Sorry. I thought dosage would be an obvious thing. Given the context of the argument.
And yes, I know how oftern a person takes a drug is a big contributing factor.
However, my point still stands, everyone's brain chemistry is different. And some people can take an amount of drugs and quit with no problems at a dose where the average person would normally become addicted.
Bollocks. If you really believe that every single human will have the same response to the same dosage of all drugs, then you are a true idiot.
People respond differently to differnt drugs. Everyone's brain chemistry is different. These are facts. This is why if you look on any study about response to medications and symptoms etc, they are never 100% of anything.
I emphasize the mild part, because that is what prevents if from being a schedule II drug. Then, like alcohol, there's also the fact that it's been popular and socially accepted in many cultures for many years.
Everyone's brain chemistry is different. Some people, for instance, can take heroin and quit cold-turkey with hardly any problems. Others, of course, are the opposite and get addicted to many drug very easly.
Both my parents have tried going for a week with out coffee, and neither had any withdrawal symptoms.
I agree that caffiene addiction is real, but that doesn't mean that it's addictive for everyone.
What the fuck does responsibility have to do with classifying something as a mental disorder? Are you denying the effects of caffine withdrawal or something? Why the hell are you trying to draw a link between responsibility and mental disorders? Are you saying all people with mental disorders are resposnsible? You make no sence.
The hunger problem is a MONEY issue. Not a land issue. They need money for tools to maintain crops and money to construct irrigation systems and wells etc.
GE may help make hardier plants, but it's not magic. And with the lack of long-term research of the effects of GE, and all the stupid patend shit that comes with GE at the moment. GE is really better off kept in the lab at this stage.
GE by it's self will not solve world hunger. And anyone who belives so doesn't understand the problem properly.
You are confusing socialism with state socialism. There is nothing inheritly liberal or authoritive about socialism or capitalism (theoreticly, or course).
Capitalism is the opposite of socialism. Liberarism is the opposite of fascism.
Most pesticides and herbicides don't prevent a crop from disaster, but rather they're just a good way for the farmer to save a few bucks due to higher yeild. Better off spending money on researching non-chemical ways of pest control, like those cool, bug eating robots that powered themselves from the bugs they killed (It was featured here a while ago).
Re:Corps will continue to rule, people are sheep..
on
Amateur Revolution?
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
More importantly the corporations find this unsettling and they have the backing to make it financially impossible for the "amateurs" to compete.
Yeah man! Just like Microsift did to Linux! Oh wait...They haven't crushed Linux dispite having billions of dollars and a huge company of full of highly-paid professionals.
I guess it's pretty hard to compete with people who don't need any backing.
And yes, Linux is quite anarchic. Just because not every single part of it follows every concept of anarchism strictly, doesn't mean it's not anarchic. Infact, that's why one says it's anarchic, rather than saying it's a perfect example of anarchism.
Sorry, but you don't know what you are talking about.
For starters, even though some cameras may not, TIFFs can be compressed. I'm pretty sure they use LWZ compression.
RAW files from a camera are not simply a better version of a TIFF; a lossless RGB image. They are a dump from the image sensor, and are not in anyway a normal RGB image. They must be processed before they become a usable image.
Due to the nature of most CCDs, the RAW will acctually be smaller than the final RGB image it produces (do a google on CCDs to know why).
At the moment. If you want to view/edit/convert a RAW image, you generally have to use special software that comes with the camera (although I think some make plug-ins for Photoshop). This is a pain for most people as it means using 2 different programs to edit an image. It also means you can't open it with any computer that just happens to have Photoshop etc. installed.
Uh? Because JPEG is for RGB images, and not for lossless RAW dumps straight from the CCD? Do you even have any idea of what you area talking about?
I don't remember seeing anything about support for RAW formats for digital cameras in JPEG-2000.
Sure, maybe you could embed a RAW, but the point here is to develop a standard for the actual RAW data, not a wrapper-file which will not solve the current problems.
