It's actually pretty tricky. The ships have to match speed and direction (you can't just sit still or the ships will drift), and I've certainly never heard of anything the size of a cargo container being transferred. You can't just toss them around with a crane because it will change your center of gravity, possibly significantly. Basically the "modern" technique is the same as the ancient technique -- you throw or shoot a light rope across which is tied to a heavier cable, and then you ferry stuff back and forth across the cable using tag lines. The ships will naturally be pulled together by the load passing between them, so you have to correct for that, but if the ships veer too far apart, the line will part violently and people will usually lose body parts when that happens (best case).
Anyway, if you ever transport freight by cargo ship (including household goods) make sure to get marine insurance because the freight companies aren't liable for "acts of God." My friend's shipping container fell overboard in a storm -- ironically, it contained his sailboat -- and without marine insurance he would've been SOL.
Don't be obtuse. Editing involves content-based decision making. Watermarking is a postprocessing effect applied without regard to content.
If you define editing so broadly that it encompass both of those actions, then you'd have to come up with a new term specifically for editing, which would be redundant.
Human beings invented symbolic language because it's simply more expressive than pointing and grunting. CLIs are superior to GUIs for the same reason.
CLIs are superior to GUIs in the same way romance novels are superior to sex. Sometimes taking the time to carefully describe things in clear, unambiguous detail is important, but sometimes pointing and grunting is both more effective and and more satisfying.
And when's the last time you edited photos, video, or audio with a CLI?
Are you kidding? Macrovision (what Adobe uses) is some of the most overbearing and insidious copy protection in existence. It will constantly try to "phone home" to verify registration information even if it's been previously verified, just in case the serial has been blacklisted. When you install/update other Adobe products -- even unrelated products, the same centralized copy protection will use the opportunity to sneak through and invalidate your installation/registration. And God forbid you don't update with all the security holes in Acrobat and Flash. Of course, none of this would be a problem for legitimate users, but once your installation gets flagged for some reason (erroneously or otherwise), it usually requires a complete re-install and likely digging through the registry to root out any old data.
Using cracked Photoshop and other Adobe products is certainly *possible*, but your comparison to games is completely reversed in my experience. Updates to things like no-cd cracks are usually released shortly after most game updates -- no such luck for Adobe products. And for the most part, game cracks tend to completely strip out all DRM, while "cracks" for Adobe products more often resemble keygens (or pseudo keygens which rely on either a list of compromised S/Ns, or an algorithm that generates 1 valid key out of n iterations where n could be several orders of magnitude higher than 1).
Yeah, yeah, we're all being insensitive, and there's absolutely no behavioral issues that correlate with the massive increase (no pun intended) in obesity over the past few decades. We've all just come down with other conditions that happen to make us fat. And even if there are behavioral contributors, that's only the case for *someone else*, never the obese person in question. Please forgive our collective insensitivity to this as-yet unidentified cause of people getting fat that is not related to eating too much and exercising too little.
Fat isn't really a dietary concern except severe lack of fat, which will cause other problems. The problem is what we've known for decades: calories in - calories out should be roughly equal to zero. Now it's probably not healthy to eat fat sandwiches on fatbread for breakfast, lunch, dinner, and midnight meal, but nor is there any need for a perfectly healthy person to take things to the opposite extreme and eat nonfat/lowfat products. The real problem with fat is that it's high in calories, which should come as no surprise since it's a structure for energy storage, but as long as you limit your caloric intake to reasonable levels, fat itself is not unhealthy.
Sure, it sounds absurd when you put it like that, but I think you're creating a false equivalence. I highly doubt that either playing sports or manual labor correlate as highly with healthcare costs as obesity and smoking.
That's not to say I think this plan is a good idea; just that your particular argument against it appears specious without some actual data to support your claims.
Putting aside the question of how "junkfood" would even be categorized for a minute, the obvious hole in that plan is people who eat lots of non-junkfood. Most of the overeaters I've known don't sit on the couch eating potato chips as the stereotype would have us believe, but actually eating meals between the normal 3 meals, and/or large or double portions during regular meals. How do you account for them? Tax all food? Tax all food over a certain amount?
Granted, I did know one guy who ate a jar of peanut butter every day by eating spoonfuls throughout the day while at his desk -- that was pretty fucking weird -- but I suspect he's in the minority and there are probably mental health issues involved. Portion management seems to be a much bigger issue for most people (no pun intended).
