Tell that to the people thinking they're so tough or cool because they have a tattoo (in other words, the overwhelming majority of people with tattoos).
Awww, poor boy was bullied by someone with a tattoo or something?
Seriously, quit being a prejudicial bigot. Do some people get tramp stamps or bands around their biceps because they're douchebags who think it'll make them look cool? Yes. Does that mean the person posting this question is one of them? No.
Yes, I no, shocking: some people are douchebags, and some people aren't. Wow, what a truly revolutionary thought.
Someone's taste in music, books, painting, etc doesn't require them to PERMANANTLY have it ruin their body
Err, what does that have to do with anything? It's art. It might be good art, it might be bad art, but it's are all the same. Who gives a shit what the medium is?
As a quick aside, while some people are meathead douchebags, others are pretentious douchebags. Thank you for demonstrating the latter so very well for everyone!
No one "nuked" anything. You just don't know how to browse Slashdot comments (apparently), and the solution isn't for me to waste time doing your job for you.
Simply change your comment settings so that Slashdot doesn't reparent replies to low-moderated posts, or use the Parent button to browse upward to get the context of replies.
Honestly, with a 5-digit UID, I'd think you'd know all this by now. What did you do, take over someone else's old account or something? Or, in all these years, have you really not learned the intricacies of Slashdot's comment system?
The paints have meaning to the artist. Not the canvas.
Which is, of course, why no one ever displays art in their homes or anything, unless they've made it themselves, as it has no meaning whatsoever to anyone else except for those asshole superficial artists who created it.
They don't make you look tough or interesting, just trashy.
To you.
I actually think it looks pretty nice. An abstract, pleasant-looking pattern, without going all stereotypically tribal.
As an aside, they aren't supposed to make you "look tough or interesting". They're supposed to be an outward expression of personal values through art. If you don't like that, I suggest staying away from music, books, and other artforms, as apparently that's not your thing.
Bad test. I'm far more likely to like something when I'm 40 that I liked when I was 20 than I am to like something when I'm 20 that I liked when I was 10.
They're guessing. It's just that simple. Heck, Microsoft said the same thing when they released VC-1, and guess what? They were quite wrong, which is why there's now a patent pool for VC-1.
No, I'll be *very* surprised if someone doesn't produce patents that VP8 violates. The only question is whether Google will be able to get the patent holders to contribute to a pool the way MS did with VC-1, so that Google can offer free or cheap licensing.
Let me guess, you have reading comprehension problems? Here, let me duplicate the post I was responding to, in full:
If VP8 is supposed to be free there can be no conflict surely. greedy mpegla owns odd coyrights on certain encoding rules not written code, right? So that a line of code ("Print 'hi!'") can be reused isn't really relevant is it?
Oy vay... how the heck did that get modded interesting?
Yes. VP8 is supposed to be free. And the code Google released is free. But the issues surrounding VP8 have absolutely nothing, zero, nada, to do with copyright law.
The question is: Does VP8 include technology/methods covered by patents contributed to the MPEG-LA H.264 patent pool? The fact that a huge amount of H.264-related code could be reused in their VP8 decoder strongly suggests that, at minimum, VP8 and H.264 are very similar, and that greatly increases the odds that this is the case, and that any codec implementing VP8 would violate one or more of those patents.
Ahh, I see where your numbers are from- there is still something wrong with them.
Huh? Nothing in that article indicates that there's something wrong with the new estimate. That I can see, anyway.
BP did state that's it was having problems removing the oil because of limits in transportation and burn off capabilities. By mid July, they are supposed to be able to capture or otherwise deal with 60K-80K barrels per day or better.
Yeah. All I can say is, we'll see about that. If it happens, great! But given that, on the lowest end, the current flow rate is estimated to be *seven times* BP's original estimate, I'll take their claims with a truly enormous grain of salt.
Indeed. Just ask the Japanese or those who "participated" in McCarthy's witchhunts how they felt about those "extraordinary measures" taken back in the day...
So, how're those ad hominems working out for you? I suppose, if anything, they make a good fallback position when you don't actually have anything constructive to contribute or a rational rebuttal to proffer.
