The CEO was on some CNBC special and pretty much said if there's something you don't want people to know about, you shouldn't be doing it online.
Umm. As a general principle, he's absolutely fucking right. Are you saying he's not? Do you post private information online with the expectation that remains private? And if so, are you an idiot, or just incredibly naive?
WTF... there was a time when people didn't want to move to LCD because of motion blur issues, problems that CRTs, a phosphor-based technology, didn't have. Now you're saying the exact opposite is the case? *boggle*
That's bullshit. Subsidies or not, corn would still be a huge cash crop. In fact, in the absence of subsidies, GMO corn would be *more* likely to be developed, as the higher yields mean more income for the farmer.
Sorry, you're just dodging the question. Probably because the real answer (government regulation is necessary to protect consumers from opportunistic businesses) doesn't fit with your libertarian worldview.
A government is geographically limited. A big business can set up wherever it wants and, if sufficiently powerful, have its rules supersede the local laws. In many places in the world, corporations are more overtly powerful than governments.
Well, then it's a good thing capitalism == good, while government == bad! W00t! *high-fives*
Uh, they already said there were business considerations. Specifically, their systems, along with those of quite a few other large companies, were hacked in order to gain information about Chinese dissidents.
and thus a big disappointment, compared to Roddenbery's original vision
Yes, because The Wrath of Khan, the movie generally considered the best of the originals, was so very intelligent. Or maybe you mean TOS episodes like Arena, The Corbomite Maneuver, Balance of Terror, or countless other classic episodes that, fundamentally, were nothing more than Kirk going mano-e-mano against some random alien?
Honestly, the rose-coloured view some people have of Trek is truly hilarious. TOS was, literally, marketed as a Western in space, and save for a few standout episodes (The City on the Edge of Forever being the most notable), it did just that. In fact, it wasn't until TNG, when the show was finally wrested from Roddenberry's hands, that it actually got genuinely thought-provoking (Gene's vision was *far* too utopian to be interesting, which is why most of the stories in TOS center around crazy aliens, as opposed to real human drama).
True, the cost to bring a single drug to market is far less. Now all you have to do is go back ten years to the benchtop chemist and tell him or her which one of the 500 structures they are working on is that one so they can ignore all the rest.
Uhuh. And what's your point, exactly? You see, mine is that, despite what the libertarian slashbots here would have to believe, the overhead created by government regulation to bring a drug to market is not, in fact, 1 to 1.7B, as the OP would have us believe.
Is the cost of drug *research* high? Of course, just as it is in any cutting-edge research area. The simple fact is that any company involved in such an endeavour is fundamentally gambling, risking millions if not billions of dollars with the expectation that the rewards will far exceed those expenditures. But once a promising compound has been found, the cost to actually run that compound through trials and bring it to market is *far* less than the aggregate cost of R&D.
Those figures are roughly correct. They are computed by dividing the research expenditure of a company by the number of new drugs going to market in a specific time-frame.
Oh please, that's a bullshit calculation. That doesn't represent the cost of taking any one drug to market. The represents the cost of putting drugs through trials plus the cost of wasted research into dead-end areas plus all the organizational overhead of those research units plus god knows what else.
(Okay, that's Asperger's Syndrome; but I think that's within the scope of this discussion)
Uh, no, it's probably not.
When people talk about searching for cures for autism, they aren't typically talking about Asperger's. They mean actual, severe autism. You know, the kind where the individual is virtually non-functional.
As an aside, I don't suppose you're a self-styled Asperger's sufferer, are you? Because around here, the slashbots seem to think it's kinda cool to blame all their social problems on Asperger's (probably because the follow-up assumption is that, along with having an excuse for being socially awkward, they can also be comforted by the fact that they must obviously be brilliant, too). Hell, it's the new ADD among the Slashdot crowd, as far as I'm concerned.
Oh, sure, in high-end hardware. But for consumer-grade gear? Sorry, no, the dot pitch required on the display is just way too high (hell, consumer-level HD just hit a reasonable price point, and now you want to double the pixel density?).
