Was it a halon system? Those really were great fire extinguishers, unfortunately they also extinguished people, as both fire and people breathe oxygen:( Also manufacturing them created a lot of greenhouse gasses. Kinda reminiscent of that kick-butt fire resistant material: asbestos.
What are you talking about? Drawing a line is as easy in Gimp as it is in any program. You select the pencil tool and then draw (same as in Photoshop).
What are
you talking about? That's not how you draw a line in the Gimp. You didn't even mention the shift key. How somebody is supposed to figure out the pencil icon and shift key combine to draw a line, and why Gimp doesn't have a line tool, are things I'll never understand.
Everybody certainly should know by now, because that's the one feature ALWAYS thrown out to differentiate between gimp and Photoshop. It amazes me nobody has added it yet, because obviously it's a showstopper.
I'm annoyed with spam-blocking lists because my range of IPs has been blacklisted, even though I'm totally innocent. The blacklists know they have to block lots of non-spamming addresses, they don't seem to mind. But I guess ultimately those who use the lists are to blame rather than the lists themselves.
Might be a self-fulfilling prophecy. I'd imagine the MTBF for a card simply sitting in a camera is an awful lot longer than for a card that's constantly handled, plugged in and out, dropped, gets dirty, etc...
Apple has had the G5 for about a month now, AMD will have the Athlon 64 in a month and a half, and we have nothing. Better up the P4 clock rate to 5 GHz in the next 6 months and pray Joe Idiot still thinks it's faster.
Well, what if it actually IS faster? The benchmarks I've seen of the G5 and AMD 64 bit CPU are not that much higher than the current P4. I happen to think either of those 64 bit chips running Linux (or MacOS, if it has proper 64 bit support) will be super cool, but it's hard to put my finger on why.
Does this just decrease the total throughput for the base station, or does being on the same network as somebody with a slow connection actually slow you down more than if they had a fast connection?
If I'm the only one on an 11mbps network and sitting right next to the station, I'd expect all the bandwidth. If somebody else joins the same network, in fairness my bandwidth may be halved. But do I really care whether the other guy is getting 1mbps or 11mbps during his timeslice? I'm still getting half the bandwidth as if I had it all to myself, right? I would only consider it strange if a single user joining with a weak connection cut my bandwith by > 1/n.
You always have the problem of getting it admitted in a US court. Expect big battles over this. For example, if the judge isn't the most tech-savvy judge around, someone could bullshit him/her into believing that the DNA samples are unreliable.
Well, I for one think it would be a pretty good idea to establish the reliability and limitations of this technique before using it to lock people away. Especially me.
Of course, that will mean more pilots shot down by unidentified foes. The question is, how many combat deaths are you willing to sustain for each prevented friendly-fire death?
Well, it just depends, doesn't it? For listening to music in a loud place (e.g. car) you might want to compress the range. But that should be done in the player so the CD still has all the original sounds.
Also (not knowing anything about sound engineering) I can't figure out why they are scaling and clamping the amplitude rather than using a more logarithmic function, similar to gamma adjustment, so that while all but the loudest sounds get louder, the quieter sounds are still a little quieter, and the process is reversible, except for sample error.
Oh, good grief, can the "Apple" brand make people come out even in support of cassette adapters and short-range fm transmitters? They're both crap, if not double-crap. And they fly in the face of all the seamless integration and quality that Apple is supposed to stand for.
I'm not flaming you specifically, but what is this whole article about? These little fm transmitters have been on the market forever, and now that Apple makes one people are all excited about some nonexistant "micro-radio" trend.
Maybe this stuff can be put in all those crappy DSL modems and routers that freeze up due to overheating.
It actually will not help much.... There is a 0 degree difference between using the sivler stuff and the generic goo. I've also swapped from the goo to silver paste on my old dual 700 when replaceing a processor. No measurable difference in heat/performance.
Come on, man, that's exactly the article's point! Like way down in, oh yes, the second paragraph when zzz said "Current high end pastes range widely in composition, but in terms of performance they all fall within a very small degree range" and "...all of these products still get very similar results. A degree or two at most is all you can hope for in moving from one brand to another." But then zzz goes on to state that this new stuff is a lot better, and even better than ground up diamonds and... wait, why am I summarizing this article? It's not even a page long!
