Skepticism isn't vitriol; it's part of the process of integrating new information, and we should be cautious when new information isn't greeted with skepticism.
It takes HUNDREDS of times longer to convey that information in a video than it does on a text page.
Right. Like remember that tsunami in Japan? It was breathtaking to read how tall it was -- VERY. Or when man walked on the moon? I can only imagine what that looked like. I wonder if they got dizzy seeing the earth looming above them like a giant ceiling.
I just wall off the open AP from the rest of my network and probe anyone who connects. My assumption is that if they're connecting to my network, they must want to share any and all of their accessible data with me.
And, of course, there's always the possibility (perhaps even likelihood?) that he'll give it all back and then some chasing after it. Most people who walk away from gambling do it after losing, not after winning. As stated in the article, he wanted to keep playing; it was the casino that said no. (But only for that session, and only for the rules he'd negotiated for that session.) The hard parts of running a casino have nothing to do with winning and everything to do with keeping people coming back after they lose. If they win, they come back on their own.
if you use both Windows and multiple desktops, what's your favorite method?
Multiple monitors. I find virtual desktops (or would that be "virtual virtual-desktops?") to be more of a hindrance than a help, since I have to remember which window is on which desktop and use different shortcuts for accessing them than simply switching to the desired window directly. I could see it being useful in some limited situations, such as if a VM is running on one desktop, although given the choice, I prefer giving it its own monitor.
Anyone want to guess what the reaction would be if an article posed the question, "Do men make better bosses?" or "Do whites make better bosses?" My view of this article is no different. Sorry women.
No one is saying that buying an apple computer is as cheap as it's components.
Nor did I say it should be. However, the priced I quotes are *retail*, not wholesale. There's already a profit margin built-in to those prices. Even if that margin alone isn't sufficient to pay for Foxconn to assemble them and for the board and C-Level to get rich in the process, I would argue that existing markups are still excessive.
What people are saying is that if you compare Apple to Dell, HP or any other company which sells whole computers for personal use, they aren't more expensive if you buy the same thing.
Sorry, no. Here's Dell's upgrade prices (excluding the fact that their base prices are also about half that of the iMac because, as GGP argued, it doesn't come with a shiny keyboard and built-in monitor).
500GB -> 1TB Serial ATA Hard Drive (7200RPM) [add $100.00] (Same upgrade from Apple: $150) 4GB -> 8GB Non-ECC,1333MHz DDR3,2X4GB, (2 DIMM) [add $80.00] (Same upgrade from Apple: $200) Intel Core i5-2400 3.1GHz -> Intel Core i5-2500 3.3GHz [add $70.00] (Similar, actually smaller (100MHz) upgrade from Apple: $200)
If you take a Mac and Price spec for Spec (Every spec even if you don't think it is a big deal such as glowing keyboard with light sensor or weight and thinness) You will find that the Price of the Mac is the same as any other new Commercially built system out there of the same quality.
For the very low-end models, maybe, but when you look at the price of the higher models and upgrades -- literally comparing Apples to Apples -- it's readily apparent that their prices are way off, and egregiously so.
Let's compare two "base" iMacs, the only noted difference being the processor and HD: 21.5" Core i5 2.5GHz & 500GB -> 21.5" Core i5 2.7GHz & 1TB [$300 difference] Core i5-2400S 2.5GHz $184 & Seagate Barracuda 500GB $84 (Total: $268) -> Core i5-2500S 2.7GHz $205 & Segate 1 Barracuda TB $109 (Total: $314) Actual Difference: $46 Apple's Markup: 552% Sources: Intel's price list500GB @ NewEgg1TB @ NewEgg
Component upgrades for the second iMac: 2.7GHz Core i5 -> 2.8GHz Core i7 [Add $200.00] Core i5-2500S 2.7GHz $205 -> Core i7-2600S $294 Actual Difference: $89 Apple's Markup: 125% Source: Same as above
4GB -> 16GB 1333MHz DDR3 SDRAM - 4x4GB [Add $600.00] 4GB 1333MHz DDR3 $25 x4 = $100. Actual Difference: $75 Apple's Markup: 700% Source: Same as above.
