Please. Quoting Jeff Atwood as an authoritative source on SSDs? Some anecdotal evidence and a subsequent admission of buying from the brand known for the highest failure rate in SSDs isn't going to convince anyone. I'd like to see some proper statistics before I believe anything you say.
The most reliable statistics I've seen show SSDs performing as good or better than HDDs when it comes to failing. I haven't seen any statistics on what percentage of failing drives did so spontaneously, completely, without warning and without any possibility for repair.
Mind you, I'm not claiming they don't. Just that I haven't seen any evidence beyond some anecdotes. And well, anybody that trusts a single drive with important data is an idiot or ignorant anyway.
However the numbers in the report you posted show that in 45.5% of the burglaries where they were confronted by a stranger in their home that stranger was in fact armed.
Nope. Look again. Violent burglaries only. Whatever total you use, the absolute figure of ~35,000 burglaries in which someone was confronted with a weapon (not even a firearm) will not change.
Anti-gunners like yourself seem to think people properly trained in gun use are going to pull guns outside of lethal force situations, you don't and it's a felony to do such.
Are you kidding me? You were the one who said: "But if someone smashed in my window or opened my car door at an intersection they are quite likely to get a face full of pepper spray, and if they persist beyond that I will most likely end them."
Adding something along the lines of 'if he doesn't stop when pepper sprayed, he's on drugs, so killing him is fine' doesn't really help your case.
You can pin the 'anti-gunner' misconceptions on your own cowboyspeak, buddy.
If it doesn't warrant deadly force you don't cripple a guy for life, that's still deadly force and you would end up charged with attempted murder.
No, it doesn't and no, you wouldn't. What the hell makes you think that deliberately shooting someone in the knee isn't different from deliberately shooting someone in the face?
Self defense isn't about vigilantism, there's a 45.5% chance if you are confronted by a stranger in your home he will be armed
No there's not. That percentage is for what turned out to be violent burglaries. Only in ~35,000 of ~1,000,000 burglaries (~3,5%) committed by a stranger, a weapon was present.
Yes 3/4ths of the time he's just going to run away and not mess with you when he realizes you're home. In that instance no you're absolutely right shooting him would be wrong. If he doesn't run away there's a very high likely hood that he will be armed himself.
No there's not. That is to say: according to which numbers?
Why don't you dilute your numbers even further since that seems to be your goal. with 114,761,359 households in America that means only 3% were burglarized, door locks must be useless then right?
No, in fact, most of that percentage (~2 percent points) were burglaries into houses with unlocked doors or windows. Locking doors and windows could very well prevent a lot of burglaries. But then again, who locks their doors during the day?
There were 266,560 thousand people in that study who were assaulted, or raped in their homes.
Yes, most of them by relatives, ex-lovers and other people known to them. Also note that the number includes everybody who was punched firmly in the arm or kicked in the balls during the burglary.
That is absolutely barbaric and those people absolutely have the right to protect themselves. You are presumably not one of those people so I doubt you know what it's like to be victimized like that. I've met a great number of the people doing the murdering raping and robbing and I absolutely will use a firearm, or whatever means available to protect myself from them. Now I will use appropriate levels of force. I wouldn't shoot someone in the face for knocking on my car window begging for money when I stop at a red light. But if someone smashed in my window or opened my car door at an intersection they are quite likely to get a face full of pepper spray, and if they persist beyond that I will most likely end them.
I completely agree with this behaviour. Well, up until the "if pepperspray doesn't work, I'll kill him." Why not just shoot him in the knee? Or the shoulder or the lungs or the gut. I mean.. Does it have escalate that quickly?
Doesn't matter really what I'm considered...as long as I'm the one left still standing, breathing and able to reproduce (optional).
That is exactly what a barbarian would say.
If it is between my life and ANY other human life on this planet, MY life is always the most important to me.
You assume the 'home invader' was going to kill you, which according to statistics (and even more so according to your story) is really unlikely (in the US): http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/vdhb.pdf
About 24,000 burglaries yearly lead to serious injury, which is 8.5% of all violent burglaries and 0.6% of all burglaries. And I'm pretty sure things like a broken arm or serious concussion are counted as serious injuries, but this is speculation, of course.
