everyone? In my circle, ownership of DSLRs seems to be going up quite rapidly.
I think there's more a spreading of the market to extremes; medium-quality compacts are getting squeezed out by cameraphones at the low end where you really just want a rough reproduction of some event, and DSLRs and interchangeable lens, large sensor compacts at the high end. (Boy, I can't wait for the NEX-7).
it's not so much about more air, it's frequencies. The ability to reproduce low end frequencies is directly dependent on the actual size of the speaker, which is why subwoofers have to be so effing huge. But we didn't used to have subwoofers; we had tower speakers, which are big enough that they can incorporate a woofer capable of decent low frequencies. All things being equal, a single speaker producing a full range of frequencies will sound better than two separate speakers (bookshelf plus separate subwoofer). So a pair of floorstanders is going to sound better than two bookshelves and a smallish subwoofer.
These days the real high end setups use a couple of floorstanders for everything down to about 50Hz, and a real bigass subwoofer for 10Hz through 50Hz, which is truly non-directional. But most people (including me) use a couple of bookshelves for 100Hz and up, and a 10-12" subwoofer which can probably do about 30-100Hz. (Or, they have bookshelves and a subwoofer and completely mess up the configuration of the cutoff point, which is probably more common and the reason lots of people's systems sound crappy). The bookshelves plus subwoofer setup can sound pretty good if you're careful about the cutoff point and the phase and everything, but never quite as nice as a good pair of floorstanders.
so, what you're basically saying is that all your leaders (and by extension the political system which produces them) have been clueless idiots living on the never-never for a couple of centuries?
If you'd only asked any other country ever (with the possible exceptions of Greece, Ireland and Iceland), we could have told you that *years* ago.
you might assume that, but it isn't. The current implementation does not ask you to put a passphrase on the key by default, nor apparently even make this possible. To me that's the biggest flaw with it. I raised a bug on this: https://github.com/mozilla/browserid/issues/61 .
"TFS says 'but without the privacy leaks', but really you can still be tracked/followed/denied/fucked with from a single point/service, namely your email provider."
Well, with current systems you already can: they all rely on the old 'send a verification email' technique, and whoever provides your email account can obviously read your email. So this system doesn't make things any worse than current systems from a privacy perspective, while adding quite a lot of convenience. The idea that you're already trusting your email provider anyway, so let's make them the key authority, is a pretty smart thing about this system.
And of course, you can always manage your own email address, and then you're the authority that can track you. =)
I guess they picked a Civ manual for a reason. I don't remember the Civ II manual, but I remember the original Civ manual - that thing was a brick, a few hundred pages, with an appendix which had most of the algorithms used in the game documented. Not surprised a bot could get better at playing the game with that kind of reference material!
I wish someone was still publishing manuals like that.
No-one is seriously arguing that the monkeys hold the copyright. We _are_ suggesting that there's no reasonable grounds on which anyone _else_ could claim to own the copyright. Shockingly, it's possible for data to exist without anyone holding a copyright on it, though some interest groups dearly wish things were otherwise.
"So they are essentially taking the position that the software is an intelligent agent capable of giving advice."
Er. No. They're taking the position that whoever wrote the text the software prints out is an intelligent agent capable of giving advice.
Don't mistake the medium for the message. If I wrote my legal advice down and mailed it to you, would you say I was taking the position that paper is an intelligent agent capable of giving advice?
This stupid 'software isn't sentient!' excuse is the same one Google tries to get away with, and it doesn't wash there either: sure, it's all algorithms, but someone wrote the algorithms, didn't they?
A handy rule of thumb when reading any comment thread or newspaper is to run screaming the minute you see the phrase 'these people'. It works excellently for the post I'm replying to here...
"From Descartes on up, in the Western mindset, fish and other nonhuman animals don't have feelings, they don't have emotions, we can do whatever we want to them"
This is fine so far as it goes, but that's not very far. Legal codes aren't based on feelings or emotions, and they'd probably work extremely badly if they were. The function of law is to regulate the functioning of society; only *humans* can meaningfully be considered as part of society. It's very hard to come up with any workable logical basis for the code of law to be extended over animals, at least beyond the point where it's more about human interests in said animals.
...where you'll see that it's not as simple as the summary suggests (wow, on Slashdot, who'd've thought). If you look at the results for the NVIDIA proprietary driver, Shell keeps pace pretty much precisely with GNOME 2 / Metacity and GNOME 2 / Compiz. It's only with the ATI proprietary driver where there's a clear performance deficit.
