You do realize that he's complaining about people engaging in illegal practices, right? Where I live, cops regularly enforce the "Left lane for passing only" signs that were posted within the last year on our main freeway.
Can you send me some of your cops? One of the states that borders where I live (Missouri) I think they teach them in drivers ed that they are supposed to hang in the left lane. It's illegal where I live but I've never seen it enforced.
Easy: The "smart" vehicle with track the dumb vehicle and maintain a safe distance. It will then communicate back to the USDOT and an automated drone strike will "retire" the obsolete vehicle.
So I just looked and there are, technically, a couple of online apps but they are not anything in the core. The only one I've ever even heard of before CC is Story Plus, a collaborative screenwriting app that debuted with CS5.5. The others are Edge Web Fonts, PhoneGap Build (no idea), ProSite, Business Catalyst, Behance, and Type Kit. As far as I'm aware none of these ever had dedicated apps to begin with. Photoshop, After Effects, Premiere Pro, Audition, Dream Weaver, Edge (animate, code, inspect, reflow), Fireworks, Flash Builder, Flash Pro, Acrobat Pro, Illustrator, InDesign, Lightroom, etc are all still downloaded software that installs on your PC.
They are idiots. I have a CC subscription. Just this morning I downloaded updates for Photoshop CC and Bridge CC. The install folder for Photoshop CC is over 800 megs. That's running on my PC. The whole "cloud" thing is a bit of a marketing misnomer in this case. When you login to Creative Cloud online you are have three tabs: Files (like dropbox, if you choose to use it), Learning (tutorial videos), and Downloads, where you download your software. The only difference between CC and CS6 Master Collection (other than the CC has newer software versions, of course) is the pricing model.
Adobe is doing the same thing: Adobe kills Creative Suite, goes subscription-only. You will no longer be allowed to have Adobe CS software on your own computer. NSA magnet, and far more expensive. As you are designing a new web site, the NSA will be viewing what you are doing. Or, of course, people who work for Adobe.
Completely wrong. You still download and run the software on your PC or Mac. There is no online software. You get some online storage that you can use, if you wish. The only difference between this and CS6 is that you pay by the month or by the year for a license. Sucks for individuals/small shops but it's a good thing for many at larger companies since it makes it easier to get updates. Due to accounting voodoo many companies use, it's easier to get the company to pay a yearly maintenance fee than it is to get a single chunk of cash for an upgrade. I've worked for several companies that had a mix of Adobe licenses because what was current at the time is what the user got and that was it. Let me tell you that was a hoot to try to keep track of.
No, what they care about is how many people may watch the ads. Shows are bait to attract product (viewers) that the networks sell to their customers (advertisers). The cost of the ads are based on how many views are expected to go for the bait (watch the show) and see the ads in the process.
Now, networks would love it if they could do what you suggest, but the advertisers would not accept it. The networks are still fighting to get advertisers on board with DVR (live plus...) ratings, and trying hard to get any real money at all out of online streaming ads. Counting pirated downloads would also lack demographic info. Advertisers want certain demographics that fit their product and, more generally, they pay more for demographics that are harder to advertise to. Younger people watch less TV due to work, social, and family life. Older folks tend to stay home more and fewer distractions, so they are cheap and plentiful. This is why so much emphasis is put on the 18-49 and 18-34 year old viewers. You can have 12 millions viewers but if you are pulling a 1.0 in demo, you're probably getting your show canceled.
So networks can't charge more for ads it's useless to them. They don't sell online ads on pirate sites so that's also useless. Advertisers won't care because they already get much better market research currently that would be provided by looking at torrent or usenet download stats and they really don't care all that much about online ads in general (thus one of the reasons they are so damn cheap to begin with). At the same time the networks see the downloads as threatening, but not exactly for the reason most people think. Unless Nielsen families are all out pirating TV shows (odds are against that) it doesn't directly affect the ratings numbers. However, advertisers see these unauthorized downloads and begin to question the Nielsen estimates. If 5 million people downloaded a show, are the Neilson numbers off by 5 million viewers? Now, we all know this is tenuous at best, but the advertisers can use it to pressure the networks on pricing. Thus, the networks see it as a revenue threat. There are also the usual issues of "it's mine, mine!!" at play, and the false piracy economies of "we are losing zillions!" but at the core there is a real economic issue for the networks.
