this suggests that it's not really a huge worldwide scandal, rather annoyance from the countries who could have won
Just to be clear (and I'm not sure whether or not you are suggesting this), a lot of people have been saying this is only a sour grapes thing from the US since we lost. However, this topic has been an issue since before the games even began. The earlist reference I can find to it was the following article, posted July 27 (2 days after China announced who their gymnasts would be).
How did you get so heavily indebted in a town where there is nothing to spend money on? After all, apparently there isn't a single business around besides the telemarketing firm.
The problem is that, even after 5 years, only a handful (few dozen) companies have actually been fined over the matter. Yeah, they were the biggest offenders, but it still leaves a lot to be desired.
I alone have received calls in violation of the act from a larger number of companies than have actually been fined. I used to report every call but when I realized how few were being dealt with in any way, I gave up. I'm honestly waiting for most telemarketing companies to realize they are too small of fish for the FTC to bother with and just start blatantly ignoring the list. If it's too hard for the FTC to fine more than a few dozen companies in 5 years, then they need to rewrite the do-not-call law to give individuals the power to sue in small claims for the violation.
Your example failed to demonstrate your point. How exactly did the phone company sell your number when you hadn't even setup a business phone number yet? How would the phone company know you opened a business and then associate it with your home number and sell it? No, what happened is that when you filed for your DBA, you provided your home phone number on the application, and the state sells lists of registered businesses.
I know this, because I've had the same thing happen to me for 2 businesses that I've setup. One of the businesses was a shareware company, where I didn't need a phone for anything, and thus never provided my home phone number or address (in relation to the business) to ANYONE with the exception of when I got my DBA. Thus there is only one conclusion to be drawn about where it came from.
Make it four. My my mother used to get debt collectors calling her all the time. They were looking for someone who has never lived at the house. Only 2 families have lived in the house since it was built in the 50's...my grandparents and then my parents. The phone number has been with the house the entire time, so I'd say it's very likely that the phone number has NEVER been recycled.
Actually, he is paid (at his own insistence) a salary no higher than other developers. I've read it in numerous places over the years, but don't have a link handy.
Huh? What the hell are you talking about? Work on your reading comprehension skills a bit. I don't ask anybody to use V/MC. I've been asking them if they would have been able to pay had I not accepted AmEx. There is absolutely nothing in my merchant agreement that says I can't survey customers about a hypothetical situation.
Again, we are talking about the difference between DVD and Blu-Ray, or 480 vs 1080. 720 has little to do with the discussion so there's no point in bringing it up
I should add that what I DON'T like about AmEx is the fact that they charge me extra to accept them, but I don't seem to gain much by it. I've been asking anyone that uses their AmEx, and everyone said they carry a Visa/MC with them also, so they could have paid that way had I not accepted AmEx. I'm planning on dropping them next month.
Seriously? Wow, I hardly do any business with AmEx at all (so I don't have some sort of sweet contract with them). I ran a few AmEx cards through on Saturday night. The funds were deposited sometime on Wednesday.
I know that, but you don't need to be 6 feet from a 46" to see the difference between 1080 and 480. As I said already, I definitely CAN see the difference when I'm looking for it, and that's all that is necessary to prove that I am close enough to see the difference (unless you believe my brain has tricked me into seeing higher resolution video than I can actually see).
Jesus christ. I didn't say I sit 10 feet and 0 inches away from the TV. I said under 10 feet. I didn't feel like breaking out the god damn tape measure for a simple post, and I certainly wasn't debating the difference between 720 and 1080. I was talking about DVD...480 resolution, and "under 10 feet" is perfectly fine for seeing the difference there
Actually, I believe all that website is talking about is trying to create a more immersive experience...getting close enough to the screen that your primary field of view is filled with the screen so you feel more like you are in the action.
No, actually I've never needed glasses. I've had my eyesight tested not to long ago, and it's still just fine. Sorry, but your blindness theory doesn't pan out.
Reread my post, I didn't say I can see a difference. I certainly can. But as soon as I stop trying to intentionally see how high res it is and actually start paying attention to whats going on in the movie/show I'm watching, I kind of forget all about it and don't notice. VHS always felt inferior. DVD doesn't feel that way unless I'm trying to convince myself it's inferior.
