Graphic designers have never and will never be the most technically literate group of people out there. Of the thousands of graphic designers out there, less than 1% understand that HTML was not meant for page layout. Even fewer than that have ever looked at raw HTML.
The reason is that graphic designers are artists first and foremost. HTML was never meant to make things pretty, but they manhandle it to perform their bidding. If we want this argument to end, we have to decide on a new standard that will meet the needs of graphic artists.
But warranty is one of Microsofts only points of contention. No other products in the world besides software have these kinds of restrictions. I can open up my toaster and turn it into a space heater if I want to, I just void the warranty. Does the manufacturer care? Not one bit, as long as I don't ask them for a replacement due to my tinkering. In fact, they should be happy, because now if I want to make toast, I have to buy a new toaster!
If someone breaks their pirated Windows, and they call and ask for help, THEN they have the right to refuse service to them. As far as I am concerned, until they are asked to provide services, they have no right to disable any product that they don't own.
I bought it, I own it. They may own the IP, but I own the license, and I can do whatever I want with it. Breaking their EULA does not imply breaking the law.
The iPod itself has no concept of SPL. All it has a concept of is maximum voltage, and maximum current it can deliver into a given load. The earbuds have a potential to convert the current they draw into acoustic energy, which can be measured in SPL. Of course, then you have to ask yourself if the SPL is being weighted, which is mysteriously left out of most spec sheets.
The danger with earbuds is that SPL generally follows the distance-squared energy loss laws. Since earbuds are only a few millimeters away from your eardrums, the difference of a few more or less millimeters can have dramatic effect on the SPL at your ears. Also, since very few earbuds block outside ambient noise, all you end up with is higher SPL. Other earbuds besides the stock ones, or other headphones in general, are going to have different sensitivities, and therefore deliver different SPL.
The only way this could be done in hardware is to actually know the sensitivity of every set of headphones or earbuds ever made, and know exactly how far away from your ears they are. Then, the software has to be able to limit the SPL that reaches your ears based on integrating the average weighted SPL over a long period of time.
In other words, it's not gonna happen. When this 'technology' comes out, it won't be able to protect you any more than turning the volume down on your own. If you're not going to do that, then this technology isn't going to save your ears.
Since when does running a company have anything to do with furthering American Values?
And since when does the American government have the right to tell me what my values are?
I'd say it's pretty clear that my values are not the same as yours. Furthermore, I don't believe that I have any right or reason to leverage my values onto the Chinese citizenry, let alone the absurdity of leveraging my values onto a 'market'.
"The average eye is capable of resolving one minute of arc, a sixtieth of a degree. This equates to roughly 300 dpi, when viewed at a distance of one foot. Let's say the average distance from a couch to a TV is 7 to 10 feet. At 7 feet, you can resolve 300/7 = 43 dpi, at 10 feet it's 30 dpi."
This is a bit simplistic. Calculating the rough optics of the lens of the eye may tell you what you can resolve for a still image if your head is standing perfectly still, but it has nothing to do with the way the eye actually sees. For one thing, the resolution of the eye is much, much greater at the point it is actually focused, which is the point we usually use to discern detail.
The more important processing is done in the brain, where resolution is increased greatly by interpolation between frames. Tiny differences between the eyes, or even between the same eye at different times, creates an enormous amount of added visual information. It's one of the reasons why it's so hard to keep your eyes still for long periods of time.
In other words, the eyes are more than capable of discerning the resolution of the highest resolution display technology we have today. There are limits, but we're not there yet.
And how long did it take for us geeks to start trusting peripherals built on to a motherboard?
They made for cheap PCs when they first came out, but it was years before the majority of computer professionals started trusting onboard peripherals. That's the reason I won't use one of these devices very often except for its primary intended purpose -- I don't trust a device that breaks everything because one feature that was unimportant to me got fried.
All the things we are taught in high school are revealed as lies when we get to college...
