You don't have to believe in Christ's divinity for most of his teachings to still be a good idea. The executive summary of Christ's teachings is: If we all stopped treating each other like crap, we'd probably all be happier as a result.
Yeah, and he was, like, the first and only guy to think anything in that direction.
Now, the executive summary of the church's teachings (almost from the start) is guilt, shame, shame, guilt, more guilt, with an extra helping of guilt on top.
I think you're winding yourself up too much; no need to get all puffed up and put the wrong spin on things. It's probably just a case of "I say tor-nay-do, you say tor-nah-do".
the Retard-Prod(tm) that jabs everyone with an IQ less than 60
I think we should change the name to "Retard-O-Prod". More friendly ring to it. But apart from that, we're definitely interested. I'll have my people call your people.
The holy grail is of course achieveing differently colored dupes. Some combinations may be relatively easy, while others would be a very impressive feat indeed.
The really intersting thing happens if the format takes off and the economics of scale kicks in: once the volume is big enough to justify a new production line, it would make sense to rom in stead of flash, and the price can be squeezed much further. Doesn't have to be fast either; it's primarily for real-time playback, so it only really needs 1xCD speed in the worst case.
This might be the initial killer app for polymer semiconductors. Considering how close they are to normal marketable RAM done with polymers, it must be possible to find a way of stamping out low-speed polymer ROM quickly and cheaply, maybe even in a continuous press process.
The problem is of course that you still have physical distribution, which isn't likely to cut it for long anyway.
You sound like I'm trying to exonerate the kid who stayed silent. I'm not, I'm just saying more than one eorson can have blame when things go wring, and there were more things that went wring there than this kid not speaking up.
if there's any moral culpability for the death of the kid, it's with the co-defendent who didn't speak up until after the execution.
The problem with that argument (well, one of them), is that it inevitably has the following consequence: if there was no co-defendant, noone would be culpable, and the whole execution would have been fair and square.
Yes? No need to change anything at all. Everything is juuuust fine. What a relief. The lengths people will go to avoid thinking critically about their pet system.
Some part of me is almost disappointed that a couple of adolescents with an axe to grind/haven't/ yet found way to exploit the rootkit and thus come into posession of the first corporate-created zombie botnet
We could call it Skynet. Turns out all the robots wanted was their fairly earned IP license fees. Since total control with piracy proved impossible, one in stead opted for a blanket levy on listening equipmet. Including carbon based.
So the kid who refused to come forward until AFTER the execution says Texas murdered this kid?
I so hope you are not serious. Damn right Texas murdered him. Sure, the guy should have come froward earlier, and it was horrible of him not to. But that doesn't mean the kid was guilty up until then, or that the state is not responsible for its mistake. What if there was no witness to clear him? Is it OK to kill innocent teens in those cases?
The court should have seen that guilt was not proven. They didn't. Texas murdered an innocent kid, and there can be absolutely no doubt about that.
And if it's true, it's true. Doesn't matter who points it out, or what sympathy one may or may not have for them. Satan himself may point out that the sun is up, it doesn't mean it goes dark.
There was this project about a decade back - to light up scandinavian countries (or is it Greenland), to bring light the same way. The environmentalists raised a stink.
That's different; they were lighting up latitudes that simply don't have sunlight throgh part of the year, and with wildlife being adjusted to that.
This village has normal dayligt for its region, it is just in the shade a lot. The mirror is just out of the shade, with normal dayligt hours, not up in space catching light when there should be night on the ground.
why we shouldn't apply this to any public forum we feel is a target,
Who is "we", and how can you really believe that foiling the places "we" think are targets will stop anyone determined to kill americans from finding some way to do that. Here's a rough cost-benefit analysis:
cost: emormous. benefit: none.
Besides: What about the cost to society, privacy and freedom of movement? Is the resulting society worth protecting? Why not just join the islamists i stead; it would be a pretty comparable way of life, and much cheaper.
Let them falsely pull out 10 people on a hundred person flight for an extensive search. Great. Just as long as they don't miss the one guy on one flight in ten thousand with the bomb in his backpack.
Does that go for buses, subways, theters, schools, restaurants, museums, public spaces and all opther accumulations of poeple as well, or are you maybe just a tiny bit hung up on airplanes?
Here's a clue: you may be unimaginative, but the terrorists are not.
