Considering that the regular image clone tool did that in one click, I don't think it's a very good test image./blockquote>
You do realize that makes it a perfect test image, right? It means that there is, in fact, a very high texture correspondence - you don't even have to mess with luminance gradients or anything. An algorithm that is designed to do this very sort of thing should, thus, be able to find (a) proper texture source(s) and fill in the part you want to remove.
I can certainly repeat the same with a more complex image - it's not going to fare much better, though.
That looks like it's great -if- and only if you only have your own intranet to worry about?
I.e. a system administrator for a local network suggesting that users should install Update X for Application Y, and having that served up to -those- machines through windows updates.
It doesn't do anything for a software publisher wanting their clients to know about updates. For that, you'd still need your own update checker?
Anybody with access to the Photoshop beta feature want to give that image a stab? For all I know it fails just as spectacularly - but from the research it's based on, I highly suspect it'll fare better.
reply to self - go figure.. I tried to dig up some more information on the old service.. and somewhere buried among the google hits: http://www.cnet.com/techtracker/
Which sounds like it does what the old app did... except you now need a CNet account to see the results? *sigh* Some posts in the forum for it ( http://forums.cnet.com/techtracker-forum/ ) seem to indicate some possible issues as well.
CNet used to have a similar service... only for the software that they themselves offered to users, of course. Then they discontinued it, re-launched as CatchUp, discontinued it again.. now it's some weird newsletter thing you can subscribe to.
Worked fairly well, though - was just a small utility that I guess checked for installed apps, checked the version info (from registry / files) for those it knew, and checked if there were any newer versions offered off of CNet.
Sucked when they discontinued it.. meant you had to check the pages / author sites manually all the time.. or subscribe to their RSS feeds (which only became popular later on), etc. In addition, half the apps I run now have their own update checking stuff.. some check on startup, some check every day, some check once a week... finding the settings for this (if the settings are even exposed) can be a to of fun too.. etc.
So hooray for Microsoft looking into this... looooong overdue. I do hope they allow -any- developer/application to take part, though.
Absolutely - but they shouldn't cry foul if indeed the code from those 20% -was- re-implemented in a proper manner.
Basically, if I contribute to a GPL project and then later on somebody manages to convince the other developers to allow them to re-license the code, then I shouldn't throw a hissy fit going "If I knew you guys were going to allow it to be re-licensed, away from the GPL philosophy, I would NEVER have contributed my code!"
I could, and some developers *might*.. but, again, there's no real -expectancy- that just because the project is GPL today it will forevermore be GPL.
under the expectation that the codebase will remain free throughout all revisions.
'the codebase'? I don't know why you would have that expectation.
You can have that expectation with regard to your own contributed code if you contributed that under the GPL license.
But if - and I'm not saying that's what THIS company did, but none of the sources seem to be particularly unbiased in this - a company decides that they want to make a version of the product under a different license which is incompatible with the GPL, decide to write to all of the developers asking if -their- code may be re-licensed, and let's say 80% agree to this leaving the company with having to re-write (see some earlier comment about 'clean room' and another about viral natures and whatnots) the works contributed by the other 20%... then I don't think that 20% can cry foul in any way.
Maybe that's something that will be addressed in a future version of the GPL, though;)
Our TV broadcasts have already spoken for us, and it wasn't a good message.
Isn't that in the eye of the beholder?
We're us - and though we do so with a lot of falling down and getting back up again, we generally strive to better ourselves and our fellow man all the time.
If that makes us unworthy of a casual visit, or more worthy of evaporation, by some alien civilization, so be it. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T6ya7ZRlrEo - "My Way", Frank Sinatra.
As it stands - we don't know -what- a particular alien civilization might enjoy... perhaps they're big fans of WW2 and want to include us in an intergalactic battle. Or maybe they just love Britney Spears and will come over to abduct all of the * Got Talent, * Idol, * Factor show people. Or maybe they'll catch one of the many talks from Stephen Hawking from old broadcasts and think it would be a jolly good time to sit down and have a chat with him via their neural interface gadgetry. So there's no point in entertaining the thought of "What Would The Aliens Do?" any more than WWJD-shirts do.. just carry on doing what we're doing for our own (planet's) good.
