And where, other than in the rantings of outraged geeks who are find almost every capitalistic move that a large company might make offensive, and so cannot be trusted to be detached enough from these events to report upon them in an unbiased manner, do you find anyone who is reputable suggesting the two events are causally connected?
Show me an official statement, from the company, or an otherwise objectively issued report that states that was the reason for it, and I'll buy it. But so far, it sounds like just another conspiracy theory to me... one built on nothing more than wishful thinking.
You misundertand what I was asking. I was not asking where it was read that this is how they encourage people to leave, I only asked where the above poster had ever read that the board had ever actually suggested he resign at all.
I'm not saying it didn't happen that way, but without objective evidence to support it, the premise that this is what actually happened in this case strikes me more as a case of wishful thinking than actual fact.
Except there's not enough circumstantial evidence to really come to any conclusions here in that regard. What we have here is a story submitter who read far more between the lines of a story about a recent event than was actually published, most likely as a result of something that they wanted or already had expected to be true. Scientific skepticism demands that all the evidence be considered... not just that which might serve a particular desirable outcome, and that might mean waiting a little while to see what happens.
It stands to reason that if the submitter's proposed reasons for the "resignation" are accurate, then eventually the truth should come out about that matter. At the very least, if those reasons are accurate, then it seems that EA should start taking measures to prevent the situation from repeating. So... wait. And see.
Opening the hood on a car is necessary simply to put in windshield washer fluid... a very mundane tasks that the manufacturer does not need (nor want) to be involved with.
If you insist on car analogy, it would be more like you shouldn't be allowed replace engine components with your own on a car you are leasing.
Why is seeing one's old usenet posts from the 1990's problematic, unless one thinks that they should no longer be accountable for the statements that they have made in the past, simply because they were so long ago?
I've googled myself in the past and found usenet posts that go as far back as about 1991, when my email address included a '!' symbol. Personally, I find it interesting sometimes to look at some of my oldest remarks that I can find online and compare them to my views and values that I hold today.
I would suggest that the single biggest reason that 3d printers aren't used in the area of high precision prototypes may only be because their resolution hasn't been good enough.
It's too bad this isn't likely to be particular cheap, like contemporary home 3d printing is.
One application that I can easily imagine high precision consumer 3d printing being used for includes creating very precisely detailed miniatures (typically where the fineness of detail serves some aesthetic interest, particularly when the miniature is examined very closely), or one specific but perhaps slightly whimsical application would be to print custom pieces that interconnect well with LEGO (where again, existing 3d printing tolerances are far too large for current home-printed pieces to fit well).
Because the biggest problem with existing 3d printers, IMO, was lack of precision. Combine this precision with large-scale 3d printing, and you'll be able to print up extremely precise components whose measurements matter almost to the micron.
How can your eye tell the difference between a photon which came from far away, and a photon that came from near you? Answer, it can't.
Actually, that's not entirely true.
The trick, you see, is the fact that the iris dilates or contracts to let in more or less light based on the illumination levels we are being exposed to.
When light is coming directly into your eye from a tiny source, if it does not occupy a sufficient amount of your field of vision, the circumstance occurs where your iris isn't going to contract enough based on the overall average intensity of photons that are hitting it, and the brighter area can appear more washed out than the rest of your vision. This is generally not a problem if you are more interested in looking at other things, but if your attention is actually focused on whatever is creating the extra light, your iris isn't going to magically contract because it still occupies a tiny part of your field of view, but you still end up with what you are focusing on appearing more washed out than what your visual cortex normally works with. The same situation happens when you are in a brightly lit location, and the display is not producing sufficient light to create decent contrast. The lack of contrast in either case creates delays in visual processing and ultimately can lead to fatigue far more quickly than if you are looking at something that has been light by ambient illumination (as long as ambient illumination levels are within a typical range for human eyes in the first place). The problem can be partially mitigated in modern displays by controlling the intensity of light the display produces based on ambient illumination (the brighter the ambient illumination, the brighter the display gets), but nominal human illumination operating levels are diverse enough that you'll still always experience problems in using even very sophisticated displays in certain types of lighting conditions.
How long is it going to be before somebody tries wearing one of these headsets in a movie theater? If it's a "3D" film, I can't even imagine how they'd be able to tell that someone was even wearing one of these underneath their "3D" glasses at all...
Oh... and I can totally see some people trying to use these while driving.
Right here on slashdot, actually. The argument typically given is that the *only* real reason Linux doesn't have any major problems with viruses is because its desktop share is too small, not because the operating system is somehow proofed against such types of attacks.
