Godwin's Law does not apply when there is a legitimate historical reference to Nazis. I'd say this one actually is a proper and on-topic reference, as there aren't many other cases of forced permanent identification or serialization. I can think of plenty of "mode of dress" and uniform enforcements, but no other examples of permanent body modifications that mark specific individuals.
Which does bring up a good question... I was planning on getting a NetFlix account in the next couple days (actually, my finace and I decided to a couple days ago and just haven't gotten around to it yet). Is there a good multi-vendor review and comparison? Something that lists turn around, number of discs you can get at once and what is in the library (I'd like TV show discs)? Everybody I know just uses NetFlix, so I have no experience with anything else. If it turns out that NetFlix is the best, that's fine... but I'd like to read a comparison review of other options.
Yes, but the grandparent was specifically discussing physical print media (which is generally read at a distance of 14 to 24 inches under good lighting). To quote: "there is a limit to what resolution your eye can discern, just like in printing". He then when on to cite an incorrect metric: "There's no point in going any higher than 300 dpi (professional offset printing resolution)". In general, 300dpi is the absolute minimum resolution that offset printing can be done for something intended to be placed in front of you and read... and the vast bulk is done at a much higher resolution.
For print media sitting in front of you (which is the domain being discussed) 300 dpi is not the maximum discernable resolution. If you wish to discuss other things such as video, that's fine. I'd agree that in that case you'd have to define distance to the media, framerate, luminosity, ambient light and several other factors. But that's not what was being discussed... unless you have a home theater system that uses offset printing to play movies.;)
I can easily tell the difference between 300dpi and 1200dpi or 2400dpi (which is the generally accepted limit of when the eye can't see a difference on a printed page). Look at the text in a 300dpi fax (i.e., a real 300dpi without resolution enhancement), and look at a printed hardcover book (roughly 2400dpi). If you can't tell the difference, please tell me you have nothing to do with any media business.
Beyond that, when you're talking about printing, you have all sorts of colors, tints and effects that are outside of simple offset printing... and even simple offset printing is not in the home. Give me a printer that can do metallic gold gilt white letters on a deep red cardstock, emboss a crest into the page and then round the corners, sell it at a consumer price, and I'll be happy. But that's many many years away.
The order is still automated. The site has been delisted due to abuse.
If I randomly list four restaurants, they are random. Not choosing to include a fifth on the list doesn't make the list order non-random. It just means that restaurant #5 isn't on the list. Non-inclusion isn't changing order or content; it is defining what is in the database to be searched.
This is about abuse control and removing invalid sites, not reordering valid sites that conform to their pagerank guidelines. They say "Alternately, your page may have been manually removed from our index if it didn't conform with the quality standards necessary to assign accurate PageRank".
But how many distros actually implement that standard?
Pretty much all the major ones. Everybody from debian to SUSE, including Conectiva, Mandrake, Red Hat, TurboLinux and others. LSB is a good Linux standard and pretty easy to achieve.
I doubt they'd fork Ubuntu though, most likely they'd work with Ubuntu and provide a branded version.
That's pretty much the idea behind Ubuntu... the goal was things like Edubuntu (and Kubuntu). I think Mark said at one point that he wishes the base Ubuntu didn't use Gnome and there was a base Ubuntu and a Gubuntu, although I can't cite and it may well be misattributed.
--
Evan
Re:Peter Griffin on Wisconsin
on
Obesity Contagious?
·
· Score: 2, Informative
Atkins (as in the published book) is mostly green leafy vegetables plus lean meats as part of a multi-stage plan toward maintaining weight as a life goal. The street folklore version of Atkins seems to be "eat lots of bacon and get skinny".
Amazons are usually a group of female human warriors with strictly roleplaying differences that make them distinct (like the Amazons of greek myth). That's why I picked them as an example. Some games and backgrounds (Marvel, for example) make them non-human or give them non-human attributes. I was referring to the "mechanics are the same, the roleplaying makes the difference" style Amazon -- a human female fighter who associates with only other human female fighters.
almost nobody roleplays
By that logic, Blizzard can just remove all stats and graphics and just become IRC-III. Just because some people are ignoring the game doesn't mean the people trying to foster the game should throw up their hands and give up.
