Absolutely nowhere do they claim they can pull details that don't exist out of nothing. This is simply a better version of interpolation.
This sounds like an amazing technique to incorporate in upscaling algos. You could blow up cellphone rez video up to full HD without it looking like a Van Gogh. But what I would really like to see is what happens if you take something that's already HD and run it through this. Other than an obscenely large file, would it look more lifelike? Would it look better than those full spectrum pics or whatever they are called?....
i don't believe there is ever a way... the question isn't why did the guy that killed and mutilated me have to have his blood profile indexed... it's why did *I* have to get *MY* blood profile indexed. the only conclusion is that society believed there was a chance that *I* might one day kill and mutilate someone else.
innocent until proven guilty goes away when "charged" and "proven" guilty are both products of the same database.
You seem to have intentionally missed the point he was making. You get your blood sampled and indexed in the event that you get mutilated beyond recognition, so "we" can still tell that its you from the bloody hamburger we found at the murder scene. Yes, its weak at best, but that was the point he made.
the album is where the art comes in. the emotional connection between songs that makes the experience worth having. i can enjoy an individual track as much as the next person, but experiencing an amazing album is so much more worthwhile. i don't see software ever being able to do that.
What flavour is that koolaid? I'll pass. My brain is the emotional connection between songs that makes the experience worth having. No external source can ever tell me whether such a connection exists or how worthy it is. The artist might have felt one while creating it but it won't be until I experience it myself that I can judge if I share it.
Besides, a modern-day average music album is not an opera or a musical where there is a coherent story stringing one piece to the next in a progression. Some times there is an underlying theme, or a general direction but pretty much every album these days is made of a collection of stand-alone themes that share little more than the medium in which they are distributed as a collection.
What I find hilarious is that on the next day, people are going to try to get to youtube and they are simply not going to believe the explanation because it will be bloody FIRST OF APRIL. Yeah, that was well thought-out.
lie: "To convey a false image or impression"
liar: "a person who lies"
Thus, a person that conveys a false image or impression (regardless of whether the facts used for such are true) is a liar.
I agree 100% with that bit, but its not what you originally said. besides, not relevant to you I guess but I personally abhor the unword 'untruth'. The correct term is lie. Or 'falsehood'; 'inaccurate' even although it looses its sense of wrongdoing... Now I'll just go get a coffee and get out of your hair:D
Main Entry: liar
Pronunciation: \l(-)r\
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Old English logere, from logan to lie — more at lie
Date: before 12th century
: a person who tells lies
Main Entry: deceive
Pronunciation: \di-sv\
Function: verb
Inflected Form(s): deceived; deceiving
Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French deceivre, from Latin decipere, from de- + capere to take — more at heave
Date: 13th century
transitive verb
1 archaic : ensnare
2 a obsolete : to be false to b archaic : to fail to fulfill
3 obsolete : cheat
4 : to cause to accept as true or valid what is false or invalid
5 archaic : to while away
intransitive verb
: to practice deceit; also : to give a false impression
— deceiver noun
— deceivingly \-s-vi-l\ adverb
synonyms deceive, mislead, delude, beguile mean to lead astray or frustrate usually by underhandedness. deceive implies imposing a false idea or belief that causes ignorance, bewilderment, or helplessness . mislead implies a leading astray that may or may not be intentional . delude implies deceiving so thoroughly as to obscure the truth . beguile stresses the use of charm and persuasion in deceiving
So, a deceiver could be called a liar, but a liar lies and that's the end of it.
Really? How would you propose to identify lower quality labour?
Uh, how about the most obvious one - by testing them before they're allowed to make anything ?
It would seem like a good option, except that even now people in the educational field disagree whether current tests really do measure accurately what they intend or not. Is a grade of 100/100 an indication that you actually understand, or just that you can parrot the answers? Is an IQ score of 90 an indication of your intellectual prowess or just of your (lack of) ability to fit in the cultural frame where you took the test? There are studies that have shown how otherwise highly intelligent and high performing Asians score low on certain western intelligence tests because they simply look at some problems with a completely different mindset.
