Kerning, by decreasing the space between characters, can make OCR more dificult.
For example, the difference between % and O/o can be hard enough to tell in certain fonts without kerning. Throw Kerning in, and they can become impossible to tell.
The reason the US does not care is because we LIKE it when other countries lock their rates to ours. We get the real benefit, they screw themselves for short term stability.
Look, what happens when China or someone else locks their money to us?
Choice A (rarely true). Their economy is stronger than the foolish government thinks so their money, if it floated free would be higher. So this lets us buy their stuff at a cheaper rate, which encourages us to buy their stuff. We get more stuff, cheaper. They get more work, and can't buy as much of our stuff. This hurts our economy but helps our individual life styles. It helps their economy, but hurts their consumers. But in the long term, by artificially supporting their economy, it discourages true growth on their part. Eventially they lose out as third party countries i.e. Germany, become better and better, so we trade with Germany.
Choice B (Almost ALWAYS the reason why countries lock their currency to ours). Their economy is weaker than the foolish government thinks, if they let the currency float, it would drop like a stone. This makes it expensive for us to buy their stuff, we tend not to do it. They buy our stuff. It helps our economy, but hurts our consumers. It hurts their economy, but helps their life style. Long Term, we win. Because while they are helping our economy, we still have to compete with people that are NOT locking their currency, so we do better.
--------
Fact C that is ALWAYS true:
The major problem with locking your currency is interest rate changes. Any country that locks their currency with the USA currency is in effect locking their own interest rates to whatever the US government decides to set. If the US government raises interest rates, this will indirectly cause the other countries's rates to go up. If the US lowers interest rates, this will indirectly cause the other countries's rates to go down.
But the US interest rates are set to help the US economy. If your own economy is not in lock step with the US Economy, this will screw up your economy.
What bullcrap. 1. The COPS LIE. They did in this operation, and they do it all the time. When you say "It was a Virus", they laugh and say "I checked and found no Virus", even if they never checked.
2. You said "The Defense is always better funded." That is true if they accuse a lawyer, doctor, etc. When they accuse joe shmoe, who works as a fry cook, he gets bupkiss for defenese, and goes to jail.
3. The case we are talking about had many people vigourously defend, but they went to jail. Funny how this operation was US based (US companies), but the British got more than 30 times as many convictions/arrests. Hm. Is England bigger than the US???
This case pretty well demonstrates that you are WRONG. It may be true that the one case you were involved on had a guilty guy go free. Or you could have been wrong and he could have been innocient. But even if he was guilty, one case does not describe the entire british system.
The thing that really gets me, is that when you click the "Kill the dog" option, instead of instantly vanishing, like any reasonably annoyance, they have this obnoxious beast do a little animation.
Look, you clueless fools, if I like the dog, I would not be getting rid of him. You KNOW I don't want him, but you senselessly subject me to the EXACT kind of animation that I told you I disliked.
What's next? If I tell you to turn off the sound, will you up the volume to maximum and play a recording of "SHUTTING SOUND OFF NOW!" in a really whiny voice?
It is true that the creator of something ought to be able to set the terms they are willing to sell it for.
Similarly, the buyer of something ought to be able to set the termst hey are willing to BUY it for
You want to set the cash value of the item? Fine. Do it all you want. Sell it for $10,000 per copy if you want to. If we don't want to buy it, we don't have to buy it.
But the other side of that same decision is that we get to decide how long a copyright we are going to give you. If you don't like the short copyright time we offer you, then DON'T write it. Or raise your price.
You are NOT owed an unlimited duration copyright. We don't have to support your great great grandkids because you wrote something cool. 10 years is MORE than long enough for you to make money. If your item is still being sold in 10 years, that means you wrote something really brilliant, and therefore made a ton of cash during those 10 years. You now have incentive to write a sequel or something else.
You are confusing distrubution with promotion. You brought up Promotion, I was talking about Distrubution.
The RIAA (or rather, their component companies), make more than 80% of the profit from songs they own.
They don't do that by claiming "We are promoting". Instead they get that sweet deal by doing Distrubution. Yes, the RIAA companies can still make a living doing promotion. But there is NO way they can convince artists that promotion alone is worth 80-90% of the price per song.
Their real business has ALWAYS been distrubution, not promotion. Promotion is worth 10%, maybe 20%, as demonstrated by the percentage Agents get for movie stars, etc.
The RIAA was getting 80% because they:
1. Shipped the disks/tapes/etc.
2. Took returns/breakage
3. Developed deals with the companies, etc.
on TOP of the production/promotion part.
