So if you are (unjustifiably) worried about diet soda, your alternative is to drink 100% juice or water.
Actually, juice has lots of calories too, 112 calories per cup of orange juice. If you drank as much orange juice as people do soda, you'd get fat off it. Of course, if you eat natural foods, you tend to eat more moderately, I've found. But I'm just saying.
I drink or eat anything I want to, and none if it ever gives me headaches or causes any other physical problems..... I lived in China for 9 months and lost 15 pounds without even trying, just because the food was so much healthier (no ice creams or cookies or cakes or pies or any kind of junk food really)
Umm --- am I the only one who thinks there is a teeny contradiction here? Or I guess maybe you consider obesity to be not a type of physical problem. Can you say "Type II diabetes"? "Heart disease?"
even though I lost that weight in China, I felt no better or worse than I did back in the USA once I gained it back
So Mac OS X, which had only one vulnerability rated high priority and none rated severe, lost to Windows, which had 12?
This makes no sense to me. I'm open minded, but this seems like the real surprise is these peoples' definition of "most secure." Mac OS X had more total vulnerability, but the vast majority were non-severe, moderate or low priority, compared to Microsoft's offering, more than 25% of whose vulnerabilities were severe or high priority.
I'd like to know how long it took apple to fix its one high priority vulnerability. I'll bet it was fast.
Anyhow, this is a crazy analysis.
Does this beat Tivo, is my question. I'm certain the interface is way way better than TiVo, but Apple loves its DRM. I'm just hoping it does what TiVo does eventually -- then I'll buy it. If it's just a glorified iTunes video player, then I don't really care much.
That is not true. Just because something is non-linear and chaotic does not necessarily mean that you cannot restore it to state A once it's moved from state A to state B.
The classic rebuttal to your rebuttal is that you had to load 4 programs to do your work, so if you were doing this to hundreds of files, perl would kick your ass badly. Especially because perl could do the hundreds of files in ONE invocation. Nice try, though.:-)
Here's another analogy. You go to WalMart and buy a sleeping bag and the clerk at the counter mistakenly rings you up for $5.00 instead of $50.00. Or he or she hands you $50 in change when the register says $5.00. You absolutely can leave the store with "your" extra money, but if you admitted in court that you knew it was a mistake, I'm sure the law would say you stole the money, and so would anyone else. So anyone who accepts the second DVD set knowingly under false pretenses has stolen it. And you cannot convincingly say you didn't know that Amazon was not giving away free DVD sets, come on, that's not an honest argument. Amazon has a right to get their money back, but they should ask a court to allow it.
What would happen if you just displayed four random colors? I wonder how many patterns you'd see. Anyhow, I doubt that at the level of the four basic ACGT elements, there is any obvious information
Whether you agree or not with the article, it was not "an editorial in the Economist," it was a letter to the Editor, wasn't it? Not fair to attribute it to the Economist.
it should be possible to design an AAC encoder that can take advantage of the knowledge that the input is the result of expanding a 128 kbit/second stereo AAC file, and compress back to something that matches that original AAC file.
This assumes that AAC encoding is invertible, which may or may not be true. Just because you can decode something does not mean you can re-encode it, or many forms of encryption would be broken, including those used in ssh. Even if there is only one AAC encoding that can result in a given sound file, which you seem to imply, discovering what that encoding was may not be so simple. Simply using AAC encoding on a sound file decoded from AAC may not turn out to be a lossless process vis a viz the original. In particular, I could imagine a small difference in leading silence in the sound file from the original could skew the whole thing, or perhaps the original AAC encoding was from a digital source instead of analog. I am talking out of my hat here, of course, and apologize if this is hogwash.
politically active bloggers with $100,000 salaries or budgets are lobbyists
That's ridiculous. A blogger is not a lobbyist, unless you define lobbying as trying to influence the public's opinion -- in which case I'm lobbying right now. I always thought a lobbyist was someone who was talking to CONGRESS about issues -- that's what "lobby" means to me, although wikipedia disagrees with me and agrees with you. All these efforts to control lobbying and speech are doomed to backfire, squelching true speech and exempting the big money interests. The real problem is corruption in Congress and the solution is for us to pay attention and vote people out when we smell corruption. Unrealistic? Then we get what we deserve.
I've got 250+ encrypted songs I'd really like to play on my Linux box with its superior sound setup, instead of on my iBook.
