You can not own the information.
Anyone thinking otherwise is deluded fool.
Coincidentally, those type of people are self centered sociopaths too.
Is there another kind of sociopath?
And moderators - just because you don't agree with, or understand something - why moderate it troll? Shouldn't you be moderating up good posts - and if, if, something is particularly offensive, like APKs sad host file binges, moderate it down?
This was the most interesting commentary I've read all day. Keen observations on the undercurrent of society which gets infrequently talked about because people largely buy all the bull reported by the media and statistics at large.
It's only part of a complex problem - read on to see Cold Wet Dogs input.
I don't have time to even begin to address (my thoughts on) "why" people smoke - tobacco companies manipulate a pre-existing self-destructive bent. But it's a bit more complicated.
My friend from last night has gone home, and doesn't read Slashdot ("it's childish") - but I'll pass the message on.:-) I expect I'll hear the rant about how a GP is generally not an "actual doctor" - which neatly overlooks the fact that I've held a (non-medical) doctorate for much longer than her. She does know a lot about government policy, research and grants though (and teaching) but I don't go to her for a checkup.
And yes, smokers die slowly (at least most of them).
Smokers or not - most people die slowly - smokers do it 10 years earlier (sort of). But I get your point. My point was not that smoking isn't bad - only that in my country - the smokers prop up the health system - and remember, we *have* universal health care. 2007 $A5.61 billion in point of sale tobacco tax (doesn't include farm gate tax, which is indirectly paid by smokers) The tax rate is many times that now and figures for revenue are "unavailable" (best I can get is about 3 million current smokers and roughly $A6 billion in tobacco tax pa). It's claimed that the health cost of 15000 deaths a year is $A30 billion (which is clearly rubbish). And 15000 a year is difficult to check. Currently the average smoker (20 a day) pays more than $A2000 per annum in tax - and dies 10 years earlier (pensions are about $A18000 pa). Little of that money goes into the health budget. We have a system that is dependant on smokers - the more that stop smoking the more we have to jack up the tax rate to:- pay for the long term costs of caring for ex-smokers, support the parts of the system dependant on that revenue. It gets far more complicated when you consider how much of the infrastructure has investment in the tobacco companies.
Most smokers don't get lung cancer - most lung cancer patients, however, are smokers or former smokers.
Good point - I misquoted - heart attacks and cancer (she said a little over a quarter of of average smokers die fast before retirement age - whatever she meant by "average smokers"). One interesting comment she made was that "in most" cases - if you started smoking as a teenager, and you are tall and light boned - there's a very high chance you'll die "from" lung cancer by 55. Apparently body type plays a large part in how smoking will kill you (if something else doesn't first).
The most prevalent health problem from smoking is vascular disease. That includes small artery disease which is extremely common, likely universal and creates all manner of slow problems. Massive heart attacks and strokes certainly happen with more frequency in smokers than non, but again, most smokers don't just keel over and get their Final Bill.
Absolutely (only about a quarter). Though health problem, contributing factors, and cause of death are problematic. Lest I sound like a BAT shill - your chance of smoking all your adult life and not dying early because of smoking are like winning lotto. It happens - but not often enough to justify the risks.
Further, smokers are at risk for many more cancers than just small cell adenocarcinoma of the lung.
Yes. The original point was that smokers contribute (in Australia) through direct taxes on cigarette sales - more than they cost. (I definitely don't support tobacco sales) The Health system would collapse without out that funding. That would create two problems - no more funding that supports the proportionally, larger costs of support those that live (non-smokers) past retirement age. No more income to support the ticking time bombs called ex-smokers. A cruel irony of the campaign against smoking (it should be against tobacco companies) is that I don't know of a single health insurance company, state government, or superannuation investment fund in this country that *hasn't* invested in one of the groups that directly or indirectly owns tobacco interests.
Add that with increased sound deadening to make everything whisper quiet and you get a crap ton of weight. Weight is probably our biggest issue these days. Our cars have gotten fat.
What I said (pretty much), but with a whole lot less words.
I do not understand the tendency of people here to start typing in the subject and then continue in the body
The Cliff Hanger - pulls you in and compels you to read the rest of the post in order to find out what the fuck it means.
For my 10c I reckon the best way to deal with a TSA team is to have people dress in dishevelled manner while clutching a bottle of vodka and some throwing knifes. Not you, other people. The TSA while be too busy shooting and giving each other after shooting pat downs they won't notice you.
If they do notice you the best course of action is to immediately throw your self on the ground and fake a grand mal seizure - small children will think you're an amusement ride and hop on. The TSA are deathly scared of small children and immediately leave you alone.
You're an ignorant fuckwit tool. There's several Sony camcorders from each generation which include an IR lamp, and IR lamps were actually sold as a pairing with Song camcorders, i.e. Sony HVL-HIRL IR. So when you know what the fuck you're talking about, you are invited to come back and make another comment. But until then, you need to fucking realize that Sony has sold numerous camcorders with this as a listed feature, and that your ignorance has no bearing on reality. In fact, it's also a standard feature in low-end security cameras these days, with many of them including IR LEDs for illumination. I have one sitting in my garage right now.
It's always been cheaper to eat good food than to buy junk food.
Not where I'm at in the Great Lakes area about halfway between Detroit and Chicago. Fresh produce and the healthier alternatives typically sell for a premium price. It's fairly standard supermarket/food industry practice to charge a premium price for items that carry what they consider to be marketing buzz-words to be monetized. Anything that can be labeled with (or could be said to naturally be) "fresh", "organic", "low fat", "all natural", "diet", "sugar free", "low cholesterol", "low sodium", etc etc always costs more than the less-"healthy" alternatives.
At typical food prices in this area and with what a poor person receives in food stamps, it's a struggle to simply get enough calories of any kind to last them all month. Eating a healthy diet as recommended by the FLOTUS and others would mean that this poor person would probably run out of food somewhere around the end of the third week of the month, maybe sooner. Either that, or be undernourished to some degree all month.
That's the reality many face; do they choose to eat unhealthy or go without eating some days, or not eat enough any day.
Strat
It's always been cheaper to eat good food than to buy junk food.
Not where I'm at in the Great Lakes area about halfway between Detroit and Chicago. Fresh produce and the healthier alternatives typically sell for a premium price.
I wasn't referring to "organic" or "premium foods". That's part of the problem - people are either too picky or just can't cook.
