Unless you can download a better performing driver for OS X, this is an argument for using Linux.
...on a particular set of hardware. Notice they're compiling and testing on Apple's low-end machine.
And honestly if your Linux vs. OSX decision is based on a narrow difference in performance, then you probably aren't considering cheap desktop hardware to begin with.
The original trek does have the reputation for taking an idea about humanity and throwing it into a fantasy scenario where we could see the idea evaluated.
Funny, every episode that I've seen that does this seems preachy and forced (especially Kahn). Much like in TNG when Wesley falls into a planter bed on the perfect planet, or DS9 where the religious authority is corrupted by her religion's demons, etc, etc, etc.
I welcome a serious exploration or issues, but it doesn't happen with Trek. Instead it's usually boiled down to the simplicity of what you see in IRobot the movie (AI = bad) vs. I Robot the book (AI = complex). The best episodes in Trek are the ones where Picard has to truly defend humanity and our cherished value against the onslaught of tests by the omnipotent Q. But that's too "deus ex machina" for people. Guess what? "Deus Ex Machina" is a term coined from medeval morality plays where the message was the point.
The team concluded that the presence of meters upon site registration, for example, is not as effective as when the meters are not associated with a registration,
Soo... the summary sentence actually says nothing. What was the result? It also sounds like they're reporting on whether people noticed the meter, not whether the meter was successful in getting people to use better passwords.
Sounds like QT isn't leveraging hardware decoding for some reason, most likely because they're doing their own screenwriting instead of leveraging DirectX calls. I remember older versions of QT on windows having buried preferences, but they probably aren't there anymore.
One of the challenges in reading The Plateau Effect: Getting from Stuck to Success is figuring how to classify it. Amazon has it ranked mainly in applied psychology, but also time management and inexplicable personal finance. In some ways it is all of the above and more.
The category you are searching for is "Self Help". Just because it involves computers, it doesn't make it something new and different (just like patents).
A reasoned, though-out answer that I can appreciate. Couldn't you have posted that the first time instead of a vulgar insult? Profanity in the form of a personalized attack doesn't help your argument.
The only reason why this happened is because someone *accidentally* added the functionality when recompiling base dependencies. (http://news.slashdot.org/story/12/04/17/1826215/gimp-core-mostly-ported-to-gegl) For the longest time the Gimp team was claiming CMYK and high-bit-depth channels were impossible to add. That doesn't even get us anywhere close to print production needs like Spot Colors.
The Gimp team also apparently uses their money to send developers to conferences where everyone already knows who they are, instead of spending the money to build a Mozilla/Apache-like foundation, or to send reps to conferences where they would be in front of a new audience. like SIGGRAPH, or other creative-oriented conferences.
Gimp as a product has a long way to go to meet the needs of the people who spend all day, every day, in Photoshop to earn their living. The Gimp organization is doing a horrible job at evangelizing and meeting the needs of those people. Unless they do so, they will never be a Photoshop replacement for professionals. Casual users who can no longer pirate Photoshop will just switch to the underpowered freebee editors that can be found for free, or are included free in their system (iPhoto).
Hmmm..... so I can take my money (or the company's) and spend it on Photoshop and start using what I need right away and get a tax-deductable business expense as a bonus.
*OR*
I can throw some money at the Gimp project and hope someone steps up to build the features I need at some point in the near future. Hopefully they don't just blow the money on a booth at a GNU/Linux convention. (BTW, $600 doesn't go very far in supporting development of new core functionality)
Which option gets me where I need to be for delivering on the promises made to my clients? Which option keeps me employed as a designer / photographer / creative professional? Yeah.... not the Gimp option.
Gimp has a very steep hill to climb, and they keep outright rejecting features (like CMYK and 16bit channels) as impossible (until someone *accidentally* includes it by recompiling base libraries). The Gimp team clearly doesn't want to compete with Adobe. If they did, they'd be approaching the problem completely differently and actively reaching out to successful creative professionals to find out what it would take to switch, and then building those specific requests into the application.
In order to succeed, Gimp needs to do things as well as, or better than Adobe. Not just cheaper.
I remember a little over a decade ago Adobe came from nowhere to own the desktop publishing market with InDesign, against an entrenched challenger which had a virtual monopoly at the time (Quark)... The contrast to the Adobe of today could not be more marked.
