I love Photoshop. I know it well, and can do things in it far easier than I can in GIMP, largely because of experience, but I do not have the time to invest to learn GIMP well.
If I want to make a quick button for me website, or clean up a photo, or make a nice card from my girlfriend, it is the tool I go to.
I am not well off.
Graphic design is -not- my career, therefore I really only have need to use Photoshop once a month or less.
I am not going to pay $700 or more for software that I only use 6 or 8 times a year. That equates to about $100 per project/use.
Sounds to me like you should try Paint.NET. It's my goto software for little projects like that, it's licensed Creative Commons for non-commercial use, and it boasts a very robust user base, with an abundance of plugins, tutorials and extremely helpful forums. For the casual usage you describe, I'd try it out. I've been told that the interface is very Photoshop-esque, much like a 'Photoshop Lite' (can't confirm, never used PS).
Also, the GIMP interface has improved noticeably in recent years, especially the version helpfully precompiled for Windows, but I switched over to Paint.NET when Gimp was still being a PITA, and I haven't really found any compelling reason to switch back to Gimp yet. I try it out every couple of years, to see what's new, but wind up going back to familiar ground:)
IMHO, Pirating should be the last resort, not just the first convenient resort. I also disagree with Adobe's extortionate pricing scheme, so I simply avoid using their products. Similarly for MS Office (Libre Office is simply da bomb). If there were no viable alternatives available to me...well, I'd still have to take a close look at 'wants' vs 'needs' before searching out a suitable.torrent. Also, like mcgrew said, sometimes what you are looking for just isn't for sale by anyone, anywhere, but other fans have taken the time to preserve their favorite content and are willing to share, to keep the fanbase alive. In such cases, nobody is losing revenue, since no one is offering the content for sale, yet the show still benefits by being kept in the forefront of their fans' regard (and perhaps even by expanding their fanbase). If down the road the copyright holders do decide to release the content for sale, well, if they do it right then dedicated fans will still buy it for the extra features, and new-made fans will be motivated to check it out, ones who may never have had a chance to see the show on air.
FWIW, I was the same way about the ThunderCats:) We had pretty much the entire series on tape, with the commercials edited out (do you know what a PITA that is on VHS?), then dutifully backed up to digital storage once that was generally available. Regardless, when they finally released the DVD version a couple of years ago, I think I was the first in line to buy them:)
She has totally different criteria than you. Numbers and specs mean nothing. Anything on the shelf will be powerful enough and have enough RAM, etc. for a normal person.
The real question is: Will it make her happy?
Take her to a big shop with lots of laptops and see which one she fondles. Feel the keys, pay particular attention to the trackpad buttons. Pick it up and see if it feels solid. If it seems reasonably well built then that's the right one.
I would also do some up-front research on battery life for the models carried by the particular store you're visiting, then be ready to steer her towards the ones with 6+ hours of rated battery life. For some reason, they all make it extremely difficult to compare models based on expected battery life (stores don't seem to expect their customers to care about battery life, often the saleschimps don't even know when you ask them). I know, it's an estimate only and won't apply if you're watching blu-ray movies while converting video and d/ling the Library of Congress in the background, but it still gives the user a better idea of how long they can expect to be able to use their machine for email, youtube and FB. The extended battery laptops may not be available in pink, but for a casual, on-the-couch, email and you-tube watching laptop, a longer battery life = much more satisfied casual user.
A couple of contenders in the 17" division right now are the DV7-6C50CA or 6C70CA for 17-inch models. (sorry about the Canadian links, but they should give you a model number to google...) Acer used to have a 'Timeline' series, that was known for long battery lives, but they discontinued it a while back...as far as I know, HP is the only ones making 17-inch notebooks with extended battery runtimes right now. Dell makes (made?) some 15-inch ones in their Inspiron lineup, and HP, Samsung, Lenovo and Toshiba have each had some of their 15-inch models offer extended battery life, but that's from research done almost six months ago, so now it's hopelessly out of date in the laptop world...:S
FWIW, I went this way when helping my Dad buy his last two laptops, and as a result he thinks I'm a 'frickin computer genius':) Neither of his laptops went over $700 CAD in price point, either, which is a good thing because the replacement was necessary because of a spill on the first...all over the keyboard:( It still fires up and runs fine, but the keyboard is borked (and yes, we've tried to clean it up), so he uses it as his desktop with an external keyboard. Still, for a $650 machine, I was impressed that it would run at all...
Of course, this social contract sorta goes two ways. The advertiser actually has to put on a show. The girl has to be pretty, the TV for women absolutely devoid of any intelligence whatsoever.
Ok. Wow. And I suppose "TV for men" is just chock full of intelligent, witty repartee and deep philosophical commentary?
You can't BS me, I've seen Spike. Better to say "the TV for the lowest common denominator", since that's what these stations are aiming at, regardless of gender.
If you put on a production of a classical piece of theather say eh.... Hamlet ( I do know more then one piece, I assure you! I am not an American after all, no I don't have to proof it)
Oh, I see, it's a more general prejudice that you hold, not mere sexism. Oh, wait a sec...