Tell you whay, why not have the government stop murder an all other crime preemptively by screening people as well. No reason to wait till it happens.
I am sure I would set such a machine off every time I walk through a security gate - I'm just a generally nervous person. Do I care?
You will after the first 10 times when you get stopped for further questionong every fucking time and it's always you and not the other guys.
it improves security
No it doesn't. Proof? Let's see yours first.
reduces the cost effectiveness of security
I think it's supposed to increase it. Not sure it would, though.
and makes it quicker for the average person to get where they're going. [...] I'd be more worried if they were planning on putting all their faith in this system,
They'd have to put a lot of faith in it if the efficiency reward you postulate is to be realised. Otherwise it will just slow things down.
The whole focus on airplanes is misguided anyway. Just because that's what was used in the last major attacked on the US doesn't mean it's a more important target than anything else. There are plenty of other ways of doing great damage with modest means. Too many to control well. It's like the missile shield thing: If I were a terrorist and got myself a nuke for the purpouse of hurting the US, why would I go through all the trouble of also getting a long range missile, learning to operate it properly, and risk it being detected and shot down? It would be so much easier to just ship it to any coastal city in plain sight. In a normal cargo container or in a perfectly normal-looking rereational boat. In the same way, public transport provides nice good concentrations of people, but there are many types of them, not all well suited to rigorous security, and if they all become "difficult", there's no shortage of other crowded venues, including open outside spaces where admittance control is unthinkable without creating a society so bad that just succumbing to muslim fundamentalism seems like a nicer way out.
There's this thing called antibodies. If you have them, you have been exposed to infection. If you don't, you have either never had it, or you have no immune response to it and would probably get very sick quite quickly.
All the other points you cite are a description of "good management", and as so, don't change just because the company adopted another metodology.
Scrum is a (project-)management method. It can fit together with various development methods and practices (inluding XP) as long as they are suitably flexible, but doesn't really concern itself much with that side of things.
Are agile methods the next big thing in software development?
No, they are the current/i> big thing. No doubt the hype will pass, but I do hope and believe and they bring some things to the table that deserve to last.
The focus on the way people actually work, on optimising that in a realistic way, on work satisfaction, on recognising and handling uncertainty in stead of ignoring it, and on pulling the curtain on a lot of practices that everyone knows don't really work but kept pretending anyway. All long overdue lessons for a methodology-field too long too dominated by good-on-paper theory and wishful thinking for managers rather than real experience with what works.
I'm sure the fungus on most geeks bathroom walls are already super strains,
Nah, you'd need some evolutionary pressure, something for them to resist, in order to get truly tough strains. Spoiled and pampered geek-fungi just won't cut it.
Part of the point of the idea is that it will cost much less than current offshore wind parks: you don't need to build rigid bases underwater on the seabed, you just need a sturdy mooring. Everything can be built on land and tugged out. Unlike those resting on the seabed, you can cheaply place it at depths (and distances from shore) where only a oilrig-sized cashflow would justify the cost of solid pylons up from the seabed.
HDR is no more a hack than showing natural video on a TV. Sure, the screen has less dynamic range than reality, and you need a mapping function (exposure settings when working with natural light) to display it in a sensible way, but it still pays off hugely to do all the lighting in the scene without regard for that, just as reality dioes.
The alternative (the traditional 8-bit path) corresponds to a reality where no light can be brighter than the white of the monitor", including when adding up light from several sources! Trying to get real photorealism that way is a lost cause. There's a reason why even holywood CG until recently always looked really 'flat', except in very dark scenes (lower dynamic range to model)
And for the record: those blooming effects are not part of HDR. They are simply post-process SFX, emulating scattering and other effects in the eye and in cameras. Sure, you couldn't do them really well without HDR, so they're a nice poster child for what it lets you do. But they are not what makes the process HDR.
Volumetric effects are of course not inherently HDR either; they've eben around a long time, just too heavy to do for most games to bother with until now, and looking much better with HDR (and bloom).
Slashdot Mirror
You don't have to believe in Christ's divinity for most of his teachings to still be a good idea. The executive summary of Christ's teachings is: If we all stopped treating each other like crap, we'd probably all be happier as a result.
Yeah, and he was, like, the first and only guy to think anything in that direction.
Now, the executive summary of the church's teachings (almost from the start) is guilt, shame, shame, guilt, more guilt, with an extra helping of guilt on top.