The business has CHANGED. The RIAA companies no longer really do production and distrubution. With only Promotion left, they have to take a price cut, but they don't want to do that. They would rather try and squeeze out a larger percentage, using tradition as an excuse.
That is why the music industry has fragmented. The smart people are not willing to pay more than 40% for the paltry much reduced services the RIAA companies now really offer. The Promoters are refusing to accept that 40%, insisting on the old 90% they got.
As a result, many of the smart new artists are not getting the high quality promotion they deserve, and surprise surprise, they are living with a smaller percentage of the market.
I predict that in about 10-20 years, the RIAA companies will start lowering their prices and no longer offering distrubution and production, as they lose all the money they used to make. When that happens, and they get off their butts and start promoting again, music will probably unify and one genre will start ruling the roost, as artists converge on the promoters with power that is not overcharging.
They do horrible studies that prove nothing, then point at them and say "See!!! We are right" All such 'anti-popular-kid-activity' garbage (whether it was comic-books, music,tv, all videogames, or violent video games) is based on a false underlineing belief that human minds are easy to manipulate. You might for example cry at a sad movie, but you NEVER call 911 when you see the bad guys trying to commit a crime. We are not easily tricked.
There ARE ways to make humans violent: Drugs + severe propaganda against specific groups. That method is what is used by warlords in Africa, and no they do not use video games, despite the games being cheaper than the drugs.
Violent crime has dropped in the US. The teen violence has dropped in lock step with total violence, despite the introduction of violent video games.
The studies that claim to show video games cause violence instead show:
1. By the time kids can manipulate a game controller, a few of them have develloped a natural aggressiveness.
2. Aggressive people (both kids and addults) prefer violent games, non-aggressive people do not.
3. Aggressive kids are more likely than non-aggressive kids to grow up to be criminals.
4. Aggressive kids are more likely than non-aggressive kids to grow up to be SUCCESSFULL, particularly in business, but also in law enforcement, military, firefighters, and even art.
5. After playing a violent video game, you tend to have violent thoughts (these are called MEMORIES by professional psycoanalsysts).
6. After playing a violent video game, you tend to be aggressive, not violent.
I have to say that I don't think we can really blame them for what happened.
Both the music store and the RIAA were SOLELY in the business of music promotion and distribution. They made their money off of distribution, but used their promotion as a client getter.
The internet is pretty much the best means of distributing information.
Just like the Horse and Buggy, the RIAA and the music stores were pretty much doomed the second that the internet was created, it just took some time for it to happen.
The only shame is they won't admit it what business they are in, trying to convince themselves and the rest of the world that they are in the production business, when they simply don't do that.
Amazing how many people understand phyiscs, but have zero concept of logic, and a memory so short, they can't remember the question. I am not denying that a vaccuum tunnell would not be better. I am saying that the improvement over a sealed tunnell would be marginable.
Key things to remember We are discussing MAXIMUM SPEED, not maximum energy effeciency.
With a vaccuum tunnel, you have no friction whatsoever, assuming it is mag-lev. With out mag-lev, you have to pay the friction for the wheels.
With a sealed tunnel, then yes, you must pay the friction of the air on the tunnell walls, and you have to pay the inititial cost to get the air up to speed
But this is NOT about energy cost, it is about maximum speed.
The question is will the MINIMAL friction of the moving air in the tunnell be such a huge deal that it will slow the train down.
You have totally failed to understand the legal reasoning involved.
The 1857 case declared that the issue of slavery was entirely an INTERNAL manner to the state, and that Congress did not have the right to regulate internal manners.
The position of Congress, SCOTUS, and every single human being capable of rational thought is that:
Air pollution, by it's very nature, is not an internal manner. Air travels from one state to another as part of it's nature, not as a minor, occassional side affect.
As a result, only a total fool claims "It's a state's matter."
Air pollution is by definition a planetary commerce issue, not a local state thing. The Federal Government therefore has control, not the states.
Also, may I commend you on using a pro slave court ruling to support your opinion. Most people would not have the sheer balls to do that.
The rather draconic rights turnitin demand (they basically demand the right to do anything they want with it, even print it in a book and sell it), make it unreasonable for a school to be capable of demanding the rights.
They may have that right, they may not. But I bet you $10 that right is not TRANSFERABLE to other people, and Turnitin is demanding they transfer that right.
1.Turnitin service is used by the teachers, not the students. The teacher/school does not have the legal authority to give Turnitin the rights they demand on the STUDENT'S work.
It would be like me selling someone else the right to somethign you wrote.