Soaps were okay to be interrupted every now and then, after all it gave the women sometime to do some actually bloody housework. It always struck me as odd how women can claim house work is so fucking hard when there is all this TV aimed at them during their supposed working hours. How many TV programs are on during the day aimed at men at work? ZERO! Men don't get to lay on the sofa and watch TV all day dammit! We got to mess around with that new sexy teen girl intern non-stop! How about my wife mess around with the intern and I lay on the sofa to watch! Equality NOW!
...my mistake. Or was this your pathetic attempt at sarcasm? Sorry, I can't tell. FWIW, if I have a day off from my busy career and actually have a chance to watch daytime TV, it's more likely to be Discovery, HGTV (if it's interesting), the History channel or Syfi. And, unlike yourself by the sound of it, my husband actually shares the housework with me so it is not too great a burden on either of us.
Gender equality. You should try it sometime. Oh, wait, you're too busy laying on your ass and bitching about commercials after your 'hard' day at work with your 'sexy' intern.
Right, like the script kitties could tell they where dealing with a Mac...
I just had this adorable image in my head of a bunch of kittens (picture Royale commercials) gamboling around an iMac, batting the mouse around, laying on the top of the monitor and pawing at the screen, puzzled innocence in their wide blue eyes as they try to figure out where the food comes out. Awww...:)
I think the term is actually 'script kiddies', due to the (usual) youth of the wanna-be bad asses. It's simply the difference between the voiced alveolar stop 'd' and the voiceless alveolar stop 't', so it's easy to misinterpret in speech.
Okay, phonetics info-break over, now back to your regularly scheduled discussion...
That might complicate the painting process... you know, the part where the paint sticks to the wall?
Hmmm...methinks you've just stumbled on a new market for this product. Anti-graffiti coatings for buildings / billboards / etc. etc.
Course, it won't stop punks trying to etch their 'art' into the public's awareness, but at least it would stop any gradeschooler who got his hands on a can of paint. Also would complicate things if you ever wanted to re-paint anything with this coating applied...but OTOH, the original paint should be protected from rain damage at least, if not fading or impact damage. Hmmm...I think my parents would have liked this very much for our garage door and fences when I was growing up.
If you really want computers to augment humans, once you have a wearable computer+sensors that are sufficiently advanced you can have them do the following: 1) Continuous video+audio recording in high res of past X minutes, and low res for longer periods. This way you don't have to miss stuff - you can tell the computer to switch to high res till further notice (the past X minutes would already be in high res) and then save it. Eidetic memory for the masses! 2) Continuous background image recognition (look for faces or objects - military version = gun muzzle detection, vehicle detection, anti-camouflage ) 3) Continuous background audio recognition (voice etc[1]). 4) GPS+ map + compass direction feedback. 5) Work with "area/location computers" (so that you can more easily control/access location specific stuff - lights, jukebox, climate control, menus, ordering systems). 6) Many more stuff - see below too.
Sounds like you've either already read, or should read, Elizabeth Moon's "Vatta's War" series...:)
It's a great 5-book sci-fi series in which these sorts of brain/computer interface devices are quite commonplace. Artificial eidetic memory, command codes for database access, environmental controls, communication, memory storage, etc. It's very well written: if you haven't read it already I suggest giving it a try!
#1 = Trading in Danger #2 = Marque and Reprisal #3 = Engaging the Enemy #4 = Command Decision #5 = Victory Conditions
Anyway, my point is that these ideas about vehicle-sharing are feasible because of ubiquitous electronic communications technology, not because of driverless vehicle technology. Removing drivers just makes them a little more efficient.
And a lot cooler...:)
Good point, though, there's no reason this couldn't be implemented now, especially in larger urban centers. Hmmm...wonder if it would catch on? Could be a cool business opportunity for some enterprising slashdotter...:)
I think the biggest benefit to this scheme, though, would be the privacy aspect. If each vehicle had several separate compartments instead of jamming everyone together like on the bus, people could relax, kick off their shoes, watch some TV without worrying about headphones or shoulder surfers, even change their clothes on the way home if they like (stipulating privacy windows and no video camera monitoring, that is:) If you work with people all day, it's nice to be able to have some alone time on the way home...suddenly that hour-long commute doesn't seem so bad.
A good point... a fleet of driverless cars could pick up a person, take them to work, then go ferry around other people when your own car would just be sitting in a lot unused.
Would be nice, but doesn't work, because there are times ("rush hour") where everyone is trying to use their vehicle at once. Given that, either the fleet companies would need to have enough cars to cover the peak (which would be prohibitively expensive), or you'd find you couldn't get a car when you wanted one (which, after it occurred a few times, would set you shopping for a personal vehicle).
Ah, but most of the problem with 'rush hour' is that the majority of those cars are only carrying one, or maybe two passengers.
A city-wide routing system should be able to plan a route to pick up a dozen or so people who are starting from / traveling to similar places, and get it all done in one vehicle. To prevent it from being just like a bus ride, subway or shared taxi (congested, noisy, kids beside you blaring their youtube videos, people breathing down the back of your neck, etc.), all the designers would have to do is build cars/vans that had segregated one / two / four person compartments, each with it's own external door (think a stretch limo with several doors on each side and a wall down the middle). Then you just swipe your pass/phone/whatever to confirm it's you, get in and relax, ignoring any other pickups or drop-offs until you get to your stop (car could 'bing' you at your stop, in case you dozed off).