Correction, they got it up to 25k of the 35-60k... so "most" is accurate (if a bit deceiving) if you accept the most conservative figure (though that still leaves 10k per day, twice their original estimate, and it's probably actually more than that).
They places a container above the broken pipe and are collecting most of the spillage
Wait... are you talking about the cap that, today, is collecting something like 15k barrels a day from an estimated 35-60k?
Because, if so, you have a *very* odd definition of "most".
Furthermore, the collection rates aren't higher because they're afraid if they attempt to catch higher volumes, the cap will blow off under the pressure. It's a physical limit on the technique they're using, and they knew that full well before they began, which is why, prior to the operation, the message changed from "we'll stop the leak" to "we'll reduce the outflow as much as we can".
It does surprise me, that we've found the technology to destroy this planet hundreds of times over with nuclear energy, but we can't plug a hole a mile underwater.
Only because you have no sense of the logistics of working a mile under water, while trying to cap something spewing out toxic sludge at enormous pressures. Space is more accessible.
Actually, as I understand it, most (maybe all) black holes spin due to momentum both already present before their collapse, and imparted during the collapse.
You are quite correct about the jets, though. Here's a classic example.
All it would take to improve things would be to create narratives which contain a rational thread and characters who are affected emotionally by the events which happen to them.
As opposed to Homer being fastened to the Stone of Victory and dragging it naked behind him, yet later showing no signs that it had ever happened?
Please.
The Simpsons is no different than any other show: 99.9999% of the time, the actions taken by the characters have absolutely no lasting consequences whatsoever. Hell, the damn characters don't even age, ffs! No one seriously feels bad about Bart as Lisa experiments on him like a pet hamster, nor expects him to be permanently psychologically damaged as a consequence. No one expects the monorail to exist after the episode has finished, or Bart to suddenly turn around and become a great kid after his disastrous experiences with shoplifting.
No, I'm sorry, I simply don't buy it, and I defy you to demonstrate how Futurama is in any way any more or less realistic than it's predecessor. Hell, unlike The Simpsons, Futurama actually has a consistent universe, where the actions in previous episodes affect the next: the multiple episodes surrounding the Giant Brain's, Fry's immunity to them and the reason for it, not to mention the ongoing connection between Fry and Leela. In that way, Futurama is a far *far* better show, as the characters actually develop a real depth (whether or not you're willing to see it).
Your problem, I think, is that you can't accept that Futurama is set in a wacky, silly futuristic universe, and so assume that the show is, at it's core, nothing but dumb gags. And if you only look at the surface, I can see how you might think that. But in reality, the Futurama universe is a clever satire of today's modern, consumer culture, dialed up to an extreme. Does that mean the characters end up in some pretty strange situations (say, the men being captured and... err... abused... by a group of giant amazonian women)? Absolutely. But it's strange with a purpose, satirical at some times, touching at others (in the case of The Sting, Leela is stung by a giant space bee, ffs... and yet the ending is wonderfully touching). And in the context of that universe, the actions, and reactions, of those characters make plenty of sense.
And no, unemployment is not a "lagging indicator", it's the only thing that matters.
That's not even remotely true.
During a recession, businesses often work to optimize their processes, eliminating jobs as a consequence. As a result, coming out of a recession, economic output could actually increase relative to pre-recession numbers due to improve efficiency, despite unemployment remaining high.
That's not to say unemployment mustn't be addressed. After all, ultimately we have a consumption-driven economy, and every person un- or under-employed is unable to participate in the economy. But it's hardly the "only thing that matters".
Registering a patent does not imply how you will license it. You can patent an invention and then grant everyone a non-exclusive right to use it.
It is also the safest, most convenient way to keep a patent troll from stealing it...
If either of those is your goal, just publish it in a "notable" source (eg, an industry journal, etc). Public disclosure is sufficient to ensure the invention is never patented by someone else.
Slashdot Mirror
Tell that to the people thinking they're so tough or cool because they have a tattoo (in other words, the overwhelming majority of people with tattoos).
Awww, poor boy was bullied by someone with a tattoo or something?
Seriously, quit being a prejudicial bigot. Do some people get tramp stamps or bands around their biceps because they're douchebags who think it'll make them look cool? Yes. Does that mean the person posting this question is one of them? No.
