Yes, Jesus was real. He may have been just a regular guy that everyone mentions...or uhm wait, who actually mentions him except in that one book? -You know what? doesn't even matter cause I have a personal relationship with Jesus so of course he's real. DUH
Seriously, why the heck would you ever bother with this?
Nutrition is partly about Macro nutrients and A LOT about micro nutrients. This shit has virtually no micro nutrients. You can survive on bread and water only as well but it's not healthy.
The elephant in the room is the source of protein, soy. Soy LOWERS your testosterone levels. It directly impacts testosterone in men why the fuck would a man want to consume this shit?
Here's a fast healthy breakfast; whole grain bread, sunny-side up egg, slice of tomato on top. Done.
The egg has a certain integrity as is, meaning it will not mix with oil. If you scramble it or make it into an omelette it will absorb the cooking oil.
Whole grain bread is healthier, the less processed the better. (Processed whole grain is often powdered which defeats the point.)
Tomato, it has...but the point is micro nutrients.Veg, fruit, fresh meat etc have micronutrients.
Every food product you see about promoting health says what? "As part of a healthy lifestyle and balanced diet" because the product you see in the ad is not what makes you healthy it's a balanced diet and healthy lifestyle that does it. Not fucking Soylent.
Now commit to exercising today and never think about eating powdered liquid again. -wanna lose wait? EAT LESS CALORIES THAN YOU EXPEND.
Sending broadcasts is not a "thing" this is called updating more than one address like an email list. It's all about the same thing. Emailing/messaging more than one person.
You can share all your photos securely on shared drives "in the cloud", you can send updates to people over SMS or email. You can blog about life anywhere. People can comment about your posts and get updates when you upload shit etc.
You can genuinely do EVERYTHING facebook allows you to do as well if not better through a different service/program.
Where facebook is superior is by tying all that functionality into one easily accessible interface.
Once upon a time you could only send text, certain amounts of characters and everything was separate. Audio, video, html, text etc. Now it's all in one platform and it's interactive. If you're used to using computer technology over the last 20 years you might genuinely have a better answer to everything facebook can offer...
Computers used to be for nerds. Now there is facebook and so computers are cool. The people on facebook are mostly not admins, not even users they are consumers. Make a consumer click one more time then the alternative and you lose the consumer.
People do not see a reason why having one facebook acccount, one user/pass to do all the messaging, blogging, video sharing and picture voyeurism is in any way wrong or disadvantageous. This is the genius of facebook. It has become an easy versatile utility while selling its users data.
How have we defined laziness? -activity levels seems rather vague. Grouping "thinkers" and "non-thinkers" sounds like bias.
I know some very intelligent people that are constantly on the go due to kids, work, training and a restless nature. How have we defined "intelligent"?
Lazy people, as I define them; are those that choose inaction at the expense of others. Like not taking out the trash until someone else is fed-up and does it for them. You could argue it is intelligent to force others to expend more energy while you conserve yours but that's manipulative and a very narrow expression of intelligence.
So while there may be a CORRELATION between being lazy and intelligence it is ultimate detrimental to the individual deemed lazy and thus not that smart in the end.
Far more intelligent would be to contribute and take part as that gets you further in life. Being thought of as a person that "makes an effort" is far better for an individual living in society than being known as "lazy".
If you would allow me to perhaps put a finer point on your words...
1) They TEND to be more computer literate. BELIEVE (like most people) they are more intelligent than average and are thought to self-learn. (myth but all humans self-teach to some degree)
2) Come from a wide variety of socioeconomic backgrounds as computers are inexpensive these days are are not the domain of the privileged for some time now. The advantage is thus null and void as this is not a "thing" in the western world. - the difference is the WILL to use computers in creative ways. That gives advantages but not because people use computers or have them but rather because some people are creative and some of those use computers.
3) I'm not aware of parents that discourage children from learning. What some parents do is try to limit their children's access to knowledge they deem unsafe, incorrect etc.This can range from mild political views to preaching violence based on bigotry. -plenty of talented individuals came from awful backgrounds. Statistically they may be less likely to but whatever beef you have with your parents is not related.
4) (your forgot this one) this study might be garbage but assuming its gold it might indicate a basic truth about biology. Use what you have and it is likely to improve. Even the worst gym routine will produce SOME results if you're persistent. So using your brain consistently for SOMETHING (gaming, cross words, puzzles, chess, negotiation, driving) will show improvement in related areas.