By the way, I do agree on choosing ones' own life over that of another (barring relatives), but I also strongly believe in a civilized society and a civilized judicial and enforcement system. I.e. no vigilantism.
So.. You almost shot a guy in the face when you were a kid and consider that to be 'responsible'?
Seriously, what do you think you would have done if the guy actually came into your house and proceeded towards your kitchen to drink water and/or rob your house?
Do you really believe calling 911 and running out the back of your house would have been worse?
'[Gun laws] makes [sic] it for "fucking normal people" harder to posess, which is incidentily the root of the problem. It would have taken one normal individual to stop this idiot'
Sounds to me like you were arguing that gun laws should be less strict. To be fair, where I come from, the gun laws the US has now classify as giving lots of people easy access to guns.
No. No, it doesn't. We have the ability to create a global extinction event at any time. It is absolutely ridiculous to imply that bacteria have more potential drastic effects on the ecosystems on Earth than humans. That we choose not to wield the vast array of means we have to do so, does not equate to the idea that those means do not exist.
Continuing, I was and am very well aware that total biomass can indicate the significance of a species to the ecosystem as a whole (but made an apparently failed attempt at humour). To imply that biomass is particularly important in determining what success in evolution is, is wrong, however.
You intentionally introduced the word phylum, thereby lobbing quite a number of species on the same pile. If one looks at biomass of distinct species, krill and humans are numbers one and two. More importantly, the specializations of different bacteria species means that any individual species is by far not as versatile, resilient, stable, long-living and powerful as humans are. If you disagree, I'd like to hear which specific species we are dwarfed by.
So, even if we lump in homicides with your suicides AND assume homicides are committed by legal gun owners (which most times they are not): 28,000 is 0.035% of 80 million gun owners in the US, which means it is NOT the "primary purpose of owning a gun". It in fact accounts for a MINISCULE use of firearms.
I'd like to hear your opinion on the purpose of fire escapes.
An assault rifle is a marketing term. These rifles function EXACTLY THE SAME as semiautomatic hunting rifles. The only differences are: they look more menacing, have accessory rails and a different grip. You can buy a wooden rifle - not considered an "assault rifle" - which fires the EXACT same caliber bullets, at EXACTLY the same rate with EXACTLY the same capacity.
One could of course argue that that just means that semiautomatic hunting rifles can wreak equal havoc. What does adding 'hunting' to the phrase actually change? That you can't attach a grenade launcher?
Apparently, making less than $7500 a year is pretty dangerous for a household. Also dangerous: running a household as a single parent, an American Indian, or as someone under the age of 20.
Of course, if you are worried about violence during a burglary, know that your enemies are close to you: "One or more household members knew the offenders in some manner in 65% of the 266,560 burglaries that took place while someone was present and experienced violence (table 17). Overall, household members knew approximately a third of these offenders as intimates (current or former) (31%), or relatives, well-knowin individuals or household acquaintances (34%)."
That doesn't have anything to do with the following statement: "However, that might mean they'd have to pay for at least double the computer time to do it."
Also, a slightly more complex rendering process is probably not going to offset 11 years of Moore's law by much. Then again, I guess there are plenty of ways to destroy rendering performance. Whether that is required, I doubt.
Yet almost nowhere else in the civilized world do large amounts of fucking idiots have guns. For every normal individual with a gun, you have probably 99 complete fucking idiots like these people: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pTVa0aQnvVU (Stick around till or forward to 4:30)
Yes. Lots of people should have easy access to guns. Good call.
Given that the entire film was digitally animated, they probably could. However, that might mean they'd have to pay for at least double the computer time to do it.
Because performance per second and performance per dollar haven't dropped at all since 2001.
Whilst I do generally like higher frame rates, the above is actually the trouble... It looks _too_ realistic. For a high fantasy movie like The Hobbit sometimes putting a little 24Hz vaseline on the lens helps let your brain fill in the gaps with fantasy. That 48Hz the project fills in the gaps with reality.
It sounds reasonable, but it isn't. There are less frames, but the filling in your brain does is more or less equal to what just presenting it with more frames does. It doesn't synthesize detail like it does with low spatial resolution imagery. Consider the following: suppose you were given a low resolution drawing, you would not be able to draw the equivalent of the high resolution version of it. If you were given two subsequent (drawn) frames, you _would_ be able to fairly accurately draw the frame in between.
