One second I am hearing a video explaining how to twist balloons into a roadrunner, next I hear a 300-pound woman in a bathing suit giggling and sitting on balloons to pop them. Gross.
Either your son didn't know what was going on, and then no harm done, or he did, and he found it gross also. I don't see what the problem is either way.
Is the Unity3D Game Engine threatened? I doubt it. Adobe, yes. Unity, no. I think this Adobe guy is reading between the lines of Apple's announcement. He knows Flash (its code generator workaround, not Flash itself) will be targeted, but not Unity3D. He's only trying to get Apple to admit its hidden agenda, or goad them into banning Unity3D to maintain consistency (which would only go against Apple's interests, Unity3D already has many top selling titles, the code generator from Adobe is not even close).
Moral: Never allow the GOP to hold power in congress again. When they abuse parliamentary tactics, it costs us $700 billion off the top, and millions of jobs.
I don't see how you ended up with that moral. Shouldn't the excuse you used for Bill Clinton be equally applicable to the GOP in Congress? or even the few Democrats in Congress? After all, if a Democrat in Congress had seen the couple of lines added in there, wouldn't he have told the Democrat President? Or are you implying that the lines were inserted in the bill between the time it was voted in and the time it was driven to the White House (which is possible granted, but I don't think that's what you said)?
Disclaimer: I did vote for Bill Clinton. I just think that this attitude of "That my party can do no wrong, and if they did wrong, there must be a good reason for it." is precisely what's wrong with our current political system.
"Sales rate"? Are you projecting from the first month of sales for the Nexus One to a uniform total sales for the year? By that logic the iPad alone has a "sales rate" of roughly 109 million.
I'm not sure I agree with his end of year projection, but Gartner does forecast Android overtaking the iPhone, Blackberry, and Windows Mobile, by year 2012. And also, let's not forget, Mainland China (despite all the problems they had with Google) are forking and standardizing on Android 1.6. How many cell phone users does China have anyway?
I never realized that fair use was based on pixel count.
You should. The "standard market rate" of a photograph is often affected by the pixel count it's published in. And it only stands to reason that the pixel count would also affect the 'fair use' argument.
I can't believe how silly these pro-Google comments are becoming.
I can't believe I'm being called pro-Google. It wasn't just a few days ago, I was called a pirate and a thief. Now, I'm being called pro-Google. I must really be moving up in this World.
Google recently used some of my photographs on Google News, as the 'headline' photos to represent collected coverage of major stories.
You mean. Google recently used some photographs of yours on Google News, as the 'thumbnail' image to represent the collected coverage of major stories, linking back to the original online newspaper which originally published your photograph.
This fell outside any reasonable definition of fair use.
Who says? You do, but you're a little biased. Aren't you.
This was for-profit publication of photographs that other publishers were paying for the right to use. Google used them for free.
Yes, Google links thumbnails and summary information to online sources. It does the same thing on its search engine, which is also a for-profit operation. And it does this with the robots.txt (or sitemap.xml) permission of the original newspaper that published your photographs. If the original newspaper had just listed the folder in which your photograph was in, and told the googlebot not to index your photograph, then google wouldn't have used your photograph (to make a thumbnail out of it).
It seems your original beef is with the newspapers that published your photographs, not google. I think many would argue that indexing, linking to, publishing the summary information, and automatically making thumbnails, all because the original web site permits you through the robots.txt file, falls well within the purpose of 'fair use'.
Speaking of which, C now stands for Citigroup according to Google. Before, typing C in google would just get you a web page concerning the C programming language.
I know tonne of people who got ripped off through online casino's who had their computers hacked their email passwords stolen and as well as bank/financial data were cleaned out.
Wow!! I only know two people that have told me they gambled online, none of them complained that they had been ripped off, and they may be overweight as well, but even together they can't cross the 1 tonne threshold -- even if they wanted to. So I must congratulate you sir. You have just won that argument by the sheer weight of your empirical evidence.