Then all the things you're taught when you started college turn out to be lies when you get to graduate school...
The big problem is that people think they're being taught the truth. And the bigger problem is, even if you tell them up front that it's a lie, they forget and believe it anyway.
I had an English professor once who told us a story about courses he used to teach to prison inmates. He would always perform an experiment on them, by telling them a story which he stated outright was a total lie. He then would reveal to them an elaborate yarn that the Mormon church was the source of illegal drug use in this country -- They go on 'missions' to bring the drugs in, they store them in 'temples' that no one else is allowed to enter, and they go door to door with backpacks peddling their wares. After about 10 minutes, he said it never failed that the majority of the people listening were flustered and outraged until he reminded them again that what he was telling them was all lies. (for all we know...)
The point is, we should always question what we are taught. That's one of the tenets of scientific innovation. History has proven over and over again that even the most well-understood theories may only be scratching the surface of an even greater truth. We need to understand that science is flexible.
In other words, no matter how deep we get into string theory and evolution, it's not going to change the fact that crap falls and Charlize Theron is hot.
The reason that there are multiple definitions is because a word is used in different contexts.
I'm pretty sure that NASA has a well defined concept of their use of the word, and therefore, they have the right to use the word in the context that they choose.
The religious right likes to use the other definition just because by doing so, they feel that it places ID on the same level of Evolution or the Big Bang. Of course, no scientist will ever accept this sleazy tactic, but the general population will eventually associate the two.
Another post above hit the nail right on the head. The constitutional seperation of church and state is what prevents the government from forcing a religious entity from teaching 'both' views, (as if there could ever be only two). It's absurd to think that that same policy gives the religious idealogues the right to demand that religious philosophy be imposed on government funded education.
Yes, they're holograms. Just like on your Visa card.
Any hologram that you can see in visible light is likely a 'rainbow' hologram. Notice that as you tilt the hologram vertically, its color moves through the spectrum of visible light. If you were to try and view a regular hologram with wide-spectrum light, you'd get all of those different colored images smeared together vertically.
TFA on ther other hand, refers to a stereogram, created from two images. IFor comparison purposes only, a hologram would essentially be created from a continuum of images.
Market price reflects projected FUTURE VALUE, not current value
Are you trying to tell me that if the stock price is $400/share, that I can't sell it for $400/share??? If so, then the stock market is pretty much screwed.
Thus the only way you should ever buy a stock for the "long-haul" is if you feel that the market has underestimated the projected future value.
Now you're trying to say that it only matters if you make more than everyone else? When I invest in a company, it's because I believe that that company is capable of ANY growth, not just more growth than the analysts predict. Besides, how can an instantaneous daily stock price predict long term growth? If you try and say that you have to look at trends, then you're back to trying to make predictions on the past again.
Well, let's see... It's about 4:30am right now... The sun in my area of the world comes up and down every day like clockwork...
Yup, still awake. Eyes just snapped open like a mousetrap about 30 minutes ago.
My body has always been most comfortable with an ~28 hour day. If I try to force it to go to sleep earlier (like last night), I wake up about 5 hours later feeling like I have a raging hangover, but with absolutely no possibility of going back to sleep anytime soon.
When I was in college, I dealt with it by sleeping naturally most of the time, but also by pulling the occasional all-nighter in order to exhaust myself when I became too nocturnal. Of course, now I don't have the option of skipping classes, and I have to force myself onto a normal work-day. I know my college sleep schedule was unhealthy, but I really think that not following your natural sleep period is far more detrimental.
Yeah, I was hoping that everyone was going to overlook radiation absorption, so I could leave that out of my argument;-) Congratulations!
Of course, this has no effect on my argument. An increase in outside temperature will simply cause additional increase in heat flow through the ceiling. As does a decrease in interior temperature. In the end, we're still completely limited by the capacity of the chiller system at the hottest part of the day. Decreasing temperatures early in the morning may give you some head start, but your argument just reinforces the fact that it's simply too much to keep up with!
