All we have left from their little ego trip (the French reset and did their revolution again a few times since then) are their arbitrary units of measure that aren't scaled to anything particular in the human experience.
I don't see how what you've quoted makes any difference to the GP's point. The ad targeting has been demonstrated to be discriminatory (in the non-perjorative sense) and GP was suggesting why.
Women and men are different. Company takes advantage of this bleedin' obvious fact to make more money from its advertisers. Film at 11!
Spreadsheet-based managers say "Average view is 3 minutes".
What use is that statistic? So the average view is 3 minutes. Why does that mean videos shouldn't be over X minutes long?
Is it to stop the staff wasting time shooting and editing videos that are too long? If so, that idea hasn't worked at all, because we've still got 10 minutes of video to go with this article, just pointlessly broken up into two videos.
They invented a processor with level 1 cache? WOW!
No, they didn't.
I assume they phrased it incorrectly
I assume you skimmed the article, didn't really understand it, but figured you could still get away with sounding condescendingly intelligent to around 50% of Slashdot readers.
What do you mean, nobody knows how the brain works? Neuroscience has made some progress over the years, you know. We might not know everything (especially once you start getting into the emergence of consciousness) but that doesn't mean no-one knows anything.
In any case, it's entirely possible to be inspired by something while still having little to no idea about how it works.
i have some bad news about newspaper titles and proper noun for you.
The bad news is that it's a stupid idea and no-one should be doing it. "Everyone else does it" is not a decent justification for continuing the out-dated and pointless tradition of title case headlines. The good news is that more and more people seem to be eschewing it these days.
Putting the names of publications like Wired in italics would also have been a great help in this case, but knowing Slashdot that kind of thing would take six months of behind-the-scenes testing, followed by a day of actual use during which at least eighty cross-scripting vulnerabilities would be discovered because they implemented it with Javascript.
Also, "photogs"? Has management handed down an arbitrary word-length limit to go with the arbitrary video-length limit that means they have to resort to slang?
Well, apologies for not spotting that. I allowed my automatic assumption that there was no possible good reason for doing this to lead me to not checking the text.
That said, I still can't see any good reason for doing this. "Management-imposed restraints" could mean anything. Does "management" think two 5 minute videos costs less in bandwidth than one 10 minute video?
Is there any actual reason you've decided to put TWO videos in this article?
Does the end of part one mark a change in topic? It doesn't seem to from the transcript. In fact, you seem to have cut one of your own questions out, according to the transcript.
One video is already an abominable waste of space. Two is just freakin' stupid unless you've got a good reason. A very good reason.
Take one face detector from OpenCV and use it to find a nose. Take the skin color from the nose and then see what parts of the body are skin colored in the photo. If there is lot of skin color shout NUDE!
Technically the Pluto-Charon system is not a primary with a satellite, but a double system. The center of mass of the system is not within either body, but in the space between them.
Technically, I don't think any such defintion has ever been formally adopted by the IAU (and they're the people who matter when it comes to deciding whether anyhing is technically anything in space).
There was a proposal to reclassify Pluto and Charon as a double planet system, but it was rejected, so they remain (dwarf) planet and moon.
Slashdot Mirror
http://science.slashdot.org/co...
All we have left from their little ego trip (the French reset and did their revolution again a few times since then) are their arbitrary units of measure that aren't scaled to anything particular in the human experience.
And your proposal is... what? The cubit?
I don't see how what you've quoted makes any difference to the GP's point. The ad targeting has been demonstrated to be discriminatory (in the non-perjorative sense) and GP was suggesting why.
Women and men are different. Company takes advantage of this bleedin' obvious fact to make more money from its advertisers. Film at 11!
Everything else will still work, but there'll be no pictures of cats. That's what this one data centre is dedicated to.
One floor consists of nothing but custom servers implementing rendering of the "Impact" font entirely in hardware.
They claim the carbon impact of one person's yearly Facebook use is roughly the same as the impact of one medium latte.
Great. We've moved into a whole new era of hipster-friendly casual units of measurement.