Cheap pasta, dried beans, rice, tinned tomatoes, onions, rolled oats, sultanas, desiccated coconut, flour, drum of olive oil, a cheap loaf of french or italian "home" style bread unsliced. Those things are cheap. Everywhere, all year round. Add in whatever is cheap in season - carrots? celery? cabbage? potatoes? How about some cheap canned tuna? some eggs (to be used with the flour), maybe a bit of rump steak and some kidneys if you're a meat eater (but not every meal, or as the majority of a meal), throw in a packet of tea (not bags) or coffee (cheapest vacuum packed - *not* instant). A few spices - food doesn't have to be boring - pepper, cinnamon, chilli, cheap minced garlic. All those things can be bought once a week - no need to spend hours shopping every days.
A kilo of block of cheap cheese stretched over a couple of weeks. Notice I didn't put sugar, milk, or chocolate on the list - except for bread everything has only one ingredient. (quantities are per person)
People are dumb, and lazy - both handicaps can be overcome *if* they want. Those ingredients will supply the more vitamins than junkfood - without missing out on the required *protein* (not calories - that comes later)
Sure - people who are used to high salt, fat, and sugar foods will not find it interesting - easy fixed. Go to bed hungry. Hunger is the best sauce.
But people go from one extreme to another - they either eat junk food which is not cheap - or they buy premium "health" food. Most of which goes to waste. The bigger the fridge - the more waste.
An apple a day is nice, maybe a banana. But even if you only eat a plum or an apple a week you're better off than if you ate one of those choko/apple things from Maccas every day. Rolled oats with some sultanas and coconut - soak for ten minutes in boiling water - add some milk and it's breakfast.
People watch all those fucking gourmet cooking shows when all that's needed is simple things - doesn't mean they can't taste nice. And most everyone can find somewhere to grow a few herbs - bit of parsley, some basil. Why does it have to be either Pizza Hut and Pepsi Colonic or snowpea and mango salad? It's nice to have fresh tomatoes - but it's hard to justify the cost when it's not the local season - and they've got fuck all heath benefits when they've been trucked/flown 2000 miles. And orange ju
Unless something changed big time within the last year, Google has a market share for searches of 89% in France. Since we're talking about a French insurance company, I guess we may safely ignore that they can't hold a candle to Baidu in China or NHN in Korea because the relevant search results will probably be from France.
And I guess 89% market share falls within the definition of "dominant". Or what exactly are you referring to?
>The bit where you didn't say France. (until called on it).
The bit where it's not relevant to the subject - you just "slipped" it in. Like, would it matter which search engine linked the insurance company and undesirable association? The answer is no - but lets make pompous Glen Beck like pronouncements "I think we'd all agree" - well, no, we don't.
You probably haven't noticed this - but for the last couple of months Slashdot has been flooded with people bashing Google. And all read from the same script like "dominant market share" "monopoly" as the first thing repeated often enough will make the second thing true just like Goebels promised. Of course it's never a monopoly "in the traditional sense" "or as simple as Wikipedia's definition" and when cornered the shills all point to "Google's self-interest in promoting the web" and how "search is not like other sectors of industry" while glazing over the fact that monopoly and market domination ain't the same thing. Vanilla icecream doesn't have a monopoly over chocolate - because it doesn't prevent or deter people from choosing chocolate. And the standard shill line is that the "usual definition" of "monopoly" here doesn't apply because "this is not the usual thing".
Bullshit - it's just another lazy slob whining because everyone else did there homework, and doesn't smell like a chronic masturbator, that it' s not fair - the "swats" study to hard/have private tutors/better home lives - that the girls are being tricked by the guys that play on the football team.
And just like all those shills when called - you withdraw the broad brush and start "safely ignoring" those things that backed the outrage in your original charges. "all over the world governments are investigating Google" is another catch cry (like proof of UFOs) - when in fact, in some parts of the world the lazy and greedy look at success and demand the tall poppy must be guilty of something. The rise of the stupid and mediocre in the usual cycle of burn, break and dumb everything down.
The real tragedy is that when shareholders just like you manage to take control of the company away from techs and engineers - and replace them with the marketers (like Steve Balmer) - when Google does become evil - no one will listen to "us" (because by then Google will be hiring the lazy whiners like you, and listening to Hollywood and governments).
In a shocking turn of events, the leader of the Antartic upstart decides that the standard fare of oatmeal to be dull and uninspired, instead declaring that this year, eggs and bacon should grace the tables of their supporters. Guy Smiley agrees with this new direction whole-heartedly, and predicts a year where people will finally see a champion of change emerge for what are arguably the most important issues facing our planet.
I'm guessing you were aiming for the high moral ground but just wound up sounding like a dick.
Since I own a Sony camcorder without an IR filter, and have seen dozens more in the hands of friends and acquaintances, clearly I know enough to know that there are many Sony camcorders without IR filters. I have proven conclusively that mine lacks it with the aid of a remote control.
No - you've proven something - just not what you believe.
You've demonstrated that your camera is sensitive to NIR (as it should be - it's the visible part of the IR spectrum). Not that your camera doesn't have IR filtering. There's a difference.
Your camcorder will have some degree of IR filtering - it's the nature of CCDs that they are mostly sensitive to IR (without massive cooling they're only sensitive to the non-heat, visible, part of the IR range - NIR and MIR, not the "heat" portion FIR). Without filtering your camera would be useless in daylight. If it's a reasonably expensive one (not like the cheapo cameras) it won't have a nasty piece of dark thick plastic - but it will have a nice coating on the lens (the compounds I quoted are what's used on high-end Sony security cameras). There's a difference between blocking all IR, and blocking enough, all the MIR for the visible spectrum to *not* be swamped.
If you paid more than a thousand for your camera it "might" have L3CCDs, which are what's used in the high-end security cameras (with a higher gate speed they're less sensitive to MIR and capable of sub 1 lux visible spectrum capture). More likely you just got better lenses instead of better low-light ability.
In general the cheaper the CCD (pMOS) or CMOS (which aren't quite as cheap) the more sensitive they are to the longer wavelength (more properly they just have a slower gate rate).
