My guess is you can easily see the difference between 600 dpi and 2400 dpi print, especially for a photo. Print something on your 600 dpi printer that came from a fashion magazine. Resolution is worse on screens than on paper but no the cutoff isn't where you think it is.
I remember someone did a test of this when Steve Jobs came out with "retina" claim. For a young child holding a phone at arm's distance 900 ppi was really "retina" resolution. I think we are likely one double short of retina resolutions on our higher resolution devices. 20 megapixel for a laptop, 5 megapixel for a phone is probably genuinely the limit.
Right now our hardware isn't fast enough to handle that much resolution so it is still a balancing act.
Everyone in power is more concerned about being caught and that the whistle blowers are punished rather than the illegal activities were happening in the first place.
That's not true that everyone is equally hostile. There are liberal democrats and conservative republicans who for years have taken strong stands in favor of privacy.
For example, limits to campaign contributions and maybe even considering excluding contributions from corporations and lobbyist organizations.
That one breaks up pretty cleanly by party. In general most dems favor restrictions on campaign contributions and most republican oppose. However, that's a different issue than privacy. Third party auditing of campaigns is rather invasive. So our rules regarding disclosure and lobbying. I don't see why a pro privacy politician would in general support that. Those seem like anti-privacy regulations.
At least in the United States until recently the problem wasn't the parties but the electorate. The electorate is slowly shifting from strongly supportive to somewhat hostile.
Once one party to an encrypted conversations wants a 3rd party to hear it, you are done. If the cloud providers are willing to send out corrupted HTTPS then they are willing to just share their data, so what difference does it make? Encryption is designed to help in situations where one of the intermediaries (like a telco carrier) is passing information to a 3rd party but not the final recipient.
Primitive matters because it passes through to the CPU directly. Often something like 100x speed up. What would make the most sense from an OO perspective is no guaranteed primitives. What would make the most sense from a performance perspective is access to machine primitives and good mappings. But portability demands compromise.
As for operator overloading, Java syntax is longwinded. If you don't like longwinded syntax don't use Java. Operator overloading allows for subtle behaviors which can make maintenance difficult which is one of the things Java aims to avoid.
Anyway... the main point is that Gosling didn't believe he could do that. It wasn't an error.
The prosecutor set out to terrify him to the point that he would see no alternatives and no hope. The prosecutor was successful. I don't have much problem in considering terrifying someone into killing themselves to be manslaughter.
Because they aren't saying don't fight the momentum. They are saying don't exaggerate the situation beyond all reality. One can debate additional security measures while still fully understanding that extra security will not lead to totalitarianism.
I'd agree. But popular support in a society with pluralistic institutions so that there is broad and open public debate does make a policy non totalitarian.
I grew in a much more regulated world than we have today. The 1970s were vastly more regulated and well short of totalitarian.
As for totalitarianism: no diversity of political parties little corruption and common purpose enforced through terror a heavy focus on activity being of public good people see themselves as offices not individuals
There hasn't been any changes in the laws to permit nor are they any changes to prevent suit if the SWAT teams are abusing their authority. Down south the population is rather law and order oriented so you might have little chance of prevailing but.... that's a problem with the American democracy reflecting the governed not totalitarianism.
The difference is whether the government is using force. Instilling fear to maintain control over a population. Regulation conversely is a legitimate outgrowth of the policies that a population approves of. That's a huge difference. You may not zoning laws but zoning laws are popular and have popular support.
As for SWAT and serving warrants... Warrants are part of our civilian system. Police are being frequently fired upon with drug warrants. We've never tolerated a situation where police officers have to regular engage in combat. If that's happening then combat type forces are called in, in this case SWAT teams. I may very well agree they are being over used. But at the same time the use of SWAT is not totalitarian. It is an outgrowth of armed resistance to duly administered warrants. People have no right to resist a warrant.
Well the first one I ran into was about a Hawthorne guy who had 6 lawsuits with the police and a history of violent confrontations.
I see a couple other scattered incidents some of which are errors. I certainly don't see anything like policy. I have no problems asserting cops are assholes but totalitarian societies cops aren't going to need to go to elaborate lengths to shoot animals if they want to.
That's what totalitarianism looks like, is the thing. It's not "guy points a gun at you to make sure you do X", but "the government provides X, and we just have some regulations to make sure you use X appropriately".
Sorry but no. Totalitarianism is the guy who points the gun at you. The nice guy version is something else.
How big of a step would is be really from "health care is a public resource, provided at a subsidy and regulated" to "morning calisthenics are a regulation"? It's exactly the same reasoning, and we already see that argument against smoking, soda sizes, salt, and so on.
Not much. That was the argument for helmet laws for motorcycles for example. And while that might be intrusive it isn't totalitarian.
The Supreme court used to do that. And when needed often tries for it. But the age bargaining in America was from 1936-`1994. Today our entire political system, including our courts, are more partisan.
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
Totalitarianism is not effecting all areas of society but controlling it. And they aren't doing either. They are affecting some. Water is a public resource, provided at subsidy and regulated. Devices that drive up home usage are a regulation.
Oh. You mean the way they ban pot and various other recreational drugs
Yes. In a totalitarian system that would be the norm rather than an exception. An exception incidentally that grows more like the norm every year.
The way they tell you how many windows your home has to have (and where.)
That sounds like a construction code. That's regulation not totalitarianism. The opposite of unfettered capitalism is fettered capitalism not totalitarianism.
The way they shoot your family pets.
No idea what you are talking about here.
etc.... You need to stop with the overbearing rhetoric like "shooting family". In totalitarian societies you don't need to stretch they have regulations.
Lots. Totalitarian ain't a low bar. A totalitarian government that objected to soda would just ban soda you wouldn't have light regulation in a few cities.
