maybe the recognition rate and quality is higher than OCR and now people are just reading the documents in with voice Rec apps?
Assume you have documents you want to convert to digital text (and not just scan).
If you have money, then you either hire a temp to type them in for $100 a day, or contract them out to some poor schmuck in India to type them in for $5 a day.
If you don't have money, then your probably not what capitalists like to call a "customer."
I'm assuming people got sick of paying $39.95 for OCR software that didn't do jack squat, and was about as reliable as handing your documents to a spastic monkey. I'm also assuming software makers got sick of making $3 or $4 (or less) on each package, only to get a million tech support calls along the lines of "It doesn't work. I want my money back."
For $400, I'm guessing the software vendors can afford a small amount of support, and can expect the users to be willing to understand the limits of the software.
All and all it felt a bit like overkill, but considering that the statue is probably one of the most important symbols of America, it makes sense to so heavily gaurd it.
It's not one of the most important symbols of America. It's one of of the most important symbols of the Liberty that America represents.
It's hard to type right now because I am crying. For real.
Huh? At what point did "copy and distribute a copyright work, in whole, without permission, on a massive scale" become "Fair Use?" You might want to read the fine print on the bottom of your law degree again -- I suspect "Cracker Jack Box Law School" is not an accredited university.
Has the copyright owner approved the redistribtion of this patch by third parties? Or can this be described as "Legal P2P" only using some brand new defintion of "Legal"?
I think inexpensive distributed file hosting is a great idea, and I think P2P networks are a great way to implement that. But, copyright infringement is still copyright infringement, even if you're able to justify it to yourself.
Anyone who wasn't born in the same country as I was should be ground up in an industrial grinder. Their body fat should be rendered into deisel fuel for my SUV. The water in their body should be used for crop irrigation. Finally, any remaining by-products should be processed into animal feed.
This way, we won't have to worry about non-white people benefitting from our research.
I don't think you understand US elections. US voting isn't complicated because there are many different ballots, and each ballot is large. That contributes, but only slightly. US voting is complicated because every single county in the United States is responsible for buying and maintaining its own polling equipment (with no help for the state or federal government) and for determining list the eligible voters itself (again, with no help from the state or federal government).
Every state is required to set its own rules for elections, and in (for example) the presidential elections may select the electors in any way the state wishes to do so. In the presidential elections, every state will have a unique list of canidates, and every county will implement those ballots in a unique way.
In the United States, elections work well in some some states and counties and are miserable failures in other states and counties. Unfortunately, there is no way to challenge corruption or systemic failures (such as Florida's in the 2000 presidential election) above the county level -- in 2000, the US Supreme Court basically claimed that the Feds have no authority in federal elections.
It certainly doesn't help that the most important elections -- local level and to some extent state level positions -- are virtually ignored by everyone and often tacked onto the relatively unimportant federal ballots almost as an afterthought. I can't imagine why anyone would want to save money and time by corrupting the single most important function of our country, but there you go. We probably spend more money on traffic cones in the United States than we do on the actual polling, but for some reason we want to save money on the polling. It's stupid, and it has lead to some pretty horrible corruption, and some downright miserable ballots. Oh well.
If I wrote a book with the same name as your website, LazyLightning.Org, and then advertized and promoted my book LazyLightning.Org, would you be upset?
What if I hired a promoter to get me on TV as much as possible, with instructions to make sure that every time I was on TV I was introduced by my name and with the name of my book, LazyLightning.Org. And, what if I made a point of promoting my book, LazyLightning.Org every time my paid promoter managed to get me in front of an audience?
Are you saying that you'd have no reason to be upset?
Or, maybe everyone could be a moderator for every post, and have be able to moderation "I think this post should be a -1, and that one should be a +3, and that one should be a +5." Then, a post's score could be weighted average of everyone's moderation for that post.
Of course, this would cause two problems. The first problem is obvious -- how to determine the weight given to each moderator. On a system like slashdot where a significant percentage of the feedback is abusive, developing a system to moderate the moderators is going to be very difficult.
The second problem is much, much more serious -- if the rules of the Slashdot Karma game are changed, will it still be as fun to play, and will it continue to have as many players? Slashdot is insanely succsessful because the people who visit find it addictively rewarding. Don't assume the attraction is rational, and don't assume you know exactly what the rewards are, even for yourself. "Improvements" to the moderation (or the color scheme, or the editing) could very easily drive people away from this site.
Wow. You should install metal detectors at the enterances to the labs, so that no-one is able to bring in a really big magnet and erase the hard drives that way, too.
People who are really busy could browse at +5 "Don't do anything else until you read this !!!"
It would be awesome if Slashdot moderation worked like that at all. But, it doesn't. Moderators don't decide "this post is worth a 3, while that one is worth a 5, and that one is worth a -1." Moderators are only given three choices for a post: +1, 0, and -1. Slashdot uses an insanely boneheaded algorithm to map those three moderation choices to seven different thresholds: -1, 0, +1, +2, +3, +4, and +5.
