Wow. Most people who I know haven't taken their ethics and principles far enough such that something like being an engineer on the PSP Go team would be a compromise of them. Usually ethics and principles are for things like "I won't do something that will harm another person". Things like lying, compromising safety, etc. Building a video game system that is (in some ways) inferior to another system isn't even in the same ballpark. Graphically, the Nintendo Wii is inferior to the 360 and PS3. So what of Nintendo's engineers...should they have resigned in protest of a moral compromise? Thats just silly.
When you start a family, you need to take a lot more responsibility. Part of that includes picking your battles and making responsible decisions. You don't quit your job as an engineer just because management decided to make a piece of hardware that you think is a terrible idea.
1) Gimp is not a substitute for Photoshop. It might be good enough for a lot of people, but it's missing a lot of functionality too. 2) I'm not aware of anything for linux that can even begin to pretend to do what Adobe Lightroom does.
Right now I'm running Firefox with 12 tabs, listening to music, and editing a lengthy file in OpenOffice, while running KDE with full composing effects enabled... and I'm using about half of my 1GB. What use could I possibly have for 4GB?
Apparently you have no use for that much memory. Good for you. It saves you on the cost of buying the memory, plus a it saves you a small bit of electricity that the extra modules would require. Be happy and stick with what works. Some of us, on the other hand, do have a use. I do a bit of large, multi-photo panorama stitching. I found that even 6GB wasn't enough so I've now got 12GB.
However, if this serves to keep others from implementing carrier-based restrictions, I'm all for it: implementing this is going to hurt Apple and help everybody else.
That was exactly my first thought. However, you know it's not going to go down like that, because everyone else is going to want the feature. Instead, all the phones will end up with the feature anyway, and you'll just pay more for Apple's licensing fee.
That's a common mistake, the problem is the targetting always seems to work like this: Hey you bought a PC yesterday; so you're in the PC buying demographic; so we'll serve you a dozen ads for the last thing you will need for the next couple of years...
Well, if my PC turns out to be a piece of shit and I figure it out during the return period, I'll probably return it and buy something better, so that ad might come in handy anyway. On the other hand, NOTHING is going convince me to buy makeup (and even if my wife asked me to pick some up for her, it would be the brand she requested and whether or not I saw it in an ad would be irrelevant).
Well, I imagined he would be making a commission off going to take the images, since he did it for a highly-publicized event and large organization.
I never got the impression anyone hired him to do it or anything. He said he got help from the ESO, but I didn't take it to mean they funded him or anything.
People tend not to do work on this kind of scale without some incentive to start, like a contract for X euros to go and create the image, and y on delivery.
Or he enjoyed doing the work and was confident he's be able to recoup his investment by licensing the photo and selling very large prints of it (the largest print I see listed is over 10 feet long) when he was done. He wouldn't very well be able to do that by giving away the full size photo.
If he got that commission, he's double-dipping by taking public funds (ESO is intergovernmental, which means government funding), and keeping the best parts himself.
Not necessarily. If they did pay him (again, I'm not sure they did) he may have agreed to a reduced fee in exchange for keeping the rights to the work. They might even have an agreement to split the proceeds from the print sales. Lots of ways it could work out.
By the way, what you mentioned is kinda the difference between the world we live in and the one people refuse to try and create. It shouldn't matter who did it; it should just matter that it is done, and that it helps expand people in an artistic, technological and intellectual fashion. I know if I could put something out there for free that would garner an extraordinary amount of interest in a given subject, leading to people as a whole being better, I might do it. Most people wouldn't even consider the choice between whether to help themselves or to help literally everyone else.
Yeah, that's nice and all, in an idealistic way, but you can't eat ideals. So, unless you want to be the one to give up all of your wealth and possessions to start the ball rolling, I'm not sure where you are coming from. He's taken a step towards that by sharing part of the results (the 18MP version). It's kind of hard to be the only person giving up everything for ideals while the rest of the world is still demanding payment with cash.
