Having just watched the video, it looks like the reason it's better (as alluded to in the summary) is eye focus. When you tab to a different browser you have to then find your place in a potentially large document. Ditto when you tab back. With this thing, if you keep your eye on where you are in one view and follow the animation you end up looking in the right place in the other view.
I find this a genuine problem, and as a solution this looks positively awesome.
They're not claiming it's not a disease. It's a bit more subtle than that.
The Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006 defines reduction of disease risk claims as claims which state that the
consumption of a food “significantly reduces a risk factor in the development of a human disease”. Thus, for reduction of disease risk claims, the beneficial physiological effect results from the reduction of a risk factor for the development of a human disease. The Panel notes that dehydration was identified as the disease by the applicant. Dehydration is a condition of body water depletion. The Panel notes that the proposed risk factors, “water loss in tissues” or “reduced water content in tissues”, are measures of water depletion and thus are measures of the disease. The Panel considers that the proposed claim does not comply with the requirements for a disease risk reduction claim pursuant to Article 14 of Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006.
So it sounds like the regulation requires that the food reduces a "risk factor" for the disease, which must be distinct from the disease itself. They rejected it because it is claimed to reduce the disease itself, not a "risk factor" for it. I couldn't see anything else in the ruling explaining that further, and can't be bothered to look at the regulation itself (though at 5am on a Sunday, it might help with my insomnia).
I don't know why they allow claims with respect to reducing risk factors but not with respect to reducing the diseases themselves. Perhaps the latter would be considered medicinal claims?
It sounds like either the regulation is too strict, the panel overinterpreted it or the application was incompetent. Perhaps a combination of all three. I wonder if the application would have been accepted if, instead of "water loss in tissues", he'd identified the risk factor as "insufficient consumption of water":-)
your eye can't even tell the difference between light rays entering it from a 3D system vs light rays entering your eyes from the real world, it's the same thing to your eyes.
Apparently you haven't watched any 3D films.
The correct name for what happens in a "3D" cinema or on a "3D" TV is not "3D" - it isn't really significantly more "3D" than a normal perspective image (I'll explain why below). The correct name for the effect is "stereoscopy" and it only reproduces one part, actually a rather unimportant part, of the experience of viewing a true 3-dimensional scene.
In the real world, when you move your gaze from a point at one depth to a point at a different depth, your brain has to cause two changes to take place in your visual system (no doubt amongst many others):
1. Your eyeballs have to be moved so that the point you are looking at is within the most sensitive area of your retina (the fovea). If the new point is further away than the old one, this will require that the eyes move outwards. If closer, they have to move inwards. In addition to keeping the point of interest within both foveas, this alignment is required in order for the brain to "match up" the two images. If the alignment is wrong, the result is that you perceive a double image.
2. The lenses in your eyes have to change shape to bring the new point in focus. The closer a point is to your eyes, the fatter the lens in your eyeball has to be to focus the light onto your retina properly. The lens shape is controlled by tiny muscles called "cilliary muscles". When you look at a real scene, points other than those you are focussing on generally appear blurry.
When looking at a normal perspective image, you don't have to do either of these things. Both pointing and focussing is constant, because as far as the mechanisms for pointing and focussing the eyes are concerned you are simply looking at a coloured rectangle held at a constant distance from the eyes.
With such a perspective image, our brains have absolutely no difficulty reconstructing the full 3-dimensional image purely from the content of the scene. They also have no difficulty keeping this reconstruction separate from the fact that it's really just a flat rectangle. We've been looking at such image for hundreds of years, and moving versions for over a century, and we know it doesn't cause any problems.
With stereoscopy, the brain starts having to do the processing described in point 1. However, point 2 is unchanged. To watch a stereoscopic film involves pointing the eyes, but not focussing them. The lens shapes remain constant, but the eyes now have to point to different depths. This is significantly different both from looking at a normal perspective image and from looking at a real 3-dimensional scene.
Clearly, people can achieve this feat without any great difficulty, or "3D" films would be hard to watch. However, there may indeed be reasons to worry about the early development of the visual system. The trick of pointing and focussing your eyes is not something you are born with. It develops over time, and in a way which crucially depends on the particular input it receives. One extreme way to demonstrate how much visual development depends on input is rather cruel: to rear a cat in total darkness.