Regardless - the original point remains - CCD (or CMOS) cameras don't use IR to "see in the dark". They are (unfiltered) more sensitive to (M)IR than the visible spectrum, which is why they're filtered - or the (M)IR component would swamp any pictured you took in natural light. They don't "block" all IR (or everything would look blue). A bunch of IR LEDs (NIR and MIR) strung around a hoodie won't prevent an image from a (non-cheap) security camera identifying you. Either the image will be processed - or, if the camera is high end, the gate rate is too high to register the IR. In the absence of strong visible light they will capture an image of something that's illuminated with a strong IR source (which is why the poster I replied to "thought" they "saw in the dark"). Processing a "hoodie with IR LED" "hidden" picture to reveal the face is no harder than dealing with an over exposure of natural light.
A cheap security camera isn't much good at identifying you IR or no IR - you'd just be another suss character wearing a hoodie.
who is to say what the increase in cost of health care is or even if it can be tied to car pollution or any other sort.
Me. Give me a Google Maps API and the health stats and I can prove it. What would you like? lung cancer in non-smokers in red, and asthma in blue?
Give me a pen and a exascetch and I'll show you a fool. You are wrong about health care too - while getting the TB you caught off the cab driver treated on your private health insurance the AIDs victims robbed your house.
BTW, this is the same reason for the "tax the rich" suggestions, because "the rich" don't really have much in the way of votes.
Eh, no - would you like to call a friend?
I have a lot more vote than the two pack a day, slab at night, glued to the telly, eat at Maccas, works on the factory floor guy.
1. - I actually vote, "he" generally doesn't.
2. I make my vote count. "He" doesn't understand preferences and feeders, let alone the electoral redistribution process.
3. I have choices about what tax I pay. "He" doesn't - it's taken out of his wages before it's due.
4. I don't have to ask politicians - they propose to me. "He" gets fobbed off by their secretaries until the week before polling day.
5. I have a say in *what* we vote on. "He" gets to choose from the choices I helped influence.
Politics 101 Rule 1. politicians *run* for office in the hope of getting in or renewing their seat. Rule 2. Takes money to run for office - the poly with the most money wins. Fact. There's a department called the AEC - feel free to check. The donation and spending requirements are stricter in Australia - and the more votes you get, the more of the money you spend on advertising and buses from the old folks homes to the polling booths is returned for you to play with. Guess who picks up the tab - same people who don't get a say about their tax rate - same one who only voted because the believed that this time, unlike every other time, the politician would honour his promises to them (he can't - altruists don't get the funding to win elections).
Of course I 'could' be wrong about that - and Hubert Humphrey could have been an American president.
I'm not a multi-billionaire - but I even without availing myself of "tax minimalization" schemes it hurts me a lot less to pay my tax than "him". With them - I could easily pay only a fraction of his annual tax while earning more on a slow day than he earns in a month of overtime.
The reality of the "tax the rich" is that it's a sucker vote for the politician who's run has already been funded by the rich - and we own him - see Rule 1.
You have every reason to distrust me when I lament the state of public education. It's in my best interests to ensure my grandchildren have a private advantage over "his" - and (not that I own a factory) educated factory workers can with-hold their labour without starving. Just like politicians I'm after the second term - and that's seeing my offspring take advantage of my good fortune. The only way to break that cycle is the public library and the internet. Public libraries are vanishing, and the ones that remain don't have many books because their patrons are often illiterate - and the internet, well it's Facebook and Youtube right?
How about somesubsidies for fruits and veggies. Apples are $2/lb on sale in my neck 'o the woods;
It's always been cheaper to eat good food than to buy junk food. And as previously noted - it's those who can afford it least that eat the worst. I think the "good food is too expensive I'm going to Maccas" argument is dumb - hang on... dumb, education (and maybe another factor of two).
The only people left smoking in America are the poor, and they can't afford to anymore.
They're also the one's eating junk food, taking bad drugs, stabbing and shooting each other (the lower the income bracket has more car accidents too), and breathing asbestos - and it's not just the US.
But very slowly and very messily. They get heart attacks and strokes more often than non smokers. We're pretty good at treating the former,
Clearly not a doctor are you? I've got one sitting beside who just laughed bitterly at your statement. Smokers have heart attacks and die. That jump-start crap you see on television only works on young, healthy people. Unless smokers are wealthy enough to have hospital wings named after them they don't get transplants - nor do they get joint replacement or stints. Do you know how much either of those things cost?
You are absolutely right about drinking it costs society big time. Obesity is next and about to over take it.
Smokers just die. On average they get sick (sore back) and then, with radio they might live another 6 months (small cell lung cancer is fast). Total cost for respite nursing and medication when smokers get lung cancer in one state (her figures from the AMA) is less than half the cost of supporting diabetics. If you're real lucky (and have a strange idea of luck) you die from emphysema - takes years, and you'll be outnumbered by all those dying with blocks of James Hardie in there lungs. Do you have any idea what those little electric buggies cost the taxpayer - sure some of them smoke - but very rarely is that the reason they're in one. Maybe smoking should be compulsory in McDonalds (at what age do children stop being special?)
Go talk to a doctor about death certificates these days - died in a car accident? Cause of death - heart failure resulting from a car accident (no I'm not making this up) . Did he smoke? Tick the smoking box. Now he's three different types of death statistics - if the lobbyists don't get a say that'll just be "smoking as a major contributor" but likely it'll be massaged as another death by smoking statistic. The 40+Kg tub of lard on half a gram of speed a day died of smoking, *and* a car accident. And no - he'd still be dead if he'd never smoked. The autopsy (he died in hospital) showed what's apparently common - if the car accident hadn't killed him his diet (this guy had diabetes), drinking, or use of amphetamines would of anyway. I guessed "biker" and "trucker" - I got gonged - he was a barrister.
The stats in this country are a joke (don't be thinking every other country is any better). We have a higher percentage of pot smokers than Trenchtown Jamaica - from a survey of people who work in drug rehabilitation clinics - most who went there instead of jail. If you get bashed on your way home from the club the hospital will do a survey - they will ask is you've ever smoked cannabis. Love them stats.
Try this at home: - get a total of all the people who died in your country last year. Then get numbers for total deaths from smoking and other causes. Now do your maths. Looks good right? Did you count all the death by car accident? What about other accidents and murder? Still add up? Now try not getting the numbers from a breakdown of a total from a single source.
Part of the problem is addiction to tobacco, but mostly it's addiction to the money involved in that addiction. (and don't get me started on Lily Pharmaceuticals and the government picking up the tab for methadone).
