I was biking yesterday on Massachusetts Ave and would rest at red lights by putting my front wheel in a pothole and, by doing so, let me reach the ground with my leg comfortably. They're a damn hazard to cyclists -- I need to be watching the cars, not trying to plot my course around potholes.
I live in the Driving Shithole of the USA (Washington, DC), and recently traveled to Germany. I was very impressed by the German practice of, among other things, putting up convex mirrors around blind driveways so people could see. I bike in DC and am terrified I'm going to get splattered one of these days.
Shouldn't we base the treatment on any genuine desires of the patient that aren't artificial manifestations of an illness (i.e. a depressed person's desire to die; a schizophrenic's desire to warn the President about Elvis zombies)?
If an XY person with a penis perceives herself as female and would prefer to have her body modified to be more consistent with average female traits, why is that a bad thing?
On the contrary, I think quite a few employers would trust her. I don't see why she'd be any more likely than anyone else to spill the beans about an upcoming product, or the root password to the webserver, so long as murder wasn't involved.
Why should a person with XY chromosomes who identifies as a woman not be in the military? Why, in particular, does that have anything to do with someone's aptitude to be a soldier?
You can do that on other Linuxes too, using the alt-f2 shortcut.
I've tried Unity, and my biggest grumble is the removal of the taskbar. If I have four papers open in different copies of evince/okular and five terminals with different names, Unity won't let me find the one I want quickly. It also won't let me see, by looking at the taskbar, if any of them have changed their titles (which some programs do to alert the user).
I use Linux for a living (I'm a physicist; all our machines run Linux). Most everyone was using Ubuntu (with a few on Scientific Linux) before Unity came out. Now it's Mint, mostly, or Kubuntu.
I do believe that, given a few thousand dollars of equipment, you could. (Yes, you're limited to whatever Netflix is going to send you, but if ultimately what Netflix is worried about is someone decrypting their DRM'd stream, you can't do any better than that as an attack.) No, it won't be a perfect bitwise copy. But it could be Good Enough (defined as "any mangling done is small compared to whatever mangling got done in the video compression step by Netflix to fit it through the pipe in the first place".)
No, you don't need to resort to things like that yet: as I (and others) have pointed out, there are other ways to go about it right now. The point, which you seem to have missed, is that the "analog hole" argument that "you can't DRM audio" also applies to video these days. It's not come to that, because there are easier ways to pirate video. But the point is that ordinary people can get access to good enough A/V equipment these days that they can exploit the analog hole against video DRM as well.
We have no true libertarians in politics. That's because ultimately the benevolent kind of libertarianism implies a lack of desire to tell other people what to do, which is antithetical to politics.
1) Emulate a Windows browser in wine or similar (or even a full VM), complete with the DRM stack 2) Load Netflix and stream whatever it is you want to stream, but redirect the output to a framebuffer (netflix has no HDCP when run in a browser, does it?) 3) Recompress the contents of the framebuffer using some fast but inefficient high quality algorithm and save it to disk 4) Allow the Linux user to do whatever the fuck she wants with it, either watch it or reencode it for storage later
The DRM folks can't win. VM tricks aside, the real analog hole is open pretty wide for video. I have a consumer-level DSLR that will shoot 6000x4000 video at 6fps with no frame limit and negligible noise. It demolishes anything a HDTV can display as far as resolution goes. Getting one of those electronic shutter triggers ($25 from Nikon) and syncing it with the frame updates would let you scrape every frame displayed in 4 (24 fps) or 5 (30 fps) passes through the source. From there you've just got to do a curves adjustment to restore the original source pixel values (accommodating for calibration issues on your monitor and such).
Do this with a good monitor and I bet you could get really damn close to the original quality; modern SLR sensors and lenses are good enough for this. If you're too lazy to scrape it in stills mode, you can get a camera for under $1500 that will record near-losslessly-compressed 1080p video, and that you can use with reasonably inexpensive lenses that are essentially transparent.
And it takes *one* person to do this and torrent the result. Netflix can't stop this sort of thing.
If someone walked into an archaeology lab and said "Hey, we found this Neanderthal in the ice, and I think we can fix him" don't you think they'd give it a go, especially if they knew it would work?
It's likely that once society has advanced enough that we can revive geezercicles, we'll not begrudge them the expense of doing so.
I had a similar problem with a power company a while back. They wouldn't let me pay my bill without some PIN which they couldn't tell me or send to me, and I finally asked them how they stay in business if they turn people away who are waving cash in their face!
