The only thing he could be slammed for is claiming surprise at what is blindingly obvious - that a world full of world-destroying weapons is an incredibly dangerous and unstable situation, and poses a risk far beyond any other faced by the human race. People equate the threat of terrorism to the cold war, what a joke. During the Cuban Missile Crisis we were that close to millions of deaths, and possibly the end of a human-habitable climate on earth! In the last few years nukes have proliferated like never before. Any sane person can see this is by far the biggest threat faced by humanity - really the only good shot we have at snuffing ourselves out entirely.
Yes. It was a mistake IMHO for google to use the weak argument that people can opt out. The stronger argument is: "the outside of your house is outside and it's none of your business if we photograph it." Letting people opt out is good PR but I doubt they're legally required to do so. As an amateur photographer the idea of having to get permission from every person who owns something that falls into one of my pictures is terrifying - and utterly pointless!
If a photo decreases the value of their precious home, maybe they should quit yapping and do some yard work.
Outsourcing is a good thing for the economy, not a bad thing. If Ford did not outsource, for example, it would have to make everything from the drills for the oil, the refineries for the gasoline, the machines to make the steel and the chips and the plastic, really, recreate the entire economy and in doing so lose the efficiencies that come with shared costs. We can lament outsourcing of some function at a company, to make ourselves feel good, but, if there were no outsourcing, there would be no cars, no tvs, computers, or any of the millions of products, in all their choice and complexity, because those products would not exist without outsourcing.
You can't defend outsourcing by redefining it. Nobody concerned about outsourcing is referring to domestic trade, that's a total straw man!
To claim that everybody has benefited (net) from outsourcing is just crazy. I'll take a wild guess here that you don't live in Detroit. Cheap imports don't offset being unemployed. Even the most devout capitalist knows there are winners and losers.
Outsourcing (meaning foreign trade, especially between vastly unequal economies) has a whole slew of effects. How do you show the benefits are more than the drawbacks? Especially if you restrict the analysis to the US instead of the world economy as a whole? Nothing you said even addresses the issue.
Every enterprise "using" something just means it has over 0% penetration. Just because somebody in the company scripts in Perl (which is open source) doesn't mean it's taking over.
"Name one player besides Apple's that plays iTMS protected AAC."
I can't tell if you're serious or just stupid. iPods play ACC (DRM or not) and MP3s. They don't play WMA (DRM or not). I don't know of a single player of WMA (DRM or not). I don't doubt that they exist, I'm just saying I don't which one does or doesn't. Mainly I don't care, because who the heck uses WMA (DRM or not).
There are other players for ACC out there, besides Apple, they just can't play Apple's DRMed version.
Can you even read? You just called a guy stupid and then said he was right.
Personally I think this is a good thing. Better to spend money to do things the tried and true way than to experiment with a "hi-tech" solution that may or may not have exploitable weaknesses in it.
I can't imagine WalMart, or any other successful business attempting to do inventory (yes, that's what a census amounts to) purely on paper because they can't get their act together, or have money to burn. This is just as frustrating as the IRS refusal to offer an official free tax filing website. $3 billion extra dollars! All for a census that's riddled with extra transcription errors and will obviously be entered into computers in the end anyways, to be of any use at all.
I don't think the idea for this general type of service is anything new. Success will hinge on how well they maintain the integrity of the data. If there's nothing to stop the police or anti-speeding vigilantes from putting in thousands of false alarms, it will fail. If the data is all out of date or coverage is so spotty you can't rely on it, it will fail.
Blogging is just another form of published media - it can be used for any reason.
That's missing the point entirely. We have every right to instruct our military not to propagandize us. We're not talking about a private individual or private company doing this, we're talking about how tax dollars are spent. Allowing the military to get involved in politics is a one-way street to disaster, so we should absolutely put a stop to it.
People who support public schools are out there urging people to vote "yes" on education bonds all the time (and yes that example does state clearly what the added taxes will be).
Thus no waste light which gets converted into heat.
Most of it would still be wasted if you're bouncing it off a screen, since it reflects off on some other direction than through your pupil.
Diode lasers beaming onto the lens of your eye (instead of a screen), now you're getting somewhere.
But then there's still direct optic nerve stimulation... that would be neat for a lot of reasons. Re-purposing the highest bandwidth link into your brain has endless possibilities.
You better tell these guys because their business is OCR'ing license plates. It's not research. I rent cars from Avis in Orlando fairly regularly and they have this option right now.
That could be the worst effect of this... undermining the standards bodies. Getting competitors to play nice is hard enough even when they aren't stabbing each other in the back. Now they're more likely to figure it's safer just to go their own proprietary ways, which would mean more expensive and incompatible gear for us.
The idea that there are no set standards for beauty is wishful thinking. Every guy wants to find a girl who is beautiful and for some reason nobody else has noticed. In reality this never happens. The next time you see a pretty woman in the airport, don't look at her, look at all the guys as she walks by, it's quite noticeable. Attractive people are treated better from a young age and, knowingly or unknowingly, they leverage this asset to get what they want. This is not some quirk in the study of psychology, it's the driving force behind the behaviors that shape evolution. It's a cruel trick of nature that we are not all created equal, and I'm glad we're civilized enough to moderate some of the resulting inequality.