It is really just a matter of getting used to the smoother optical flow. Anecdotal, but: when I saw the effects of the temporal interpolation algorithms on my '100Hz ultramotionflowsupersmooth+(tm)' TV, I hated them with a passion, experiencing the 'soap' effect. When I played around with it a little bit, I started getting used to it. I am now so used to it that watching 24fps material without at least the most basic motion interpolation turned on is something I find extremely distracting. In fact, every single frame skip or visible judder in any video has become painfully obvious for me.
I agree, searching 'golden shower head' now actually mostly returns images of a golden shower heads, instead of well, you know.
On the other hand, searching for 'anal' used to be slightly titillating. I'm not sure the new set of returned images is an improvement. I'll leave it up to the reader to take the chance and enter that term in the image searches of google.com and of google.co.uk.
From the paper on the image based algorithm: "On the other hand the fixed contour level setting strategy resulted in file sizes 10x larger than their pixel equivalents which we did not attempt to address in the work being reported here. However, the results of Lindeberg [1998] suggest we have been far too conservative in fixing the local resolution of contour segments in smooth areas. If we compute a resolution measure which scales with local smoothness we should be able to significantly reduce the number of segments per contour"
I'm not sure whether trying to encode video in vectors would exacerbate or alleviate the data bloat.
Slashdot Mirror
Please. Quoting Jeff Atwood as an authoritative source on SSDs?
Some anecdotal evidence and a subsequent admission of buying from the brand known for the highest failure rate in SSDs isn't going to convince anyone.
I'd like to see some proper statistics before I believe anything you say.
The most reliable statistics I've seen show SSDs performing as good or better than HDDs when it comes to failing. I haven't seen any statistics on what percentage of failing drives did so spontaneously, completely, without warning and without any possibility for repair.
Mind you, I'm not claiming they don't. Just that I haven't seen any evidence beyond some anecdotes. And well, anybody that trusts a single drive with important data is an idiot or ignorant anyway.
Who really thinks we'll have any need for a natural environment to create food by 2100?
Honestly, first world countries don't even really need it that much right now.
However the numbers in the report you posted show that in 45.5% of the burglaries where they were confronted by a stranger in their home that stranger was in fact armed.
Nope. Look again. Violent burglaries only. Whatever total you use, the absolute figure of ~35,000 burglaries in which someone was confronted with a weapon (not even a firearm) will not change.
Lungs are a kill shot, gut is an awful kill shot.
No, they're not: http://www.shootingvoodoo.com/index.php/articles/gunshot_wounds_and_you/
Mortality rates from being hit in a single organ in the gut are as low as 4%.
Anti-gunners like yourself seem to think people properly trained in gun use are going to pull guns outside of lethal force situations, you don't and it's a felony to do such.
Are you kidding me? You were the one who said: "But if someone smashed in my window or opened my car door at an intersection they are quite likely to get a face full of pepper spray, and if they persist beyond that I will most likely end them."
Adding something along the lines of 'if he doesn't stop when pepper sprayed, he's on drugs, so killing him is fine' doesn't really help your case.
You can pin the 'anti-gunner' misconceptions on your own cowboyspeak, buddy.
If it doesn't warrant deadly force you don't cripple a guy for life, that's still deadly force and you would end up charged with attempted murder.
No, it doesn't and no, you wouldn't. What the hell makes you think that deliberately shooting someone in the knee isn't different from deliberately shooting someone in the face?
Self defense isn't about vigilantism, there's a 45.5% chance if you are confronted by a stranger in your home he will be armed
No there's not. That percentage is for what turned out to be violent burglaries. Only in ~35,000 of ~1,000,000 burglaries (~3,5%) committed by a stranger, a weapon was present.
Yes 3/4ths of the time he's just going to run away and not mess with you when he realizes you're home. In that instance no you're absolutely right shooting him would be wrong. If he doesn't run away there's a very high likely hood that he will be armed himself.
No there's not. That is to say: according to which numbers?