I think you're winding yourself up too much; no need to get all puffed up and put the wrong spin on things. It's probably just a case of "I say tor-nay-do, you say tor-nah-do".
Whoah! A little defensive there, are we? *duck*
the Retard-Prod(tm) that jabs everyone with an IQ less than 60
I think we should change the name to "Retard-O-Prod". More friendly ring to it. But apart from that, we're definitely interested. I'll have my people call your people.
The holy grail is of course achieveing differently colored dupes. Some combinations may be relatively easy, while others would be a very impressive feat indeed.
The really intersting thing happens if the format takes off and the economics of scale kicks in: once the volume is big enough to justify a new production line, it would make sense to rom in stead of flash, and the price can be squeezed much further. Doesn't have to be fast either; it's primarily for real-time playback, so it only really needs 1xCD speed in the worst case.
This might be the initial killer app for polymer semiconductors. Considering how close they are to normal marketable RAM done with polymers, it must be possible to find a way of stamping out low-speed polymer ROM quickly and cheaply, maybe even in a continuous press process.
The problem is of course that you still have physical distribution, which isn't likely to cut it for long anyway.
That would translate to "AHIBABA!". Possibly just HIBABA.
Nice. Definitely fad material.
You sound like I'm trying to exonerate the kid who stayed silent. I'm not, I'm just saying more than one eorson can have blame when things go wring, and there were more things that went wring there than this kid not speaking up.
if there's any moral culpability for the death of the kid, it's with the co-defendent who didn't speak up until after the execution.
The problem with that argument (well, one of them), is that it inevitably has the following consequence: if there was no co-defendant, noone would be culpable, and the whole execution would have been fair and square.
Yes? No need to change anything at all. Everything is juuuust fine. What a relief. The lengths people will go to avoid thinking critically about their pet system.
I'm not sure how you extrapolated that to "DRM is bad". That's like claiming computers are bad because one was once used in a crime.
No, it's like saying hemorroids are bad because they cause great inconveniece and are otherwise useless.
Some part of me is almost disappointed that a couple of adolescents with an axe to grind /haven't/ yet found way to exploit the rootkit and thus come into posession of the first corporate-created zombie botnet
We could call it Skynet. Turns out all the robots wanted was their fairly earned IP license fees. Since total control with piracy proved impossible, one in stead opted for a blanket levy on listening equipmet. Including carbon based.
Kill everyone outside Israel? Well, yes, I suppose that would end it too.
So the kid who refused to come forward until AFTER the execution says Texas murdered this kid?
I so hope you are not serious. Damn right Texas murdered him. Sure, the guy should have come froward earlier, and it was horrible of him not to. But that doesn't mean the kid was guilty up until then, or that the state is not responsible for its mistake. What if there was no witness to clear him? Is it OK to kill innocent teens in those cases?
The court should have seen that guilt was not proven. They didn't. Texas murdered an innocent kid, and there can be absolutely no doubt about that.
And if it's true, it's true. Doesn't matter who points it out, or what sympathy one may or may not have for them. Satan himself may point out that the sun is up, it doesn't mean it goes dark.
oxymoron terms...
Redundant pleonasms like that are really annoying, you know...
There was this project about a decade back - to light up scandinavian countries (or is it Greenland), to bring light the same way. The environmentalists raised a stink.
That's different; they were lighting up latitudes that simply don't have sunlight throgh part of the year, and with wildlife being adjusted to that.
This village has normal dayligt for its region, it is just in the shade a lot. The mirror is just out of the shade, with normal dayligt hours, not up in space catching light when there should be night on the ground.
Actually, I see no reason
Evidently.
why we shouldn't apply this to any public forum we feel is a target,
Who is "we", and how can you really believe that foiling the places "we" think are targets will stop anyone determined to kill americans from finding some way to do that. Here's a rough cost-benefit analysis:
cost: emormous.
benefit: none.
Besides: What about the cost to society, privacy and freedom of movement? Is the resulting society worth protecting? Why not just join the islamists i stead; it would be a pretty comparable way of life, and much cheaper.
Let them falsely pull out 10 people on a hundred person flight for an extensive search. Great. Just as long as they don't miss the one guy on one flight in ten thousand with the bomb in his backpack.