The wording I remember from the video wasn't "it doesn't work so well", but rather "it doesn't work that well". That may seem subtle but there is a difference. Using the word "that" gives another possible meaning to the statement. You took it to mean that it doesn't work. I took it to mean "ok...although it works, the puking was just for show...it doesn't work that well."
So I take it that if you work 30 days at your job, you're more than happy to let anyone take as much of your paycheck as he/she pleases?
If a person does work, they are entitled to decide what to do with the proceeds of that work, no matter whether it be keep it private, release it to the public, or (as this guy has done) choose something somewhere in between.
Yeah what a jackass. He spends 30 entire nights over 6 months doing photography (something that he appears to do as part of his profession) and then expects to maintain a little bit of creative control over his work? Pffft!
Sarcasm aside, grow up a bit. He's made the zoomable version available, and even aside from that 18MP is pretty darn good. It's a good quality image you are working with, and you could do quite a bit with it. I've made 40" long prints from 6.7MP images and they end up looking very good. You could do pretty darn good with an 18MP image. If you want to make a print for yourself, you could make a damn good one from that (he might not appreciate it, but he'd never know). If you just want to look at it, use the zoomable version. If you want to do more than that, you could at least expend the effort to stitch together screenshots taken while panning across the zoomed in image. Or better yet, get your ass down there for 6 months and take them yourself.
In general I agree with you. However, in this case it wouldn't help out a ton. Coral would get the page and the fully zoomed out image, which would at least be something, but is not the purpose of this post...there are countless wide angle photos of the sky you can find all over the internet. It wouldn't cache any of the zoomed data unless someone manually went through and zoomed in on everything.
If we were going to use them, we would have done so already while oil was cheap.
Huh, please explain the logic on that one, because I'm missing it.What you are suggesting is that, if there were ever a time to switch it would have been when it wasn't cost effective to make the switch (ie: the cost of the switch would be more than you'd save by switching). Now that it IS becoming cost effective, we have no incentive to make the switch?
I kind of understand where you are attempting to come from...buy up a valuable resource and don't sell it until it increases in value. Except that doesn't work so well, since once people make the switch the resource no longer has nearly as much value, and thus you lose money dumping it for a fraction of what you paid.
But why can't we just build hydroelectric dams or fission reactors right into the car itself? Or better yet...wind powered cars. Just think how fast a wind turbine would spin on top of a car going 80MPH. The thing would practically power itself.
I think the point of the plug was just to show how fast you can boot for a typical user. Face it, most people aren't using linux. They are going to be on Windows, and Window 7 has a significantly improved boot time compared to previous versions. So, for a typical Windows user, Win 7 would be the best way to showcase fast booting.
Yeah, but if the other poster goes and bakes a cake, inserts a micro SD card containing sensitive information, frosts is, and gets caught at the border, good luck with convincing the feds you were just hypothesizing.
As far as I've heard, Nintendo was the only one making a profit from day 1, but Microsoft eventually got costs down to where they were making a profit. I've not yet heard anything about Sony making a profit on PS3s.
WTFV. At the end, you can see the people that launched it waiting to retrieve it before it even landed. Unlike those other students who did it on the cheap, it appears these people did something a little more sophisticated and were tracking it the entire time.
Yeah, I know that. But as my post was saying, you can't compensate for the side of the equation which only has a sample size of 1 person.
Since I've already been accused by some AC of making an analogy, I might as well go and get one in (and I'll try to make it a bad one full of holes).