Why don't you dilute your numbers even further since that seems to be your goal. with 114,761,359 households in America that means only 3% were burglarized, door locks must be useless then right?
No, in fact, most of that percentage (~2 percent points) were burglaries into houses with unlocked doors or windows. Locking doors and windows could very well prevent a lot of burglaries. But then again, who locks their doors during the day?
There were 266,560 thousand people in that study who were assaulted, or raped in their homes.
Yes, most of them by relatives, ex-lovers and other people known to them. Also note that the number includes everybody who was punched firmly in the arm or kicked in the balls during the burglary.
That is absolutely barbaric and those people absolutely have the right to protect themselves. You are presumably not one of those people so I doubt you know what it's like to be victimized like that. I've met a great number of the people doing the murdering raping and robbing and I absolutely will use a firearm, or whatever means available to protect myself from them. Now I will use appropriate levels of force. I wouldn't shoot someone in the face for knocking on my car window begging for money when I stop at a red light. But if someone smashed in my window or opened my car door at an intersection they are quite likely to get a face full of pepper spray, and if they persist beyond that I will most likely end them.
I completely agree with this behaviour. Well, up until the "if pepperspray doesn't work, I'll kill him."
Why not just shoot him in the knee? Or the shoulder or the lungs or the gut. I mean.. Does it have escalate that quickly?
Doesn't matter really what I'm considered...as long as I'm the one left still standing, breathing and able to reproduce (optional).
That is exactly what a barbarian would say.
If it is between my life and ANY other human life on this planet, MY life is always the most important to me.
You assume the 'home invader' was going to kill you, which according to statistics (and even more so according to your story) is really unlikely (in the US): http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/vdhb.pdf
About 24,000 burglaries yearly lead to serious injury, which is 8.5% of all violent burglaries and 0.6% of all burglaries. And I'm pretty sure things like a broken arm or serious concussion are counted as serious injuries, but this is speculation, of course.
By the way, I do agree on choosing ones' own life over that of another (barring relatives), but I also strongly believe in a civilized society and a civilized judicial and enforcement system. I.e. no vigilantism.
Tanks and choppers are also known for their whisper-quiet operation.
Wait, does this mean running away might not help much?
And that is why you are considered a barbarian.
So.. You almost shot a guy in the face when you were a kid and consider that to be 'responsible'?
Seriously, what do you think you would have done if the guy actually came into your house and proceeded towards your kitchen to drink water and/or rob your house?
Do you really believe calling 911 and running out the back of your house would have been worse?
Were you talking to me or to edibobb?
'[Gun laws] makes [sic] it for "fucking normal people" harder to posess, which is incidentily the root of the problem. It would have taken one normal individual to stop this idiot'
Sounds to me like you were arguing that gun laws should be less strict.
To be fair, where I come from, the gun laws the US has now classify as giving lots of people easy access to guns.
Anyway, did you watch the video?
Yeah, confined to the ocean and only in temperate surface waters. We can take 'em ;-)
No. No, it doesn't. We have the ability to create a global extinction event at any time. It is absolutely ridiculous to imply that bacteria have more potential drastic effects on the ecosystems on Earth than humans. That we choose not to wield the vast array of means we have to do so, does not equate to the idea that those means do not exist.
Continuing, I was and am very well aware that total biomass can indicate the significance of a species to the ecosystem as a whole (but made an apparently failed attempt at humour). To imply that biomass is particularly important in determining what success in evolution is, is wrong, however.
You intentionally introduced the word phylum, thereby lobbing quite a number of species on the same pile. If one looks at biomass of distinct species, krill and humans are numbers one and two. More importantly, the specializations of different bacteria species means that any individual species is by far not as versatile, resilient, stable, long-living and powerful as humans are. If you disagree, I'd like to hear which specific species we are dwarfed by.
Why would we wait that long?
Most of the critters are pretty useless to us already or will be so in the near future.
effects on the Earth's ecosystems
Yes, global nuclear war wouldn't change anything.
Also, I'd say that thinking that the amount of biomass is a good indicator of evolution is probably a very USian thought.
So, even if we lump in homicides with your suicides AND assume homicides are committed by legal gun owners (which most times they are not): 28,000 is 0.035% of 80 million gun owners in the US, which means it is NOT the "primary purpose of owning a gun". It in fact accounts for a MINISCULE use of firearms.
