And by shooting into the air the resulting death would be accidental. Punishable through the laws of negligence, but not at all through a targeted law like assault which is what you were proposing.
I know. The summary is using the English correctly. By using the non-definitive article "a" instead of the definitive article "the" the summary does not imply that OpenColorIO is the only tool used.
The English lesson was to help you interpret what was said, and point out why you may have been confused enough to post about it.
Only if you continue doing astronomy the way you do. Why should a satellite ruin your image? Take 3x 10min shots, or better still 3x30min shots and set your rejection algorithms when you stack to remove the satellite completely.
If you can track a comet and have the resulting stacking algorithm produce an image completely without stars in the background then a satellite won't be much of a problem.
As others have indicated, we don't know how the device was supposed to work.
Of course we do. We can see it's construction. It was an high powered omni directional transmission tower. Based on how much of it he built there's only a few variables that are still in play, all of them obeying laws of physics which have been characterised since and would have meant the tower he build would not have worked beyond a very short distance.
Lasers are coherent and tightly focused beams of light. The Wardenclyffe Tower was an omni-directional transmitter. Both continue to obey the inverse square law. The existence of lasers in no way counter the GP's point that Tesla's tower could not possibly work.
Not directly. But they sure as hell have a bearing on the quality of education your child receives.
Right now you would have to have failed school to decide to become a teacher in a *USA public* school. It's a thankless shit job with horrible pay, crap benefits, long hours, and a bureaucratic overhead that rivals that of the UK government.
No. That's the premise by people who don't understand the mechanism. The experiment relies on condensing of water vapour not freezing the water. When you boil water and then attempt to atomize it (you may notice people are always trying to spread out the water when they throw it) readily turns into vapour. Cold water doesn't do the same and while you get a bit of the effect it's orders of magnitude less spectacular.
If you want to see water turn to powder, why not just use room temperature water?
Physics. The temperature difference is what causes visible vapour. The same trick done with boiling water is orders of magnitude more impressive than room temperature water.
These people are learning something about physics, and are learning by doing. I'd rather they vote than the vast majority of "This is how you live your life" taught people out there.
at this point, this can't be argued to be an accident
Justify this statement. An activity was conducted like it had been done 100s of times before with a clear expected and safe outcome. The expected outcome didn't occur. I'll now leave it to you to tell everyone *why* this can't be argued as an accident. Then I will proceed to argue with you.
Are you of Eastern European / Russian background? As *a* group those English as *a* Second Language people are often confused by *the* use of articles in *the* English language. For everyone else *the* article is very important, especially when talking about *the* difference between "a" and "the".
Aside from violating my dignity as an individual who can make my own choices, the sheer volume of advertising guarantees that I will block them out
Wait what? I thought you're not able to make your own choice?
For example a few Google searches for the price of an object is far more likely to mean that I have made a purchase of one than it is that I will be highly motivated to make new purchases daily for the following six months.
That depends on what you are buying and how much effort you're putting in. The algorithm is incredibly dumb but if you're looking up the price of something and buying now it means it fails for you, it doesn't stand to reason that it fails for others. Many such algorithms rely on the fact that: a) the customer is still researching and didn't buy something on the first moment they searched for the price b) the customer bought something that is likely to gain further sales. e.g. Buying a new Camera, let's advertise more camera related companies to said customer, they may accessorize.
That comment is just dumb especially since not all adverts fall into those three categories, and also because not all three of those categories are morally wrong. "Prey", "Exploit", "Promise". One of those are not like the other, and if said promise is broken a company ends up in a nice legal problem.
You find them or they find you by word of mouth, or you see it on your own, or.... you just know about it through some inexplicable mechanism.
For this mechanism to work the product on service in question needs to widely publicly distributed or easily visible. Congratulations your suggestion just killed 100% of small companies on the internet, and likely will sink many brick and mortar startups as well.
Yours and the GP's descriptions aren't mutually exclusive. The goal is always to sell *your* product. If that is at the expense of the competition then so be it. Being in the position to actually *want* to buy said product makes the advertising hugely more likely to succeed.
e.g. Marketers can pump information about Tylenol towards me all they won't. It still won't make me want to buy their product. On the flip side Facebook spamming me with suggested posts about "this company just reinvented how to control a DSLR"... well aside from being incredibly resistant to bullshit like that, I'm at least in a position where in my life buying a DSLR accessory makes sense.