Put it this way: you have a choice between two firewalls. You put the binaries for each through this software and one report shows repeated use of classes with known vulnerabilities.
Which vendor are you going to buy from?
That's the problem; this tool isn't a good basis for making a decision like that. It can only detect a few of all the different possible problems there might be.
The closest thing I've used to this new program is Purify.
Let me pose this question: What does it mean for code to run "Purify clean?"
Answer: It means whoever developed the code has access to Purify and worked on getting rid of the warnings one by one until there were none left. Does it mean the code is higher quality? Yes, it's probably at least a bit higher quality than it was beforehand. But does that mean it's higher quality than some other code which isn't Purify-clean? Not necessarily. Just as code that compiles without warnings is not necessarily better than code that compiles with some warnings. It's like a used car that has been through one of those "40-point inspections>" It doesn't guarantee years of trouble-free driving by any means.
Is hardware encoding really a must? First, today's general purpose CPUs are so fast and so cheap, it would seem a specialized chip would need very broad appeal to be worth it. Second, these cable boxes that just record the data already compressed, as recieved from the cable co, seem like a FAR more elegant solution. No quality degredation from re-encoding, no fast compression hardware necessary.
Don't forget, it was this kind of unauthorized "smuggling" that started the adoption of personal computers over minicomputer terminals back when. A lot of those IBM PCs and XTs didn't have Corporate Computing Support either. Sometimes companies just don't know what's good for them:)
You're right. None of those is legal or should be legal. Because they are discrimination based on attributes that are and should be seen as irrelevant to the point; race w.r.t. education or gender w.r.t. occupations.
No, under the law you can not use such criteria, period. It doesn't matter if you show that the criteria is relevent.
Hypothetically, you say you showed that some racial minority has a higher loan default rate. Does this mean you can charge them higher interest? No. What if you could prove that women don't stay in the same job as long, or take more personal leave. Can you legally pay them less? No. Hypothetically, say you note that some minority has a higher crime rate, which would tend to decrease the value of your rental property. Can you charge members of that minority higher rent? No.
The law simply bars discrimination on certain criteria, regardless of whether it is economically justified. Society has judged that the social hardship of allowing such distinctions isn't worth any potential financial benefit.
The Insurance Services Office (ISO), a statistical-gathering group for the insurance industry, suggested back in 1997 eliminating the insurance premium discount for motorists over age 75 due to their declining driving records. The ISO says its research shows drivers over age 75 experienced more losses -- property damage and bodily injuries -- relative to other drivers, so the ISO recommended eliminating the 20 percent discount, which would effectively be a rate increase. Approximately one-third of all auto insurers in the nation subscribe to the ISO's research and have the option to use it in setting their own premium rates.
Insurance companies cannot single out elderly drivers and raise premiums solely because of age -- that's against the law. Rather, if the insurer can show that drivers over age 75 are more risky, and when they are involved in crashes, they suffer more debilitating, long-term injuries than younger motorists, their premiums can legitimately increase.
Knowledgeable industry sources say Colonial Penn and USAA have raised rates for elderly drivers within the last couple of years. Those sources expect that trend to continue among other insurers.
The Hartford says premium increases are a reflection of driving histories, not age. The Hartford markets auto insurance to senior citizens through the AARP.
This is obviously in contradiction with the higher premiums paid by young drivers, who *are* penalized for their age, even if they have perfect driving records.
My point is simply that discrimination against certain groups is taboo, and will not soon be tolerated regardless of whether it is statistically justified. This is obvious from the anti-discrimination laws themselves, which make no allowance for discriminating on the basis of statistics.
No, it is not totally legal in all cases. It is illegal to charge blacks higher rent because you think they'll trash the place, or charge the elderly more for auto insurance, even though they're a higher risk. In some cases voters place other values over economic efficiency.
You know, if there is going to be something called a "Darwin Award," in the true spirit of Darwinism it should be given to whomever makes the most babies. Just so everybody has a fair chance they could exclude cockroaches and NBA players.
Slashdot Mirror
Was it a halon system? Those really were great fire extinguishers, unfortunately they also extinguished people, as both fire and people breathe oxygen :( Also manufacturing them created a lot of greenhouse gasses. Kinda reminiscent of that kick-butt fire resistant material: asbestos.