The powerful and easy-to-use Web browser. Try the only browser with Opera Turbo technology, and speed up your Internet connection.
Poland does have lovely broadband.. now all it needs is static IPs so I don't have to ban half the country (83.3.*.*-83.5.*.* and others) from my game server every time a handful of players decide to cheat and hit up the DHCP to get a new IP every time;)
In my view, from the situation in NL: A. People like you who want to have something physical even though you "don't even have to take the album out of its wrapper". Which means it's going where, exactly? On the wall? Into a filing cabinet of some sort? A box in the attic? I suppose maybe 50 years down the road if the indie band got big the vinyl might hold some great resale value, especially if it's still in mint wrapped condition. I guess that might form a sub-section A2: those who think it's an investment piece.. but that's got to be extremely marginal:)
B. People who like to claim that vinyls sound much better, more warm, yadda yadda.. even if most of the vinyls today are mastered -from- the same content that goes onto the CD version. They can still be better technical quality than CD (16bit 44.1kHz vs 24bit 96kHz, for example), but any other argument is moot. This does exclude those where the entire pipeline went from the raw recording to the vinyl -with- the vinyl in mind (i.e. little to no compression, more careful stereo separation, etc.)
C. Pretentious people who just want the vinyl + player prominently presented in their living room for the sole purpose of having others comment on it.
D. DJs who prefer working with the tactile feedback of vinyl, rather than virtual mixing and scratching pads (or even just pushing sliders on a computer screen around) necessitated for CD playback (and at that point, you might as well use digital files all the way).
E. ?
Note that only one of those has a reasonably rational argument - but let's face it.. vinyl sales aren't targeting people who are thinking rationally any more than companies selling GPS bluetooth devices (where you're often far better off ditching your current phone/PDA and getting one with GPS built-in).. and I don't blame them... there's obviously an audience.
The numbers don't mean too much not for the reason you mention (as others have pointed out, they probably correlate the IP address used for the download to the IP address's entry point and check the referrer for that hit) but because these are only downloads.
How many of those Polish potentially swayed by the "Opera Turbo technology - speed up your Internet connection" are actually going to -stick to- using Opera, rather than going back to IE or using another browser they might have downloaded through that same choice screen?
The only thing we can even remotely suggest is that if nothing else, the browser choice screen may have brought choice -awareness- to the masses more than any other effort has done so far. That alone is a Good Thing(TM)
except Europa. Attempt no landings there."... and as far as I can tell from wikipedia, it seems 'we' haven't yet? No landers, no hurling things into the surface to see what gets thrown up, no nothing... just flyby missions. hmm..
I'm intrigued to know what the issues with it were.
The author points out the problem in this part:
layers that can be separated to fake a different perspective for the second eye, but that's what it looks like, layers. So yes, you can push things away and pull things forward and enhance the depth, but the content within each layer has no depth.
I (though I'm sure I'm not the only/first) call it the diorama effect. You get a similar effect if you look through light-strong high power binoculars - due to the two front elements being spaced so much further apart, you get an exaggerated sense of depth.. which is great to gauge the depth given the surfaces you're watching off in the distance.. but any surfaces in between will appear flat - like cardboard cut-outs; like an elementary school diorama.
That said.. it's Alice in Wonderland... it kinda works for that.
Question is.. does it work for Clash of the Titans, or the Titanic re-release in '3D'? Not too sure about those.
Either way, it'll either add or detract... but to say it's a 'scam'? Nah. Be more open about how the 3D was produced, perhaps - but those who truly care will look this up in advance.
The rest of the complaints seem to be about the 3D bandwagon in general, losing a full stop of light, all that..