And you're right, let's not try to regulate, audit, or escrow, the online gambling money that's exchanging hands. Let's just criminalize it (in violation of past WTO trade adjudications and international trade sanctions), and drive it even deeper underground. This way, the next time people get victimized by online casinos, they won't be able to complain about it or they'll go to jail. Yeah, that makes perfect sense to me.
I personally believe that allowing people to sync their contacts from almost any mobile phone into a Linux desktop is a huge step forward.
Not really. gmail or syncml could already do this, and do it for free (at least, the synchronization worked fine between my Nokia E71, my Droid, and my linux boxes). Your service apparently can't do it for free, and can't even stay up right now. May be, you just meant to say "a huge step backward", so if that's the case, I'd say yes, this service is taking at least a couple of little steps backwards.
With the added benefit of every app having been screened for malware.
That's simply not true. Apple doesn't check for malware. They'll remove a malware if it's obvious enough it is one. And they'll remove apps for all kinds of other reasons.
But do not think that they do a rigorous code review and security check of every application. They do not, and they admit as much.
If anything, your comment seems to demonstrate, their screening process is probably leading iPhone/iPad users into a false sense of security (assuming those same users think the same way you do).
The only way to be 99% sure is to send/receive to/from a given peer.
In civil court, they don't have to be "99% sure", they only need to have a preponderance of evidence. And whatever that "preponderance of evidence" means in terms of certainty, I can't say, but I think it's way less than 99%.
Correction: I should have said that "that prevents [them] from turning away patients". By saying "mandates" instead of "prevents", I actually said the opposite of what I meant.
Besides, here are his exact words. He doesn't even dispute the figures (because he does admit that they're uninsured). He just questions the assumption that those uninsured people even want insurance (which is a separate argument of its own, if you want to argue that, argue that, don't change the freaking numbers).
"By the way, of that 47 million people, when you deduct the ones who could have insurance through their employers but don't, you deduct the 11 million that basically qualify for CHIP or Medicaid but don't realize it (and) are not enrolled, you deduct those who are over $75,000 a year in income but just won't purchase their own health insurance, and then 6 million people who are illegal aliens, my gosh, when you put that all together, it leaves about 15 million people. So we're going to throw out a system that works for 15 million people."
And by the way, people without health insurance, whether they want that health insurance or not, do affect the rest of us. And unless Senator Hatch wants to repeal the law that mandates ambulances and emergency rooms from turning away patients, emergency rooms are going to keep on closing down.
SawStop's cheapest saw is $1600. To get the saw working again after a stoppage costs $169 in parts. That alone is more than I paid for my table saw, brand new. These a**holes are basically trying to destroy woodworking as a hobby. Yes, saws are dangerous, that's why I'm always incredibly careful when I use one.
The price of the SawStop saw is completely irrelevant, because SawStop is only licensing its technology -- not its brand name. Here is the actual cost of the technology (cost no doubt taken into account by the jury).
From The Article: "SawStop asks for licensing fees of 3 percent of the saw's wholesale price to start. As the device becomes more widespread, the fees could increase to 8 percent."
And notice it says 3 to 8% of the wholesale price, not retail. In this case, you can count on the wholesale price being 40% of the retail price. So 3 to 8% of 40% is not going to be the end of the hobby saw industry -- as you seem to imply.
'There is already a shortage, because there are companies that already can't get enough material,' said Jim Hedrick
May be, it's not just a shortage, but a cost of doing business. The real question is: if those companies were willing to pay ten times the amount for those rare earth minerals, would they be able to get them? Probably, I think. Personally, I think this is just another industry that's trying to get the government to subsidize 90% of its infrastructure costs.
Although these genetic differences are biologically meaningless -- they don't correlate with any observable characteristics
They don't correlate with any observable characteristics *yet*. Science is not going to be standing at a stand-still once these genetic profiles have been collected. Meaningless data from today, even supposedly destroyed and thrown away samples from today, can have hugely important meaning years from now (just ask Lance Armstrong).
