They put a man into orbit first, they had great space stations up, continuously manned for years on end, long before we dreamed up the crappy ISS, they're the only people currently launching people into orbit on a regular basis.
You demonstrate a lack of knowledge about the history of space exploration and of the Soviet space program in particular. There are many areas other than the moon where the US succeeded while the USSR stumbled. I won't even get in to the respective safety records (which heavily favor the US, even with the two Shuttle disasters).
The USSR's shuttle (Buran) flew only once, unmanned, 7 years after the US' shuttle first flew. Technically it was superior, but the program was canned. The US are the only country to have ever routinely flown a reusable vehicle.
The USSR lost 6 Mars probes in the early 1960's. The first US mission involved Mariners 3 and 4 and succeeded in landing Mariner 4. The last Russian or Soviet Mars mission was in 1988. The US have an ongoing program.
The US were first to send a probe past Venus, Mariner 2, in 1962. However, the USSR's Venera missions are the first and most successful landers. Still the last Russian or Soviet Venus mission was in 1985, while US went back in 1990.
The US are the only country to flyby past Mercury, and have an approved program to return (the ESA have plans for missions to Mercury as well). The US also have completed a number of outer planet missions, including the current mission to Saturn. Neither the USSR or Russia have attempted anything of that nature.
Other than going to the Moon, they've been ahead in every area of manned spaceflight; I would say it is the Americans who can't keep up.
You don't know what you're talking about and you are wrong. Next time do some research.
But do hackers have access to the information snitched by the Google Toolbar? If not, then there might be no easy way to crawl to those pages. (No links from visible pages, no dir listings.)
Sure, the page is still there and accessible, but there's a difference between groping for it in the dark and having Google spotlight it.
The problem is that you have to have a robots.txt listing the private parts of your site if you don't want the GoogleBot in there. So all a malicious intruder needs to do is look at robots.txt and they'll have a very good idea of where to find the private data. They won't be groping in the dark.
Robots.txt is not the answer. If you want to control access to pages in your site then you need to use access control. It's a simple as that.
You didn't answer my question: why should 99% of people be inconvenienced because 1% of people have a problem with using multi-button mouse? I don't have a handicap that prevents me using a multi-button mouse. Neither does anyone I have ever met. See the point?
This disability thing you're going on about is sophistry, pure and simple. You have not explaned what is so superior about single button mouse + modifier keys for the average person. All I see is the disadvantage of having to use two hands.
So you think it's a good idea to inconvenience the 99% of people who can handle an extra button to avoid writing a trival accessibility tool for the 1% of people who can't?
How can having the extra button on the keyboard (in the form of meta keys), and therefore requiring the use of two hands be better than having the extra button on the mouse? The one-button adherents have never given me a convincing explanation.
When I see a computer vocab word I don't know, I often look it up to see what I'm missing. Why are the standards so different for chemistry?
They're not, but you're on Slashdot, a site run by computer geeks for computer geeks. Chemistry geeks are not the audience here. Sure there is some crossover, but you should have expected that the majority of the audience would know only very basic chemistry.
I find it takes much longer to log in to my Gmail account than it does my yahoo account or my hotmail account.
I don't use Yahoo, but Gmail is certainly faster to login to than Hotmail for me. Hotmail does at least a couple of server redirects.
But I suspect the comment about speed was not just about logging in, but that everything is faster. There is no delay when returning to the inbox, for example. Hotmail's interface is nowhere near as quick to use.
People say over and over again that simple handheld calculators are more powerful than that thing, and it seems that the oft-parroted line is more accurate than they realize.
Or perhaps they repeat it because it's accurate and they know it?
Why the hell are they using video clips to display this information? Why not, you know, a text file of the search terms? This seemed cool and all, but when I saw that they were using Windows Media Player to do screen capture on a website
The site they're using to get the search terms (Dogpile's Searchspy) uses flash to display them in a scrolling list. So they can't just do a text screen-scrape.
