If memory serves, older flavors of ipod where more or less equivalent USB mass storage devices, though they required media files to be stored in a specific arrangement and a little database file to be uploaded, so you needed a utility of one sort or another to do transfers(you could drag and drop; but the device wouldn't do anything useful with files added that way).
I remember ipods being a lot more open than some of the other MP3 players. My nomad jukebox 2xl for example, the only way to get music files onto it was to use a hideous program. I seem to recall it not working unless you selected music files individually to transfer. The 20 gig capacity suddenly seemed a lot less attractive.
Interesting how things have changed. Itunes is now the MP3 transfer program I hate, 20 gigs is still huge for a music device (granted, it's my phone now, and I could get a much much larger ipod without touchscreen), and creative labs still makes really cheap mp3 devices that do the same basic things as apple products and no one wants them.
Copytrans manager suite is a replacement for itunes. A google search for "copytrans manager sued" or "copytrans lawsuit" didn't come up with any suggestion that apple had been taking copytrans to court.
This may be because so few people seem to use it, either because idevice users tend to not want to tinker with their devices in ways that itunes won't allow, or because eventually, idevices will need itunes and itunes will then attempt to erase anything you've done with your third party iphone manager. At least, that was my experience a few years ago, perhaps copytrans manager has gotten better, perhaps there are ways to prevent itunes from "syncing" EVERYTHING and erasing anything you've done with copytrans. I wouldn't know: itunes refusing to let me manage my device was one of the main reasons I jumped ship to android.
Diminishing returns for increased cost. Arresting people who are drunk and swerving around the road is good: that increases safety at a fair tradeoff of tax money and personal freedom. Arresting people who have had a beer at dinner and whose driving skills have only marginally decreased is bad: that would likely increase safety very little (though studies would be needed to be sure one way or the other) at a huge increase in cost of enforcement and a huge loss of personal freedom.
I know. TFA says the guy is claiming it is indeed one raw file. I don't know if allowing HDR processing is allowed, but as you said, it doesn't seem like it's outright cheating.
It's a well known fact that crowds of greiving Gazans will all simultaneously freeze in their funerals so that photographers can get three good separate exposures for HDR!!! ~
He does indeed claim he did it with one raw file. "The Hacker" makes a lot of hay about it being loaded/converted three times on two separate dates. Which sorta sounds like the guy is saying "He didn't do it how I would have done it, I can't see a reason to do it how he did it, therefore it must be a fake. To prove it, LIGHTING! Which is based on stuff I can't see."
It reminds me of the people who make reasonable-sounding cases that 9/11 was an inside job. They make it sound questionable until your realize that there are hundreds of other explanations, they have no proof, and they want attention.
Because no camera out there captures what your eyes see. Your eyes are the result of millions of years of evolution. DLSRs are the result of, what, 30 years of engineering? HDR was invented not to make unrealistic images but to make images that look like what you'd actually be able to see. It may look fake only because you're used to seeing images on the computer screen which have a "normal" compressed exposure range. Sorta like how when people watch high-framerate images on TV or movies, they complain it looks weird, because they're used to the slower framerate.
Granted, plenty of people go overboard with HDR, and I don't know if the actual scene looked that way.
Before that, they should have made ten, zuckerberg should have bought all of them before they were made. They should announce that it sold out in record time, and that demand vastly exceeded what they could make, but fortunately the second model will be coming out soon.
Can junk DNA be seen as "potentially useful junkyard parts" that some random mutation might re-activate into a gene or part of a gene?
I have heard this suggestion before. One of my professors in fact mentioned that he's a bit nervous when getting vaccines because there's a chance some bit of retrovirus which incorporated into the genome millions of years ago might combine with the non-virulent vaccine to make a supervirus.
I'd estimate the chances of that happening are in the same ballpark as two seperate meteorites simultaneously smacking into your head from opposites sides, smooshing your brain out of your nose, so don't skip the vaccines...
Indeed, repetitive heterochromatin (that which is called junk DNA) is found at centromeres which are where sister chromatids are held together. Centromeres are essential for mitosis and meiosis in most macroscopic species, certainly plants and humans. And I think the consensus is that if you don't have "junk DNA" sequences for the centromere, the centromere will pick a place on the chromosome to form, and that area will become junk DNA even if it's not meant to be. So you will always have "junk DNA" if you have mitosis the way we do it.
You're acting like the observations refuting climate change, and the sources promoting them, are accurate rather than lies paid for by fossil fuel interests to keep the gravy train going. You can't possibly be that stupid. So I'll just ask what you get out of trolling?