How about a tech-related example. Take two individuals, one with an MSCE and one without. The most you can say about them is that one passed the knowledge test and the other hasn't. It doesn't tell you if the certified individual understands or can apply the concepts. Maybe he is just good at memorizing stuff while the other could have extensive hands-on experience. My point is that there is no simple way of evaluating labour quality.
If the latter, wouldn't it actually be a better quality product if its made with cheaper materials but it still complies with the specs?
No, since with a centralised model those cheaper materials could only be cheaper if they weren't as "good" (for whatever reason). Ie: quality must be inherently lower.
I guess the word inherent is causing me trouble. Suppose that you do use material that is brittle for the case. Suppose that it has less space than a nomad and no wireless. You can still come up with a superior product based on factors other than the raw ingredients, i.e. design (intellectual labour) and production (technical/manual labour). Its just not a "black-and-white" issue, there are great many shades involved so to speak. What is "inherently" lower quality materials? Cardboard because it gets wet and becomes useless? Its also lighter, recyclable, cheaper. Dried compost because making products out of literal shit is disgusting? Not everybody will share that value judgement so then you would have to come up with some other 'objective' way of evaluating. See where I'm going with this?
Further, quality differences are _inherently_ identifiable because an end product with lower quality must, by definition, have been made with cheaper (=lower quality) parts and/or labour and therefore would cost proportionally less.
Really? How would you propose to identify lower quality labour? Based on the education level of the workers? On some sort of XBOX live-like ranking? on the country of origin (would German craftsmanship be always more expensive than American)? on the conformance to specs of the end-product?
If the latter, wouldn't it actually be a better quality product if its made with cheaper materials but it still complies with the specs?
All it takes is an EXIF of the image if it was captured in.jpg format. From webcam or digital cam - it's there, and the information will tell you how it was taken.
Because there are no programs whatsover in existence that can modify the EXIF information at all and nobody can write one. And furthermore, there are ablsolutely zero ways to modify recording and access times of the file. So, clearly, the tamper-proof digital picture is uncontestable proof.[/sarcasm]
They are trying (and getting away) with this crap so they can pull disgustingly immoral tricks like Disney is doing. I saw the most sickening book yesterday:
"Disney's Alice in Wonderland", based on the movie by Tim Burton and the screenplay by whomeverthefuck. No mention of Caroll whatsoever. This is your new future. I hope you've never been too fond of Eurasia...
Kinda scary that Google's doing all this financed by advertising programs on the web. Before Google is given permission to operate in a different sector it would be prudent to consider what if scenarios, because the web is fickle.
Totally agree with you on the nature of the web, but in a capitalist, fee market a company should be allowed to go into one sector, totally screw up, shrivel and die. The problem was with the car makers and banks that grew unnaturally larger than it should have been possible under fair conditions and then the government stopped even the cleansing bankruptcy process.
I speculate that Google will be our next financial crises, maybe even economic downtown. One company cannot do everything well, not even Google.
As others said before, a person probably couldn't, but it is not even one single company. Its a wholly owned subsidiary. That basically means that the guy (or rather, the group) with the deep pockets at the top is the same, but they will structurally be separate entities that share little more than a name.
I don't get why autofollow was so bad - you only got autofollowed when you created your account, and at that point, you have no content on your feed. What's the big deal? The people following you see zilch until you post some content to Buzz - if you don't want someone seeing that update, block/remove them from your followers before you start using Buzz.
Nice idea, but if you don't know its on by default as I didn't (because they didn't bother to tell you, let alone ask) you go try it out only to find that Google remembers. It knows about that one time you talked to that person and suddenly they are auto-following you whether you had any intention of ever keeping in touch with them again.