They won because they came to market with a fully-functional new product that had no legacy holdovers, and most importantly ran on OSX. Quark was refusing to build an OSX version of their product, completely alienating their core customer base. Of course it also helps that InDesign could be bundled with and integrated well with Photoshop and Illustrator, which almost every Quark user had running on their desktop as well. Adobe's previous product in the marketplace (PageMaker) had long since died off.
Start the session by going around the room having each person introduce themselves, and to state the one thing they most want to get out of this meeting.
If you're good on your feet, that will give you everything you need to move the discussion in the right directions and make you a success.
Except there's a huge market for very expensive designer glasses (most of which can't hold the specialized lenses required by people who's vision is too bad for laser correction or contacts). And, there's a big market for designer glasses with FAKE LENSES, especially among the hipster crowd.
I have no problem with my glasses. They're a fashion accessory that happens to simultaneously serve a real need. I really love the design of my frames, and consider them a part of expressing my style just as other people do with watches.
The real game in poker is not the cards dealt, that's pure luck. The game (and the skill) exists in betting strategies. Do you try to intimidate everyone else at the table, keep them guessing, hide or bluff your hand? Blackjack is a game where it's purely about the odds and your statement is true. Poker however has a very significant skill aspect to it. (whether you consider it a skill with any value is a different story)
Well for a very high level (CEO) explanation, the money it will take to replace this system now is money that was stolen over the years from the company in the form of larger profits instead of investment.
Aside from your in-file technology, what you've described is exactly what currently happens with ASCAP. The problem is that since ASCAP is a slow moving entity, they don't understand new business models and technologies. For example, 1 play on radio != 1 play on a telephone hold system != 1 play in an elevator != 1 play on broadcast internet stream != 1 play on direct individual internet stream.
They try to price based on audience penetration and leave the business model up to the actual distributor, but their rates prevented various business models. Remember how many Shoutcast channels their used to be? (aka iTunes radio). Most of the independent ones completely dried up because ASCAPs rates only worked in favor of large radio stations. Independent distributors had no way to meet the revenue requirements to support the licensing. It didn't help that radio play (estimated audience size) was priced differently than internet streaming (accurate audience size).
As currently enshrined in the law (at least in US), individual copyright violation is a Civil offense, not a Criminal offense. There is a difference. The various content industry lobbying groups are trying very hard to change that. This means it's effectively treated as a breach of contract, although a special case.
This is why every single copyright violation case has been Company X vs. Individuals X,Y,Z, instead of "The People of the State of A" vs. Individuals X,Y,Z.
Large-scale copyright violation is a different story, and is prosecuted as a criminal offense under laws meant for criminal organizations.
The government's involvement in copyright, content distribution, and compensation discussions should be limited to purely to setting a level playing field so that all content producers and distributors have equal opportunity to get into the market, and all consumers have equal access to services offered. The government should not be determining what is fair compensation rates, should not be defining the relationship structures, and should not be defining business models.
I don't want the government prosecuting contract violations, and I don't want the government building a bureaucracy to force a specific payment structure to corporate behemoths. I want passive governmental regulations, not an active role.
I understood the term "compulsory licensing" to mean something akin to the UK's TV tax system, but what you described is something I could probably get behind.
However, your approach still requires a messy set of logistics to support it in practice. What you've described already exists for music (at least in the US) and is administered through ASCAP, a purely private entity. They're the party responsible fo rmaking sure royalties are collected from radio, to online streaming, to elevator music, and the moneys divided between the artist, producer, and distributor. It does add a lot of overhead and isn't very flexible in adapting to new uses and business models. Avoiding this mess of bureaucracy is partially why you see hybrid retailer/distributors (Amazon, Hulu, Netflix) working out direct licensing details to feature exclusive content.
I like your idea, I'm just not sure it would improve the overall situation.
Compulsory licensing? Really? Hells no! Why should I pay the government a tax regardless of how I use a particular general-purpose machine or media?
Why should the government be involved at all in the distribution of media?
When anyone can be a content creator and distributor, who decides who gets payouts from the compulsory license fund? How do you decided how much to pay out?
No, that completely destroys the point of incorporating and would hurt small companies immensely.
Instead, there should be fines appropriate to the scale of the problem and the scale of the company. Make them big enough and the shareholders will start suing the board of directors for the screwups. Heads will roll, and reputations will be destroyed.
If I drop the device into a lake, rendering it completely unusable, I am still bound to continue payments on the contract. It doesn't magically terminate, and the device doesn't get replaced.
So why should it matter what I do with the device?