My home IPv6 is through a 6to4 tunnel. But the tunnel end point is only one hop away and can easily give me full bandwidth (I am on a 500 Mbit/s symmetric fiber).
LOLFR! If you think you are even *remotely* representative of the average household broadband user, trust me, you're *horribly* wrong. Hilariously, horribly wrong.
Honestly, now I understand why some people think ipv6 actually has a chance of getting deployed before the IP crunch hits: Those same people are, apparently, living in a completely different world than the rest of us.:)
By the way, there is already some limited bittorrent traffic going on IPv6. I am apparently not the only one around with connectivity.
However, I still think shutter glasses are the best for PCs simply because the addition of the Zscreen will result in a decrease of contrast and brightness.
But that's trivially compensated for by altering the settings on the TV (something is already gonna have to kick the ZScreen in, so that same thing to arrange to have the TV's settings modified). And the passive glasses have obvious advantages in cost and convenience that, I think will win out with consumers.
However high refresh rate LCDs with active shutter glasses are probably the best tech for PCs.
Actually, Samsung has already licensed RealD for use in it's TVs. That system (which is the one used in theatres) makes use of a high refresh rate display and a switching circularly polarized overlay called a ZScreen.
The only question is how cheap can you make the ZScreen. Unfortunately, I can't find any information about the technology that makes it go.
Not with two differently polarized projectors projecting on the same surface, and two differently polarized glasses filtering them for your eyes.
Except that's not how RealD works. RealD uses a single projector and a switching polarizer called a ZScreen, with the pair running at 144hz, where each frame is triple-flashed to reduce flicker (each eye gets a 72hz signal that way, though the film still plays back at 24 fps).
My guess is that LCD screens will just have every second row polarized differently. Or even some trick with half-transparency to use the same row.
Bad guess.:) The TVs currently in the works will either use the exact same scheme as RealD (144hz frame rate, switching polarized overlay) or a shudder glasses system. But there is *no* system for home use being proposed that doesn't rely on high rate left-right frame alternation of some form or another.
Re:My brain/eyes are incompatible with 3D TV/movie
on
Hot Or Not — 3D TV
·
· Score: 1
OOC, have you tried having your good eye patched? Recent studies have shown that, presuming the eye in question functions properly, then patching can reverse the condition even in adults (this is something I plan to look in to: I have refractive amblyopia, so a contact lens for the eye, plus patching, might very well resolve the condition).
As an aside, I also have very good depth perception (I used to be a fairly capable basketball player, and have juggled for over ten years), which just goes to show that basic stereoscopy is but a fraction of the process used to judge depth in the human mind.
You mean like, say, tunneling IPv6 over IPv4? Why? You still end up having to do a mass migration of users and applications to the new stack, so you might as well just stick v6 right on top of the link layer and be done with it.
I'm not following how we'll run out. IP addresses are sort of like gold; they never get consumed, just used for a while, then perhaps sold to someone else. Even if the current allocator of IP addresses runs empty, there will still be the owners of the 4.3 billion addresses out there.
So, my clever friend, how do you propose those IP addresses get routed once this market opens up? And are you going to do the honours of running around replacing all the routers that can no longer handle the routing tables?
And the next day uTorrent-IPv6 gets released (honestly, it may already support IPv6).
Yup, it very well might. Except, again, most people don't even know what IPv6 is, so no one will care.
But, hey, let's say a few people care. Problem the first: The number of IPv6-connected torrent users is a miniscule fraction of the total users out there. As such, using IPv6 limits your choice of peers substantially, killing performance. Problem the second: If you adopt IPv6 today, that means a tunnel broker, and that means your bandwidth will be limited by your connection to the tunnel broker. So if the limited peer count doesn't kill you, the limited pipe to the tunnel broker almost certainly will.
It's simple: The migration to IPv6 requires 1) intelligent customers who understand what IPv6 is and what it potentially offers, 2) a sufficient userbase to make the migration worthwhile to those smart enough to understand what IPv6 is, and 3) ISPs willing to do it against their own best interests. But none of those things exist.