Lets say there is a system which looks at your tax return and suggests activities that you might enjoy based on your level of income. That system works pretty well for most people. You are in a field that pays $200k salary. Then you leave the company, and due to a no compete clause in your contract, you make nothing for an entire year. Your salary is $0. So you file your tax return for $0 and the system suggestion "you might enjoy looking for food in dumpsters". Well wait...you aren't poor. You're just living off of your emergency fund until you can get into your next job. So, during that 12 months you didn't work, you actually tinkered with some ideas and came up with some very unique invention. However, you don't the means to manufacture and market it. You decide to sell off the patent and get $10,000,000 for it. So now for year 2 your income is huge, and the system says "you might enjoy buying a yacht". Well, wait a minute. You aren't wealthy. Yeah, you've got a good chunk of change there, and if you spend it carefully you can have a really nice life. If you go buying a yacht, you are done. It's back to work for you.
So, you see how the system fails you as an individual. It doesn't matter how good the system can compensate for everyone else...it fails you. And that was the point. Nextekcarl wasn't saying "the system doesn't work"...he simply said he's not convinced of how well it's working for him.
P.S. Please don't bother pointing out the holes in the analogy...I know it's like swiss cheese. It wasn't my intention to create a rigorously thorough analogy.
1) Please pay attention to the conversation, because I didn't post an analogy at all. I merely posted a few extreme examples of things that would affect how you rate a movie.
2) Please pay attention to the conversation, because nobody ever said the system was useless. The person who started this tangent (nextekcarl) simply said (I'm paraphrasing) "the old system worked better for me, but I'm not sure how reliable my ratings are anyway, so it could just be that", which led to martin-boundary suggesting "it doesn't matter how reliable your ratings are...the system will compensate for your screw ups", at which point I replied "not for nextekcarl, it wont".
Well it might not affect the average prediction as it relates to everybody else. However, from a user's perspective, the whole point of the system is to try an figure out what my taste is for movies based on how I rated those movies, match it up to other people's ratings, and try to predict what other movies I'd like. You can't statistically average out my ratings, as my ratings are the only significant factor on one side of the equation. There are no other users you can use to balance out what my tastes are. It has to go by my ratings, and if my ratings are anomalous, the results are going to suffer.
Your lottery analogy is pointless, because it demonstrates a different issue. There, the 6 actual numbers against which we are rating your submissions is a factual matter. They aren't affected by your feeling and interpretations. They are going to be the same 6 numbers, no matter whether you just got a promotion at work or your spouse was just murdered. However, your rating of movie X would probably be different after the promotion than it would be after the murder of your spouse (we're assuming you actually liked your spouse and didn't hire a hitman).
Wow. That's unfortunate. You must be buying crappy CFLs or something. I put 15 GE CFLs in my home over 4 years ago. I had one burn out after 2 years and another one at 3 years. The rest were running just fine, though I've replaced them anyway after the 4 year mark. I discovered the nvision/ecosmart daylight CFLs at home depot, and like those better because 1) the 5500K/5000K color temperature is more pleasing to me 2) they are actually instant on
I've now moved all the GE ones to the less used places where I figured the very low usage didn't generate enough cost savings to justify paying for CFLs. As a result, they'll probably last a really long time, but I won't get any idea what a realistic life is for them. But even so, 4 years is pretty good...more than enough to pay for themselves.
I was able to crash the installer just by hooking up my monitor by DVI. I'm sure it's a hardware specific combo, and granted this isn't the final code (RC1, not RTM...and I've heard microsoft does make changes between the final RC and RTM), but hopefully they got it fixed.
Actually, I could very much believe he had problem. I had a problem where I got the Win7 RC installed on one machine, but another machine with a near identical setup (same model motherboard with same bios, same cpu, hard drive, etc) didn't work. It kept crashing during the install. Well, long story short, I realized one difference was that one was hooked up by VGA, the other by DVI. I switched the DVI machine to VGA and it worked fine. Apparently something bad was happening when the installer tried to configure the video on the DVI machine. I had to switch it to VGA, do the install, upgrade the video drivers, then switch back to DVI and everything was good.