Basically, I'm simply fed up with the persistent whitewashing of the history of Communism. I'd prefer we not move towards a more socialist system, but if we do I'd like to be sure we're being cautious about it, and not rushing headlong into tyrrany.
1) The parent poster was talking about Soviet Russia. Holding the USSR up as an example of why we should have socialized medicine is a worthless comparison. If you want to argue that we should adopt some form of national health insurance, invoking a totalitarian society isn't a good way to go about it.
Sure, I agree, but the wording of your response implied that a state-run health system is impossible unless you are prepared to give up civil, political, and economic freedom. That's what people replying to you have reacted to.
2) Stop calling it "free" healthcare - you (or other people) are still paying for it. At least be honest about the costs. If we decide that a 50% income tax is a fair exchange for national health insurance, so be it, but let's not delude ourselves into thinking it's free. (Or if you prefer a raise-taxes-on-the-rich-to-pay-our-medical-costs system, call it what it really is - it's still not "free".)
That's nit-picking. We all know what we're talking about here.
What it comes down to is bureaucratic inefficiences in a state-run system versus profit taking in a private system. For critical servies like health and education most people in most countries prefer at least partially state-run systems because then the primary motive is (or at least should be) quality of service rather than profit.
No, the greater mass of alpha particles (2 protons and 2 neutrons, basically a Helium nucleus) makes them more difficult to deflect, not less. However, other factors have an impact on the scattering cross section, including particle charge and energy.
Alpha radiation does not tend to penetrate other materials (deatils, more). They travel (relatively) slowly, quickly losing energy and pick up free electrons to form helium. Usually dead skin or evena piece of paper is enough to block alpha particles. Beta radiation also doesn't penetrate very far, but can cause skin damage as it can reach the germinal layer. Gamma radiation and X-rays penetrate very easily and are therefore generally more dangerous. One exception is inhaled and ingested alpha- and beta-emitters. Due to the mass of alpha and beta particles they cause a huge amount of damage once inside the body. Thus radioactive dust is extremely dangerous.
Emphasized word added. I find it extremely interesting that you concealed both the fact that those remarks were made by Clinton, and the fact that they were made in 1995.
The whole speach can be found
here.
Quick question: how many people here would honestly trade their political, civil, and economic freedom just for free health care? It's okay if you do, just be consistent about it.
It's not one or the other. A country can manage free healthcare under a democracy. Many do.
I was seached more times than I can recall, and I must have shown my passport to at least a dozen folks - the really stupid thing is that the people checking the passports are just going through the motions anyway - not one person actually compared the passport photo to my own face (which is an older photo and I had a beard then).
Perhaps you went through so much checking because your photo didn't match? Airport staff are trained to be discrete when checking the photo.
You started with: "If your human brain can't percieve that slight a difference, then what difference does it make that the device can do so?"
When more than one person replied that they could tell the difference, you switched to the argument that it would reduce performance: "Because once it reaches the point where you can't tell the difference, then speed is more important, and increasing the memory needed to store an image automatically makes it take more computing power to keep up with all the memory moving."
When I pointed out that most modern GPU already use > 8 bit internally, you pushed the memory aspect again: "The framebuffers have to be bigger for the same size image, and that impacts everything, including graphics formats (like Jpeg, PNG, etc), and bitblts, and, yes, movie files."
After a bit of back and forward you gave up on my points that: GPU memory has increased far beyond having to worry about the extra 23M necessary for high res 32 bit fp color precision, and that the DVD argument is irrelevant because the format doesn't support it (but even if it did an extra 50% or less file size would probably still be ok for most movies). You conceeded that extra precision is useful during processing, but when I pointed out that montior gamma correction is the same sort of processing you came back with: "I don't see any scenario in which anyone would *care* about the very, very SMALL loss of precision in the output device."
I came back with examples, so you switched to claiming that it's all irrelevant because people don't see the same way:
"But this idea that those samples need to be more than 8 bits each, is something I'm just not buying into because the fact that the difference from one human to the next makes that level of precision moot. It's like wasting your time carefully measuring a piece of wood you want to cut, down to the last millimeter, but then cutting it with a handaxe anyway."