Besides, anyone who has ever experienced the discrimination of affirmative action profiling, or police profiling, can tell you that a marker doesn't have to be scientifically meaningfully correlated to be used against you. All it takes is one person in authority to attribute meaning to data, and the stampede from the herd will follow. Policy Makers like patterns (actually, humans like patterns, so we all like them). And as an individual, it doesn't matter if you do not fit the pattern. The expediency that's gained from drawing conclusions from a poorly conceived pattern and the urge to make policy based on it, whether overtly or covertly, whether made by a republican or made by a democrat, often overrides the needs of specific individuals, and gives the policy makers the illusion of control, and that illusion of control is just too freaking irresistible to them.
... you take the man's shit. Or work someplace else.
That's fine, but if Mathematicians (who have no access to classified data or classified equipment to begin with) and who's work is designed to go directly into the public domain are really forced to take this idiotic nonsensical background check (after nearly 20 years of service), then that means our NASA program has already gone down the shitter...
These guys have options, and they're already getting paid peanuts compared to what they could be making in the private sector. So if anybody should be taking those men's shit, it should be NASA's upper management. That's the way the shit flows usually, from the persons who have the most negotiating leverage to the persons who have the least (in this case, NASA's management has the least).
That's the thing!! The work they're doing is not top secret. In fact, it's quite far from it. The research those 28 people are doing at Cal Tech goes directly into the public domain.
And of course, they have no issue with background checks for Professors that want to do classified work, or have access to classified work, or even access to classified equipment, but those researchers complaining are not doing any of that, they're just mathematicians, and if need access to something proprietary or classified, they just need to apply for it separately (which is fine with them).
This is manslaughter. Whoever left a gun near a 3-year-old needs locking up.
Manslaughter? This could also be premeditated murder.
Michael Fahey, a reporter for the video game blog Kotaku, said lifelike gun controllers, like the one found by police at the Cronberger home, are very rare.
"It's not one that's generally on sale," he said. "You can't generally find it on sale in the U.S. because no one wants to sell a realistic-looking gun controller to children."
After searching online, Fahey said he came across a video game controller that he thinks could be the same one owned by the Cronbergers.
Manufactured by the HAIHONGCHANG Electronics Company in China, the WiiAuto Pistol, he said, is available for sale on various Web sites, such as eBay.
This is a custom Wii controller that's allegedly not normally sold in the US (unless it's purchased through the internet). Who's to say that the step-father didn't purposefully look for a Wii gun that looked just like his own semi-automatic gun? And then coached the little three year old girl (fathered by the other man) to shoot herself with the fake gun a couple of times? In the right political environment, where a gun isn't just for protection, it's considered free speech -- it would be the perfect crime.
Good advice so far, scan it and stitch it. Once you have that, just release it under a creative commons license, and ask for help with your goal. The crowd should be able to help you with the rest. Some will do an overlay with a fish-eye. Some will do an overlay with a small rectangular mask. Some will try morphing the different maps using the edges and/or the landmarks that can be recognized as reference points. It may not come out the exact way you originally envisioned, but with a bit of playing around with it -- something cool should come out of this project eventually.
The base software for something like this is OpenCV (OpenComputerVision), which has C++ and Python bindings, but even if you're not a programmer, and still want to do everything yourself, you should still be able to find something that's GUI-driven and easier to use than OpenCV.
I just participated in a free two-day Oracle JavaFX class. Its list price was $1,800, but it was free since they were still designing the courseware. The class was actually excellent. If I were you guys, I'd just wait a couple of months, I got the feeling that they were designing many new courses that are going to show up on Oracle Academy soon.
Slashdot Mirror
Anonymous must be huge there!
What's wrong with janitors?
One second I am hearing a video explaining how to twist balloons into a roadrunner, next I hear a 300-pound woman in a bathing suit giggling and sitting on balloons to pop them. Gross.
