You spent an entire post talking about how ignorant and stupid I was, without offering a single fucking argument in the discussion. How does that make me the first one calling names?
Get a fucking clue, asshole. You haven't made a single argument against my argument other than calling it stupid. That's not an argument. It's a "just because" argument. The rest of us grew out of that back in the sandbox years. Have you?
OK, first of all... my response was only half serious, the other half was part facetious, part mocking. Second, since we don't know for sure if time travel is even possible, we can't possibly know which theoretical explanation is the most likely one. Thus, it goes without saying there's a truckload of different explanations, with or without the idea of multiple timelines.
A very good friend of mine was raped. How's that for perspective?
It's always fun to see people argue by attacking the person with whom they disagree. It immediately tells me you're a bullshit dittohead who has a warped idea of how the world "should" be, and is trying to conform others to that idea. You cannot violate the rights of others, just so you can sleep better at night. How fucking hard is that to understand? Are you really this retarded?
You're making assumptions about me personally, based on a post on a message board. Think about that for a second.
You accuse me of ignorance, yet you offer no topical argument beyond "you're an asshat, join the real world".
So, my advice to you, Mr. Erik Carlsteen of San Diego (tel: 1-619-283-4331), is this:
Get your head out of your ass and stop listening to Sean Hannity.
Oh, and learn some fucking netiquette... or as we call them in the "real world", manners.
First, I never said I was against penalties beyond a prison term. I said I was against them being applied retroactively - and of course if they're unconstitutional.
I also have a problem with the fact that felons are stripped of their right to vote. The right to vote is a constitutional right, and is not something the government can take away from you. We as a society can temporarily revoke your freedom as punishment for a crime (or if you're too dangerous to live in our society), but we (society - congress and the justice system are an extension of society) cannot under any circumstances revoke your constitutionally guaranteed rights. The constitution is what gives the government its powers. The Bill of Rights doesn't give us rights, it simply outlines the rights the government cannot under any circumstances violate. Since the government is an extension of the people, it cannot usurp power over the people.
You know what... shit happens. You can't possibly watch over your kid 24 hours a day (even though you technically should, seeing as the kid is not responsible for him or herself). But you can take precautions that don't include violating the civil liberties of other citizens just to make you feel better.
I'm getting increasingly frustrated with the "if we draw the line, there's no slippery slope" argument. Drawing a line in the sand doesn't mean it won't be crossed by overzealous politicians. Give the authoritarians an inch, and they'll swallow you whole when you're not looking.
Remember what Martin Niemoller said: "First they came for the Jews and I did not speak out because I was not a Jew. Then they came for the Communists and I did not speak out because I was not a Communist. Then they came for the trade unionists and I did not speak out because I was not a trade unionist. Then they came for me and there was no one left to speak out for me."
If we allow the current government to monitor citizens remotely, just to make us feel better, you can be certain a future government will abuse it for political gain. The easiest way to get started on a nation wide citizen monitoring system, is by first going after the easiest target. Pick a group everybody hates (even other criminals) - child molesters. Who would protest that? It's for the children! Gimme a break. It's just one step closer to 1984.
At some point, there will be another terrorist attack on US soil (pretty much a statistical certainty) at which point whatever administration is in power, will try to give itself more powers under the guise of security - just like the current one did with the outright totalitarian PATRIOT Act.
When that happens, having already used GPS to track one group, will serve as an excuse to demand GPS monitoring of all visitors to the United States - or all Citizens if it's domestic terrorism.
So you see. The best way to avoid the slippery slope, is not to step on it. When deciding whether to give the authorities more powers, ALWAYS assume the worst case scenario, and then figure out if and how that can be prevented from happening. In this case, the best way is by simply denying them the added power and focusing on other ways to ensure our safety.
Sinice I've already used one quote, I may as well throw in another:
"They that give up liberty for security deserve neither" - Benjamin Franklin
I hear what you're saying, but I must offer an opposing view.
The society we have built, uses a system of punishment for crimes committed. Once you've done your time or paid your fine, you're "square with the house".