I pointed out that the issue is not about different people seeing the same color differently it about being able to see the difference between adjacent colors. Now you've come up with:
Your claim that you can tell the difference between the two nearest colors in 8-bit accurace is a claim I do not believe. I could believe a random slashdot poster, or the people I personally showed the test to in person, who cannot see which is which.
Asshole. I never attacked you personally, yet you call me a liar. I'm always happy to have a reasonable debate with someone, and you were reasonable initially, but you've turned to the loser's defense. You should take a good hard look at the sort of person you are.
The examples you showed were not examples of this kind of precision.
I agree the CRT monitor is not an example of higher precision. It was intended, as I said, as an example of how much people care about color accuracy. The discussion on gamma correction was to illiustrate the fact that 8 bits of precision can be reduced by monitor gamma correction. The other example:
"You can buy LCD monitors with > 8 bit precision (like
this one)."
Are you denying that's a example of > 8 bit precision? If you want another example, look up the Matrix Parhelia-512. It does 10 bit color output. Another is the Sun XVR 1000.
You are right back to your original argument that no-one can see the difference. I notice you never responded to my explanation of banding, does that mean even you can see the problem there? And you still haven't explaned why you don't think precision should be increased given that there is virtually no cost.
You claimed people didn't care that much about color accuracy and precision. They do.
But this idea that those samples need to be more than 8 bits each, is something I'm just not buying into because the fact that the difference from one human to the next makes that level of precision moot. It's like wasting your time carefully measuring a piece of wood you want to cut, down to the last millimeter, but then cutting it with a handaxe anyway.
The fact that two different people may see a given color differently doesn't change the fact that people can see the difference between adjacent colors at 8 bits, and that there is no good reason for that to be the case. To extend your analogy, 8 bit color is like only being able to cut wood in whole centimetre lengths. I'm saying that the fact that while I may not be able to tell how long two pieces of wood are (that differ by a single cm), doesn't mean it's ok that I can tell the difference between them. Especially when the cost of increasing the precision to the point where I can't tell is negligible.
I've given you references that show that people care about higher color precision and that even now you can buy products with higher precision. The existance of these things show that you're wrong about this issue. You've done nothing to convince me that there is any significant downside to increasing color precision. You've done nothing to convince me that 8 bits is the magic number and that any more or less is not optimal. You haven't really even debated my points which are:
that people can tell the difference between adjacent colors at 8 bits,
that some people care about that difference,
that the cost of removing that limitation is very low.
I'll try one more time: why do you think higher color precision is a bad idea?
By the way, you keep using this word "Banding" without explaining it.
He means the effect you get when you can just see the boundaries between the colors. It makes what should be a smooth color gradient look stripey. Try this page out:
Are you talking about something available at almost no cost, as you have been touting, or are you talking about something available at a very signifigant cost, like this monitor that costs more than 4,000 dollars.
You're being obtuse. This monitor has nothing to do with improved color precision. It was a demostration of the degree to which people care about color accuracy, a counter to your claim that no one cares. If you are using a CRT you do not need a new monitor - all analogue monitors are capable of displaying higher precision. All you need for increased color precision is a graphics card that with a > 8 bit DAC on the output and OS support for it.
My comments are not contradictory re calibration and vision. Calibration is not about ensuring that everyone sees the same color the same way. It's about ensuring that the colors are consistent, both across the monitor and between monitors. It's about matching the color of the monitor to an external measure so that if the monitor is not the sole output device you know what you're getting. The fact that people see differently is exactly why 8 bits isn't enough, it's close enough to the limits of vision to be less than ideal for some people.
You've really gone off on a tangent with this calibration thing, I guess you see now that 8 bit color precision isn't good enough for everyone?
I still don't agree, since I don't see any scenario in which anyone would *care* about the very, very SMALL loss of precision in the output device. Well, okay - YOU seem to care, but I can't for the life of me figure out why.