Higher end services could even stock a mini-bar in each compartment, for those who want to unwind a bit before dinner.:o) Or, better yet, you could have the car 'pick up' dinner for you before coming to pick you up (just send it to your local restaurant and have them place it in the compartment reserved for you).
The possibilities are intriguing, that's for sure...
And of course, that says nothing about how it would revolutionize the statistically very dangerous world of truck driving (though I suspect the truck drivers might not be too happy about that, I'm sure they can get a lobby together to make sure that entirely autonomous semi's never get approved).
I doubt it will come to that. Autonomous individual personal vehicles, maybe, but not the big rigs that transport hazardous / heavy / wide / etc. loads on public roads. We'll still need someone in the hotseat to deal with situations that the computer doesn't recognize, or take over if the autopilot fails out. It could make trucking a whole lot more fuel efficient and less physically taxing on the drivers, but we'd still need them in position and sharp enough to be ready to take over if required.
After all, we recognize the fact that we still need pilots flying planes, even though, technically, today's autopilot systems are pretty much capable of doing everything a pilot has to do during a normal, uneventful flight. It's the potential (and magnitude of consequences) of abnormal, highly eventful flights that keep us needing those highly trained hands and brains on tap in the cockpit.
Games which require subscriptions (Final Fantasy XI and Phantasy Star Universe) do not require Xbox Live Gold subscriptions
Thank you for the correction. But why does Netflix require Gold?
I've been asking myself that for years. It makes no sense on Netflix's part, they're just shooting themselves in the foot by locking their app behind MS's bullshit 'Gold' paywall...of course, of the two companies, I think we can guess who swings the bigger club. Microsoft probably just doesn't give them a choice about it...good thing there are a plethora of other Netflix-enabled devices around now.
Also, the constant ad-spamming on the XBox console is making it more and more unusable...it's pretty rare that I actually turn on our console anymore, since I know it'll need three updates and require surfing through a myriad of blinky, annoying screens to get to whatever I actually wanted to do in the first place. I *really*, **really** don't like Sony, either it's corporate ethics or it's policies towards users/customers, but I have to admit that MS's anti-user tactics lately have me seriously reconsidering that Playstation console...
Sizable? I think about 500 books would be described as 'sizable'.
All told it's three 2x1.2 meter shelves full of books and journals
Heh, between my husband and I, we have seven bookcases full, and we're looking at adding an eighth 'cause we're running out of room. The vast majority are paperback, maybe about 10-15% hardcover, and another (maybe) 5% technical manuals / textbooks / comics / recipe books / etc. I haven't done a tally for about five years or so, but I know we were *well* over a thousand books last time I did check...and still growing...
Yeah. I don't ever want to move again. On the plus side, we never have to hunt for something interesting to read...or re-read:)
You know what would be an interesting eBook purchasing model? 'Loyal customer' pricing. Say I want to buy the eBook version of a novel I already own, and it costs $9.99. It would be *so* cool if, at the checkout page, I could scan the barcode (or photograph the front cover, whatever) my existing book and get an instant discount on the eBook copy. I've already bought the book and so I don't really need an electronic copy, other than for my own convenience, yet this way the author still gets some new revenue while 'thanking' me for supporting their past works.
I know, such a system would be open to exploitation (hang out at a friends place or the library and send in scans of their books, e.g.), or I could just get the eBook copy, then turn around and sell my used copy (NEVER! It's MINE! my precious...), but all in all, it would be a cool idea. Maybe then I could start retiring our collection to the attic, bit by bit...
Just for giggles, tote up the number of atrocities attributed to Christianity since WWII and those attributed to Islam (hell, just take the one the Islamist attribute to themselves). Comparing one nutjob in Florida with what Islam has been generating is simply to admit you have no sense of proportion.
Why the time restriction? Just because Christianity is (mostly) behaving itself now, doesn't mean it doesn't have some monstrous skeletons in the closet.
I would be interested in a comparative 'cost' analysis between the two groups, although that would be deucedly tricky to evaluate. However, such a study would be meaningless without performing the equally tricky to determine 'benefits' analysis.
Quran-only Muslims are a small minority, and their rejection of Hadith is heavily criticized by mainstream Muslims. So saying "The Quran does not state" really has no weight for the vast majority of Muslims. If it's in Hadith, it's part of the religion.
Sorry, it's been many moons since my Religious Studies course.:) I seem to remember that 'hadiths' were basically interpretations of the Qur'an, primarily by Muhammed, but the term could also be applied to confirmations or refutations of Muhammeds interpretations? So a 'hadith' could be generated by an interested party, say a member of the Taliban, and it was up to individual Muslims to accept or reject it?
Sorry if I'm mangling things, I'm just trying to understand. From your description, I suspect that I'm off base here.
You don't get to stand up on your hind legs here and state what Islamic teachings are, or if they are the problem or not.
Hmmm...I think you misinterpreted my comment. I certainly did not propose that fundamentalist dogma is all there is to Islamic teachings, any more than the dogma on which the Inquisition was based is all there is to Catholic teachings.