You may already know about this, but here is how to un-DRM your songs: simply burn them to an audio CD, then re-import them from the CD's. Sure, you theoretically lose sound quality this way, but I cannot tell the difference, and I'll bet if I blindfolded you, you couldn't either.
This is a bit tedious when done by hand for a large number of songs. The only working Macintosh utility to automate this process that I know of is "DRM Dumpster," which uses a single CD-RW over and over to get the job done. Worked great for me. Other utilities seem to have bugs that prevented me from using them.
here is no need for new "rules". The situation is no different to, for example, bad singing or randomly speaking words at a normal volume. I would expect most people would consider that rude, if someone else sat down next to them and started doing it.
Sorry, but it IS different from that. In your example, the person is singing or speaking for apparently no reason, which makes you nervous because it's freakish behavior, typical of mental illness and so potentially dangerous. In the case of the cell phone, the person engaging in the call is doing something very normal and natural. They just do not take into account or don't care if you hear it and it bothers you. They act as if their friend was right next to them. Which makes me wonder, if you have TWO people sitting next to you talking, does that spin you up too? A cell phone conversation is HALF of that, and yet it's more annoying somehow. Kind of weird.
going postal when the impolite person sitting next to me yaks and yaks for 5 hours straight
Your only defense will be noise-cancelling earphones. It's not clear whether society has figured out all the rules of propriety when using a cell phone.
having defined "undefined" as a New Thing (TM) and teaching it to his students without consulting any other experts. If you want to change the world, go ahead and try, but please don't ruin a child's life in doing so.
If find your view of an educator's role (that of passing down anointed and proven information) to be somewhat stifling. It does not ruin a child's life to be exposed to this idea, even if it is a bit weird. It's not like he's teaching them to shoot heroin. The best schools expose kids to a variety of ideas and give them the tools to analyize them, they don't pass down information like it's from God and say "believe it or fail!"
Right. It's just the bad photojournalists - that is, 90% of them* - who will be out of a job.
I know you were being sarcastic, but if 90% (or whatever percent) of current photojournalists can't compete favorably against a kid with a cell phone, I say they really ought to get out of their business anyhow. If you don't provide real value by your efforts, then society should not encourage you to keep doing them.
This is like saying that the availability of the Internet is going to destroy all fine literature. Professional, high-quality work is always in demand. Consumers will just have more choice and photojournalists will have to differentiate themselves with higher quality.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, juice has lots of calories too, 112 calories per cup of orange juice. If you drank as much orange juice as people do soda, you'd get fat off it. Of course, if you eat natural foods, you tend to eat more moderately, I've found. But I'm just saying.
Umm --- am I the only one who thinks there is a teeny contradiction here? Or I guess maybe you consider obesity to be not a type of physical problem. Can you say "Type II diabetes"? "Heart disease?"
even though I lost that weight in China, I felt no better or worse than I did back in the USA once I gained it back
And your conclusion, Dr. Nonsequitor?
The decision was unmade some time ago. It is correct to speak of octopuses, platypuses, walruses, etc.
Do partisan politics grant psychic abilities?
I knew you were going to ask that, you Communist!
So Mac OS X, which had only one vulnerability rated high priority and none rated severe, lost to Windows, which had 12? This makes no sense to me. I'm open minded, but this seems like the real surprise is these peoples' definition of "most secure." Mac OS X had more total vulnerability, but the vast majority were non-severe, moderate or low priority, compared to Microsoft's offering, more than 25% of whose vulnerabilities were severe or high priority. I'd like to know how long it took apple to fix its one high priority vulnerability. I'll bet it was fast. Anyhow, this is a crazy analysis.
Does this beat Tivo, is my question. I'm certain the interface is way way better than TiVo, but Apple loves its DRM. I'm just hoping it does what TiVo does eventually -- then I'll buy it. If it's just a glorified iTunes video player, then I don't really care much.
By coincidence, a NYT article seems relevant: Brain injuries affect morality:
Correction: there's no KNOWN way to "scrub" them. :-)
That is not true. Just because something is non-linear and chaotic does not necessarily mean that you cannot restore it to state A once it's moved from state A to state B.
The classic rebuttal to your rebuttal is that you had to load 4 programs to do your work, so if you were doing this to hundreds of files, perl would kick your ass badly. Especially because perl could do the hundreds of files in ONE invocation. Nice try, though. :-)
We really need to take some of our melting ice caps and burn them so we can melt more of our ice caps away.