2. They can say anything they want to, but a judge may declare their contract in bad faith and throw it out.
3. The italicized part is why the students are unhappy and are suing.
Normal use of this service is by the TEACHER, not the writer. The teacher does NOT have the legal authority to assign the copyright to Turnitin.
I am sure that the kids took the precaution of having Student A write the paper and Student B submit it, so that there particular law test case will work.
Then admit that the people of CONNECTICUT are the ones to blame, not California.
Connecticut voters said "we want to use CA's rules". No California's forced CT to do it, you guys did it to yourself. Or better yet, get off your butt and campaign for someone to cancel that law.
Like I said before, stop blaiming California, and accept responsibility for your own actions (or lack thereof) in this case.
Detroit and Japan continue to make cars that do not meet California emissions tests.
The fact that you bought such a care tells me that you looked at the cars that did not meet the California emissions tests and said "No thank you".
What probably happened is that the majority of the people in the country with needs similar to yours thought that cars should meet California's tests. The few people that did not want the cleaner cars had different needs then you did.
You don't have a beef with California, you have a beef with the majority of AMERICAN citizens. And you personally were still offered a choice to pick another car, but decided not to.
Why don't you stop blaming California, and start taking responsibility for your own actions
I thought these things were infra red based. That means that fresh blood should be body temperature/bright, while water should be area temperature/dark.
Sure, it might be the same 'green', but is should be dramatically different, one very dark green, the other a shiny bright green.
Am I misunderstanding something here? Or did they just use a bad example?
Uhm, you need to read the article? Cause almost everything you wrote was just plain wrong.
1. We do have a better way to grow ethanol. Brazil does it from sugar. Sugar is so cheap, that to protect the US market, we have subsidies. But sugar generally grows best outside the US, not inside it.
2. It HAS already been scaled up to US sized volume. Pretty much all of South America uses it.
3. The market exists already, and has existed for years. Cars run on it with little, if any modification, the major modification needed is the refining capacity.
4. Your concept of 'building the market' and hoping the fuel comes later is foolish. You can easily create a market for something that was not viable as a fuel, wasting lots of money. In this case, like all other succesfull implentations, the fuel was created and proven to be viable first, then the market was created. But somewhere in the middle, the corn growers established subsidies so that they could make a profit, instead of them foreigner's with their dirty brazilian money.
Slashdot Mirror
Kerning, by decreasing the space between characters, can make OCR more dificult. For example, the difference between % and O/o can be hard enough to tell in certain fonts without kerning. Throw Kerning in, and they can become impossible to tell.
The reason the US does not care is because we LIKE it when other countries lock their rates to ours. We get the real benefit, they screw themselves for short term stability.
Look, what happens when China or someone else locks their money to us?
Choice A (rarely true). Their economy is stronger than the foolish government thinks so their money, if it floated free would be higher. So this lets us buy their stuff at a cheaper rate, which encourages us to buy their stuff. We get more stuff, cheaper. They get more work, and can't buy as much of our stuff. This hurts our economy but helps our individual life styles. It helps their economy, but hurts their consumers. But in the long term, by artificially supporting their economy, it discourages true growth on their part. Eventially they lose out as third party countries i.e. Germany, become better and better, so we trade with Germany.
Choice B (Almost ALWAYS the reason why countries lock their currency to ours). Their economy is weaker than the foolish government thinks, if they let the currency float, it would drop like a stone. This makes it expensive for us to buy their stuff, we tend not to do it. They buy our stuff. It helps our economy, but hurts our consumers. It hurts their economy, but helps their life style. Long Term, we win. Because while they are helping our economy, we still have to compete with people that are NOT locking their currency, so we do better.
-------- Fact C that is ALWAYS true:
The major problem with locking your currency is interest rate changes. Any country that locks their currency with the USA currency is in effect locking their own interest rates to whatever the US government decides to set. If the US government raises interest rates, this will indirectly cause the other countries's rates to go up. If the US lowers interest rates, this will indirectly cause the other countries's rates to go down.
But the US interest rates are set to help the US economy. If your own economy is not in lock step with the US Economy, this will screw up your economy.
I will be sad to see them go. I was very happy with the article I wrote for them, and am proud that they published my stuff.
That was mroe important, as these people did not even use the legal site services.
2. You said "The Defense is always better funded." That is true if they accuse a lawyer, doctor, etc. When they accuse joe shmoe, who works as a fry cook, he gets bupkiss for defenese, and goes to jail.
