There is a program that comes with FalconView called GeoRect. You open an image in the program then set the geographic positions of a few known points. From that, GeoRect can georectify the entire image so that you can display it in FalconView or other GIS tools.
Search for GeoRect at http://www.falconview.org/
Of course, it would probably have to be US-only (or at least a ".us.kids", ".fr.kids", etc), as every country has their own idea about what's kid-friendly.
I always tell marketers to "hold on" and then I lie the phone down until they hang up. It usually takes about 60 seconds. I figure that if everybody would do that, then it would make the practice unprofitable and they'd stop.
It reminds me of that Dilbert where his company outsourced their work to India, who outsourced it to Romania, who outsourced it to Mexico, who outsourced it back to the original company.
There are proponents of different techniques that supposedly let you choose the sex of your child. One interesting technique is called the Shettles Method. One family that I know swears by this method. They are four for four in getting it to work.
At any rate, perhaps different personalities or lifestyle conditions between engineers and nurses would help to explain this data - if indeed there is any credence to Shettles or similar methods.
So was that a law that people couldn't skip "must view" portions of a DVD, or was that just a technologically implemented "feature" done by agreement between DVD producers and player manufacturers? Seriously, I'd like to know the answer to that. That's a "feature" of DVDs that has particularly frustrated me.
Don't get me wrong on this, but if somebody wants a movie with no blacks or Jews, then it's their business and they should be allowed to skip scenes with that content. I wouldn't make friends with anybody like that, but it's ultimately their business whether or not they want to watch the whole movie, skip some scenes, or not watch the thing at all.
This piece of legislation has a particularly interesting act in it called the Family Movie Act. The legislation allows companies to market filters and equipment to skip over parts of a DVD. The idea is that people who don't care to see the more raunchy side of Hollywood can skip the profanity and sex. (Yes, I don't want the profanity and sex in the movies that I watch. I've heard all of the jokes, so let the rants begin.)
This part of the legislation was promoted by ClearPlay, a company that distributes filters and DVD players that can utilize the filters.
Not only do I like the ability to skip the raunchy stuff, but I like the fact that this promotes the idea that people can have control over the content that they pay to license. Hollywood considers the filters to be an "edit" of the original movie, but since the original DVD isn't altered, I don't see any difference between this and manually skipping content. It empowers the user and I like that. The implications are broader than just "Family Friendly Movies."
If the increase in access speed continues to lag the increase in capacity, then increased storage capacity isn't much good. After all, what good is it if I can store 50 TB of data if it takes two days to read it?
By banning sites, this may do more to hurt the searchers than the sites perpetrating the abuse. There may be some legitimate information on a site that is not found because of the ban. It seems that a smarter tactic would be to set the ranking algorithm not to rank based on links from an abusive site.
Okay, I'm sure that everyone has stories about how useless they are, but I'll share mine.
A month or two ago, checking out in the grocery store line, I got a new clerk. When I swiped my card, the person training her told her to check the card. I was using my wife's card with her name on it and it wasn't even signed. The clerk proceeded to take the card, she examined the front carefully and then examined the back. Then she handed the card back with a smile as if to say, "Yep. It's a real credit card alright."
Can someone answer the question as to how prevalent hydrocarbons are in our universe? I'm interested in knowing if the existence of methane on Mars supports a theory that I've heard regarding the origin of hydrocarbons on earth. The theory goes that many natural hydrocarbons were trapped in the earth as the planet formed and that oil is not a product of decaying animals but rather is a product of chemical reactions from these natural hydrocarbons. Proponents say that, for one thing, there's just too much oil and gas to have been formed from fossils.
If there's methane on Mars, but no life on Mars, then could it just be the product of hydrocarbons that naturally fill the universe? Can anyone answer the question as to how much hydrocarbon is naturally found in the universe as a whole?
Oh, foul. The wealthiest 50% of Americans pay approximately 95% of all income tax. The wealthiest 5% of Americans pay approximately 50% of all income tax.
What you tax you get less of and what you subsidize you get more of. If you tax wealth and subsidize poverty, then you're going to get less wealth and more poverty. How's that good for America?
How about this: a regressive income tax system that takes the poorer at a higher percentage but lower amount than those with more income than, then? You'd see prosperity abound in the US. That's Economics 101.
Slashdot Mirror
This is going to be one of those failure-in-management stories that MBA students will study in a few years. Right there next to New Coke.
I've never had a Comcast account. From what I know about the company and the experiences of friends and family, I will avoid that company at all cost.
FalconView (FOSS) does a pretty good job of displaying KML (in 2D). http://www.falconview.org/trac/FalconView
Oh, yeah. And it's FOSS.
There is a program that comes with FalconView called GeoRect. You open an image in the program then set the geographic positions of a few known points. From that, GeoRect can georectify the entire image so that you can display it in FalconView or other GIS tools. Search for GeoRect at http://www.falconview.org/
Of course, it would probably have to be US-only (or at least a ".us.kids", ".fr.kids", etc), as every country has their own idea about what's kid-friendly.