Piracy is just the new socially acceptable temper tantrum. Individual consumers (as opposed to collective market forces) have decided *they* get to decide the price and medium and if they don't get their way, they'll just take it for free.
There's certainly some merit to this claim, but let's be honest -- entertainment companies have essentially been beholden to no one for the past 100 years, held their customers' wants in contempt, fought against public sale of recording devices, passed the savings of lower production costs along to themselves, successfully lobbied to extend copyright terms to obscene lengths and imposed draconian restrictions on what people can do with their own media and devices, and accrued massive profits along the way.
So is it any surprise that there's a backlash of consumer sentiment, or that it's "socially acceptable" to screw the entertainment industry?
Now, I'm not saying that two wrongs make a right, nor am I advocating harming the entertainment industry through piracy, but there's a saying about what goes around...
Well to be fair, the classes at my high school were all fucked up, but we had Algebra I, II, and III (the latter incorporating Trigonometry), and then IB versions of Pre-Calc and Calc. That was probably due to the fact that the IB program doesn't mesh neatly with existing American high school curricula.
I'm in full support of requiring Algebra II in high school. I think continuously pushing students is a great learning technique, and I also think the world would be a better place if everyone had an understanding of these principles.
Agreed. I didn't even realize it wasn't required to begin with -- I though Algebra III and/or Pre-Calc were the optional bits.
If making a good tablet isn't enough to sell a good tablet, that means that the demand for tablets is being driven by Apple rather than a need for tablets. That seems, to me, to be a classic indicator that a product is meeting a fad-driven need as opposed to a real need.
I see what you're saying. No wireless. Less space than a nomad. Lame.
The iPad may well be a fad, but if Apple can capitalize on it long enough to keep people interested until the next iteration of technological devices/implants/robot-overlords are released, then the distinction is irrelevant. Technology seldom lasts longer than a fad anyway. How many people here are using a phone more than 2yrs old? More than 3yrs? I'd put money on single digit percentages. Hell, the Rubik's cube and Simon both lasted longer than that.
FYI (to both you and the parent poster), the idea that takeoffs and landings are the domain of pilots alone is a myth. Autopilots have been capable of performing these functions since at least 1950, and any major commercial aircraft today has the capability. In fact, the more difficult the takeoff or landing (such as low visibility or high winds), the more likely the pilot is to rely on autopilot. The only real reasons pilots are present these days is to perform taxiing (though this too may be automated in the future) and because the flying public is uncomfortable with the idea of a pilot-less flight.
Then they would just use another vehicle. No amount of laws will separate wealth from power; they are inextricably intertwined. The only protection against special interests is an informed voter base, but I'm not sure how to accomplish that since we don't take civic duty very seriously in this country.
1) The President is never off the clock. 2) You think he actually has to do any coaxing to get a BJ (except maybe from his wife)? 3) Hilary probably wanted him banging women that were not her in the first place. It seems unlikely that their relationship is or was ever anything other than political.
his taxpayer-funded salary which is nearly three times the median income in Wisconsin
That would be a damn high median income if true, but in fact the median salary in Wisconsin is $52,103, which closely matches the national average. So either he's making *more* than triple that, or else the figure of $174k for his salary is wrong.
Was there anything she could have done to prevent the gall stones? No Was there anything she could have done to predict she would get gall stones? No
So why should she be financially punished for something there was no way to predict, or prevent?
Same reason she should be financially punished if her TV dies, or her dog throws up on her new rug -- them's the breaks. The fact that something isn't preventable or predictable doesn't mean you should be automatically absolved of the liability.
Now, that said, the whole point of INSURANCE is to mitigate the consequences for unpredictable events. Unfortunately, our insurance companies have the opposite agenda, which is minimizing *their* liability, and they hold all the cards when it comes to everything from benefits to whether they'll even cover someone at all. This is an obvious and direct consequence of for-profit insurance, and it should go without saying that the only way to correct that is to either do away with for-profit insurance, or else regulate the hell out of it. As far as replacing for-profit insurance, the natural entity that is best positioned to manage such a program is the government, but people don't want the gum'mint coming between them and their doctors. Apparently it's better to have a tollbooth between them and their doctor and the ever-present threat of bankruptcy looming overhead.
Slashdot Mirror
It's actually pretty tricky. The ships have to match speed and direction (you can't just sit still or the ships will drift), and I've certainly never heard of anything the size of a cargo container being transferred. You can't just toss them around with a crane because it will change your center of gravity, possibly significantly. Basically the "modern" technique is the same as the ancient technique -- you throw or shoot a light rope across which is tied to a heavier cable, and then you ferry stuff back and forth across the cable using tag lines. The ships will naturally be pulled together by the load passing between them, so you have to correct for that, but if the ships veer too far apart, the line will part violently and people will usually lose body parts when that happens (best case).