As an atheist I treat all religions equally and this does present some rather profound religious challenges. Specifically when a person had a donated organ in them that was grown in an animal that conflicts with their belief system...such as a pig, pig DNA even in the smallest amounts would still exist.
Now if a portion of a pig is in a person can that person still be Jewish or Muslim? how about an organ grown in a cow if a person is Hindu? -Now before you label me a troll just hold your horses and hear me out.
There are plenty of crack-pot beliefs out there preventing people from getting life saving medical operations. From supposed hyper-sensitivity to wireless signals to the whole nonsense with the MMR vaccine allegedly causing autism.
So assuming the religious community decides you cannot be jewish/muslim if you have an organ in you that was grown in a pig; and say for arguments sake the legal guardians are religious, and their child is under-aged but wants to live via organ donation from whatever animal conflicts with their belief system, would the government step-in for the benefit of the individual being saved? Should it?
Would denying such people on the grounds of religion be considered a hate crime? As denial of such a procedure may be a death sentence.
Sure, one way to see it. Another way is to say; the game has changed. It;s about who attacks first because the latest stealth tech cannot be defended against.
Have you spoken to old people much? they bitch and moan and have a whole list of shit they don't like.
Seems the key is patience. Older people have more patience. They are as unhappy to put up with "shit" as the next guy but they have patience that comes with experience.
Indeed there are parallels with the fictional monster "Troll".
I think the most important characteristic to remember about a troll is that even when wounded by the sharp blade of wit a troll tends to regenerate as it thrives on negative interactions. Without cutting its head off and setting it on fire it just keeps coming back.
There's also a case to suggest that like fictional monster trolls there is a myriad of differing real life trolls and their artful ways are as varied as art itself.
There is the cutting troll with biting sarcasm and jabbing remarks, often about ones mother.
There is the volume troll with an endless stream of drivel that would make you wish they did not have a mother.
There is the semi troll with the mama jokes that are super funny!!!!!!!!11 (This type still lives with their mothers)
There's the disabled troll that has no other option but to interact with others online and their anti-social hate fills screens with vile, hateful comments. (But their mother loves them)
There is also the trapping troll that lurks in dark recesses waiting for someone unsuspecting to pass by and justify all their patient waiting. (Often someone's mother)
Let's not forget the anti-troll that trolls trolls. A rare cannibalistic subspecies that is outcast and hated by its own kind. (and probably by its' mother)
Well, there's a lot more kinds and if you appreciate trolling you may enjoy many of these forms and indeed contribute to the community with your very own nuanced style.
Depending on the type of troll your encounter you may misunderstand that they are in fact trolls or conclude that someone you disagree with is simply a troll. I've seen lots of art which I think is not worth toilet paper but beauty is in the eye of the beholder. (Also in the eyes of mothers that no matter how ugly their baby is still somehow think it's beautiful)
I would like to think that the modern troll isn't a fail-troll but rather a trendy, up-to-date with technology kind of troll that will show you pictures of him having sex with your mother in some future VR interaction but there's little evidence that this is the winning definition. (checked urban dictionary)
Now go express yourself. Troll. Be all you can be.
I agree in principle. In practice all governments, politicians, businessmen and generally people seek to gain an edge. Often legitimately but also through underhanded tactics.
Being a major political player in any government often means you have to swim with the sharks. You think the virtuous, righteous and do-gooders get front seats when the feeding frenzy starts?
The last thing any politician would want is someone genuinely honest, pure and smart. There's no leverage on these people and they make everyone look bad. They get pushed to the sidelines, bullied and squashed.
You know all those lessons parents teach children about sharing and playing fair? that's not how these people grew up to act in practice.
It is down right naive to believe this sort of thing is not standard practice if you know about it or not.
While I admire your devotion to the principle it is rather amusing.
These sort of shenanigans, back stabbing and political manoeuvring have been taking place in politics since the Greek had a senate.
The only difference is that this time they got exposed doing it. Like Lance Armstrong's doping and stripping him of titles. Almost all of the athletes he was competing against were doping as well.
They all cheat. They all manipulate and they all lie. Have you not heard of politics before? we'd have to invalidate so most previous primary results.