3. The case we are talking about had many people vigourously defend, but they went to jail. Funny how this operation was US based (US companies), but the British got more than 30 times as many convictions/arrests. Hm. Is England bigger than the US???
This case pretty well demonstrates that you are WRONG. It may be true that the one case you were involved on had a guilty guy go free. Or you could have been wrong and he could have been innocient. But even if he was guilty, one case does not describe the entire british system.
Even assuming 3.6/4.6 people like the vile beast, that is 1 billion seconds stolen.
1 billion seconds = 31 years of their customers time they stole.
I say, we should arrest the thieves and sentence them to 30 years hard time, to make up for their theft of our time.
The thing that really gets me, is that when you click the "Kill the dog" option, instead of instantly vanishing, like any reasonably annoyance, they have this obnoxious beast do a little animation.
Look, you clueless fools, if I like the dog, I would not be getting rid of him. You KNOW I don't want him, but you senselessly subject me to the EXACT kind of animation that I told you I disliked.
What's next? If I tell you to turn off the sound, will you up the volume to maximum and play a recording of "SHUTTING SOUND OFF NOW!" in a really whiny voice?
Similarly, the buyer of something ought to be able to set the termst hey are willing to BUY it for
You want to set the cash value of the item? Fine. Do it all you want. Sell it for $10,000 per copy if you want to. If we don't want to buy it, we don't have to buy it.
But the other side of that same decision is that we get to decide how long a copyright we are going to give you. If you don't like the short copyright time we offer you, then DON'T write it. Or raise your price.
You are NOT owed an unlimited duration copyright. We don't have to support your great great grandkids because you wrote something cool. 10 years is MORE than long enough for you to make money. If your item is still being sold in 10 years, that means you wrote something really brilliant, and therefore made a ton of cash during those 10 years. You now have incentive to write a sequel or something else.
Otherwise, we would not have time to post at Slashdot during the day.
The RIAA (or rather, their component companies), make more than 80% of the profit from songs they own.
They don't do that by claiming "We are promoting". Instead they get that sweet deal by doing Distrubution. Yes, the RIAA companies can still make a living doing promotion. But there is NO way they can convince artists that promotion alone is worth 80-90% of the price per song.
Their real business has ALWAYS been distrubution, not promotion. Promotion is worth 10%, maybe 20%, as demonstrated by the percentage Agents get for movie stars, etc.
The RIAA was getting 80% because they:
1. Shipped the disks/tapes/etc.
2. Took returns/breakage
3. Developed deals with the companies, etc. on TOP of the production/promotion part.
The business has CHANGED. The RIAA companies no longer really do production and distrubution. With only Promotion left, they have to take a price cut, but they don't want to do that. They would rather try and squeeze out a larger percentage, using tradition as an excuse.
That is why the music industry has fragmented. The smart people are not willing to pay more than 40% for the paltry much reduced services the RIAA companies now really offer. The Promoters are refusing to accept that 40%, insisting on the old 90% they got.
As a result, many of the smart new artists are not getting the high quality promotion they deserve, and surprise surprise, they are living with a smaller percentage of the market.
I predict that in about 10-20 years, the RIAA companies will start lowering their prices and no longer offering distrubution and production, as they lose all the money they used to make. When that happens, and they get off their butts and start promoting again, music will probably unify and one genre will start ruling the roost, as artists converge on the promoters with power that is not overcharging.
The "Video Games are bad" people are fools.
They do horrible studies that prove nothing, then point at them and say "See!!! We are right" All such 'anti-popular-kid-activity' garbage (whether it was comic-books, music,tv, all videogames, or violent video games) is based on a false underlineing belief that human minds are easy to manipulate. You might for example cry at a sad movie, but you NEVER call 911 when you see the bad guys trying to commit a crime. We are not easily tricked.
There ARE ways to make humans violent: Drugs + severe propaganda against specific groups. That method is what is used by warlords in Africa, and no they do not use video games, despite the games being cheaper than the drugs.
Violent crime has dropped in the US. The teen violence has dropped in lock step with total violence, despite the introduction of violent video games.
The studies that claim to show video games cause violence instead show:
1. By the time kids can manipulate a game controller, a few of them have develloped a natural aggressiveness.
2. Aggressive people (both kids and addults) prefer violent games, non-aggressive people do not.
3. Aggressive kids are more likely than non-aggressive kids to grow up to be criminals.
4. Aggressive kids are more likely than non-aggressive kids to grow up to be SUCCESSFULL, particularly in business, but also in law enforcement, military, firefighters, and even art.