The purpose of taxes are to pay for the government.
As long as we have any publicly funded health care, then government is paying for the health consequences of smoking. With that in mind, why is it wrong to tax a behavior that increases an individual's societal burden?
Hey! I don't smoke you insensitive clod. So I'll live longer than smokers and because I don't spend my money on tobacco I've got more money I don't want to spend on health care. Let those smokers fund my health care - it's not like their heart attacks, gangrene and cancer cost much compared to my first artificial knee, let alone my pension, my heart by pass, my glasses, hearing aid, zimmerman frame, and medication.
About a 20% of the people I grew up with have died - about half of them from smoking. I gave up smoking years ago - but I can still do basic math. In my country the annual revenue just from cigarette tax is greater than the health budget, and I'm not counting the bale tax paid at the farm. Oh - and we have "universal" health benefits (the ambulance won't drop you in a park - that's what buses are for)- over 70% goes towards the cost of caring for retired people (and fuck all of them are smokers - because smoking tends to kill most of it's victims before retirement age). Smoking - it kills you, but it funds the health costs of non-smoker many times over.
And before someone trots out the bullshit about second-hand smoke - got any coal powered power stations, how about cars and trucks? Do you understand scale? Oh good - now explain how the smoke people pull into their lungs when they smoke those death sticks - is more dangerous after they breathe out?
Don't take that as a signal to blow smoke in my face dear smokers - just pay the duty and die, but stay downwind near the incinerators and barbecues while you smoke - preferably on the same side of town the trucks and the cars are allowed.
I'm all in favour of a tax on stupid though - might slow down their reproduction rate. Can't spell - then it's no welfare for you until you graduate. Ditto math.
Air-conditioners, heated seats, electronically adjustable seats, electric windows and sunroofs (best used with a big-arse air-conditioner), dvd players, game consoles, coffee cup heaters, car fridge, exterior strip lighting, bridge shaking sound systems, electric steering, CD radio, reversing and rear view camera, check, electric cigar lighter, check, gps, check... oh sorry, I was just thinking out loud. What was the subject again? Oh yeah increased fuel efficiency != decreased fuel consumption, was that it? Hmm - maybe it's because the alternators have gotten bigger and you use more fuel carrying those big, heavy alternators.
Bloody alternators. Now pass me the popcorn and fetch me a beer you big fat fucker - no I meant you honey. Now where's my remote? - I wanna change some channels and the see what's on When Hippos Attack, don't you beep your horn at me a-hole - you're just jealous of my 3000W roof mounted driving lights. You wait your turn or I'll back my monster truck over your pansy Prius! I was at the drive through window first.
I guess we can agree that Google has a dominant market position in search engines, much like MS has/had in operating systems.
Only if "we" are uninformed idiots.
try "much like DR-DOS has/had in operating systems.".
Of course if you're like the sock puppet army of shills who dismiss the two search engines who *own* the market as irrelevant (to their agenda). Either you can't do basic math - in which case I've got a lotto win to share with you, and you can have the dominant share - or "dominant" means compared to Bing and *that's* your agenda.
Last time I looked, an IR LED showed up nice and bright on every digital camera I ever tried it with, so either the IR filters aren't perfect (likely) or they use cheap IR filters on most cameras (also likely).
Depends on the model how much IR (and which parts of the IR spectrum) they let through. So a bit of both. Those LEDs have a very, very narrow spectral emission (there's a few different IR LEDs).
Will a bunch of LEDs on a hoodie cause problems with a good security camera - no. And post processing will deal with most of the problem.
The el-cheapo ones you see over the till in service stations (when they work) are mostly for deterrent/insurance purposes - they're so crap the picture is useless anyway. The purpose of those is mostly to stop employees conning the till - and so cops can fool moron thieves into pleading guilty. (tip - the ones in banks won't be affected by LEDs on a hoodie.
I also should have written "capital city newspaper", which is what I really meant, instead of "local newspaper".
I was pretty impressed with what so few people did with so much contradictory, nebulous, information. If you're not familiar with their work try google a "site:" search for a list of their (formerly) public releases, then "cache:" to read one.
I asked around to get a few opinions on my guesstimates for mid-western newspapers (I already has some on the few Australian equivalents), it was worth the trouble if only to feed a few red herrings to a gossipy journalist "friend" (May-te!). Right now he's probably at his usual position at club telling people I'm about to buy into American local newspapers.
If it didn't suck a little they wouldn't have to pay you to do it.
How many job openings are there for 'hot chick pussy eater'?
That said many employers are forced to be assholes because they have employees that are assholes.
For every employer that times your bathroom breaks their are a dozen employees holding their shit on the drive in so they can crap on the clock.
Use the rule of threes. If you've had three employers in a row with the same problem, it's not their problem, it's yours. Works for girlfriends too.
This is why mod point shouldn't cap at 5!
If I had a HR manager I'd sack them and give you the job. Never has an applicant ever asked "why are you asking dumb questions" - I keep hoping someone will (though it's wouldn't automatically get them the job) - but the answer is - "because that's the sort of questions you can expect from the clients (and the public servants you'll have to liase with", and "because some of your co-workers will be morons, others just have weak points, and I want to know how long you're likely to last and whether you'll be able to get along with them" Google keeps poaching the best staff, or they (try and) start their own businesses.
Sometimes there's a reason why we ask stupid questions - though I'm certain it's mostly it's because "everyone else" asks the same question (turd in a herd thing). Anyone applying for a technical or engineering type role should expect stupid questions - you've type-cast yourself just applying because no one in those professions makes much money as an employee. 40 years then death. So the best you can do, if you are smart, is say "I want to learn about how you do the business" while thinking "because in five years I'll have my own company and drive you out of business".
Most security cameras don't have IR filters, presumably either to save a couple cents per camera, or maybe so that if you choose you can use them with an IR flood to get night vision. Virtually no black and white video cameras of any kind have IR filters, either. And the majority of older camcorders, too, and many of the newer ones, too; heck, even some MiniDV cameras have had an IR lamp on the front, let alone VHS-C and the like. It was fairly common on Sony cameras for a while.
Last time I looked Schott D263T and BK7 coating are IR filters. Maybe things have changed in the intervening two years.
Slashdot Mirror
Given a reason to live he sure hasn't wasted the opportunity. I'm betting he's never even read slashdot, let alone posted here.
Where as I... oh crap!