Not in my experience -- as I mentioned elsewhere, I know a late-career full professor with a stellar research career who makes 110k (my PhD advisor). Starting salaries for tenure-track faculty are 55k-75k or so. Adjuncts get paid (substantially) less than that. So I split the difference and figured 70k, plus 30k in benefits (health insurance, pension, etc.) Grad students don't get 25k in salary, but they cost the university something like that: health insurance, tuition credits, and so on.
Teaching load varies from university to university and on the type of career the professor has. Many research-dedicated professors teach 2 classes per year at Research 1 institutions, but others (who are still expected to do research) teach 8-10. So I conservatively split the difference and figured 5. It's good to hear NC is still subsidizing tuition out of tax money; there's no way the actual cost is as low as 4k or 6k, so kudos to North Carolina. It's always struck me as a state that, all things considered, has its head screwed on pretty well.
Age is a fever chill That every physicist must fear He's better dead than living still After he's past his thirtieth year
But the person I'm quoting here is almost a counterexample. Leon Lederman, Nobel laureate and former director of Fermilab, wrote this in his book on particle physics, The God Particle. In his younger years, Lederman discovered some crucial elements of the Standard Model. What's he doing now? Writing books and teaching (even into his nineties), something that to my way of thinking is even more invaluable than his work in the lab. Feynman continued to do good work very late in his career (like figuring out why Challenger blew up). Looking beyond physics, Mozart's best work (the Requiem and the C Minor Mass) was done late in his career, as was (according to one musicologist I know) Brahms'. Rachmaninov was known as a brilliant teacher of piano later in life: I've heard one of his students play, and she is incredible.
There seems to be a pattern of people revolutionizing something or another early in their lives, and teaching and consolidating that revolution later on. I think our world would be more improved if we put more emphasis on the latter, as the dissemination of knowledge is as important for human wellbeing than "having a nonzero count of people who understand concept XYZ". Science needs more Carl Sagans and fewer Isaac Newtons these days, I think (and I say that as someone paid to do fundamental physics research).
Slashdot Mirror
I was biking yesterday on Massachusetts Ave and would rest at red lights by putting my front wheel in a pothole and, by doing so, let me reach the ground with my leg comfortably. They're a damn hazard to cyclists -- I need to be watching the cars, not trying to plot my course around potholes.
I live in the Driving Shithole of the USA (Washington, DC), and recently traveled to Germany. I was very impressed by the German practice of, among other things, putting up convex mirrors around blind driveways so people could see. I bike in DC and am terrified I'm going to get splattered one of these days.
It doesn't matter. Her motivation wasn't anything that would come up in the course of honest employment.
Israel seems to have no problems with "institutional competency" in its military, which allows both gays and women to serve as equals.
may still needlessly cause a war somewhere
If that's your concern then Manning is on your side, not against it, given that she was acting to thwart a needless war that somebody else caused.
I regret posting in this discussion because I have mod points to burn, and QilessQi would get one if I could give one.
Shouldn't we base the treatment on any genuine desires of the patient that aren't artificial manifestations of an illness (i.e. a depressed person's desire to die; a schizophrenic's desire to warn the President about Elvis zombies)?
If an XY person with a penis perceives herself as female and would prefer to have her body modified to be more consistent with average female traits, why is that a bad thing?
On the contrary, I think quite a few employers would trust her. I don't see why she'd be any more likely than anyone else to spill the beans about an upcoming product, or the root password to the webserver, so long as murder wasn't involved.
Because prisons are expensive, as you say, and regardless of who gets paid to run prisons in the end, taxpayers are paying for it?
Why should a person with XY chromosomes who identifies as a woman not be in the military? Why, in particular, does that have anything to do with someone's aptitude to be a soldier?
I have no problem supporting the rights of either a murderer or a child rapist to not be assaulted while in prison. You shouldn't either.
You can do that on other Linuxes too, using the alt-f2 shortcut.
I've tried Unity, and my biggest grumble is the removal of the taskbar. If I have four papers open in different copies of evince/okular and five terminals with different names, Unity won't let me find the one I want quickly. It also won't let me see, by looking at the taskbar, if any of them have changed their titles (which some programs do to alert the user).
I use Linux for a living (I'm a physicist; all our machines run Linux). Most everyone was using Ubuntu (with a few on Scientific Linux) before Unity came out. Now it's Mint, mostly, or Kubuntu.
I do believe that, given a few thousand dollars of equipment, you could. (Yes, you're limited to whatever Netflix is going to send you, but if ultimately what Netflix is worried about is someone decrypting their DRM'd stream, you can't do any better than that as an attack.) No, it won't be a perfect bitwise copy. But it could be Good Enough (defined as "any mangling done is small compared to whatever mangling got done in the video compression step by Netflix to fit it through the pipe in the first place".)
