Adobe isn't going out of business any time soon. Between Illustrator, LiveCycle, Premiere, Photoshop, etc. They're in no shortage of customers, although in some segments they may be running short on paying customers(photoshop et. al.)
As long as OpenGL continues to support the newest features first through extensions, there will always be a place for it.
For a long time, OpenGL was used in industrial and visualization applications. It wasn't designed specifically for games, hence why it was never developed into a fully featured multimedia library. This article very well articulates the fact that OpenGL is available on quite a lot more devices than DirectX and for any cross platform developers, this is extremely important.
I don't see OpenGL vendor support dying off any time soon either. Most vendors have a line of super high-end cards aimed at corporate users for CAD and large set visualization. They wouldn't sacrifice those users to save a buck because those types of cards are the most profitable.
I had a wisdom tooth pulled. The anesthetic shots(all 6 of them) were terribly painful, extracting just a couple of precious tears from my eyes.
About 15 minutes later, I couldn't feel the right lower half of my face and talking to the incredibly attractive assistant was becoming amusing. Oral surgeon walks in, sticks a prybar looking thing between a couple teeth, yanks it a couple times, puts funny looking pliars in my mouth and picks up my tooth. Good fucking god it's amazing how long the roots are for wisdom teeth.
All in all, the worst part of the procedure was the shots, and the inability to form words using the mass of meat I once called a tongue. Luckily the entire experience, including anesthetic was over in a few hours and was quite tolerable.
Unless it occurred recently and you're an intermediary state between mutation occurring and the mutation dying out.
Our modern civilization though protects the well being of even those with negative traits who would have otherwise naturally died out. That's not to say evolution in humans has stopped. Instead, we're simply not weeding out the negative traits.
That may be commonly understood by laymen but there must be some wiggle room. How else do you explain the widely varying taxation rate on tobacco sales? Some states have very small tax, like Missouri with their $.17 per pack tax, or Rhode Island with their $3.46 per pack tax.
A quick grep of the constitution shows no references to vibes.
It's kind of funny the Scientific American article says "that this would unfairly discourage coal-powered electricity sales in favor of renewably powered electricity". I'd hardly call this unfair. More poignantly, I'd say that's the purpose of the bill, and if North Dakota is suing my state, it's because the bill will work.
Yes, this may marginally increase the cost of manufacturing some kinds of goods but the overall impact will largely affect the utilities.
As a follow-up, Gregory Nojeim(then a counselor for the ACLU) testified before congress in 1995 about their new terrorism law and described in great detail the damage it does to 1st amendment protections. In essence, he described how the new law could create guilt by association and give the government broad selective prosecution powers.
Maybe so, but over the last 10 years the government has made some changes to it's interpretation of the 4th amendment. Specifically, what constitutes an expectation of privacy as defined by Rawlings v. Kentucky, 448 U.S. 98, 104.
Beyond even the 4th amendment and 5th amendment, the US government has shown a willingness to ignore the constitution and even international law altogether if they feel national security interests are at stake. The somewhat recent case of an extraordinary rendition of a Canadian citizen while on US soil to Syria poses significant opposition to commonly held beliefs about constitutional protection. After being tortured and returned to Canada, in 2007 he came back to the US to testify before congress about his experience and as far as I know, nothing has ever come of that hearing.
The Alien Terrorist Removal Provisions of the Omnibus Counterterrorism Act of 1995 allows for the FISA court to deport an alien suspected of terrorism based solely on classified evidence, to which the target cannot try to suppress evidence or intervene in any way including having representation at any hearings. Whether they are deported or not, they receive very little(if any) information about the proceedings or how any decision was reached. Oddly enough, after reading the entire bill, I could not find any reference anywhere describing where the persons can be deported to. In essence, our government formally legalized extraordinary rendition 15 years ago, although I doubt in many cases of extraordinary rendition that they follow the appropriate steps(however rudimentary they may be) through the FISA court. All they have to do is call it a deportation instead of rendition. And since the target cannot intervene in any proceedings of the process, they cannot suppress any evidence gathered via illegal means.
If anyone was hoping for "change", you didn't get it the way you thought you would. The Alien Terrorist Removal Provisions of this bill were sponsored by your very own Joe Biden. Clinton formulated the bill but it wasn't until the Oklahoma bombing that the political will to pass it existed.