1TB -> 2TB 7200RPM Serial ATA Drive [Add $150.00] Seagate Barracuda 1TB $109 -> Seagate 2TB $130 Actual Difference: $11 Apple's Markup: 1263% Source: 1TB @ NewEgg2TB @ NewEgg
And then there's the whole issue of using mobile components in a desktop. Why would they do that? Not to provide value -- mobile components are generally more expensive and lower performing then their desktop components -- but to cram them into a retarded form factor. Sorry, Apple's tax is alive and well, and it's insulting to an informed consumer. You can throw together a *better* system for well less than what Apple charges for its iMac and as a bonus, you don't have to buy a new your monitor when you upgrade your entire system. And for $28 and a little pre-planning, you can even throw Lion on it or run it in a VM. Yes, you have to learn or know how to do it, but as they say, ignorance can be expensive.
It's simple really. The agency measuring the diameter was using the metric cubit, while the division measuring the circumference was using the imperial cubit.
Wait, what? Why would I want my democracy's rules to be determined by the same people who've proven they don't care about the rules?
Proven that they don't care about the rules, or evidence that the rules are unjust. Who better to speak to the injustice of the law than those who have been most affected by it?
And let's not get carried away here. While the prison population is truly "USA #1", a mere 3% of the population isn't going to decide the law -- not without the help of a near-majority or plurality of the rest of the population.
Moreover, we (ostensibly) fought a war over the right to representation. Free and open elections are the foundation of our society. Convicted felons retain an array of arguably less important rights, and yet we deny them the more fundamental right to vote? To deny anyone a voice in that process says very little about them and a lot about ourselves. Something's rotten in the state of Denmark.
By attacking the ones that offer the better situation for workers, you are holding the entire process back.
That's only true all else being equal. But since Foxconn is the largest electronics manufacturing company in China, and indeed the world, it makes sense to start there, the same way regulations here affect large companies first, and small companies later (if ever). It's great that they're currently offering better conditions than other companies, but that's no reason they can't continue to improve. That's not holding the process back, it's driving it forward.
I agree to a point, but too much lossy compression can be distracting, like looking at an otherwise great photo that's been saved as a JPEG with quality set to 1. Sure, I used to watch scrambled channels as a kid just to get a glimpse of an, ahem, movie that I'd never see otherwise, but that doesn't make it preferable when alternatives are available.
Do you happen to know which manufacturers use the techniques you describe? I've seen automatic level adjustment touted on lots of vehicles, but never a solid description of the technique per vehicle.
First, waveforms are usually displayed on logarithmic scales (which is what dB is), which means small variations in amplitude represent much larger variations on a linear scale. +3dB is roughly double the amplitude, for example. Second, if you're not zoomed in, it's highly likely, to the point of near certainty, that the resolution of the audio samples far exceeds the resolution of your monitor. Downsampling the audio samples into points on a graph, which is what you see as the waveform, will give you an average of the set of audio samples represented by a given pixel. This averaging can give the appearance of continuous amplitude that isn't necessarily reflected in the audio.
Not to say that the dynamic range isn't usually compressed into a few db or so -- obviously it is -- but how a track looks zoomed out in a waveform editor isn't necessarily a good indicator of that.
Nonetheless, if the justification for hate crime laws is that it "terrorizes" a group of people, then it's wrong to ignore the terror caused by other crimes; the only difference is the scope of people affected, not (rationally) the odds of a member of that group being a victim, especially if the offenders are dealt with under existing law for things like murder. It's not, or shouldn't be, less of a crime to kill someone because you don't hate them; in fact, many people would find killing someone for a reason other than hate, such as pleasure, to be even more heinous.
Allow me to explain why your rationale doesn't hold up, and to provide a fallback if you don't accept that.
The example I gave of someone assaulting someone else because they were in the "wrong place," on someone else's turf, is exactly aimed to strike fear at a member of a person who is not in the same group as the assaultees, and to send a message to anyone else who is not in their group, but it's very unlikely to be viewed or prosecuted as a hate crime. In fact, it happens every day -- so often in many cities that it doesn't even make the news. That makes it a much bigger problem, yet we don't have special laws to combat it because we recognize that it's endimic of a deeper problem and that making more laws won't fix it anyway (and arguably because it doesn't usually affect upper-middle class Jim or Jane).