The only way this could be considered even remotely constitutional, is if the justice system is changed, and judges are given this option in the sentencing framework. This would be akin to life under house arrest, rather than life in prison. Even then, this option would only be available for future convictions, and cannot be made retroactive without violating the constitutional rights of the offenders. Yes, they're scum, but they still have the same rights you and I do.
So, talking about GPS tracking of sex offenders who have already served their time, is not the way to go and any law to that effect would be unconstitutional. In fact, I'm personally opposed to the sex offender registration requirements. They've already done their time. If you want to know where they are, change the sentencing guidelines offered through the legal system, don't punish them again after they've served their time.
It's your job as a parent to keep track of your children. It's your job as a parent to assume every stranger is dangerous to your child until you know otherwise. Don't expect the government to take care of your parental responsibilities.
Why stop with sex offenders? Why not do this to all criminals? It would certainly make solving crimes a lot easier if you could look up a crime scene in a database and see who was there at the time. Well, like so many have pointed out, it's a privacy issue - and the presumption of innocence.
So you're wrong when you say this is not the first step on a slippery slope. This is in fact a running leap down the slippery slope... not just a first step.
A top of the line LCD or DLP will set you back a lamp or two a year, depending on how much you use it - most have a lifespan of between 500 and 1500 hours.
A CRT Projector on the other hand, has a lifetime of approximately 10.000 hours, which is similar to any old CRT Television. With an average of 4 hours a day of usage, a CRT lasts between 8 and 10 years before having to worry about lamp replacement.
So, the total cost of ownership over that period, can be higher for a LCD or DLP than it is for CRT.
I've looked into many projectors for the home theater I'm building (130" 16x9 screen) and the only ones I'm still interested in, are the CRTs - although the CRTs may cost more upfront.
Yes, they're big and bulky, but if you design your theater accordingly, it's not an issue.
Also, you mention budget. To me the budget is irrelevant. Not in the sense that money is not an issue, it most definitely is - but in the sense that I would always choose CRT projection. At least until DLPs improve their contrast ratio, fix the rainbow effects and support full resolution HDTV without scaling. Low end, choose a 7" CRT projector, you can get one for less than a grand these days. High end, with money not being an issue. Get a new 9" CRT projector for around $25.000.
CRTs are not dead. I have a 30" Philips CRT HDTV, the picture is beautiful and to this date, none of the other technologies can even remotely touch the CRT contrast ratio.
Ask anyone building a home theater system with a projector. What's the top of the line picture? A CRT Projector with three 9" tubes. A projector capable of 30.000 to 1 contrast ratio, 1080p and 2500x2000 pc resolution, simply cannot be beat by any of the other formats.
Actually, here's the real reason this won't fly...
Let's assume for the sake of argument, that this convention is discovered in a historylibrary of some sort (archives of/. perhaps), in the distant future by a timetraveler, and he decides to go.
When he does, he'll instantly split the timeline, and the one he came from will become a parallel universe to the one he's in when he attends the convention. Why? Because in order for a time traveler to notice it in the future, it will have to happen at least once without him. Ergo, if I were to go to this meeting, I would not meet a time traveler, because this is "my" timeline. However, if this were to happen, an alternate version of me would be able to meet the time traveler, because he came back in time, after having lived later in "my" timeline, where the convention took place without a visitor from the future. In fact, the moment he interacts with anything or anyone from our timeline when he arrives, is when the timeline splits, because he wasn't there the first time around. So unless he's already here in our timeline, which would make me the alternate version of me, then I won't meet him. It's more than likely nobody from the future will show up at the convention. Unless, like I said, we're already in the alternate timeline.
Also, when he goes back to the future, his timeline will have been altered and he may not even exist in the timeline he returns to; and he will have no way to get back to his own previous future timeline, unless he goes back again a little earlier and tells his alternate self to go back immediately without going to the convention - which of course would create a grandfather paradox, as he would then have no reason to tell himself not to go and the entire universe would simply cease to exist.
I probably should have made it more clear, that I'm not for it being a blanket policy. Frankly, I'm against all blanket policies, as they usually mean you're not required to think about the situation at hand.