Why is locking being used to enforce the contract? And why is unlocking illegal. Nowhere else in law is breaking a contract between 2 private parties considered an illegal act.
Slashdot Mirror
You use KiB instead of KB, don't you?
And honestly if your Linux vs. OSX decision is based on a narrow difference in performance, then you probably aren't considering cheap desktop hardware to begin with.
Funny, every episode that I've seen that does this seems preachy and forced (especially Kahn). Much like in TNG when Wesley falls into a planter bed on the perfect planet, or DS9 where the religious authority is corrupted by her religion's demons, etc, etc, etc.
I welcome a serious exploration or issues, but it doesn't happen with Trek. Instead it's usually boiled down to the simplicity of what you see in IRobot the movie (AI = bad) vs. I Robot the book (AI = complex). The best episodes in Trek are the ones where Picard has to truly defend humanity and our cherished value against the onslaught of tests by the omnipotent Q. But that's too "deus ex machina" for people. Guess what? "Deus Ex Machina" is a term coined from medeval morality plays where the message was the point.
According to the article:
Soo... the summary sentence actually says nothing. What was the result? It also sounds like they're reporting on whether people noticed the meter, not whether the meter was successful in getting people to use better passwords.
Sounds like QT isn't leveraging hardware decoding for some reason, most likely because they're doing their own screenwriting instead of leveraging DirectX calls. I remember older versions of QT on windows having buried preferences, but they probably aren't there anymore.
It's very similar to e-ink, the way LCD is similar to the same technology that's been powering your clock for 30 years.
"Color e-ink" is a good shorthand way of thinking about it.
Well clearly they're not planning to use it and instead are selling it Amazon.
Yes, this is a company with color e-ink technology.
The category you are searching for is "Self Help". Just because it involves computers, it doesn't make it something new and different (just like patents).
A reasoned, though-out answer that I can appreciate. Couldn't you have posted that the first time instead of a vulgar insult? Profanity in the form of a personalized attack doesn't help your argument.
The only reason why this happened is because someone *accidentally* added the functionality when recompiling base dependencies. (http://news.slashdot.org/story/12/04/17/1826215/gimp-core-mostly-ported-to-gegl) For the longest time the Gimp team was claiming CMYK and high-bit-depth channels were impossible to add. That doesn't even get us anywhere close to print production needs like Spot Colors.
The Gimp team also apparently uses their money to send developers to conferences where everyone already knows who they are, instead of spending the money to build a Mozilla/Apache-like foundation, or to send reps to conferences where they would be in front of a new audience. like SIGGRAPH, or other creative-oriented conferences.
Gimp as a product has a long way to go to meet the needs of the people who spend all day, every day, in Photoshop to earn their living. The Gimp organization is doing a horrible job at evangelizing and meeting the needs of those people. Unless they do so, they will never be a Photoshop replacement for professionals. Casual users who can no longer pirate Photoshop will just switch to the underpowered freebee editors that can be found for free, or are included free in their system (iPhoto).
I can see the tie-ins now... Star Wars Sims: Make your Ewok's spend less time brushing their teeth with Crest!
You're right, and Mozilla and Apache are two great organizations that do it just as well. Why doesn't the Gimp project?
Hmmm..... so I can take my money (or the company's) and spend it on Photoshop and start using what I need right away and get a tax-deductable business expense as a bonus.
*OR*
I can throw some money at the Gimp project and hope someone steps up to build the features I need at some point in the near future. Hopefully they don't just blow the money on a booth at a GNU/Linux convention. (BTW, $600 doesn't go very far in supporting development of new core functionality)
Which option gets me where I need to be for delivering on the promises made to my clients? Which option keeps me employed as a designer / photographer / creative professional? Yeah.... not the Gimp option.
Gimp has a very steep hill to climb, and they keep outright rejecting features (like CMYK and 16bit channels) as impossible (until someone *accidentally* includes it by recompiling base libraries). The Gimp team clearly doesn't want to compete with Adobe. If they did, they'd be approaching the problem completely differently and actively reaching out to successful creative professionals to find out what it would take to switch, and then building those specific requests into the application.
In order to succeed, Gimp needs to do things as well as, or better than Adobe. Not just cheaper.
They won because they came to market with a fully-functional new product that had no legacy holdovers, and most importantly ran on OSX. Quark was refusing to build an OSX version of their product, completely alienating their core customer base. Of course it also helps that InDesign could be bundled with and integrated well with Photoshop and Illustrator, which almost every Quark user had running on their desktop as well. Adobe's previous product in the marketplace (PageMaker) had long since died off.
