They can demand all they want, but that won't change a thing. There's only one way to fight this: Buyers chosing to remove the cell network interfaces from the car...and the RFID tags on the tires.. and the NARC blackboxes...
In at least some cases, yes. That is why Afghanistan was invaded.
So if it was invaded, why is it still standing today? What exactly are our soldiers doing there? 'peace keeping'? This is more of that passive aggressive problem, not the solution.
That isn't allowed under the law of war unless an enemy force is fighting from it. Even then it still isn't a great idea since Muslims get touchy about that even if they freely incinerate mosques and Korans.
That 'rule of war' did not stop 9/11 from being funded and executed. So why is kabul still standing if these people are threats that justify bullshit like the patriot act and pervasive surveillance?
They are, and people on Slashdot, not to mention Europe and various parts of American society complain bitterly about it. Air strikes and drone strikes are only one of the means. Special Forces are another. There are others.
Those are all piecemeal solutions. Again, if these people are threats that justify such abuse of our civil liberties, why aren't these enemy strongholds (and the capitals of their financial backers) burned to the ground yet?
The problem is that there are plenty of Muslims in the US that would gladly participate. Example from last month:
Agreed. It only got this way because of all the appeasement given the muslim community. They're often painted as victims of discrimination when they are not.
Ok. If those entities are still huge threats that justify such pervasive action, then it's time for congress to declare war on countries harboring these agents, and send them back to the stone age. Most of these 'terrorist' groups are getting backdoor support from the governments whose countries they occupy. I don't mean these pitiful 'police actions' we've been involved with since the 80s, I mean full out war. It's not like these countries haven't had decades to stabilize. Just start taking out cities until these countries reevaluate their priorities, and every thursday, during peak prayer hour, take out a few mosques, randomly. Treat them as they've treated us. In other words, start acting the way they've claimed we've treated them all this time and maybe then they'll learn the difference. Enough is enough. More effeminate passive aggression will not solve this. They're either threats that should be dealt with, or they're not, and the troops should come home. Either way, crap like the patriot act should be abolished, and the politicians who voted for it should be voted out of office.
What we shouldn't keep doing is compromising our own way of life just to appease others' faux indignance overseas, but that's just what the pantywaists in dc are doing. While I don't advocate such extreme response for every conflict, it's apparently bad enough that weak-kneed politicians would rather squander liberties at home than make the hard choice to go to war. I consider this act as extreme as the blitzkrieg option.
In addition, there's the pandering, divisive influence of identity politics distracting the citizens' attention towards each other.. What better way to get people to vote for bigger government than to bribe one group into dependence while shaming the other out of their self-reliance?
If their motto was about "Law enforcement" they'd at least have to put up the pretense that they are not only objectively enforcing the law, but that they are subject to the law as well. 'National Security' however, gives a whole new sense of self interest to their stated motivations. After all, since when has the Committee for State Security in any non-free nation taken any action that was not in its own best political interests? If anything, I applaud this change as it's a better description of their more recent activities.
Well, I will say that today's cars are more prone to needing expensive maintenance because of all the customized electronics and optimized-to-the-edge mechanical tolerances. This isn't good either. There's something to be said for driving an older car whose engine just needs a new set of points and plugs every so often and it's good to go. The rest of it's too simple to fail intractably. Sure, technically it needs more maintenance, but that maintenance is predictable and well understood. A lot of it can be done by the owner. Not so with newer cars, and this planned obsolescence treadmill should be factored into the cost of buying them.
Yeah, I'll pass. The last thing I want is my car audio usurped by a company that overcharges for useless handholding. I like the fact I can dump a bunch of mp3s onto a flash drive and plug it into my aftermarket stereo with no fuss. Apple tries too hard to manage everything with itunes/ipods/iphones and just ends up getting in the way.
Yeah, because they dont' want to pay premium prices for a machine whose touch rots away from skin oils, bleach, and detergents within 5 years.. Tactile controls in cars are a necessity because it allows the driver to keep his eyes on the road. Digging through menus of bullshit is not acceptable.
Yes, I know, but it seems to me that those kinds of functions don't belong in the base library as the particulars would be design dependent anyway. For example, we have mpfr for floating point math, which is distinctly separate from the rest of the toolchain, and is an optional piece. Maybe the line is arbitrary, but it seems like feature creep to me.
This is redundant. High level concepts like drawing graphics are always going to be system dependent, and today's operating systems come with them already. I don't see why having this as part of the C++ base library benefits..