Not sure why he's complaining, though... he's a CG supe; that means any CG will have to be rendered twice... it's pretty much double the work for the renderfarm, for which they can bill, and a bit more work for the artists as well (to make sure the effects 'work' in 3D).. more billable stuff. I guess he's speaking more from a personal point of view than a business one.. but in that case his VFX qualifications carry much less weight. *Waves to 'Alex'*
Unfortunately, it seems many camera manufacturers - including Canon when it comes to their SLR line - are far happier to put any new functionality in newly released camera models and put them on the bullet list for those, rather than making it available for older models as well and just letting the new model's technical (rather than software) advantages make their sales.
So basically it's the whole physical goods vs (digital) data thing turned around...
I.e. if I steal a movie from a store, that store is now sans one movie, etc. If I 'steal' a movie on the internet, it's just a copy, and the originals are still left intact and whatnot.
Turned around in this case... the government is -not- actually messing with your original e-mail.. they aren't breaking into your house, or the recipient's house, etc. What they -could- be doing, however, is taking that copy - for which they don't even have to go to your place.. any intermediate server will do just dandy as long as it hangs on to that e-mail (for whatever reason).
Well, as others have said.. encrypt if you want to shield it from the world (although the recipient who can decrypt it can still do whatever they want with it.. but that's a trust issue rather than a security issue).
I'm not a geneticist, but... "The men matched at nine of the 13 locations on chromosomes, or loci, commonly used to distinguish people. [...] the odds of unrelated people sharing those genetic markers to be as remote as 1 in 113 billion"...what is the actual value of that statement if they already state that this is 9 out of 13 points checked? I'm presuming they're supposed to be checking 13 points because they already realized that checking just 1 point was stupid, 2 points wasn't much better, and so on. It would be a fun research subject - if not already done - to see... - given the combined DNA databases accessible to the researchers - given N number of markers - find the probability of two random DNA profiles matching on those markers - find the number of people stored in those DNA databases actually matching - compare the two findings, and see if reality is in line with the hypothesized probability. - If it is - crap. - If it isn't - hooray! Suggest more research need to be done into -why- they differ. *nudge*research grants*nudge*
They could take a stand against DRM too and stop buying the games
So they could.
You're omitting one point, though. You're not just -not- buying the game. You're not buying the game -and still getting it-. Big difference even if to you the only logic is "I wasn't going to pay the company ergo there is no difference in by then pirating it." ( disclaimer on the term 'pirate' goes here )
Your reply is basically saying "well I can't help that there's suckers out there who -don't- pirate their software/media/whathaveyou. EVERYBODY should pirate!" If that is indeed your stance - hey, good for you. But you're only re-inforcing a statement you made...
think that they "have" to have it or they'll die.
...because apparently you -had to have it-, if not by paying for it then by golly you'll just pirate it.
Oddly enough you failed to actually grasp and accept that point in jim_v2000's post ( http://games.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1583644&cid=31487222 ), and instead go for a "do not!"-defense. Well, to bring it down to that level of debating, then... "do too".
So register that, if you have a donor registry such as NL - or put it in your will if there is no such registry / you have privacy concerns.
Seems to me that the taboo on death is, in fact, at play here.
If you are religious and believe in some form of a soul, then the body tends to be an empty vessel once you're dead. If you aren't religious, then you probably believe that the lack of any electrical signals pretty much means your body is just organic matter.
By the way - your life is opt-out. Unless you made a conscious decision to be born into this world;)
I never understood why organ donation is opt-in rather than opt-out.
It's a good question - good luck getting any answers, though.
This has been playing in The Netherlands for a long time now - seems to pop up every few years.
In 1998 the centralized 'donor register' was started. People can indicate that they want to be a donor, what bits and pieces, that sort of thing.. or indicate that they do -not- want to be a donor. So it's opt-in - by default, if you're not registered / don't have aything written down in your will, your next of kin may decide (in which case 75% of the decisions on this are made against donating organs from the deceased). In 2002 the 'minister of health' said there would be no change for at least 2 years, after 2/3rds of the government decisionmakers decided against an opt-out system. In 2005, another voting round was held... 78 against, 68 -for- an opt-out system. I think there was another debate in 2008 or early 2009 but can't find a reference now.