It opened the door to the annoying twit you had all but pushed out of your mind but didn't care enough or simply didn't get around to delete from your contacts. It restablishes contact with people you didn't care to keep in touch with. By default. Publicly. I was pretty annoyed at reading some of those names again. One of them I did remove from my contacts but stil appeared because there were some emails saved that contained its address in a distribution list. So yeah, they were total morons for doing it the way they did and I only wish Google would be burned even worse so next time they actually put some thought on the way they release features rather than surprising you like this.
Some people need to fit everything in tight boundaries either because that's what they learned from their environment, or because that's just the way they think. There isn't absolutely any reason for a company to keep track of your skin and hair colour like the AC above mentioned. A black man, a red man and a white man for instance should all pretty much know the same basic stuff if the three of them come forward with a diploma that reads "physician", or "nuts and bolts engineer", or any other label. Ideally one would differentiate them by the breadth of their experience.
Asking colours is just an attempt at profiling, at trying to tie assumptions to them. Even if statistics showed that there are more blacks or browns than other shades in jail, the one applying before isn't one of them since he's there and the bloke doesn't share those traits assuming he clears the background checks that everybody is supposed to be subjected to (there are white crooks, thieves and convicted murderers).
I think yours is the best post of the lot so far. Also, its a very well documented fact that the technology industries are primarily male (for whatever reason, don't get distracted). But a news outfit digging for dirt would be able to point at their stats and go "AHA! Females/Blacks/Whites/Browns/Yellows/Reds/Greens/Blues make up less than X percentage, foul play!"
(...) As Maurice Grosser said, "The painter draws with his eyes, not with his hands. Whatever he sees, if he sees it clear, he can put it down, [with] no more muscular agility than it takes for him to write his name. Seeing clear is the important thing."
(...) If you can do that, expressing it in some form or another is relatively easy. Which of course, isn't to say it is 100% easy.
I couldn't disagree more vigorously. I can sort-of-draw. I'm much better than average but nowhere nearly as good as, say, a comic artist. I can see with photographic quality the object in my mind, but it takes great effort, skill and training to put it in paper. I took some basic classes and my drawing improved with those techniques but its still leagues away from what I would like to convey because I didn't practice enough to become more proficient and I didn't learn enough to do it better.
I can play a song almost to the last note in my head. It took me 6 months to be able to reproduce some boring pop melody at barely 1/4 speed closely enough to be recognizable by somebody other than myself. Maybe I have no "talent". Or maybe "not 100%" is near-zero for beginners and increases only with practice.
That wouldn't be our problem, since they are going to do the rendering on their own hardware somewhere in Bespin, ainnit?
I think a smashing app for this would be some sort of World of Warcrack or similar game where they could have a combo of locally rendered/remotely served graphics. Some of the newer high-end mobiles have pretty strong GPUs considering, perhaps use them to render characters and the fast/dynamically changing content and serve backgrounds and foes from this reality server. There may be hundreds of special-purpose apps that could take advantage of this, but I struggle to come up with a mass-scenario other than gaming and augmented-reality tho.
But most importantly: No need for Red Hat? It's either don't use Windows and pay a competitor, or not pay a competitor. It's that simple.
Unless you're idea is that they're going to release this clone under a *real* FOSS license, which ain't going to happen. MS releasing a GPL'd *nix clone? Not in this universe.
Far fetched? Yeah, but you are all forgetting one thing. The REAL cash-cow for MS is Office. Yes, they do make money out of windows, but their money comes from office, exchange and related software. Even the Win7 development team admitted that they adopted the ribbon interface because it's office, not windows that leads the way in UI design. Why? 'Cuz it brings in the bacon.
So if they can cook up Xenix 2012 GPL edition and make 100% compatible Office versions for it, they would make money. Also remember, just because it's free as in freedom doesn't mean they can't charge for it. Like Red Hat?
So yes, there are tradeoffs; some are harmed, but more are helped than harmed. Overall, offshoring is a benefit in the aggregate.
Except that in reality it doesn't quite work that way. Over time one needs to aggregate all of the job loses and gains, and it starts to reach a point where the local market's buy power starts to wane and the demand for the off-shore produced goods slows down.