I am still confounded as to why Java applets wouldn't be perfect for this sort of thing. Bandwidth, memory, and CPU are all fast enough to handle Java now, yet the applet revolution that looked so promising 10 years ago stillstubbornly refuses to occur.
Is this becoming common for proofs to be done by searching through billions of combinations (albeit, reduced to that number only through some clever observations about symmetry) and simply showing that each one is possible because your computer found a solution? Sometimes we talk about the number of steps in a proof, this proof must have trillions of steps. Not complaining, it just seems like a uniquely computer-age technique. I know of no reason to assume that every true thing that can be proven has a concise, elegant proof - in fact I'm sure that cannot be true because there are only so many small numbers to go around!
Slashdot Mirror
The only thing he could be slammed for is claiming surprise at what is blindingly obvious - that a world full of world-destroying weapons is an incredibly dangerous and unstable situation, and poses a risk far beyond any other faced by the human race. People equate the threat of terrorism to the cold war, what a joke. During the Cuban Missile Crisis we were that close to millions of deaths, and possibly the end of a human-habitable climate on earth! In the last few years nukes have proliferated like never before. Any sane person can see this is by far the biggest threat faced by humanity - really the only good shot we have at snuffing ourselves out entirely.
If a photo decreases the value of their precious home, maybe they should quit yapping and do some yard work.
Maybe we don't need people making dangerous supply runs in the Space Shuttle.
RTA: "Only Russia has previously achieved a successful automated docking in space," Dr. Griffin said in a statement.
To claim that everybody has benefited (net) from outsourcing is just crazy. I'll take a wild guess here that you don't live in Detroit. Cheap imports don't offset being unemployed. Even the most devout capitalist knows there are winners and losers.
Outsourcing (meaning foreign trade, especially between vastly unequal economies) has a whole slew of effects. How do you show the benefits are more than the drawbacks? Especially if you restrict the analysis to the US instead of the world economy as a whole? Nothing you said even addresses the issue.
Every enterprise "using" something just means it has over 0% penetration. Just because somebody in the company scripts in Perl (which is open source) doesn't mean it's taking over.
Now Windows has ~90% of the market place and Apple has ~6%. I'd be very surprised if only 6% of photoshop users run Macs!
I don't think the idea for this general type of service is anything new. Success will hinge on how well they maintain the integrity of the data. If there's nothing to stop the police or anti-speeding vigilantes from putting in thousands of false alarms, it will fail. If the data is all out of date or coverage is so spotty you can't rely on it, it will fail.
Really? Is there any penalty here, or just back payments? If the latter, it's essentially just a failed gambit, no harm no foul.
People who support public schools are out there urging people to vote "yes" on education bonds all the time (and yes that example does state clearly what the added taxes will be).
Diode lasers beaming onto the lens of your eye (instead of a screen), now you're getting somewhere.
But then there's still direct optic nerve stimulation... that would be neat for a lot of reasons. Re-purposing the highest bandwidth link into your brain has endless possibilities.
You better tell these guys because their business is OCR'ing license plates. It's not research. I rent cars from Avis in Orlando fairly regularly and they have this option right now.
That could be the worst effect of this... undermining the standards bodies. Getting competitors to play nice is hard enough even when they aren't stabbing each other in the back. Now they're more likely to figure it's safer just to go their own proprietary ways, which would mean more expensive and incompatible gear for us.
The idea that there are no set standards for beauty is wishful thinking. Every guy wants to find a girl who is beautiful and for some reason nobody else has noticed. In reality this never happens. The next time you see a pretty woman in the airport, don't look at her, look at all the guys as she walks by, it's quite noticeable. Attractive people are treated better from a young age and, knowingly or unknowingly, they leverage this asset to get what they want. This is not some quirk in the study of psychology, it's the driving force behind the behaviors that shape evolution. It's a cruel trick of nature that we are not all created equal, and I'm glad we're civilized enough to moderate some of the resulting inequality.
The population density canard pops up every time there's a discussion like this, no matter how little sense it makes. It won't die.
I am still confounded as to why Java applets wouldn't be perfect for this sort of thing. Bandwidth, memory, and CPU are all fast enough to handle Java now, yet the applet revolution that looked so promising 10 years ago stillstubbornly refuses to occur.
Darn, I was hoping they re-implemented Photoshop in 100% pure HTML 1.0.
What are you complaining about? Some of us gentoo users haven't even finished compiling the last release yet!
Heck, they should just switch over to throwing tennis balls at each other. And if that fails, wads of paper. Try banning paper!
Is this becoming common for proofs to be done by searching through billions of combinations (albeit, reduced to that number only through some clever observations about symmetry) and simply showing that each one is possible because your computer found a solution? Sometimes we talk about the number of steps in a proof, this proof must have trillions of steps. Not complaining, it just seems like a uniquely computer-age technique. I know of no reason to assume that every true thing that can be proven has a concise, elegant proof - in fact I'm sure that cannot be true because there are only so many small numbers to go around!