None of the press articles on these state why they were against an opt-out system, though. Only statements such as being in favor of promoting becoming a donor, or at least registering - regardless of your choice.
I'm guessing it's got to do with the taboo on death that still lingers - probably even moreso in the U.S.
Either that or they fear that somebody would find out that you actively said "no, you can't take my organs", and then couple this to other databases / provisions / label you a cold, selfish, heartless (can't donate that, then!) bastard, etc.
I'm all for opt-out, with parents/guardians decision up to age 12, at which point anybody can decide for themselves, and at younger ages if the child can demonstrate that they do indeed know what they are deciding on, the consequences, etc. should it come to it that the parent(s)/guardian(s) disagree with the child. ( My Sister's Keeper was an interesting, albeit superficial, exploration of that theme )
You're one of those types that hit a wikipedia page, see some claimed fact without attribution, slap a [citation needed] on it, and then bugger off, aren't you?
uring the 911 call, the operator urged Mr. Sikes to shift the car into neutral. He later said he was afraid doing so might cause the car to "flip" or shift into reverse.
So uhmm... crack cocaine, heroine in section 8 and cyanide, phosgene in section 9 of your corner store, then?
There are already bans on some things where, if you're not careful about the use of it - and most people aren't, the ban is probably a good thing.
Given the amount of salt in people's diets these days - not just from restaurants but also from pre-packaged items - heck it might just be a good thing. Just lave the table salt on the table. If somebody then wants to empty the contents of the shaker into their bowl, that's their good right.. but it just might be an eye-opener for people.
Disclaimer: I'm in NL where restaurants aren't targeted so much, but producers of foodstuffs are; and rightly so.. some of the pre-packaged pre-cut cream spinach you get here, for example, is hideously salty - glad I usually buy frozen or fresh (prep time is the barrier for getting fresh spinach more frequently).
Hi! I'm with Six, Six and Sixth, representing the devil, and I would just like to point out that 'a right to internet access' does not necessarily mean that a person must at all times have internet access in their own home.
If their internet access at home is cut off, they can still go to any internet café, library or (at least over here) city hall and get their internet access there. If that is not compatible with the work they do - presuming they were self-employed - then maybe they should have thought about that before ignoring warnings (and I do presume they are sent by signed-for-with-ID mail). This is not much different from a professional semi driver crying foul when their driver's license is (temporarily) revoked for speeding / DUI - they, too, tend to know better and try to stick to the rules better than a person whose livelihood does not absolutely depend on having that drivers' license.
That said - I do not believe cutting people off is the right thing to do. Pinching their bandwidth - so that e-mail, webpages, etc. continue to work but downloading/sharing entire albums, movies, etc. become unattractive - seems a better solution to me. If the user then still continues to 'pirate', another set of 3 strikes on the road to cutting the connection entirely might be warranted.
Somebody mod parent up - only on-topic post?
on
Window Pain
·
· Score: 1
I mean seriously... almost -all- of the replies here have been about the usage of IE in general, or how he should just install popup blockers (he has one.. granted, it's Norton's, which results in the other replies ridiculing him for that), put sites in the hosts file, etc. etc. etc.
And you, good sir pizza, seem to be the only one who actually addresses his writings; although after a quick look at Fiddler - it doesn't seem like it would be able to give you a clear path from popup to originating script to originating iframe in originating page?
As that, I believe, is what the author was actually looking for. And I agree that it would be most useful - as trying to figure it out from all sorts of encoded javascript crap in temp filenames (if even stored at all), that it's not worth the bother. If it becomes worth the bother (by making it stupid-simple), then at least that gives a starting point for any potential further action.
You posted as anon - I do hope you bookmarked and come back to check for replies, though.
I think you misunderstood the meaning of the word 'rasterisation' here.