But, if it was within the judge's realm, not just to dismiss a case with prejudice, but to add to that the option of slapping the cost of the lawsuit on the plaintiff, it would be a far better solution to frivolous lawsuits than putting a limit on potential damages.
Moreover, it would give a small company the opportunity to recover after having been sued by a giant corporation whose only goal was to tie them up in court until they went broke, so they could grab their patents for next to nothing. Today, even if a corporation loses or the judge throws out the case as frivolous, the small company can be irreparably crippled due to the legal costs - both financially and in time spent. While they today have the option of suing the giant corporation to try to get their legal fees back, in many cases they're beyond repair financially and can't afford another trial... something the corporation depends on. With this option, they could live to work another day.
*Anything* is actionable - whether or not it's *winnable* is another matter entirely.
Exactly, and until the US legal system starts making those who sue and lose, pay for the defendant's legal costs, corporations and others with lots of funding, will continue to use the legal system as a business tool, used for intimidation and career advancement.
Until the legal system is changed so it applies equally to all people and not just those who can afford a good lawyer, corporations will continue to get away with all sorts of shit, at the expense of our rights.
Is it me, or did General Grievous sound just like Arnold Schwarzenegger? "Kahrush them!"
Seriously folks... as good as the trailer looked, these are downright idiotic. They felt like the overblown ads for The Apprentice.
Re:Voom went down because they had no customers
on
Voom No More
·
· Score: 1
That's what I said two messages ago...
Re:Voom went down because they had no customers
on
Voom No More
·
· Score: 1
That's kinda what I was saying. However, it's entirely contingent on the availability of recognizable information available in the scene. If it's a locked down camera with not a lot of action in the frame, so the scene is practically a series of still photos of the same thing, the only variations you can use to calculate, are the variation in grain structure in the film from one frame to the next. Often this can yield great results, but of course it depends greatly on the complexity of the scene.
For still shots, you're stuck with what you got, and any interpolation is simply an educated guess.
The latest cleanup of Star Wars was an exceptionally complex job, but the results were astounding, and I look forward to the day Lucas finally releases them in High Definition (if only he'd release the unaltered originals, but alas). Of course, it helps that practically every shot in the films had motion in it, plus they were shot on film, which gives the option of reconstruction using grain structure. It also helps when you have someone there who can tell you what the cleanup is supposed to be revealing - something CSI doesn't enjoy the luxury of having (if they did, they wouldn't need the zoom and enhance gimmick).
Re:Voom went down because they had no customers
on
Voom No More
·
· Score: 1
Thanks for clarifying. I know SD can be upconverted pretty well (I've done it myself), but as with everything, there are limits.
Re:Voom went down because they had no customers
on
Voom No More
·
· Score: 2, Informative
First, let me hope you were just going for a "funny" moderation...
However, in case you were being serious: I don't know what science fiction you've been reading, but I've been working with digital imaging for the better part of two decades, and these ridiculous CSI image enhancements/upconversions are simply not possible. You just cannot take grainy 320x240 video (VHS) - or worse 160x120 as when they have 4x splitscreen security footage - zoom in on the license plate of the car in the background that encompasses all of 8x8 pixels and then "enhance" until you can read not only the number but you can see the date on the DMV sticker... Any time you "extract" information by interpreting changes over time, you're simply using math to "speculate" and it wouldn't hold up in court. At least not if I were called as an expert witness. A pixel contains brightness and color information, nothing else. Subpixel information is something that is smaller than 1pixel, but yet is being picked up as color and/or brightness information (and due to its size only affects the color/brightness of that one pixel, but is itself not registered in any detail on the image sensor) can only be derived if the subject is moving so its shape can be calculated by comparing the pixels it affects over time, and even then it's not possible to derive anything beyond a general shape. No amount of enhancing can reveal a license plate, tattoo or the name on a prescribed medicine bottle in the reflection on a teapot, like I remember seeing once, which prompted me to laugh out loud. A little like your letter - so if you were indeed going for that "funny" moderation, you should get it.
Actually, you're wrong in assuming his law will cease to apply once it becomes impossible to make transistors, as the law didn't apply specifically to transistors in the first place.