The numbers for the free drivers are more mixed, and utterly incomplete anyway because they insisted on testing in Ubuntu for some bizarre reason.
the ones that have been rebranded 'The Source by Circuit City' in Canada still sell a modest range of components and miscellaneous useful adapters and cables and so on at decent prices. Nothing like as decent a range as Maplins in the UK, but better than the big box electronics stores.
Well I was just asking a question, it didn't seem relevant. You do know that the people who work on GNOME and the people who work on anaconda at Red Hat aren't the same people, right?
Why? Universal search, which is what this is, is a great interface. You don't have to guess the name; it searches the filename, menu entry name, and menu entry description too. So you can just type in something the app you want *does*, and it'll probably find it, since that word will be in the description.
You can already do web searches on terms you type in by clicking a couple of buttons in the overview, and down the road it won't just search apps, it will search documents, browser history...just about anything.
"I find it highly unlikely that your "safe" is air-walled in a physically secure location."
Why would you find that unlikely? Lots of people keep theirs on a USB key.
"So... what if someone manages to obtain your safe's password?"
The point is that this is almost vanishingly unlikely, because that password never needs to be stored anywhere outside of your own system or transmitted over any kind of network connection; these are by far the most likely vectors by which someone could discover one of your passwords.
"a $10 million prize to develop a mobile solution that can diagnose patients better than or equal to a panel of board certified physicians"
Maybe it could also help them with their phrasing. So it only has to diagnose patients who are equal (in some unspecified way) to a panel of board certified physicians? Or, wait, does it have to identify those patients who *are* better than or equal to a panel of board certified physicians? How does one diagnose a patient anyway? I'm so confused!
May I suggest "a $10 million prize to develop a mobile solution that can diagnose medical conditions as well as or better than a panel of board certified physicians"?
Slashdot Mirror
everyone? In my circle, ownership of DSLRs seems to be going up quite rapidly.
I think there's more a spreading of the market to extremes; medium-quality compacts are getting squeezed out by cameraphones at the low end where you really just want a rough reproduction of some event, and DSLRs and interchangeable lens, large sensor compacts at the high end. (Boy, I can't wait for the NEX-7).
it's not so much about more air, it's frequencies. The ability to reproduce low end frequencies is directly dependent on the actual size of the speaker, which is why subwoofers have to be so effing huge. But we didn't used to have subwoofers; we had tower speakers, which are big enough that they can incorporate a woofer capable of decent low frequencies. All things being equal, a single speaker producing a full range of frequencies will sound better than two separate speakers (bookshelf plus separate subwoofer). So a pair of floorstanders is going to sound better than two bookshelves and a smallish subwoofer.
These days the real high end setups use a couple of floorstanders for everything down to about 50Hz, and a real bigass subwoofer for 10Hz through 50Hz, which is truly non-directional. But most people (including me) use a couple of bookshelves for 100Hz and up, and a 10-12" subwoofer which can probably do about 30-100Hz. (Or, they have bookshelves and a subwoofer and completely mess up the configuration of the cutoff point, which is probably more common and the reason lots of people's systems sound crappy). The bookshelves plus subwoofer setup can sound pretty good if you're careful about the cutoff point and the phase and everything, but never quite as nice as a good pair of floorstanders.
The post cites a blinded comparison. Not double-blinded, by the looks of it, but not a terrible test.
so, what you're basically saying is that all your leaders (and by extension the political system which produces them) have been clueless idiots living on the never-never for a couple of centuries?
If you'd only asked any other country ever (with the possible exceptions of Greece, Ireland and Iceland), we could have told you that *years* ago.
The 'one global password' is an RSA key pair, which is a substantial improvement on a user-generated (and hence usually weak) password.
you might assume that, but it isn't. The current implementation does not ask you to put a passphrase on the key by default, nor apparently even make this possible. To me that's the biggest flaw with it. I raised a bug on this: https://github.com/mozilla/browserid/issues/61 .
The spec actually explicitly envisages this:
https://wiki.mozilla.org/Labs/Identity/VerifiedEmailProtocol#Scope_of_the_system
"With some additional work, to create pseudonymous identities that allow a user to provide a different address per relying site"
https://wiki.mozilla.org/Labs/Identity/VerifiedEmailProtocol#Synchronization_of_keys
yup. You can have multiple keys for one email address, or you can sync one key across multiple browser profiles.
"TFS says 'but without the privacy leaks', but really you can still be tracked/followed/denied/fucked with from a single point/service, namely your email provider."
Well, with current systems you already can: they all rely on the old 'send a verification email' technique, and whoever provides your email account can obviously read your email. So this system doesn't make things any worse than current systems from a privacy perspective, while adding quite a lot of convenience. The idea that you're already trusting your email provider anyway, so let's make them the key authority, is a pretty smart thing about this system.