It's okay, for a fee, Verizon or AT&T will reinforce the "up to" part and will set your phone to limit how fast it can download.
The fee will be bigger for not restricting the download rate of your phone, so it's in your best interests to do so!
I'm just kidding: 5G won't be coming here. The mobile companies will demonstrate how when you look at their books, they're not actually profitable, so they can't build 5G towers. Hollywood accounting? What? You're talking crazy, these are phones, not movies!
You mention cherry-picking, but seem to be doing the exact same thing yourself. Well, except you're not even providing citations so we know WHICH models you're talking about and can provide the dozens of responses refuting the claims you are making. So it's more like "talking about a cherry on a tree in a vast orchard without specifying which one."
The organizations controlling the techniques are only allowed to do so because government and citizens allow them to get away with it. It's not necessary to the advancement of food technology. It's actually really weird that we're allowing this to happen with fucking food, while we don't tolerate monopolies on technology that is far less essential to life. Like, we investigated MS for monopoly and anticompetitive practices, but no one is going to starve to death if windows is the only OS out there.
Quietly? I think it will be marketed explicitly and will sell well. Not everyone is repulsed by the concept. They'll need to keep such meat labs more sterile than your average slaughterhouse: if they don't, the meat cells will be overrun by bacteria. And the final product will be more consistent, you have no chance of getting bone or brains or intestines or tendons in there. If you don't want to, that is. I guess haggis wouldn't be the same.
Wait until you see what the future will hold. Specifically, there's a lot of meat we don't eat now not because it's not tasty, but because of economics, scarcity, volume, or ethical concerns. These limits will no longer be necessary. Think platypus bolonga.
At some point, someone will offer you hamburgers made out of induced pluripotent stem cells generated from fibroblasts harvested from your own skin. You'll be able to eat a "youburger."
Slashdot Mirror
If memory serves, older flavors of ipod where more or less equivalent USB mass storage devices, though they required media files to be stored in a specific arrangement and a little database file to be uploaded, so you needed a utility of one sort or another to do transfers(you could drag and drop; but the device wouldn't do anything useful with files added that way).
I remember ipods being a lot more open than some of the other MP3 players. My nomad jukebox 2xl for example, the only way to get music files onto it was to use a hideous program. I seem to recall it not working unless you selected music files individually to transfer. The 20 gig capacity suddenly seemed a lot less attractive.
Interesting how things have changed. Itunes is now the MP3 transfer program I hate, 20 gigs is still huge for a music device (granted, it's my phone now, and I could get a much much larger ipod without touchscreen), and creative labs still makes really cheap mp3 devices that do the same basic things as apple products and no one wants them.
Copytrans manager suite is a replacement for itunes. A google search for "copytrans manager sued" or "copytrans lawsuit" didn't come up with any suggestion that apple had been taking copytrans to court.
This may be because so few people seem to use it, either because idevice users tend to not want to tinker with their devices in ways that itunes won't allow, or because eventually, idevices will need itunes and itunes will then attempt to erase anything you've done with your third party iphone manager. At least, that was my experience a few years ago, perhaps copytrans manager has gotten better, perhaps there are ways to prevent itunes from "syncing" EVERYTHING and erasing anything you've done with copytrans. I wouldn't know: itunes refusing to let me manage my device was one of the main reasons I jumped ship to android.
You're not very good at this trolling game.
I was indeed thinking "Oh, law enforcement must be worried about the loss of revenue from pot legalization."
I can assure you, on a real road, people tend to stay a bit more alert after consuming a few drinks.
Assure me by citing evidence supporting your case.
peer reviewed studies >>> mythbusters > AC's personal testimony.
Diminishing returns for increased cost. Arresting people who are drunk and swerving around the road is good: that increases safety at a fair tradeoff of tax money and personal freedom. Arresting people who have had a beer at dinner and whose driving skills have only marginally decreased is bad: that would likely increase safety very little (though studies would be needed to be sure one way or the other) at a huge increase in cost of enforcement and a huge loss of personal freedom.
I know. TFA says the guy is claiming it is indeed one raw file. I don't know if allowing HDR processing is allowed, but as you said, it doesn't seem like it's outright cheating.
And it will be marketed as a reality TV show, the segments will be shown totally out of order, and then it will be cancelled due to lack of interest.
I'm pretty sure you and the mods just wooshed...
It's a well known fact that crowds of greiving Gazans will all simultaneously freeze in their funerals so that photographers can get three good separate exposures for HDR!!! ~
He does indeed claim he did it with one raw file. "The Hacker" makes a lot of hay about it being loaded/converted three times on two separate dates. Which sorta sounds like the guy is saying "He didn't do it how I would have done it, I can't see a reason to do it how he did it, therefore it must be a fake. To prove it, LIGHTING! Which is based on stuff I can't see."