Secondly, this isn't about trademarks, or copyrighting the english language. It's about the MPAA's shitty way of finding copyright violations of their movies.
That assumes that the person has a reason. Or has reason. 1% of the world's population gets mania, a similar percentage schizophrenia, 20% get depressed, and there are other conditions which aren't well defined yet in terms of population incidence or effect (eg post traumatic stress disorder).
Don't forget, many mental illnesses are cognitive/learned. This means that the society they grow up in will have some affect on them. Even with disorders that are mainly genetic, some of the traits they have will be cognitive. E.G. Despite the misconception that people with schizophrenia are often dangerous, they are usually not. The ones who are are more likely to have been abused etc. as well.
Then there is the "sociopathic" personality, which can be born that way or become that way with certain brain injuries. People who just can't feel or see things from another person's perspective. Humans do this alot as a survival tactic - how else do you drive a tank around Iraq and shoot at people and not want to suicide? You do it for the greater good, or whatever, maybe. But you still sit in relative safety and point weapons of minor distruction (like your cannon) at real people who will feel pain or die. Its a trait most of us have, and it has survival value.
But people with antisocial personality disorder who do things such as chop up kids have been abused most of the time. Their antisocial tendencies mean that yes, the are more susceptible to do such things, but that is different from doing it.
BTW. the people in Iraq who are driving around killing people went over there believing that it was necessary, and that they were helping people. Even if they killed a baby, they can easily dump this on their "these things happen/it's for the better" defence mechanism.
Some people don't percieve risk the same way you do, either. Some people have to jump out of airplanes with parachutes just to feel alive.
I've addressed this in another reply to my post.
And some people don't know that they are commiting a crime - Taping your TV show's to watch later is a crime in some countries (like Australia).
Heh. Find me one adult that doesn't know that society believes taking a bike from someone is wrong. Were's not talking about software here. After all society says what is right and wrong. Not the government.
In essence - its not that simple. There are lots of reasons for crime, lots of motiviations, and lots of times where the person didn't really understand the risk/reward relationship for crime the same way you do.
Never said it was simple. It isn't. I agree. But saying that people steal for the hell of it certainly is simplistic thinking.
Exactly. But the kinda people that like to take risks for the rush are much more likly to do sports, drive fast etc, rather than steal. Stealing has quite serious consequences compared to sports, or even driving dangerously (which you can usaly get away with). And then, the rush you get from stealing probably isn't anywhere near as good compared to extreme sports and driving fast etc. Not to mention that the original poster was talking about a more "perfect" society. This would also affect the person's decision making process.
Crime for crime's sake? Any psychologist will tell you there is no such thing. After all, crime is risky. Why make a risk if there is no gain? There is always some reason, even if it's small or obscure.
I'm sure you'll find a huge overlap between the "early-adopter" and the "developers/nerds/etc." crowds. Perhaps not so much admins, but certinly nerds and geeks etc.
I never use paper. I AM in the paperless office (atleast my desk). You will not see large piles of paper on my desk. infact if there is paper on my desk, it's because one the follwing has happened:
I need to test the print CSS file on a website
Someone from the 19th century has handed me a printout of a screenshot (which automaticly means it gets the lowest priority from me).
Someone insists that I print something out for a meeting, which ends up not being used.
While most people in my office seem to make a walk to the priniter once a day. I may do so once every six months.
So, why am I capable of not pressing CTRL + P all the time? Because I've used a computer since I was 10. In other words. I'm not someone who used to do everything in paper.
Give it another 50 years--when all the older generation has passed on--and I think you will start to see paperless offices more oftern.
As for the enviroment. It will of course benifit from the paperless office, because although computers can replace paper, paper can't replace computers. So computers, and their environmental problems will always exist, paper or not.
Yes I'm fully aware of just how big video is. Perhaps you should re-read my post? I did an AV course, and a guy from Weta came around and told us all about their rendering and storage set-up (and making a good plug for Linux). This was when they where doing the first movie I think.