Well...resolution is nice but if your pixels are massive you need a larger screen and a farther away viewing distance.
The human eye has a theoretical "limit" of 2194ppi at 4" distance. The further you are from the screen the more pixels you can notice. And densities under 550ppi the vast majority of people can notice pixels. A higher resolution might not translate to smoother pictures at a certain distance because of pixel sizes.
So you have to workout the size of the screen and resolution (assuming you are at a distance in which you can see the entire screen) to figure out of there is additional benefit for most people. Some interesting reading -> http://wolfcrow.com/blog/notes...
That's the short story if this is "overkill" and really it is not. We may be reaching the human eye's minimum discernible ppi but we would still benefit from a better standard. For a 90" display we should still be able to tell the difference between 8k and 12k resolution.
We still need to catch up in terms of refresh rate. The human vision system can be tricked into deciphering motion at close to 24 FPS but we can still see jitter, lag and notice that this is not as smooth as vision. 60 FPS is still not quite there and 90FPS is amazing but not if the screen does not refresh as fast and SMOOTHLY (no tearing etc)
8K is not overkill. It's not reaching the limits of human vision. Consider density, colour spectrum, reproduction, accuracy, contrast and uniformity and so on. We're still a distance from going beyond the limits of the eye and vision system. I think there's still 10-15 years until we get there.
Sorry to break it to you but the image is likely to be smaller on a higher resolution display. Instead of upscaling lower resolution images what usually happens is that the image is remaps into existing resolution space typically from top left to bottom right.
So what this means is that your 4K picture might make it seems as though your huge schwartz will be only 2 inches long.
What do they expect people to do? talk to each other offline?! -the people who started this are sick, demented fossils clinging to the dying ways of old farts.
I bet some millennials have already got into panic attacks and shock when they got no signal and missed their tinder hook-up or could no longer understand where they were because GPS was not working any more.
I'm launching a FB campaign against this barbaric treatment. Something must be done.
You cannot give Windows 10 away for free. This is windows Vista all over again that was so bad it was not even pirated!
Sorry, I apologise. Windows Vista did not annoy, deceive and eventually force itself on users. That's the only reason Win 10 adoption is so "high".
I'll wait for windows 11 or Next or in fact Windows RG. Like I did when I was on XP, I waited until Win7 came out because it was an OS that does not suck.
If needs be Win7 will be THE LAST Microsoft OS I will ever use. I'll just use Linux and SteamOS.
Top google search result when you type "reasons not to u"? you guess it. "reasons not to upgrade to windows 10"
Because reasons:
http://www.infoworld.com/article/2972298/microsoft-windows/10-reasons-you-shouldnt-upgrade-to-windows-10.html
http://www.cnet.com/uk/how-to/5-reasons-not-to-upgrade-to-windows-10/
http://www.windowscentral.com/14-reasons-not-to-upgrade-windows-10
http://itvision.altervista.org/why-windows-10-sucks.html (Good level of technical detail)
What happens when you can pay what you want, if you want to? -seems some people will pay what they think it is worth. Look at free software or any pay what you want model.
If you tell people they can have a cookie for $0.01 they might have 10 or 50. If you tell people the cookies are free they will often take one maybe two. Out of politeness to others. Most people will pay for value. Perceived value as intrinsic value might not be relevant.
So when that hacker releases a copy allowing anyone to play as much as they want without paying it seems many people still choose to pay if they see value in the game. After all, Call of Duty was the most pirated game ever and still was the most financially successful ever. A pirated copy does not equate to a lost sale. It assumes the copy did not correspond to a sale and that the person obtaining a copy would have purchased a legal one if they could not get that illegal copy.
I'm rather certain that even if a car could be produced in 3 seconds the impact would still be very different for the same reasons outlined before. Stealing tangible property is simply unlike copying intangible property. The resulting material consequences are worlds apart.
It is all about subjective, perceived value. Every person has a subjective belief of what has value and it's down to the individual to make that assessment. Gold has no value but then again nothing genuinely has intrinsic value except of course that we believe something is worth X. The paper dollar is only there because of belief that it has value that if upheld. This goes back to the gold standard and how money today is simply virtual and if we all wanted to withdraw our funds at the same time there would not be enough money in the world for everyone to cash out...this is somewhat removed from the discussion so I'll leave it there.