Either your son didn't know what was going on, and then no harm done, or he did, and he found it gross also. I don't see what the problem is either way.
Is the Unity3D Game Engine threatened? I doubt it. Adobe, yes. Unity, no. I think this Adobe guy is reading between the lines of Apple's announcement. He knows Flash (its code generator workaround, not Flash itself) will be targeted, but not Unity3D. He's only trying to get Apple to admit its hidden agenda, or goad them into banning Unity3D to maintain consistency (which would only go against Apple's interests, Unity3D already has many top selling titles, the code generator from Adobe is not even close).
Moral: Never allow the GOP to hold power in congress again. When they abuse parliamentary tactics, it costs us $700 billion off the top, and millions of jobs.
I don't see how you ended up with that moral. Shouldn't the excuse you used for Bill Clinton be equally applicable to the GOP in Congress? or even the few Democrats in Congress? After all, if a Democrat in Congress had seen the couple of lines added in there, wouldn't he have told the Democrat President? Or are you implying that the lines were inserted in the bill between the time it was voted in and the time it was driven to the White House (which is possible granted, but I don't think that's what you said)?
Disclaimer: I did vote for Bill Clinton. I just think that this attitude of "That my party can do no wrong, and if they did wrong, there must be a good reason for it." is precisely what's wrong with our current political system.
"Sales rate"? Are you projecting from the first month of sales for the Nexus One to a uniform total sales for the year? By that logic the iPad alone has a "sales rate" of roughly 109 million.
I'm not sure I agree with his end of year projection, but Gartner does forecast Android overtaking the iPhone, Blackberry, and Windows Mobile, by year 2012. And also, let's not forget, Mainland China (despite all the problems they had with Google) are forking and standardizing on Android 1.6. How many cell phone users does China have anyway?
I never realized that fair use was based on pixel count.
You should. The "standard market rate" of a photograph is often affected by the pixel count it's published in. And it only stands to reason that the pixel count would also affect the 'fair use' argument.
I can't believe how silly these pro-Google comments are becoming.
I can't believe I'm being called pro-Google. It wasn't just a few days ago, I was called a pirate and a thief. Now, I'm being called pro-Google. I must really be moving up in this World.
Google recently used some of my photographs on Google News, as the 'headline' photos to represent collected coverage of major stories.
You mean. Google recently used some photographs of yours on Google News, as the 'thumbnail' image to represent the collected coverage of major stories, linking back to the original online newspaper which originally published your photograph.
This fell outside any reasonable definition of fair use.
Who says? You do, but you're a little biased. Aren't you.
This was for-profit publication of photographs that other publishers were paying for the right to use. Google used them for free.
Yes, Google links thumbnails and summary information to online sources. It does the same thing on its search engine, which is also a for-profit operation. And it does this with the robots.txt (or sitemap.xml) permission of the original newspaper that published your photographs. If the original newspaper had just listed the folder in which your photograph was in, and told the googlebot not to index your photograph, then google wouldn't have used your photograph (to make a thumbnail out of it).
It seems your original beef is with the newspapers that published your photographs, not google. I think many would argue that indexing, linking to, publishing the summary information, and automatically making thumbnails, all because the original web site permits you through the robots.txt file, falls well within the purpose of 'fair use'.
Speaking of which, C now stands for Citigroup according to Google. Before, typing C in google would just get you a web page concerning the C programming language.
I know tonne of people who got ripped off through online casino's who had their computers hacked their email passwords stolen and as well as bank/financial data were cleaned out.
Wow!! I only know two people that have told me they gambled online, none of them complained that they had been ripped off, and they may be overweight as well, but even together they can't cross the 1 tonne threshold -- even if they wanted to. So I must congratulate you sir. You have just won that argument by the sheer weight of your empirical evidence.
And you're right, let's not try to regulate, audit, or escrow, the online gambling money that's exchanging hands. Let's just criminalize it (in violation of past WTO trade adjudications and international trade sanctions), and drive it even deeper underground. This way, the next time people get victimized by online casinos, they won't be able to complain about it or they'll go to jail. Yeah, that makes perfect sense to me.