The other problem they have created for themselves is this reliance on the cable cash cows. These retransmission deals can be worth billions. The cable companies see any competition to their services as a threat, and losing video subscribers because the subscribers figure out it's cheaper, easier, and more flexible to pirate is not making them happy. Since cable companies pay the networks based on their subscriber base, this is making the networks unhappy too.
Worse, for the networks, is that they have painted themselves into a corner with the cable industry. They can't live without the deals anymore, not without some major financial adjustments. At the same time industry consolidation is putting more and more power into the hands of fewer and fewer companies. This TWC deal could have a huge impact on their ratings if it rolls into the fall (it won't I would imagine, but still). TWC controls the #1, #2, and quite a few of the other top 20 markets. Only about 20% of viewers across the country (at most) use over-the-air anymore. Of the rest, about half are (on average) cable subscribers (the other half being mostly satellite). That's a metric shit-ton of viewers. They have also made it virtually impossible for them to offer direct subscriptions, since cable operators are also, usually, the best game in town for internet access as well. The would not look kindly on the networks competing with them directly, and force many smaller cable only networks to sign away the ability to do so in their contracts. They should have the foresight to push for more diversity for content deliver in their markets a long time ago, but alas, all they saw was the money they could make. In the end, it is the network's own fault.
Yes, then conveniently forget that he was an employee of the CIA for several years.
Which, combined with how much trouble the US has gone to to make sure he was not apprehended and that he would be welcome in several countries makes one wonder.....
Most of that is going to be in the form of 00 buck shot and slugs. Both are solid, not finely divided. They are very unlikely to leach at a significant rate. Honestly, I'd be more concerned about more serious sources of lead such as leaded aviation fuel or abandoned mines. Both of those pose an actual, serious threat to health.
This is just more regulation hidden as "think of the children" BS. It's a backdoor attempt to ban ammunition and raise prices as a form of gun control. I would suspect when you remove ranges (who recycle their lead) and the military the amount of lead introduced into the environment by shooting is fairly insignificant. I'd bet things like thrown wheel weights contribute more. Consider also that most ammunition is at least partially copper jacketed with a small exposed surface area. So if you can keep your kids from sifting through tons of soil and chewing on or smoking found bullets, I think they'll be just fine.
Has it? As a percentage of households, yes. However, you need to account for population growth over the same time period. If you do you'll see the number (not percentage) of households with firearms has stayed fairly steady over the decades.
My question is how is this ever acceptable? If I am scanning a document (with OCR turned off) to PDF, I would expect the device to always (no matter the settings I used) give me a faithful copy of the document. The possibility that it may randomly substitute letters or numbers makes this completely useless since I can't trust the accuracy of the output. This is especially true for numbers, which may not have enough contextual information in the document to make it obvious that the number is incorrect.
Try this. Draw a picture of a boat. Now grab a protractor and draw a line from the center of your boat that is 30 degrees from the center line. That is the direction of travel. At this point your boat is sliding sideways through the water.
You can also try it out with a mouse (computer or mammal). If you're really adventurous try it in a moving car and let me know if you felt like you were sideways or forward:)
Vehicles are considered to be going sideways when they are moving along a vector that is noticeably out of alignment with the vehicle center line. This is not restricted to vehicles traveling at 90 degrees to their center line.
He may also be assumed to have graduated from the Academy on Gallifrey with something equal to or greater than a doctorate, as this is a requirement to be a licensed (Since revoked) TARDIS traveler. The time lords don't let just any meddler screw around with time - there's a training course.
It's actually just a certification: Gallifrey Certified TARDIS Administrator (GCTA).
I think you are off the mark about trained sociopath, but you overall point is correct: it's all about the packaging. Well, and the name. Give the new food stock insects a sexy name (they do it with fish all the time) and bam! Everyone will want some.
I'm getting a little sick of all the cloud evaporation lately. Anyone have suggestions on reader/igoogle replacements that are open sourced so that, crazy idea, I can run my own damn instance?
So how long will this be under the patent lock and key before anyone can benefit from it?
Also, is the University of Washington the only university doing any research anymore? Or do they just have really good PR? Every time I see one of these stories lately, the University of Washington is involved
Slashdot Mirror
Please provide link to said already working open standard for inter-vehicle communications.
You... are my hero.
You do realize that he's complaining about people engaging in illegal practices, right? Where I live, cops regularly enforce the "Left lane for passing only" signs that were posted within the last year on our main freeway.
Can you send me some of your cops? One of the states that borders where I live (Missouri) I think they teach them in drivers ed that they are supposed to hang in the left lane. It's illegal where I live but I've never seen it enforced.