Tell me, what do you think would happen when 3D printing hits mainstream? when "designing" a plastic part to fix a toy is no longer a challenge. The "design" would then be controlled. Unauthorised copies would become illegal. If I made a copy from my own resources do you still mean to say that still is like stealing a car?
Let me take it a step further. When we are finally able to take VR to the next level and interface with the brain directly on the neural level and so enable us to record thoughts who gets paid if I can recall songs and film with perfect accuracy?
The model for enforcing payment per copy of such intangibles is dying. The methods used rely on past business models which are failing everyone. The industry is clinging to a failing model to make sure the old chain of middlemen gets paid. Film will continue but we'll make that transition away from the cinema directly to the consumer and we will revert to paying for actual work rather than copies of the work.
Artists will go back to performing as their performances are unique. Their copies are not. People will choose to pay for that experience for many years to come.
Actually you demonstrated parallels but not that it is the same thing. It simply isn't.
Let's use your car example. If a person steals a car someone loses a car. If a person copies a car no one loses a car. The "loss" is the theoretical amount that would have been gained assuming the person would have paid for it. There was no worthwhile material displacement, inconvenience, financial hole due to black market money laundering etc.
I wouldn't compare those two hundred thousand man hours but let's assume I did. In one example, a car that has raw materials cost, on-going safety standards to uphold, warranty obligations and so on has a base set cost. The product costs a fair amount of change just to make. A copy of intellectual work has none of these. It's not designed for your fit, it has no material cost. Intellectual property has no depreciation dictated by simple market forces based on the value of goods. An unsold car sitting in a warehouse depreciates. It loses money. An unsold copy still has 100% value. Very different.
If the process to produce cars out of carbon fibre became extremely cheap then we would have cheap cars made of carbon fibre...the market forces for copies of intellectual property are simply supply and demand. If demand is low and sales targets are not met the price goes down.
Take a game like Mass Effect 3 for example. I own two legal copies of the game. I paid full price when the game was out. A year ago it appeared on EA's Origin for £3. Name a single, fully working, popular car that is sold at 90% of its original value.
I'm not sure whose comments you were reading there but I never said "...they don't deserve anything." I said I pay for work I value. In my teens I'd have copies of all sorts of things. How many games promised a lot, had rave reviews and were shit? -forget opinion I mean technically buggy, crashing, not authenticating kinda shit. So now in my later years I am much wiser about what I pay for but I digress.
Statistically those that "pirate" content consume and pay for that content. Ergo the "industry" is making more money off these people than Joe Average. I go to cinema for major releases on premiere nights one or twice a week. I pay for the VIP IMAX seats and I assure you I can wait for the copied release IF I wanted.
So obviously I believe people should be compensated for their work. Of course the artists, actors etc have already been compensated for their work by the time the film debuts. If that film has no viewers that does not mean no one got paid. (unless they signed their salary away as a percentage of sales which is a rare deal to have)
You want philosophy? what can an actor possibly do to command a pay out of tens of millions? -there are people that have cured diseases for a fraction of the price and saved the lives of more people that we could count. In an age where the entry-level professional baseball player gets paid more in a week than a university professor makes in a year why should anyone feel bad someone aint getting their cut?
Of course even if I do not think it's fair and some people will never pay for copies of games or music or film there is of course the Elephant in the room. The film industry, the games industry and even the music industry have all made more money year on year almost religiously since the 80s. So someone is getting compensated handsomely and when shit does not work they say "piracy".
Now I think you could have picked a much better example than cars but...going back to your example; the car industry is regulated. The gaming industry is not. So when the authentication servers for ME3 went down who gave me my money back? who refunded me or apologised for the service? -forget game, let;s go back to movies. When I watched Spiderman 3 in the cinema and the screen blacked out several times until the projector was shut down due to overheating who refunded me? -have you ever tried to get a refund for not enjoying/not being able to enjoy a film in the cin
Slashdot Mirror
While I reboot your memory banks. Thank you for waiting.
Funny AND scary but what if you had Alzheimer's?
Yes, Jesus was real. He may have been just a regular guy that everyone mentions...or uhm wait, who actually mentions him except in that one book? -You know what? doesn't even matter cause I have a personal relationship with Jesus so of course he's real. DUH
Nobody fucks with the Jesus. -The Big Lebowski
Never look back.