Well, you could always run meredo, which implements the teredo protocol. But then you'd be punching a hole in your corporation's firewall, and I doubt they'll be terribly happy about that...
Because Google is gonna leverage their "monopoly" in search to... uh... what, exactly? Buy energy?
By that same token, one would expect these governments to go after Walmart for forcing down prices on the supply-side of the chain. And yet they don't. Why? Because using your power to gain better business deals is perfectly legal.
They can still use IPv4 HTTP / SMTP / whatever, but they won't be able to host anything or run peer-to-peer IPv4 services, which should provide a lot of incentive for them to start using IPv6 (which will Just Work if both ends have v6 connectivity) for as much as possible.
Wait, what? I can only assume the "them" in "incentive for them" must refer to the customer, because it certainly doesn't apply to the ISPs. What you just described is a great reason for ISPs to *not* provide IPv4. I can see it now: "Sorry Mr. Jones, but we can't re-enable bittorrent. You see, the worldwide shortage in IP addresses means that we must NAT you computer, and I'm afraid that breaks bittorrent. There's simply nothing we can do!" Meanwhile, the company stop blowing money to upgrade their backhaul network as total utilization suddenly plummets, while simultaneously thanking the lord above that the average customer is too uneducated to know what IPv6 is.
Congratulations, you got to show off your uber-geekiness by bringing up a bunch of esoteric examples that the article missed. Gold star for you. Now, do you have anything to say regarding the actual *points* in the article?
Cubicles? Buh? You mean, it's normal for the change areas in the pools you frequent for there to be private change cubicles? Or did I misunderstand something here?
Someone should write some software that can be put on a router that would offer the same protection without also causing all the problems that come with NAT. It would be like this large barrier that burns up any unauthorized data that tries to get by.
Yeah yeah! You mean like that, you know, wall-thing they put in cars between the passengers and the engine compartment in a car. You know, the thing that's meant to stop people from being burned by some sort of, like, fire or something? Man, what a great idea!
Slashdot Mirror
The CEO was on some CNBC special and pretty much said if there's something you don't want people to know about, you shouldn't be doing it online.
Umm. As a general principle, he's absolutely fucking right. Are you saying he's not? Do you post private information online with the expectation that remains private? And if so, are you an idiot, or just incredibly naive?
WTF... there was a time when people didn't want to move to LCD because of motion blur issues, problems that CRTs, a phosphor-based technology, didn't have. Now you're saying the exact opposite is the case? *boggle*
That's bullshit. Subsidies or not, corn would still be a huge cash crop. In fact, in the absence of subsidies, GMO corn would be *more* likely to be developed, as the higher yields mean more income for the farmer.
Sorry, you're just dodging the question. Probably because the real answer (government regulation is necessary to protect consumers from opportunistic businesses) doesn't fit with your libertarian worldview.
A government is geographically limited. A big business can set up wherever it wants and, if sufficiently powerful, have its rules supersede the local laws. In many places in the world, corporations are more overtly powerful than governments.
Well, then it's a good thing capitalism == good, while government == bad! W00t! *high-fives*
Uh, they already said there were business considerations. Specifically, their systems, along with those of quite a few other large companies, were hacked in order to gain information about Chinese dissidents.
and thus a big disappointment, compared to Roddenbery's original vision
Yes, because The Wrath of Khan, the movie generally considered the best of the originals, was so very intelligent. Or maybe you mean TOS episodes like Arena, The Corbomite Maneuver, Balance of Terror, or countless other classic episodes that, fundamentally, were nothing more than Kirk going mano-e-mano against some random alien?
Honestly, the rose-coloured view some people have of Trek is truly hilarious. TOS was, literally, marketed as a Western in space, and save for a few standout episodes (The City on the Edge of Forever being the most notable), it did just that. In fact, it wasn't until TNG, when the show was finally wrested from Roddenberry's hands, that it actually got genuinely thought-provoking (Gene's vision was *far* too utopian to be interesting, which is why most of the stories in TOS center around crazy aliens, as opposed to real human drama).