Problems with the mechanisms for pointing/focussing the eyes are common - see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strabismus and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accommodation_(eye)#Disorders_of_accommodation. Can such disorders be caused by presenting stereoscopic images to the eyes for long periods during early development? Nobody knows. Is a warning necessary? I don't know or particularly care - it's just a bit of arse-covering. If I had a small child, would I allow him or he
Well, not having read the article or anything else about this I can't be too sure, but presumably their argument was that the contract with Pink Floyd applied only to the physical album. The copyright is an entirely different matter.
Hands up anyone who knows what an "activation context" is! If you don't you have no idea what WinSxS does, how it does it or how to diagnose it when it goes wrong.
In my opinion, WinSxS is a good mechanism, or at least as good as Microsoft could have made it while working within the constraints of history. However, WinSxS cannot be used in the real world without properly understanding it, and achieving that understanding is very painful indeed. The MSDN documentation is piecemeal, appears incomplete and inaccurate in a few places and lacks a proper overview. I think the only reason I properly twigged what activation contexts are about is that I had recently written a mechanism that operated on similar principles (a thread-local stack of context-related information).
I wrote a Wiki page at work describing what (I think) WinSxS's motivation is, how it works and some of the problems it suffers from. I'd like to put it somewhere on the public internet - any suggestions? It should ideally be somewhere wiki-like where people can correct its inevitable inaccuracies without me having to maintain it, but I'm not sure it's appropriate for wikipedia.
I'm assuming this was due to a typo on the first line (and presumably no code reviews).
With memcpy_s and the same development practices, this would most likely become:
, which would behave exactly the same and illustrate the point many people here are making about this really not fixing the supposed insecurity. The reason the code you show crashed is not that memcpy takes no destination size parameter. The reason is that the code contained an obvious typo that nobody noticed because there were no formal code reviews.
The article is very difficult to read, due to poor English (no offense meant - I don't speak a word of Portuguese!) However, having waded through it, it is clear the parent is correct, and the summary is completely wrong.
The article's author is resigning from the ABNT, specifically because it is not appealing. It is only "protesting", whatever that means. The article claims the failure to appeal is due to Microsoft supporters claiming they did not have enough time to weigh the arguments, which sounds a bit rich in the circumstances.
It does not say what you think it says. The last paragraph is particularly apt.
As long as there are lawyer, there will be "lawyer jokes". And lawyers will show how those jokes ring true by trying to explain how such lampooning really constitutes praise for their profession, thus by example justifying the jokes more than ever.
If you look at the latest incomes of the Open Source vendors it is down right disappointing after a decade of potential. For crying out loud Ubuntu is the result of a guy who made his money with something else and is supporting Ubuntu because he wants to have fun!
So what? Why should I care what his motives are. And don't tell me that it's because the survival of Ubuntu is subject to his whims. It's open source.
I don't really care about OSS "beating" Microsoft in any financial sense. I do prefer Linux over Windows at home (for practical reasons too numerous to bother listing) and it annoys me that I have to maintain a dual-boot system, primarily as a result of the dominance of the MS Office file format. So in that sense I suppose I would like Microsoft to lose out, but only because their dominance currently prevents me from using the software I want to use, which otherwise provides all the features I need. However, there's no particular need for OSS to "beat Microsoft on the desktop" for this problem to be solved, or even for Microsoft to suffer any significant financial loss.
I will consider OSS to have succeeded on the desktop (note succeeded, not won), when I no longer feel the need to install a proprietary operating system on my home computer. That point has been getting steadily, inexorably closer throughout the decade that has passed since I discovered OSS, and the march towards it shows no sign of slowing. I therefore find your use of the past tense when discussing the "open-source era" rather perplexing.
Particularly since the wording of the post seems to the main topic of conversation anyway. I have no particular objection to the wording of the post, but the quotes imply that the words came from the article, which they didn't. The first thing I did when I saw this post was to follow the link and search for "puke", thinking "NASA didn't say that, did they?!?!??".
I don't really care about the article and I haven't RTF'd it. I take exception with this kind of shite, though:
Any idiot can make friends -- but can you make some really serious enemies?
If I start walking around town wearing a sandwich board that says "LESBIANS MUST BE HANGED FOR THEIR WICKEDNESS" (randomly selected), I will rapidly make a large number of quite serious enemies, without making any further effort. If instead I write on that sandwich board "I AM NICE AND LIKE PUPPIES", I am unlikely to make a correspondingly large number of friends.