(Obsessive types that maintain lists due to their religion of ad-hate will do 99% of all the blocking you need)
A drive large enough to hold all my porn in the palm of my hand!
Seriously, why the heck would you ever bother with this?
Nutrition is partly about Macro nutrients and A LOT about micro nutrients. This shit has virtually no micro nutrients. You can survive on bread and water only as well but it's not healthy.
The elephant in the room is the source of protein, soy. Soy LOWERS your testosterone levels. It directly impacts testosterone in men why the fuck would a man want to consume this shit?
Here's a fast healthy breakfast; whole grain bread, sunny-side up egg, slice of tomato on top. Done.
The egg has a certain integrity as is, meaning it will not mix with oil. If you scramble it or make it into an omelette it will absorb the cooking oil.
Whole grain bread is healthier, the less processed the better. (Processed whole grain is often powdered which defeats the point.)
Tomato, it has...but the point is micro nutrients.Veg, fruit, fresh meat etc have micronutrients.
Every food product you see about promoting health says what? "As part of a healthy lifestyle and balanced diet" because the product you see in the ad is not what makes you healthy it's a balanced diet and healthy lifestyle that does it. Not fucking Soylent.
Now commit to exercising today and never think about eating powdered liquid again. -wanna lose wait? EAT LESS CALORIES THAN YOU EXPEND.
They called the movie Suicide squad but none are committed to the act and no one actually committed suicide.
12 million your honour, I was distraught!
I think you've missed the mark.
Sending broadcasts is not a "thing" this is called updating more than one address like an email list. It's all about the same thing. Emailing/messaging more than one person.
You can share all your photos securely on shared drives "in the cloud", you can send updates to people over SMS or email. You can blog about life anywhere. People can comment about your posts and get updates when you upload shit etc.
You can genuinely do EVERYTHING facebook allows you to do as well if not better through a different service/program.
Where facebook is superior is by tying all that functionality into one easily accessible interface.
Once upon a time you could only send text, certain amounts of characters and everything was separate. Audio, video, html, text etc. Now it's all in one platform and it's interactive. If you're used to using computer technology over the last 20 years you might genuinely have a better answer to everything facebook can offer...
Computers used to be for nerds. Now there is facebook and so computers are cool. The people on facebook are mostly not admins, not even users they are consumers. Make a consumer click one more time then the alternative and you lose the consumer.
People do not see a reason why having one facebook acccount, one user/pass to do all the messaging, blogging, video sharing and picture voyeurism is in any way wrong or disadvantageous. This is the genius of facebook. It has become an easy versatile utility while selling its users data.
How have we defined laziness? -activity levels seems rather vague. Grouping "thinkers" and "non-thinkers" sounds like bias.
I know some very intelligent people that are constantly on the go due to kids, work, training and a restless nature. How have we defined "intelligent"?
Lazy people, as I define them; are those that choose inaction at the expense of others. Like not taking out the trash until someone else is fed-up and does it for them. You could argue it is intelligent to force others to expend more energy while you conserve yours but that's manipulative and a very narrow expression of intelligence.
So while there may be a CORRELATION between being lazy and intelligence it is ultimate detrimental to the individual deemed lazy and thus not that smart in the end.
Far more intelligent would be to contribute and take part as that gets you further in life. Being thought of as a person that "makes an effort" is far better for an individual living in society than being known as "lazy".
If you would allow me to perhaps put a finer point on your words...
1) They TEND to be more computer literate. BELIEVE (like most people) they are more intelligent than average and are thought to self-learn. (myth but all humans self-teach to some degree)
2) Come from a wide variety of socioeconomic backgrounds as computers are inexpensive these days are are not the domain of the privileged for some time now. The advantage is thus null and void as this is not a "thing" in the western world. - the difference is the WILL to use computers in creative ways. That gives advantages but not because people use computers or have them but rather because some people are creative and some of those use computers.
3) I'm not aware of parents that discourage children from learning. What some parents do is try to limit their children's access to knowledge they deem unsafe, incorrect etc.This can range from mild political views to preaching violence based on bigotry. -plenty of talented individuals came from awful backgrounds. Statistically they may be less likely to but whatever beef you have with your parents is not related.