Another example is a spree of home invasions. This is *very likely* to set a community on edge, and often does. Are you going to argue that a gay man getting beat up causes more fear and terror? If so, how do we objectively measure and quantify these things? And if we can't (which I think you'll concede), then why should we be assigning a value to them arbitrarily?
But even if you don't buy any of that -- if you think that we hate crime laws -- then let's limit it to intent and not *motive*. I've already explained the difference elsewhere, but if you're not clear, the former is what you meant to do, and the latter is why you meant to do it. Does anyone really believe that Ravi was trying to send a message to *all* gays, or was he just being intolerant of his roommate? Did the gay community at large, exclusively and rationally, suddenly worry that they were under threat of being videotaped, or was it limited to people who share living quarters with Ravi? Does anyone really think anyone thought "Thank God I'm not gay; I don't have to worry about whether my roommate might be filming me in my dorm room?" Of course not. This crime may have been motivated by intolerance, but that shouldn't be enough on its own because its intent was not to strike fear into the hearts of all gays.
Slashdot Mirror
Skepticism isn't vitriol; it's part of the process of integrating new information, and we should be cautious when new information isn't greeted with skepticism.
It takes HUNDREDS of times longer to convey that information in a video than it does on a text page.
Right. Like remember that tsunami in Japan? It was breathtaking to read how tall it was -- VERY. Or when man walked on the moon? I can only imagine what that looked like. I wonder if they got dizzy seeing the earth looming above them like a giant ceiling.
You mean a facility that may process nuts.
I just wall off the open AP from the rest of my network and probe anyone who connects. My assumption is that if they're connecting to my network, they must want to share any and all of their accessible data with me.
And, of course, there's always the possibility (perhaps even likelihood?) that he'll give it all back and then some chasing after it. Most people who walk away from gambling do it after losing, not after winning. As stated in the article, he wanted to keep playing; it was the casino that said no. (But only for that session, and only for the rules he'd negotiated for that session.) The hard parts of running a casino have nothing to do with winning and everything to do with keeping people coming back after they lose. If they win, they come back on their own.
if you use both Windows and multiple desktops, what's your favorite method?
Multiple monitors. I find virtual desktops (or would that be "virtual virtual-desktops?") to be more of a hindrance than a help, since I have to remember which window is on which desktop and use different shortcuts for accessing them than simply switching to the desired window directly. I could see it being useful in some limited situations, such as if a VM is running on one desktop, although given the choice, I prefer giving it its own monitor.
I regularly visit the restroom. Does that make me a piece of shit?
Wait. Don't answer that.
Anyone want to guess what the reaction would be if an article posed the question, "Do men make better bosses?" or "Do whites make better bosses?" My view of this article is no different. Sorry women.
No one is saying that buying an apple computer is as cheap as it's components.
Nor did I say it should be. However, the priced I quotes are *retail*, not wholesale. There's already a profit margin built-in to those prices. Even if that margin alone isn't sufficient to pay for Foxconn to assemble them and for the board and C-Level to get rich in the process, I would argue that existing markups are still excessive.
What people are saying is that if you compare Apple to Dell, HP or any other company which sells whole computers for personal use, they aren't more expensive if you buy the same thing.
Sorry, no. Here's Dell's upgrade prices (excluding the fact that their base prices are also about half that of the iMac because, as GGP argued, it doesn't come with a shiny keyboard and built-in monitor).
500GB -> 1TB Serial ATA Hard Drive (7200RPM) [add $100.00] (Same upgrade from Apple: $150)
4GB -> 8GB Non-ECC,1333MHz DDR3,2X4GB, (2 DIMM) [add $80.00] (Same upgrade from Apple: $200)
Intel Core i5-2400 3.1GHz -> Intel Core i5-2500 3.3GHz [add $70.00] (Similar, actually smaller (100MHz) upgrade from Apple: $200)
Apologizing for Apple doesn't change the facts.