In overly simplistic terms... rasterisation is what your gaming card / console does whenever you play a game of Modern Warfare 2, HALO, etc. This is unrelated to pre-rendered content. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rasterisation
Slashdot Mirror
That looks like it's great -if- and only if you only have your own intranet to worry about?
I.e. a system administrator for a local network suggesting that users should install Update X for Application Y, and having that served up to -those- machines through windows updates.
It doesn't do anything for a software publisher wanting their clients to know about updates. For that, you'd still need your own update checker?
Maybe I'm mis-reading that mechanism, though.
It's a very cool GIMP plugin for some things, but...
This is my source image:
http://s3.images.com/huge.28.142421.JPG
I want to remove the lady on the right, so I select her:
http://img714.imageshack.us/img714/1346/resynthesizerselection.jpg
And then, per the Resynthesizer page's recommendations, I use "Script-Fu/Enhance/Smart remove selection..."
http://img121.imageshack.us/img121/228/resynthesizerresultradi.jpg
Oh dear.
Anybody with access to the Photoshop beta feature want to give that image a stab? For all I know it fails just as spectacularly - but from the research it's based on, I highly suspect it'll fare better.
reply to self - go figure.. I tried to dig up some more information on the old service.. and somewhere buried among the google hits:
http://www.cnet.com/techtracker/
Which sounds like it does what the old app did... except you now need a CNet account to see the results? *sigh*
Some posts in the forum for it ( http://forums.cnet.com/techtracker-forum/ ) seem to indicate some possible issues as well.
CNet used to have a similar service... only for the software that they themselves offered to users, of course. Then they discontinued it, re-launched as CatchUp, discontinued it again.. now it's some weird newsletter thing you can subscribe to.
Worked fairly well, though - was just a small utility that I guess checked for installed apps, checked the version info (from registry / files) for those it knew, and checked if there were any newer versions offered off of CNet.
Sucked when they discontinued it.. meant you had to check the pages / author sites manually all the time.. or subscribe to their RSS feeds (which only became popular later on), etc. In addition, half the apps I run now have their own update checking stuff.. some check on startup, some check every day, some check once a week... finding the settings for this (if the settings are even exposed) can be a to of fun too.. etc.
So hooray for Microsoft looking into this... looooong overdue. I do hope they allow -any- developer/application to take part, though.
Absolutely - but they shouldn't cry foul if indeed the code from those 20% -was- re-implemented in a proper manner.
Basically, if I contribute to a GPL project and then later on somebody manages to convince the other developers to allow them to re-license the code, then I shouldn't throw a hissy fit going "If I knew you guys were going to allow it to be re-licensed, away from the GPL philosophy, I would NEVER have contributed my code!"
I could, and some developers *might*.. but, again, there's no real -expectancy- that just because the project is GPL today it will forevermore be GPL.
'the codebase'? I don't know why you would have that expectation.
You can have that expectation with regard to your own contributed code if you contributed that under the GPL license.
But if - and I'm not saying that's what THIS company did, but none of the sources seem to be particularly unbiased in this - a company decides that they want to make a version of the product under a different license which is incompatible with the GPL, decide to write to all of the developers asking if -their- code may be re-licensed, and let's say 80% agree to this leaving the company with having to re-write (see some earlier comment about 'clean room' and another about viral natures and whatnots) the works contributed by the other 20%... then I don't think that 20% can cry foul in any way.
Maybe that's something that will be addressed in a future version of the GPL, though ;)
Isn't that in the eye of the beholder?
We're us - and though we do so with a lot of falling down and getting back up again, we generally strive to better ourselves and our fellow man all the time.
If that makes us unworthy of a casual visit, or more worthy of evaporation, by some alien civilization, so be it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T6ya7ZRlrEo - "My Way", Frank Sinatra.
As it stands - we don't know -what- a particular alien civilization might enjoy... perhaps they're big fans of WW2 and want to include us in an intergalactic battle. Or maybe they just love Britney Spears and will come over to abduct all of the * Got Talent, * Idol, * Factor show people. Or maybe they'll catch one of the many talks from Stephen Hawking from old broadcasts and think it would be a jolly good time to sit down and have a chat with him via their neural interface gadgetry. So there's no point in entertaining the thought of "What Would The Aliens Do?" any more than WWJD-shirts do.. just carry on doing what we're doing for our own (planet's) good.
