but I've talked to people who were ardent supporters of Obama who, when I expressed a genuine interest in what about his policies they admired, floundered and turned out not to know anything much at all about them
Same here. I sincerely hope that Obama has his collective act together and does well in office, but I've seen with my own two eyes a very real cult of personality at work among people I actually know - "he's bringing change to Washington" was usually the extent of their reasoning for supporting him. I've seen too many people firsthand that have unconditional and blind faith and trust in the man for my comfort. I'm willing to reserve judgement and give him a chance, but I have a really bad feeling that he's fundamentally cut from the same cloth as any other ambitious politician, only he's a lot smarter and substantially more deft in projecting the image he chooses.
Because theaters operate on pretty slim margins to begin with, and so there would need to be a fairly good financial justification to set one up, with all of the inevitable waiver fees and other legal costs involved.
Historically, peoples' time hasn't been looked upon as something of value by business and government. If you build and sell a computer to someone, you're only taxed on the difference between the cost to manufacture and the price at which it was sold. On the other hand, the IRS considers your entire paycheck to be income and that you incurred no expenses in obtaining it, basically taking the position that your time has no value even though it's the one thing in this world that once lost, cannot be retrieved.
It's because they're not being forced to shoulder the cost of that waiting - the employee is. They like it like that and will fight tooth and nail to keep it from changing.
A lot of call centers don't work like that. You "punch in" when you log into your phone, but that can't happen until all the other crap the parent poster talked about is done. Basically, a lot of call centers don't consider you to be working unless your phone is active and able to take calls, which often means not getting paid for bathroom breaks, etc.
It's something that I think really needs to be addressed, because even 10 minutes a day wasted on this crap is more than a week's worth of unpaid work every year.
It would be theoretically possible to do it with open source, but it would require an extreme degree of organization and discipline compared to normal open source projects.
And a large wad of cash to spend on static analysis tools and other goodies.
Possibly no right to bear arms for a few years seems a small price to pay for a free MD PhD.
Most states don't have restrictions about whether a non-citizen can keep firearms in their homes, and in my state they also can keep them in their cars just like any other citizen, and can go down to the local range and shoot however much they want. The only real restriction placed on non-US citizens where I live is that they can't obtain a concealed carry license unless they have a green card.
The 4th Amendment doesn't factor into things if the ISP doesn't demand a warrant before handing over the information, just like it doesn't factor into things if you give a cop permission to search your car and he finds something illegal. You might be able to sue the ISP for turning your data over, but the government itself did nothing illegal in that scenario. It *would* be a factor on a government-provided line, since the government would be collecting the data from another government entity that would also be subject to 4th Amendment restrictions (unlike a private ISP), so from that perspective I'd think it's actually safer for you to be putting your data on government lines.
Practically, how is this any different than what we have now, where the ISPs don't even demand a warrant before handing traffic and logs over to the government? Besides, the ISPs could put a dent in any surveillance merely by setting their customers up on a VPN to the provider's facility. I don't think content filtering is too much of an issue either, since they'd just provide the pipe, not DNS, proxies, or other services which could be used for that purpose.
I'd bet they simply don't want the prospect of any competition, since it will be substantially easier for any ISP to offer service to the city's residents. The city will be offering access to its network for any provider willing to pay for the interconnect, so there's a very low barrier of entry for any given ISP in that market.
IMO, this is *exactly* how Internet service should be offered in the US - solid public infrastructure to the customer site, and let all the providers compete to transport the individual customer's traffic from the local net to the Internet proper.
Yes, most industrial lasers are Class IV. I'm not sure I understand what the power of the laser has to do with the issue - speckle is present anytime you have any kind of coherent light source, regardless of power. A 5 watt green YAG doesn't speckle any more or less than a 5 milliwatt unit.
wouldn't the fact that we have a mirror moving the beam in the kilohertz sideways mean that the beam is moving faster than the eye can perceive
Yes, but as long as the optical path is the same length at any given point, speckle will still be seen at that point. Moving the beam laterally doesn't change that path length at a given point, and thus isn't altering the phase of the light at that point. Consequently, you'll have the same visible interference pattern there, which is all speckle really is. Not having seen a laser-driven TV set though, I really couldn't say how objectionable the speckle might be, so it could be a total non-issue.