No, you don't need to resort to things like that yet: as I (and others) have pointed out, there are other ways to go about it right now. The point, which you seem to have missed, is that the "analog hole" argument that "you can't DRM audio" also applies to video these days. It's not come to that, because there are easier ways to pirate video. But the point is that ordinary people can get access to good enough A/V equipment these days that they can exploit the analog hole against video DRM as well.
We have no true libertarians in politics. That's because ultimately the benevolent kind of libertarianism implies a lack of desire to tell other people what to do, which is antithetical to politics.
... just to make a point:
1) Emulate a Windows browser in wine or similar (or even a full VM), complete with the DRM stack
2) Load Netflix and stream whatever it is you want to stream, but redirect the output to a framebuffer (netflix has no HDCP when run in a browser, does it?)
3) Recompress the contents of the framebuffer using some fast but inefficient high quality algorithm and save it to disk
4) Allow the Linux user to do whatever the fuck she wants with it, either watch it or reencode it for storage later
The DRM folks can't win. VM tricks aside, the real analog hole is open pretty wide for video. I have a consumer-level DSLR that will shoot 6000x4000 video at 6fps with no frame limit and negligible noise. It demolishes anything a HDTV can display as far as resolution goes. Getting one of those electronic shutter triggers ($25 from Nikon) and syncing it with the frame updates would let you scrape every frame displayed in 4 (24 fps) or 5 (30 fps) passes through the source. From there you've just got to do a curves adjustment to restore the original source pixel values (accommodating for calibration issues on your monitor and such).
Do this with a good monitor and I bet you could get really damn close to the original quality; modern SLR sensors and lenses are good enough for this. If you're too lazy to scrape it in stills mode, you can get a camera for under $1500 that will record near-losslessly-compressed 1080p video, and that you can use with reasonably inexpensive lenses that are essentially transparent.
And it takes *one* person to do this and torrent the result. Netflix can't stop this sort of thing.
And third, why would anybody reasonably want to be unfrozen, when the world is massively changed and everybody they knew and cared about is gone?
Because they could meet new people and learn a new world?
Why would people want to move from Europe to America in the 1700's?
If someone walked into an archaeology lab and said "Hey, we found this Neanderthal in the ice, and I think we can fix him" don't you think they'd give it a go, especially if they knew it would work?
It's likely that once society has advanced enough that we can revive geezercicles, we'll not begrudge them the expense of doing so.
I dunno, that trope is dying. Netcraft confirms it.
How, exactly, is this an insult?
I had a similar problem with a power company a while back. They wouldn't let me pay my bill without some PIN which they couldn't tell me or send to me, and I finally asked them how they stay in business if they turn people away who are waving cash in their face!
They're not smarter than the voters, only more ruthless.
Probably. Have you ever used Facebook? It's buggier than an entomology lab.
Not in my experience -- as I mentioned elsewhere, I know a late-career full professor with a stellar research career who makes 110k (my PhD advisor). Starting salaries for tenure-track faculty are 55k-75k or so. Adjuncts get paid (substantially) less than that. So I split the difference and figured 70k, plus 30k in benefits (health insurance, pension, etc.) Grad students don't get 25k in salary, but they cost the university something like that: health insurance, tuition credits, and so on.
Teaching load varies from university to university and on the type of career the professor has. Many research-dedicated professors teach 2 classes per year at Research 1 institutions, but others (who are still expected to do research) teach 8-10. So I conservatively split the difference and figured 5. It's good to hear NC is still subsidizing tuition out of tax money; there's no way the actual cost is as low as 4k or 6k, so kudos to North Carolina. It's always struck me as a state that, all things considered, has its head screwed on pretty well.
There *is* that axiom:
But the person I'm quoting here is almost a counterexample. Leon Lederman, Nobel laureate and former director of Fermilab, wrote this in his book on particle physics, The God Particle. In his younger years, Lederman discovered some crucial elements of the Standard Model. What's he doing now? Writing books and teaching (even into his nineties), something that to my way of thinking is even more invaluable than his work in the lab. Feynman continued to do good work very late in his career (like figuring out why Challenger blew up). Looking beyond physics, Mozart's best work (the Requiem and the C Minor Mass) was done late in his career, as was (according to one musicologist I know) Brahms'. Rachmaninov was known as a brilliant teacher of piano later in life: I've heard one of his students play, and she is incredible.
There seems to be a pattern of people revolutionizing something or another early in their lives, and teaching and consolidating that revolution later on. I think our world would be more improved if we put more emphasis on the latter, as the dissemination of knowledge is as important for human wellbeing than "having a nonzero count of people who understand concept XYZ". Science needs more Carl Sagans and fewer Isaac Newtons these days, I think (and I say that as someone paid to do fundamental physics research).