Easy: The "smart" vehicle with track the dumb vehicle and maintain a safe distance. It will then communicate back to the USDOT and an automated drone strike will "retire" the obsolete vehicle.
If you're in the Soviet Union, the NSA is better, no joke. Think about why. Pop quiz later.
Because you're a time traveler?
So I just looked and there are, technically, a couple of online apps but they are not anything in the core. The only one I've ever even heard of before CC is Story Plus, a collaborative screenwriting app that debuted with CS5.5. The others are Edge Web Fonts, PhoneGap Build (no idea), ProSite, Business Catalyst, Behance, and Type Kit. As far as I'm aware none of these ever had dedicated apps to begin with. Photoshop, After Effects, Premiere Pro, Audition, Dream Weaver, Edge (animate, code, inspect, reflow), Fireworks, Flash Builder, Flash Pro, Acrobat Pro, Illustrator, InDesign, Lightroom, etc are all still downloaded software that installs on your PC.
They are idiots. I have a CC subscription. Just this morning I downloaded updates for Photoshop CC and Bridge CC. The install folder for Photoshop CC is over 800 megs. That's running on my PC. The whole "cloud" thing is a bit of a marketing misnomer in this case. When you login to Creative Cloud online you are have three tabs: Files (like dropbox, if you choose to use it), Learning (tutorial videos), and Downloads, where you download your software. The only difference between CC and CS6 Master Collection (other than the CC has newer software versions, of course) is the pricing model.
Adobe is doing the same thing: Adobe kills Creative Suite, goes subscription-only. You will no longer be allowed to have Adobe CS software on your own computer. NSA magnet, and far more expensive. As you are designing a new web site, the NSA will be viewing what you are doing. Or, of course, people who work for Adobe.
Completely wrong. You still download and run the software on your PC or Mac. There is no online software. You get some online storage that you can use, if you wish. The only difference between this and CS6 is that you pay by the month or by the year for a license. Sucks for individuals/small shops but it's a good thing for many at larger companies since it makes it easier to get updates. Due to accounting voodoo many companies use, it's easier to get the company to pay a yearly maintenance fee than it is to get a single chunk of cash for an upgrade. I've worked for several companies that had a mix of Adobe licenses because what was current at the time is what the user got and that was it. Let me tell you that was a hoot to try to keep track of.
No, what they care about is how many people may watch the ads. Shows are bait to attract product (viewers) that the networks sell to their customers (advertisers). The cost of the ads are based on how many views are expected to go for the bait (watch the show) and see the ads in the process.
Now, networks would love it if they could do what you suggest, but the advertisers would not accept it. The networks are still fighting to get advertisers on board with DVR (live plus...) ratings, and trying hard to get any real money at all out of online streaming ads. Counting pirated downloads would also lack demographic info. Advertisers want certain demographics that fit their product and, more generally, they pay more for demographics that are harder to advertise to. Younger people watch less TV due to work, social, and family life. Older folks tend to stay home more and fewer distractions, so they are cheap and plentiful. This is why so much emphasis is put on the 18-49 and 18-34 year old viewers. You can have 12 millions viewers but if you are pulling a 1.0 in demo, you're probably getting your show canceled.
So networks can't charge more for ads it's useless to them. They don't sell online ads on pirate sites so that's also useless. Advertisers won't care because they already get much better market research currently that would be provided by looking at torrent or usenet download stats and they really don't care all that much about online ads in general (thus one of the reasons they are so damn cheap to begin with). At the same time the networks see the downloads as threatening, but not exactly for the reason most people think. Unless Nielsen families are all out pirating TV shows (odds are against that) it doesn't directly affect the ratings numbers. However, advertisers see these unauthorized downloads and begin to question the Nielsen estimates. If 5 million people downloaded a show, are the Neilson numbers off by 5 million viewers? Now, we all know this is tenuous at best, but the advertisers can use it to pressure the networks on pricing. Thus, the networks see it as a revenue threat. There are also the usual issues of "it's mine, mine!!" at play, and the false piracy economies of "we are losing zillions!" but at the core there is a real economic issue for the networks.
The other problem they have created for themselves is this reliance on the cable cash cows. These retransmission deals can be worth billions. The cable companies see any competition to their services as a threat, and losing video subscribers because the subscribers figure out it's cheaper, easier, and more flexible to pirate is not making them happy. Since cable companies pay the networks based on their subscriber base, this is making the networks unhappy too.
