Um, recumbents offer many advantages over the traditional diamond bicycle are are probably not what you are thinking of. Unfortunately, recumbent bicycles are banned from most competitions. I don't know too much about them and have never ridden one, but my avid cyclist cousin says you can put more power into the pedal stroke, and they have obvious aerodynamic advantages..
Power can be something simple like saying "I'm going to take lunch
at two to do some banking."
As a high school student working at a large retail chain, I often wondered:
if everyone is working 9-5 (or 7 or 8 to 5 realistically), then who in world is
shopping at all the stores open from 9 to 5? As a young adult working 8-5
trying to get groceries at 6pm, I now realize that kids and retired people shop
between 9 and 5, and everyone else between 5:30 and 8 in the after work grocery
rush, or on weekends.
Officially, my job allows a 30 minute lunch. This is ridiculous in my opinion. I work on a large campus; driving to the on-campus cafeteria, rushing through a meal, then driving back takes 40 minutes. Biking (thankfully I live close enough where I can bike to work) ads 5-10 minutes to that. Driving off campus and getting fast food takes 50 minutes. Any real food takes over an hour. Thankfully, nobody is strict about lunch, but I still find the official policy absurd (though I tend to bring my lunch for health and wallet reasons).
One nice thing: if some event such as a dentist appointment, taking a sick child home from school, etc. takes less than 2 hours, then my employer does not require noting that on the time sheet.
That said, a 40 hour work week is difficult for me (I can only imagine with
horror and sympathy a 60 or 80 hour work week). My interests are many but I
never seem to have time or energy to explore them much. I'm currently on the
9/80 schedule, working 9 hours per day with every other Friday off, averaging
40 hours per week. I'm wondering if I'd be happier on a standard schedule with
an extra hour of free time each day. What do other people prefer and why?
I've long thought that a 30 hour work week would be much better. My mind
invariably wanders to other interests during the day, and not having time to
enjoy any of them only leads to frustration. As a young bachelor, I would be
quite all right on a part time salary, but I would feel silly telling people I
work part time so I can work on my hobbies.
What wouldn't Stallman agree with? I think he and others don't see the wisdom of, say, the artificial restriction on copying a computer program. Imagine if a paperclip, your car, or a square meal could be copied with such ease? Is it wise to legislate that feature away? Perhaps, perhaps not. Personally I say no, it is not wise, and that better means of encouraging the creation of such copyable machines should be sought. But again, I don't see what you mean regarding Stallman?
Willing suspension of disbelief. Some movies pull it off, some don't. For me, I enjoy the mindless Mummy movies and the fantasy of Lord of the Rings. I simply cannot stand The Fantastic Four's futile efforts to explain the mutations "scientifically". I was able to suspend my disbelief for Spiderman because it didn't go into too much detail. I find the constant "we are the next evolution" of X-Men a bit over the top. Independance day I don't mind too much, but I'm thankful I didn't pay to see it in the theatre. I think I tend to like movies that just shut up and let me enjoy. Movies that try hard to sound legitimate when they are obviously not are annoying and insulting. To each his own of course.
This depresses me somewhat... The real world is full of trademarks and copyrighted works. It seems impossible to film anything, save naked humans or other animals in pristine nature, without violating something. It isn't trademakr violation for me to say "I am holding a can of Coke" or "Google offers a search engine". Should it be so legally dubious to do the same via film? Is trademark the relevant law here?
Being young and idealistic I completely agree with you. However, I know that our founders were intelligent and must have been aware of this problem. I've also heard hints at defenses of the two-party system, claiming it leads to consensus before the election implicitly assuming that is a good thing, but I've never seen or read an in-depth defense, and have certainly never heard it mentioned in mainstream news... So, what are the advantages of a two-party system enforced by our lame voting system? I'd like to suspect that, at the very least, a different voting system would encourage a larger voter turnout.
Question: If a device can be made to differentiate thoughts, and if a computer interface is eventually connected to one of these such that a user thinks certain commands which the computer detects, and if such an interface becomes widespread, then could it happen that while walking down the street someone in the habit of thinking in terms of the computer would be opening his thoughts to anyone listening? If you "think to type", what happens if you accidentally think your bank password, insults, luggage combination, or worse and Malory's computer picks up? Possible?
It's trivial to do a fairly decent looking removal of the white
background. (in GIMP) Image->Mode->RGB; Select all shadows and edges etc.;
Filters->Colors->Color to alpha (remove white); save as PNG (or convert back to
indexed mode first).
This takes less than 5 minutes depending on the complexity of the icon.
Doing 150 would be a chore. Is anyone interested in collaborating on creating a
PNG icon set for use by all contest entrants? Seems like that is one easy thing
that would open desings up a bit more. I will gladly de-GIF a handful, but I
probably couldn't set up a website for the collaboration.