His observation was made to Electronics magazine, in the April 19th, 1965 edition. He didn't mention transistor density. He didn't mention processors (as microprocessors were still 6 years away from being invented).
He was describing component integration on economical integrated circuits. He observed that component integration doubled approximately every 12 months. He increased that number to 24 months, in 1975. Since then, other people have split the difference to 18 months.
None of those figures, 12, 18 or 24 months, are accurate. If the 18 month figure was accurate, today's chips would have 75 Billion transistors. With his original 12 month figure, 27 Trillion. With his revised 24 month figure, 37 Million...
Also, this isn't even a law... it's an observation.
Please note... I relied on Tom R. Halfhill's column in Maximum PC (April 2005) "The Myths of Moore's Law" for this reply.
Actually, you're quite wrong. American military bases are considered US Soil, regardless of what country they're in, and are therefore completely bound by US Federal laws and regulations, even though many local laws still apply. How else would the military be able to function?
The Geneva Convention is not bound by borders. Wherever the US (or any other nation that's party to the convention) has military operations, the Geneva Convention applies. There's no wiggle room here.
More to the point, your constitutional rights are not suspended the moment you exit the United States. Your rights still apply even if you're in Communist China - you're bound by their laws, but the US military must still treat you the same as if you were on US soil.
To begin with, it's an ECS (which stands for Extremely Crappy Stuff, I believe, although the S may stand for something else).
Who is this for exactly? People who don't know enough to build their own systems most likely don't care if it's AMD or Intel, just that it's inexpensive and it works well (that leaves out ECS), in which case AMD would be the obvious choice anyway...
Slashdot Mirror
yeah, yeah... I made a typo, so fucking what?
You spent an entire post talking about how ignorant and stupid I was, without offering a single fucking argument in the discussion. How does that make me the first one calling names?
Get a fucking clue, asshole.
You haven't made a single argument against my argument other than calling it stupid. That's not an argument. It's a "just because" argument. The rest of us grew out of that back in the sandbox years. Have you?
If anyone has made the word Tiger a recognizable household name, it's gotta be Tiger Woods (not to mention the friggin' species).
Why do people have to sue over every god damn thing?
OK, first of all... my response was only half serious, the other half was part facetious, part mocking.
Second, since we don't know for sure if time travel is even possible, we can't possibly know which theoretical explanation is the most likely one.
Thus, it goes without saying there's a truckload of different explanations, with or without the idea of multiple timelines.
I usually stop talking to people once they become condecending and patronizing.
I'm not going to make an exception here.
http://www.csom.org/pubs/mythsfacts.html
Scroll down to the 3rd myth.
You should really get your facts straight before you start screaming.
A very good friend of mine was raped. How's that for perspective?
It's always fun to see people argue by attacking the person with whom they disagree. It immediately tells me you're a bullshit dittohead who has a warped idea of how the world "should" be, and is trying to conform others to that idea. You cannot violate the rights of others, just so you can sleep better at night. How fucking hard is that to understand? Are you really this retarded?
You're making assumptions about me personally, based on a post on a message board. Think about that for a second.
You accuse me of ignorance, yet you offer no topical argument beyond "you're an asshat, join the real world".
So, my advice to you, Mr. Erik Carlsteen of San Diego (tel: 1-619-283-4331), is this:
Get your head out of your ass and stop listening to Sean Hannity.
Oh, and learn some fucking netiquette... or as we call them in the "real world", manners.
First, I never said I was against penalties beyond a prison term. I said I was against them being applied retroactively - and of course if they're unconstitutional.
I also have a problem with the fact that felons are stripped of their right to vote. The right to vote is a constitutional right, and is not something the government can take away from you. We as a society can temporarily revoke your freedom as punishment for a crime (or if you're too dangerous to live in our society), but we (society - congress and the justice system are an extension of society) cannot under any circumstances revoke your constitutionally guaranteed rights.
The constitution is what gives the government its powers. The Bill of Rights doesn't give us rights, it simply outlines the rights the government cannot under any circumstances violate.
Since the government is an extension of the people, it cannot usurp power over the people.