Henceforth, length of text will no longer be measured in Libraries of Congress, but in multiples of either Gravity's Rainbow or Atlas Shrugged.
"The evidence did not prove he intended to appropriate all or a major portion of the code's economic value," Conviser wrote.
So if I get my grubby little protuberances on some code that's worth £100m, but I only make £1m with it, I'm okay?
...let's not and say we did.
Spreadsheet-based managers say "Average view is 3 minutes".
What use is that statistic? So the average view is 3 minutes. Why does that mean videos shouldn't be over X minutes long?
Is it to stop the staff wasting time shooting and editing videos that are too long? If so, that idea hasn't worked at all, because we've still got 10 minutes of video to go with this article, just pointlessly broken up into two videos.
That's your opinion. There's no formally adopted definition to that effect.
They invented a processor with level 1 cache? WOW!
No, they didn't.
I assume they phrased it incorrectly
I assume you skimmed the article, didn't really understand it, but figured you could still get away with sounding condescendingly intelligent to around 50% of Slashdot readers.
You don't know much about computers, do you?
What do you mean, nobody knows how the brain works? Neuroscience has made some progress over the years, you know. We might not know everything (especially once you start getting into the emergence of consciousness) but that doesn't mean no-one knows anything.
In any case, it's entirely possible to be inspired by something while still having little to no idea about how it works.
Ever wonder how they make robots look so awesomely real in movies?
By not overdoing the CGI, that's how. And not using shaky-running cam just because you have motion matching now.
And if you must use CGI, by not allowing it to dictate the shots you film or the lighting you use.
In other news, does Gillian Anderson have a painting hidden in her attic, or what?
i have some bad news about newspaper titles and proper noun for you.
The bad news is that it's a stupid idea and no-one should be doing it. "Everyone else does it" is not a decent justification for continuing the out-dated and pointless tradition of title case headlines. The good news is that more and more people seem to be eschewing it these days.
Putting the names of publications like Wired in italics would also have been a great help in this case, but knowing Slashdot that kind of thing would take six months of behind-the-scenes testing, followed by a day of actual use during which at least eighty cross-scripting vulnerabilities would be discovered because they implemented it with Javascript.
Also, "photogs"? Has management handed down an arbitrary word-length limit to go with the arbitrary video-length limit that means they have to resort to slang?
In the cloud, obvs.
Yes, and they could copy the Mona Lisa so everyone could see it up close.
...beep.
No, two new videos! That's got to be twice as good!
Well, apologies for not spotting that. I allowed my automatic assumption that there was no possible good reason for doing this to lead me to not checking the text.
That said, I still can't see any good reason for doing this. "Management-imposed restraints" could mean anything. Does "management" think two 5 minute videos costs less in bandwidth than one 10 minute video?
Was "management" perhaps previously in charge of disposable razor marketing?
Is there any actual reason you've decided to put TWO videos in this article?
Does the end of part one mark a change in topic? It doesn't seem to from the transcript. In fact, you seem to have cut one of your own questions out, according to the transcript.
One video is already an abominable waste of space. Two is just freakin' stupid unless you've got a good reason. A very good reason.
So? Can German courts not set precedents for future German decisions?
Take one face detector from OpenCV and use it to find a nose. Take the skin color from the nose and then see what parts of the body are skin colored in the photo. If there is lot of skin color shout NUDE!
And if I give it a photo of a nose?
Ascension is generally more metaphorical than ascent.
Technically the Pluto-Charon system is not a primary with a satellite, but a double system. The center of mass of the system is not within either body, but in the space between them.
Technically, I don't think any such defintion has ever been formally adopted by the IAU (and they're the people who matter when it comes to deciding whether anyhing is technically anything in space).
There was a proposal to reclassify Pluto and Charon as a double planet system, but it was rejected, so they remain (dwarf) planet and moon.
No, the moons have been renamed now that it's a dwarf planet. Sharon, Tracy, Debbie, Jessica, and Steve.
Steeeve!