In my mind, both fundamentalist interpretations (those of the Taliban in the current age as well as those of the Catholic church during the dark ages) were/are purely motivated by political power plays, fear of the 'uncontrolled masses', and greed...not religion, religion was/is just a handy excuse, once interpreted 'properly'. Basic 'religious' teachings (forget Islamic vs Catholic for now) were perverted to provide the appearance of the moral high ground as the basis for some extremely amoral acts. It doesn't mean that all, or even most of the people following that religion adhered to those perverted beliefs, however the minority that did caused / are causing damage all out of proportion to their saturation.
Trying to pass it off as a political problem is equally bogus. Define for me where politics ends and religion begins in places where any Religion is the official Religion, and Islamic law is the law of the land.
When religious justifications are used to exert unnecessary control over the day-to-day lives of your average Joe, to the extent of risking their lives or family's lives if they violate a religious tenet, that's politics my friend. If Islamic Law is the law of the land, then it is politics, not religion.
You don't get to stand up on your hind legs here and state what Islamic teachings are, or if they are the problem or not. Just because you interpret the Qur'an that way does not make it "Islamic teaching".... There is no Central Authority in Islam. No Pope. There is, therefore no central and universally accepted authority on what constitutes Islam or its teachings.... Anyone can appoint themselves an Imam, and begin preaching virtually anything they want. There is really no one to hold them in check.
Ummm...self-contradict much?:) "Islamic teachings" are discussions and interpretations of the Qur'an, and how it applies to real life. As you yourself said, such teachings can be from anyone who wishes to propose an interpretation...and there are many, many more 'teachings' that are less restrictive than those spouted by the more radical sects.
Also, to my mind the lack of a central governing figure is both good and bad. Yes, it means that any crackpot can stand up and preach their own 'brand' of faith, but in theory it also means that any good person can do the same, if they were strongly motivated to, and many are. Lack of a central authority means less possibility of corruption from the top down, as it were, but it also means that it's more diverse, and has wider swings on the extremes. Unfortunately, as we all know, it's the crackpots that tend to scream the loudest.
Lets keep in mind the whole context. i.e. not teaching women; which has a political foundation in that part of the world.
There, FTFY.
The Qur'an does not state that women should not be educated (in fact, some would argue that it states the opposite). Certain passages, however, have been interpreted to mean that women are not to receive education, purely for political and societal gains by the 'interpreters' in question.
Islamic teachings are not the problem. Doctrine set by self-serving radical fundamentalists is the problem.
Then you forget the late 60s to early 70s timetable, when programming flourished and no one had heard of the Internet.
I guess I'm just floundering around in the current age. I suppose I'll have to trawl around a bit, casting my net wide in hopes of reeling in some history to help me land some understanding.:)
But even for those few of us who claim to be complete skeptics, belief quietly sneaks in.
Nope. Not a bit of it. In my experience, only believers believe that everyone else must secretly be a believer. The rest of us live a fact-based life.
I think you are thinking of a complete belief in magical thinking, whereas this is talking about the "magical" type of thought that "this car does not like you to use full throttle until its warmed up", or feeling anger at a beer bottle with a top thet "doesn't want to come off". If you stop and reflect of course you know its nonsense, but I bet you sometimes have those thoughts anyway.
I think the word your are seeking is 'anthropomorphism'. And yes, that is a common illogical flight of fancy for most people, especially when it comes to their pets and too-young-to-communicate-yet children...'Oooh, look, she just smiled at you! How cuuute!'
But even for those few of us who claim to be complete skeptics, belief quietly sneaks in.
Nope. Not a bit of it. In my experience, only believers believe that everyone else must secretly be a believer. The rest of us live a fact-based life.
Really? Never crossed your fingers while hitting 'compile'? Never knocked on wood (hur hur) or tossed salt over your shoulder? Never had a rabbit's foot, or avoided stepping on a crack in the sidewalk, even as a kid? Never stood on your head and drank a cup of water to 'cure' hiccups? (Okay, maybe that was just my family...)
It's these little superstitions that the author is referring to, although for most of them I would argue that they are simply passed on with our mother's milk, nothing to do with any pre-disposition or 'hardwiring'. It's not like we actually believe that they work or anything, but all the same, some of them are deucedly hard to shake...*shrugs*, maybe it is built into us on a deeper level, who knows?
When I entered college I know how to program in about 8 languages (before Google) myself, I was actually codding professionally before I left for college too.
Slashdot Mirror
While their ideas are patently false should only truthful information be allowed on the internet?
What, you want to shut the whole thing down? Perish the thought! Then where would I get my "Add 1-3 inch easy! sat1sfy her she sm1le all time!!" meds?
in the anti-pint glass the vortex rotates in the opposite direction, causing an upward flow of fluid and bubbles near the wall of the glass
Just don't drink too many anti-pints of beer. I tried it once and woke up with a hell of a hangunder.
Hangin out on the Disc again? Bugarup. Millenium hand and shrimp, I says! :)
I'm pretty sure the Scottish plan is to somehow join Scandinavia,
I'd be interested to know what the Scandinavians think about this!
...yay haggis?
(which is delicious, btw)
Not sure if it is a treat or a promise.
