German) and Leica (German).
Why do you have such hatred of Japanese companies? And why are you so schizophrenic about it? One moment you're complaining about Japanese companies' ability to make good camera lenses, and the next you're bragging that you're still using your Japanese camera with what is in all likelihood a Japanese lens.
Dumbass
Definitely a song from the US ...
Here's the rub
We all know that obtaining information against the will of the originator(s) of that information is breach of copyright.
We all know that breach of copyright helps fun the drug cartels (because they can't make money off of narcotics)
We all know the drug cartels fund terrorists.
We all know that if you help or fund terrorists you're a terrorist yourself.
So, all the drug cartels are terrorists. As are the people partaking in breach of copyright. And this means that what WikiLeaks does is obviously terrorism.
Right? Right?
I'm sure it must be true, because the MPAA/RIAA and the governments keep telling me so.
He sucks fish pee!
And Scooter's the Aquaman of the Muppet Babies.
I think the best argument I've heard so far (granted, it's my own argument, so I'm inclined to like it, but still ...) is "cultural heritage". My generation doesn't have any. Nor does my parents' generation. My great grandfathers and -mothers were born between 1908 and 1920, and they barely have any.
You know all these great authors, who have enriched our lives? Not part of our heritage. At all. Well, a few of them are. When did they die? Add 70 years and see if that number is lower than the current year. If it is, they are part of our heritage.
Tolkien - died in 1973, not part of our heritage
George Orwell - died in 1950, not part of our heritage
Walt Disney - died in 1966, not part of our heritage (well, duh)
Boris Pasternak - died in 1960, not part of our heritage
Arthur Conan Doyle - died in 1930, some of his stuff might be
Arthur C. Clarke - died in 2008, not part of our heritage
Robert A. Heinlein - died in 1988, not part of our heritage
Agatha Christie - died in 1976, not part of our heritage
A. A. Milne (Winnie the Pooh) - died in 1956, not part of our heritage
Remember all those great movies you've watched? Essentially anything made before 1928 is probably never going to make it into our heritage.
Music from after 1928? Can you even name music from before then? Jazz, sure - but that's only from about 1915.
The simple fact of life is, that the way copyright holders are acting, it will soon be illegal for you to read books aloud to your children, unless you've purchased a copy specifically for them to read. And they can't give it to anyone else either.
And forget about singing lullabies, birthday songs or anything like that as well. And remember - if you have five kids, you need to buy five licenses of every movie they watch.
Cultural heritage my ass.
Here's the odd thing - how old is the Omega logo?
The company was founded in 1848, meaning that any kind of copyrights claim to that logo is expired.
And the market wins again.
When demand outstrips supply the suppliers can up their prices. They'll make a lot more money.
Now, since the food growers can't get enough bees to pollinate their crops, the supply of food will dwindle - more expensive food, meaning more money for the growers.
This means that regular workers have to work more to buy the same amount and kinds of food. That means the supply of workers will outstrip demand and salaries can be cut. That's another win for the market and the companies in particular.
It's Win/Win/Win for the market economy - what's not to like?
Which is why Amazon, PayPal, Visa and MasterCard all terminated their dealings with WikiLeaks, right?
They weren't presented with any kind of court order telling them to do so, so obviously they chose to do it on their own.
Why are drug smugglers being kept in Guantanamo? Wasn't that particular prison designed for highly dangerous terrorists? Drug smugglers aren't terrorists.
Now, one can argue that the drug trade funds terrorism, and that argument is being made quite a bit, but why not bring terrorism charges against every day US citizens buying and selling drugs then?
Of course it will. Just add more rockets. Again, not rocket science.
You add delta V to get into a higher orbit, and you fire retro thrusters (subtract delta V) to go into a lower orbit.
Figuring out how many rockets are in "lots and lots of rockets", how large they are and how to get the X-37B back onto the ground safely - that is rocket science.
Is the Myth busted? Yes. Flat mirrors, hand aiming, going to be a very large focus area.
But if you took something like this ...
That video makes me wonder just how far away you can set the focal point and still have it be effective. Because that thing is fucking awesome.
Rockets. Lots and lots of rockets.
Seriously, it's not rocket science to come up with THAT answer.
How is it a threat?
If you punch me, I'm sure as hell going to punch you right back. I might even decide to kick you in the balls. Is that seriously a threat? Do you feel threatened by that statement of fact?
What it is, is a statement to show that they are prepared to respond to violent and/or forceful attempts to silence them, and that is a very reasonable thing to do in their position. Make it clear that silencing them by force would make things worse than they are.
Funny. Mostly because the dictionary definition of espionage is [...] the practice of spying or using spies to obtain information about the plans and activities especially of a foreign government [...]
Nowhere does it talk about how our friends can't spy on us, or how the information obtained must be harmful against us.
Well, at least their free books are available to all.
But don't worry. The edition of Grimm's Fairy Tales I'm looking at right now was published in 1903, and that's only 107 years ago. I'm sure that'll be removed from Public Domain within too long.
1) Like I said, the Danish statistics are about 90% failure. In other words, you essentially regret that you couldn't run a marathon on your very first attempt at running.