Worse, for the networks, is that they have painted themselves into a corner with the cable industry. They can't live without the deals anymore, not without some major financial adjustments. At the same time industry consolidation is putting more and more power into the hands of fewer and fewer companies. This TWC deal could have a huge impact on their ratings if it rolls into the fall (it won't I would imagine, but still). TWC controls the #1, #2, and quite a few of the other top 20 markets. Only about 20% of viewers across the country (at most) use over-the-air anymore. Of the rest, about half are (on average) cable subscribers (the other half being mostly satellite). That's a metric shit-ton of viewers. They have also made it virtually impossible for them to offer direct subscriptions, since cable operators are also, usually, the best game in town for internet access as well. The would not look kindly on the networks competing with them directly, and force many smaller cable only networks to sign away the ability to do so in their contracts. They should have the foresight to push for more diversity for content deliver in their markets a long time ago, but alas, all they saw was the money they could make. In the end, it is the network's own fault.
Millions, billions, possibly trillions of innocent bits could DIE in a cyber terror attack! THINK OF THE BITS!
Um, I don't think any of the words I used mean what you think they do. I said none of that.
Yes, then conveniently forget that he was an employee of the CIA for several years.
Which, combined with how much trouble the US has gone to to make sure he was not apprehended and that he would be welcome in several countries makes one wonder.....
Most of that is going to be in the form of 00 buck shot and slugs. Both are solid, not finely divided. They are very unlikely to leach at a significant rate. Honestly, I'd be more concerned about more serious sources of lead such as leaded aviation fuel or abandoned mines. Both of those pose an actual, serious threat to health.
This is just more regulation hidden as "think of the children" BS. It's a backdoor attempt to ban ammunition and raise prices as a form of gun control. I would suspect when you remove ranges (who recycle their lead) and the military the amount of lead introduced into the environment by shooting is fairly insignificant. I'd bet things like thrown wheel weights contribute more. Consider also that most ammunition is at least partially copper jacketed with a small exposed surface area. So if you can keep your kids from sifting through tons of soil and chewing on or smoking found bullets, I think they'll be just fine.
but so has gun ownership.
Has it? As a percentage of households, yes. However, you need to account for population growth over the same time period. If you do you'll see the number (not percentage) of households with firearms has stayed fairly steady over the decades.
My question is how is this ever acceptable? If I am scanning a document (with OCR turned off) to PDF, I would expect the device to always (no matter the settings I used) give me a faithful copy of the document. The possibility that it may randomly substitute letters or numbers makes this completely useless since I can't trust the accuracy of the output. This is especially true for numbers, which may not have enough contextual information in the document to make it obvious that the number is incorrect.
OK, you're crazy.
:)
Try this. Draw a picture of a boat. Now grab a protractor and draw a line from the center of your boat that is 30 degrees from the center line. That is the direction of travel. At this point your boat is sliding sideways through the water.
You can also try it out with a mouse (computer or mammal). If you're really adventurous try it in a moving car and let me know if you felt like you were sideways or forward
Vehicles are considered to be going sideways when they are moving along a vector that is noticeably out of alignment with the vehicle center line. This is not restricted to vehicles traveling at 90 degrees to their center line.
He may also be assumed to have graduated from the Academy on Gallifrey with something equal to or greater than a doctorate, as this is a requirement to be a licensed (Since revoked) TARDIS traveler. The time lords don't let just any meddler screw around with time - there's a training course.
It's actually just a certification: Gallifrey Certified TARDIS Administrator (GCTA).
It's the modern era progression of making the Doctor younger and more of a wimp, until eventually he is a zygote time lord.
Thus why I'm rooting for them to pick Vinnie Jones as the next Doctor!
Yes, but only if he played him with the same personality as House.
I think you are off the mark about trained sociopath, but you overall point is correct: it's all about the packaging. Well, and the name. Give the new food stock insects a sexy name (they do it with fish all the time) and bam! Everyone will want some.
I'm getting a little sick of all the cloud evaporation lately. Anyone have suggestions on reader/igoogle replacements that are open sourced so that, crazy idea, I can run my own damn instance?
Great, now you just got /. banned in Russia!
So how long will this be under the patent lock and key before anyone can benefit from it?
Also, is the University of Washington the only university doing any research anymore? Or do they just have really good PR? Every time I see one of these stories lately, the University of Washington is involved