PS. If anyone is interested, the offending combination was a Gigabyte GA-73PVM-S2H with onboard nvidia 7100 paired with a samsung 2494HM LCD
Great. I'm really glad you can tell me all about "present in the conversation". Of course, I didn't notice his subtle use of that word, because I was paying less specific attention to his wording and more specific attention to the actual wording. So, if you can tell me where that appears in the actual statute, I'll much appreciate it: http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(izp0wi45cacr1hepi3p5lsrx))/mileg.aspx?page=GetObject&objectname=mcl-750-539c
Slashdot Mirror
Wow. Most people who I know haven't taken their ethics and principles far enough such that something like being an engineer on the PSP Go team would be a compromise of them. Usually ethics and principles are for things like "I won't do something that will harm another person". Things like lying, compromising safety, etc. Building a video game system that is (in some ways) inferior to another system isn't even in the same ballpark. Graphically, the Nintendo Wii is inferior to the 360 and PS3. So what of Nintendo's engineers...should they have resigned in protest of a moral compromise? Thats just silly.
When you start a family, you need to take a lot more responsibility. Part of that includes picking your battles and making responsible decisions. You don't quit your job as an engineer just because management decided to make a piece of hardware that you think is a terrible idea.
1) Gimp is not a substitute for Photoshop. It might be good enough for a lot of people, but it's missing a lot of functionality too.
2) I'm not aware of anything for linux that can even begin to pretend to do what Adobe Lightroom does.
Right now I'm running Firefox with 12 tabs, listening to music, and editing a lengthy file in OpenOffice, while running KDE with full composing effects enabled... and I'm using about half of my 1GB. What use could I possibly have for 4GB?
Apparently you have no use for that much memory. Good for you. It saves you on the cost of buying the memory, plus a it saves you a small bit of electricity that the extra modules would require. Be happy and stick with what works. Some of us, on the other hand, do have a use. I do a bit of large, multi-photo panorama stitching. I found that even 6GB wasn't enough so I've now got 12GB.
However, if this serves to keep others from implementing carrier-based restrictions, I'm all for it: implementing this is going to hurt Apple and help everybody else.
That was exactly my first thought. However, you know it's not going to go down like that, because everyone else is going to want the feature. Instead, all the phones will end up with the feature anyway, and you'll just pay more for Apple's licensing fee.
That's a common mistake, the problem is the targetting always seems to work like this:
Hey you bought a PC yesterday; so you're in the PC buying demographic; so we'll serve you a dozen ads for the last thing you will need for the next couple of years...
Well, if my PC turns out to be a piece of shit and I figure it out during the return period, I'll probably return it and buy something better, so that ad might come in handy anyway. On the other hand, NOTHING is going convince me to buy makeup (and even if my wife asked me to pick some up for her, it would be the brand she requested and whether or not I saw it in an ad would be irrelevant).
I never got the impression anyone hired him to do it or anything. He said he got help from the ESO, but I didn't take it to mean they funded him or anything.
Or he enjoyed doing the work and was confident he's be able to recoup his investment by licensing the photo and selling very large prints of it (the largest print I see listed is over 10 feet long) when he was done. He wouldn't very well be able to do that by giving away the full size photo.
Not necessarily. If they did pay him (again, I'm not sure they did) he may have agreed to a reduced fee in exchange for keeping the rights to the work. They might even have an agreement to split the proceeds from the print sales. Lots of ways it could work out.
Yeah, that's nice and all, in an idealistic way, but you can't eat ideals. So, unless you want to be the one to give up all of your wealth and possessions to start the ball rolling, I'm not sure where you are coming from. He's taken a step towards that by sharing part of the results (the 18MP version). It's kind of hard to be the only person giving up everything for ideals while the rest of the world is still demanding payment with cash.
The wording I remember from the video wasn't "it doesn't work so well", but rather "it doesn't work that well". That may seem subtle but there is a difference. Using the word "that" gives another possible meaning to the statement. You took it to mean that it doesn't work. I took it to mean "ok...although it works, the puking was just for show...it doesn't work that well."
So I take it that if you work 30 days at your job, you're more than happy to let anyone take as much of your paycheck as he/she pleases?