The morons that make Cinerella cant program themselves out of a paper bag
At least they can spell "Cinelerra" properly. You need to work on your use of profanity as well - using it too much tends to blunt the impact when it *does* get used. But, I guess you were too busy working on becoming a Video God to bother with such things.
Given that we're not only combining 3 lasers, we're also left and right starting around 38k times a second, and up and down at least 60 times a second, moving it through more than 3/4 a million pixels equivalents every 1/60th of a second.
I think that varying the phase wouldn't be a big deal.
I've not worked with the laser-based TV systems, but I've had lots and lots of experience with industrial beam-steered lasers, and my experience with those that use visible wavelengths is that they exhibit extremely strong speckle no matter how fast the beam is being moved around. If the beam is being placed in exactly the same spot, with the optical path being exactly the same length, I'd think there's a pretty good chance speckle would continue to be an issue, but I can't support that prediction observationally. The problem is that you have to continuously vary the phase across the entire width of the beam such that the speckle is being changed faster than the eye can perceive. I suppose one way to do it might be by distorting the focusing lens by a fraction of a wavelength such that the optical path length on subsequent scans of a given pixel would vary quickly enough to be below the threshold of perception.
Dunno for sure, but there are a few ways to deal with the problem, most of which are covered under patents, of course. Basically the idea is to quickly (i.e. above 30 Hz or so) vary the phase of the light over a wide area so your eye doesn't have time to perceive the speckle.
So you are saying that you believe the right of 50 people in a restaurant to have a peaceful dinner is trumped by the right of somebody saying "fuckity fuckity shit you dick" at his table.
Absolutely. It's also the right of the owner of the restaurant to ask that individual to leave (and have him forcibly removed if he doesn't), and failing that, it's the dinner party's right to go someplace else to eat where they won't feel offended. There's no need for the government to get involved there. If it's in a public space, then you'll just need to deal with it, or ask the offending party yourself to tone it down.
You are saying that it is ok to walk down the sidewalk in your neighborhood yelling obscenities and racial slurs at your neighbors.
I'd argue that's "disturbing the peace", and not simply a matter of inhibiting someone's right to self-expression. It's also an extremely contrived situation, and has nothing to do with what we're talking about. Being loud and abusive to others is independent of the actual words used. The original discussion was focused on words you found offensive.
I don't believe that freedom of speech is a greater freedom to uphold than my freedom to live a peaceable life.
Someone simply saying curse words you don't approve of isn't infringing on your freedom for a peaceable life, unless they're doing it in your living room. Someone saying offensive words on the TV or radio just doesn't cut it, because it's trivially easy just to turn it off if it bothers you that much. I think we're just going to have to agree to disagree on the subject.
There's something called respect which it seems that a lot of people are missing these days. If by exercising your right to free speech you deliberately offend others - that is, you could have said what you meant without using language that you know will offend others - then what happens to their freedoms?
Absolutely nothing happens to their freedoms. No one is guaranteed the right to go through life without being offended, and it's just too bad for those folks that are too thin-skinned to deal with it. Being offended is a *conscious* reaction to an external stimulus, so it's really more the problem of the person being offended than anyone else's. Saying that respect should essentially be enforced at the point of a gun is hypocritical beyond measure, because you're saying that the rights of the other party are not worthy of respect themselves.