Slashdot Mirror
The data doesn't show that. It shows that Apple has trained the userbase to upgrade very quickly.
My guess is you can easily see the difference between 600 dpi and 2400 dpi print, especially for a photo. Print something on your 600 dpi printer that came from a fashion magazine. Resolution is worse on screens than on paper but no the cutoff isn't where you think it is.
I remember someone did a test of this when Steve Jobs came out with "retina" claim. For a young child holding a phone at arm's distance 900 ppi was really "retina" resolution. I think we are likely one double short of retina resolutions on our higher resolution devices. 20 megapixel for a laptop, 5 megapixel for a phone is probably genuinely the limit.
Right now our hardware isn't fast enough to handle that much resolution so it is still a balancing act.
That's not true that everyone is equally hostile. There are liberal democrats and conservative republicans who for years have taken strong stands in favor of privacy.
That one breaks up pretty cleanly by party. In general most dems favor restrictions on campaign contributions and most republican oppose. However, that's a different issue than privacy. Third party auditing of campaigns is rather invasive. So our rules regarding disclosure and lobbying. I don't see why a pro privacy politician would in general support that. Those seem like anti-privacy regulations.
At least in the United States until recently the problem wasn't the parties but the electorate. The electorate is slowly shifting from strongly supportive to somewhat hostile.
Once one party to an encrypted conversations wants a 3rd party to hear it, you are done. If the cloud providers are willing to send out corrupted HTTPS then they are willing to just share their data, so what difference does it make? Encryption is designed to help in situations where one of the intermediaries (like a telco carrier) is passing information to a 3rd party but not the final recipient.
The surface pro ships with a built in wacom digitizer.
F# because OCaml is platform independent and F# is .NET specific
Clojure because there was no LISP on the JVM to take advantage of Java
etc...
There is a diversity of languages because the situations demanding languages have become more diverse.
Primitive matters because it passes through to the CPU directly. Often something like 100x speed up. What would make the most sense from an OO perspective is no guaranteed primitives. What would make the most sense from a performance perspective is access to machine primitives and good mappings. But portability demands compromise.
As for operator overloading, Java syntax is longwinded. If you don't like longwinded syntax don't use Java. Operator overloading allows for subtle behaviors which can make maintenance difficult which is one of the things Java aims to avoid.
Anyway... the main point is that Gosling didn't believe he could do that. It wasn't an error.
The prosecutor set out to terrify him to the point that he would see no alternatives and no hope. The prosecutor was successful. I don't have much problem in considering terrifying someone into killing themselves to be manslaughter.
Because they aren't saying don't fight the momentum. They are saying don't exaggerate the situation beyond all reality. One can debate additional security measures while still fully understanding that extra security will not lead to totalitarianism.
I'd agree. But popular support in a society with pluralistic institutions so that there is broad and open public debate does make a policy non totalitarian.
I grew in a much more regulated world than we have today. The 1970s were vastly more regulated and well short of totalitarian.
As for totalitarianism:
no diversity of political parties
little corruption and common purpose enforced through terror
a heavy focus on activity being of public good
people see themselves as offices not individuals
etc...
then we have a totalitarian government.
There hasn't been any changes in the laws to permit nor are they any changes to prevent suit if the SWAT teams are abusing their authority. Down south the population is rather law and order oriented so you might have little chance of prevailing but .... that's a problem with the American democracy reflecting the governed not totalitarianism.
And so people who live in airport terminals live in a totalitarian world. That wasn't the point being debated.
The difference is whether the government is using force. Instilling fear to maintain control over a population. Regulation conversely is a legitimate outgrowth of the policies that a population approves of. That's a huge difference. You may not zoning laws but zoning laws are popular and have popular support.
As for SWAT and serving warrants... Warrants are part of our civilian system. Police are being frequently fired upon with drug warrants. We've never tolerated a situation where police officers have to regular engage in combat. If that's happening then combat type forces are called in, in this case SWAT teams. I may very well agree they are being over used. But at the same time the use of SWAT is not totalitarian. It is an outgrowth of armed resistance to duly administered warrants. People have no right to resist a warrant.
Well the first one I ran into was about a Hawthorne guy who had 6 lawsuits with the police and a history of violent confrontations.
I see a couple other scattered incidents some of which are errors. I certainly don't see anything like policy. I have no problems asserting cops are assholes but totalitarian societies cops aren't going to need to go to elaborate lengths to shoot animals if they want to.
Sorry but no. Totalitarianism is the guy who points the gun at you. The nice guy version is something else.
Not much. That was the argument for helmet laws for motorcycles for example. And while that might be intrusive it isn't totalitarian.
The Supreme court used to do that. And when needed often tries for it. But the age bargaining in America was from 1936-`1994. Today our entire political system, including our courts, are more partisan.
Interpreted. It is rather explicit:
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
Totalitarianism is not effecting all areas of society but controlling it. And they aren't doing either. They are affecting some. Water is a public resource, provided at subsidy and regulated. Devices that drive up home usage are a regulation.
Yes. In a totalitarian system that would be the norm rather than an exception. An exception incidentally that grows more like the norm every year.
That sounds like a construction code. That's regulation not totalitarianism. The opposite of unfettered capitalism is fettered capitalism not totalitarianism.
No idea what you are talking about here.
etc.... You need to stop with the overbearing rhetoric like "shooting family". In totalitarian societies you don't need to stretch they have regulations.
What you experience in airline security is what day to day life can be like in a totalitarian state. That's the difference.
No they don't. They regulate what sort of commercial plumbing equipment can be sold. And again, mild regulation in some areas is not totalitarianism.
Lots. Totalitarian ain't a low bar. A totalitarian government that objected to soda would just ban soda you wouldn't have light regulation in a few cities.