So here we sit, 15 years later. The government now has the PATRIOT act on top of what was considered in 1995 to be necessary to stop terrorism. We have broad spectrum warrantless wiretapping without FISA approval based on a shady interpretation of an AG. Are we safer? In some respects maybe. Would any of these laws prevent a bomber such as Timothy McVeigh from repeating what he did? Probably not. Would these laws prevent someone from hijacking a plane and ramming it into a large bulding? Perhaps.
But at what cost? It seems to be the question that no politician has the fortitude to ask. Where do we draw the line? Terrorism is evil, but at what point do we say "this is the line we can't cross". If we enact further privacy and liberty restrictions every time someone manages to strike America, what will be left in 20 years? 50 years?
It's not an attack. I speak the way I speak. You can mock Bush for his inability to say "nuclear" or pronounce many other common words and phrases all you want, but that seems pointless when there is so much more about him to mock. His inability to form well reasoned arguments comes to mind.
I don't change language. Collectively though, a society can redefine the meaning of the words and phrases with which they convey ideas. Redefinition occurs through changed usage. I don't believe metaphors can't be mixed or adapted. You think "800 lb. gorilla" and "elephant in the room" can't be mixed. I disagree. We can agree to disagree. Or not. Seems like a waste of time to me though.
If you got the impression that I regurgitate bushisms because of my sig, a Dick Cheney quote and the only reasonably intelligent thing he ever said, you're just wrong. To what other idiocy do you speak of? If you disagree with the content of my post, elaborate on that.
If you have nothing to contribute beyond sayings, phrases, metaphors, analogies, similes, grammar or spelling, take it to digg or wherever it is that bored children hang out at.
Ending drug criminalization would kill thousands of jobs. No doubt exists about that in any reasonably intelligent person.
I'll leave exact figures to people who analyze such data, but I'd bet a significant number of those lost jobs would be reincarnated in the drug cultivation and distribution business. There are no advantages to the drug war. It's a black eye in our social conservatives attempt to combat social disease. Chronic use of addictive drugs with harmful effects such as cocaine and methamphetamines is a social disease. Entry into the criminal justice system is the start to a downward spiral for many people. They need treatment, not prison.
I do not advocate maintaining our current drug laws to keep thousands of people employed. It's bad policy for the citizens. It's bad finances for the government. It's just bad. The mention of those in the "drug war" were meant to outline just how many people and how many levels of government have an interest in maintaining the drug war. The war on drugs won't find an end until sheer financial desperation in the states or mass citizen unrest occurs leading those with power to enact change to get off their asses.
I've posted many times before my opinion on non-violent drug offenses and the far reaching extension of the commerce clause to cover whatever the government wants it to mean to achieve an end.
A lot of law enforcement activities are important. I think we can all agree it's a good idea to have police monitor roads for people who drive dangerously, extremely drunk, people who steal, embezzle and defraud. If drugs were non-criminalized nationwide, I think a lot of people would find the police to be quite a lot more useful. The amount of money we spend as a country to fight a social problem with military and law enforcement solutions is staggering.
You're right though-the current drug laws create thousands of jobs, between local police task forces and special assignments, state police, the entire DEA and a significant need for prison beds stems from drug laws. End that and you kill thousands of jobs. There is big money in private run prisons and they will fight tooth and nail to protect that, to the detriment of our country.
Not to sound callous or anything, but the detriment to central south america, latin america and mexico is a hundred times more negative. Something like 10,000 people a year are being murdered a year in mexico over highly lucrative drug trafficking into OUR country. Legalize it and Mexico would rapidly become a safer and richer place to live.
True, but consider the alternative. If the government couldn't collect any information without receiving it directly from citizens or under a subpoena, they wouldn't know shit! At first this sounds nice, but given the mostly advantageous activities of law enforcement, I think I like it more the way it is.
The real 800 pound gorilla in the room is the lack of strong federal privacy laws that dictate what corporations may do with our information. Companies should not be allowed to trade, buy or sell personally identifiable information about consumers except to those parties where needed to complete a transaction(i.e. credit bureau, DMV, etc.) without their explicit permission. Any time a consumer wants to give that permission, it should be an opt-in only scheme and it should be illegal for companies to limit their services to those who choose to participate in such information sharing programs.
There are still industrial settings where serial lines are used frequently, if not heavily. Machine shops with less-than-cutting-edge controllers use serial cables on almost every machine for sending CNC programs to machining centers.