A friend is someone you have built a relationship with over time. It implies understanding and trust. It is an ongoing thing. An enemy is someone you have pissed off. They are generally reacting something you have done, not who you are. You can make a lifelong deadly enemy in a couple of seconds with literally no effort whatsoever - say by accidentally running someone's child over while drunk. You can't build a lifelong friendship in a couple of seconds.
As I say, I don't really card about the article. It just annoys me when people trot out meaningless little soundbites like this.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm going to get paid for finding bugs in Paypal??? I'm going to be RICH!!! RICH BEYOND MY WILDEST DREAMS!!!!!!!!!
Clicking around the links from that page, they (or at least one of them) also did this, which is pretty neat: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=17lz5nt5_jg&fmt=18
Having just watched the video, it looks like the reason it's better (as alluded to in the summary) is eye focus. When you tab to a different browser you have to then find your place in a potentially large document. Ditto when you tab back. With this thing, if you keep your eye on where you are in one view and follow the animation you end up looking in the right place in the other view.
I find this a genuine problem, and as a solution this looks positively awesome.
So it sounds like the regulation requires that the food reduces a "risk factor" for the disease, which must be distinct from the disease itself. They rejected it because it is claimed to reduce the disease itself, not a "risk factor" for it. I couldn't see anything else in the ruling explaining that further, and can't be bothered to look at the regulation itself (though at 5am on a Sunday, it might help with my insomnia).
I don't know why they allow claims with respect to reducing risk factors but not with respect to reducing the diseases themselves. Perhaps the latter would be considered medicinal claims?
It sounds like either the regulation is too strict, the panel overinterpreted it or the application was incompetent. Perhaps a combination of all three. I wonder if the application would have been accepted if, instead of "water loss in tissues", he'd identified the risk factor as "insufficient consumption of water" :-)
Apparently you haven't watched any 3D films.
The correct name for what happens in a "3D" cinema or on a "3D" TV is not "3D" - it isn't really significantly more "3D" than a normal perspective image (I'll explain why below). The correct name for the effect is "stereoscopy" and it only reproduces one part, actually a rather unimportant part, of the experience of viewing a true 3-dimensional scene.
In the real world, when you move your gaze from a point at one depth to a point at a different depth, your brain has to cause two changes to take place in your visual system (no doubt amongst many others):
When looking at a normal perspective image, you don't have to do either of these things. Both pointing and focussing is constant, because as far as the mechanisms for pointing and focussing the eyes are concerned you are simply looking at a coloured rectangle held at a constant distance from the eyes.
With such a perspective image, our brains have absolutely no difficulty reconstructing the full 3-dimensional image purely from the content of the scene. They also have no difficulty keeping this reconstruction separate from the fact that it's really just a flat rectangle. We've been looking at such image for hundreds of years, and moving versions for over a century, and we know it doesn't cause any problems.
With stereoscopy, the brain starts having to do the processing described in point 1. However, point 2 is unchanged. To watch a stereoscopic film involves pointing the eyes, but not focussing them. The lens shapes remain constant, but the eyes now have to point to different depths. This is significantly different both from looking at a normal perspective image and from looking at a real 3-dimensional scene.
Clearly, people can achieve this feat without any great difficulty, or "3D" films would be hard to watch. However, there may indeed be reasons to worry about the early development of the visual system. The trick of pointing and focussing your eyes is not something you are born with. It develops over time, and in a way which crucially depends on the particular input it receives. One extreme way to demonstrate how much visual development depends on input is rather cruel: to rear a cat in total darkness.
Problems with the mechanisms for pointing/focussing the eyes are common - see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strabismus and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accommodation_(eye)#Disorders_of_accommodation. Can such disorders be caused by presenting stereoscopic images to the eyes for long periods during early development? Nobody knows. Is a warning necessary? I don't know or particularly care - it's just a bit of arse-covering. If I had a small child, would I allow him or he
Woah! So you have to be at least 223 years old?
Well, not having read the article or anything else about this I can't be too sure, but presumably their argument was that the contract with Pink Floyd applied only to the physical album. The copyright is an entirely different matter.
Also, if the conditions are juuuust right, it can hit your eye like a big pizza pie. Which is quite something through a telescope.
I ended up creating a blog for this: Everything you Never Wanted to Know about WinSxS. It's too long for stackoverflow, but the docforge suggestion sounds interesting...
Perfect. It should be there later today.
Hands up anyone who knows what an "activation context" is! If you don't you have no idea what WinSxS does, how it does it or how to diagnose it when it goes wrong.