I'd like to hear your opinion on the purpose of fire escapes.
An assault rifle is a marketing term. These rifles function EXACTLY THE SAME as semiautomatic hunting rifles. The only differences are: they look more menacing, have accessory rails and a different grip. You can buy a wooden rifle - not considered an "assault rifle" - which fires the EXACT same caliber bullets, at EXACTLY the same rate with EXACTLY the same capacity.
One could of course argue that that just means that semiautomatic hunting rifles can wreak equal havoc.
What does adding 'hunting' to the phrase actually change? That you can't attach a grenade launcher?
The PDF is more informative:
http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/vdhb.pdf
Apparently, making less than $7500 a year is pretty dangerous for a household.
Also dangerous: running a household as a single parent, an American Indian, or as someone under the age of 20.
Of course, if you are worried about violence during a burglary, know that your enemies are close to you:
"One or more household members knew the offenders in some manner in 65% of the 266,560 burglaries that took place while someone was present and experienced violence (table 17). Overall, household members knew approximately a third of these offenders as intimates (current or former) (31%), or relatives, well-knowin individuals or household acquaintances (34%)."
That doesn't have anything to do with the following statement: "However, that might mean they'd have to pay for at least double the computer time to do it."
Also, a slightly more complex rendering process is probably not going to offset 11 years of Moore's law by much. Then again, I guess there are plenty of ways to destroy rendering performance. Whether that is required, I doubt.
I've seen such statements uttered in complete seriousness many times. I guess I should be happy you were just joking.
Yet almost nowhere else in the civilized world do large amounts of fucking idiots have guns.
For every normal individual with a gun, you have probably 99 complete fucking idiots like these people:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pTVa0aQnvVU (Stick around till or forward to 4:30)
Yes. Lots of people should have easy access to guns. Good call.
Given that the entire film was digitally animated, they probably could. However, that might mean they'd have to pay for at least double the computer time to do it.
Because performance per second and performance per dollar haven't dropped at all since 2001.
Whilst I do generally like higher frame rates, the above is actually the trouble... It looks _too_ realistic. For a high fantasy movie like The Hobbit sometimes putting a little 24Hz vaseline on the lens helps let your brain fill in the gaps with fantasy. That 48Hz the project fills in the gaps with reality.
It sounds reasonable, but it isn't. There are less frames, but the filling in your brain does is more or less equal to what just presenting it with more frames does. It doesn't synthesize detail like it does with low spatial resolution imagery.
Consider the following: suppose you were given a low resolution drawing, you would not be able to draw the equivalent of the high resolution version of it. If you were given two subsequent (drawn) frames, you _would_ be able to fairly accurately draw the frame in between.
It is really just a matter of getting used to the smoother optical flow. Anecdotal, but: when I saw the effects of the temporal interpolation algorithms on my '100Hz ultramotionflowsupersmooth+(tm)' TV, I hated them with a passion, experiencing the 'soap' effect.
When I played around with it a little bit, I started getting used to it. I am now so used to it that watching 24fps material without at least the most basic motion interpolation turned on is something I find extremely distracting. In fact, every single frame skip or visible judder in any video has become painfully obvious for me.
You assume guilt where none was implied. This is what we call attacking a straw man.
Try again.
I think you're slightly underestimating the amount of natural numbers.
I agree, searching 'golden shower head' now actually mostly returns images of a golden shower heads, instead of well, you know.
On the other hand, searching for 'anal' used to be slightly titillating. I'm not sure the new set of returned images is an improvement.
I'll leave it up to the reader to take the chance and enter that term in the image searches of google.com and of google.co.uk.
From the paper on the image based algorithm:
"On the other hand the fixed contour level setting strategy resulted in file sizes 10x larger than their pixel equivalents which we did not attempt to address in the work being reported here. However, the results of Lindeberg [1998] suggest we have been far too conservative in fixing the local resolution of contour segments in smooth areas. If we compute a resolution measure which scales with local smoothness we should be able to significantly reduce the number of segments per contour"
I'm not sure whether trying to encode video in vectors would exacerbate or alleviate the data bloat.