There are plenty of people who do image related work every day who care. Take a look at this monitor and then tell me people don't care about color accuracy. Greyscale film scanners are often 10, 12 or even 16 bit, not because it's a nice number for the sales literature, but because it makes a noticable difference. Take a look at the bottom of this monitor review for a discussion of the impact of gamma correction on color precision. Obviously people care, you just don't know any of them.
Personally I don't care particularly, I'm not going to notice, but it's virtually free. Why have "almost good enough" or "good enough for most people" or even "good enough for virtually everyone", when you can do better at almost no cost. To me, your stance is really quite similar to "640K should be enough for anyone". It's an unnecessary and artifical arbitrary limitation.
Your arguments about monitor variation are fine as far as they go, but they don't apply in every case. You can color calibrate monitors to be accurate across the screen and to a standard. People who care about color do these things now. LCD monitors also don't suffer from the same degree of variation as CRT montiors. See those links above.
Do a bit of research and it's clear that increased color precision isn't just considered a good idea by a lot of people, it's on the way. You can buy graphics cards today with 10 bit DACs, and I'm sure even better for broadcast systems. You can buy LCD monitors with > 8 bit precision (like this one). 8 bits may be good enough for you, but some people are clearly willing to pay for better.
I won't get into the CD debate. Obviously plenty of people feel 16 bit 44 kHz isn't good enough or there wouldn't be several competing higher quality formats around. But for most people the addition of video and more than two channels are far more compelling than increased music quality, which is why plan old DVD seems to be winning the next generation music format war.
Slashdot Mirror
Just to provide a counter-anecdote, I've been using FireFox daily since 0.7 and have never seen that bug.
The USSR's shuttle (Buran) flew only once, unmanned, 7 years after the US' shuttle first flew. Technically it was superior, but the program was canned. The US are the only country to have ever routinely flown a reusable vehicle.
The USSR lost 6 Mars probes in the early 1960's. The first US mission involved Mariners 3 and 4 and succeeded in landing Mariner 4. The last Russian or Soviet Mars mission was in 1988. The US have an ongoing program.
The US were first to send a probe past Venus, Mariner 2, in 1962. However, the USSR's Venera missions are the first and most successful landers. Still the last Russian or Soviet Venus mission was in 1985, while US went back in 1990.
The US are the only country to flyby past Mercury, and have an approved program to return (the ESA have plans for missions to Mercury as well). The US also have completed a number of outer planet missions, including the current mission to Saturn. Neither the USSR or Russia have attempted anything of that nature.
You don't know what you're talking about and you are wrong. Next time do some research.Robots.txt is not the answer. If you want to control access to pages in your site then you need to use access control. It's a simple as that.
This disability thing you're going on about is sophistry, pure and simple. You have not explaned what is so superior about single button mouse + modifier keys for the average person. All I see is the disadvantage of having to use two hands.
How can having the extra button on the keyboard (in the form of meta keys), and therefore requiring the use of two hands be better than having the extra button on the mouse? The one-button adherents have never given me a convincing explanation.
Yes, that's his point. He was being sarcastic.
for ending paragraphs, rather than
, as it inserts a blank line as well as breaking back to the left margin, while
doesn't.
The article was good for something: I didn't know Google had done their own notification client.
But I suspect the comment about speed was not just about logging in, but that everything is faster. There is no delay when returning to the inbox, for example. Hotmail's interface is nowhere near as quick to use.
What it comes down to is bureaucratic inefficiences in a state-run system versus profit taking in a private system. For critical servies like health and education most people in most countries prefer at least partially state-run systems because then the primary motive is (or at least should be) quality of service rather than profit.
"If your human brain can't percieve that slight a difference, then what difference does it make that the device can do so?"
When more than one person replied that they could tell the difference, you switched to the argument that it would reduce performance:
"Because once it reaches the point where you can't tell the difference, then speed is more important, and increasing the memory needed to store an image automatically makes it take more computing power to keep up with all the memory moving."
When I pointed out that most modern GPU already use > 8 bit internally, you pushed the memory aspect again:
"The framebuffers have to be bigger for the same size image, and that impacts everything, including graphics formats (like Jpeg, PNG, etc), and bitblts, and, yes, movie files."