I'm sorry. But they are just images. Even if they have a large colour-space and aren't compressed, they are nothing compared to the amount of data used during the processing of the image.
And don't forget, each server is only going to be rendering a very small amount of footage at a time. And these servers probably don't store all the video they create, it would be passed on to the storage network once it's finished rendering it's part.
Slashdot Mirror
And yes, I know how oftern a person takes a drug is a big contributing factor.
However, my point still stands, everyone's brain chemistry is different. And some people can take an amount of drugs and quit with no problems at a dose where the average person would normally become addicted.
Bollocks. If you really believe that every single human will have the same response to the same dosage of all drugs, then you are a true idiot.
People respond differently to differnt drugs. Everyone's brain chemistry is different. These are facts. This is why if you look on any study about response to medications and symptoms etc, they are never 100% of anything.
I emphasize the mild part, because that is what prevents if from being a schedule II drug. Then, like alcohol, there's also the fact that it's been popular and socially accepted in many cultures for many years.
Both my parents have tried going for a week with out coffee, and neither had any withdrawal symptoms.
I agree that caffiene addiction is real, but that doesn't mean that it's addictive for everyone.
What the fuck does responsibility have to do with classifying something as a mental disorder? Are you denying the effects of caffine withdrawal or something? Why the hell are you trying to draw a link between responsibility and mental disorders? Are you saying all people with mental disorders are resposnsible? You make no sence.
The hunger problem is a MONEY issue. Not a land issue. They need money for tools to maintain crops and money to construct irrigation systems and wells etc.
GE may help make hardier plants, but it's not magic. And with the lack of long-term research of the effects of GE, and all the stupid patend shit that comes with GE at the moment. GE is really better off kept in the lab at this stage.
GE by it's self will not solve world hunger. And anyone who belives so doesn't understand the problem properly.
You are confusing socialism with state socialism. There is nothing inheritly liberal or authoritive about socialism or capitalism (theoreticly, or course).
Capitalism is the opposite of socialism. Liberarism is the opposite of fascism.
Here's a link to clear things up. Left = socialism, right = capitalism.
I think you mean hydro-thermal/geo-thermal/steam power, not hydro-electric.
Most pesticides and herbicides don't prevent a crop from disaster, but rather they're just a good way for the farmer to save a few bucks due to higher yeild. Better off spending money on researching non-chemical ways of pest control, like those cool, bug eating robots that powered themselves from the bugs they killed (It was featured here a while ago).
Yeah man! Just like Microsift did to Linux! Oh wait...They haven't crushed Linux dispite having billions of dollars and a huge company of full of highly-paid professionals.
I guess it's pretty hard to compete with people who don't need any backing.
Anarchism == Libertarian socialism.
And yes, Linux is quite anarchic. Just because not every single part of it follows every concept of anarchism strictly, doesn't mean it's not anarchic. Infact, that's why one says it's anarchic, rather than saying it's a perfect example of anarchism.
For starters, even though some cameras may not, TIFFs can be compressed. I'm pretty sure they use LWZ compression.
RAW files from a camera are not simply a better version of a TIFF; a lossless RGB image. They are a dump from the image sensor, and are not in anyway a normal RGB image. They must be processed before they become a usable image.
Due to the nature of most CCDs, the RAW will acctually be smaller than the final RGB image it produces (do a google on CCDs to know why).
At the moment. If you want to view/edit/convert a RAW image, you generally have to use special software that comes with the camera (although I think some make plug-ins for Photoshop). This is a pain for most people as it means using 2 different programs to edit an image. It also means you can't open it with any computer that just happens to have Photoshop etc. installed.
Sure, maybe you could embed a RAW, but the point here is to develop a standard for the actual RAW data, not a wrapper-file which will not solve the current problems.
For starters, copyright != trademark.
Secondly, this isn't about trademarks, or copyrighting the english language. It's about the MPAA's shitty way of finding copyright violations of their movies.
The bigger question is, why do you think the only thing they want to do, is design a browser with a Google search bar?