Anyway, if you ever transport freight by cargo ship (including household goods) make sure to get marine insurance because the freight companies aren't liable for "acts of God." My friend's shipping container fell overboard in a storm -- ironically, it contained his sailboat -- and without marine insurance he would've been SOL.
Don't be obtuse. Editing involves content-based decision making. Watermarking is a postprocessing effect applied without regard to content.
If you define editing so broadly that it encompass both of those actions, then you'd have to come up with a new term specifically for editing, which would be redundant.
Likewise, have fun performing simple tasks with a CLI.
Jesus, why are we having these discussions all over again? 1990 called and it wants its flamewars back.
That's not really editing now is it?
Human beings invented symbolic language because it's simply more expressive than pointing and grunting. CLIs are superior to GUIs for the same reason.
CLIs are superior to GUIs in the same way romance novels are superior to sex. Sometimes taking the time to carefully describe things in clear, unambiguous detail is important, but sometimes pointing and grunting is both more effective and and more satisfying.
And when's the last time you edited photos, video, or audio with a CLI?
Are you kidding? Macrovision (what Adobe uses) is some of the most overbearing and insidious copy protection in existence. It will constantly try to "phone home" to verify registration information even if it's been previously verified, just in case the serial has been blacklisted. When you install/update other Adobe products -- even unrelated products, the same centralized copy protection will use the opportunity to sneak through and invalidate your installation/registration. And God forbid you don't update with all the security holes in Acrobat and Flash. Of course, none of this would be a problem for legitimate users, but once your installation gets flagged for some reason (erroneously or otherwise), it usually requires a complete re-install and likely digging through the registry to root out any old data.
Using cracked Photoshop and other Adobe products is certainly *possible*, but your comparison to games is completely reversed in my experience. Updates to things like no-cd cracks are usually released shortly after most game updates -- no such luck for Adobe products. And for the most part, game cracks tend to completely strip out all DRM, while "cracks" for Adobe products more often resemble keygens (or pseudo keygens which rely on either a list of compromised S/Ns, or an algorithm that generates 1 valid key out of n iterations where n could be several orders of magnitude higher than 1).
Yeah, yeah, we're all being insensitive, and there's absolutely no behavioral issues that correlate with the massive increase (no pun intended) in obesity over the past few decades. We've all just come down with other conditions that happen to make us fat. And even if there are behavioral contributors, that's only the case for *someone else*, never the obese person in question. Please forgive our collective insensitivity to this as-yet unidentified cause of people getting fat that is not related to eating too much and exercising too little.
I don't usually agree with you, but I'll go even further on this one and state categorically that being old is never a choice.
Fat isn't really a dietary concern except severe lack of fat, which will cause other problems. The problem is what we've known for decades: calories in - calories out should be roughly equal to zero. Now it's probably not healthy to eat fat sandwiches on fatbread for breakfast, lunch, dinner, and midnight meal, but nor is there any need for a perfectly healthy person to take things to the opposite extreme and eat nonfat/lowfat products. The real problem with fat is that it's high in calories, which should come as no surprise since it's a structure for energy storage, but as long as you limit your caloric intake to reasonable levels, fat itself is not unhealthy.
Sure, it sounds absurd when you put it like that, but I think you're creating a false equivalence. I highly doubt that either playing sports or manual labor correlate as highly with healthcare costs as obesity and smoking.
That's not to say I think this plan is a good idea; just that your particular argument against it appears specious without some actual data to support your claims.
Putting aside the question of how "junkfood" would even be categorized for a minute, the obvious hole in that plan is people who eat lots of non-junkfood. Most of the overeaters I've known don't sit on the couch eating potato chips as the stereotype would have us believe, but actually eating meals between the normal 3 meals, and/or large or double portions during regular meals. How do you account for them? Tax all food? Tax all food over a certain amount?
Granted, I did know one guy who ate a jar of peanut butter every day by eating spoonfuls throughout the day while at his desk -- that was pretty fucking weird -- but I suspect he's in the minority and there are probably mental health issues involved. Portion management seems to be a much bigger issue for most people (no pun intended).
The current treatment (Propecia) restricts testosterone. I tried that and it completely eliminated my sex drive.
I guess that explains women.