Gosh, don't get all offended now ;)
It's simply the only distinguishing part -in- the description for Opera..
http://www.browserchoice.eu/BrowserChoice/browserchoice_en.htm
Poland does have lovely broadband.. now all it needs is static IPs so I don't have to ban half the country (83.3.*.*-83.5.*.* and others) from my game server every time a handful of players decide to cheat and hit up the DHCP to get a new IP every time ;)
In my view, from the situation in NL: :)
A. People like you who want to have something physical even though you "don't even have to take the album out of its wrapper". Which means it's going where, exactly? On the wall? Into a filing cabinet of some sort? A box in the attic? I suppose maybe 50 years down the road if the indie band got big the vinyl might hold some great resale value, especially if it's still in mint wrapped condition. I guess that might form a sub-section A2: those who think it's an investment piece.. but that's got to be extremely marginal
B. People who like to claim that vinyls sound much better, more warm, yadda yadda.. even if most of the vinyls today are mastered -from- the same content that goes onto the CD version. They can still be better technical quality than CD (16bit 44.1kHz vs 24bit 96kHz, for example), but any other argument is moot. This does exclude those where the entire pipeline went from the raw recording to the vinyl -with- the vinyl in mind (i.e. little to no compression, more careful stereo separation, etc.)
C. Pretentious people who just want the vinyl + player prominently presented in their living room for the sole purpose of having others comment on it.
D. DJs who prefer working with the tactile feedback of vinyl, rather than virtual mixing and scratching pads (or even just pushing sliders on a computer screen around) necessitated for CD playback (and at that point, you might as well use digital files all the way).
E. ?
Note that only one of those has a reasonably rational argument - but let's face it.. vinyl sales aren't targeting people who are thinking rationally any more than companies selling GPS bluetooth devices (where you're often far better off ditching your current phone/PDA and getting one with GPS built-in).. and I don't blame them... there's obviously an audience.
The numbers don't mean too much not for the reason you mention (as others have pointed out, they probably correlate the IP address used for the download to the IP address's entry point and check the referrer for that hit) but because these are only downloads.
How many of those Polish potentially swayed by the "Opera Turbo technology - speed up your Internet connection" are actually going to -stick to- using Opera, rather than going back to IE or using another browser they might have downloaded through that same choice screen?
The only thing we can even remotely suggest is that if nothing else, the browser choice screen may have brought choice -awareness- to the masses more than any other effort has done so far. That alone is a Good Thing(TM)
except Europa. Attempt no landings there." ... and as far as I can tell from wikipedia, it seems 'we' haven't yet? No landers, no hurling things into the surface to see what gets thrown up, no nothing... just flyby missions. hmm..
The author points out the problem in this part:
I (though I'm sure I'm not the only/first) call it the diorama effect. You get a similar effect if you look through light-strong high power binoculars - due to the two front elements being spaced so much further apart, you get an exaggerated sense of depth.. which is great to gauge the depth given the surfaces you're watching off in the distance.. but any surfaces in between will appear flat - like cardboard cut-outs; like an elementary school diorama.
That said.. it's Alice in Wonderland... it kinda works for that.
Question is.. does it work for Clash of the Titans, or the Titanic re-release in '3D'? Not too sure about those.
Either way, it'll either add or detract... but to say it's a 'scam'? Nah. Be more open about how the 3D was produced, perhaps - but those who truly care will look this up in advance.
The rest of the complaints seem to be about the 3D bandwagon in general, losing a full stop of light, all that..
Not sure why he's complaining, though... he's a CG supe; that means any CG will have to be rendered twice... it's pretty much double the work for the renderfarm, for which they can bill, and a bit more work for the artists as well (to make sure the effects 'work' in 3D).. more billable stuff. I guess he's speaking more from a personal point of view than a business one.. but in that case his VFX qualifications carry much less weight. *Waves to 'Alex'*
Subject pretty much says it all.