Besides. How can you say they gain nothing when you just said they gain the satisfaction of decadence?
Don't forget, many mental illnesses are cognitive/learned. This means that the society they grow up in will have some affect on them. Even with disorders that are mainly genetic, some of the traits they have will be cognitive. E.G. Despite the misconception that people with schizophrenia are often dangerous, they are usually not. The ones who are are more likely to have been abused etc. as well.
Then there is the "sociopathic" personality, which can be born that way or become that way with certain brain injuries. People who just can't feel or see things from another person's perspective. Humans do this alot as a survival tactic - how else do you drive a tank around Iraq and shoot at people and not want to suicide? You do it for the greater good, or whatever, maybe. But you still sit in relative safety and point weapons of minor distruction (like your cannon) at real people who will feel pain or die. Its a trait most of us have, and it has survival value.
But people with antisocial personality disorder who do things such as chop up kids have been abused most of the time. Their antisocial tendencies mean that yes, the are more susceptible to do such things, but that is different from doing it.
BTW. the people in Iraq who are driving around killing people went over there believing that it was necessary, and that they were helping people. Even if they killed a baby, they can easily dump this on their "these things happen/it's for the better" defence mechanism.
Some people don't percieve risk the same way you do, either. Some people have to jump out of airplanes with parachutes just to feel alive.
I've addressed this in another reply to my post.
And some people don't know that they are commiting a crime - Taping your TV show's to watch later is a crime in some countries (like Australia).
Heh. Find me one adult that doesn't know that society believes taking a bike from someone is wrong. Were's not talking about software here. After all society says what is right and wrong. Not the government.
In essence - its not that simple. There are lots of reasons for crime, lots of motiviations, and lots of times where the person didn't really understand the risk/reward relationship for crime the same way you do.
Never said it was simple. It isn't. I agree. But saying that people steal for the hell of it certainly is simplistic thinking.
Exactly. But the kinda people that like to take risks for the rush are much more likly to do sports, drive fast etc, rather than steal. Stealing has quite serious consequences compared to sports, or even driving dangerously (which you can usaly get away with). And then, the rush you get from stealing probably isn't anywhere near as good compared to extreme sports and driving fast etc. Not to mention that the original poster was talking about a more "perfect" society. This would also affect the person's decision making process.
Crime for crime's sake? Any psychologist will tell you there is no such thing. After all, crime is risky. Why make a risk if there is no gain? There is always some reason, even if it's small or obscure.
I'm sure you'll find a huge overlap between the "early-adopter" and the "developers/nerds/etc." crowds. Perhaps not so much admins, but certinly nerds and geeks etc.
The Engadget stats reflect an early-adopter consumer crowd and backing those up, this chart from w3schools shows the same trend
He never claimed that the stats were for the entire net or anything. -1 Redundant.
Next step: Convert them to Mac. This may be a bit more difficult ;)
I've had my Treo 600 for a few months now. It has never crashed once, neither have I heard it being a problem.
- I need to test the print CSS file on a website
- Someone from the 19th century has handed me a printout of a screenshot (which automaticly means it gets the lowest priority from me).
- Someone insists that I print something out for a meeting, which ends up not being used.
While most people in my office seem to make a walk to the priniter once a day. I may do so once every six months.So, why am I capable of not pressing CTRL + P all the time? Because I've used a computer since I was 10. In other words. I'm not someone who used to do everything in paper.
Give it another 50 years--when all the older generation has passed on--and I think you will start to see paperless offices more oftern.
As for the enviroment. It will of course benifit from the paperless office, because although computers can replace paper, paper can't replace computers. So computers, and their environmental problems will always exist, paper or not.
I'm sorry. But they are just images. Even if they have a large colour-space and aren't compressed, they are nothing compared to the amount of data used during the processing of the image.
And don't forget, each server is only going to be rendering a very small amount of footage at a time. And these servers probably don't store all the video they create, it would be passed on to the storage network once it's finished rendering it's part.