The best way to 'smooth out' the midday temperature bump is increased insulation. The only other way is to actively move that heat out of the interior at some rate greater than or equal to the rate it's seeping through the roof. Whether that active method is an air chiller, evaporation system, or heat pipe doesn't matter. If it can't keep up with the incoming flow, it's gonna get warm for a bit of the day.
I think many would claim that overall, the public school systems ARE neutral.
As long as by neutral, you are referring to the average ideology of the entire nation. In fact, by definition, when you include the entire population in a statistical analysis, the mean is considered the 'center'.
So are these are more right wing extremists accusing the 'center' of being 'radical leftists'?
At what point in our socio-political history did our bell curve split in two?
There's still something illogical in this argument...
Heat will enter the building at a rate proportional to the difference in temperature between the inside and outside air. The only thing that slows this rate down is insulation. If you make the air inside colder, all you are doing is increasing the rate at which it heats up again proportionally. This seems incredibly inefficient to me, no matter what algorithm you choose. Besides, most water chiller systems dump their chilled media directly into a large holding tank of some sort, and it doesn't care whether it does this at 5am or 2pm.
It seems, from a thermodynamics point of view, that there is no increased efficiency with cooling earlier in the day. The best way around the peak is just to have a larger tank, or 'thermal flywheel', and enough capacity in your chillers to be able to hold the temperature below your maximum acceptable temperature in the hottest part of the day.
This improved algorithm seems to increase COST efficiency, because it's exploiting the non-linearities of our energy costs. For all we know, this algorithm actually uses MORE energy, but costs less.
1. If the system is secure, allowing people to view the source code will not effect the vote tallies.
a. If no security vulnerabilities are discovered, then you have overwhelming proof of security.
b. If security vulnerabilities keep pouring in, the system should never be used in an important voting situation.
I don't want to ever be forced to use an electronic voting system designed by a free market. I will only support two possibilities: 1. A completely open source (hardware and software) system, developed with federal funds, and audited routinely. 2. If closed source systems are allowed, I want everybody to place their votes on every single one of them. The statistical outliers are either corrupt, insecure, or poorly developed.
I also wouldn't trust any system that is based on any kind of OS. This is a domain for custom embedded systems if ever there was one.
I'll have to disagree. I grew up in San Francisco, and can promise that the Bay is a thermal sink of grand proportions. Not only do I fail to believe that they actually had sunlight, I fail to believe that Greece's waters will produce the level of hypothermia of the San Francisco Bay. I understand that they are trying to burn the part of the ship out of water, but the temperatures of the bay will make it practically impossible to provide the flux necessary to create flame.
I'm curious as to what the MIT guys had to say about their circumstances. Does anyone have a link to their response as to why they couldn't recreate their experiment in the Bay?
Great! We've determined that there are several people out there that would like a binary driver API!!!
Now go write one!!!
People complain about the linux kernel developers about being apathetic to this, but that's their right. If you write a driver API, then YOU are now a linux kernel developer, and have equal say. You just have to be the one to maintain it.
I think it's more like the ideology of the kernel developers takes precedence over the ideology of the users. And the experience of the kernel developers takes precedence over the experience of the users.
I have no problem with this. This prevents broken ideas from persisting in the kernel tree. I could care less if some enormously drastic subsystem changes occur overnight and every userspace developer has to release an updated version of their product to work correctly. As long as this change results in a better performing, more elegant solution, then I support it.
A driver API will create exactly the opposite result that the kernel developers want, and the beauty of Linux is that they really have nothing to lose financially.
Slashdot Mirror
Graphic designers have never and will never be the most technically literate group of people out there. Of the thousands of graphic designers out there, less than 1% understand that HTML was not meant for page layout. Even fewer than that have ever looked at raw HTML.
The reason is that graphic designers are artists first and foremost. HTML was never meant to make things pretty, but they manhandle it to perform their bidding. If we want this argument to end, we have to decide on a new standard that will meet the needs of graphic artists.