You can not own the information. Anyone thinking otherwise is deluded fool. Coincidentally, those type of people are self centered sociopaths too.
Is there another kind of sociopath?
And moderators - just because you don't agree with, or understand something - why moderate it troll?
Shouldn't you be moderating up good posts - and if, if, something is particularly offensive, like APKs sad host file binges, moderate it down?
Just thinking.
This was the most interesting commentary I've read all day. Keen observations on the undercurrent of society which gets infrequently talked about because people largely buy all the bull reported by the media and statistics at large.
It's only part of a complex problem - read on to see Cold Wet Dogs input.
I don't have time to even begin to address (my thoughts on) "why" people smoke - tobacco companies manipulate a pre-existing self-destructive bent. But it's a bit more complicated.
In fact, IAAMD
My friend from last night has gone home, and doesn't read Slashdot ("it's childish") - but I'll pass the message on. :-)
I expect I'll hear the rant about how a GP is generally not an "actual doctor" - which neatly overlooks the fact that I've held a (non-medical) doctorate for much longer than her. She does know a lot about government policy, research and grants though (and teaching) but I don't go to her for a checkup.
And yes, smokers die slowly (at least most of them).
Smokers or not - most people die slowly - smokers do it 10 years earlier (sort of). But I get your point. My point was not that smoking isn't bad - only that in my country - the smokers prop up the health system - and remember, we *have* universal health care. 2007 $A5.61 billion in point of sale tobacco tax (doesn't include farm gate tax, which is indirectly paid by smokers) The tax rate is many times that now and figures for revenue are "unavailable" (best I can get is about 3 million current smokers and roughly $A6 billion in tobacco tax pa).
It's claimed that the health cost of 15000 deaths a year is $A30 billion (which is clearly rubbish). And 15000 a year is difficult to check. Currently the average smoker (20 a day) pays more than $A2000 per annum in tax - and dies 10 years earlier (pensions are about $A18000 pa). Little of that money goes into the health budget. We have a system that is dependant on smokers - the more that stop smoking the more we have to jack up the tax rate to:- pay for the long term costs of caring for ex-smokers, support the parts of the system dependant on that revenue. It gets far more complicated when you consider how much of the infrastructure has investment in the tobacco companies.
Most smokers don't get lung cancer - most lung cancer patients, however, are smokers or former smokers.
Good point - I misquoted - heart attacks and cancer (she said a little over a quarter of of average smokers die fast before retirement age - whatever she meant by "average smokers"). One interesting comment she made was that "in most" cases - if you started smoking as a teenager, and you are tall and light boned - there's a very high chance you'll die "from" lung cancer by 55. Apparently body type plays a large part in how smoking will kill you (if something else doesn't first).
The most prevalent health problem from smoking is vascular disease. That includes small artery disease which is extremely common, likely universal and creates all manner of slow problems. Massive heart attacks and strokes certainly happen with more frequency in smokers than non, but again, most smokers don't just keel over and get their Final Bill.
Absolutely (only about a quarter). Though health problem, contributing factors, and cause of death are problematic. Lest I sound like a BAT shill - your chance of smoking all your adult life and not dying early because of smoking are like winning lotto. It happens - but not often enough to justify the risks.
Further, smokers are at risk for many more cancers than just small cell adenocarcinoma of the lung.
Yes. The original point was that smokers contribute (in Australia) through direct taxes on cigarette sales - more than they cost. (I definitely don't support tobacco sales) The Health system would collapse without out that funding. That would create two problems - no more funding that supports the proportionally, larger costs of support those that live (non-smokers) past retirement age. No more income to support the ticking time bombs called ex-smokers. A cruel irony of the campaign against smoking (it should be against tobacco companies) is that I don't know of a single health insurance company, state government, or superannuation investment fund in this country that *hasn't* invested in one of the groups that directly or indirectly owns tobacco interests.
Add that with increased sound deadening to make everything whisper quiet and you get a crap ton of weight. Weight is probably our biggest issue these days. Our cars have gotten fat.
What I said (pretty much), but with a whole lot less words.
Little boy can't read and throws a tanty.
I don't wear panties.
Oooh saucy! and "you don't know what you're missing out on".
Have another squint. "tanty" not "panty".
I do not understand the tendency of people here to start typing in the subject and then continue in the body
The Cliff Hanger - pulls you in and compels you to read the rest of the post in order to find out what the fuck it means.
For my 10c I reckon the best way to deal with a TSA team is to have people dress in dishevelled manner while clutching a bottle of vodka and some throwing knifes. Not you, other people. The TSA while be too busy shooting and giving each other after shooting pat downs they won't notice you.
If they do notice you the best course of action is to immediately throw your self on the ground and fake a grand mal seizure - small children will think you're an amusement ride and hop on. The TSA are deathly scared of small children and immediately leave you alone.
You're an ignorant fuckwit tool. There's several Sony camcorders from each generation which include an IR lamp, and IR lamps were actually sold as a pairing with Song camcorders, i.e. Sony HVL-HIRL IR. So when you know what the fuck you're talking about, you are invited to come back and make another comment. But until then, you need to fucking realize that Sony has sold numerous camcorders with this as a listed feature, and that your ignorance has no bearing on reality. In fact, it's also a standard feature in low-end security cameras these days, with many of them including IR LEDs for illumination. I have one sitting in my garage right now.
You, sir, are an ignorant asshole. Fuck off.
Little boy can't read and throws a tanty.
It's always been cheaper to eat good food than to buy junk food.
Not where I'm at in the Great Lakes area about halfway between Detroit and Chicago. Fresh produce and the healthier alternatives typically sell for a premium price. It's fairly standard supermarket/food industry practice to charge a premium price for items that carry what they consider to be marketing buzz-words to be monetized. Anything that can be labeled with (or could be said to naturally be) "fresh", "organic", "low fat", "all natural", "diet", "sugar free", "low cholesterol", "low sodium", etc etc always costs more than the less-"healthy" alternatives.
At typical food prices in this area and with what a poor person receives in food stamps, it's a struggle to simply get enough calories of any kind to last them all month. Eating a healthy diet as recommended by the FLOTUS and others would mean that this poor person would probably run out of food somewhere around the end of the third week of the month, maybe sooner. Either that, or be undernourished to some degree all month.
That's the reality many face; do they choose to eat unhealthy or go without eating some days, or not eat enough any day.