If I keep hearing Linux is no more inherently secure than OSX or Windows, then why should one presume that there's some reason that OpenDD or OpenWRT should inherently be any more secure than standard router firmware?
Barring a contractual agreement that is made with your cell phone provider that otherwise prohibits it (which is good for 2-3 years), it is explicitly legal in Canada to unlock a cell phone.
So why can't the USA adopt a similar solution to this problem as their neighbors to the north?
Otherwise, I can foresee a booming business in Canadian border-towns for people living in the states that are also near the border, where they could entirely legally unlock phones for people visiting from the USA (for a price), since it is evidently not illegal in the USA to own or possess an unlocked cell phone, and you cannot, in general, be held liable for doing something that happens to be against the law in one specific jurisdiction when you are not actually in that jurisdiction (or else, for example, people from California who gamble in Las Vegas could get arrested when they return).
You don't necessarily have to actively slow down for a stale green light, but you *should* be prepared to stop. Which at the very least means taking your foot off of the gas pedal.
Because someone claiming to remember seeing you doing something stupid in that bar one time is the same as being filmed
That hardly matters in reality....since there may not be any upper bound on the number of people who might corroborate the claim. If ten people see somebody do something illegal, for instance, but only one of them remembers the perpetrator's face well enough to identify them, that's still more than enough information to initiate prosecution, and with an additional 9 witnesses to the event, probably sufficient to convict.
Slashdot Mirror
So... conspiracy theory then? Got it.
And where, other than in the rantings of outraged geeks who are find almost every capitalistic move that a large company might make offensive, and so cannot be trusted to be detached enough from these events to report upon them in an unbiased manner, do you find anyone who is reputable suggesting the two events are causally connected?
EA's already stated that they believe that the extreme outrage that was recently expressed about their practices was just a very "vocal minority", and not a reflection of the true direction that today's market is heading for... which does not suggest they are a company that genuinely thinks they had made any real mistakes.
Show me an official statement, from the company, or an otherwise objectively issued report that states that was the reason for it, and I'll buy it. But so far, it sounds like just another conspiracy theory to me... one built on nothing more than wishful thinking.
You misundertand what I was asking. I was not asking where it was read that this is how they encourage people to leave, I only asked where the above poster had ever read that the board had ever actually suggested he resign at all.
I'm not saying it didn't happen that way, but without objective evidence to support it, the premise that this is what actually happened in this case strikes me more as a case of wishful thinking than actual fact.
Except there's not enough circumstantial evidence to really come to any conclusions here in that regard. What we have here is a story submitter who read far more between the lines of a story about a recent event than was actually published, most likely as a result of something that they wanted or already had expected to be true. Scientific skepticism demands that all the evidence be considered... not just that which might serve a particular desirable outcome, and that might mean waiting a little while to see what happens.
It stands to reason that if the submitter's proposed reasons for the "resignation" are accurate, then eventually the truth should come out about that matter. At the very least, if those reasons are accurate, then it seems that EA should start taking measures to prevent the situation from repeating. So... wait. And see.
Otherwise, it's just a conspiracy theory.
I wouldn't expect there to be.
This story is just a nerd-fantasy take on a recent event, without any objectively verifiable proof to substantiate it.
Where had you heard that had happened, or is this just more speculation?
None of those are engine components.
Apples and oranges.
Opening the hood on a car is necessary simply to put in windshield washer fluid... a very mundane tasks that the manufacturer does not need (nor want) to be involved with.
If you insist on car analogy, it would be more like you shouldn't be allowed replace engine components with your own on a car you are leasing.
At least 3 of the 4 alternatives listed are all client-side applications, instead of a browser-based reader you can access anywhere.
The remaining alternative, newsblur, I haven't been able to successfully evaluate yet because it keeps crapping out with 502 errors.
Why is seeing one's old usenet posts from the 1990's problematic, unless one thinks that they should no longer be accountable for the statements that they have made in the past, simply because they were so long ago?
I've googled myself in the past and found usenet posts that go as far back as about 1991, when my email address included a '!' symbol. Personally, I find it interesting sometimes to look at some of my oldest remarks that I can find online and compare them to my views and values that I hold today.
What part about using Google reader requires that a person know what RSS is or understand that they are accessing the web in that format?
I would suggest that the single biggest reason that 3d printers aren't used in the area of high precision prototypes may only be because their resolution hasn't been good enough.
It's too bad this isn't likely to be particular cheap, like contemporary home 3d printing is.