I personally believe that allowing people to sync their contacts from almost any mobile phone into a Linux desktop is a huge step forward.
Not really. gmail or syncml could already do this, and do it for free (at least, the synchronization worked fine between my Nokia E71, my Droid, and my linux boxes). Your service apparently can't do it for free, and can't even stay up right now. May be, you just meant to say "a huge step backward", so if that's the case, I'd say yes, this service is taking at least a couple of little steps backwards.
With the added benefit of every app having been screened for malware.
That's simply not true. Apple doesn't check for malware. They'll remove a malware if it's obvious enough it is one. And they'll remove apps for all kinds of other reasons.
But do not think that they do a rigorous code review and security check of every application. They do not, and they admit as much.
If anything, your comment seems to demonstrate, their screening process is probably leading iPhone/iPad users into a false sense of security (assuming those same users think the same way you do).
The only way to be 99% sure is to send/receive to/from a given peer.
In civil court, they don't have to be "99% sure", they only need to have a preponderance of evidence. And whatever that "preponderance of evidence" means in terms of certainty, I can't say, but I think it's way less than 99%.
Correction: I should have said that "that prevents [them] from turning away patients". By saying "mandates" instead of "prevents", I actually said the opposite of what I meant.
Real numbers from scientists estimate the number as 5-15 million uninsured U.S. citizens. +9 million if you include illegal non-citizens/intruders.
Senator Orrin Hatch, a scientist???
Besides, here are his exact words. He doesn't even dispute the figures (because he does admit that they're uninsured). He just questions the assumption that those uninsured people even want insurance (which is a separate argument of its own, if you want to argue that, argue that, don't change the freaking numbers).
"By the way, of that 47 million people, when you deduct the ones who could have insurance through their employers but don't, you deduct the 11 million that basically qualify for CHIP or Medicaid but don't realize it (and) are not enrolled, you deduct those who are over $75,000 a year in income but just won't purchase their own health insurance, and then 6 million people who are illegal aliens, my gosh, when you put that all together, it leaves about 15 million people. So we're going to throw out a system that works for 15 million people."
And by the way, people without health insurance, whether they want that health insurance or not, do affect the rest of us. And unless Senator Hatch wants to repeal the law that mandates ambulances and emergency rooms from turning away patients, emergency rooms are going to keep on closing down.
Many schools do ban cell phones, or require that they at least be turned off while the kids are on school premises.
...and I'd consider paying up to $500 for such a device.
Are you kidding me?? You must be the live of the party in focus groups.
"That, I'd pay $1,000. And that, I'd pay $500, no problem. As you can see, I take my social networking super seriously. "
SawStop's cheapest saw is $1600. To get the saw working again after a stoppage costs $169 in parts. That alone is more than I paid for my table saw, brand new. These a**holes are basically trying to destroy woodworking as a hobby. Yes, saws are dangerous, that's why I'm always incredibly careful when I use one.
The price of the SawStop saw is completely irrelevant, because SawStop is only licensing its technology -- not its brand name. Here is the actual cost of the technology (cost no doubt taken into account by the jury).
From The Article: "SawStop asks for licensing fees of 3 percent of the saw's wholesale price to start. As the device becomes more widespread, the fees could increase to 8 percent."
And notice it says 3 to 8% of the wholesale price, not retail. In this case, you can count on the wholesale price being 40% of the retail price. So 3 to 8% of 40% is not going to be the end of the hobby saw industry -- as you seem to imply.
'There is already a shortage, because there are companies that already can't get enough material,' said Jim Hedrick
May be, it's not just a shortage, but a cost of doing business. The real question is: if those companies were willing to pay ten times the amount for those rare earth minerals, would they be able to get them? Probably, I think. Personally, I think this is just another industry that's trying to get the government to subsidize 90% of its infrastructure costs.