I don't bash google, or yahoo on this regard. My opinion is that India has a right to enact laws that coincide with the moral status quo of that country. I would recommend all companies to comply with the laws of the countries they have physical locations at, but I don't know if Google actually has a physical presence in India. If they don't, I can't see why they would care what India's laws are.
If Yahoo! wants to comply with India's laws, then good for them. But they need to be honest with the Indian users of their service and make it publicly known that their results are filtered due to the laws of that country. If enough Indians get fed up, then they can make a go of trying to change the laws.
Censorship, when done in the dark is evil. Censorship done in the light of day is slightly less evil.
Good point. I would have to see the uniforms before passing judgment. Without further information, I would say that in general, uniforms marginalize individuals and make them feel like a smaller cog in the machine.
The ability to demonstrate professionalism with attire is an important part if being a professional. If uniforms are being suggested because IT guys currently are dressing inappropriately(gasp), then that's a failure of management to enforce what are likely already existing business casual attire rules.
Funny you mention that. About a year and a half ago I was sitting in the security line in St. Paul International and someone had left a rather large piece of luggage sitting on the ground. As all things go in MSP, I was sitting in line for probably 20 minutes and hadn't moved very far. The luggage started making me nervous, because nobody was standing next to it.
I saw a security guy walking by and I mentioned to him that there was a piece of abandoned luggage in line and he shrugged, said "okay i guess we'll take it to lost and found." I was nervous until I stepped off the plane at my destination.
Yes. Despite the theatrics, our current security is fairly good at preventing physical metallic objects that could be used as weapons. This is a good thing, but doesn't prevent people from using other dangerous materials like ceramics are high density plastics which are equally dangerous as clubs or knives.
Beyond that, there aren't a lot of other security measures that will have mass appeal.
Does anyone else see the irony that the white paper is in Adobe PDF format and most people will be reading about Adobe Reader vulnerabilities IN Adobe Reader?
Slashdot Mirror
Adobe isn't going out of business any time soon. Between Illustrator, LiveCycle, Premiere, Photoshop, etc. They're in no shortage of customers, although in some segments they may be running short on paying customers(photoshop et. al.)
Not even close. If you read the article, you'd know that. OpenGL is roughly a decade older than Direct3D.
As long as OpenGL continues to support the newest features first through extensions, there will always be a place for it.
For a long time, OpenGL was used in industrial and visualization applications. It wasn't designed specifically for games, hence why it was never developed into a fully featured multimedia library. This article very well articulates the fact that OpenGL is available on quite a lot more devices than DirectX and for any cross platform developers, this is extremely important.
I don't see OpenGL vendor support dying off any time soon either. Most vendors have a line of super high-end cards aimed at corporate users for CAD and large set visualization. They wouldn't sacrifice those users to save a buck because those types of cards are the most profitable.
I had a wisdom tooth pulled. The anesthetic shots(all 6 of them) were terribly painful, extracting just a couple of precious tears from my eyes.
About 15 minutes later, I couldn't feel the right lower half of my face and talking to the incredibly attractive assistant was becoming amusing. Oral surgeon walks in, sticks a prybar looking thing between a couple teeth, yanks it a couple times, puts funny looking pliars in my mouth and picks up my tooth. Good fucking god it's amazing how long the roots are for wisdom teeth.
All in all, the worst part of the procedure was the shots, and the inability to form words using the mass of meat I once called a tongue. Luckily the entire experience, including anesthetic was over in a few hours and was quite tolerable.
In northern Minnesota, you'd think the deer are retarded. They frequently run in front of cars. It's extremely common.
Unless it occurred recently and you're an intermediary state between mutation occurring and the mutation dying out.
Our modern civilization though protects the well being of even those with negative traits who would have otherwise naturally died out. That's not to say evolution in humans has stopped. Instead, we're simply not weeding out the negative traits.
That may be commonly understood by laymen but there must be some wiggle room. How else do you explain the widely varying taxation rate on tobacco sales? Some states have very small tax, like Missouri with their $.17 per pack tax, or Rhode Island with their $3.46 per pack tax.
A quick grep of the constitution shows no references to vibes.
It's kind of funny the Scientific American article says "that this would unfairly discourage coal-powered electricity sales in favor of renewably powered electricity". I'd hardly call this unfair. More poignantly, I'd say that's the purpose of the bill, and if North Dakota is suing my state, it's because the bill will work.