Ogg Vorbis supports bitrate peeling, but it is not currently implemented. Apparently RealNetwork's SureStream encodes a given file at multiple bitrates resulting in a fat file, while bitrate peeling only needs a single encoding. Real's patent appears to be on the streaming logic to actually switch bitrate though, not the storage of bits in a file.
Great explanation. I recently implemented in Ruby a toy script to tally votes by Ranked Pairs (a Condorcet method). (All I found via Google was vote.sf.net which was down at the time; I still haven't looked at their code.) I also recently did some light (web based) research on audio codec comparison, particularly the method known as ABC/Hidden Reference. Scoring these audio comparison tests is done using ANOVA for parametric statistics or the nonparametric Friedman test which is better for voting where citizens are prone to exaggerate their preferences. To my naive eyes it appears very similar to the Ranked Pairs method described at condorcet.org.
On a different note, I have heard defenses of the two-party system that assert that the system causes candidates to reach compromise before the election due to the limitations of the first past the post voting which cannot really handle more than two or maybe three candidates. Because compromise had already been reached, the elected representatives would then be able to "get things done". I'm interested in learning more about any defenses of the two-party system. Personally, I'd be more than happy if Congress never "got things done" because they seem to bungle everything or just claim more and more power.
It's certainly quicker by auto for the reasons you state. Breakdowns aren't
too common however (but always happen at most inconvenient times). Any money I
spend on the bike is far less than automobile maintenance. I'm keeping my eye
out for a calculation of the difference in price of gas for the car versus food
for a biker*, but I assume any deficit is more than offset by the health
benefits of biking. But, like I said, I find a bike ride to work less stressful
even if it takes longer.
My work dress is conveniently casual. I wear jeans on the bike and just
bring an extra shirt and lunch. I'm also lucky enough to have a shower and
locker at work where I could keep a week's worth of shirts if necessary,
driving one day per week.
I feel like you're arguing as if I were trying to convince you to bike to
work... I'm not. There are many situations where biking doesn't work. I happen
to be in a situation where I can bike, and I enjoy it.
(Extremely rough estimate: 10 miles to work * 2 ways / 30 mpg * $3/gallon *
5 days per week = $10 per week. Do I eat $10 more in food per week when I bike?
Sounds highly likely...)
I was thinking more along the lines of a fixed copyright term (say, 14 years as was once customary?), guess that wasn't clear. If the term is based on life in any way such as "14 years or death, whichever's sooner", "life", or "life + n years", then killing the author will always speed entrance to the public domain. Though I'm still not convinced this would lead to copyright assasinations.
My commute to work is about 30 minutes by bike (plus 5-10 minutes to change clothes) and 20 minutes by car. While I would love to live closer, I can't complain too much. One thing I really love about biking is that I don't have to put up with traffic. Thankfully, the way to and from work is fairly well covered by bike paths. I find driving very frustrating just due to small things like waiting at stop lights and stop signs and getting stuck behind another driver. My biking speed is so slow compared to my driving that the change in speeds for stop signs and lights doesn't feel as frustrating, and I'm never stuck behind anyone.
That's absurd. First, anyone with large amounts of money could be equally targeted by an individual looking for money. Second, killing an author to move his popular work into the public domain does not guarantee the murderer any profits because the monopoly would be gone.
My screen is larger than my browser window. Not everyone uses maximized windows. As monitors increase in width and resolution, maximized windows become absurd. Newspapers use multi column layouts for a reason. It's difficult to read a paragraph that spans one's entire field of view.
I agree. I don't read many reviews by Ebert, but when I do it's not so much whether I agree on the "thumbs up" or "thumbs down", but his analysis of the movie often helps me decide if I would enjoy a film or not, even in conflict with his own tastes.
It is illegal in the US to sell one's kidney for a number of reasons including the possibility that those who would otherwise donate a kidney would be turned off by a market for kindeys result in fewer kidneys available. This is very similar to what you seem to be saying: for various reasons, you are turned off by the high ticket price. I am no fan of Madonna and am also turned off by high ticket prices, particularly to major sporting events (actually the concession prices are much worse; but I don't pay much attention to sports anymore), but what is the sense of Madonna charging $20 per ticket and then having every ticket holder scalp the ticket for $300? Shouldn't Madonna see some of this value? Why should an enterprising scalper grab all the profit? It's an interesting problem. I'm not familiar with scalping laws, but the black market for sports tickets, if it is indeed a black market, is certainly thriving.
That said, if Madonna turns off enough fans by charging too much, then
she'll have to charge less in the future...
Slashdot Mirror
Um, recumbents offer many advantages over the traditional diamond bicycle are are probably not what you are thinking of. Unfortunately, recumbent bicycles are banned from most competitions. I don't know too much about them and have never ridden one, but my avid cyclist cousin says you can put more power into the pedal stroke, and they have obvious aerodynamic advantages..