Everybody certainly should know by now, because that's the one feature ALWAYS thrown out to differentiate between gimp and Photoshop. It amazes me nobody has added it yet, because obviously it's a showstopper.
Maybe SCO will claim ownership of everything right down to the ideas of pipes, inodes, and accessing devices as files.
Well, at least that TruControl one lets you move along the quiet to cool continum in software, without extra parts.
I'm annoyed with spam-blocking lists because my range of IPs has been blacklisted, even though I'm totally innocent. The blacklists know they have to block lots of non-spamming addresses, they don't seem to mind. But I guess ultimately those who use the lists are to blame rather than the lists themselves.
Might be a self-fulfilling prophecy. I'd imagine the MTBF for a card simply sitting in a camera is an awful lot longer than for a card that's constantly handled, plugged in and out, dropped, gets dirty, etc...
Cheaper still and even more points of failure!
Interesting... though it would be much more interesting to see some benchmarks backing up the theory.
If I'm the only one on an 11mbps network and sitting right next to the station, I'd expect all the bandwidth. If somebody else joins the same network, in fairness my bandwidth may be halved. But do I really care whether the other guy is getting 1mbps or 11mbps during his timeslice? I'm still getting half the bandwidth as if I had it all to myself, right? I would only consider it strange if a single user joining with a weak connection cut my bandwith by > 1/n.
Of course, that will mean more pilots shot down by unidentified foes. The question is, how many combat deaths are you willing to sustain for each prevented friendly-fire death?
Also (not knowing anything about sound engineering) I can't figure out why they are scaling and clamping the amplitude rather than using a more logarithmic function, similar to gamma adjustment, so that while all but the loudest sounds get louder, the quieter sounds are still a little quieter, and the process is reversible, except for sample error.
I'm not flaming you specifically, but what is this whole article about? These little fm transmitters have been on the market forever, and now that Apple makes one people are all excited about some nonexistant "micro-radio" trend.
The closest thing I've used to this new program is Purify. Let me pose this question: What does it mean for code to run "Purify clean?"
Answer: It means whoever developed the code has access to Purify and worked on getting rid of the warnings one by one until there were none left. Does it mean the code is higher quality? Yes, it's probably at least a bit higher quality than it was beforehand. But does that mean it's higher quality than some other code which isn't Purify-clean? Not necessarily. Just as code that compiles without warnings is not necessarily better than code that compiles with some warnings. It's like a used car that has been through one of those "40-point inspections>" It doesn't guarantee years of trouble-free driving by any means.
Is hardware encoding really a must? First, today's general purpose CPUs are so fast and so cheap, it would seem a specialized chip would need very broad appeal to be worth it. Second, these cable boxes that just record the data already compressed, as recieved from the cable co, seem like a FAR more elegant solution. No quality degredation from re-encoding, no fast compression hardware necessary.
Don't forget, it was this kind of unauthorized "smuggling" that started the adoption of personal computers over minicomputer terminals back when. A lot of those IBM PCs and XTs didn't have Corporate Computing Support either. Sometimes companies just don't know what's good for them :)
Hypothetically, you say you showed that some racial minority has a higher loan default rate. Does this mean you can charge them higher interest? No. What if you could prove that women don't stay in the same job as long, or take more personal leave. Can you legally pay them less? No. Hypothetically, say you note that some minority has a higher crime rate, which would tend to decrease the value of your rental property. Can you charge members of that minority higher rent? No.
The law simply bars discrimination on certain criteria, regardless of whether it is economically justified. Society has judged that the social hardship of allowing such distinctions isn't worth any potential financial benefit.
My point is simply that discrimination against certain groups is taboo, and will not soon be tolerated regardless of whether it is statistically justified. This is obvious from the anti-discrimination laws themselves, which make no allowance for discriminating on the basis of statistics.
That is a false distinction. Showing a rational economic basis for discriminating against a protected group doesn't make it legal.
No, it is not totally legal in all cases. It is illegal to charge blacks higher rent because you think they'll trash the place, or charge the elderly more for auto insurance, even though they're a higher risk. In some cases voters place other values over economic efficiency.
You know, if there is going to be something called a "Darwin Award," in the true spirit of Darwinism it should be given to whomever makes the most babies. Just so everybody has a fair chance they could exclude cockroaches and NBA players.