Yes, this may marginally increase the cost of manufacturing some kinds of goods but the overall impact will largely affect the utilities.
Quite a lot of cheap webcams can be modified to see infrared. Requires disassembly, removal of the IR filter and reassembly without damaging anything.
Results vary widely, but it does work.
As a follow-up, Gregory Nojeim(then a counselor for the ACLU) testified before congress in 1995 about their new terrorism law and described in great detail the damage it does to 1st amendment protections. In essence, he described how the new law could create guilt by association and give the government broad selective prosecution powers.
It's a really interesting read.
Maybe so, but over the last 10 years the government has made some changes to it's interpretation of the 4th amendment. Specifically, what constitutes an expectation of privacy as defined by Rawlings v. Kentucky, 448 U.S. 98, 104.
Beyond even the 4th amendment and 5th amendment, the US government has shown a willingness to ignore the constitution and even international law altogether if they feel national security interests are at stake. The somewhat recent case of an extraordinary rendition of a Canadian citizen while on US soil to Syria poses significant opposition to commonly held beliefs about constitutional protection. After being tortured and returned to Canada, in 2007 he came back to the US to testify before congress about his experience and as far as I know, nothing has ever come of that hearing.
The Alien Terrorist Removal Provisions of the Omnibus Counterterrorism Act of 1995 allows for the FISA court to deport an alien suspected of terrorism based solely on classified evidence, to which the target cannot try to suppress evidence or intervene in any way including having representation at any hearings. Whether they are deported or not, they receive very little(if any) information about the proceedings or how any decision was reached. Oddly enough, after reading the entire bill, I could not find any reference anywhere describing where the persons can be deported to. In essence, our government formally legalized extraordinary rendition 15 years ago, although I doubt in many cases of extraordinary rendition that they follow the appropriate steps(however rudimentary they may be) through the FISA court. All they have to do is call it a deportation instead of rendition. And since the target cannot intervene in any proceedings of the process, they cannot suppress any evidence gathered via illegal means.
If anyone was hoping for "change", you didn't get it the way you thought you would. The Alien Terrorist Removal Provisions of this bill were sponsored by your very own Joe Biden. Clinton formulated the bill but it wasn't until the Oklahoma bombing that the political will to pass it existed.
So here we sit, 15 years later. The government now has the PATRIOT act on top of what was considered in 1995 to be necessary to stop terrorism. We have broad spectrum warrantless wiretapping without FISA approval based on a shady interpretation of an AG. Are we safer? In some respects maybe. Would any of these laws prevent a bomber such as Timothy McVeigh from repeating what he did? Probably not. Would these laws prevent someone from hijacking a plane and ramming it into a large bulding? Perhaps.
But at what cost? It seems to be the question that no politician has the fortitude to ask. Where do we draw the line? Terrorism is evil, but at what point do we say "this is the line we can't cross". If we enact further privacy and liberty restrictions every time someone manages to strike America, what will be left in 20 years? 50 years?
It's not an attack. I speak the way I speak. You can mock Bush for his inability to say "nuclear" or pronounce many other common words and phrases all you want, but that seems pointless when there is so much more about him to mock. His inability to form well reasoned arguments comes to mind.
I don't change language. Collectively though, a society can redefine the meaning of the words and phrases with which they convey ideas. Redefinition occurs through changed usage. I don't believe metaphors can't be mixed or adapted. You think "800 lb. gorilla" and "elephant in the room" can't be mixed. I disagree. We can agree to disagree. Or not. Seems like a waste of time to me though.
If you got the impression that I regurgitate bushisms because of my sig, a Dick Cheney quote and the only reasonably intelligent thing he ever said, you're just wrong. To what other idiocy do you speak of? If you disagree with the content of my post, elaborate on that.
If you have nothing to contribute beyond sayings, phrases, metaphors, analogies, similes, grammar or spelling, take it to digg or wherever it is that bored children hang out at.
Ending drug criminalization would kill thousands of jobs. No doubt exists about that in any reasonably intelligent person.
I'll leave exact figures to people who analyze such data, but I'd bet a significant number of those lost jobs would be reincarnated in the drug cultivation and distribution business. There are no advantages to the drug war. It's a black eye in our social conservatives attempt to combat social disease. Chronic use of addictive drugs with harmful effects such as cocaine and methamphetamines is a social disease. Entry into the criminal justice system is the start to a downward spiral for many people. They need treatment, not prison.