And of course, you can always manage your own email address, and then you're the authority that can track you. =)
I guess they picked a Civ manual for a reason. I don't remember the Civ II manual, but I remember the original Civ manual - that thing was a brick, a few hundred pages, with an appendix which had most of the algorithms used in the game documented. Not surprised a bot could get better at playing the game with that kind of reference material!
I wish someone was still publishing manuals like that.
No-one is seriously arguing that the monkeys hold the copyright. We _are_ suggesting that there's no reasonable grounds on which anyone _else_ could claim to own the copyright. Shockingly, it's possible for data to exist without anyone holding a copyright on it, though some interest groups dearly wish things were otherwise.
"So they are essentially taking the position that the software is an intelligent agent capable of giving advice."
Er. No. They're taking the position that whoever wrote the text the software prints out is an intelligent agent capable of giving advice.
Don't mistake the medium for the message. If I wrote my legal advice down and mailed it to you, would you say I was taking the position that paper is an intelligent agent capable of giving advice?
This stupid 'software isn't sentient!' excuse is the same one Google tries to get away with, and it doesn't wash there either: sure, it's all algorithms, but someone wrote the algorithms, didn't they?
A handy rule of thumb when reading any comment thread or newspaper is to run screaming the minute you see the phrase 'these people'. It works excellently for the post I'm replying to here...
"From Descartes on up, in the Western mindset, fish and other nonhuman animals don't have feelings, they don't have emotions, we can do whatever we want to them"
This is fine so far as it goes, but that's not very far. Legal codes aren't based on feelings or emotions, and they'd probably work extremely badly if they were. The function of law is to regulate the functioning of society; only *humans* can meaningfully be considered as part of society. It's very hard to come up with any workable logical basis for the code of law to be extended over animals, at least beyond the point where it's more about human interests in said animals.
...where you'll see that it's not as simple as the summary suggests (wow, on Slashdot, who'd've thought). If you look at the results for the NVIDIA proprietary driver, Shell keeps pace pretty much precisely with GNOME 2 / Metacity and GNOME 2 / Compiz. It's only with the ATI proprietary driver where there's a clear performance deficit.
The numbers for the free drivers are more mixed, and utterly incomplete anyway because they insisted on testing in Ubuntu for some bizarre reason.
the ones that have been rebranded 'The Source by Circuit City' in Canada still sell a modest range of components and miscellaneous useful adapters and cables and so on at decent prices. Nothing like as decent a range as Maplins in the UK, but better than the big box electronics stores.
Well I was just asking a question, it didn't seem relevant. You do know that the people who work on GNOME and the people who work on anaconda at Red Hat aren't the same people, right?
why would the memory requirements of the Fedora installer have anything at all to do with GNOME developers?
"But, it severely lacks an easy way to get an overview of your desktop"
Er, what? Shell is _built_ around an overview. Just hit the start key.
Why? Universal search, which is what this is, is a great interface. You don't have to guess the name; it searches the filename, menu entry name, and menu entry description too. So you can just type in something the app you want *does*, and it'll probably find it, since that word will be in the description.
You can already do web searches on terms you type in by clicking a couple of buttons in the overview, and down the road it won't just search apps, it will search documents, browser history...just about anything.
Try reading the original feature page:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/DynamicFirewall
the main benefit of this is not for manual changes, really. See 'Benefit to Fedora'. Hell, just read the whole thing. It makes it quite clear.
"I find it highly unlikely that your "safe" is air-walled in a physically secure location."
Why would you find that unlikely? Lots of people keep theirs on a USB key.
"So... what if someone manages to obtain your safe's password?"
The point is that this is almost vanishingly unlikely, because that password never needs to be stored anywhere outside of your own system or transmitted over any kind of network connection; these are by far the most likely vectors by which someone could discover one of your passwords.
"a $10 million prize to develop a mobile solution that can diagnose patients better than or equal to a panel of board certified physicians"
Maybe it could also help them with their phrasing. So it only has to diagnose patients who are equal (in some unspecified way) to a panel of board certified physicians? Or, wait, does it have to identify those patients who *are* better than or equal to a panel of board certified physicians? How does one diagnose a patient anyway? I'm so confused!
May I suggest "a $10 million prize to develop a mobile solution that can diagnose medical conditions as well as or better than a panel of board certified physicians"?
"Can you imagine what's on Osama bin Laden's hard drive?"
That 'Hang in there, baby!' cat poster. For *sure*.
They should just have asked Geoff Peterson. He's got it figured out. In your pants.