I've got a very nice 46" 1080p HDTV, and I do sit fairly close to it (under 10 feet away). Even so, I'm honestly not at all disappointed by the quality of DVD. I can see a difference between the 2 when I'm looking for it, but as soon as I forget about the fact that I am or am not watching an HD source and just go ahead and watch the content, I very quickly forget I'm watching DVD.
As other commenters have said, decoding video is not, per se, a trivially parallelized algorithm. Especially for modern codecs with lots of temporal encoding.
But don't pretty much all video algorithms use keyframes, meaning that you can start from the keyframe without needing any prior data? So you just give each thread a block starting from the next keyframe and let it work. Rather than having every thread working on the current point of the video, you just have threads preparing the next block of video so that when you need it, it's already done. This would work just as well, with the exception of when you are doing playback (rather than background transcoding) and a single core is too slow to process in realtime. When you first start playback or skip to a random spot, there will be a slight delay while the single core prepares the first block.
First, what the CA's actually consider "authentication" before issuing a cert is laughable. It ensures nothing except that your credit card wasn't declined.
Second, most people DO NOT pay attention to who the certificate was issued to. Most people don't even know a certificate exists, much less how to see who it was issued to.
Third, especially because of the previous 2 point, a LOT of people really don't care to try and provide those feature. All they want is SSL, so that info isn't transmitted in plain text. If there were a way to do SSL without a CA, that would be great, but as it is you are held hostage to either paying for a certificate or making your website users jump through hoops to accept a self signed cert.
Not at all. See, you'd continue buying everything else you currently buy, but you'd charge the software on your credit card. A credit card you eventually wouldn't be able to afford to pay off, so you'd file for bankruptcy.
So, since you didn't buy the software and file for bankruptcy, you are essentially stealing tax money from your state and handing it to the wealthy credit card companies. How can you live with yourself knowing that?
Slashdot Mirror
Just to be clear (and I'm not sure whether or not you are suggesting this), a lot of people have been saying this is only a sour grapes thing from the US since we lost. However, this topic has been an issue since before the games even began. The earlist reference I can find to it was the following article, posted July 27 (2 days after China announced who their gymnasts would be).
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/27/sports/olympics/27gymnasts.html
Imagine if our courts took the same approach
Defendant: I did not rob that bank. To prove that I am innocent....here's a picture of me in the bank not robbing it.
Judge: That's good enough for me. <bangs gavel> Not guilty!
How did you get so heavily indebted in a town where there is nothing to spend money on? After all, apparently there isn't a single business around besides the telemarketing firm.
The problem is that, even after 5 years, only a handful (few dozen) companies have actually been fined over the matter. Yeah, they were the biggest offenders, but it still leaves a lot to be desired.
I alone have received calls in violation of the act from a larger number of companies than have actually been fined. I used to report every call but when I realized how few were being dealt with in any way, I gave up. I'm honestly waiting for most telemarketing companies to realize they are too small of fish for the FTC to bother with and just start blatantly ignoring the list. If it's too hard for the FTC to fine more than a few dozen companies in 5 years, then they need to rewrite the do-not-call law to give individuals the power to sue in small claims for the violation.
Your example failed to demonstrate your point. How exactly did the phone company sell your number when you hadn't even setup a business phone number yet? How would the phone company know you opened a business and then associate it with your home number and sell it? No, what happened is that when you filed for your DBA, you provided your home phone number on the application, and the state sells lists of registered businesses.
I know this, because I've had the same thing happen to me for 2 businesses that I've setup. One of the businesses was a shareware company, where I didn't need a phone for anything, and thus never provided my home phone number or address (in relation to the business) to ANYONE with the exception of when I got my DBA. Thus there is only one conclusion to be drawn about where it came from.
Make it four. My my mother used to get debt collectors calling her all the time. They were looking for someone who has never lived at the house. Only 2 families have lived in the house since it was built in the 50's...my grandparents and then my parents. The phone number has been with the house the entire time, so I'd say it's very likely that the phone number has NEVER been recycled.
Nope. A shot with a zoom lens, uncropped, will have the same perspective as a wide angle lens with all of the extra field-of-view cropped out.
I didn't say a thing about film. I'm guessing you aren't familiar with the concept of a scanning back (though I should have said digital back instead, since we are probably talking about moving subjects).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_scan_back
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_camera_back
I should also have added a few teleconverters to the list
No problem. All you need is a standard lens, a really high resolution scanning back, and the crop tool.