After a bit of back and forward you gave up on my points that: GPU memory has increased far beyond having to worry about the extra 23M necessary for high res 32 bit fp color precision, and that the DVD argument is irrelevant because the format doesn't support it (but even if it did an extra 50% or less file size would probably still be ok for most movies). You conceeded that extra precision is useful during processing, but when I pointed out that montior gamma correction is the same sort of processing you came back with:
"I don't see any scenario in which anyone would *care* about the very, very SMALL loss of precision in the output device."
I came back with examples, so you switched to claiming that it's all irrelevant because people don't see the same way:
"But this idea that those samples need to be more than 8 bits each, is something I'm just not buying into because the fact that the difference from one human to the next makes that level of precision moot. It's like wasting your time carefully measuring a piece of wood you want to cut, down to the last millimeter, but then cutting it with a handaxe anyway."
I pointed out that the issue is not about different people seeing the same color differently it about being able to see the difference between adjacent colors. Now you've come up with: Asshole. I never attacked you personally, yet you call me a liar. I'm always happy to have a reasonable debate with someone, and you were reasonable initially, but you've turned to the loser's defense. You should take a good hard look at the sort of person you are. I agree the CRT monitor is not an example of higher precision. It was intended, as I said, as an example of how much people care about color accuracy. The discussion on gamma correction was to illiustrate the fact that 8 bits of precision can be reduced by monitor gamma correction. The other example: Are you denying that's a example of > 8 bit precision? If you want another example, look up the Matrix Parhelia-512. It does 10 bit color output. Another is the Sun XVR 1000.
You are right back to your original argument that no-one can see the difference. I notice you never responded to my explanation of banding, does that mean even you can see the problem there? And you still haven't explaned why you don't think precision should be increased given that there is virtually no cost.
I've given you references that show that people care about higher color precision and that even now you can buy products with higher precision. The existance of these things show that you're wrong about this issue. You've done nothing to convince me that there is any significant downside to increasing color precision. You've done nothing to convince me that 8 bits is the magic number and that any more or less is not optimal. You haven't really even debated my points which are:
- that people can tell the difference between adjacent colors at 8 bits,
- that some people care about that difference,
- that the cost of removing that limitation is very low.
I'll try one more time: why do you think higher color precision is a bad idea?My comments are not contradictory re calibration and vision. Calibration is not about ensuring that everyone sees the same color the same way. It's about ensuring that the colors are consistent, both across the monitor and between monitors. It's about matching the color of the monitor to an external measure so that if the monitor is not the sole output device you know what you're getting. The fact that people see differently is exactly why 8 bits isn't enough, it's close enough to the limits of vision to be less than ideal for some people.
You've really gone off on a tangent with this calibration thing, I guess you see now that 8 bit color precision isn't good enough for everyone?
Personally I don't care particularly, I'm not going to notice, but it's virtually free. Why have "almost good enough" or "good enough for most people" or even "good enough for virtually everyone", when you can do better at almost no cost. To me, your stance is really quite similar to "640K should be enough for anyone". It's an unnecessary and artifical arbitrary limitation.
Your arguments about monitor variation are fine as far as they go, but they don't apply in every case. You can color calibrate monitors to be accurate across the screen and to a standard. People who care about color do these things now. LCD monitors also don't suffer from the same degree of variation as CRT montiors. See those links above.
Do a bit of research and it's clear that increased color precision isn't just considered a good idea by a lot of people, it's on the way. You can buy graphics cards today with 10 bit DACs, and I'm sure even better for broadcast systems. You can buy LCD monitors with > 8 bit precision (like this one). 8 bits may be good enough for you, but some people are clearly willing to pay for better.
I won't get into the CD debate. Obviously plenty of people feel 16 bit 44 kHz isn't good enough or there wouldn't be several competing higher quality formats around. But for most people the addition of video and more than two channels are far more compelling than increased music quality, which is why plan old DVD seems to be winning the next generation music format war.