It reminds me of the people who make reasonable-sounding cases that 9/11 was an inside job. They make it sound questionable until your realize that there are hundreds of other explanations, they have no proof, and they want attention.
Because no camera out there captures what your eyes see. Your eyes are the result of millions of years of evolution. DLSRs are the result of, what, 30 years of engineering? HDR was invented not to make unrealistic images but to make images that look like what you'd actually be able to see. It may look fake only because you're used to seeing images on the computer screen which have a "normal" compressed exposure range. Sorta like how when people watch high-framerate images on TV or movies, they complain it looks weird, because they're used to the slower framerate.
Granted, plenty of people go overboard with HDR, and I don't know if the actual scene looked that way.
Everybody hates it and everybody uses it? That doesn't make any sense.
You're applying "sense" to the world? This one? Good gravy...
Before that, they should have made ten, zuckerberg should have bought all of them before they were made. They should announce that it sold out in record time, and that demand vastly exceeded what they could make, but fortunately the second model will be coming out soon.
Can junk DNA be seen as "potentially useful junkyard parts" that some random mutation might re-activate into a gene or part of a gene?
I have heard this suggestion before. One of my professors in fact mentioned that he's a bit nervous when getting vaccines because there's a chance some bit of retrovirus which incorporated into the genome millions of years ago might combine with the non-virulent vaccine to make a supervirus.
I'd estimate the chances of that happening are in the same ballpark as two seperate meteorites simultaneously smacking into your head from opposites sides, smooshing your brain out of your nose, so don't skip the vaccines...
Indeed, repetitive heterochromatin (that which is called junk DNA) is found at centromeres which are where sister chromatids are held together. Centromeres are essential for mitosis and meiosis in most macroscopic species, certainly plants and humans. And I think the consensus is that if you don't have "junk DNA" sequences for the centromere, the centromere will pick a place on the chromosome to form, and that area will become junk DNA even if it's not meant to be. So you will always have "junk DNA" if you have mitosis the way we do it.
You're acting like the observations refuting climate change, and the sources promoting them, are accurate rather than lies paid for by fossil fuel interests to keep the gravy train going. You can't possibly be that stupid. So I'll just ask what you get out of trolling?
It's okay, for a fee, Verizon or AT&T will reinforce the "up to" part and will set your phone to limit how fast it can download.
The fee will be bigger for not restricting the download rate of your phone, so it's in your best interests to do so!
I'm just kidding: 5G won't be coming here. The mobile companies will demonstrate how when you look at their books, they're not actually profitable, so they can't build 5G towers. Hollywood accounting? What? You're talking crazy, these are phones, not movies!
yeah.. if they had a legal use case, they could just ask for the data.
Sounds like it's common corruption then: government paying friends in the industry for what it should be getting for free.
People seem to care more about corruption than their rights being taken away, so maybe go after it from that angle?
You mention cherry-picking, but seem to be doing the exact same thing yourself. Well, except you're not even providing citations so we know WHICH models you're talking about and can provide the dozens of responses refuting the claims you are making. So it's more like "talking about a cherry on a tree in a vast orchard without specifying which one."
Chicken little's hypothesis was based on one data point though. Sadly, this is not the case for climate change.
The organizations controlling the techniques are only allowed to do so because government and citizens allow them to get away with it. It's not necessary to the advancement of food technology. It's actually really weird that we're allowing this to happen with fucking food, while we don't tolerate monopolies on technology that is far less essential to life. Like, we investigated MS for monopoly and anticompetitive practices, but no one is going to starve to death if windows is the only OS out there.
Quietly? I think it will be marketed explicitly and will sell well. Not everyone is repulsed by the concept. They'll need to keep such meat labs more sterile than your average slaughterhouse: if they don't, the meat cells will be overrun by bacteria. And the final product will be more consistent, you have no chance of getting bone or brains or intestines or tendons in there. If you don't want to, that is. I guess haggis wouldn't be the same.
Wait until you see what the future will hold. Specifically, there's a lot of meat we don't eat now not because it's not tasty, but because of economics, scarcity, volume, or ethical concerns. These limits will no longer be necessary. Think platypus bolonga.
At some point, someone will offer you hamburgers made out of induced pluripotent stem cells generated from fibroblasts harvested from your own skin. You'll be able to eat a "youburger."
It's the same guy that proposed a ban on videogames to minors.
Leland Yee: using the government to protect you from bogeymen that don't exist.