Yes, I no, shocking: some people are douchebags, and some people aren't. Wow, what a truly revolutionary thought.
Someone's taste in music, books, painting, etc doesn't require them to PERMANANTLY have it ruin their body
Err, what does that have to do with anything? It's art. It might be good art, it might be bad art, but it's are all the same. Who gives a shit what the medium is?
As a quick aside, while some people are meathead douchebags, others are pretentious douchebags. Thank you for demonstrating the latter so very well for everyone!
No one "nuked" anything. You just don't know how to browse Slashdot comments (apparently), and the solution isn't for me to waste time doing your job for you.
Simply change your comment settings so that Slashdot doesn't reparent replies to low-moderated posts, or use the Parent button to browse upward to get the context of replies.
Honestly, with a 5-digit UID, I'd think you'd know all this by now. What did you do, take over someone else's old account or something? Or, in all these years, have you really not learned the intricacies of Slashdot's comment system?
Because I'm sure the games you like to play are *far* deeper.
On the bright side, technology today gives snobs the opportunity to bitch to the world about the use of said technology...
Ah, I see, so because you don't appreciate the art or it's medium, it's stupid.
Right.
Very insightful.
The paints have meaning to the artist. Not the canvas.
Which is, of course, why no one ever displays art in their homes or anything, unless they've made it themselves, as it has no meaning whatsoever to anyone else except for those asshole superficial artists who created it.
and most of all they are superficial. AKA they are for looks only.
Yeah! Like paintings and shit. Fucking Monet, DaVinci, etc. Superficial assholes, all.
They don't make you look tough or interesting, just trashy.
To you.
I actually think it looks pretty nice. An abstract, pleasant-looking pattern, without going all stereotypically tribal.
As an aside, they aren't supposed to make you "look tough or interesting". They're supposed to be an outward expression of personal values through art. If you don't like that, I suggest staying away from music, books, and other artforms, as apparently that's not your thing.
I think my cock is awesome but I don't show up for a job interview in crotchless chaps.
Best. Analogy. Ever.
Bad test. I'm far more likely to like something when I'm 40 that I liked when I was 20 than I am to like something when I'm 20 that I liked when I was 10.
They're guessing. It's just that simple. Heck, Microsoft said the same thing when they released VC-1, and guess what? They were quite wrong, which is why there's now a patent pool for VC-1.
No, I'll be *very* surprised if someone doesn't produce patents that VP8 violates. The only question is whether Google will be able to get the patent holders to contribute to a pool the way MS did with VC-1, so that Google can offer free or cheap licensing.
Let me guess, you have reading comprehension problems? Here, let me duplicate the post I was responding to, in full:
Emphasis is obviously mine.
Oy vay... how the heck did that get modded interesting?
Yes. VP8 is supposed to be free. And the code Google released is free. But the issues surrounding VP8 have absolutely nothing, zero, nada, to do with copyright law.
The question is: Does VP8 include technology/methods covered by patents contributed to the MPEG-LA H.264 patent pool? The fact that a huge amount of H.264-related code could be reused in their VP8 decoder strongly suggests that, at minimum, VP8 and H.264 are very similar, and that greatly increases the odds that this is the case, and that any codec implementing VP8 would violate one or more of those patents.
That's bad.
Ahh, I see where your numbers are from- there is still something wrong with them.
Huh? Nothing in that article indicates that there's something wrong with the new estimate. That I can see, anyway.
BP did state that's it was having problems removing the oil because of limits in transportation and burn off capabilities. By mid July, they are supposed to be able to capture or otherwise deal with 60K-80K barrels per day or better.
Yeah. All I can say is, we'll see about that. If it happens, great! But given that, on the lowest end, the current flow rate is estimated to be *seven times* BP's original estimate, I'll take their claims with a truly enormous grain of salt.
That estimate is out of date.
Sometimes extraordinary measures are called for,
Indeed. Just ask the Japanese or those who "participated" in McCarthy's witchhunts how they felt about those "extraordinary measures" taken back in the day...
