Agreed, Stallman is way off base with that proposal. It's just the opposite, intellectual works with a low popular appeal, if any, would be the ones deserving of tax dollars. Surely twilight could get by with a couple of acne cream product placements or something.
Not really that hard of a problem, since public and academic libraries have provided books for free for a long time. If you have sufficient disposable income you'll buy books and ebooks, if you don't; you wont. Since buying books is essentially a form of patronage, why support those who are trying to dick you around with DRM?
Why is that a problem? It's not like your going to be reading about Kant's views on metaphysics and then suddenly stumble upon the smegma article (mmm... stilton), or even worse the psyduck article. If you don't want to read it don't type it into the search box. It's hardly Wikipedia's fault if you can control your compulsion to read the synopsis of every power-rangers episode.
I often read simple Wikipedia myself, sometimes brevity and reduced jargon make a challenging topic easier to digest. Sometimes not:).
Conservapedia is somewhat schizophrenic to read. Setting up an article with a "Conservative" bias, has shown that Conservatives have a more diverse rainbow of opinion than any other political group. Not that they would be happy to be described with those terms.
Saying the windows registry is a "central mechanism for configuring OS directives", is like saying that dumping all your papers in the middle of your office floor is a centralized filing system.
Bigger sensor means more light per element for a given resolution. This usually means a less noisy picture for a given exposure value. Each element has a limited sensitivity, and the amount of light that the lens provides has to be divided amongst all those sensors.
So you can have a small sensor, low noise or a high resolution, pick two.
The biggest problem I can see with getting up to jet speeds with an electric vehicle is the method of propulsion. How can you propel an e-plane aside from using a conventional prop? Perhaps the ducted fan could eventually replace the turbo prop.
Not true, since you use the same lenses on a full frame sensor as with a "cropped" sensor. That's were the term "cropped" comes from, since having a smaller sensor has the same effect as a longer focal length lens. With some lenses, camera sensors (Usually 35mm and above) will exhibit "vignetting", where the circle of light projected is smaller than the cameras sensor.
So yes, I do believe lenses "waste light" by projecting a larger area of light than sensor can receive, even without interchangeable lenses they have to since the lens "orifice" is circular and the sensor is square:).
Re:The question nobody wants to ask....
on
Perl 5.14 Released
·
· Score: 1
oops, epsilon not ellipsis.
Re:The question nobody wants to ask....
on
Perl 5.14 Released
·
· Score: 1
What about ~ellipsis=, eg: (1.01 ~0.1= 1.00) == True?
I think that Python needs a __past__ module for those nostalgic features like bracket-free print statements. Perhaps it could be a new PEP, and we could use a bizarre import statement like from __future__ import __past__ in Python 3.3.
Agreed, the screeners are great for us as viewers, but for the film studios not so much. I'm just considering how film studios can make money in a post-copyright environ. Sure; it's not our problem, but it is interesting to think about it from their point of view, because it gives an idea of how movies will be released in the future, and what kind of budget they will have.
Indeed they can do that secondarily after their theatre release. My point is that they can't rely on getting any income after providing end users with digital media, because that depends solely on the viewers generosity, since DVD or stream rips are of equal quality. However, they can rely on cinemas for revenue, because cam rips are no competition.
An internet tax in unnecessary and unfair; musicians can do gigs if they want to make a living. Movie distributors should rely on the theatres to make money, and try to avoid leaking high quality screeners prematurely.
Slashdot Mirror
Agreed, Stallman is way off base with that proposal. It's just the opposite, intellectual works with a low popular appeal, if any, would be the ones deserving of tax dollars. Surely twilight could get by with a couple of acne cream product placements or something.
Not really that hard of a problem, since public and academic libraries have provided books for free for a long time. If you have sufficient disposable income you'll buy books and ebooks, if you don't; you wont. Since buying books is essentially a form of patronage, why support those who are trying to dick you around with DRM?
Why is that a problem? It's not like your going to be reading about Kant's views on metaphysics and then suddenly stumble upon the smegma article (mmm... stilton), or even worse the psyduck article. If you don't want to read it don't type it into the search box. It's hardly Wikipedia's fault if you can control your compulsion to read the synopsis of every power-rangers episode.
That would be good, then Valve would have to change this god-awful policy.
I often read simple Wikipedia myself, sometimes brevity and reduced jargon make a challenging topic easier to digest. Sometimes not :).
Conservapedia is somewhat schizophrenic to read. Setting up an article with a "Conservative" bias, has shown that Conservatives have a more diverse rainbow of opinion than any other political group. Not that they would be happy to be described with those terms.
I notice that many of the edits to Simple Wikipedia originate in the American South. Just sayin'.
Science provides the answer to every question - including the unfalsiable ones!
Actually science provides falsifiable answers only to unfalsifiable questions. No one should try to answer a false question.
Saying the windows registry is a "central mechanism for configuring OS directives", is like saying that dumping all your papers in the middle of your office floor is a centralized filing system.
Then when the customer finds a way around your cartel, go crying to the Govt.
They're both very hard, bordering on impossible, problems. Care to share an electric thruster capable of propelling an airliner at 1000kph?
Bigger sensor means more light per element for a given resolution. This usually means a less noisy picture for a given exposure value. Each element has a limited sensitivity, and the amount of light that the lens provides has to be divided amongst all those sensors.
So you can have a small sensor, low noise or a high resolution, pick two.
The biggest problem I can see with getting up to jet speeds with an electric vehicle is the method of propulsion. How can you propel an e-plane aside from using a conventional prop? Perhaps the ducted fan could eventually replace the turbo prop.
*rectangular
Not true, since you use the same lenses on a full frame sensor as with a "cropped" sensor. That's were the term "cropped" comes from, since having a smaller sensor has the same effect as a longer focal length lens. With some lenses, camera sensors (Usually 35mm and above) will exhibit "vignetting", where the circle of light projected is smaller than the cameras sensor.
So yes, I do believe lenses "waste light" by projecting a larger area of light than sensor can receive, even without interchangeable lenses they have to since the lens "orifice" is circular and the sensor is square :).
oops, epsilon not ellipsis.
What about ~ ellipsis =, eg: (1.01 ~0.1= 1.00) == True?
I think that Python needs a __past__ module for those nostalgic features like bracket-free print statements. Perhaps it could be a new PEP, and we could use a bizarre import statement like from __future__ import __past__ in Python 3.3.
You just rip them first, then pass them on :).
Oops, V was his psuedonym not Guy Fawkes.
Actually the mask has nothing to do with that Guy Fawkes; it's the mask of the Guy Fawkes from Alan Moores comic "V for Vendetta".
Agreed, the screeners are great for us as viewers, but for the film studios not so much. I'm just considering how film studios can make money in a post-copyright environ. Sure; it's not our problem, but it is interesting to think about it from their point of view, because it gives an idea of how movies will be released in the future, and what kind of budget they will have.
Indeed they can do that secondarily after their theatre release. My point is that they can't rely on getting any income after providing end users with digital media, because that depends solely on the viewers generosity, since DVD or stream rips are of equal quality. However, they can rely on cinemas for revenue, because cam rips are no competition.
ICVWBW == I could very well be wrong. ?
But 7zip can decompress rar files.
An internet tax in unnecessary and unfair; musicians can do gigs if they want to make a living. Movie distributors should rely on the theatres to make money, and try to avoid leaking high quality screeners prematurely.