You know what... shit happens. You can't possibly watch over your kid 24 hours a day (even though you technically should, seeing as the kid is not responsible for him or herself). But you can take precautions that don't include violating the civil liberties of other citizens just to make you feel better.
I'm getting increasingly frustrated with the "if we draw the line, there's no slippery slope" argument.
Drawing a line in the sand doesn't mean it won't be crossed by overzealous politicians. Give the authoritarians an inch, and they'll swallow you whole when you're not looking.
Remember what Martin Niemoller said:
"First they came for the Jews
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for the Communists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for me
and there was no one left
to speak out for me."
If we allow the current government to monitor citizens remotely, just to make us feel better, you can be certain a future government will abuse it for political gain.
The easiest way to get started on a nation wide citizen monitoring system, is by first going after the easiest target. Pick a group everybody hates (even other criminals) - child molesters. Who would protest that? It's for the children! Gimme a break. It's just one step closer to 1984.
At some point, there will be another terrorist attack on US soil (pretty much a statistical certainty) at which point whatever administration is in power, will try to give itself more powers under the guise of security - just like the current one did with the outright totalitarian PATRIOT Act.
When that happens, having already used GPS to track one group, will serve as an excuse to demand GPS monitoring of all visitors to the United States - or all Citizens if it's domestic terrorism.
So you see. The best way to avoid the slippery slope, is not to step on it.
When deciding whether to give the authorities more powers, ALWAYS assume the worst case scenario, and then figure out if and how that can be prevented from happening.
In this case, the best way is by simply denying them the added power and focusing on other ways to ensure our safety.
Sinice I've already used one quote, I may as well throw in another:
"They that give up liberty for security deserve neither" - Benjamin Franklin
I hear what you're saying, but I must offer an opposing view.
The society we have built, uses a system of punishment for crimes committed. Once you've done your time or paid your fine, you're "square with the house".
The only way this could be considered even remotely constitutional, is if the justice system is changed, and judges are given this option in the sentencing framework. This would be akin to life under house arrest, rather than life in prison.
Even then, this option would only be available for future convictions, and cannot be made retroactive without violating the constitutional rights of the offenders. Yes, they're scum, but they still have the same rights you and I do.
So, talking about GPS tracking of sex offenders who have already served their time, is not the way to go and any law to that effect would be unconstitutional. In fact, I'm personally opposed to the sex offender registration requirements. They've already done their time. If you want to know where they are, change the sentencing guidelines offered through the legal system, don't punish them again after they've served their time.
It's your job as a parent to keep track of your children. It's your job as a parent to assume every stranger is dangerous to your child until you know otherwise. Don't expect the government to take care of your parental responsibilities.
Why stop with sex offenders? Why not do this to all criminals? It would certainly make solving crimes a lot easier if you could look up a crime scene in a database and see who was there at the time.
Well, like so many have pointed out, it's a privacy issue - and the presumption of innocence.
So you're wrong when you say this is not the first step on a slippery slope. This is in fact a running leap down the slippery slope... not just a first step.
A top of the line LCD or DLP will set you back a lamp or two a year, depending on how much you use it - most have a lifespan of between 500 and 1500 hours.
A CRT Projector on the other hand, has a lifetime of approximately 10.000 hours, which is similar to any old CRT Television.
With an average of 4 hours a day of usage, a CRT lasts between 8 and 10 years before having to worry about lamp replacement.
So, the total cost of ownership over that period, can be higher for a LCD or DLP than it is for CRT.
I've looked into many projectors for the home theater I'm building (130" 16x9 screen) and the only ones I'm still interested in, are the CRTs - although the CRTs may cost more upfront.
Yes, they're big and bulky, but if you design your theater accordingly, it's not an issue.
Also, you mention budget. To me the budget is irrelevant. Not in the sense that money is not an issue, it most definitely is - but in the sense that I would always choose CRT projection. At least until DLPs improve their contrast ratio, fix the rainbow effects and support full resolution HDTV without scaling.
Low end, choose a 7" CRT projector, you can get one for less than a grand these days.
High end, with money not being an issue. Get a new 9" CRT projector for around $25.000.