4) (your forgot this one) this study might be garbage but assuming its gold it might indicate a basic truth about biology. Use what you have and it is likely to improve. Even the worst gym routine will produce SOME results if you're persistent. So using your brain consistently for SOMETHING (gaming, cross words, puzzles, chess, negotiation, driving) will show improvement in related areas.
As an atheist I treat all religions equally and this does present some rather profound religious challenges. Specifically when a person had a donated organ in them that was grown in an animal that conflicts with their belief system...such as a pig, pig DNA even in the smallest amounts would still exist.
Now if a portion of a pig is in a person can that person still be Jewish or Muslim? how about an organ grown in a cow if a person is Hindu? -Now before you label me a troll just hold your horses and hear me out.
There are plenty of crack-pot beliefs out there preventing people from getting life saving medical operations. From supposed hyper-sensitivity to wireless signals to the whole nonsense with the MMR vaccine allegedly causing autism.
So assuming the religious community decides you cannot be jewish/muslim if you have an organ in you that was grown in a pig; and say for arguments sake the legal guardians are religious, and their child is under-aged but wants to live via organ donation from whatever animal conflicts with their belief system, would the government step-in for the benefit of the individual being saved? Should it?
Would denying such people on the grounds of religion be considered a hate crime? As denial of such a procedure may be a death sentence.
Sure, one way to see it. Another way is to say; the game has changed. It;s about who attacks first because the latest stealth tech cannot be defended against.
Have you spoken to old people much? they bitch and moan and have a whole list of shit they don't like.
Seems the key is patience. Older people have more patience. They are as unhappy to put up with "shit" as the next guy but they have patience that comes with experience.
It puts you in the "I hate your guts you skinny show-off" category.
I played Kerbal space program I know what you're talking about.
You're obviously struggling so let me help you. Next time, just say "Fly into the horizon until the blue line goes around the plant."
Hence the expression wiseass? *ponders*
Indeed there are parallels with the fictional monster "Troll".
I think the most important characteristic to remember about a troll is that even when wounded by the sharp blade of wit a troll tends to regenerate as it thrives on negative interactions. Without cutting its head off and setting it on fire it just keeps coming back.
There's also a case to suggest that like fictional monster trolls there is a myriad of differing real life trolls and their artful ways are as varied as art itself.
There is the cutting troll with biting sarcasm and jabbing remarks, often about ones mother.
There is the volume troll with an endless stream of drivel that would make you wish they did not have a mother.
There is the semi troll with the mama jokes that are super funny!!!!!!!!11 (This type still lives with their mothers)
There's the disabled troll that has no other option but to interact with others online and their anti-social hate fills screens with vile, hateful comments. (But their mother loves them)
There is also the trapping troll that lurks in dark recesses waiting for someone unsuspecting to pass by and justify all their patient waiting. (Often someone's mother)
Let's not forget the anti-troll that trolls trolls. A rare cannibalistic subspecies that is outcast and hated by its own kind. (and probably by its' mother)
Well, there's a lot more kinds and if you appreciate trolling you may enjoy many of these forms and indeed contribute to the community with your very own nuanced style.
Depending on the type of troll your encounter you may misunderstand that they are in fact trolls or conclude that someone you disagree with is simply a troll. I've seen lots of art which I think is not worth toilet paper but beauty is in the eye of the beholder. (Also in the eyes of mothers that no matter how ugly their baby is still somehow think it's beautiful)
I would like to think that the modern troll isn't a fail-troll but rather a trendy, up-to-date with technology kind of troll that will show you pictures of him having sex with your mother in some future VR interaction but there's little evidence that this is the winning definition. (checked urban dictionary)
Now go express yourself. Troll. Be all you can be.
I agree in principle. In practice all governments, politicians, businessmen and generally people seek to gain an edge. Often legitimately but also through underhanded tactics.
Being a major political player in any government often means you have to swim with the sharks. You think the virtuous, righteous and do-gooders get front seats when the feeding frenzy starts?
The last thing any politician would want is someone genuinely honest, pure and smart. There's no leverage on these people and they make everyone look bad. They get pushed to the sidelines, bullied and squashed.
You know all those lessons parents teach children about sharing and playing fair? that's not how these people grew up to act in practice.
It is down right naive to believe this sort of thing is not standard practice if you know about it or not.
While I admire your devotion to the principle it is rather amusing.
These sort of shenanigans, back stabbing and political manoeuvring have been taking place in politics since the Greek had a senate.