I think the part of your argument that people are missing is the part about "having a shred of integrity." :-)
Here's another analogy. You go to WalMart and buy a sleeping bag and the clerk at the counter mistakenly rings you up for $5.00 instead of $50.00. Or he or she hands you $50 in change when the register says $5.00. You absolutely can leave the store with "your" extra money, but if you admitted in court that you knew it was a mistake, I'm sure the law would say you stole the money, and so would anyone else. So anyone who accepts the second DVD set knowingly under false pretenses has stolen it. And you cannot convincingly say you didn't know that Amazon was not giving away free DVD sets, come on, that's not an honest argument. Amazon has a right to get their money back, but they should ask a court to allow it.
What would happen if you just displayed four random colors? I wonder how many patterns you'd see. Anyhow, I doubt that at the level of the four basic ACGT elements, there is any obvious information
Whether you agree or not with the article, it was not "an editorial in the Economist," it was a letter to the Editor, wasn't it? Not fair to attribute it to the Economist.
This assumes that AAC encoding is invertible, which may or may not be true. Just because you can decode something does not mean you can re-encode it, or many forms of encryption would be broken, including those used in ssh. Even if there is only one AAC encoding that can result in a given sound file, which you seem to imply, discovering what that encoding was may not be so simple. Simply using AAC encoding on a sound file decoded from AAC may not turn out to be a lossless process vis a viz the original. In particular, I could imagine a small difference in leading silence in the sound file from the original could skew the whole thing, or perhaps the original AAC encoding was from a digital source instead of analog. I am talking out of my hat here, of course, and apologize if this is hogwash.
That's ridiculous. A blogger is not a lobbyist, unless you define lobbying as trying to influence the public's opinion -- in which case I'm lobbying right now. I always thought a lobbyist was someone who was talking to CONGRESS about issues -- that's what "lobby" means to me, although wikipedia disagrees with me and agrees with you. All these efforts to control lobbying and speech are doomed to backfire, squelching true speech and exempting the big money interests. The real problem is corruption in Congress and the solution is for us to pay attention and vote people out when we smell corruption. Unrealistic? Then we get what we deserve.
You may already know about this, but here is how to un-DRM your songs: simply burn them to an audio CD, then re-import them from the CD's. Sure, you theoretically lose sound quality this way, but I cannot tell the difference, and I'll bet if I blindfolded you, you couldn't either.
This is a bit tedious when done by hand for a large number of songs. The only working Macintosh utility to automate this process that I know of is "DRM Dumpster," which uses a single CD-RW over and over to get the job done. Worked great for me. Other utilities seem to have bugs that prevented me from using them.
All you need to know is when the next Presidential election is, and you know when the next state of alarm will sound.
Sorry, but it IS different from that. In your example, the person is singing or speaking for apparently no reason, which makes you nervous because it's freakish behavior, typical of mental illness and so potentially dangerous. In the case of the cell phone, the person engaging in the call is doing something very normal and natural. They just do not take into account or don't care if you hear it and it bothers you. They act as if their friend was right next to them. Which makes me wonder, if you have TWO people sitting next to you talking, does that spin you up too? A cell phone conversation is HALF of that, and yet it's more annoying somehow. Kind of weird.
Your only defense will be noise-cancelling earphones. It's not clear whether society has figured out all the rules of propriety when using a cell phone.
If find your view of an educator's role (that of passing down anointed and proven information) to be somewhat stifling. It does not ruin a child's life to be exposed to this idea, even if it is a bit weird. It's not like he's teaching them to shoot heroin. The best schools expose kids to a variety of ideas and give them the tools to analyize them, they don't pass down information like it's from God and say "believe it or fail!"
I know you were being sarcastic, but if 90% (or whatever percent) of current photojournalists can't compete favorably against a kid with a cell phone, I say they really ought to get out of their business anyhow. If you don't provide real value by your efforts, then society should not encourage you to keep doing them.
Robots! The thing of the future... A new tool to make us even lazier and use more power! Yahoo!
This is like saying that the availability of the Internet is going to destroy all fine literature. Professional, high-quality work is always in demand. Consumers will just have more choice and photojournalists will have to differentiate themselves with higher quality.