Now that IE is officially not fit for use on the public web, the question is how do we get people to stop using it?
Attrition. Internet Explorer's market share hasn't gone up once in the past 10 years. Even companies are moving away from that, often forced by their vendors to do so.
We need a really popular website to not support IE to make the phaseout happen.
NO!!! WE ABSOLUTELY DO NOT! Absolutely none of these problems should ever be solved by forcing some selective non-standard behaviour on the internet. We're only just recovering from the last time this shit happened. Absolutely no non-standard action should be taken. IE will die a natural death as it is no longer being developed while standards continue to evolve.
That's a line from a few years ago. South Korea definitely relied on ActiveX but if you search for articles about it you'll find they are all dated either early this decade or late last decade. Anything more recently will net you stories like this:
In terms of ActiveX deployment South Korea are truly number 1, there's no arguing that. But it's no where near as bad as it was in the past. The government has already depreciated the use of Active X for citizen authentication, and many banks have already moved away too.
Nothing new. Microsoft also spent a long time getting everyone to use Office Professional, and now it's actively trying to migrate people to Office 365. Microsoft's biggest competitor has since the 90s always been itself.
<meta name="licensed-summary" content="The cow jumped over the moon">
That sounds suspiciously like asking for money for content that is available under fair use. There's no easy technical solution to this precisely because the media companies don't have the law on their side. Or at least they didn't.
Slashdot Mirror
And by shooting into the air the resulting death would be accidental. Punishable through the laws of negligence, but not at all through a targeted law like assault which is what you were proposing.
I know. The summary is using the English correctly. By using the non-definitive article "a" instead of the definitive article "the" the summary does not imply that OpenColorIO is the only tool used.
The English lesson was to help you interpret what was said, and point out why you may have been confused enough to post about it.
Only if you continue doing astronomy the way you do. Why should a satellite ruin your image? Take 3x 10min shots, or better still 3x30min shots and set your rejection algorithms when you stack to remove the satellite completely.
If you can track a comet and have the resulting stacking algorithm produce an image completely without stars in the background then a satellite won't be much of a problem.
As others have indicated, we don't know how the device was supposed to work.
Of course we do. We can see it's construction. It was an high powered omni directional transmission tower. Based on how much of it he built there's only a few variables that are still in play, all of them obeying laws of physics which have been characterised since and would have meant the tower he build would not have worked beyond a very short distance.
People freak out about a few mW of RF being pushed though cell phones.
They are going to freak out when they find out their local TV transmitter puts out 7 orders of magnitude more power
Lasers are coherent and tightly focused beams of light. The Wardenclyffe Tower was an omni-directional transmitter. Both continue to obey the inverse square law. The existence of lasers in no way counter the GP's point that Tesla's tower could not possibly work.
I said it before and I'll say it again, dictators only pretend to play fair.
I'm struggling with this entire post. Replace Huawei with Cisco and China with the USA and your post still makes perfect sense.
I'm confused. I live somewhere where all of those are taxed, those which have a more negative impact are taxed harder than others.
Are you saying your government is not controlling the handles it has on policy?
Pensions don't teach children.
Not directly. But they sure as hell have a bearing on the quality of education your child receives.
Right now you would have to have failed school to decide to become a teacher in a *USA public* school. It's a thankless shit job with horrible pay, crap benefits, long hours, and a bureaucratic overhead that rivals that of the UK government.
You're 100% correct. Fortunately none of our drugs contain Mercury, not in chemical form not in planet form.
Read a book.
Vaccines are not 100% risk free.
Neither is you sitting here posting this.
No. That's the premise by people who don't understand the mechanism. The experiment relies on condensing of water vapour not freezing the water. When you boil water and then attempt to atomize it (you may notice people are always trying to spread out the water when they throw it) readily turns into vapour. Cold water doesn't do the same and while you get a bit of the effect it's orders of magnitude less spectacular.
If you want to see water turn to powder, why not just use room temperature water?
Physics. The temperature difference is what causes visible vapour. The same trick done with boiling water is orders of magnitude more impressive than room temperature water.