My opinion however is not an apology of protectionism as much as a decrying of consumerism. And wealth inequity. And over-population. And ignorance. And human kind, I guess:P
Also, most of the given examples while formerly 100% part of the 'third world', are now part of the G20, which is set to replace the G8 as the world's leading economic forum. China, India, Indonesia and Mexico have economies that are on par or rival those of some of the Western powerhouses.
According to various world organizations, as of 2008 the USA was in first place, China tops the UK, Italy, Germany and France with 3rd place, both India and Mexico top Australia...
These days the largest distinction is income distribution per capita rather than technological advancement or GDP
However, the trick to counter this little menace is to block the anti_adblock js-file. Works like a charm.
I seriously doubt that there is an easy and hard-to-defeat method that will stop adblocking software(I haven't seen any).
Say what? Of course there is. You do the call to the ad server BEFORE serving anything to the client and integrate that into the text html. Or serve the content through ajax gimmickery and load the adverts through the same channel so blocking it blocks the content too. This of course would increase the bandwidth cost to the site tho.
I reckon you could have the somewhat slow-loading ads-baked-in-the-content version and the lightning-fast subscription version with the ads in their separate sections (that you can then proceed to block). What? user experience? You jest!;)
(hey, don't look at me, I'd love to see female engineers and scientists just as much as you do).
Then stop treating them as sex objects when they show up for work!
That is actually a lot harder than people realize. We The People are animals first and foremost, and then everything else. Whenever most people see a person of the opposite gender, the first thing they see is that they are of the opposite gender. This is biology, at which most people have more experience than at their culture, education and work ethics.
The better and broader your education and culture, the faster they kick in to cushion the action of pure animal instinct, but do not be fooled, its there and most men will first see the woman and then the co-worker. Some times it comes naturally and some times it takes actual conscious effort to completely remove the message "I'm talking to a woman" from the "I'm talking to a co-worker" equation. That is in no way a justification for being a pig, but hopefully its an insight on the mechanics. Of course this is/. so others will disagree =)
This can go around for millennia until someone looks at the maps and realizes that there is a tectonic & political division of North and South America.
People can say that water is purple and it's still translucent.
To me it sounds like a throw back to when the Spanish were busy slicing away populations in South America, when it was referred to as "the Americas".
There has been evolution since then of a couple hundred years, and a couple of governments.
I think is all political. And political divisions change. Over a third of the territory of the current US was part of the New Spain which also included what is called "Centroamerica" or central america. Then, after the independence from Spain, those territories where part of Mexico.
Sacramento = Sacrament; San Francisto = Saint Francis (although I believe its improper to translate proper names); Los Angeles = The Angels (city of); Colorado = Red / Reddish; Santa Fe = Holy faith... My point? only that political divisions change. I find it very interesting that a lot of people from the US don't believe that the continent is called America. It may very well be that they were taught different at school. In most other parts of the world, particularly the rest of the same continent, they do get taught that the name of the continent is in fact 'America' and that 'North America' and 'South America' are political subdivisions.
Even then, Mexico makes it to North America, google NAFTA for one of many examples. I'm not pushing any political agenda, I just find it interesting how views can differ so much.
Ok, but next time there's an article about Mexico can we tag it "America"?
Actually you can, since that is the name of the continent. Unfortunately, it would confuse a lot of people, particularly in the U.S. Which is why they had to come up with the moniker of "The Americas" to signify the whole continent.
You can even tag it North America. But only if you talk about geography there are three countries in North America, to wit: Canada, the States and Mexico. Political or cultural divisions might differ.
Slashdot Mirror
Any serious geek has one of these.
Why so serious? :P
Ok, sorry, back to the suitcase
Absolutely nowhere do they claim they can pull details that don't exist out of nothing. This is simply a better version of interpolation.