Start the session by going around the room having each person introduce themselves, and to state the one thing they most want to get out of this meeting.
If you're good on your feet, that will give you everything you need to move the discussion in the right directions and make you a success.
Except there's a huge market for very expensive designer glasses (most of which can't hold the specialized lenses required by people who's vision is too bad for laser correction or contacts). And, there's a big market for designer glasses with FAKE LENSES, especially among the hipster crowd.
I have no problem with my glasses. They're a fashion accessory that happens to simultaneously serve a real need. I really love the design of my frames, and consider them a part of expressing my style just as other people do with watches.
The real game in poker is not the cards dealt, that's pure luck. The game (and the skill) exists in betting strategies. Do you try to intimidate everyone else at the table, keep them guessing, hide or bluff your hand? Blackjack is a game where it's purely about the odds and your statement is true. Poker however has a very significant skill aspect to it. (whether you consider it a skill with any value is a different story)
Well for a very high level (CEO) explanation, the money it will take to replace this system now is money that was stolen over the years from the company in the form of larger profits instead of investment.
Aside from your in-file technology, what you've described is exactly what currently happens with ASCAP. The problem is that since ASCAP is a slow moving entity, they don't understand new business models and technologies. For example, 1 play on radio != 1 play on a telephone hold system != 1 play in an elevator != 1 play on broadcast internet stream != 1 play on direct individual internet stream.
They try to price based on audience penetration and leave the business model up to the actual distributor, but their rates prevented various business models. Remember how many Shoutcast channels their used to be? (aka iTunes radio). Most of the independent ones completely dried up because ASCAPs rates only worked in favor of large radio stations. Independent distributors had no way to meet the revenue requirements to support the licensing. It didn't help that radio play (estimated audience size) was priced differently than internet streaming (accurate audience size).
As currently enshrined in the law (at least in US), individual copyright violation is a Civil offense, not a Criminal offense. There is a difference. The various content industry lobbying groups are trying very hard to change that. This means it's effectively treated as a breach of contract, although a special case.
This is why every single copyright violation case has been Company X vs. Individuals X,Y,Z, instead of "The People of the State of A" vs. Individuals X,Y,Z.
Large-scale copyright violation is a different story, and is prosecuted as a criminal offense under laws meant for criminal organizations.
The government's involvement in copyright, content distribution, and compensation discussions should be limited to purely to setting a level playing field so that all content producers and distributors have equal opportunity to get into the market, and all consumers have equal access to services offered. The government should not be determining what is fair compensation rates, should not be defining the relationship structures, and should not be defining business models.
I don't want the government prosecuting contract violations, and I don't want the government building a bureaucracy to force a specific payment structure to corporate behemoths. I want passive governmental regulations, not an active role.
How is that hypocritical exactly?
I understood the term "compulsory licensing" to mean something akin to the UK's TV tax system, but what you described is something I could probably get behind.
However, your approach still requires a messy set of logistics to support it in practice. What you've described already exists for music (at least in the US) and is administered through ASCAP, a purely private entity. They're the party responsible fo rmaking sure royalties are collected from radio, to online streaming, to elevator music, and the moneys divided between the artist, producer, and distributor. It does add a lot of overhead and isn't very flexible in adapting to new uses and business models. Avoiding this mess of bureaucracy is partially why you see hybrid retailer/distributors (Amazon, Hulu, Netflix) working out direct licensing details to feature exclusive content.
I like your idea, I'm just not sure it would improve the overall situation.
Compulsory licensing? Really? Hells no! Why should I pay the government a tax regardless of how I use a particular general-purpose machine or media?
Why should the government be involved at all in the distribution of media?
When anyone can be a content creator and distributor, who decides who gets payouts from the compulsory license fund? How do you decided how much to pay out?
No, that completely destroys the point of incorporating and would hurt small companies immensely.
Instead, there should be fines appropriate to the scale of the problem and the scale of the company. Make them big enough and the shareholders will start suing the board of directors for the screwups. Heads will roll, and reputations will be destroyed.
If I drop the device into a lake, rendering it completely unusable, I am still bound to continue payments on the contract. It doesn't magically terminate, and the device doesn't get replaced.
So why should it matter what I do with the device?
Why is locking being used to enforce the contract? And why is unlocking illegal. Nowhere else in law is breaking a contract between 2 private parties considered an illegal act.