Maybe a promise of a treat, if we're good? :)
I love Photoshop. I know it well, and can do things in it far easier than I can in GIMP, largely because of experience, but I do not have the time to invest to learn GIMP well.
If I want to make a quick button for me website, or clean up a photo, or make a nice card from my girlfriend, it is the tool I go to.
I am not well off.
Graphic design is -not- my career, therefore I really only have need to use Photoshop once a month or less.
I am not going to pay $700 or more for software that I only use 6 or 8 times a year. That equates to about $100 per project/use.
Sounds to me like you should try Paint.NET. It's my goto software for little projects like that, it's licensed Creative Commons for non-commercial use, and it boasts a very robust user base, with an abundance of plugins, tutorials and extremely helpful forums. For the casual usage you describe, I'd try it out. I've been told that the interface is very Photoshop-esque, much like a 'Photoshop Lite' (can't confirm, never used PS).
Also, the GIMP interface has improved noticeably in recent years, especially the version helpfully precompiled for Windows, but I switched over to Paint.NET when Gimp was still being a PITA, and I haven't really found any compelling reason to switch back to Gimp yet. I try it out every couple of years, to see what's new, but wind up going back to familiar ground :)
IMHO, Pirating should be the last resort, not just the first convenient resort. I also disagree with Adobe's extortionate pricing scheme, so I simply avoid using their products. Similarly for MS Office (Libre Office is simply da bomb). If there were no viable alternatives available to me...well, I'd still have to take a close look at 'wants' vs 'needs' before searching out a suitable .torrent. Also, like mcgrew said, sometimes what you are looking for just isn't for sale by anyone, anywhere, but other fans have taken the time to preserve their favorite content and are willing to share, to keep the fanbase alive. In such cases, nobody is losing revenue, since no one is offering the content for sale, yet the show still benefits by being kept in the forefront of their fans' regard (and perhaps even by expanding their fanbase). If down the road the copyright holders do decide to release the content for sale, well, if they do it right then dedicated fans will still buy it for the extra features, and new-made fans will be motivated to check it out, ones who may never have had a chance to see the show on air.
FWIW, I was the same way about the ThunderCats :) We had pretty much the entire series on tape, with the commercials edited out (do you know what a PITA that is on VHS?), then dutifully backed up to digital storage once that was generally available. Regardless, when they finally released the DVD version a couple of years ago, I think I was the first in line to buy them :)
You're doing it hopelessly wrong.
She has totally different criteria than you. Numbers and specs mean nothing. Anything on the shelf will be powerful enough and have enough RAM, etc. for a normal person.
The real question is: Will it make her happy?
Take her to a big shop with lots of laptops and see which one she fondles. Feel the keys, pay particular attention to the trackpad buttons. Pick it up and see if it feels solid. If it seems reasonably well built then that's the right one.
I would also do some up-front research on battery life for the models carried by the particular store you're visiting, then be ready to steer her towards the ones with 6+ hours of rated battery life. For some reason, they all make it extremely difficult to compare models based on expected battery life (stores don't seem to expect their customers to care about battery life, often the saleschimps don't even know when you ask them). I know, it's an estimate only and won't apply if you're watching blu-ray movies while converting video and d/ling the Library of Congress in the background, but it still gives the user a better idea of how long they can expect to be able to use their machine for email, youtube and FB. The extended battery laptops may not be available in pink, but for a casual, on-the-couch, email and you-tube watching laptop, a longer battery life = much more satisfied casual user.
A couple of contenders in the 17" division right now are the DV7-6C50CA or 6C70CA for 17-inch models. (sorry about the Canadian links, but they should give you a model number to google...) Acer used to have a 'Timeline' series, that was known for long battery lives, but they discontinued it a while back...as far as I know, HP is the only ones making 17-inch notebooks with extended battery runtimes right now. Dell makes (made?) some 15-inch ones in their Inspiron lineup, and HP, Samsung, Lenovo and Toshiba have each had some of their 15-inch models offer extended battery life, but that's from research done almost six months ago, so now it's hopelessly out of date in the laptop world...:S
FWIW, I went this way when helping my Dad buy his last two laptops, and as a result he thinks I'm a 'frickin computer genius' :) Neither of his laptops went over $700 CAD in price point, either, which is a good thing because the replacement was necessary because of a spill on the first...all over the keyboard :( It still fires up and runs fine, but the keyboard is borked (and yes, we've tried to clean it up), so he uses it as his desktop with an external keyboard. Still, for a $650 machine, I was impressed that it would run at all...
Of course, this social contract sorta goes two ways. The advertiser actually has to put on a show. The girl has to be pretty, the TV for women absolutely devoid of any intelligence whatsoever.
Ok. Wow. And I suppose "TV for men" is just chock full of intelligent, witty repartee and deep philosophical commentary?
You can't BS me, I've seen Spike. Better to say "the TV for the lowest common denominator", since that's what these stations are aiming at, regardless of gender.
If you put on a production of a classical piece of theather say eh.... Hamlet ( I do know more then one piece, I assure you! I am not an American after all, no I don't have to proof it)
Oh, I see, it's a more general prejudice that you hold, not mere sexism. Oh, wait a sec...