Strat
It's always been cheaper to eat good food than to buy junk food.
Not where I'm at in the Great Lakes area about halfway between Detroit and Chicago. Fresh produce and the healthier alternatives typically sell for a premium price.
I wasn't referring to "organic" or "premium foods". That's part of the problem - people are either too picky or just can't cook.
Cheap pasta, dried beans, rice, tinned tomatoes, onions, rolled oats, sultanas, desiccated coconut, flour, drum of olive oil, a cheap loaf of french or italian "home" style bread unsliced. Those things are cheap. Everywhere, all year round. Add in whatever is cheap in season - carrots? celery? cabbage? potatoes? How about some cheap canned tuna? some eggs (to be used with the flour), maybe a bit of rump steak and some kidneys if you're a meat eater (but not every meal, or as the majority of a meal), throw in a packet of tea (not bags) or coffee (cheapest vacuum packed - *not* instant). A few spices - food doesn't have to be boring - pepper, cinnamon, chilli, cheap minced garlic. All those things can be bought once a week - no need to spend hours shopping every days.
A kilo of block of cheap cheese stretched over a couple of weeks. Notice I didn't put sugar, milk, or chocolate on the list - except for bread everything has only one ingredient. (quantities are per person)
People are dumb, and lazy - both handicaps can be overcome *if* they want. Those ingredients will supply the more vitamins than junkfood - without missing out on the required *protein* (not calories - that comes later)
Sure - people who are used to high salt, fat, and sugar foods will not find it interesting - easy fixed. Go to bed hungry. Hunger is the best sauce.
But people go from one extreme to another - they either eat junk food which is not cheap - or they buy premium "health" food. Most of which goes to waste. The bigger the fridge - the more waste.
An apple a day is nice, maybe a banana. But even if you only eat a plum or an apple a week you're better off than if you ate one of those choko/apple things from Maccas every day. Rolled oats with some sultanas and coconut - soak for ten minutes in boiling water - add some milk and it's breakfast.
People watch all those fucking gourmet cooking shows when all that's needed is simple things - doesn't mean they can't taste nice. And most everyone can find somewhere to grow a few herbs - bit of parsley, some basil. Why does it have to be either Pizza Hut and Pepsi Colonic or snowpea and mango salad? It's nice to have fresh tomatoes - but it's hard to justify the cost when it's not the local season - and they've got fuck all heath benefits when they've been trucked/flown 2000 miles. And orange ju
Unless something changed big time within the last year, Google has a market share for searches of 89% in France. Since we're talking about a French insurance company, I guess we may safely ignore that they can't hold a candle to Baidu in China or NHN in Korea because the relevant search results will probably be from France.
And I guess 89% market share falls within the definition of "dominant". Or what exactly are you referring to?
>The bit where you didn't say France. (until called on it).
The bit where it's not relevant to the subject - you just "slipped" it in. Like, would it matter which search engine linked the insurance company and undesirable association? The answer is no - but lets make pompous Glen Beck like pronouncements "I think we'd all agree" - well, no, we don't.
You probably haven't noticed this - but for the last couple of months Slashdot has been flooded with people bashing Google. And all read from the same script like "dominant market share" "monopoly" as the first thing repeated often enough will make the second thing true just like Goebels promised. Of course it's never a monopoly "in the traditional sense" "or as simple as Wikipedia's definition" and when cornered the shills all point to "Google's self-interest in promoting the web" and how "search is not like other sectors of industry" while glazing over the fact that monopoly and market domination ain't the same thing. Vanilla icecream doesn't have a monopoly over chocolate - because it doesn't prevent or deter people from choosing chocolate. And the standard shill line is that the "usual definition" of "monopoly" here doesn't apply because "this is not the usual thing".
Bullshit - it's just another lazy slob whining because everyone else did there homework, and doesn't smell like a chronic masturbator, that it' s not fair - the "swats" study to hard/have private tutors/better home lives - that the girls are being tricked by the guys that play on the football team.
And just like all those shills when called - you withdraw the broad brush and start "safely ignoring" those things that backed the outrage in your original charges. "all over the world governments are investigating Google" is another catch cry (like proof of UFOs) - when in fact, in some parts of the world the lazy and greedy look at success and demand the tall poppy must be guilty of something. The rise of the stupid and mediocre in the usual cycle of burn, break and dumb everything down.
The real tragedy is that when shareholders just like you manage to take control of the company away from techs and engineers - and replace them with the marketers (like Steve Balmer) - when Google does become evil - no one will listen to "us" (because by then Google will be hiring the lazy whiners like you, and listening to Hollywood and governments).
In a shocking turn of events, the leader of the Antartic upstart decides that the standard fare of oatmeal to be dull and uninspired, instead declaring that this year, eggs and bacon should grace the tables of their supporters. Guy Smiley agrees with this new direction whole-heartedly, and predicts a year where people will finally see a champion of change emerge for what are arguably the most important issues facing our planet.
I'm guessing you were aiming for the high moral ground but just wound up sounding like a dick.
Since I own a Sony camcorder without an IR filter, and have seen dozens more in the hands of friends and acquaintances, clearly I know enough to know that there are many Sony camcorders without IR filters. I have proven conclusively that mine lacks it with the aid of a remote control.
No - you've proven something - just not what you believe.
You've demonstrated that your camera is sensitive to NIR (as it should be - it's the visible part of the IR spectrum). Not that your camera doesn't have IR filtering. There's a difference.
Your camcorder will have some degree of IR filtering - it's the nature of CCDs that they are mostly sensitive to IR (without massive cooling they're only sensitive to the non-heat, visible, part of the IR range - NIR and MIR, not the "heat" portion FIR). Without filtering your camera would be useless in daylight. If it's a reasonably expensive one (not like the cheapo cameras) it won't have a nasty piece of dark thick plastic - but it will have a nice coating on the lens (the compounds I quoted are what's used on high-end Sony security cameras). There's a difference between blocking all IR, and blocking enough, all the MIR for the visible spectrum to *not* be swamped.
If you paid more than a thousand for your camera it "might" have L3CCDs, which are what's used in the high-end security cameras (with a higher gate speed they're less sensitive to MIR and capable of sub 1 lux visible spectrum capture). More likely you just got better lenses instead of better low-light ability.
In general the cheaper the CCD (pMOS) or CMOS (which aren't quite as cheap) the more sensitive they are to the longer wavelength (more properly they just have a slower gate rate).