Seconded.
...and perhaps the users of Debian *want* a completely DFSG Free distribution? There's room for both.
(Luke Skywalker stands hands bound on the edge of a plank)
...but Java the Hutt will soon learn he's too sluggish as he is choked to death by Princess Ruby)
"Java! This is your last chance. Free yourself, or die."
(laughter
But D.A.R.Y.L. will just put his gum over the lens!
As a high school student working at a large retail chain, I often wondered: if everyone is working 9-5 (or 7 or 8 to 5 realistically), then who in world is shopping at all the stores open from 9 to 5? As a young adult working 8-5 trying to get groceries at 6pm, I now realize that kids and retired people shop between 9 and 5, and everyone else between 5:30 and 8 in the after work grocery rush, or on weekends.
Officially, my job allows a 30 minute lunch. This is ridiculous in my opinion. I work on a large campus; driving to the on-campus cafeteria, rushing through a meal, then driving back takes 40 minutes. Biking (thankfully I live close enough where I can bike to work) ads 5-10 minutes to that. Driving off campus and getting fast food takes 50 minutes. Any real food takes over an hour. Thankfully, nobody is strict about lunch, but I still find the official policy absurd (though I tend to bring my lunch for health and wallet reasons).
One nice thing: if some event such as a dentist appointment, taking a sick child home from school, etc. takes less than 2 hours, then my employer does not require noting that on the time sheet.
That said, a 40 hour work week is difficult for me (I can only imagine with horror and sympathy a 60 or 80 hour work week). My interests are many but I never seem to have time or energy to explore them much. I'm currently on the 9/80 schedule, working 9 hours per day with every other Friday off, averaging 40 hours per week. I'm wondering if I'd be happier on a standard schedule with an extra hour of free time each day. What do other people prefer and why? I've long thought that a 30 hour work week would be much better. My mind invariably wanders to other interests during the day, and not having time to enjoy any of them only leads to frustration. As a young bachelor, I would be quite all right on a part time salary, but I would feel silly telling people I work part time so I can work on my hobbies.
What wouldn't Stallman agree with? I think he and others don't see the wisdom of, say, the artificial restriction on copying a computer program. Imagine if a paperclip, your car, or a square meal could be copied with such ease? Is it wise to legislate that feature away? Perhaps, perhaps not. Personally I say no, it is not wise, and that better means of encouraging the creation of such copyable machines should be sought. But again, I don't see what you mean regarding Stallman?
Nice link. Thanks.
Willing suspension of disbelief. Some movies pull it off, some don't. For me, I enjoy the mindless Mummy movies and the fantasy of Lord of the Rings. I simply cannot stand The Fantastic Four's futile efforts to explain the mutations "scientifically". I was able to suspend my disbelief for Spiderman because it didn't go into too much detail. I find the constant "we are the next evolution" of X-Men a bit over the top. Independance day I don't mind too much, but I'm thankful I didn't pay to see it in the theatre. I think I tend to like movies that just shut up and let me enjoy. Movies that try hard to sound legitimate when they are obviously not are annoying and insulting. To each his own of course.
This depresses me somewhat... The real world is full of trademarks and copyrighted works. It seems impossible to film anything, save naked humans or other animals in pristine nature, without violating something. It isn't trademakr violation for me to say "I am holding a can of Coke" or "Google offers a search engine". Should it be so legally dubious to do the same via film? Is trademark the relevant law here?
Being young and idealistic I completely agree with you. However, I know that our founders were intelligent and must have been aware of this problem. I've also heard hints at defenses of the two-party system, claiming it leads to consensus before the election implicitly assuming that is a good thing, but I've never seen or read an in-depth defense, and have certainly never heard it mentioned in mainstream news... So, what are the advantages of a two-party system enforced by our lame voting system? I'd like to suspect that, at the very least, a different voting system would encourage a larger voter turnout.
Question: If a device can be made to differentiate thoughts, and if a computer interface is eventually connected to one of these such that a user thinks certain commands which the computer detects, and if such an interface becomes widespread, then could it happen that while walking down the street someone in the habit of thinking in terms of the computer would be opening his thoughts to anyone listening? If you "think to type", what happens if you accidentally think your bank password, insults, luggage combination, or worse and Malory's computer picks up? Possible?
Collaborate to de-GIF the Slashdot icons for the benefit of all.
It's trivial to do a fairly decent looking removal of the white background. (in GIMP) Image->Mode->RGB; Select all shadows and edges etc.; Filters->Colors->Color to alpha (remove white); save as PNG (or convert back to indexed mode first).
This takes less than 5 minutes depending on the complexity of the icon. Doing 150 would be a chore. Is anyone interested in collaborating on creating a PNG icon set for use by all contest entrants? Seems like that is one easy thing that would open desings up a bit more. I will gladly de-GIF a handful, but I probably couldn't set up a website for the collaboration.