Unfortunately, it seems many camera manufacturers - including Canon when it comes to their SLR line - are far happier to put any new functionality in newly released camera models and put them on the bullet list for those, rather than making it available for older models as well and just letting the new model's technical (rather than software) advantages make their sales.
So basically it's the whole physical goods vs (digital) data thing turned around...
I.e. if I steal a movie from a store, that store is now sans one movie, etc.
If I 'steal' a movie on the internet, it's just a copy, and the originals are still left intact and whatnot.
Turned around in this case... the government is -not- actually messing with your original e-mail.. they aren't breaking into your house, or the recipient's house, etc.
What they -could- be doing, however, is taking that copy - for which they don't even have to go to your place.. any intermediate server will do just dandy as long as it hangs on to that e-mail (for whatever reason).
Well, as others have said.. encrypt if you want to shield it from the world (although the recipient who can decrypt it can still do whatever they want with it.. but that's a trust issue rather than a security issue).
I'm not a geneticist, but... ...what is the actual value of that statement if they already state that this is 9 out of 13 points checked?
"The men matched at nine of the 13 locations on chromosomes, or loci, commonly used to distinguish people. [...] the odds of unrelated people sharing those genetic markers to be as remote as 1 in 113 billion"
I'm presuming they're supposed to be checking 13 points because they already realized that checking just 1 point was stupid, 2 points wasn't much better, and so on.
It would be a fun research subject - if not already done - to see...
- given the combined DNA databases accessible to the researchers
- given N number of markers
- find the probability of two random DNA profiles matching on those markers
- find the number of people stored in those DNA databases actually matching
- compare the two findings, and see if reality is in line with the hypothesized probability.
- If it is - crap.
- If it isn't - hooray! Suggest more research need to be done into -why- they differ. *nudge*research grants*nudge*
So they could.
You're omitting one point, though. You're not just -not- buying the game. You're not buying the game -and still getting it-. Big difference even if to you the only logic is "I wasn't going to pay the company ergo there is no difference in by then pirating it."
( disclaimer on the term 'pirate' goes here )
Your reply is basically saying "well I can't help that there's suckers out there who -don't- pirate their software/media/whathaveyou. EVERYBODY should pirate!"
If that is indeed your stance - hey, good for you. But you're only re-inforcing a statement you made...
Oddly enough you failed to actually grasp and accept that point in jim_v2000's post ( http://games.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1583644&cid=31487222 ), and instead go for a "do not!"-defense. Well, to bring it down to that level of debating, then... "do too".
So register that, if you have a donor registry such as NL - or put it in your will if there is no such registry / you have privacy concerns.
Seems to me that the taboo on death is, in fact, at play here.
If you are religious and believe in some form of a soul, then the body tends to be an empty vessel once you're dead.
If you aren't religious, then you probably believe that the lack of any electrical signals pretty much means your body is just organic matter.
By the way - your life is opt-out. Unless you made a conscious decision to be born into this world ;)
It's a good question - good luck getting any answers, though.
This has been playing in The Netherlands for a long time now - seems to pop up every few years.
In 1998 the centralized 'donor register' was started. People can indicate that they want to be a donor, what bits and pieces, that sort of thing.. or indicate that they do -not- want to be a donor. So it's opt-in - by default, if you're not registered / don't have aything written down in your will, your next of kin may decide (in which case 75% of the decisions on this are made against donating organs from the deceased).
In 2002 the 'minister of health' said there would be no change for at least 2 years, after 2/3rds of the government decisionmakers decided against an opt-out system.
In 2005, another voting round was held... 78 against, 68 -for- an opt-out system.
I think there was another debate in 2008 or early 2009 but can't find a reference now.
None of the press articles on these state why they were against an opt-out system, though. Only statements such as being in favor of promoting becoming a donor, or at least registering - regardless of your choice.