Assume 100% of the people reading a post find it very informative. If only one of those readers moderates, that post is going to get a 0, 1, 2, or 3 (depending on the person who submitted the post).
Conversely, assume 60% of the readers find a post mildly informative, and 40% of the moderators believe a post is horribly misinformed. If 30 of those readers moderate, that post is going to always get a 5.
In other words, browsing at +5 doesn't mean "show me the best posts." Slashdot is designed so that browsing at +5 means "show me the posts that have been seen by the largest number of readers with mod points." Articles, because they are seen by so many readers, will always be at +5 or -1, and almost never anything in between.
Psychologists who design casinos for a living could probably explain the reward system in play -- why is such an obviously non-useful system paradoxically so successful? Probably for the same reason people throw away money on slot machines. Allowing the moderation of articles would be like a slot machine that just simply gave back 75 cents every time you put in a dollar and pulled the lever. A lot more efficient, but much less appealing.
I suspect the biggest threat from "auction snipers" is to the sellers, not to the buyers.
A perfectly rational buyer is going to enter a maximum bid amount based on what he or she thinks the item is worth and then be done with it. But, buyers are seldom "perfectly rational." Once someone bids on an item, the bidder forms an attachment to it -- when outbid, there's a competition with the other bidders. Bidders rationalize raising their previous "maximum price", because they really want the item, and "maybe it's worth more than I thought."
This irrational behavior benefits the seller, because irrational people bidding more on an item than it's worth are a great way for a seller to make more money. This, in turn, benefits eBay because the sellers are happier.
Conversely, the auction snipers benefit the buyers. The temptation to bid "just a little more" is removed. The reward system geared to unhealthy addictive behavior is gone. The bidder decides on a maximum rational amount, puts in a bid, and either gets the item or doesn't. It's perfect. Paradoxically, though, this makes the bidder unhappy. Bidders feel cheated, because they waited all the way to the end of an auction, feel soooo close to getting thier dream item, start to form an attachment, and the item is snatched away by a "sniper." Never mind that the sniper just paid more than the bidder thought the item was worth -- the bidder feels cheated, because he lost the opportunity to behave irrationally.
Bid sniping makes both bidders and sellers unhappy. It costs the sellers money, and it cuts out the addictive feedback the bidder has grown to depend on.
Temple of Elemental Evil was released and very clearly not done. If Trioka didn't have able to scrape together the financial resources to finish ToEE, why would they be able to scrap up enough to make another Fallout?
Sounds like you're just pissed off that your batting average is lower than your IQ...
Watching sports and playing sports are two entirely different things. If I were to say that the Roman blood-and-guts shows were not of economic value, would you accuse me of being unable to kill lions?
The vast majority of the people on earth are not in America.
This is true. On the other hand, if you use the internet to get any type of english-language news, you read the New York Times and the Washington Post. For someone to complain about these newspapers on an english-language site like Slashdot, in response to article about possible American FCC restrictions on American-model-only TiVo's, is totally asinine.
If anyone reading Slashdot really gives two fucks and a donut what the FCC is doing to limit American adoption of new technologies, they're reading the New York Times and the Washington Post every day already. Otherwise, they're just bitching because bitching is fun.
Well, it's a percieved safety issue, anyhow. A lot of people think SUV's are safer than mid-sized cars, and that helmets and seatbelts are dangerous, too. Perception and reality only brush against each other.
they were all to varying degrees a pain in the ass, every day, especially in the winter when the temps hit 0F or less.
Oh god... it's been 10 years or more since I've had trouble starting a car in a parking lot, late at night, when it's 10 below and with no phone in sight. I forgot how much old cars really, really sucked.
Netscape 4.7 does not require quotes around 'field' tags like width or height. Netscape 6.0 can do unusual things if they are not there.
Well, HTML doesn't require the quotes around simple attribute values, so if what you're describing is true then Netscape 6.0 is broken. On the other hand, XHTML does require the quotes.
I am inclined, however, to believe that you may have other problems with your HTML, and the problem you're describing doesn't isn't the real problem you're encountering. Use a validator before making a bug report.
Slashdot Mirror
maybe the recognition rate and quality is higher than OCR and now people are just reading the documents in with voice Rec apps?
Assume you have documents you want to convert to digital text (and not just scan).
If you have money, then you either hire a temp to type them in for $100 a day, or contract them out to some poor schmuck in India to type them in for $5 a day.
If you don't have money, then your probably not what capitalists like to call a "customer."
I want OCR that works, and I want a flying car.