The only difference is that this time they got exposed doing it. Like Lance Armstrong's doping and stripping him of titles. Almost all of the athletes he was competing against were doping as well.
They all cheat. They all manipulate and they all lie. Have you not heard of politics before? we'd have to invalidate so most previous primary results.
Well...resolution is nice but if your pixels are massive you need a larger screen and a farther away viewing distance.
The human eye has a theoretical "limit" of 2194ppi at 4" distance. The further you are from the screen the more pixels you can notice. And densities under 550ppi the vast majority of people can notice pixels. A higher resolution might not translate to smoother pictures at a certain distance because of pixel sizes.
So you have to workout the size of the screen and resolution (assuming you are at a distance in which you can see the entire screen) to figure out of there is additional benefit for most people. Some interesting reading -> http://wolfcrow.com/blog/notes...
That's the short story if this is "overkill" and really it is not. We may be reaching the human eye's minimum discernible ppi but we would still benefit from a better standard. For a 90" display we should still be able to tell the difference between 8k and 12k resolution.
We still need to catch up in terms of refresh rate. The human vision system can be tricked into deciphering motion at close to 24 FPS but we can still see jitter, lag and notice that this is not as smooth as vision. 60 FPS is still not quite there and 90FPS is amazing but not if the screen does not refresh as fast and SMOOTHLY (no tearing etc)
8K is not overkill. It's not reaching the limits of human vision. Consider density, colour spectrum, reproduction, accuracy, contrast and uniformity and so on. We're still a distance from going beyond the limits of the eye and vision system. I think there's still 10-15 years until we get there.
Sorry to break it to you but the image is likely to be smaller on a higher resolution display. Instead of upscaling lower resolution images what usually happens is that the image is remaps into existing resolution space typically from top left to bottom right.
So what this means is that your 4K picture might make it seems as though your huge schwartz will be only 2 inches long.
What do they expect people to do? talk to each other offline?! -the people who started this are sick, demented fossils clinging to the dying ways of old farts.
I bet some millennials have already got into panic attacks and shock when they got no signal and missed their tinder hook-up or could no longer understand where they were because GPS was not working any more.
I'm launching a FB campaign against this barbaric treatment. Something must be done.
You cannot give Windows 10 away for free. This is windows Vista all over again that was so bad it was not even pirated!
Sorry, I apologise. Windows Vista did not annoy, deceive and eventually force itself on users. That's the only reason Win 10 adoption is so "high".
I'll wait for windows 11 or Next or in fact Windows RG. Like I did when I was on XP, I waited until Win7 came out because it was an OS that does not suck.
If needs be Win7 will be THE LAST Microsoft OS I will ever use. I'll just use Linux and SteamOS.
Top google search result when you type "reasons not to u"? you guess it. "reasons not to upgrade to windows 10"
Because reasons:
http://www.infoworld.com/article/2972298/microsoft-windows/10-reasons-you-shouldnt-upgrade-to-windows-10.html
http://www.cnet.com/uk/how-to/5-reasons-not-to-upgrade-to-windows-10/
http://www.windowscentral.com/14-reasons-not-to-upgrade-windows-10
http://itvision.altervista.org/why-windows-10-sucks.html (Good level of technical detail)
Windows 10. I dub thee "SE" Suckass Edition.
What happens when you can pay what you want, if you want to? -seems some people will pay what they think it is worth. Look at free software or any pay what you want model.
If you tell people they can have a cookie for $0.01 they might have 10 or 50. If you tell people the cookies are free they will often take one maybe two. Out of politeness to others. Most people will pay for value. Perceived value as intrinsic value might not be relevant.
So when that hacker releases a copy allowing anyone to play as much as they want without paying it seems many people still choose to pay if they see value in the game. After all, Call of Duty was the most pirated game ever and still was the most financially successful ever. A pirated copy does not equate to a lost sale. It assumes the copy did not correspond to a sale and that the person obtaining a copy would have purchased a legal one if they could not get that illegal copy.
I'm rather certain that even if a car could be produced in 3 seconds the impact would still be very different for the same reasons outlined before. Stealing tangible property is simply unlike copying intangible property. The resulting material consequences are worlds apart.