Hurm. I'm using MPlayer 1.0pre7try2-3.4.5. I'll have to upgrade... this must be a VERY recently supported format. (I'm replying primarily for others who gave up on MPlayer).
I just downloaded some sort of file named "FearofGirls.flv". The URL is in the source, but you'll have to urldecode it as it is passed as a get variable in another URL. Anybody know if it can be converted to something sane? MPlayer and file don't recognize it. I'm guessing it's a Flash Video File.
Good point. I'm not sure what to think about that; my experience with role playing games has always been with role players. The concept of "gamers" without any connection to role playing certainly changes things. What are examples of guilds on those servers?
There's a current cover story in Newsweek covering the issue. Basically there has been such a push for girls to advance in certain subjects in school that there has been a see-saw effect where boys were neglected. I haven't read the article, but I did hear an interview with the author and there were some good points raised.
Actually, I think they are in the right, but for the wrong reasons. No, I didn't make that clear in my post, so you're perfectly in the right to interpret it as a distorted excuse. See my other post on the subject.
Go ahead and start the big Straight Vs Gay war. It would be hilarious (Plus, I know which side would win).
You seem to make an assumption that I'm on a given side. I've been beaten while marching for gay rights and have an extensive collection of lingere and corsets in my size. Check out my listed website for a hint of my hobbies. I'm also a large hairy male who is getting married to someone who isn't XX this fall.
I'm all for gays being in game -- I'd love to see a guild of gay Tauren or a guild of Amazon lesbian warriors. And the players would be a mix of men and women who are of all sexual orientation in both sides. Because, in my eyes, they may have made the right decision for the wrong reasons, but it is *still* the right decision: A guild is a group of like minded characters, not a group of like minded players.
Then you would probably get some really good roleplaying going on.
You assume that the gay players are roleplaying gay characters -- how is it good roleplaying if one character is harassing a straight character because his player is gay? Besides, what if a gay player creates a character in the GBLT guild who is intolerant of gays? You're confusing player groups and in-game character groups.
Because they are trying to foster role playing and create groups based on the characters rather than the players.
You can't be a Republican in a fantasy age. They don't exist. You can't be a snowboarder -- they don't exist. Your character does not snowboard, and there's no such thing as Republicans, so how can you form a guild based around it? Note that you could create a players association... this is specifically about in-game groups called guilds. There are no players who are members of a guild -- only their characters are.
And a thought just struck me... in the World of Warcraft, I'm fairly certain that Blizzard has not written sex into the actual game, so therefore it doesn't officially exist. You can't have a gay or straight character -- you can't have sex at all.
It's no different than putting a drug into your entire body to affect one single organ. That's pretty damn disgusting. Can you imagine the revulsion of somebody in a few years thinking about chemotherapy? Or an oral anti-depression drug that affects your entire nervous system and washes through your entire body rather than targeted at a single structure of the brain?
Our latest knowledge is *always* "almost none" compared to the future. Right now we hack out and poison chunks of the brain to get rid of tumors, taking healthy tissue along with the bad. When it's a simple inpatient "sit under this device" event, the barbaric acts of current neurosurgery will look hellish. To the future, we are ignorant savages.
I don't think they should have gone to jail. The vast majority were using the latest knowledge in an honest effort to help people. The alternatives, neglecting or abandoning the ill, are far more sick. Considering that's what preceded your "sick and sad time", I'd say that we're progressing... and that in 50 years, our current treatments will look terrible.
patches issued in only hours probably didn't get tested well, or by many testers... with many mixes of softwares
Yes, but you don't seem to understand what I'm saying. I am *not* talking about actual technical issues -- the question is one of perception: Why does Microsoft have a reputation to be bad at supporting bugs.
There are reasons for MS' being 'slow' about it!
I do not disagree. However that action *does* create a perception that Microsoft cares less or is less efficient about security. Perception, not reality, which is the original question.
I take it you are not a software developer/engineer, because if you were professionally for any entity of size or one that deals with SENSITIVE data? You'd know why those slowdowns exist... for many reasons, some I did not even hit on, above...