Piracy is just the new socially acceptable temper tantrum. Individual consumers (as opposed to collective market forces) have decided *they* get to decide the price and medium and if they don't get their way, they'll just take it for free.
There's certainly some merit to this claim, but let's be honest -- entertainment companies have essentially been beholden to no one for the past 100 years, held their customers' wants in contempt, fought against public sale of recording devices, passed the savings of lower production costs along to themselves, successfully lobbied to extend copyright terms to obscene lengths and imposed draconian restrictions on what people can do with their own media and devices, and accrued massive profits along the way.
So is it any surprise that there's a backlash of consumer sentiment, or that it's "socially acceptable" to screw the entertainment industry?
Now, I'm not saying that two wrongs make a right, nor am I advocating harming the entertainment industry through piracy, but there's a saying about what goes around...
No offense, I'm sure she's lovely, but most of us don't want to hear about your girlfriend's flow.
Well to be fair, the classes at my high school were all fucked up, but we had Algebra I, II, and III (the latter incorporating Trigonometry), and then IB versions of Pre-Calc and Calc. That was probably due to the fact that the IB program doesn't mesh neatly with existing American high school curricula.
any project, no matter how big can be done by 6 people.
Well, I can think of one or two -- winning the Superbowl, riding a motorcycle, Hands Across America -- that sort of thing.
I'm in full support of requiring Algebra II in high school. I think continuously pushing students is a great learning technique, and I also think the world would be a better place if everyone had an understanding of these principles.
Agreed. I didn't even realize it wasn't required to begin with -- I though Algebra III and/or Pre-Calc were the optional bits.
If making a good tablet isn't enough to sell a good tablet, that means that the demand for tablets is being driven by Apple rather than a need for tablets. That seems, to me, to be a classic indicator that a product is meeting a fad-driven need as opposed to a real need.
I see what you're saying. No wireless. Less space than a nomad. Lame.
The iPad may well be a fad, but if Apple can capitalize on it long enough to keep people interested until the next iteration of technological devices/implants/robot-overlords are released, then the distinction is irrelevant. Technology seldom lasts longer than a fad anyway. How many people here are using a phone more than 2yrs old? More than 3yrs? I'd put money on single digit percentages. Hell, the Rubik's cube and Simon both lasted longer than that.
Looks like videos have already leaked. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PZ7OLYd0UE0
Four years early too. That's weird.
FYI (to both you and the parent poster), the idea that takeoffs and landings are the domain of pilots alone is a myth. Autopilots have been capable of performing these functions since at least 1950, and any major commercial aircraft today has the capability. In fact, the more difficult the takeoff or landing (such as low visibility or high winds), the more likely the pilot is to rely on autopilot. The only real reasons pilots are present these days is to perform taxiing (though this too may be automated in the future) and because the flying public is uncomfortable with the idea of a pilot-less flight.
Then they would just use another vehicle. No amount of laws will separate wealth from power; they are inextricably intertwined. The only protection against special interests is an informed voter base, but I'm not sure how to accomplish that since we don't take civic duty very seriously in this country.
1) The President is never off the clock.
2) You think he actually has to do any coaxing to get a BJ (except maybe from his wife)?
3) Hilary probably wanted him banging women that were not her in the first place. It seems unlikely that their relationship is or was ever anything other than political.
That would do squat. They'd just form PACs and spend their money through those instead of donations.
his taxpayer-funded salary which is nearly three times the median income in Wisconsin
That would be a damn high median income if true, but in fact the median salary in Wisconsin is $52,103, which closely matches the national average. So either he's making *more* than triple that, or else the figure of $174k for his salary is wrong.
Same reason she should be financially punished if her TV dies, or her dog throws up on her new rug -- them's the breaks. The fact that something isn't preventable or predictable doesn't mean you should be automatically absolved of the liability.
Now, that said, the whole point of INSURANCE is to mitigate the consequences for unpredictable events. Unfortunately, our insurance companies have the opposite agenda, which is minimizing *their* liability, and they hold all the cards when it comes to everything from benefits to whether they'll even cover someone at all. This is an obvious and direct consequence of for-profit insurance, and it should go without saying that the only way to correct that is to either do away with for-profit insurance, or else regulate the hell out of it. As far as replacing for-profit insurance, the natural entity that is best positioned to manage such a program is the government, but people don't want the gum'mint coming between them and their doctors. Apparently it's better to have a tollbooth between them and their doctor and the ever-present threat of bankruptcy looming overhead.