It is all about subjective, perceived value. Every person has a subjective belief of what has value and it's down to the individual to make that assessment. Gold has no value but then again nothing genuinely has intrinsic value except of course that we believe something is worth X. The paper dollar is only there because of belief that it has value that if upheld. This goes back to the gold standard and how money today is simply virtual and if we all wanted to withdraw our funds at the same time there would not be enough money in the world for everyone to cash out...this is somewhat removed from the discussion so I'll leave it there.
Tell me, what do you think would happen when 3D printing hits mainstream? when "designing" a plastic part to fix a toy is no longer a challenge. The "design" would then be controlled. Unauthorised copies would become illegal. If I made a copy from my own resources do you still mean to say that still is like stealing a car?
Let me take it a step further. When we are finally able to take VR to the next level and interface with the brain directly on the neural level and so enable us to record thoughts who gets paid if I can recall songs and film with perfect accuracy?
The model for enforcing payment per copy of such intangibles is dying. The methods used rely on past business models which are failing everyone. The industry is clinging to a failing model to make sure the old chain of middlemen gets paid. Film will continue but we'll make that transition away from the cinema directly to the consumer and we will revert to paying for actual work rather than copies of the work.
Artists will go back to performing as their performances are unique. Their copies are not. People will choose to pay for that experience for many years to come.
Actually you demonstrated parallels but not that it is the same thing. It simply isn't.
Let's use your car example. If a person steals a car someone loses a car. If a person copies a car no one loses a car. The "loss" is the theoretical amount that would have been gained assuming the person would have paid for it. There was no worthwhile material displacement, inconvenience, financial hole due to black market money laundering etc.
I wouldn't compare those two hundred thousand man hours but let's assume I did. In one example, a car that has raw materials cost, on-going safety standards to uphold, warranty obligations and so on has a base set cost. The product costs a fair amount of change just to make. A copy of intellectual work has none of these. It's not designed for your fit, it has no material cost. Intellectual property has no depreciation dictated by simple market forces based on the value of goods. An unsold car sitting in a warehouse depreciates. It loses money. An unsold copy still has 100% value. Very different.
If the process to produce cars out of carbon fibre became extremely cheap then we would have cheap cars made of carbon fibre...the market forces for copies of intellectual property are simply supply and demand. If demand is low and sales targets are not met the price goes down.
Take a game like Mass Effect 3 for example. I own two legal copies of the game. I paid full price when the game was out. A year ago it appeared on EA's Origin for £3. Name a single, fully working, popular car that is sold at 90% of its original value.
I'm not sure whose comments you were reading there but I never said "...they don't deserve anything." I said I pay for work I value. In my teens I'd have copies of all sorts of things. How many games promised a lot, had rave reviews and were shit? -forget opinion I mean technically buggy, crashing, not authenticating kinda shit. So now in my later years I am much wiser about what I pay for but I digress.
Statistically those that "pirate" content consume and pay for that content. Ergo the "industry" is making more money off these people than Joe Average. I go to cinema for major releases on premiere nights one or twice a week. I pay for the VIP IMAX seats and I assure you I can wait for the copied release IF I wanted.
So obviously I believe people should be compensated for their work. Of course the artists, actors etc have already been compensated for their work by the time the film debuts. If that film has no viewers that does not mean no one got paid. (unless they signed their salary away as a percentage of sales which is a rare deal to have)
You want philosophy? what can an actor possibly do to command a pay out of tens of millions? -there are people that have cured diseases for a fraction of the price and saved the lives of more people that we could count. In an age where the entry-level professional baseball player gets paid more in a week than a university professor makes in a year why should anyone feel bad someone aint getting their cut?
Of course even if I do not think it's fair and some people will never pay for copies of games or music or film there is of course the Elephant in the room. The film industry, the games industry and even the music industry have all made more money year on year almost religiously since the 80s. So someone is getting compensated handsomely and when shit does not work they say "piracy".
Now I think you could have picked a much better example than cars but...going back to your example; the car industry is regulated. The gaming industry is not. So when the authentication servers for ME3 went down who gave me my money back? who refunded me or apologised for the service? -forget game, let;s go back to movies. When I watched Spiderman 3 in the cinema and the screen blacked out several times until the projector was shut down due to overheating who refunded me? -have you ever tried to get a refund for not enjoying/not being able to enjoy a film in the cin
That does explain why it's a critical update without the X....