CSS is not that standard.
But warranty is one of Microsofts only points of contention. No other products in the world besides software have these kinds of restrictions. I can open up my toaster and turn it into a space heater if I want to, I just void the warranty. Does the manufacturer care? Not one bit, as long as I don't ask them for a replacement due to my tinkering. In fact, they should be happy, because now if I want to make toast, I have to buy a new toaster!
If someone breaks their pirated Windows, and they call and ask for help, THEN they have the right to refuse service to them. As far as I am concerned, until they are asked to provide services, they have no right to disable any product that they don't own.
I bought it, I own it. They may own the IP, but I own the license, and I can do whatever I want with it. Breaking their EULA does not imply breaking the law.
According to Eddie Izzard, his real name is "Jerry" Dorsey, not "Arnold" Dorsey.
I, for one, welcome our new pink pony overlords...
The iPod itself has no concept of SPL. All it has a concept of is maximum voltage, and maximum current it can deliver into a given load. The earbuds have a potential to convert the current they draw into acoustic energy, which can be measured in SPL. Of course, then you have to ask yourself if the SPL is being weighted, which is mysteriously left out of most spec sheets.
The danger with earbuds is that SPL generally follows the distance-squared energy loss laws. Since earbuds are only a few millimeters away from your eardrums, the difference of a few more or less millimeters can have dramatic effect on the SPL at your ears. Also, since very few earbuds block outside ambient noise, all you end up with is higher SPL. Other earbuds besides the stock ones, or other headphones in general, are going to have different sensitivities, and therefore deliver different SPL.
The only way this could be done in hardware is to actually know the sensitivity of every set of headphones or earbuds ever made, and know exactly how far away from your ears they are. Then, the software has to be able to limit the SPL that reaches your ears based on integrating the average weighted SPL over a long period of time.
In other words, it's not gonna happen. When this 'technology' comes out, it won't be able to protect you any more than turning the volume down on your own. If you're not going to do that, then this technology isn't going to save your ears.
Since when does running a company have anything to do with furthering American Values?
And since when does the American government have the right to tell me what my values are?
I'd say it's pretty clear that my values are not the same as yours. Furthermore, I don't believe that I have any right or reason to leverage my values onto the Chinese citizenry, let alone the absurdity of leveraging my values onto a 'market'.
"The average eye is capable of resolving one minute of arc, a sixtieth of a degree. This equates to roughly 300 dpi, when viewed at a distance of one foot. Let's say the average distance from a couch to a TV is 7 to 10 feet. At 7 feet, you can resolve 300/7 = 43 dpi, at 10 feet it's 30 dpi."
This is a bit simplistic. Calculating the rough optics of the lens of the eye may tell you what you can resolve for a still image if your head is standing perfectly still, but it has nothing to do with the way the eye actually sees. For one thing, the resolution of the eye is much, much greater at the point it is actually focused, which is the point we usually use to discern detail.
The more important processing is done in the brain, where resolution is increased greatly by interpolation between frames. Tiny differences between the eyes, or even between the same eye at different times, creates an enormous amount of added visual information. It's one of the reasons why it's so hard to keep your eyes still for long periods of time.
In other words, the eyes are more than capable of discerning the resolution of the highest resolution display technology we have today. There are limits, but we're not there yet.
And how long did it take for us geeks to start trusting peripherals built on to a motherboard?
They made for cheap PCs when they first came out, but it was years before the majority of computer professionals started trusting onboard peripherals. That's the reason I won't use one of these devices very often except for its primary intended purpose -- I don't trust a device that breaks everything because one feature that was unimportant to me got fried.
Truly...
All the things we are taught in high school are revealed as lies when we get to college...
Then all the things you're taught when you started college turn out to be lies when you get to graduate school...
The big problem is that people think they're being taught the truth. And the bigger problem is, even if you tell them up front that it's a lie, they forget and believe it anyway.