You make many many assumptions. I'm the CIO of a publishing company, I had my MCSE years ago, I am happy with Windows and Microsoft and just signed off on another 40 workstations with Windows on them. I am in no way anti-Microsoft, nor am I a teenager who think Linux is some sort of sacred ground. I use Linux personally because I've been using some variant of Unix for close to 25 years now.
That said, the question was what makes Microsoft have a bad reputation when it comes to bug fixes while Linux (meaning the distros) does not. Today systems are all online, and a critical feature of any operating system is the speed of the support to reliably fix security holes, especially those which can be remotely exploited.
We are talking about why Microsoft has a perception of being worse about bugs than Linux (or at least I was responding to that). I still maintain that, to quote myself, "Open Source authors tend to be very honest about and immediately provide fixes for security holes, while Microsoft tends to softpedal and delay". Microsoft has been addressing this aggressively recently, with various announcements that they are refocusing on bugs, and more regular updates. Still, their lackadaisical attitude toward security in the past has cast a long shadow that taints them today, both with a poor codebase and a reputation for poor support for bug fixes. Plus, as was my initial point, open source tends to provide reliable fixes quicker -- for whatever reason -- which not only garners respect for their corner, but also makes Microsoft look slow... and that affect perception.
The main difference is that Microsoft often takes weeks or months to release patches, all the while trying to downplay the significance of the bug. With this, the patch was available almost immediately, and within hours, updates were packaged, tested and in distro repositories (I just woke up, and Kubuntu is happily patching itself).
Of course software has bugs. Given that, the key thing is how the software authors treat such bugs. Open Source authors tend to be very honest about and immediately provide fixes for security holes, while Microsoft tends to softpedal and delay.
The problem is not the bugs, it is how they are handled.
Slashdot Mirror
--
Evan
--
Evan
For print media sitting in front of you (which is the domain being discussed) 300 dpi is not the maximum discernable resolution. If you wish to discuss other things such as video, that's fine. I'd agree that in that case you'd have to define distance to the media, framerate, luminosity, ambient light and several other factors. But that's not what was being discussed... unless you have a home theater system that uses offset printing to play movies. ;)
--
Evan
Beyond that, when you're talking about printing, you have all sorts of colors, tints and effects that are outside of simple offset printing... and even simple offset printing is not in the home. Give me a printer that can do metallic gold gilt white letters on a deep red cardstock, emboss a crest into the page and then round the corners, sell it at a consumer price, and I'll be happy. But that's many many years away.
--
Evan
By comparison, this is a very reasonable intro.
--
Evan
It's still the best tool for the job in some fields.
--
Evan
If I randomly list four restaurants, they are random. Not choosing to include a fifth on the list doesn't make the list order non-random. It just means that restaurant #5 isn't on the list. Non-inclusion isn't changing order or content; it is defining what is in the database to be searched.
This is about abuse control and removing invalid sites, not reordering valid sites that conform to their pagerank guidelines. They say "Alternately, your page may have been manually removed from our index if it didn't conform with the quality standards necessary to assign accurate PageRank".
Google's Guidelines
--
Evan
Pretty much all the major ones. Everybody from debian to SUSE, including Conectiva, Mandrake, Red Hat, TurboLinux and others. LSB is a good Linux standard and pretty easy to achieve.
--
Evan
That's pretty much the idea behind Ubuntu... the goal was things like Edubuntu (and Kubuntu). I think Mark said at one point that he wishes the base Ubuntu didn't use Gnome and there was a base Ubuntu and a Gubuntu, although I can't cite and it may well be misattributed.
--
Evan
Which one are you discussing?
--
Evan
Amazons are usually a group of female human warriors with strictly roleplaying differences that make them distinct (like the Amazons of greek myth). That's why I picked them as an example. Some games and backgrounds (Marvel, for example) make them non-human or give them non-human attributes. I was referring to the "mechanics are the same, the roleplaying makes the difference" style Amazon -- a human female fighter who associates with only other human female fighters.
almost nobody roleplays
By that logic, Blizzard can just remove all stats and graphics and just become IRC-III. Just because some people are ignoring the game doesn't mean the people trying to foster the game should throw up their hands and give up.