Although these genetic differences are biologically meaningless -- they don't correlate with any observable characteristics
They don't correlate with any observable characteristics *yet*. Science is not going to be standing at a stand-still once these genetic profiles have been collected. Meaningless data from today, even supposedly destroyed and thrown away samples from today, can have hugely important meaning years from now (just ask Lance Armstrong).
Besides, anyone who has ever experienced the discrimination of affirmative action profiling, or police profiling, can tell you that a marker doesn't have to be scientifically meaningfully correlated to be used against you. All it takes is one person in authority to attribute meaning to data, and the stampede from the herd will follow. Policy Makers like patterns (actually, humans like patterns, so we all like them). And as an individual, it doesn't matter if you do not fit the pattern. The expediency that's gained from drawing conclusions from a poorly conceived pattern and the urge to make policy based on it, whether overtly or covertly, whether made by a republican or made by a democrat, often overrides the needs of specific individuals, and gives the policy makers the illusion of control, and that illusion of control is just too freaking irresistible to them.
... you take the man's shit. Or work someplace else.
That's fine, but if Mathematicians (who have no access to classified data or classified equipment to begin with) and who's work is designed to go directly into the public domain are really forced to take this idiotic nonsensical background check (after nearly 20 years of service), then that means our NASA program has already gone down the shitter...
These guys have options, and they're already getting paid peanuts compared to what they could be making in the private sector. So if anybody should be taking those men's shit, it should be NASA's upper management. That's the way the shit flows usually, from the persons who have the most negotiating leverage to the persons who have the least (in this case, NASA's management has the least).
That's the thing!! The work they're doing is not top secret. In fact, it's quite far from it. The research those 28 people are doing at Cal Tech goes directly into the public domain.
And of course, they have no issue with background checks for Professors that want to do classified work, or have access to classified work, or even access to classified equipment, but those researchers complaining are not doing any of that, they're just mathematicians, and if need access to something proprietary or classified, they just need to apply for it separately (which is fine with them).
This is manslaughter. Whoever left a gun near a 3-year-old needs locking up.
Manslaughter? This could also be premeditated murder.
Michael Fahey, a reporter for the video game blog Kotaku, said lifelike gun controllers, like the one found by police at the Cronberger home, are very rare. "It's not one that's generally on sale," he said. "You can't generally find it on sale in the U.S. because no one wants to sell a realistic-looking gun controller to children." After searching online, Fahey said he came across a video game controller that he thinks could be the same one owned by the Cronbergers. Manufactured by the HAIHONGCHANG Electronics Company in China, the WiiAuto Pistol, he said, is available for sale on various Web sites, such as eBay.
This is a custom Wii controller that's allegedly not normally sold in the US (unless it's purchased through the internet). Who's to say that the step-father didn't purposefully look for a Wii gun that looked just like his own semi-automatic gun? And then coached the little three year old girl (fathered by the other man) to shoot herself with the fake gun a couple of times? In the right political environment, where a gun isn't just for protection, it's considered free speech -- it would be the perfect crime.
Good advice so far, scan it and stitch it. Once you have that, just release it under a creative commons license, and ask for help with your goal. The crowd should be able to help you with the rest. Some will do an overlay with a fish-eye. Some will do an overlay with a small rectangular mask. Some will try morphing the different maps using the edges and/or the landmarks that can be recognized as reference points. It may not come out the exact way you originally envisioned, but with a bit of playing around with it -- something cool should come out of this project eventually.
The base software for something like this is OpenCV (OpenComputerVision), which has C++ and Python bindings, but even if you're not a programmer, and still want to do everything yourself, you should still be able to find something that's GUI-driven and easier to use than OpenCV.
I just participated in a free two-day Oracle JavaFX class. Its list price was $1,800, but it was free since they were still designing the courseware. The class was actually excellent. If I were you guys, I'd just wait a couple of months, I got the feeling that they were designing many new courses that are going to show up on Oracle Academy soon.