Soaps were okay to be interrupted every now and then, after all it gave the women sometime to do some actually bloody housework. It always struck me as odd how women can claim house work is so fucking hard when there is all this TV aimed at them during their supposed working hours. How many TV programs are on during the day aimed at men at work? ZERO! Men don't get to lay on the sofa and watch TV all day dammit! We got to mess around with that new sexy teen girl intern non-stop! How about my wife mess around with the intern and I lay on the sofa to watch! Equality NOW!
...my mistake. Or was this your pathetic attempt at sarcasm? Sorry, I can't tell. FWIW, if I have a day off from my busy career and actually have a chance to watch daytime TV, it's more likely to be Discovery, HGTV (if it's interesting), the History channel or Syfi. And, unlike yourself by the sound of it, my husband actually shares the housework with me so it is not too great a burden on either of us.
Gender equality. You should try it sometime. Oh, wait, you're too busy laying on your ass and bitching about commercials after your 'hard' day at work with your 'sexy' intern.
Right, like the script kitties could tell they where dealing with a Mac...
I just had this adorable image in my head of a bunch of kittens (picture Royale commercials) gamboling around an iMac, batting the mouse around, laying on the top of the monitor and pawing at the screen, puzzled innocence in their wide blue eyes as they try to figure out where the food comes out. Awww... :)
I think the term is actually 'script kiddies', due to the (usual) youth of the wanna-be bad asses. It's simply the difference between the voiced alveolar stop 'd' and the voiceless alveolar stop 't', so it's easy to misinterpret in speech.
Okay, phonetics info-break over, now back to your regularly scheduled discussion...
Include it in paint.
That might complicate the painting process... you know, the part where the paint sticks to the wall?
Hmmm...methinks you've just stumbled on a new market for this product. Anti-graffiti coatings for buildings / billboards / etc. etc.
Course, it won't stop punks trying to etch their 'art' into the public's awareness, but at least it would stop any gradeschooler who got his hands on a can of paint. Also would complicate things if you ever wanted to re-paint anything with this coating applied...but OTOH, the original paint should be protected from rain damage at least, if not fading or impact damage. Hmmm...I think my parents would have liked this very much for our garage door and fences when I was growing up.
If you really want computers to augment humans,
once you have a wearable computer+sensors that are sufficiently advanced you can have them do the following:
1) Continuous video+audio recording in high res of past X minutes, and low res for longer periods. This way you don't have to miss stuff - you can tell the computer to switch to high res till further notice (the past X minutes would already be in high res) and then save it. Eidetic memory for the masses!
2) Continuous background image recognition (look for faces or objects - military version = gun muzzle detection, vehicle detection, anti-camouflage )
3) Continuous background audio recognition (voice etc[1]).
4) GPS+ map + compass direction feedback.
5) Work with "area/location computers" (so that you can more easily control/access location specific stuff - lights, jukebox, climate control, menus, ordering systems).
6) Many more stuff - see below too.
Sounds like you've either already read, or should read, Elizabeth Moon's "Vatta's War" series... :)
It's a great 5-book sci-fi series in which these sorts of brain/computer interface devices are quite commonplace. Artificial eidetic memory, command codes for database access, environmental controls, communication, memory storage, etc. It's very well written: if you haven't read it already I suggest giving it a try!
#1 = Trading in Danger
#2 = Marque and Reprisal
#3 = Engaging the Enemy
#4 = Command Decision
#5 = Victory Conditions
Anyway, my point is that these ideas about vehicle-sharing are feasible because of ubiquitous electronic communications technology, not because of driverless vehicle technology. Removing drivers just makes them a little more efficient.
And a lot cooler... :)
Good point, though, there's no reason this couldn't be implemented now, especially in larger urban centers. Hmmm...wonder if it would catch on? Could be a cool business opportunity for some enterprising slashdotter... :)
I think the biggest benefit to this scheme, though, would be the privacy aspect. If each vehicle had several separate compartments instead of jamming everyone together like on the bus, people could relax, kick off their shoes, watch some TV without worrying about headphones or shoulder surfers, even change their clothes on the way home if they like (stipulating privacy windows and no video camera monitoring, that is :) If you work with people all day, it's nice to be able to have some alone time on the way home...suddenly that hour-long commute doesn't seem so bad.
Would be nice, but doesn't work, because there are times ("rush hour") where everyone is trying to use their vehicle at once. Given that, either the fleet companies would need to have enough cars to cover the peak (which would be prohibitively expensive), or you'd find you couldn't get a car when you wanted one (which, after it occurred a few times, would set you shopping for a personal vehicle).
Ah, but most of the problem with 'rush hour' is that the majority of those cars are only carrying one, or maybe two passengers.
A city-wide routing system should be able to plan a route to pick up a dozen or so people who are starting from / traveling to similar places, and get it all done in one vehicle. To prevent it from being just like a bus ride, subway or shared taxi (congested, noisy, kids beside you blaring their youtube videos, people breathing down the back of your neck, etc.), all the designers would have to do is build cars/vans that had segregated one / two / four person compartments, each with it's own external door (think a stretch limo with several doors on each side and a wall down the middle). Then you just swipe your pass/phone/whatever to confirm it's you, get in and relax, ignoring any other pickups or drop-offs until you get to your stop (car could 'bing' you at your stop, in case you dozed off).