Because, when the source is pointsample scaled (say from 320x240 to 1280x960) before lossy encode, the edge destroying quantization noise floor is pushed lower. Each pixel ending up as noise is 4x smaller than the original, while the apparent quality stays reasonable as each original pixel is now taking 4x the pixels in each macroblock. This results in the original pixels of the unscaled image being rendered more accurately. The cool part, at least with h264, is that large point resizes don't use up that much more bandwidth than a very high quality encode at the original resolution. Again, the trick of it is to do a point resize scale of the original, preferably using integer values.
Another piece of this is that youtube uses more bandwidth for 720p+ encodes which helps, but it also transcodes again after upload, adding even more noise.
nah.. There's plenty of SD content out there that's relevant. Its lower bandwidth makes it more manageable on networks that aren't google fiber or top tier cable. This holds for both viewers and uploaders.
They can't even deliver sufficient bandwidth to make 1080p look significantly better than 720. Adding 40% more pixels without sufficient bandwidth just drives up the noise floor.
From what I've seen, women who want 'equality' while having society prop up their old chattel privileges under the guise of fighting 'patriarchy', are the ones most often calling themselves feminists. These women are often irrationally jealous of men, but are too passive aggressive to admit it (although some do), so they resort to toxic identity politics to 'punish' them however possible. This has held true for feminist friendly politicians, lawyers, judges, employers, and school teachers/university professors who've affirmed openly that they're feminists. I've also met men who've been the same way...and no, not all of them are lesbians. many also marry men and cuckold them, then divorce and take their paychecks. The current crops of 16-27yo girls will have sex with men, have an 'oops' on-purpose pregnancy, and then extract money via child support. This is supported by feminist lobbied law that twists 'her body, her right, her choice' into 'his responsibility.'
I am not the one who wrote these laws, or lobbied for them, so stow your assumptions and your fallacious shaming language.
and 'busy' people are often the ones throwing away their money because they choose not to attempt anything that might have even the slightest learning curve and/or time commitment to it..
There's no free lunch, but that doesn't mean the negatives always outweigh the positives when choosing the less-traveled path.
Slashdot Mirror
They can demand all they want, but that won't change a thing. There's only one way to fight this: Buyers chosing to remove the cell network interfaces from the car...and the RFID tags on the tires.. and the NARC blackboxes...
In at least some cases, yes. That is why Afghanistan was invaded.
So if it was invaded, why is it still standing today? What exactly are our soldiers doing there? 'peace keeping'? This is more of that passive aggressive problem, not the solution.
That isn't allowed under the law of war unless an enemy force is fighting from it. Even then it still isn't a great idea since Muslims get touchy about that even if they freely incinerate mosques and Korans.
That 'rule of war' did not stop 9/11 from being funded and executed. So why is kabul still standing if these people are threats that justify bullshit like the patriot act and pervasive surveillance?
They are, and people on Slashdot, not to mention Europe and various parts of American society complain bitterly about it. Air strikes and drone strikes are only one of the means. Special Forces are another. There are others.
Those are all piecemeal solutions. Again, if these people are threats that justify such abuse of our civil liberties, why aren't these enemy strongholds (and the capitals of their financial backers) burned to the ground yet?
The problem is that there are plenty of Muslims in the US that would gladly participate. Example from last month:
Agreed. It only got this way because of all the appeasement given the muslim community. They're often painted as victims of discrimination when they are not.
mmm no. It's easier to speak freely about controversial government action when the government isn't the only one allowed to carry.
Never assume incompetence will protect you.
Ok. If those entities are still huge threats that justify such pervasive action, then it's time for congress to declare war on countries harboring these agents, and send them back to the stone age. Most of these 'terrorist' groups are getting backdoor support from the governments whose countries they occupy. I don't mean these pitiful 'police actions' we've been involved with since the 80s, I mean full out war. It's not like these countries haven't had decades to stabilize. Just start taking out cities until these countries reevaluate their priorities, and every thursday, during peak prayer hour, take out a few mosques, randomly. Treat them as they've treated us. In other words, start acting the way they've claimed we've treated them all this time and maybe then they'll learn the difference. Enough is enough. More effeminate passive aggression will not solve this. They're either threats that should be dealt with, or they're not, and the troops should come home. Either way, crap like the patriot act should be abolished, and the politicians who voted for it should be voted out of office.
What we shouldn't keep doing is compromising our own way of life just to appease others' faux indignance overseas, but that's just what the pantywaists in dc are doing. While I don't advocate such extreme response for every conflict, it's apparently bad enough that weak-kneed politicians would rather squander liberties at home than make the hard choice to go to war. I consider this act as extreme as the blitzkrieg option.