Slashdot Mirror
but I've talked to people who were ardent supporters of Obama who, when I expressed a genuine interest in what about his policies they admired, floundered and turned out not to know anything much at all about them
Same here. I sincerely hope that Obama has his collective act together and does well in office, but I've seen with my own two eyes a very real cult of personality at work among people I actually know - "he's bringing change to Washington" was usually the extent of their reasoning for supporting him. I've seen too many people firsthand that have unconditional and blind faith and trust in the man for my comfort. I'm willing to reserve judgement and give him a chance, but I have a really bad feeling that he's fundamentally cut from the same cloth as any other ambitious politician, only he's a lot smarter and substantially more deft in projecting the image he chooses.
Well, what we really need is more responsible people that think about other people around them a little.
And the best part is, this fixes a LOT of things in addition to the theater/cell phone issue.
Because theaters operate on pretty slim margins to begin with, and so there would need to be a fairly good financial justification to set one up, with all of the inevitable waiver fees and other legal costs involved.
It's just as illegal here, but such things aren't often enforced.
I've used plenty of software that started out as waste to begin with. Does that count?
Perhaps, but it's often a terminable offense in places like that.
Historically, peoples' time hasn't been looked upon as something of value by business and government. If you build and sell a computer to someone, you're only taxed on the difference between the cost to manufacture and the price at which it was sold. On the other hand, the IRS considers your entire paycheck to be income and that you incurred no expenses in obtaining it, basically taking the position that your time has no value even though it's the one thing in this world that once lost, cannot be retrieved.
It's because they're not being forced to shoulder the cost of that waiting - the employee is. They like it like that and will fight tooth and nail to keep it from changing.
A lot of call centers don't work like that. You "punch in" when you log into your phone, but that can't happen until all the other crap the parent poster talked about is done. Basically, a lot of call centers don't consider you to be working unless your phone is active and able to take calls, which often means not getting paid for bathroom breaks, etc.
It's something that I think really needs to be addressed, because even 10 minutes a day wasted on this crap is more than a week's worth of unpaid work every year.
It would be theoretically possible to do it with open source, but it would require an extreme degree of organization and discipline compared to normal open source projects.
And a large wad of cash to spend on static analysis tools and other goodies.
Possibly no right to bear arms for a few years seems a small price to pay for a free MD PhD.
Most states don't have restrictions about whether a non-citizen can keep firearms in their homes, and in my state they also can keep them in their cars just like any other citizen, and can go down to the local range and shoot however much they want. The only real restriction placed on non-US citizens where I live is that they can't obtain a concealed carry license unless they have a green card.
"Come and write code with us, Danny..."
Yes, that was my point. :-)
The 4th Amendment doesn't factor into things if the ISP doesn't demand a warrant before handing over the information, just like it doesn't factor into things if you give a cop permission to search your car and he finds something illegal. You might be able to sue the ISP for turning your data over, but the government itself did nothing illegal in that scenario. It *would* be a factor on a government-provided line, since the government would be collecting the data from another government entity that would also be subject to 4th Amendment restrictions (unlike a private ISP), so from that perspective I'd think it's actually safer for you to be putting your data on government lines.
Practically, how is this any different than what we have now, where the ISPs don't even demand a warrant before handing traffic and logs over to the government? Besides, the ISPs could put a dent in any surveillance merely by setting their customers up on a VPN to the provider's facility. I don't think content filtering is too much of an issue either, since they'd just provide the pipe, not DNS, proxies, or other services which could be used for that purpose.
I'd bet they simply don't want the prospect of any competition, since it will be substantially easier for any ISP to offer service to the city's residents. The city will be offering access to its network for any provider willing to pay for the interconnect, so there's a very low barrier of entry for any given ISP in that market.
IMO, this is *exactly* how Internet service should be offered in the US - solid public infrastructure to the customer site, and let all the providers compete to transport the individual customer's traffic from the local net to the Internet proper.