Absolutely 100% correct.
CRTs are not dead. I have a 30" Philips CRT HDTV, the picture is beautiful and to this date, none of the other technologies can even remotely touch the CRT contrast ratio.
Ask anyone building a home theater system with a projector. What's the top of the line picture?
A CRT Projector with three 9" tubes.
A projector capable of 30.000 to 1 contrast ratio, 1080p and 2500x2000 pc resolution, simply cannot be beat by any of the other formats.
Actually, here's the real reason this won't fly...
/. perhaps), in the distant future by a timetraveler, and he decides to go.
Let's assume for the sake of argument, that this convention is discovered in a historylibrary of some sort (archives of
When he does, he'll instantly split the timeline, and the one he came from will become a parallel universe to the one he's in when he attends the convention.
Why? Because in order for a time traveler to notice it in the future, it will have to happen at least once without him. Ergo, if I were to go to this meeting, I would not meet a time traveler, because this is "my" timeline.
However, if this were to happen, an alternate version of me would be able to meet the time traveler, because he came back in time, after having lived later in "my" timeline, where the convention took place without a visitor from the future.
In fact, the moment he interacts with anything or anyone from our timeline when he arrives, is when the timeline splits, because he wasn't there the first time around. So unless he's already here in our timeline, which would make me the alternate version of me, then I won't meet him.
It's more than likely nobody from the future will show up at the convention. Unless, like I said, we're already in the alternate timeline.
Also, when he goes back to the future, his timeline will have been altered and he may not even exist in the timeline he returns to; and he will have no way to get back to his own previous future timeline, unless he goes back again a little earlier and tells his alternate self to go back immediately without going to the convention - which of course would create a grandfather paradox, as he would then have no reason to tell himself not to go and the entire universe would simply cease to exist.
Is that clear?
again, not what I was saying...
while this would certainly cut down on frivolous suits, it could also curtail risky suits... which may or may not be a good thing.
Like I said. Not a blanket rule, just having it as an option for the judge...
I probably should have made it more clear, that I'm not for it being a blanket policy. Frankly, I'm against all blanket policies, as they usually mean you're not required to think about the situation at hand.
But, if it was within the judge's realm, not just to dismiss a case with prejudice, but to add to that the option of slapping the cost of the lawsuit on the plaintiff, it would be a far better solution to frivolous lawsuits than putting a limit on potential damages.
Moreover, it would give a small company the opportunity to recover after having been sued by a giant corporation whose only goal was to tie them up in court until they went broke, so they could grab their patents for next to nothing. Today, even if a corporation loses or the judge throws out the case as frivolous, the small company can be irreparably crippled due to the legal costs - both financially and in time spent. While they today have the option of suing the giant corporation to try to get their legal fees back, in many cases they're beyond repair financially and can't afford another trial... something the corporation depends on.
With this option, they could live to work another day.
Isn't that the whole point? It would certainly do away with frivolous lawsuits.
*Anything* is actionable - whether or not it's *winnable* is another matter entirely.
Exactly, and until the US legal system starts making those who sue and lose, pay for the defendant's legal costs, corporations and others with lots of funding, will continue to use the legal system as a business tool, used for intimidation and career advancement.
Until the legal system is changed so it applies equally to all people and not just those who can afford a good lawyer, corporations will continue to get away with all sorts of shit, at the expense of our rights.
Is it me, or did General Grievous sound just like Arnold Schwarzenegger? "Kahrush them!"
Seriously folks... as good as the trailer looked, these are downright idiotic.
They felt like the overblown ads for The Apprentice.
That's what I said two messages ago...
That's kinda what I was saying.
However, it's entirely contingent on the availability of recognizable information available in the scene.
If it's a locked down camera with not a lot of action in the frame, so the scene is practically a series of still photos of the same thing, the only variations you can use to calculate, are the variation in grain structure in the film from one frame to the next. Often this can yield great results, but of course it depends greatly on the complexity of the scene.
For still shots, you're stuck with what you got, and any interpolation is simply an educated guess.