In addition, there's the pandering, divisive influence of identity politics distracting the citizens' attention towards each other.. What better way to get people to vote for bigger government than to bribe one group into dependence while shaming the other out of their self-reliance?
If their motto was about "Law enforcement" they'd at least have to put up the pretense that they are not only objectively enforcing the law, but that they are subject to the law as well. 'National Security' however, gives a whole new sense of self interest to their stated motivations. After all, since when has the Committee for State Security in any non-free nation taken any action that was not in its own best political interests? If anything, I applaud this change as it's a better description of their more recent activities.
Well, I will say that today's cars are more prone to needing expensive maintenance because of all the customized electronics and optimized-to-the-edge mechanical tolerances. This isn't good either. There's something to be said for driving an older car whose engine just needs a new set of points and plugs every so often and it's good to go. The rest of it's too simple to fail intractably. Sure, technically it needs more maintenance, but that maintenance is predictable and well understood. A lot of it can be done by the owner. Not so with newer cars, and this planned obsolescence treadmill should be factored into the cost of buying them.
Yeah, I'll pass. The last thing I want is my car audio usurped by a company that overcharges for useless handholding. I like the fact I can dump a bunch of mp3s onto a flash drive and plug it into my aftermarket stereo with no fuss. Apple tries too hard to manage everything with itunes/ipods/iphones and just ends up getting in the way.
Yeah, because they dont' want to pay premium prices for a machine whose touch rots away from skin oils, bleach, and detergents within 5 years.. Tactile controls in cars are a necessity because it allows the driver to keep his eyes on the road. Digging through menus of bullshit is not acceptable.
What the fuck?
Too bad 90% of it is unneeded to begin with
Yes, I know, but it seems to me that those kinds of functions don't belong in the base library as the particulars would be design dependent anyway. For example, we have mpfr for floating point math, which is distinctly separate from the rest of the toolchain, and is an optional piece. Maybe the line is arbitrary, but it seems like feature creep to me.
Actually, it's correct grammar. Benefit is also a verb.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/benefit
(scroll down)
This is redundant. High level concepts like drawing graphics are always going to be system dependent, and today's operating systems come with them already. I don't see why having this as part of the C++ base library benefits..
administrators/developers are users too. I'd prefer to have the error code AND the description.
Because, when the source is pointsample scaled (say from 320x240 to 1280x960) before lossy encode, the edge destroying quantization noise floor is pushed lower. Each pixel ending up as noise is 4x smaller than the original, while the apparent quality stays reasonable as each original pixel is now taking 4x the pixels in each macroblock. This results in the original pixels of the unscaled image being rendered more accurately. The cool part, at least with h264, is that large point resizes don't use up that much more bandwidth than a very high quality encode at the original resolution. Again, the trick of it is to do a point resize scale of the original, preferably using integer values.
Another piece of this is that youtube uses more bandwidth for 720p+ encodes which helps, but it also transcodes again after upload, adding even more noise.
nah.. There's plenty of SD content out there that's relevant. Its lower bandwidth makes it more manageable on networks that aren't google fiber or top tier cable. This holds for both viewers and uploaders.
They can't even deliver sufficient bandwidth to make 1080p look significantly better than 720. Adding 40% more pixels without sufficient bandwidth just drives up the noise floor.
Not a bad troll attempt. You need a bit more subtlety, though.
Not necessarily.. It's ok if one debater wins over another.. However, pride usually gets in the way of reason.
Zoom modems were terrible..
From what I've seen, women who want 'equality' while having society prop up their old chattel privileges under the guise of fighting 'patriarchy', are the ones most often calling themselves feminists. These women are often irrationally jealous of men, but are too passive aggressive to admit it (although some do), so they resort to toxic identity politics to 'punish' them however possible. This has held true for feminist friendly politicians, lawyers, judges, employers, and school teachers/university professors who've affirmed openly that they're feminists. I've also met men who've been the same way. ..and no, not all of them are lesbians. many also marry men and cuckold them, then divorce and take their paychecks. The current crops of 16-27yo girls will have sex with men, have an 'oops' on-purpose pregnancy, and then extract money via child support. This is supported by feminist lobbied law that twists 'her body, her right, her choice' into 'his responsibility.'
I am not the one who wrote these laws, or lobbied for them, so stow your assumptions and your fallacious shaming language.
and 'busy' people are often the ones throwing away their money because they choose not to attempt anything that might have even the slightest learning curve and/or time commitment to it..
There's no free lunch, but that doesn't mean the negatives always outweigh the positives when choosing the less-traveled path.
It's not supposed to be. Genderless singular is 'it'.