Yes, most industrial lasers are Class IV. I'm not sure I understand what the power of the laser has to do with the issue - speckle is present anytime you have any kind of coherent light source, regardless of power. A 5 watt green YAG doesn't speckle any more or less than a 5 milliwatt unit.
wouldn't the fact that we have a mirror moving the beam in the kilohertz sideways mean that the beam is moving faster than the eye can perceive
Yes, but as long as the optical path is the same length at any given point, speckle will still be seen at that point. Moving the beam laterally doesn't change that path length at a given point, and thus isn't altering the phase of the light at that point. Consequently, you'll have the same visible interference pattern there, which is all speckle really is. Not having seen a laser-driven TV set though, I really couldn't say how objectionable the speckle might be, so it could be a total non-issue.
Depends on who is providing the favors.
The morons that make Cinerella cant program themselves out of a paper bag
At least they can spell "Cinelerra" properly. You need to work on your use of profanity as well - using it too much tends to blunt the impact when it *does* get used. But, I guess you were too busy working on becoming a Video God to bother with such things.
That is true, but wouldn't you run into a major performance hit when running x86 software on other processors, assuming it didn't just blow up?
Most definitely. At that point, you're emulating, not virtualizing.
"Enrage" the folks you're trying to lock in?
Given that we're not only combining 3 lasers, we're also left and right starting around 38k times a second, and up and down at least 60 times a second, moving it through more than 3/4 a million pixels equivalents every 1/60th of a second. I think that varying the phase wouldn't be a big deal.
I've not worked with the laser-based TV systems, but I've had lots and lots of experience with industrial beam-steered lasers, and my experience with those that use visible wavelengths is that they exhibit extremely strong speckle no matter how fast the beam is being moved around. If the beam is being placed in exactly the same spot, with the optical path being exactly the same length, I'd think there's a pretty good chance speckle would continue to be an issue, but I can't support that prediction observationally. The problem is that you have to continuously vary the phase across the entire width of the beam such that the speckle is being changed faster than the eye can perceive. I suppose one way to do it might be by distorting the focusing lens by a fraction of a wavelength such that the optical path length on subsequent scans of a given pixel would vary quickly enough to be below the threshold of perception.
Dunno for sure, but there are a few ways to deal with the problem, most of which are covered under patents, of course. Basically the idea is to quickly (i.e. above 30 Hz or so) vary the phase of the light over a wide area so your eye doesn't have time to perceive the speckle.
So you are saying that you believe the right of 50 people in a restaurant to have a peaceful dinner is trumped by the right of somebody saying "fuckity fuckity shit you dick" at his table.
Absolutely. It's also the right of the owner of the restaurant to ask that individual to leave (and have him forcibly removed if he doesn't), and failing that, it's the dinner party's right to go someplace else to eat where they won't feel offended. There's no need for the government to get involved there. If it's in a public space, then you'll just need to deal with it, or ask the offending party yourself to tone it down.
You are saying that it is ok to walk down the sidewalk in your neighborhood yelling obscenities and racial slurs at your neighbors.
I'd argue that's "disturbing the peace", and not simply a matter of inhibiting someone's right to self-expression. It's also an extremely contrived situation, and has nothing to do with what we're talking about. Being loud and abusive to others is independent of the actual words used. The original discussion was focused on words you found offensive.
I don't believe that freedom of speech is a greater freedom to uphold than my freedom to live a peaceable life.
Someone simply saying curse words you don't approve of isn't infringing on your freedom for a peaceable life, unless they're doing it in your living room. Someone saying offensive words on the TV or radio just doesn't cut it, because it's trivially easy just to turn it off if it bothers you that much. I think we're just going to have to agree to disagree on the subject.
There's something called respect which it seems that a lot of people are missing these days. If by exercising your right to free speech you deliberately offend others - that is, you could have said what you meant without using language that you know will offend others - then what happens to their freedoms?
Absolutely nothing happens to their freedoms. No one is guaranteed the right to go through life without being offended, and it's just too bad for those folks that are too thin-skinned to deal with it. Being offended is a *conscious* reaction to an external stimulus, so it's really more the problem of the person being offended than anyone else's. Saying that respect should essentially be enforced at the point of a gun is hypocritical beyond measure, because you're saying that the rights of the other party are not worthy of respect themselves.