Actually, he is paid (at his own insistence) a salary no higher than other developers. I've read it in numerous places over the years, but don't have a link handy.
Huh? What the hell are you talking about? Work on your reading comprehension skills a bit. I don't ask anybody to use V/MC. I've been asking them if they would have been able to pay had I not accepted AmEx. There is absolutely nothing in my merchant agreement that says I can't survey customers about a hypothetical situation.
Again, we are talking about the difference between DVD and Blu-Ray, or 480 vs 1080. 720 has little to do with the discussion so there's no point in bringing it up
I should add that what I DON'T like about AmEx is the fact that they charge me extra to accept them, but I don't seem to gain much by it. I've been asking anyone that uses their AmEx, and everyone said they carry a Visa/MC with them also, so they could have paid that way had I not accepted AmEx. I'm planning on dropping them next month.
Seriously? Wow, I hardly do any business with AmEx at all (so I don't have some sort of sweet contract with them). I ran a few AmEx cards through on Saturday night. The funds were deposited sometime on Wednesday.
I know that, but you don't need to be 6 feet from a 46" to see the difference between 1080 and 480. As I said already, I definitely CAN see the difference when I'm looking for it, and that's all that is necessary to prove that I am close enough to see the difference (unless you believe my brain has tricked me into seeing higher resolution video than I can actually see).
dang it...should have reread before submitting. Among a few typos:
>I didn't say I can see a difference
Actually, I did say exactly that. Replace "can" with "can't"
Jesus christ. I didn't say I sit 10 feet and 0 inches away from the TV. I said under 10 feet. I didn't feel like breaking out the god damn tape measure for a simple post, and I certainly wasn't debating the difference between 720 and 1080. I was talking about DVD...480 resolution, and "under 10 feet" is perfectly fine for seeing the difference there
Actually, I believe all that website is talking about is trying to create a more immersive experience...getting close enough to the screen that your primary field of view is filled with the screen so you feel more like you are in the action.
No, actually I've never needed glasses. I've had my eyesight tested not to long ago, and it's still just fine. Sorry, but your blindness theory doesn't pan out.
Reread my post, I didn't say I can see a difference. I certainly can. But as soon as I stop trying to intentionally see how high res it is and actually start paying attention to whats going on in the movie/show I'm watching, I kind of forget all about it and don't notice. VHS always felt inferior. DVD doesn't feel that way unless I'm trying to convince myself it's inferior.
I've got a very nice 46" 1080p HDTV, and I do sit fairly close to it (under 10 feet away). Even so, I'm honestly not at all disappointed by the quality of DVD. I can see a difference between the 2 when I'm looking for it, but as soon as I forget about the fact that I am or am not watching an HD source and just go ahead and watch the content, I very quickly forget I'm watching DVD.
Its just a shame that nobody has ever been arrested for growing pot, thus we've never had a chance to challenge that law.
But don't pretty much all video algorithms use keyframes, meaning that you can start from the keyframe without needing any prior data? So you just give each thread a block starting from the next keyframe and let it work. Rather than having every thread working on the current point of the video, you just have threads preparing the next block of video so that when you need it, it's already done. This would work just as well, with the exception of when you are doing playback (rather than background transcoding) and a single core is too slow to process in realtime. When you first start playback or skip to a random spot, there will be a slight delay while the single core prepares the first block.
Sounds perfectly fine to me.
First, what the CA's actually consider "authentication" before issuing a cert is laughable. It ensures nothing except that your credit card wasn't declined.
Second, most people DO NOT pay attention to who the certificate was issued to. Most people don't even know a certificate exists, much less how to see who it was issued to.
Third, especially because of the previous 2 point, a LOT of people really don't care to try and provide those feature. All they want is SSL, so that info isn't transmitted in plain text. If there were a way to do SSL without a CA, that would be great, but as it is you are held hostage to either paying for a certificate or making your website users jump through hoops to accept a self signed cert.
Which does absolutely nothing to stop scaring visitors of your website. We need something that is accepted by default.
Not at all. See, you'd continue buying everything else you currently buy, but you'd charge the software on your credit card. A credit card you eventually wouldn't be able to afford to pay off, so you'd file for bankruptcy.
So, since you didn't buy the software and file for bankruptcy, you are essentially stealing tax money from your state and handing it to the wealthy credit card companies. How can you live with yourself knowing that?