Uh, no. If you think ADD is the same as Asperger's, you are, in all likelihood, unfamiliar with both.
True, the cost to bring a single drug to market is far less. Now all you have to do is go back ten years to the benchtop chemist and tell him or her which one of the 500 structures they are working on is that one so they can ignore all the rest.
Uhuh. And what's your point, exactly? You see, mine is that, despite what the libertarian slashbots here would have to believe, the overhead created by government regulation to bring a drug to market is not, in fact, 1 to 1.7B, as the OP would have us believe.
Is the cost of drug *research* high? Of course, just as it is in any cutting-edge research area. The simple fact is that any company involved in such an endeavour is fundamentally gambling, risking millions if not billions of dollars with the expectation that the rewards will far exceed those expenditures. But once a promising compound has been found, the cost to actually run that compound through trials and bring it to market is *far* less than the aggregate cost of R&D.
Those figures are roughly correct. They are computed by dividing the research expenditure of a company by the number of new drugs going to market in a specific time-frame.
Oh please, that's a bullshit calculation. That doesn't represent the cost of taking any one drug to market. The represents the cost of putting drugs through trials plus the cost of wasted research into dead-end areas plus all the organizational overhead of those research units plus god knows what else.
(Okay, that's Asperger's Syndrome; but I think that's within the scope of this discussion)
Uh, no, it's probably not.
When people talk about searching for cures for autism, they aren't typically talking about Asperger's. They mean actual, severe autism. You know, the kind where the individual is virtually non-functional.
As an aside, I don't suppose you're a self-styled Asperger's sufferer, are you? Because around here, the slashbots seem to think it's kinda cool to blame all their social problems on Asperger's (probably because the follow-up assumption is that, along with having an excuse for being socially awkward, they can also be comforted by the fact that they must obviously be brilliant, too). Hell, it's the new ADD among the Slashdot crowd, as far as I'm concerned.
Oh, sure, in high-end hardware. But for consumer-grade gear? Sorry, no, the dot pitch required on the display is just way too high (hell, consumer-level HD just hit a reasonable price point, and now you want to double the pixel density?).
My home IPv6 is through a 6to4 tunnel. But the tunnel end point is only one hop away and can easily give me full bandwidth (I am on a 500 Mbit/s symmetric fiber).
LOLFR! If you think you are even *remotely* representative of the average household broadband user, trust me, you're *horribly* wrong. Hilariously, horribly wrong.
Honestly, now I understand why some people think ipv6 actually has a chance of getting deployed before the IP crunch hits: Those same people are, apparently, living in a completely different world than the rest of us. :)
By the way, there is already some limited bittorrent traffic going on IPv6. I am apparently not the only one around with connectivity.
Yes, exactly. Limited. That's my entire point.
However, I still think shutter glasses are the best for PCs simply because the addition of the Zscreen will result in a decrease of contrast and brightness.
But that's trivially compensated for by altering the settings on the TV (something is already gonna have to kick the ZScreen in, so that same thing to arrange to have the TV's settings modified). And the passive glasses have obvious advantages in cost and convenience that, I think will win out with consumers.
However high refresh rate LCDs with active shutter glasses are probably the best tech for PCs.
Actually, Samsung has already licensed RealD for use in it's TVs. That system (which is the one used in theatres) makes use of a high refresh rate display and a switching circularly polarized overlay called a ZScreen.
The only question is how cheap can you make the ZScreen. Unfortunately, I can't find any information about the technology that makes it go.
Not with two differently polarized projectors projecting on the same surface, and two differently polarized glasses filtering them for your eyes.
Except that's not how RealD works. RealD uses a single projector and a switching polarizer called a ZScreen, with the pair running at 144hz, where each frame is triple-flashed to reduce flicker (each eye gets a 72hz signal that way, though the film still plays back at 24 fps).
My guess is that LCD screens will just have every second row polarized differently. Or even some trick with half-transparency to use the same row.
Bad guess. :) The TVs currently in the works will either use the exact same scheme as RealD (144hz frame rate, switching polarized overlay) or a shudder glasses system. But there is *no* system for home use being proposed that doesn't rely on high rate left-right frame alternation of some form or another.