This sounds like an amazing technique to incorporate in upscaling algos. You could blow up cellphone rez video up to full HD without it looking like a Van Gogh. But what I would really like to see is what happens if you take something that's already HD and run it through this. Other than an obscenely large file, would it look more lifelike? Would it look better than those full spectrum pics or whatever they are called?....
i don't believe there is ever a way... the question isn't why did the guy that killed and mutilated me have to have his blood profile indexed... it's why did *I* have to get *MY* blood profile indexed. the only conclusion is that society believed there was a chance that *I* might one day kill and mutilate someone else.
innocent until proven guilty goes away when "charged" and "proven" guilty are both products of the same database.
You seem to have intentionally missed the point he was making. You get your blood sampled and indexed in the event that you get mutilated beyond recognition, so "we" can still tell that its you from the bloody hamburger we found at the murder scene. Yes, its weak at best, but that was the point he made.
the album is where the art comes in. the emotional connection between songs that makes the experience worth having. i can enjoy an individual track as much as the next person, but experiencing an amazing album is so much more worthwhile. i don't see software ever being able to do that.
What flavour is that koolaid? I'll pass. My brain is the emotional connection between songs that makes the experience worth having. No external source can ever tell me whether such a connection exists or how worthy it is. The artist might have felt one while creating it but it won't be until I experience it myself that I can judge if I share it.
Besides, a modern-day average music album is not an opera or a musical where there is a coherent story stringing one piece to the next in a progression. Some times there is an underlying theme, or a general direction but pretty much every album these days is made of a collection of stand-alone themes that share little more than the medium in which they are distributed as a collection.
What I find hilarious is that on the next day, people are going to try to get to youtube and they are simply not going to believe the explanation because it will be bloody FIRST OF APRIL. Yeah, that was well thought-out.
lie: "To convey a false image or impression" liar: "a person who lies" Thus, a person that conveys a false image or impression (regardless of whether the facts used for such are true) is a liar.
I agree 100% with that bit, but its not what you originally said. besides, not relevant to you I guess but I personally abhor the unword 'untruth'. The correct term is lie. Or 'falsehood'; 'inaccurate' even although it looses its sense of wrongdoing... Now I'll just go get a coffee and get out of your hair :D
Liar only has one meaning.
There are two definitions. Someone that tells an untruth, and someone that tells the truth with the intent to deceive.
Say wha?.. er, [citation needed].
I'll provide mine, from the webster's
Main Entry: liar Pronunciation: \l(-)r\ Function: noun Etymology: Middle English, from Old English logere, from logan to lie — more at lie Date: before 12th century : a person who tells lies
Main Entry: deceive Pronunciation: \di-sv\ Function: verb Inflected Form(s): deceived; deceiving Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French deceivre, from Latin decipere, from de- + capere to take — more at heave Date: 13th century transitive verb 1 archaic : ensnare 2 a obsolete : to be false to b archaic : to fail to fulfill 3 obsolete : cheat 4 : to cause to accept as true or valid what is false or invalid 5 archaic : to while away intransitive verb : to practice deceit; also : to give a false impression — deceiver noun — deceivingly \-s-vi-l\ adverb synonyms deceive, mislead, delude, beguile mean to lead astray or frustrate usually by underhandedness. deceive implies imposing a false idea or belief that causes ignorance, bewilderment, or helplessness . mislead implies a leading astray that may or may not be intentional . delude implies deceiving so thoroughly as to obscure the truth . beguile stresses the use of charm and persuasion in deceiving
So, a deceiver could be called a liar, but a liar lies and that's the end of it.
Really? How would you propose to identify lower quality labour?
Uh, how about the most obvious one - by testing them before they're allowed to make anything ?
It would seem like a good option, except that even now people in the educational field disagree whether current tests really do measure accurately what they intend or not. Is a grade of 100/100 an indication that you actually understand, or just that you can parrot the answers? Is an IQ score of 90 an indication of your intellectual prowess or just of your (lack of) ability to fit in the cultural frame where you took the test? There are studies that have shown how otherwise highly intelligent and high performing Asians score low on certain western intelligence tests because they simply look at some problems with a completely different mindset.