The latest cleanup of Star Wars was an exceptionally complex job, but the results were astounding, and I look forward to the day Lucas finally releases them in High Definition (if only he'd release the unaltered originals, but alas).
Of course, it helps that practically every shot in the films had motion in it, plus they were shot on film, which gives the option of reconstruction using grain structure.
It also helps when you have someone there who can tell you what the cleanup is supposed to be revealing - something CSI doesn't enjoy the luxury of having (if they did, they wouldn't need the zoom and enhance gimmick).
Thanks for clarifying.
I know SD can be upconverted pretty well (I've done it myself), but as with everything, there are limits.
First, let me hope you were just going for a "funny" moderation...
However, in case you were being serious: I don't know what science fiction you've been reading, but I've been working with digital imaging for the better part of two decades, and these ridiculous CSI image enhancements/upconversions are simply not possible.
You just cannot take grainy 320x240 video (VHS) - or worse 160x120 as when they have 4x splitscreen security footage - zoom in on the license plate of the car in the background that encompasses all of 8x8 pixels and then "enhance" until you can read not only the number but you can see the date on the DMV sticker...
Any time you "extract" information by interpreting changes over time, you're simply using math to "speculate" and it wouldn't hold up in court. At least not if I were called as an expert witness.
A pixel contains brightness and color information, nothing else. Subpixel information is something that is smaller than 1pixel, but yet is being picked up as color and/or brightness information (and due to its size only affects the color/brightness of that one pixel, but is itself not registered in any detail on the image sensor) can only be derived if the subject is moving so its shape can be calculated by comparing the pixels it affects over time, and even then it's not possible to derive anything beyond a general shape. No amount of enhancing can reveal a license plate, tattoo or the name on a prescribed medicine bottle in the reflection on a teapot, like I remember seeing once, which prompted me to laugh out loud. A little like your letter - so if you were indeed going for that "funny" moderation, you should get it.
Actually, you're wrong in assuming his law will cease to apply once it becomes impossible to make transistors, as the law didn't apply specifically to transistors in the first place.
His observation was made to Electronics magazine, in the April 19th, 1965 edition.
He didn't mention transistor density.
He didn't mention processors (as microprocessors were still 6 years away from being invented).
He was describing component integration on economical integrated circuits.
He observed that component integration doubled approximately every 12 months. He increased that number to 24 months, in 1975. Since then, other people have split the difference to 18 months.
None of those figures, 12, 18 or 24 months, are accurate.
If the 18 month figure was accurate, today's chips would have 75 Billion transistors.
With his original 12 month figure, 27 Trillion.
With his revised 24 month figure, 37 Million...
Also, this isn't even a law... it's an observation.
Please note... I relied on Tom R. Halfhill's column in Maximum PC (April 2005) "The Myths of Moore's Law" for this reply.
I won't be checking Slashdot on April 1st, 2006.
No way, no how.
What a ginormous waste of time and energy.
And the sad part is... you can't even post genuine news on this day, because everyone will just assume it's bullshit.
I mean... one or two fake stories is fine, but every fucking one of them?
Get a grip, admins... geez!
72 Virgins... bah... I'll bet you anything after you've gone through 5 of them you'll be begging for a pro.
And yes, I stole that joke from right wing stooge Dennis Miller... so sue me.
Actually, you're quite wrong.
American military bases are considered US Soil, regardless of what country they're in, and are therefore completely bound by US Federal laws and regulations, even though many local laws still apply. How else would the military be able to function?
The Geneva Convention is not bound by borders. Wherever the US (or any other nation that's party to the convention) has military operations, the Geneva Convention applies. There's no wiggle room here.
More to the point, your constitutional rights are not suspended the moment you exit the United States. Your rights still apply even if you're in Communist China - you're bound by their laws, but the US military must still treat you the same as if you were on US soil.
To begin with, it's an ECS (which stands for Extremely Crappy Stuff, I believe, although the S may stand for something else).
Who is this for exactly? People who don't know enough to build their own systems most likely don't care if it's AMD or Intel, just that it's inexpensive and it works well (that leaves out ECS), in which case AMD would be the obvious choice anyway...
Like I said, I don't get it.