OOC, have you tried having your good eye patched? Recent studies have shown that, presuming the eye in question functions properly, then patching can reverse the condition even in adults (this is something I plan to look in to: I have refractive amblyopia, so a contact lens for the eye, plus patching, might very well resolve the condition).
As an aside, I also have very good depth perception (I used to be a fairly capable basketball player, and have juggled for over ten years), which just goes to show that basic stereoscopy is but a fraction of the process used to judge depth in the human mind.
You mean like, say, tunneling IPv6 over IPv4? Why? You still end up having to do a mass migration of users and applications to the new stack, so you might as well just stick v6 right on top of the link layer and be done with it.
I'm not following how we'll run out. IP addresses are sort of like gold; they never get consumed, just used for a while, then perhaps sold to someone else. Even if the current allocator of IP addresses runs empty, there will still be the owners of the 4.3 billion addresses out there.
So, my clever friend, how do you propose those IP addresses get routed once this market opens up? And are you going to do the honours of running around replacing all the routers that can no longer handle the routing tables?
And the next day uTorrent-IPv6 gets released (honestly, it may already support IPv6).
Yup, it very well might. Except, again, most people don't even know what IPv6 is, so no one will care.
But, hey, let's say a few people care. Problem the first: The number of IPv6-connected torrent users is a miniscule fraction of the total users out there. As such, using IPv6 limits your choice of peers substantially, killing performance. Problem the second: If you adopt IPv6 today, that means a tunnel broker, and that means your bandwidth will be limited by your connection to the tunnel broker. So if the limited peer count doesn't kill you, the limited pipe to the tunnel broker almost certainly will.
It's simple: The migration to IPv6 requires 1) intelligent customers who understand what IPv6 is and what it potentially offers, 2) a sufficient userbase to make the migration worthwhile to those smart enough to understand what IPv6 is, and 3) ISPs willing to do it against their own best interests. But none of those things exist.
Well, you could always run meredo, which implements the teredo protocol. But then you'd be punching a hole in your corporation's firewall, and I doubt they'll be terribly happy about that...
Because Google is gonna leverage their "monopoly" in search to... uh... what, exactly? Buy energy?
By that same token, one would expect these governments to go after Walmart for forcing down prices on the supply-side of the chain. And yet they don't. Why? Because using your power to gain better business deals is perfectly legal.
They can still use IPv4 HTTP / SMTP / whatever, but they won't be able to host anything or run peer-to-peer IPv4 services, which should provide a lot of incentive for them to start using IPv6 (which will Just Work if both ends have v6 connectivity) for as much as possible.
Wait, what? I can only assume the "them" in "incentive for them" must refer to the customer, because it certainly doesn't apply to the ISPs. What you just described is a great reason for ISPs to *not* provide IPv4. I can see it now: "Sorry Mr. Jones, but we can't re-enable bittorrent. You see, the worldwide shortage in IP addresses means that we must NAT you computer, and I'm afraid that breaks bittorrent. There's simply nothing we can do!" Meanwhile, the company stop blowing money to upgrade their backhaul network as total utilization suddenly plummets, while simultaneously thanking the lord above that the average customer is too uneducated to know what IPv6 is.
Congratulations, you got to show off your uber-geekiness by bringing up a bunch of esoteric examples that the article missed. Gold star for you. Now, do you have anything to say regarding the actual *points* in the article?
This is off-topic, but...
Separate changing areas - no cubicles
Cubicles? Buh? You mean, it's normal for the change areas in the pools you frequent for there to be private change cubicles? Or did I misunderstand something here?
Someone should write some software that can be put on a router that would offer the same protection without also causing all the problems that come with NAT. It would be like this large barrier that burns up any unauthorized data that tries to get by.
Yeah yeah! You mean like that, you know, wall-thing they put in cars between the passengers and the engine compartment in a car. You know, the thing that's meant to stop people from being burned by some sort of, like, fire or something? Man, what a great idea!