How about a tech-related example. Take two individuals, one with an MSCE and one without. The most you can say about them is that one passed the knowledge test and the other hasn't. It doesn't tell you if the certified individual understands or can apply the concepts. Maybe he is just good at memorizing stuff while the other could have extensive hands-on experience. My point is that there is no simple way of evaluating labour quality.
If the latter, wouldn't it actually be a better quality product if its made with cheaper materials but it still complies with the specs?
No, since with a centralised model those cheaper materials could only be cheaper if they weren't as "good" (for whatever reason). Ie: quality must be inherently lower.
I guess the word inherent is causing me trouble. Suppose that you do use material that is brittle for the case. Suppose that it has less space than a nomad and no wireless. You can still come up with a superior product based on factors other than the raw ingredients, i.e. design (intellectual labour) and production (technical/manual labour). Its just not a "black-and-white" issue, there are great many shades involved so to speak. What is "inherently" lower quality materials? Cardboard because it gets wet and becomes useless? Its also lighter, recyclable, cheaper. Dried compost because making products out of literal shit is disgusting? Not everybody will share that value judgement so then you would have to come up with some other 'objective' way of evaluating. See where I'm going with this?
Further, quality differences are _inherently_ identifiable because an end product with lower quality must, by definition, have been made with cheaper (=lower quality) parts and/or labour and therefore would cost proportionally less.
Really? How would you propose to identify lower quality labour? Based on the education level of the workers? On some sort of XBOX live-like ranking? on the country of origin (would German craftsmanship be always more expensive than American)? on the conformance to specs of the end-product?
If the latter, wouldn't it actually be a better quality product if its made with cheaper materials but it still complies with the specs?
Note: emphasis in quote added by me
All it takes is an EXIF of the image if it was captured in .jpg format. From webcam or digital cam - it's there, and the information will tell you how it was taken.
Because there are no programs whatsover in existence that can modify the EXIF information at all and nobody can write one. And furthermore, there are ablsolutely zero ways to modify recording and access times of the file. So, clearly, the tamper-proof digital picture is uncontestable proof. [/sarcasm]
They are trying (and getting away) with this crap so they can pull disgustingly immoral tricks like Disney is doing. I saw the most sickening book yesterday:
"Disney's Alice in Wonderland", based on the movie by Tim Burton and the screenplay by whomeverthefuck. No mention of Caroll whatsoever. This is your new future. I hope you've never been too fond of Eurasia...
Kinda scary that Google's doing all this financed by advertising programs on the web. Before Google is given permission to operate in a different sector it would be prudent to consider what if scenarios, because the web is fickle.
Totally agree with you on the nature of the web, but in a capitalist, fee market a company should be allowed to go into one sector, totally screw up, shrivel and die. The problem was with the car makers and banks that grew unnaturally larger than it should have been possible under fair conditions and then the government stopped even the cleansing bankruptcy process.
I speculate that Google will be our next financial crises, maybe even economic downtown. One company cannot do everything well, not even Google.
As others said before, a person probably couldn't, but it is not even one single company. Its a wholly owned subsidiary. That basically means that the guy (or rather, the group) with the deep pockets at the top is the same, but they will structurally be separate entities that share little more than a name.
I don't get why autofollow was so bad - you only got autofollowed when you created your account, and at that point, you have no content on your feed. What's the big deal? The people following you see zilch until you post some content to Buzz - if you don't want someone seeing that update, block/remove them from your followers before you start using Buzz.
Nice idea, but if you don't know its on by default as I didn't (because they didn't bother to tell you, let alone ask) you go try it out only to find that Google remembers. It knows about that one time you talked to that person and suddenly they are auto-following you whether you had any intention of ever keeping in touch with them again.