I'm guessing it's got to do with the taboo on death that still lingers - probably even moreso in the U.S.
Either that or they fear that somebody would find out that you actively said "no, you can't take my organs", and then couple this to other databases / provisions / label you a cold, selfish, heartless (can't donate that, then!) bastard, etc.
I'm all for opt-out, with parents/guardians decision up to age 12, at which point anybody can decide for themselves, and at younger ages if the child can demonstrate that they do indeed know what they are deciding on, the consequences, etc. should it come to it that the parent(s)/guardian(s) disagree with the child.
( My Sister's Keeper was an interesting, albeit superficial, exploration of that theme )
You're one of those types that hit a wikipedia page, see some claimed fact without attribution, slap a [citation needed] on it, and then bugger off, aren't you?
You could just hit a search engine with some key words to see if you can find any corroborating source(s), of course:
http://news.google.com/news?q=toyota%20911%20neutral
Oh hey, look at that.
- http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704734304575120001542947616.html?mod=googlenews_wsj
So uhmm... crack cocaine, heroine in section 8 and cyanide, phosgene in section 9 of your corner store, then?
There are already bans on some things where, if you're not careful about the use of it - and most people aren't, the ban is probably a good thing.
Given the amount of salt in people's diets these days - not just from restaurants but also from pre-packaged items - heck it might just be a good thing. Just lave the table salt on the table. If somebody then wants to empty the contents of the shaker into their bowl, that's their good right.. but it just might be an eye-opener for people.
Disclaimer: I'm in NL where restaurants aren't targeted so much, but producers of foodstuffs are; and rightly so.. some of the pre-packaged pre-cut cream spinach you get here, for example, is hideously salty - glad I usually buy frozen or fresh (prep time is the barrier for getting fresh spinach more frequently).
Hi! I'm with Six, Six and Sixth, representing the devil, and I would just like to point out that 'a right to internet access' does not necessarily mean that a person must at all times have internet access in their own home.
If their internet access at home is cut off, they can still go to any internet café, library or (at least over here) city hall and get their internet access there. If that is not compatible with the work they do - presuming they were self-employed - then maybe they should have thought about that before ignoring warnings (and I do presume they are sent by signed-for-with-ID mail).
This is not much different from a professional semi driver crying foul when their driver's license is (temporarily) revoked for speeding / DUI - they, too, tend to know better and try to stick to the rules better than a person whose livelihood does not absolutely depend on having that drivers' license.
That said - I do not believe cutting people off is the right thing to do. Pinching their bandwidth - so that e-mail, webpages, etc. continue to work but downloading/sharing entire albums, movies, etc. become unattractive - seems a better solution to me. If the user then still continues to 'pirate', another set of 3 strikes on the road to cutting the connection entirely might be warranted.
Well you might as well provide more information on what the command identifiers are... Symantec does;
http://www.symantec.com/connect/blogs/trojan-found-usb-battery-charger-software
I mean seriously... almost -all- of the replies here have been about the usage of IE in general, or how he should just install popup blockers (he has one.. granted, it's Norton's, which results in the other replies ridiculing him for that), put sites in the hosts file, etc. etc. etc.
And you, good sir pizza, seem to be the only one who actually addresses his writings; although after a quick look at Fiddler - it doesn't seem like it would be able to give you a clear path from popup to originating script to originating iframe in originating page?
As that, I believe, is what the author was actually looking for. And I agree that it would be most useful - as trying to figure it out from all sorts of encoded javascript crap in temp filenames (if even stored at all), that it's not worth the bother. If it becomes worth the bother (by making it stupid-simple), then at least that gives a starting point for any potential further action.
You posted as anon - I do hope you bookmarked and come back to check for replies, though.
I think you misunderstood the meaning of the word 'rasterisation' here.
In overly simplistic terms... rasterisation is what your gaming card / console does whenever you play a game of Modern Warfare 2, HALO, etc. This is unrelated to pre-rendered content.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rasterisation