One application that I can easily imagine high precision consumer 3d printing being used for includes creating very precisely detailed miniatures (typically where the fineness of detail serves some aesthetic interest, particularly when the miniature is examined very closely), or one specific but perhaps slightly whimsical application would be to print custom pieces that interconnect well with LEGO (where again, existing 3d printing tolerances are far too large for current home-printed pieces to fit well).
Because the biggest problem with existing 3d printers, IMO, was lack of precision. Combine this precision with large-scale 3d printing, and you'll be able to print up extremely precise components whose measurements matter almost to the micron.
Actually, that's not entirely true.
The trick, you see, is the fact that the iris dilates or contracts to let in more or less light based on the illumination levels we are being exposed to.
When light is coming directly into your eye from a tiny source, if it does not occupy a sufficient amount of your field of vision, the circumstance occurs where your iris isn't going to contract enough based on the overall average intensity of photons that are hitting it, and the brighter area can appear more washed out than the rest of your vision. This is generally not a problem if you are more interested in looking at other things, but if your attention is actually focused on whatever is creating the extra light, your iris isn't going to magically contract because it still occupies a tiny part of your field of view, but you still end up with what you are focusing on appearing more washed out than what your visual cortex normally works with. The same situation happens when you are in a brightly lit location, and the display is not producing sufficient light to create decent contrast. The lack of contrast in either case creates delays in visual processing and ultimately can lead to fatigue far more quickly than if you are looking at something that has been light by ambient illumination (as long as ambient illumination levels are within a typical range for human eyes in the first place). The problem can be partially mitigated in modern displays by controlling the intensity of light the display produces based on ambient illumination (the brighter the ambient illumination, the brighter the display gets), but nominal human illumination operating levels are diverse enough that you'll still always experience problems in using even very sophisticated displays in certain types of lighting conditions.
How long is it going to be before somebody tries wearing one of these headsets in a movie theater? If it's a "3D" film, I can't even imagine how they'd be able to tell that someone was even wearing one of these underneath their "3D" glasses at all...
Oh... and I can totally see some people trying to use these while driving.
#include <random>
// uniformly-distributed integer random number generator // mersenne twister rng // uniform distribution on interval [a,b)
class RandomGenerator {
private:
std::random_device rd;
std::mt19937 gen;
std::uniform_real_distribution<double> dis;
public:
RandomGenerator():gen(rd()),dis(0,1)
double getNext() {
return dis(gen);
}
};
How I have seen the phrase "I could care less" is as one with an implied clause beginning with "but" following it.
ie.... "I could care less [but then I would have to work at disliking it]" or something similar. Slight emphasis is implied on the word "could".
Taken by itself, literally, it makes no sense, of course.
Right here on slashdot, actually. The argument typically given is that the *only* real reason Linux doesn't have any major problems with viruses is because its desktop share is too small, not because the operating system is somehow proofed against such types of attacks.
If I keep hearing Linux is no more inherently secure than OSX or Windows, then why should one presume that there's some reason that OpenDD or OpenWRT should inherently be any more secure than standard router firmware?
Companies like this will just continue doing it.
All we can do, as consumers, is to not endorse the products of companies that do decide to be dishonest with their consumers.
I don't understand why they think that usage is declining.
It's not like there's apparently an abundance of alternatives, or else I wouldn't be seeing so many people here asking for one.
So what's really going on, exactly?
Barring a contractual agreement that is made with your cell phone provider that otherwise prohibits it (which is good for 2-3 years), it is explicitly legal in Canada to unlock a cell phone.
So why can't the USA adopt a similar solution to this problem as their neighbors to the north?
Otherwise, I can foresee a booming business in Canadian border-towns for people living in the states that are also near the border, where they could entirely legally unlock phones for people visiting from the USA (for a price), since it is evidently not illegal in the USA to own or possess an unlocked cell phone, and you cannot, in general, be held liable for doing something that happens to be against the law in one specific jurisdiction when you are not actually in that jurisdiction (or else, for example, people from California who gamble in Las Vegas could get arrested when they return).
You don't necessarily have to actively slow down for a stale green light, but you *should* be prepared to stop. Which at the very least means taking your foot off of the gas pedal.
That hardly matters in reality....since there may not be any upper bound on the number of people who might corroborate the claim. If ten people see somebody do something illegal, for instance, but only one of them remembers the perpetrator's face well enough to identify them, that's still more than enough information to initiate prosecution, and with an additional 9 witnesses to the event, probably sufficient to convict.
Like most people who don't really understand technology, they figure they'll cross that bridge when they come to it.