If a person does work, they are entitled to decide what to do with the proceeds of that work, no matter whether it be keep it private, release it to the public, or (as this guy has done) choose something somewhere in between.
Yeah what a jackass. He spends 30 entire nights over 6 months doing photography (something that he appears to do as part of his profession) and then expects to maintain a little bit of creative control over his work? Pffft!
Sarcasm aside, grow up a bit. He's made the zoomable version available, and even aside from that 18MP is pretty darn good. It's a good quality image you are working with, and you could do quite a bit with it. I've made 40" long prints from 6.7MP images and they end up looking very good. You could do pretty darn good with an 18MP image. If you want to make a print for yourself, you could make a damn good one from that (he might not appreciate it, but he'd never know). If you just want to look at it, use the zoomable version. If you want to do more than that, you could at least expend the effort to stitch together screenshots taken while panning across the zoomed in image. Or better yet, get your ass down there for 6 months and take them yourself.
In general I agree with you. However, in this case it wouldn't help out a ton. Coral would get the page and the fully zoomed out image, which would at least be something, but is not the purpose of this post...there are countless wide angle photos of the sky you can find all over the internet. It wouldn't cache any of the zoomed data unless someone manually went through and zoomed in on everything.
Huh, please explain the logic on that one, because I'm missing it.What you are suggesting is that, if there were ever a time to switch it would have been when it wasn't cost effective to make the switch (ie: the cost of the switch would be more than you'd save by switching). Now that it IS becoming cost effective, we have no incentive to make the switch?
I kind of understand where you are attempting to come from...buy up a valuable resource and don't sell it until it increases in value. Except that doesn't work so well, since once people make the switch the resource no longer has nearly as much value, and thus you lose money dumping it for a fraction of what you paid.
But why can't we just build hydroelectric dams or fission reactors right into the car itself? Or better yet...wind powered cars. Just think how fast a wind turbine would spin on top of a car going 80MPH. The thing would practically power itself.
I think the point of the plug was just to show how fast you can boot for a typical user. Face it, most people aren't using linux. They are going to be on Windows, and Window 7 has a significantly improved boot time compared to previous versions. So, for a typical Windows user, Win 7 would be the best way to showcase fast booting.
Yeah, but if the other poster goes and bakes a cake, inserts a micro SD card containing sensitive information, frosts is, and gets caught at the border, good luck with convincing the feds you were just hypothesizing.
As far as I've heard, Nintendo was the only one making a profit from day 1, but Microsoft eventually got costs down to where they were making a profit. I've not yet heard anything about Sony making a profit on PS3s.
Yeah, but good luck running your solar powered lunar water extraction system on a cloudy day.
WTFV. At the end, you can see the people that launched it waiting to retrieve it before it even landed. Unlike those other students who did it on the cheap, it appears these people did something a little more sophisticated and were tracking it the entire time.
Yeah, I know that. But as my post was saying, you can't compensate for the side of the equation which only has a sample size of 1 person.
Since I've already been accused by some AC of making an analogy, I might as well go and get one in (and I'll try to make it a bad one full of holes).
Lets say there is a system which looks at your tax return and suggests activities that you might enjoy based on your level of income. That system works pretty well for most people. You are in a field that pays $200k salary. Then you leave the company, and due to a no compete clause in your contract, you make nothing for an entire year. Your salary is $0. So you file your tax return for $0 and the system suggestion "you might enjoy looking for food in dumpsters". Well wait...you aren't poor. You're just living off of your emergency fund until you can get into your next job. So, during that 12 months you didn't work, you actually tinkered with some ideas and came up with some very unique invention. However, you don't the means to manufacture and market it. You decide to sell off the patent and get $10,000,000 for it. So now for year 2 your income is huge, and the system says "you might enjoy buying a yacht". Well, wait a minute. You aren't wealthy. Yeah, you've got a good chunk of change there, and if you spend it carefully you can have a really nice life. If you go buying a yacht, you are done. It's back to work for you.