Higher end services could even stock a mini-bar in each compartment, for those who want to unwind a bit before dinner. :o) Or, better yet, you could have the car 'pick up' dinner for you before coming to pick you up (just send it to your local restaurant and have them place it in the compartment reserved for you).
The possibilities are intriguing, that's for sure...
Or how about no one no longer needing to own a car becasue they are autmated and have a car sitting not doing anyting is a waste.
You just pay your 50 bucks a month to be a member of a car pool.
Buses won't be needed any more, fewer parking lots, less congestion.
I suspect there will be different kinds of pools at different cost.
A pool of automated vans that ;pick up 12 people on the way to work, comfort car pool where a luxury car picks yo up. Sports car pool.
It gets real interesting with automated Motor Cycles.
So...like driverless taxis that accept monthly/annual passes? That would be intriguing...New York would never be the same.
And of course, that says nothing about how it would revolutionize the statistically very dangerous world of truck driving (though I suspect the truck drivers might not be too happy about that, I'm sure they can get a lobby together to make sure that entirely autonomous semi's never get approved).
I doubt it will come to that. Autonomous individual personal vehicles, maybe, but not the big rigs that transport hazardous / heavy / wide / etc. loads on public roads. We'll still need someone in the hotseat to deal with situations that the computer doesn't recognize, or take over if the autopilot fails out. It could make trucking a whole lot more fuel efficient and less physically taxing on the drivers, but we'd still need them in position and sharp enough to be ready to take over if required.
After all, we recognize the fact that we still need pilots flying planes, even though, technically, today's autopilot systems are pretty much capable of doing everything a pilot has to do during a normal, uneventful flight. It's the potential (and magnitude of consequences) of abnormal, highly eventful flights that keep us needing those highly trained hands and brains on tap in the cockpit.
Games which require subscriptions (Final Fantasy XI and Phantasy Star Universe) do not require Xbox Live Gold subscriptions
Thank you for the correction. But why does Netflix require Gold?
I've been asking myself that for years. It makes no sense on Netflix's part, they're just shooting themselves in the foot by locking their app behind MS's bullshit 'Gold' paywall...of course, of the two companies, I think we can guess who swings the bigger club. Microsoft probably just doesn't give them a choice about it...good thing there are a plethora of other Netflix-enabled devices around now.
Also, the constant ad-spamming on the XBox console is making it more and more unusable...it's pretty rare that I actually turn on our console anymore, since I know it'll need three updates and require surfing through a myriad of blinky, annoying screens to get to whatever I actually wanted to do in the first place. I *really*, **really** don't like Sony, either it's corporate ethics or it's policies towards users/customers, but I have to admit that MS's anti-user tactics lately have me seriously reconsidering that Playstation console...
Does it increase disbelief or decrease belief ?
It increases the global rate of disbelief, while simultaneously decreasing the localized increase of belief. Better? ;)
Sizable? I think about 500 books would be described as 'sizable'.
All told it's three 2x1.2 meter shelves full of books and journals
Heh, between my husband and I, we have seven bookcases full, and we're looking at adding an eighth 'cause we're running out of room. The vast majority are paperback, maybe about 10-15% hardcover, and another (maybe) 5% technical manuals / textbooks / comics / recipe books / etc. I haven't done a tally for about five years or so, but I know we were *well* over a thousand books last time I did check...and still growing...
Yeah. I don't ever want to move again. On the plus side, we never have to hunt for something interesting to read...or re-read :)
You know what would be an interesting eBook purchasing model? 'Loyal customer' pricing. Say I want to buy the eBook version of a novel I already own, and it costs $9.99. It would be *so* cool if, at the checkout page, I could scan the barcode (or photograph the front cover, whatever) my existing book and get an instant discount on the eBook copy. I've already bought the book and so I don't really need an electronic copy, other than for my own convenience, yet this way the author still gets some new revenue while 'thanking' me for supporting their past works.
I know, such a system would be open to exploitation (hang out at a friends place or the library and send in scans of their books, e.g.), or I could just get the eBook copy, then turn around and sell my used copy (NEVER! It's MINE! my precious...), but all in all, it would be a cool idea. Maybe then I could start retiring our collection to the attic, bit by bit...
Just for giggles, tote up the number of atrocities attributed to Christianity since WWII and those attributed to Islam (hell, just take the one the Islamist attribute to themselves). Comparing one nutjob in Florida with what Islam has been generating is simply to admit you have no sense of proportion.
Why the time restriction? Just because Christianity is (mostly) behaving itself now, doesn't mean it doesn't have some monstrous skeletons in the closet.
I would be interested in a comparative 'cost' analysis between the two groups, although that would be deucedly tricky to evaluate. However, such a study would be meaningless without performing the equally tricky to determine 'benefits' analysis.
Quran-only Muslims are a small minority, and their rejection of Hadith is heavily criticized by mainstream Muslims. So saying "The Quran does not state" really has no weight for the vast majority of Muslims. If it's in Hadith, it's part of the religion.