If you take a Mac and Price spec for Spec (Every spec even if you don't think it is a big deal such as glowing keyboard with light sensor or weight and thinness) You will find that the Price of the Mac is the same as any other new Commercially built system out there of the same quality.
For the very low-end models, maybe, but when you look at the price of the higher models and upgrades -- literally comparing Apples to Apples -- it's readily apparent that their prices are way off, and egregiously so.
Let's compare two "base" iMacs, the only noted difference being the processor and HD:
21.5" Core i5 2.5GHz & 500GB -> 21.5" Core i5 2.7GHz & 1TB [$300 difference]
Core i5-2400S 2.5GHz $184 & Seagate Barracuda 500GB $84 (Total: $268) -> Core i5-2500S 2.7GHz $205 & Segate 1 Barracuda TB $109 (Total: $314)
Actual Difference: $46 Apple's Markup: 552%
Sources: Intel's price list 500GB @ NewEgg 1TB @ NewEgg
Component upgrades for the second iMac:
2.7GHz Core i5 -> 2.8GHz Core i7 [Add $200.00]
Core i5-2500S 2.7GHz $205 -> Core i7-2600S $294 Actual Difference: $89 Apple's Markup: 125%
Source: Same as above
4GB -> 8GB 1333MHz DDR3 SDRAM - 2x4GB [Add $200.00]
4GB 1333MHz DDR3 $25 x2 = $50. Actual Difference: $25 Apple's Markup: 700%
Source: The most expensive laptop 1333MHz DDR3 SDRAM @ NewEgg
4GB -> 16GB 1333MHz DDR3 SDRAM - 4x4GB [Add $600.00]
4GB 1333MHz DDR3 $25 x4 = $100. Actual Difference: $75 Apple's Markup: 700%
Source: Same as above.
1TB -> 2TB 7200RPM Serial ATA Drive [Add $150.00]
Seagate Barracuda 1TB $109 -> Seagate 2TB $130 Actual Difference: $11 Apple's Markup: 1263%
Source: 1TB @ NewEgg 2TB @ NewEgg
And then there's the whole issue of using mobile components in a desktop. Why would they do that? Not to provide value -- mobile components are generally more expensive and lower performing then their desktop components -- but to cram them into a retarded form factor. Sorry, Apple's tax is alive and well, and it's insulting to an informed consumer. You can throw together a *better* system for well less than what Apple charges for its iMac and as a bonus, you don't have to buy a new your monitor when you upgrade your entire system. And for $28 and a little pre-planning, you can even throw Lion on it or run it in a VM. Yes, you have to learn or know how to do it, but as they say, ignorance can be expensive.
The freedom to teach "science," obviously.
It's simple really. The agency measuring the diameter was using the metric cubit, while the division measuring the circumference was using the imperial cubit.
we accept that some people will die on the highways, but we don't shut them down.
But we do take people off the road who kill other people.
Some people may be offended by various speech, but we don't shut down the 1st amendment.
But we do silence those who cause harm through their speech and hold them accountable for the damage they caused.
Some people may get shot, but we don't abridge the right to bear arms.
But we do take away the right to bear arms for the person who did the shooting.
You've basically laid out a solid argument against a laissez-faire internet policy.
You are already paying a tax on the ISP servcie
Actually, internet access isn't taxable.
Wait, what? Why would I want my democracy's rules to be determined by the same people who've proven they don't care about the rules?
Proven that they don't care about the rules, or evidence that the rules are unjust. Who better to speak to the injustice of the law than those who have been most affected by it?
And let's not get carried away here. While the prison population is truly "USA #1", a mere 3% of the population isn't going to decide the law -- not without the help of a near-majority or plurality of the rest of the population.
Moreover, we (ostensibly) fought a war over the right to representation. Free and open elections are the foundation of our society. Convicted felons retain an array of arguably less important rights, and yet we deny them the more fundamental right to vote? To deny anyone a voice in that process says very little about them and a lot about ourselves. Something's rotten in the state of Denmark.
By attacking the ones that offer the better situation for workers, you are holding the entire process back.