So, you see how the system fails you as an individual. It doesn't matter how good the system can compensate for everyone else...it fails you. And that was the point. Nextekcarl wasn't saying "the system doesn't work"...he simply said he's not convinced of how well it's working for him.
P.S. Please don't bother pointing out the holes in the analogy...I know it's like swiss cheese. It wasn't my intention to create a rigorously thorough analogy.
1) Please pay attention to the conversation, because I didn't post an analogy at all. I merely posted a few extreme examples of things that would affect how you rate a movie.
2) Please pay attention to the conversation, because nobody ever said the system was useless. The person who started this tangent (nextekcarl) simply said (I'm paraphrasing) "the old system worked better for me, but I'm not sure how reliable my ratings are anyway, so it could just be that", which led to martin-boundary suggesting "it doesn't matter how reliable your ratings are...the system will compensate for your screw ups", at which point I replied "not for nextekcarl, it wont".
There, are you caught up now?
Well it might not affect the average prediction as it relates to everybody else. However, from a user's perspective, the whole point of the system is to try an figure out what my taste is for movies based on how I rated those movies, match it up to other people's ratings, and try to predict what other movies I'd like. You can't statistically average out my ratings, as my ratings are the only significant factor on one side of the equation. There are no other users you can use to balance out what my tastes are. It has to go by my ratings, and if my ratings are anomalous, the results are going to suffer.
Your lottery analogy is pointless, because it demonstrates a different issue. There, the 6 actual numbers against which we are rating your submissions is a factual matter. They aren't affected by your feeling and interpretations. They are going to be the same 6 numbers, no matter whether you just got a promotion at work or your spouse was just murdered. However, your rating of movie X would probably be different after the promotion than it would be after the murder of your spouse (we're assuming you actually liked your spouse and didn't hire a hitman).
Wow. That's unfortunate. You must be buying crappy CFLs or something. I put 15 GE CFLs in my home over 4 years ago. I had one burn out after 2 years and another one at 3 years. The rest were running just fine, though I've replaced them anyway after the 4 year mark. I discovered the nvision/ecosmart daylight CFLs at home depot, and like those better because
1) the 5500K/5000K color temperature is more pleasing to me
2) they are actually instant on
I've now moved all the GE ones to the less used places where I figured the very low usage didn't generate enough cost savings to justify paying for CFLs. As a result, they'll probably last a really long time, but I won't get any idea what a realistic life is for them. But even so, 4 years is pretty good...more than enough to pay for themselves.
As I just posted here:
http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1367735&cid=29415807
I was able to crash the installer just by hooking up my monitor by DVI. I'm sure it's a hardware specific combo, and granted this isn't the final code (RC1, not RTM...and I've heard microsoft does make changes between the final RC and RTM), but hopefully they got it fixed.
Actually, I could very much believe he had problem. I had a problem where I got the Win7 RC installed on one machine, but another machine with a near identical setup (same model motherboard with same bios, same cpu, hard drive, etc) didn't work. It kept crashing during the install. Well, long story short, I realized one difference was that one was hooked up by VGA, the other by DVI. I switched the DVI machine to VGA and it worked fine. Apparently something bad was happening when the installer tried to configure the video on the DVI machine. I had to switch it to VGA, do the install, upgrade the video drivers, then switch back to DVI and everything was good.
PS. If anyone is interested, the offending combination was a Gigabyte GA-73PVM-S2H with onboard nvidia 7100 paired with a samsung 2494HM LCD
Great. I'm really glad you can tell me all about "present in the conversation". Of course, I didn't notice his subtle use of that word, because I was paying less specific attention to his wording and more specific attention to the actual wording. So, if you can tell me where that appears in the actual statute, I'll much appreciate it:
http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(izp0wi45cacr1hepi3p5lsrx))/mileg.aspx?page=GetObject&objectname=mcl-750-539c
I'll be waiting patiently. Thanks