Sorry, it's been many moons since my Religious Studies course. :) I seem to remember that 'hadiths' were basically interpretations of the Qur'an, primarily by Muhammed, but the term could also be applied to confirmations or refutations of Muhammeds interpretations? So a 'hadith' could be generated by an interested party, say a member of the Taliban, and it was up to individual Muslims to accept or reject it?
Sorry if I'm mangling things, I'm just trying to understand. From your description, I suspect that I'm off base here.
You don't get to stand up on your hind legs here and state what Islamic teachings are, or if they are the problem or not.
Hmmm...I think you misinterpreted my comment. I certainly did not propose that fundamentalist dogma is all there is to Islamic teachings, any more than the dogma on which the Inquisition was based is all there is to Catholic teachings.
In my mind, both fundamentalist interpretations (those of the Taliban in the current age as well as those of the Catholic church during the dark ages) were/are purely motivated by political power plays, fear of the 'uncontrolled masses', and greed...not religion, religion was/is just a handy excuse, once interpreted 'properly'. Basic 'religious' teachings (forget Islamic vs Catholic for now) were perverted to provide the appearance of the moral high ground as the basis for some extremely amoral acts. It doesn't mean that all, or even most of the people following that religion adhered to those perverted beliefs, however the minority that did caused / are causing damage all out of proportion to their saturation.
Trying to pass it off as a political problem is equally bogus. Define for me where politics ends and religion begins in places where any Religion is the official Religion, and Islamic law is the law of the land.
When religious justifications are used to exert unnecessary control over the day-to-day lives of your average Joe, to the extent of risking their lives or family's lives if they violate a religious tenet, that's politics my friend. If Islamic Law is the law of the land, then it is politics, not religion.
You don't get to stand up on your hind legs here and state what Islamic teachings are, or if they are the problem or not. Just because you interpret the Qur'an that way does not make it "Islamic teaching". ... There is no Central Authority in Islam. No Pope. There is, therefore no central and universally accepted authority on what constitutes Islam or its teachings. ... Anyone can appoint themselves an Imam, and begin preaching virtually anything they want. There is really no one to hold them in check.
Ummm...self-contradict much? :) "Islamic teachings" are discussions and interpretations of the Qur'an, and how it applies to real life. As you yourself said, such teachings can be from anyone who wishes to propose an interpretation...and there are many, many more 'teachings' that are less restrictive than those spouted by the more radical sects.
Also, to my mind the lack of a central governing figure is both good and bad. Yes, it means that any crackpot can stand up and preach their own 'brand' of faith, but in theory it also means that any good person can do the same, if they were strongly motivated to, and many are. Lack of a central authority means less possibility of corruption from the top down, as it were, but it also means that it's more diverse, and has wider swings on the extremes. Unfortunately, as we all know, it's the crackpots that tend to scream the loudest.
Lets keep in mind the whole context. i.e. not teaching women; which has a political foundation in that part of the world.
There, FTFY.
The Qur'an does not state that women should not be educated (in fact, some would argue that it states the opposite). Certain passages, however, have been interpreted to mean that women are not to receive education, purely for political and societal gains by the 'interpreters' in question.
Islamic teachings are not the problem. Doctrine set by self-serving radical fundamentalists is the problem.
sounds a bit fishy to me
Then you forget the late 60s to early 70s timetable, when programming flourished and no one had heard of the Internet.
I guess I'm just floundering around in the current age. I suppose I'll have to trawl around a bit, casting my net wide in hopes of reeling in some history to help me land some understanding. :)
But even for those few of us who claim to be complete skeptics, belief quietly sneaks in.
Nope. Not a bit of it. In my experience, only believers believe that everyone else must secretly be a believer. The rest of us live a fact-based life.
I think you are thinking of a complete belief in magical thinking, whereas this is talking about the "magical" type of thought that "this car does not like you to use full throttle until its warmed up", or feeling anger at a beer bottle with a top thet "doesn't want to come off". If you stop and reflect of course you know its nonsense, but I bet you sometimes have those thoughts anyway.
I think the word your are seeking is 'anthropomorphism'. And yes, that is a common illogical flight of fancy for most people, especially when it comes to their pets and too-young-to-communicate-yet children...'Oooh, look, she just smiled at you! How cuuute!'
But even for those few of us who claim to be complete skeptics, belief quietly sneaks in.
Nope. Not a bit of it. In my experience, only believers believe that everyone else must secretly be a believer. The rest of us live a fact-based life.
Really? Never crossed your fingers while hitting 'compile'? Never knocked on wood (hur hur) or tossed salt over your shoulder? Never had a rabbit's foot, or avoided stepping on a crack in the sidewalk, even as a kid? Never stood on your head and drank a cup of water to 'cure' hiccups? (Okay, maybe that was just my family...)
It's these little superstitions that the author is referring to, although for most of them I would argue that they are simply passed on with our mother's milk, nothing to do with any pre-disposition or 'hardwiring'. It's not like we actually believe that they work or anything, but all the same, some of them are deucedly hard to shake...*shrugs*, maybe it is built into us on a deeper level, who knows?
When I entered college I know how to program in about 8 languages (before Google) myself, I was actually codding professionally before I left for college too.
Hmmm...sounds a bit fishy to me.