I'm assuming people got sick of paying $39.95 for OCR software that didn't do jack squat, and was about as reliable as handing your documents to a spastic monkey. I'm also assuming software makers got sick of making $3 or $4 (or less) on each package, only to get a million tech support calls along the lines of "It doesn't work. I want my money back."
For $400, I'm guessing the software vendors can afford a small amount of support, and can expect the users to be willing to understand the limits of the software.
All and all it felt a bit like overkill, but considering that the statue is probably one of the most important symbols of America, it makes sense to so heavily gaurd it.
It's not one of the most important symbols of America. It's one of of the most important symbols of the Liberty that America represents.
It's hard to type right now because I am crying. For real.
It's Fair Use.
Huh? At what point did "copy and distribute a copyright work, in whole, without permission, on a massive scale" become "Fair Use?" You might want to read the fine print on the bottom of your law degree again -- I suspect "Cracker Jack Box Law School" is not an accredited university.
Has the copyright owner approved the redistribtion of this patch by third parties? Or can this be described as "Legal P2P" only using some brand new defintion of "Legal"?
I think inexpensive distributed file hosting is a great idea, and I think P2P networks are a great way to implement that. But, copyright infringement is still copyright infringement, even if you're able to justify it to yourself.
You see, metal.. So cutting through would be near impossible.
Because... metal is the strongest thing on earth, impervious to bending and cutting even in the smallest quantities?
Anyone who wasn't born in the same country as I was should be ground up in an industrial grinder. Their body fat should be rendered into deisel fuel for my SUV. The water in their body should be used for crop irrigation. Finally, any remaining by-products should be processed into animal feed.
This way, we won't have to worry about non-white people benefitting from our research.
I don't think you understand US elections. US voting isn't complicated because there are many different ballots, and each ballot is large. That contributes, but only slightly. US voting is complicated because every single county in the United States is responsible for buying and maintaining its own polling equipment (with no help for the state or federal government) and for determining list the eligible voters itself (again, with no help from the state or federal government).
Every state is required to set its own rules for elections, and in (for example) the presidential elections may select the electors in any way the state wishes to do so. In the presidential elections, every state will have a unique list of canidates, and every county will implement those ballots in a unique way.
In the United States, elections work well in some some states and counties and are miserable failures in other states and counties. Unfortunately, there is no way to challenge corruption or systemic failures (such as Florida's in the 2000 presidential election) above the county level -- in 2000, the US Supreme Court basically claimed that the Feds have no authority in federal elections.
It certainly doesn't help that the most important elections -- local level and to some extent state level positions -- are virtually ignored by everyone and often tacked onto the relatively unimportant federal ballots almost as an afterthought. I can't imagine why anyone would want to save money and time by corrupting the single most important function of our country, but there you go. We probably spend more money on traffic cones in the United States than we do on the actual polling, but for some reason we want to save money on the polling. It's stupid, and it has lead to some pretty horrible corruption, and some downright miserable ballots. Oh well.
If I wrote a book with the same name as your website, LazyLightning.Org, and then advertized and promoted my book LazyLightning.Org, would you be upset?
What if I hired a promoter to get me on TV as much as possible, with instructions to make sure that every time I was on TV I was introduced by my name and with the name of my book, LazyLightning.Org. And, what if I made a point of promoting my book, LazyLightning.Org every time my paid promoter managed to get me in front of an audience?
Are you saying that you'd have no reason to be upset?
Or, maybe everyone could be a moderator for every post, and have be able to moderation "I think this post should be a -1, and that one should be a +3, and that one should be a +5." Then, a post's score could be weighted average of everyone's moderation for that post.
Of course, this would cause two problems. The first problem is obvious -- how to determine the weight given to each moderator. On a system like slashdot where a significant percentage of the feedback is abusive, developing a system to moderate the moderators is going to be very difficult.
The second problem is much, much more serious -- if the rules of the Slashdot Karma game are changed, will it still be as fun to play, and will it continue to have as many players? Slashdot is insanely succsessful because the people who visit find it addictively rewarding. Don't assume the attraction is rational, and don't assume you know exactly what the rewards are, even for yourself. "Improvements" to the moderation (or the color scheme, or the editing) could very easily drive people away from this site.
Wow. You should install metal detectors at the enterances to the labs, so that no-one is able to bring in a really big magnet and erase the hard drives that way, too.
People who are really busy could browse at +5 "Don't do anything else until you read this !!!"
It would be awesome if Slashdot moderation worked like that at all. But, it doesn't. Moderators don't decide "this post is worth a 3, while that one is worth a 5, and that one is worth a -1." Moderators are only given three choices for a post: +1, 0, and -1. Slashdot uses an insanely boneheaded algorithm to map those three moderation choices to seven different thresholds: -1, 0, +1, +2, +3, +4, and +5.
Assume 100% of the people reading a post find it very informative. If only one of those readers moderates, that post is going to get a 0, 1, 2, or 3 (depending on the person who submitted the post).