I had an English professor once who told us a story about courses he used to teach to prison inmates. He would always perform an experiment on them, by telling them a story which he stated outright was a total lie. He then would reveal to them an elaborate yarn that the Mormon church was the source of illegal drug use in this country -- They go on 'missions' to bring the drugs in, they store them in 'temples' that no one else is allowed to enter, and they go door to door with backpacks peddling their wares. After about 10 minutes, he said it never failed that the majority of the people listening were flustered and outraged until he reminded them again that what he was telling them was all lies. (for all we know...)
The point is, we should always question what we are taught. That's one of the tenets of scientific innovation. History has proven over and over again that even the most well-understood theories may only be scratching the surface of an even greater truth. We need to understand that science is flexible.
In other words, no matter how deep we get into string theory and evolution, it's not going to change the fact that crap falls and Charlize Theron is hot.
I don't understand... Since when does a head ever come in contact with a platter surface?
In my experience, that usually creates a truly frightening sound and an extreme amount of data loss...
The reason that there are multiple definitions is because a word is used in different contexts.
I'm pretty sure that NASA has a well defined concept of their use of the word, and therefore, they have the right to use the word in the context that they choose.
The religious right likes to use the other definition just because by doing so, they feel that it places ID on the same level of Evolution or the Big Bang. Of course, no scientist will ever accept this sleazy tactic, but the general population will eventually associate the two.
Another post above hit the nail right on the head. The constitutional seperation of church and state is what prevents the government from forcing a religious entity from teaching 'both' views, (as if there could ever be only two). It's absurd to think that that same policy gives the religious idealogues the right to demand that religious philosophy be imposed on government funded education.
"theory" != "theory"
Yes, they're holograms. Just like on your Visa card.
Any hologram that you can see in visible light is likely a 'rainbow' hologram. Notice that as you tilt the hologram vertically, its color moves through the spectrum of visible light. If you were to try and view a regular hologram with wide-spectrum light, you'd get all of those different colored images smeared together vertically.
TFA on ther other hand, refers to a stereogram, created from two images. IFor comparison purposes only, a hologram would essentially be created from a continuum of images.
Market price reflects projected FUTURE VALUE, not current value
Are you trying to tell me that if the stock price is $400/share, that I can't sell it for $400/share??? If so, then the stock market is pretty much screwed.
Thus the only way you should ever buy a stock for the "long-haul" is if you feel that the market has underestimated the projected future value.
Now you're trying to say that it only matters if you make more than everyone else? When I invest in a company, it's because I believe that that company is capable of ANY growth, not just more growth than the analysts predict. Besides, how can an instantaneous daily stock price predict long term growth? If you try and say that you have to look at trends, then you're back to trying to make predictions on the past again.
Poor Leon...
Well, let's see... It's about 4:30am right now... The sun in my area of the world comes up and down every day like clockwork...
Yup, still awake. Eyes just snapped open like a mousetrap about 30 minutes ago.
My body has always been most comfortable with an ~28 hour day. If I try to force it to go to sleep earlier (like last night), I wake up about 5 hours later feeling like I have a raging hangover, but with absolutely no possibility of going back to sleep anytime soon.
When I was in college, I dealt with it by sleeping naturally most of the time, but also by pulling the occasional all-nighter in order to exhaust myself when I became too nocturnal. Of course, now I don't have the option of skipping classes, and I have to force myself onto a normal work-day. I know my college sleep schedule was unhealthy, but I really think that not following your natural sleep period is far more detrimental.
Yeah, I was hoping that everyone was going to overlook radiation absorption, so I could leave that out of my argument ;-) Congratulations!
Of course, this has no effect on my argument. An increase in outside temperature will simply cause additional increase in heat flow through the ceiling. As does a decrease in interior temperature. In the end, we're still completely limited by the capacity of the chiller system at the hottest part of the day. Decreasing temperatures early in the morning may give you some head start, but your argument just reinforces the fact that it's simply too much to keep up with!