5. After playing a violent video game, you tend to have violent thoughts (these are called MEMORIES by professional psycoanalsysts).
6. After playing a violent video game, you tend to be aggressive, not violent.
Both the music store and the RIAA were SOLELY in the business of music promotion and distribution. They made their money off of distribution, but used their promotion as a client getter.
The internet is pretty much the best means of distributing information.
Just like the Horse and Buggy, the RIAA and the music stores were pretty much doomed the second that the internet was created, it just took some time for it to happen.
The only shame is they won't admit it what business they are in, trying to convince themselves and the rest of the world that they are in the production business, when they simply don't do that.
Key things to remember We are discussing MAXIMUM SPEED, not maximum energy effeciency.
With a vaccuum tunnel, you have no friction whatsoever, assuming it is mag-lev. With out mag-lev, you have to pay the friction for the wheels.
With a sealed tunnel, then yes, you must pay the friction of the air on the tunnell walls, and you have to pay the inititial cost to get the air up to speed
But this is NOT about energy cost, it is about maximum speed.
The question is will the MINIMAL friction of the moving air in the tunnell be such a huge deal that it will slow the train down.
I don't think so. Talking
They could try merely an enclosed tunnell, it keeps the moving air in front of you, instead of having it shoot off in all directions.
The 1857 case declared that the issue of slavery was entirely an INTERNAL manner to the state, and that Congress did not have the right to regulate internal manners.
The position of Congress, SCOTUS, and every single human being capable of rational thought is that: Air pollution, by it's very nature, is not an internal manner. Air travels from one state to another as part of it's nature, not as a minor, occassional side affect.
As a result, only a total fool claims "It's a state's matter."
Air pollution is by definition a planetary commerce issue, not a local state thing. The Federal Government therefore has control, not the states.
Also, may I commend you on using a pro slave court ruling to support your opinion. Most people would not have the sheer balls to do that.
The rather draconic rights turnitin demand (they basically demand the right to do anything they want with it, even print it in a book and sell it), make it unreasonable for a school to be capable of demanding the rights.
They may have that right, they may not. But I bet you $10 that right is not TRANSFERABLE to other people, and Turnitin is demanding they transfer that right.
2. They can say anything they want to, but a judge may declare their contract in bad faith and throw it out.
3. The italicized part is why the students are unhappy and are suing.
Normal use of this service is by the TEACHER, not the writer. The teacher does NOT have the legal authority to assign the copyright to Turnitin.
I am sure that the kids took the precaution of having Student A write the paper and Student B submit it, so that there particular law test case will work.
Like I said before, stop blaiming California, and accept responsibility for your own actions (or lack thereof) in this case.
The fact that you bought such a care tells me that you looked at the cars that did not meet the California emissions tests and said "No thank you".
What probably happened is that the majority of the people in the country with needs similar to yours thought that cars should meet California's tests. The few people that did not want the cleaner cars had different needs then you did.
You don't have a beef with California, you have a beef with the majority of AMERICAN citizens. And you personally were still offered a choice to pick another car, but decided not to.
Why don't you stop blaming California, and start taking responsibility for your own actions
I thought these things were infra red based. That means that fresh blood should be body temperature/bright, while water should be area temperature/dark.
Sure, it might be the same 'green', but is should be dramatically different, one very dark green, the other a shiny bright green.
Am I misunderstanding something here? Or did they just use a bad example?
Why, I bet there are tons of people that decided to use some one else's software, even though it is 'worse', simply because it is cheaper.
I could sue them and live off the profit!
The argument is not "You're one too".
Instead it is:
This is a new technology. What is legal and illegal has not yet been clearly declared.
You yourself are doing the same activity that you are claiming is illegal.
If you REALLY thought it was illegal, you would not do it yourself.
You are just trying to get us to stop competeing against your own legal actions, not actually claiming we are breaking the law.
1. We do have a better way to grow ethanol. Brazil does it from sugar. Sugar is so cheap, that to protect the US market, we have subsidies. But sugar generally grows best outside the US, not inside it.
2. It HAS already been scaled up to US sized volume. Pretty much all of South America uses it.
3. The market exists already, and has existed for years. Cars run on it with little, if any modification, the major modification needed is the refining capacity.
4. Your concept of 'building the market' and hoping the fuel comes later is foolish. You can easily create a market for something that was not viable as a fuel, wasting lots of money. In this case, like all other succesfull implentations, the fuel was created and proven to be viable first, then the market was created. But somewhere in the middle, the corn growers established subsidies so that they could make a profit, instead of them foreigner's with their dirty brazilian money.