That's only true all else being equal. But since Foxconn is the largest electronics manufacturing company in China, and indeed the world, it makes sense to start there, the same way regulations here affect large companies first, and small companies later (if ever). It's great that they're currently offering better conditions than other companies, but that's no reason they can't continue to improve. That's not holding the process back, it's driving it forward.
I agree to a point, but too much lossy compression can be distracting, like looking at an otherwise great photo that's been saved as a JPEG with quality set to 1. Sure, I used to watch scrambled channels as a kid just to get a glimpse of an, ahem, movie that I'd never see otherwise, but that doesn't make it preferable when alternatives are available.
What's the old saying, Garbage In, Garbage Out?
Damn, I thought that was a new saying after reading it in a Wired article recently.
Do you happen to know which manufacturers use the techniques you describe? I've seen automatic level adjustment touted on lots of vehicles, but never a solid description of the technique per vehicle.
First, waveforms are usually displayed on logarithmic scales (which is what dB is), which means small variations in amplitude represent much larger variations on a linear scale. +3dB is roughly double the amplitude, for example. Second, if you're not zoomed in, it's highly likely, to the point of near certainty, that the resolution of the audio samples far exceeds the resolution of your monitor. Downsampling the audio samples into points on a graph, which is what you see as the waveform, will give you an average of the set of audio samples represented by a given pixel. This averaging can give the appearance of continuous amplitude that isn't necessarily reflected in the audio.
Not to say that the dynamic range isn't usually compressed into a few db or so -- obviously it is -- but how a track looks zoomed out in a waveform editor isn't necessarily a good indicator of that.
Please see my rebuttal here.
Nonetheless, if the justification for hate crime laws is that it "terrorizes" a group of people, then it's wrong to ignore the terror caused by other crimes; the only difference is the scope of people affected, not (rationally) the odds of a member of that group being a victim, especially if the offenders are dealt with under existing law for things like murder. It's not, or shouldn't be, less of a crime to kill someone because you don't hate them; in fact, many people would find killing someone for a reason other than hate, such as pleasure, to be even more heinous.
Allow me to explain why your rationale doesn't hold up, and to provide a fallback if you don't accept that.
The example I gave of someone assaulting someone else because they were in the "wrong place," on someone else's turf, is exactly aimed to strike fear at a member of a person who is not in the same group as the assaultees, and to send a message to anyone else who is not in their group, but it's very unlikely to be viewed or prosecuted as a hate crime. In fact, it happens every day -- so often in many cities that it doesn't even make the news. That makes it a much bigger problem, yet we don't have special laws to combat it because we recognize that it's endimic of a deeper problem and that making more laws won't fix it anyway (and arguably because it doesn't usually affect upper-middle class Jim or Jane).
Another example is a spree of home invasions. This is *very likely* to set a community on edge, and often does. Are you going to argue that a gay man getting beat up causes more fear and terror? If so, how do we objectively measure and quantify these things? And if we can't (which I think you'll concede), then why should we be assigning a value to them arbitrarily?
But even if you don't buy any of that -- if you think that we hate crime laws -- then let's limit it to intent and not *motive*. I've already explained the difference elsewhere, but if you're not clear, the former is what you meant to do, and the latter is why you meant to do it. Does anyone really believe that Ravi was trying to send a message to *all* gays, or was he just being intolerant of his roommate? Did the gay community at large, exclusively and rationally, suddenly worry that they were under threat of being videotaped, or was it limited to people who share living quarters with Ravi? Does anyone really think anyone thought "Thank God I'm not gay; I don't have to worry about whether my roommate might be filming me in my dorm room?" Of course not. This crime may have been motivated by intolerance, but that shouldn't be enough on its own because its intent was not to strike fear into the hearts of all gays.
Neither can you fix it by ignoring the problem
That's a false dichotomy. There's a range of actions between ignoring the problem and criminalizing motive.
A man who hits someone at a bar because he's wearing a skirt is far, far more likely to do it again.
Citation needed.
Degrees aren't motive, they're *intent*. Completely different things legally, even if some people can't wrap their heads around it.