I do not advocate maintaining our current drug laws to keep thousands of people employed. It's bad policy for the citizens. It's bad finances for the government. It's just bad. The mention of those in the "drug war" were meant to outline just how many people and how many levels of government have an interest in maintaining the drug war. The war on drugs won't find an end until sheer financial desperation in the states or mass citizen unrest occurs leading those with power to enact change to get off their asses.
I've posted many times before my opinion on non-violent drug offenses and the far reaching extension of the commerce clause to cover whatever the government wants it to mean to achieve an end.
A lot of law enforcement activities are important. I think we can all agree it's a good idea to have police monitor roads for people who drive dangerously, extremely drunk, people who steal, embezzle and defraud. If drugs were non-criminalized nationwide, I think a lot of people would find the police to be quite a lot more useful. The amount of money we spend as a country to fight a social problem with military and law enforcement solutions is staggering.
You're right though-the current drug laws create thousands of jobs, between local police task forces and special assignments, state police, the entire DEA and a significant need for prison beds stems from drug laws. End that and you kill thousands of jobs. There is big money in private run prisons and they will fight tooth and nail to protect that, to the detriment of our country.
Not to sound callous or anything, but the detriment to central south america, latin america and mexico is a hundred times more negative. Something like 10,000 people a year are being murdered a year in mexico over highly lucrative drug trafficking into OUR country. Legalize it and Mexico would rapidly become a safer and richer place to live.
Clever eh? Language changes. Adapt.
True, but consider the alternative. If the government couldn't collect any information without receiving it directly from citizens or under a subpoena, they wouldn't know shit! At first this sounds nice, but given the mostly advantageous activities of law enforcement, I think I like it more the way it is.
The real 800 pound gorilla in the room is the lack of strong federal privacy laws that dictate what corporations may do with our information. Companies should not be allowed to trade, buy or sell personally identifiable information about consumers except to those parties where needed to complete a transaction(i.e. credit bureau, DMV, etc.) without their explicit permission. Any time a consumer wants to give that permission, it should be an opt-in only scheme and it should be illegal for companies to limit their services to those who choose to participate in such information sharing programs.
There are still industrial settings where serial lines are used frequently, if not heavily. Machine shops with less-than-cutting-edge controllers use serial cables on almost every machine for sending CNC programs to machining centers.
I don't bash google, or yahoo on this regard. My opinion is that India has a right to enact laws that coincide with the moral status quo of that country. I would recommend all companies to comply with the laws of the countries they have physical locations at, but I don't know if Google actually has a physical presence in India. If they don't, I can't see why they would care what India's laws are.
If Yahoo! wants to comply with India's laws, then good for them. But they need to be honest with the Indian users of their service and make it publicly known that their results are filtered due to the laws of that country. If enough Indians get fed up, then they can make a go of trying to change the laws.
Censorship, when done in the dark is evil. Censorship done in the light of day is slightly less evil.
Good point. I would have to see the uniforms before passing judgment. Without further information, I would say that in general, uniforms marginalize individuals and make them feel like a smaller cog in the machine.
The ability to demonstrate professionalism with attire is an important part if being a professional. If uniforms are being suggested because IT guys currently are dressing inappropriately(gasp), then that's a failure of management to enforce what are likely already existing business casual attire rules.
Funny you mention that. About a year and a half ago I was sitting in the security line in St. Paul International and someone had left a rather large piece of luggage sitting on the ground. As all things go in MSP, I was sitting in line for probably 20 minutes and hadn't moved very far. The luggage started making me nervous, because nobody was standing next to it.
I saw a security guy walking by and I mentioned to him that there was a piece of abandoned luggage in line and he shrugged, said "okay i guess we'll take it to lost and found." I was nervous until I stepped off the plane at my destination.
Yes. Despite the theatrics, our current security is fairly good at preventing physical metallic objects that could be used as weapons. This is a good thing, but doesn't prevent people from using other dangerous materials like ceramics are high density plastics which are equally dangerous as clubs or knives.
Beyond that, there aren't a lot of other security measures that will have mass appeal.
Lose. Not loose, lose.
LOSE. A hooker is loose. LOSE is when you have lost something.
Does anyone else see the irony that the white paper is in Adobe PDF format and most people will be reading about Adobe Reader vulnerabilities IN Adobe Reader?
If unary logic is good enough for politicians, it should be good enough for anybody!