It opened the door to the annoying twit you had all but pushed out of your mind but didn't care enough or simply didn't get around to delete from your contacts. It restablishes contact with people you didn't care to keep in touch with. By default. Publicly. I was pretty annoyed at reading some of those names again. One of them I did remove from my contacts but stil appeared because there were some emails saved that contained its address in a distribution list. So yeah, they were total morons for doing it the way they did and I only wish Google would be burned even worse so next time they actually put some thought on the way they release features rather than surprising you like this.
Some people need to fit everything in tight boundaries either because that's what they learned from their environment, or because that's just the way they think. There isn't absolutely any reason for a company to keep track of your skin and hair colour like the AC above mentioned. A black man, a red man and a white man for instance should all pretty much know the same basic stuff if the three of them come forward with a diploma that reads "physician", or "nuts and bolts engineer", or any other label. Ideally one would differentiate them by the breadth of their experience.
Asking colours is just an attempt at profiling, at trying to tie assumptions to them. Even if statistics showed that there are more blacks or browns than other shades in jail, the one applying before isn't one of them since he's there and the bloke doesn't share those traits assuming he clears the background checks that everybody is supposed to be subjected to (there are white crooks, thieves and convicted murderers).
Maybe I live in a different world...
I think yours is the best post of the lot so far. Also, its a very well documented fact that the technology industries are primarily male (for whatever reason, don't get distracted). But a news outfit digging for dirt would be able to point at their stats and go "AHA! Females/Blacks/Whites/Browns/Yellows/Reds/Greens/Blues make up less than X percentage, foul play!"
Or art: Can't draw? Just visualize!
(...) As Maurice Grosser said, "The painter draws with his eyes, not with his hands. Whatever he sees, if he sees it clear, he can put it down, [with] no more muscular agility than it takes for him to write his name. Seeing clear is the important thing." (...) If you can do that, expressing it in some form or another is relatively easy. Which of course, isn't to say it is 100% easy.
I couldn't disagree more vigorously. I can sort-of-draw. I'm much better than average but nowhere nearly as good as, say, a comic artist. I can see with photographic quality the object in my mind, but it takes great effort, skill and training to put it in paper. I took some basic classes and my drawing improved with those techniques but its still leagues away from what I would like to convey because I didn't practice enough to become more proficient and I didn't learn enough to do it better.
I can play a song almost to the last note in my head. It took me 6 months to be able to reproduce some boring pop melody at barely 1/4 speed closely enough to be recognizable by somebody other than myself. Maybe I have no "talent". Or maybe "not 100%" is near-zero for beginners and increases only with practice.
NVidia make shit, their drivers are horrible.
That wouldn't be our problem, since they are going to do the rendering on their own hardware somewhere in Bespin, ainnit?
I think a smashing app for this would be some sort of World of Warcrack or similar game where they could have a combo of locally rendered/remotely served graphics. Some of the newer high-end mobiles have pretty strong GPUs considering, perhaps use them to render characters and the fast/dynamically changing content and serve backgrounds and foes from this reality server. There may be hundreds of special-purpose apps that could take advantage of this, but I struggle to come up with a mass-scenario other than gaming and augmented-reality tho.
But most importantly: No need for Red Hat? It's either don't use Windows and pay a competitor, or not pay a competitor. It's that simple.
Unless you're idea is that they're going to release this clone under a *real* FOSS license, which ain't going to happen. MS releasing a GPL'd *nix clone? Not in this universe.
Far fetched? Yeah, but you are all forgetting one thing. The REAL cash-cow for MS is Office. Yes, they do make money out of windows, but their money comes from office, exchange and related software. Even the Win7 development team admitted that they adopted the ribbon interface because it's office, not windows that leads the way in UI design. Why? 'Cuz it brings in the bacon.
So if they can cook up Xenix 2012 GPL edition and make 100% compatible Office versions for it, they would make money. Also remember, just because it's free as in freedom doesn't mean they can't charge for it. Like Red Hat?
I'm running Chromium right this second. What are you on about?