But wouldn't
I always tell marketers to "hold on" and then I lie the phone down until they hang up. It usually takes about 60 seconds. I figure that if everybody would do that, then it would make the practice unprofitable and they'd stop.
It reminds me of that Dilbert where his company outsourced their work to India, who outsourced it to Romania, who outsourced it to Mexico, who outsourced it back to the original company.
Like terrorism?
Oooo.... I love flamebait. Why haven't I been modded down yet?!
I've always found it amusing that the 'international' morse code alphabet (linked to in the parent) lacks äöåéíáóú.
It'd make perfect sense if you'd acknowledge that English is the international language.
Mad as Hell - Switching to Mac
What a great adversing slogan! Apple should start this campaign right away.
There are proponents of different techniques that supposedly let you choose the sex of your child. One interesting technique is called the Shettles Method. One family that I know swears by this method. They are four for four in getting it to work.
At any rate, perhaps different personalities or lifestyle conditions between engineers and nurses would help to explain this data - if indeed there is any credence to Shettles or similar methods.
Here's an interesting argument for the existence of an uncaused cause:
(1) Everything that begins to exist must have a cause.
(2) The universe began to exist.
(3) Therefore, the universe must have a cause.
This argument does not necessitate that God has a cause since He did not begin to exist. Being eternal, He may be without a cause.
So was that a law that people couldn't skip "must view" portions of a DVD, or was that just a technologically implemented "feature" done by agreement between DVD producers and player manufacturers? Seriously, I'd like to know the answer to that. That's a "feature" of DVDs that has particularly frustrated me.
At any rate, it seems to be legal now.
Thanks. That's interesting and it makes a lot of sense.
Don't get me wrong on this, but if somebody wants a movie with no blacks or Jews, then it's their business and they should be allowed to skip scenes with that content. I wouldn't make friends with anybody like that, but it's ultimately their business whether or not they want to watch the whole movie, skip some scenes, or not watch the thing at all.
What's the "first sale doctrine?" Seriously. I haven't heard of that.
This piece of legislation has a particularly interesting act in it called the Family Movie Act. The legislation allows companies to market filters and equipment to skip over parts of a DVD. The idea is that people who don't care to see the more raunchy side of Hollywood can skip the profanity and sex. (Yes, I don't want the profanity and sex in the movies that I watch. I've heard all of the jokes, so let the rants begin.)
This part of the legislation was promoted by ClearPlay, a company that distributes filters and DVD players that can utilize the filters.
Not only do I like the ability to skip the raunchy stuff, but I like the fact that this promotes the idea that people can have control over the content that they pay to license. Hollywood considers the filters to be an "edit" of the original movie, but since the original DVD isn't altered, I don't see any difference between this and manually skipping content. It empowers the user and I like that. The implications are broader than just "Family Friendly Movies."
If the increase in access speed continues to lag the increase in capacity, then increased storage capacity isn't much good. After all, what good is it if I can store 50 TB of data if it takes two days to read it?
By banning sites, this may do more to hurt the searchers than the sites perpetrating the abuse. There may be some legitimate information on a site that is not found because of the ban. It seems that a smarter tactic would be to set the ranking algorithm not to rank based on links from an abusive site.
Okay, I'm sure that everyone has stories about how useless they are, but I'll share mine.
A month or two ago, checking out in the grocery store line, I got a new clerk. When I swiped my card, the person training her told her to check the card. I was using my wife's card with her name on it and it wasn't even signed. The clerk proceeded to take the card, she examined the front carefully and then examined the back. Then she handed the card back with a smile as if to say, "Yep. It's a real credit card alright."
Worthless.
Can someone answer the question as to how prevalent hydrocarbons are in our universe? I'm interested in knowing if the existence of methane on Mars supports a theory that I've heard regarding the origin of hydrocarbons on earth. The theory goes that many natural hydrocarbons were trapped in the earth as the planet formed and that oil is not a product of decaying animals but rather is a product of chemical reactions from these natural hydrocarbons. Proponents say that, for one thing, there's just too much oil and gas to have been formed from fossils.
If there's methane on Mars, but no life on Mars, then could it just be the product of hydrocarbons that naturally fill the universe? Can anyone answer the question as to how much hydrocarbon is naturally found in the universe as a whole?
Do you want less education, roads and civil defense?
Okay, but you're not taxing education, roads or defense - you're taxing to pay for them. Totally different and it doesn't apply.
Subsidies radically distort ruthlessly efficient free-market forces and typically create excess supply that demand never meets.
Yeah, that's what I'm trying to say. It sounds like you agree with that part.
Okay, go ahead. Lay out the logic that disproves my assertation. I'm all ears.
Oh, foul. The wealthiest 50% of Americans pay approximately 95% of all income tax. The wealthiest 5% of Americans pay approximately 50% of all income tax.
What you tax you get less of and what you subsidize you get more of. If you tax wealth and subsidize poverty, then you're going to get less wealth and more poverty. How's that good for America?
How about this: a regressive income tax system that takes the poorer at a higher percentage but lower amount than those with more income than, then? You'd see prosperity abound in the US. That's Economics 101.