These people are learning something about physics, and are learning by doing. I'd rather they vote than the vast majority of "This is how you live your life" taught people out there.
at this point, this can't be argued to be an accident
Justify this statement. An activity was conducted like it had been done 100s of times before with a clear expected and safe outcome. The expected outcome didn't occur. I'll now leave it to you to tell everyone *why* this can't be argued as an accident. Then I will proceed to argue with you.
contributed a software tool
Are you of Eastern European / Russian background? As *a* group those English as *a* Second Language people are often confused by *the* use of articles in *the* English language. For everyone else *the* article is very important, especially when talking about *the* difference between "a" and "the".
For something more relevant, here's a movie site still up from 1996: https://www.spacejam.com/archi...
This. People forget the advertisements in the early days of the internet consisted of mostly girls and penis enlarging drugs.
Aside from violating my dignity as an individual who can make my own choices, the sheer volume of advertising guarantees that I will block them out
Wait what? I thought you're not able to make your own choice?
For example a few Google searches for the price of an object is far more likely to mean that I have made a purchase of one than it is that I will be highly motivated to make new purchases daily for the following six months.
That depends on what you are buying and how much effort you're putting in. The algorithm is incredibly dumb but if you're looking up the price of something and buying now it means it fails for you, it doesn't stand to reason that it fails for others. Many such algorithms rely on the fact that:
a) the customer is still researching and didn't buy something on the first moment they searched for the price
b) the customer bought something that is likely to gain further sales. e.g. Buying a new Camera, let's advertise more camera related companies to said customer, they may accessorize.
That comment is just dumb especially since not all adverts fall into those three categories, and also because not all three of those categories are morally wrong. "Prey", "Exploit", "Promise". One of those are not like the other, and if said promise is broken a company ends up in a nice legal problem.
You find them or they find you by word of mouth, or you see it on your own, or.... you just know about it through some inexplicable mechanism.
For this mechanism to work the product on service in question needs to widely publicly distributed or easily visible. Congratulations your suggestion just killed 100% of small companies on the internet, and likely will sink many brick and mortar startups as well.
Yours and the GP's descriptions aren't mutually exclusive. The goal is always to sell *your* product. If that is at the expense of the competition then so be it. Being in the position to actually *want* to buy said product makes the advertising hugely more likely to succeed.
e.g. Marketers can pump information about Tylenol towards me all they won't. It still won't make me want to buy their product. On the flip side Facebook spamming me with suggested posts about "this company just reinvented how to control a DSLR" ... well aside from being incredibly resistant to bullshit like that, I'm at least in a position where in my life buying a DSLR accessory makes sense.
Now that IE is officially not fit for use on the public web, the question is how do we get people to stop using it?
Attrition. Internet Explorer's market share hasn't gone up once in the past 10 years. Even companies are moving away from that, often forced by their vendors to do so.
We need a really popular website to not support IE to make the phaseout happen.
NO!!! WE ABSOLUTELY DO NOT! Absolutely none of these problems should ever be solved by forcing some selective non-standard behaviour on the internet. We're only just recovering from the last time this shit happened. Absolutely no non-standard action should be taken. IE will die a natural death as it is no longer being developed while standards continue to evolve.
The problem will solve itself, give it time.
That's a line from a few years ago. South Korea definitely relied on ActiveX but if you search for articles about it you'll find they are all dated either early this decade or late last decade. Anything more recently will net you stories like this:
https://www.zdnet.com/article/...
We also covered this shift on Slashdot: https://tech.slashdot.org/stor...
In terms of ActiveX deployment South Korea are truly number 1, there's no arguing that. But it's no where near as bad as it was in the past. The government has already depreciated the use of Active X for citizen authentication, and many banks have already moved away too.
Nothing new. Microsoft also spent a long time getting everyone to use Office Professional, and now it's actively trying to migrate people to Office 365. Microsoft's biggest competitor has since the 90s always been itself.
<meta name="licensed-summary" content="The cow jumped over the moon">
That sounds suspiciously like asking for money for content that is available under fair use. There's no easy technical solution to this precisely because the media companies don't have the law on their side. Or at least they didn't.