Regardless - the original point remains - CCD (or CMOS) cameras don't use IR to "see in the dark". They are (unfiltered) more sensitive to (M)IR than the visible spectrum, which is why they're filtered - or the (M)IR component would swamp any pictured you took in natural light. They don't "block" all IR (or everything would look blue). A bunch of IR LEDs (NIR and MIR) strung around a hoodie won't prevent an image from a (non-cheap) security camera identifying you. Either the image will be processed - or, if the camera is high end, the gate rate is too high to register the IR.
In the absence of strong visible light they will capture an image of something that's illuminated with a strong IR source (which is why the poster I replied to "thought" they "saw in the dark"). Processing a "hoodie with IR LED" "hidden" picture to reveal the face is no harder than dealing with an over exposure of natural light.
A cheap security camera isn't much good at identifying you IR or no IR - you'd just be another suss character wearing a hoodie.
who is to say what the increase in cost of health care is or even if it can be tied to car pollution or any other sort.
Me. Give me a Google Maps API and the health stats and I can prove it. What would you like? lung cancer in non-smokers in red, and asthma in blue?
Give me a pen and a exascetch and I'll show you a fool. You are wrong about health care too - while getting the TB you caught off the cab driver treated on your private health insurance the AIDs victims robbed your house.
BTW, this is the same reason for the "tax the rich" suggestions, because "the rich" don't really have much in the way of votes.
Eh, no - would you like to call a friend?
I have a lot more vote than the two pack a day, slab at night, glued to the telly, eat at Maccas, works on the factory floor guy.
Politics 101
Rule 1. politicians *run* for office in the hope of getting in or renewing their seat.
Rule 2. Takes money to run for office - the poly with the most money wins. Fact. There's a department called the AEC - feel free to check. The donation and spending requirements are stricter in Australia - and the more votes you get, the more of the money you spend on advertising and buses from the old folks homes to the polling booths is returned for you to play with. Guess who picks up the tab - same people who don't get a say about their tax rate - same one who only voted because the believed that this time, unlike every other time, the politician would honour his promises to them (he can't - altruists don't get the funding to win elections).
Of course I 'could' be wrong about that - and Hubert Humphrey could have been an American president.
I'm not a multi-billionaire - but I even without availing myself of "tax minimalization" schemes it hurts me a lot less to pay my tax than "him". With them - I could easily pay only a fraction of his annual tax while earning more on a slow day than he earns in a month of overtime.
The reality of the "tax the rich" is that it's a sucker vote for the politician who's run has already been funded by the rich - and we own him - see Rule 1.
You have every reason to distrust me when I lament the state of public education. It's in my best interests to ensure my grandchildren have a private advantage over "his" - and (not that I own a factory) educated factory workers can with-hold their labour without starving. Just like politicians I'm after the second term - and that's seeing my offspring take advantage of my good fortune. The only way to break that cycle is the public library and the internet. Public libraries are vanishing, and the ones that remain don't have many books because their patrons are often illiterate - and the internet, well it's Facebook and Youtube right?
How about some subsidies for fruits and veggies. Apples are $2/lb on sale in my neck 'o the woods;
It's always been cheaper to eat good food than to buy junk food. And as previously noted - it's those who can afford it least that eat the worst. I think the "good food is too expensive I'm going to Maccas" argument is dumb - hang on... dumb, education (and maybe another factor of two).
The only people left smoking in America are the poor, and they can't afford to anymore.
They're also the one's eating junk food, taking bad drugs, stabbing and shooting each other (the lower the income bracket has more car accidents too), and breathing asbestos - and it's not just the US.
But very slowly and very messily. They get heart attacks and strokes more often than non smokers. We're pretty good at treating the former,
Clearly not a doctor are you? I've got one sitting beside who just laughed bitterly at your statement. Smokers have heart attacks and die. That jump-start crap you see on television only works on young, healthy people. Unless smokers are wealthy enough to have hospital wings named after them they don't get transplants - nor do they get joint replacement or stints. Do you know how much either of those things cost?
You are absolutely right about drinking it costs society big time. Obesity is next and about to over take it.
Smokers just die. On average they get sick (sore back) and then, with radio they might live another 6 months (small cell lung cancer is fast). Total cost for respite nursing and medication when smokers get lung cancer in one state (her figures from the AMA) is less than half the cost of supporting diabetics. If you're real lucky (and have a strange idea of luck) you die from emphysema - takes years, and you'll be outnumbered by all those dying with blocks of James Hardie in there lungs. Do you have any idea what those little electric buggies cost the taxpayer - sure some of them smoke - but very rarely is that the reason they're in one. Maybe smoking should be compulsory in McDonalds (at what age do children stop being special?)
Go talk to a doctor about death certificates these days - died in a car accident? Cause of death - heart failure resulting from a car accident (no I'm not making this up) . Did he smoke? Tick the smoking box. Now he's three different types of death statistics - if the lobbyists don't get a say that'll just be "smoking as a major contributor" but likely it'll be massaged as another death by smoking statistic. The 40+Kg tub of lard on half a gram of speed a day died of smoking, *and* a car accident. And no - he'd still be dead if he'd never smoked. The autopsy (he died in hospital) showed what's apparently common - if the car accident hadn't killed him his diet (this guy had diabetes), drinking, or use of amphetamines would of anyway. I guessed "biker" and "trucker" - I got gonged - he was a barrister.
The stats in this country are a joke (don't be thinking every other country is any better). We have a higher percentage of pot smokers than Trenchtown Jamaica - from a survey of people who work in drug rehabilitation clinics - most who went there instead of jail. If you get bashed on your way home from the club the hospital will do a survey - they will ask is you've ever smoked cannabis. Love them stats.
Try this at home: - get a total of all the people who died in your country last year. Then get numbers for total deaths from smoking and other causes. Now do your maths. Looks good right? Did you count all the death by car accident? What about other accidents and murder? Still add up? Now try not getting the numbers from a breakdown of a total from a single source.
Part of the problem is addiction to tobacco, but mostly it's addiction to the money involved in that addiction. (and don't get me started on Lily Pharmaceuticals and the government picking up the tab for methadone).
The purpose of taxes are to pay for the government.
As long as we have any publicly funded health care, then government is paying for the health consequences of smoking. With that in mind, why is it wrong to tax a behavior that increases an individual's societal burden?