That we, not being Google, can't see where are you running it at. Chromium runs in windows too :P
So yes, there are tradeoffs; some are harmed, but more are helped than harmed. Overall, offshoring is a benefit in the aggregate.
Except that in reality it doesn't quite work that way. Over time one needs to aggregate all of the job loses and gains, and it starts to reach a point where the local market's buy power starts to wane and the demand for the off-shore produced goods slows down.
My opinion however is not an apology of protectionism as much as a decrying of consumerism. And wealth inequity. And over-population. And ignorance. And human kind, I guess :P
Maybe I just need some dinner and TV :P
Also, most of the given examples while formerly 100% part of the 'third world', are now part of the G20, which is set to replace the G8 as the world's leading economic forum. China, India, Indonesia and Mexico have economies that are on par or rival those of some of the Western powerhouses.
According to various world organizations, as of 2008 the USA was in first place, China tops the UK, Italy, Germany and France with 3rd place, both India and Mexico top Australia...
These days the largest distinction is income distribution per capita rather than technological advancement or GDP
However, the trick to counter this little menace is to block the anti_adblock js-file. Works like a charm.
I seriously doubt that there is an easy and hard-to-defeat method that will stop adblocking software(I haven't seen any).
Say what? Of course there is. You do the call to the ad server BEFORE serving anything to the client and integrate that into the text html. Or serve the content through ajax gimmickery and load the adverts through the same channel so blocking it blocks the content too. This of course would increase the bandwidth cost to the site tho.
I reckon you could have the somewhat slow-loading ads-baked-in-the-content version and the lightning-fast subscription version with the ads in their separate sections (that you can then proceed to block). What? user experience? You jest! ;)
(hey, don't look at me, I'd love to see female engineers and scientists just as much as you do).
Then stop treating them as sex objects when they show up for work!
That is actually a lot harder than people realize. We The People are animals first and foremost, and then everything else. Whenever most people see a person of the opposite gender, the first thing they see is that they are of the opposite gender. This is biology, at which most people have more experience than at their culture, education and work ethics.
The better and broader your education and culture, the faster they kick in to cushion the action of pure animal instinct, but do not be fooled, its there and most men will first see the woman and then the co-worker. Some times it comes naturally and some times it takes actual conscious effort to completely remove the message "I'm talking to a woman" from the "I'm talking to a co-worker" equation. That is in no way a justification for being a pig, but hopefully its an insight on the mechanics. Of course this is /. so others will disagree =)
This can go around for millennia until someone looks at the maps and realizes that there is a tectonic & political division of North and South America. People can say that water is purple and it's still translucent.
To me it sounds like a throw back to when the Spanish were busy slicing away populations in South America, when it was referred to as "the Americas". There has been evolution since then of a couple hundred years, and a couple of governments.
I think is all political. And political divisions change. Over a third of the territory of the current US was part of the New Spain which also included what is called "Centroamerica" or central america. Then, after the independence from Spain, those territories where part of Mexico.
Sacramento = Sacrament; San Francisto = Saint Francis (although I believe its improper to translate proper names); Los Angeles = The Angels (city of); Colorado = Red / Reddish; Santa Fe = Holy faith... My point? only that political divisions change. I find it very interesting that a lot of people from the US don't believe that the continent is called America. It may very well be that they were taught different at school. In most other parts of the world, particularly the rest of the same continent, they do get taught that the name of the continent is in fact 'America' and that 'North America' and 'South America' are political subdivisions.
Even then, Mexico makes it to North America, google NAFTA for one of many examples. I'm not pushing any political agenda, I just find it interesting how views can differ so much.
Ok, but next time there's an article about Mexico can we tag it "America"?
Actually you can, since that is the name of the continent. Unfortunately, it would confuse a lot of people, particularly in the U.S. Which is why they had to come up with the moniker of "The Americas" to signify the whole continent.
You can even tag it North America. But only if you talk about geography there are three countries in North America, to wit: Canada, the States and Mexico. Political or cultural divisions might differ.
Now mod me down with all your wrath :P