Conversely, assume 60% of the readers find a post mildly informative, and 40% of the moderators believe a post is horribly misinformed. If 30 of those readers moderate, that post is going to always get a 5.
In other words, browsing at +5 doesn't mean "show me the best posts." Slashdot is designed so that browsing at +5 means "show me the posts that have been seen by the largest number of readers with mod points." Articles, because they are seen by so many readers, will always be at +5 or -1, and almost never anything in between.
Psychologists who design casinos for a living could probably explain the reward system in play -- why is such an obviously non-useful system paradoxically so successful? Probably for the same reason people throw away money on slot machines. Allowing the moderation of articles would be like a slot machine that just simply gave back 75 cents every time you put in a dollar and pulled the lever. A lot more efficient, but much less appealing.
I suspect the biggest threat from "auction snipers" is to the sellers, not to the buyers.
A perfectly rational buyer is going to enter a maximum bid amount based on what he or she thinks the item is worth and then be done with it. But, buyers are seldom "perfectly rational." Once someone bids on an item, the bidder forms an attachment to it -- when outbid, there's a competition with the other bidders. Bidders rationalize raising their previous "maximum price", because they really want the item, and "maybe it's worth more than I thought."
This irrational behavior benefits the seller, because irrational people bidding more on an item than it's worth are a great way for a seller to make more money. This, in turn, benefits eBay because the sellers are happier.
Conversely, the auction snipers benefit the buyers. The temptation to bid "just a little more" is removed. The reward system geared to unhealthy addictive behavior is gone. The bidder decides on a maximum rational amount, puts in a bid, and either gets the item or doesn't. It's perfect. Paradoxically, though, this makes the bidder unhappy. Bidders feel cheated, because they waited all the way to the end of an auction, feel soooo close to getting thier dream item, start to form an attachment, and the item is snatched away by a "sniper." Never mind that the sniper just paid more than the bidder thought the item was worth -- the bidder feels cheated, because he lost the opportunity to behave irrationally.
Bid sniping makes both bidders and sellers unhappy. It costs the sellers money, and it cuts out the addictive feedback the bidder has grown to depend on.
Temple of Elemental Evil was released and very clearly not done. If Trioka didn't have able to scrape together the financial resources to finish ToEE, why would they be able to scrap up enough to make another Fallout?
- single sign on everywhere, so no-one (including the sys admin) ever has multiple passwords.
- initial passwords are generated randomly, instead of at the whim of an already over-worked sys admin.
- no-one but the user ever knows what the user's initial password is.
Ha ha ha. Isn't that funny?Sounds like you're just pissed off that your batting average is lower than your IQ...
Watching sports and playing sports are two entirely different things. If I were to say that the Roman blood-and-guts shows were not of economic value, would you accuse me of being unable to kill lions?
The vast majority of the people on earth are not in America.
This is true. On the other hand, if you use the internet to get any type of english-language news, you read the New York Times and the Washington Post. For someone to complain about these newspapers on an english-language site like Slashdot, in response to article about possible American FCC restrictions on American-model-only TiVo's, is totally asinine.
If anyone reading Slashdot really gives two fucks and a donut what the FCC is doing to limit American adoption of new technologies, they're reading the New York Times and the Washington Post every day already. Otherwise, they're just bitching because bitching is fun.
Is there a person on earth who doesn't have a registration to the New York Times and the Washington Post?
They're two of the most important papers in America. There's no excuse not to be reading them every damned day.
it's a safety issue
Well, it's a percieved safety issue, anyhow. A lot of people think SUV's are safer than mid-sized cars, and that helmets and seatbelts are dangerous, too. Perception and reality only brush against each other.
they were all to varying degrees a pain in the ass, every day, especially in the winter when the temps hit 0F or less. Oh god... it's been 10 years or more since I've had trouble starting a car in a parking lot, late at night, when it's 10 below and with no phone in sight. I forgot how much old cars really, really sucked.
Well, in normal games, you're a little human who runs, ducks, jumps, and shoots at little aliens.
This game is totally different, because you're a little alien who runs, ducks, jumps, and shoots at little humans.
Also, the music and graphics are much better than they were on my old Nintendo in 1986.
He's a troll. He knows what he sounds like, and he keeps writing because he craves the attention his parents wouldn't give him.
Please mod this up.
who the hell are those 11% of business owners who think they'll benefit? Hotels and escort services.
Netscape 4.7 does not require quotes around 'field' tags like width or height.
Netscape 6.0 can do unusual things if they are not there.
Well, HTML doesn't require the quotes around simple attribute values, so if what you're describing is true then Netscape 6.0 is broken. On the other hand, XHTML does require the quotes.
I am inclined, however, to believe that you may have other problems with your HTML, and the problem you're describing doesn't isn't the real problem you're encountering. Use a validator before making a bug report.