So, how're those ad hominems working out for you? I suppose, if anything, they make a good fallback position when you don't actually have anything constructive to contribute or a rational rebuttal to proffer.
Correction, they got it up to 25k of the 35-60k... so "most" is accurate (if a bit deceiving) if you accept the most conservative figure (though that still leaves 10k per day, twice their original estimate, and it's probably actually more than that).
They places a container above the broken pipe and are collecting most of the spillage
Wait... are you talking about the cap that, today, is collecting something like 15k barrels a day from an estimated 35-60k?
Because, if so, you have a *very* odd definition of "most".
Furthermore, the collection rates aren't higher because they're afraid if they attempt to catch higher volumes, the cap will blow off under the pressure. It's a physical limit on the technique they're using, and they knew that full well before they began, which is why, prior to the operation, the message changed from "we'll stop the leak" to "we'll reduce the outflow as much as we can".
And quit watching Fox. Seriously.
It does surprise me, that we've found the technology to destroy this planet hundreds of times over with nuclear energy, but we can't plug a hole a mile underwater.
Only because you have no sense of the logistics of working a mile under water, while trying to cap something spewing out toxic sludge at enormous pressures. Space is more accessible.
Actually, as I understand it, most (maybe all) black holes spin due to momentum both already present before their collapse, and imparted during the collapse.
You are quite correct about the jets, though. Here's a classic example.
Sounds like a broken-window fallacy to me. You would, apparently, prefer lower efficiency in order to increase employment.
I presume you feel very badly for the poor horse drawn carriage drivers, too?
All it would take to improve things would be to create narratives which contain a rational thread and characters who are affected emotionally by the events which happen to them.
As opposed to Homer being fastened to the Stone of Victory and dragging it naked behind him, yet later showing no signs that it had ever happened?
Please.
The Simpsons is no different than any other show: 99.9999% of the time, the actions taken by the characters have absolutely no lasting consequences whatsoever. Hell, the damn characters don't even age, ffs! No one seriously feels bad about Bart as Lisa experiments on him like a pet hamster, nor expects him to be permanently psychologically damaged as a consequence. No one expects the monorail to exist after the episode has finished, or Bart to suddenly turn around and become a great kid after his disastrous experiences with shoplifting.
No, I'm sorry, I simply don't buy it, and I defy you to demonstrate how Futurama is in any way any more or less realistic than it's predecessor. Hell, unlike The Simpsons, Futurama actually has a consistent universe, where the actions in previous episodes affect the next: the multiple episodes surrounding the Giant Brain's, Fry's immunity to them and the reason for it, not to mention the ongoing connection between Fry and Leela. In that way, Futurama is a far *far* better show, as the characters actually develop a real depth (whether or not you're willing to see it).
Your problem, I think, is that you can't accept that Futurama is set in a wacky, silly futuristic universe, and so assume that the show is, at it's core, nothing but dumb gags. And if you only look at the surface, I can see how you might think that. But in reality, the Futurama universe is a clever satire of today's modern, consumer culture, dialed up to an extreme. Does that mean the characters end up in some pretty strange situations (say, the men being captured and... err... abused... by a group of giant amazonian women)? Absolutely. But it's strange with a purpose, satirical at some times, touching at others (in the case of The Sting, Leela is stung by a giant space bee, ffs... and yet the ending is wonderfully touching). And in the context of that universe, the actions, and reactions, of those characters make plenty of sense.
And no, unemployment is not a "lagging indicator", it's the only thing that matters.
That's not even remotely true.
During a recession, businesses often work to optimize their processes, eliminating jobs as a consequence. As a result, coming out of a recession, economic output could actually increase relative to pre-recession numbers due to improve efficiency, despite unemployment remaining high.
That's not to say unemployment mustn't be addressed. After all, ultimately we have a consumption-driven economy, and every person un- or under-employed is unable to participate in the economy. But it's hardly the "only thing that matters".
Registering a patent does not imply how you will license it. You can patent an invention and then grant everyone a non-exclusive right to use it.
It is also the safest, most convenient way to keep a patent troll from stealing it...
If either of those is your goal, just publish it in a "notable" source (eg, an industry journal, etc). Public disclosure is sufficient to ensure the invention is never patented by someone else.