--
Evan
--
Evan "Although KDE thumbnailed it..."
Link is here.
--
Evan
--
Evan
--
Evan
--
Evan
--
Evan
You seem to make an assumption that I'm on a given side. I've been beaten while marching for gay rights and have an extensive collection of lingere and corsets in my size. Check out my listed website for a hint of my hobbies. I'm also a large hairy male who is getting married to someone who isn't XX this fall.
I'm all for gays being in game -- I'd love to see a guild of gay Tauren or a guild of Amazon lesbian warriors. And the players would be a mix of men and women who are of all sexual orientation in both sides. Because, in my eyes, they may have made the right decision for the wrong reasons, but it is *still* the right decision: A guild is a group of like minded characters, not a group of like minded players.
Then you would probably get some really good roleplaying going on.
You assume that the gay players are roleplaying gay characters -- how is it good roleplaying if one character is harassing a straight character because his player is gay? Besides, what if a gay player creates a character in the GBLT guild who is intolerant of gays? You're confusing player groups and in-game character groups.
--
Evan
You can't be a Republican in a fantasy age. They don't exist. You can't be a snowboarder -- they don't exist. Your character does not snowboard, and there's no such thing as Republicans, so how can you form a guild based around it? Note that you could create a players association... this is specifically about in-game groups called guilds. There are no players who are members of a guild -- only their characters are.
And a thought just struck me... in the World of Warcraft, I'm fairly certain that Blizzard has not written sex into the actual game, so therefore it doesn't officially exist. You can't have a gay or straight character -- you can't have sex at all.
--
Evan
Our latest knowledge is *always* "almost none" compared to the future. Right now we hack out and poison chunks of the brain to get rid of tumors, taking healthy tissue along with the bad. When it's a simple inpatient "sit under this device" event, the barbaric acts of current neurosurgery will look hellish. To the future, we are ignorant savages.
--
Evan
--
Evan
Yes, but you don't seem to understand what I'm saying. I am *not* talking about actual technical issues -- the question is one of perception: Why does Microsoft have a reputation to be bad at supporting bugs.
There are reasons for MS' being 'slow' about it!
I do not disagree. However that action *does* create a perception that Microsoft cares less or is less efficient about security. Perception, not reality, which is the original question.
--
Evan
$str='010100110110100001101111011011110111 010000100001001000000101011101100101001000 000110110001101001011101100110010100100000 011010010110111000100000011000010010000001 100010011010010110111001100001011100100111 100100100000011100110111100101110011011101 00011001010110110100111111'; $str=ereg_replace('[^01]','',$str); do echo chr(intval(substr($str,0,8),2)); while($str=substr($str,8));
You make many many assumptions. I'm the CIO of a publishing company, I had my MCSE years ago, I am happy with Windows and Microsoft and just signed off on another 40 workstations with Windows on them. I am in no way anti-Microsoft, nor am I a teenager who think Linux is some sort of sacred ground. I use Linux personally because I've been using some variant of Unix for close to 25 years now.
That said, the question was what makes Microsoft have a bad reputation when it comes to bug fixes while Linux (meaning the distros) does not. Today systems are all online, and a critical feature of any operating system is the speed of the support to reliably fix security holes, especially those which can be remotely exploited.
We are talking about why Microsoft has a perception of being worse about bugs than Linux (or at least I was responding to that). I still maintain that, to quote myself, "Open Source authors tend to be very honest about and immediately provide fixes for security holes, while Microsoft tends to softpedal and delay". Microsoft has been addressing this aggressively recently, with various announcements that they are refocusing on bugs, and more regular updates. Still, their lackadaisical attitude toward security in the past has cast a long shadow that taints them today, both with a poor codebase and a reputation for poor support for bug fixes. Plus, as was my initial point, open source tends to provide reliable fixes quicker -- for whatever reason -- which not only garners respect for their corner, but also makes Microsoft look slow... and that affect perception.
--
Evan
Of course software has bugs. Given that, the key thing is how the software authors treat such bugs. Open Source authors tend to be very honest about and immediately provide fixes for security holes, while Microsoft tends to softpedal and delay.
The problem is not the bugs, it is how they are handled.
--
Evan