The best way to 'smooth out' the midday temperature bump is increased insulation. The only other way is to actively move that heat out of the interior at some rate greater than or equal to the rate it's seeping through the roof. Whether that active method is an air chiller, evaporation system, or heat pipe doesn't matter. If it can't keep up with the incoming flow, it's gonna get warm for a bit of the day.
I think many would claim that overall, the public school systems ARE neutral.
As long as by neutral, you are referring to the average ideology of the entire nation. In fact, by definition, when you include the entire population in a statistical analysis, the mean is considered the 'center'.
So are these are more right wing extremists accusing the 'center' of being 'radical leftists'?
At what point in our socio-political history did our bell curve split in two?
There's still something illogical in this argument...
Heat will enter the building at a rate proportional to the difference in temperature between the inside and outside air. The only thing that slows this rate down is insulation. If you make the air inside colder, all you are doing is increasing the rate at which it heats up again proportionally. This seems incredibly inefficient to me, no matter what algorithm you choose. Besides, most water chiller systems dump their chilled media directly into a large holding tank of some sort, and it doesn't care whether it does this at 5am or 2pm.
It seems, from a thermodynamics point of view, that there is no increased efficiency with cooling earlier in the day. The best way around the peak is just to have a larger tank, or 'thermal flywheel', and enough capacity in your chillers to be able to hold the temperature below your maximum acceptable temperature in the hottest part of the day.
This improved algorithm seems to increase COST efficiency, because it's exploiting the non-linearities of our energy costs. For all we know, this algorithm actually uses MORE energy, but costs less.
Great, a ramp that's powered by the gasoline in my truck...
Whatever will they think of next...
And larger programs have even MORE bugs than their size would indicate...
Maybe there's an argument to be made that those that don't believe in evolution, never evolved??
A closed-source voting system IS a direct threat.
Let's look at it from another perspective.
1. If the system is secure, allowing people to view the source code will not effect the vote tallies.
a. If no security vulnerabilities are discovered, then you have overwhelming proof of security.
b. If security vulnerabilities keep pouring in, the system should never be used in an important voting situation.
I don't want to ever be forced to use an electronic voting system designed by a free market. I will only support two possibilities:
1. A completely open source (hardware and software) system, developed with federal funds, and audited routinely.
2. If closed source systems are allowed, I want everybody to place their votes on every single one of them. The statistical outliers are either corrupt, insecure, or poorly developed.
I also wouldn't trust any system that is based on any kind of OS. This is a domain for custom embedded systems if ever there was one.
I'll have to disagree. I grew up in San Francisco, and can promise that the Bay is a thermal sink of grand proportions. Not only do I fail to believe that they actually had sunlight, I fail to believe that Greece's waters will produce the level of hypothermia of the San Francisco Bay. I understand that they are trying to burn the part of the ship out of water, but the temperatures of the bay will make it practically impossible to provide the flux necessary to create flame.
I'm curious as to what the MIT guys had to say about their circumstances. Does anyone have a link to their response as to why they couldn't recreate their experiment in the Bay?
Great! We've determined that there are several people out there that would like a binary driver API!!!
Now go write one!!!
People complain about the linux kernel developers about being apathetic to this, but that's their right. If you write a driver API, then YOU are now a linux kernel developer, and have equal say. You just have to be the one to maintain it.
I think it's more like the ideology of the kernel developers takes precedence over the ideology of the users. And the experience of the kernel developers takes precedence over the experience of the users.
I have no problem with this. This prevents broken ideas from persisting in the kernel tree. I could care less if some enormously drastic subsystem changes occur overnight and every userspace developer has to release an updated version of their product to work correctly. As long as this change results in a better performing, more elegant solution, then I support it.
A driver API will create exactly the opposite result that the kernel developers want, and the beauty of Linux is that they really have nothing to lose financially.
If you do, then that's your problem, not theirs.