In my opinion, WinSxS is a good mechanism, or at least as good as Microsoft could have made it while working within the constraints of history. However, WinSxS cannot be used in the real world without properly understanding it, and achieving that understanding is very painful indeed. The MSDN documentation is piecemeal, appears incomplete and inaccurate in a few places and lacks a proper overview. I think the only reason I properly twigged what activation contexts are about is that I had recently written a mechanism that operated on similar principles (a thread-local stack of context-related information).
I wrote a Wiki page at work describing what (I think) WinSxS's motivation is, how it works and some of the problems it suffers from. I'd like to put it somewhere on the public internet - any suggestions? It should ideally be somewhere wiki-like where people can correct its inevitable inaccuracies without me having to maintain it, but I'm not sure it's appropriate for wikipedia.
Reticent
Reluctant
Get it right, people!
I'm assuming this was due to a typo on the first line (and presumably no code reviews). With memcpy_s and the same development practices, this would most likely become:
char *buffer = malloc(200);
memcpy(buffer,2000,message,2000);
send_message(buffer);
free(buffer);
, which would behave exactly the same and illustrate the point many people here are making about this really not fixing the supposed insecurity. The reason the code you show crashed is not that memcpy takes no destination size parameter. The reason is that the code contained an obvious typo that nobody noticed because there were no formal code reviews.
Or even a simple drool detector built into the keyboard.
I don't know about you, but if I evacuate without instruction from management, it counts against my vacation time.
That's rough, man. I get to go to the toilet whenever I please.
The article is very difficult to read, due to poor English (no offense meant - I don't speak a word of Portuguese!) However, having waded through it, it is clear the parent is correct, and the summary is completely wrong.
The article's author is resigning from the ABNT, specifically because it is not appealing. It is only "protesting", whatever that means. The article claims the failure to appeal is due to Microsoft supporters claiming they did not have enough time to weigh the arguments, which sounds a bit rich in the circumstances.
Matter has the best ship name I've seen yet - "Pure Big Mad Boat Man". If I were a General Contact Unit, that's what I'd call myself.
Thanks, that gave me one of these, proceeding via the microfortnight to "blading" in professional wrestling.
Not that job listings are a particularly good indicator of anything, but from Monster:
The C++ ones include plenty of new systems.
s/Also, //
Also, I have to take issue with this:
So what? Why should I care what his motives are. And don't tell me that it's because the survival of Ubuntu is subject to his whims. It's open source.
I don't really care about OSS "beating" Microsoft in any financial sense. I do prefer Linux over Windows at home (for practical reasons too numerous to bother listing) and it annoys me that I have to maintain a dual-boot system, primarily as a result of the dominance of the MS Office file format. So in that sense I suppose I would like Microsoft to lose out, but only because their dominance currently prevents me from using the software I want to use, which otherwise provides all the features I need. However, there's no particular need for OSS to "beat Microsoft on the desktop" for this problem to be solved, or even for Microsoft to suffer any significant financial loss.
I will consider OSS to have succeeded on the desktop (note succeeded, not won), when I no longer feel the need to install a proprietary operating system on my home computer. That point has been getting steadily, inexorably closer throughout the decade that has passed since I discovered OSS, and the march towards it shows no sign of slowing. I therefore find your use of the past tense when discussing the "open-source era" rather perplexing.
Particularly since the wording of the post seems to the main topic of conversation anyway. I have no particular objection to the wording of the post, but the quotes imply that the words came from the article, which they didn't. The first thing I did when I saw this post was to follow the link and search for "puke", thinking "NASA didn't say that, did they?!?!??".
I don't really care about the article and I haven't RTF'd it. I take exception with this kind of shite, though:
If I start walking around town wearing a sandwich board that says "LESBIANS MUST BE HANGED FOR THEIR WICKEDNESS" (randomly selected), I will rapidly make a large number of quite serious enemies, without making any further effort. If instead I write on that sandwich board "I AM NICE AND LIKE PUPPIES", I am unlikely to make a correspondingly large number of friends.
A friend is someone you have built a relationship with over time. It implies understanding and trust. It is an ongoing thing. An enemy is someone you have pissed off. They are generally reacting something you have done, not who you are. You can make a lifelong deadly enemy in a couple of seconds with literally no effort whatsoever - say by accidentally running someone's child over while drunk. You can't build a lifelong friendship in a couple of seconds.
As I say, I don't really card about the article. It just annoys me when people trot out meaningless little soundbites like this.
I second, third, fourth, fifth, sixth and seventh this sentiment.