Does that go for buses, subways, theters, schools, restaurants, museums, public spaces and all opther accumulations of poeple as well, or are you maybe just a tiny bit hung up on airplanes?
Here's a clue: you may be unimaginative, but the terrorists are not.
Tell you whay, why not have the government stop murder an all other crime preemptively by screening people as well. No reason to wait till it happens.
I am sure I would set such a machine off every time I walk through a security gate - I'm just a generally nervous person. Do I care?
You will after the first 10 times when you get stopped for further questionong every fucking time and it's always you and not the other guys.
it improves security
No it doesn't. Proof? Let's see yours first.
reduces the cost effectiveness of security
I think it's supposed to increase it. Not sure it would, though.
and makes it quicker for the average person to get where they're going.
[...] I'd be more worried if they were planning on putting all their faith in this system,
They'd have to put a lot of faith in it if the efficiency reward you postulate is to be realised. Otherwise it will just slow things down.
The whole focus on airplanes is misguided anyway. Just because that's what was used in the last major attacked on the US doesn't mean it's a more important target than anything else. There are plenty of other ways of doing great damage with modest means. Too many to control well. It's like the missile shield thing: If I were a terrorist and got myself a nuke for the purpouse of hurting the US, why would I go through all the trouble of also getting a long range missile, learning to operate it properly, and risk it being detected and shot down? It would be so much easier to just ship it to any coastal city in plain sight. In a normal cargo container or in a perfectly normal-looking rereational boat. In the same way, public transport provides nice good concentrations of people, but there are many types of them, not all well suited to rigorous security, and if they all become "difficult", there's no shortage of other crowded venues, including open outside spaces where admittance control is unthinkable without creating a society so bad that just succumbing to muslim fundamentalism seems like a nicer way out.
The US works
Only if you're rich (in a global sense) and healthy.
There's this thing called antibodies. If you have them, you have been exposed to infection. If you don't, you have either never had it, or you have no immune response to it and would probably get very sick quite quickly.
All the other points you cite are a description of "good management", and as so, don't change just because the company adopted another metodology.
Scrum is a (project-)management method. It can fit together with various development methods and practices (inluding XP) as long as they are suitably flexible, but doesn't really concern itself much with that side of things.
Are agile methods the next big thing in software development?
No, they are the current/i> big thing. No doubt the hype will pass, but I do hope and believe and they bring some things to the table that deserve to last.
The focus on the way people actually work, on optimising that in a realistic way, on work satisfaction, on recognising and handling uncertainty in stead of ignoring it, and on pulling the curtain on a lot of practices that everyone knows don't really work but kept pretending anyway. All long overdue lessons for a methodology-field too long too dominated by good-on-paper theory and wishful thinking for managers rather than real experience with what works.
I'm sure the fungus on most geeks bathroom walls are already super strains,
Nah, you'd need some evolutionary pressure, something for them to resist, in order to get truly tough strains. Spoiled and pampered geek-fungi just won't cut it.
Part of the point of the idea is that it will cost much less than current offshore wind parks: you don't need to build rigid bases underwater on the seabed, you just need a sturdy mooring. Everything can be built on land and tugged out. Unlike those resting on the seabed, you can cheaply place it at depths (and distances from shore) where only a oilrig-sized cashflow would justify the cost of solid pylons up from the seabed.
That is the worst explenation of HDR I have ever seen. Clearly missed the point.
HDR is no more a hack than showing natural video on a TV. Sure, the screen has less dynamic range than reality, and you need a mapping function (exposure settings when working with natural light) to display it in a sensible way, but it still pays off hugely to do all the lighting in the scene without regard for that, just as reality dioes.
The alternative (the traditional 8-bit path) corresponds to a reality where no light can be brighter than the white of the monitor", including when adding up light from several sources! Trying to get real photorealism that way is a lost cause. There's a reason why even holywood CG until recently always looked really 'flat', except in very dark scenes (lower dynamic range to model)
And for the record: those blooming effects are not part of HDR. They are simply post-process SFX, emulating scattering and other effects in the eye and in cameras. Sure, you couldn't do them really well without HDR, so they're a nice poster child for what it lets you do. But they are not what makes the process HDR.
Volumetric effects are of course not inherently HDR either; they've eben around a long time, just too heavy to do for most games to bother with until now, and looking much better with HDR (and bloom).