2) You quit on something. So what? What was the downside of quitting? Seriously - what was the downside of quitting? Every downside that you've mentioned happened before quitting. The arguments, the failure to sell the product etc. Quitting could easily have been the only correct way to act in your position, and believe it or not, it's hardly called 'quitting' if you decide to give up when playing chicken with a freight train - that's called 'being smart'. You chose not to throw more resources after something that you could see wasn't panning out. That's a victory, not a defeat.
3) Sure, it requires perseverance. You've learned that now. But what you may not have learned is that you can be the hardest working person in the world and still not succeed with a brilliant idea. Luck plays a factor, and you can't influence that.
And you're not in the same position as before. Like I said in my previous post, you've learned something about yourself, you've learned something about your wife, you've learned something about your friends and family, you've found a new job (where they seem to appreciate you quite a bit), and you've learned something about how to run a start-up. How is that being in the same position? For all you know, the reason the start-up wanted to hire you, was to get some more experience with starting a company under their collective belt. Someone extra to recognize the danger signs.
The "only" reason your confidence has taken a hit, is because you (and the people around you) haven't managed to position your experience in a positive light.
1) Are you still lacking in confidence, because your first attempt at Hello World didn't compile properly?
2) Are you still lacking in confidence, because your first sexual encounter ended in less than a minute?
3) Are you still lacking in confidence, because you now know that both programming and sex require lots and lots of training in order to be a guru?
I doubt it. And yes, I realize that I sound a bit 'angry', and really my opinion doesn't matter, but if you take your first unsuccessful venture into the business world as anything other than a time consuming (and sometimes expensive) learning experience, then you're quite frankly an idiot. Not confidence inspiring, but it's honest.
Of course not. A mathematician might have a PhD, but we all know he's not a doctor, and thus he's not a peer, and you need a peer to peer-review an article.
How about this for a plug-in:
It will upload addresses you visit to a huge anonymous pool, and retrieve random addresses from this pool as well, loading them (fully) in the background. Say a random page once every 10 seconds (or even better - at random time intervals). It will also visit a minimum of four links from each page it visits.
It will install random plug-ins as well (preferably making them inactive, but without revealing it), just to hide that as a potential signature.
It uploads tracking cookies to a huge anonymous pool, and downloads random replacement ones instead, confusing the hell out of anyone trying to make sense of it.
Instead of passively sifting through the crap they feed us, feed them crap in return.
This is something I rarely understand. Why regret it?
If you hadn't gone through this, think of all the things you wouldn't have learned/discovered.
You wouldn't have discovered that your wife is extremely supportive, even in rough times.
You wouldn't have learned that you lacked perseverance and patience, and thus know to work on them (you write lacked, indicating that you rectified it)
You wouldn't have started working at a seemingly supportive company.
You wouldn't be able to give good advice to people looking to start their own company.
You wouldn't have learned, that large companies are very keen on fighting wars of attrition without their counterpart knowing it, hoping to swoop in later and have a really cheap feast.
Unless you ended up divorcing your wife, why regret learning this?
When I took a college class on starting your own company, the most interesting examples were always from people who had failed. A wealthy entrepreneur told of two of his companies - one a billion dollar company that's been successful for 20 years, the other a million dollar start-up that crashed, and by far the crash was the more interesting one.
Sure, the successful one had its share of ups and downs, but the crash one had a brilliant idea, patents, proof of concept, EMEA approved human testing (on himself), a story about peeing blood, and ends up with him telling us that the then 15 year old prototype is still stored in a basement lab at a university hospital.
Granted, he was in a much more financial secure position (helps when you're a multi-millionaire who can put more than a million dollars into an idea and not be too concerned) than you were, but at least you managed to sell your product to three clients. I don't know about the US, but in Denmark the rate of successful startups are around 10%, and luck plays a big factor.
I'm sorry, but who was calling whom a terrorist again? (Not you, but in general.)
I only ask because my definition of terror doesn't include "stupid stuff I said, that I don't want people to know about" (that's what Facebook and Twitter are for), but it certainly does include "explicit, implicit, thinly veiled or perceived threat to my life, livelihood, family and friends"
Considering that the parent was talking about actual trucks (notice the bit about reversing a 50 foot articulated truck) and not a pick-up, I doubt that there are similar roll-over laws.
And due to the masses and sizes involved, I doubt a glass door would make any difference in any collision type, as anything big enough to make its way into the driver's side would do so anyway (think juggernaut or train).
Basic logic error or not, you're still very much in the wrong. He's not setting up a tautology, he's explaining people's reaction to a particular sign. Or to put it in mathematical terms: 1 + 1 = 2, but you're still an idiot.
Well, in your defence, millions of years ARE decades. Hundreds of thousands of them.
Most of the times I read about these accidents, the cyclist is caught under the front of the truck, and I can't help but wonder why the hell they don't replace large parts of the passenger side door with glass panels?
Wouldn't that kind of added visibility be a boon to the driver? Hell, you could add a full length mirror to aid in catching things along your side.
That's not a logic error (except on your part). You being able to see the mirror, does not mean you can see the driver's face. Here's a nifty experiment to show my point: Find a friend and a dressing mirror. Now place yourselves 10 feet apart, facing the mirror and turn so you can see each other. Now move sideways parallel to the mirror. You can still see the mirror, but at some point your friend will disappear from the mirror.
Now, this is with a mirror that is usually something like 2 feet wide and 4 feet tall. Try doing it with a mirror that's maybe 4 inches by 3 inches.
If you cannot see the driver's face in the mirror, he cannot see you!