Hey! I don't smoke you insensitive clod. So I'll live longer than smokers and because I don't spend my money on tobacco I've got more money I don't want to spend on health care. Let those smokers fund my health care - it's not like their heart attacks, gangrene and cancer cost much compared to my first artificial knee, let alone my pension, my heart by pass, my glasses, hearing aid, zimmerman frame, and medication.
About a 20% of the people I grew up with have died - about half of them from smoking. I gave up smoking years ago - but I can still do basic math. In my country the annual revenue just from cigarette tax is greater than the health budget, and I'm not counting the bale tax paid at the farm. Oh - and we have "universal" health benefits (the ambulance won't drop you in a park - that's what buses are for)- over 70% goes towards the cost of caring for retired people (and fuck all of them are smokers - because smoking tends to kill most of it's victims before retirement age). Smoking - it kills you, but it funds the health costs of non-smoker many times over.
And before someone trots out the bullshit about second-hand smoke - got any coal powered power stations, how about cars and trucks? Do you understand scale? Oh good - now explain how the smoke people pull into their lungs when they smoke those death sticks - is more dangerous after they breathe out?
Don't take that as a signal to blow smoke in my face dear smokers - just pay the duty and die, but stay downwind near the incinerators and barbecues while you smoke - preferably on the same side of town the trucks and the cars are allowed.
I'm all in favour of a tax on stupid though - might slow down their reproduction rate. Can't spell - then it's no welfare for you until you graduate. Ditto math.
Air-conditioners, heated seats, electronically adjustable seats, electric windows and sunroofs (best used with a big-arse air-conditioner), dvd players, game consoles, coffee cup heaters, car fridge, exterior strip lighting, bridge shaking sound systems, electric steering, CD radio, reversing and rear view camera, check, electric cigar lighter, check, gps, check... oh sorry, I was just thinking out loud. What was the subject again? Oh yeah increased fuel efficiency != decreased fuel consumption, was that it? Hmm - maybe it's because the alternators have gotten bigger and you use more fuel carrying those big, heavy alternators.
Bloody alternators. Now pass me the popcorn and fetch me a beer you big fat fucker - no I meant you honey. Now where's my remote? - I wanna change some channels and the see what's on When Hippos Attack, don't you beep your horn at me a-hole - you're just jealous of my 3000W roof mounted driving lights. You wait your turn or I'll back my monster truck over your pansy Prius! I was at the drive through window first.
I guess we can agree that Google has a dominant market position in search engines, much like MS has/had in operating systems.
Only if "we" are uninformed idiots.
try "much like DR-DOS has/had in operating systems.".
Of course if you're like the sock puppet army of shills who dismiss the two search engines who *own* the market as irrelevant (to their agenda). Either you can't do basic math - in which case I've got a lotto win to share with you, and you can have the dominant share - or "dominant" means compared to Bing and *that's* your agenda.
Last time I looked, an IR LED showed up nice and bright on every digital camera I ever tried it with, so either the IR filters aren't perfect (likely) or they use cheap IR filters on most cameras (also likely).
Depends on the model how much IR (and which parts of the IR spectrum) they let through. So a bit of both. Those LEDs have a very, very narrow spectral emission (there's a few different IR LEDs).
Will a bunch of LEDs on a hoodie cause problems with a good security camera - no. And post processing will deal with most of the problem.
The el-cheapo ones you see over the till in service stations (when they work) are mostly for deterrent/insurance purposes - they're so crap the picture is useless anyway. The purpose of those is mostly to stop employees conning the till - and so cops can fool moron thieves into pleading guilty. (tip - the ones in banks won't be affected by LEDs on a hoodie.
Last time I looked Schott D263T and BK7 coating are IR filters. Maybe things have changed in the intervening two years.
Last time I checked spewing technobabble without context meant nothing. But this is slashdot.
Like fuckwads who name drop "Sony" without knowing dick about the lenses?.
I also should have written "capital city newspaper", which is what I really meant, instead of "local newspaper".
I was pretty impressed with what so few people did with so much contradictory, nebulous, information. If you're not familiar with their work try google a "site:" search for a list of their (formerly) public releases, then "cache:" to read one.
I asked around to get a few opinions on my guesstimates for mid-western newspapers (I already has some on the few Australian equivalents), it was worth the trouble if only to feed a few red herrings to a gossipy journalist "friend" (May-te!). Right now he's probably at his usual position at club telling people I'm about to buy into American local newspapers.
Pity those mushrooms aren't on the menu.
If it didn't suck a little they wouldn't have to pay you to do it.
How many job openings are there for 'hot chick pussy eater'?
That said many employers are forced to be assholes because they have employees that are assholes.
For every employer that times your bathroom breaks their are a dozen employees holding their shit on the drive in so they can crap on the clock.
Use the rule of threes. If you've had three employers in a row with the same problem, it's not their problem, it's yours. Works for girlfriends too.
This is why mod point shouldn't cap at 5!
If I had a HR manager I'd sack them and give you the job. Never has an applicant ever asked "why are you asking dumb questions" - I keep hoping someone will (though it's wouldn't automatically get them the job) - but the answer is - "because that's the sort of questions you can expect from the clients (and the public servants you'll have to liase with", and "because some of your co-workers will be morons, others just have weak points, and I want to know how long you're likely to last and whether you'll be able to get along with them" Google keeps poaching the best staff, or they (try and) start their own businesses.
Sometimes there's a reason why we ask stupid questions - though I'm certain it's mostly it's because "everyone else" asks the same question (turd in a herd thing). Anyone applying for a technical or engineering type role should expect stupid questions - you've type-cast yourself just applying because no one in those professions makes much money as an employee. 40 years then death. So the best you can do, if you are smart, is say "I want to learn about how you do the business" while thinking "because in five years I'll have my own company and drive you out of business".
Most security cameras don't have IR filters, presumably either to save a couple cents per camera, or maybe so that if you choose you can use them with an IR flood to get night vision. Virtually no black and white video cameras of any kind have IR filters, either. And the majority of older camcorders, too, and many of the newer ones, too; heck, even some MiniDV cameras have had an IR lamp on the front, let alone VHS-C and the like. It was fairly common on Sony cameras for a while.
Last time I looked Schott D263T and BK7 coating are IR filters. Maybe things have changed in the intervening two years.