Mindless link propagation: various composite and s-video cables.
Ogg Vorbis supports bitrate peeling, but it is not currently implemented. Apparently RealNetwork's SureStream encodes a given file at multiple bitrates resulting in a fat file, while bitrate peeling only needs a single encoding. Real's patent appears to be on the streaming logic to actually switch bitrate though, not the storage of bits in a file.
Great explanation. I recently implemented in Ruby a toy script to tally votes by Ranked Pairs (a Condorcet method). (All I found via Google was vote.sf.net which was down at the time; I still haven't looked at their code.) I also recently did some light (web based) research on audio codec comparison, particularly the method known as ABC/Hidden Reference. Scoring these audio comparison tests is done using ANOVA for parametric statistics or the nonparametric Friedman test which is better for voting where citizens are prone to exaggerate their preferences. To my naive eyes it appears very similar to the Ranked Pairs method described at condorcet.org.
On a different note, I have heard defenses of the two-party system that assert that the system causes candidates to reach compromise before the election due to the limitations of the first past the post voting which cannot really handle more than two or maybe three candidates. Because compromise had already been reached, the elected representatives would then be able to "get things done". I'm interested in learning more about any defenses of the two-party system. Personally, I'd be more than happy if Congress never "got things done" because they seem to bungle everything or just claim more and more power.
It's certainly quicker by auto for the reasons you state. Breakdowns aren't too common however (but always happen at most inconvenient times). Any money I spend on the bike is far less than automobile maintenance. I'm keeping my eye out for a calculation of the difference in price of gas for the car versus food for a biker*, but I assume any deficit is more than offset by the health benefits of biking. But, like I said, I find a bike ride to work less stressful even if it takes longer.
My work dress is conveniently casual. I wear jeans on the bike and just bring an extra shirt and lunch. I'm also lucky enough to have a shower and locker at work where I could keep a week's worth of shirts if necessary, driving one day per week.
I feel like you're arguing as if I were trying to convince you to bike to work... I'm not. There are many situations where biking doesn't work. I happen to be in a situation where I can bike, and I enjoy it.
(Extremely rough estimate: 10 miles to work * 2 ways / 30 mpg * $3/gallon * 5 days per week = $10 per week. Do I eat $10 more in food per week when I bike? Sounds highly likely...)
I was thinking more along the lines of a fixed copyright term (say, 14 years as was once customary?), guess that wasn't clear. If the term is based on life in any way such as "14 years or death, whichever's sooner", "life", or "life + n years", then killing the author will always speed entrance to the public domain. Though I'm still not convinced this would lead to copyright assasinations.
My commute to work is about 30 minutes by bike (plus 5-10 minutes to change clothes) and 20 minutes by car. While I would love to live closer, I can't complain too much. One thing I really love about biking is that I don't have to put up with traffic. Thankfully, the way to and from work is fairly well covered by bike paths. I find driving very frustrating just due to small things like waiting at stop lights and stop signs and getting stuck behind another driver. My biking speed is so slow compared to my driving that the change in speeds for stop signs and lights doesn't feel as frustrating, and I'm never stuck behind anyone.
Well, you can also kill your spouse and reap the life insurance payback. Simple solution: make copyright last less than the author's life.
That's absurd. First, anyone with large amounts of money could be equally targeted by an individual looking for money. Second, killing an author to move his popular work into the public domain does not guarantee the murderer any profits because the monopoly would be gone.
My screen is larger than my browser window. Not everyone uses maximized windows. As monitors increase in width and resolution, maximized windows become absurd. Newspapers use multi column layouts for a reason. It's difficult to read a paragraph that spans one's entire field of view.
I agree. I don't read many reviews by Ebert, but when I do it's not so much whether I agree on the "thumbs up" or "thumbs down", but his analysis of the movie often helps me decide if I would enjoy a film or not, even in conflict with his own tastes.
It is illegal in the US to sell one's kidney for a number of reasons including the possibility that those who would otherwise donate a kidney would be turned off by a market for kindeys result in fewer kidneys available. This is very similar to what you seem to be saying: for various reasons, you are turned off by the high ticket price. I am no fan of Madonna and am also turned off by high ticket prices, particularly to major sporting events (actually the concession prices are much worse; but I don't pay much attention to sports anymore), but what is the sense of Madonna charging $20 per ticket and then having every ticket holder scalp the ticket for $300? Shouldn't Madonna see some of this value? Why should an enterprising scalper grab all the profit? It's an interesting problem. I'm not familiar with scalping laws, but the black market for sports tickets, if it is indeed a black market, is certainly thriving.
That said, if Madonna turns off enough fans by charging too much, then she'll have to charge less in the future...