Agreed. A handshake is body language that can tell you if someone is nervous, uncomfortable, or even confident.
A firm dry handshake without need for pants wiping after a job interview can say a lot about the person's confidence level. That's useful information depending on how you intend to treat them after hire.
I find a handshake useful. You shouldn't read too much into it. But a wet handshake or a wipe on the pants indicates nervousness.
A weak handshake indicates the person either has a low opinion of you or whatever business you are conducting. That might mean they disagree or it might mean they don't give a shit.
A firm handshake suggests the person is comfortable with you and takes whatever business is at hand seriously. For instance, after a Foosball battle in the office it is habit to go for a firm handshake afterward to indicate mutual respect for a game well played.
Yeah, but I wouldn't put it that way. There is nothing worse than a weak handshake. You'd have to be trying to squeeze too hard, a good handshake is a firm one that speaks of commitment.
"Look, the bottom line is that Apple users like Apple. So what?"
It happens to be relevant to the discussion, in this case why they have such dramatically increased loyalty to what amounts to an inferior system on an inferior network.
Dude there were BSD copyright strings in the disassembled files. There is no question of whether BSD was used for the TCP/IP stack, MS even admitted it.
Agreed. The fact that VP8 generally does hold its own side by side with x264 is a pretty impressive testament to the codec.
But who cares if VP8 is technically a better codec if it doesn't actually produce superior results with the source video we work with? If it cuts CPU for decoding while offering on par quality that would be a solid advantage.
x264 in avi container is the most popular. x264 is going to take a little better than double the cpu to playback. The quality is better xvid even for dvd source but not dramatically better. It is substantially better for HD rips.
If you use a weaker cpu for playback you are going to want to stick to xvid. And if you are concerned about 1.2GB of disc space when 1TB HDD are less than $100 you probably are.
"I'm thinking of using Matroska with Vorbis for audio but I'm completely lost as to what video codec to use."
So you currently use full source quality audio but you are thinking about crunching it down and calling it an upgrade? Its your call, but you can kill the audio with your xvid avi's too.
"ill rip my dvds to x264 that are a bit smaller and better quality then your xvids"
True enough. Not automatically preferable though because they require more than double the cpu to decode.
"if vp8 can give me as good a quality viewing in less space it wins"
Probably not. x264 has a number of innate visual advantages to compressing video that were previously mpeg compressed. VP8 generally seems to win on raw uncompressed video in the races I've seen.
As for cpu, it does count, especially if you are streaming to a set top box or old pc for playback). I don't know what kind of cpu power is required to play back VP8.
More power to you. There is something to be said about the soothing effects of sitting back and smoking. For me it isn't worth the damage. For you it is.
That said, even if you don't plan to take advantage of it I'm sure you'd agree that sales tax and supply/demand should be allowed to settle the price where people at least have the option to eat rather than smoke. Sin taxes similar to alcohol and tobacco would prevent that.
Sony won't let the tech out to become an industry standard. Sony will lock it up and try to control it.
Everytime Sony comes up with a new technology like this they do the same thing. They did it with BETAMAX, they did it with the sony memory stick, they'll do it again with this.
So basically non-news. The industry is wise to Sony and won't fall for their tricks even if it is better.
So if you could buy herbal anti-energy drinks from the cooler at any checkout for $0.99 you'd still rather kill your lungs?
It's pretty much the same effect it just comes on slower, hits heavier, and lasts longer.
In my experience most people who don't like having cooked didn't use enough herb. Unlike smoking, 'enough' depends on body weight. You should look at a minimum of 1/4oz of grade herb for a batch of brownies cut into 9 squares. I weigh about 210 and sometimes I take two brownies.
At $100+ 1/4oz a medical user who needs to take their 'pills' three times a day to control chronic pain is looking at a pretty unrealistic price tag. At $5/lb that becomes more realistic.
"they shouldn't get away with doing nothing and getting a lot"
How can you defend CEO's, Investors, and Entrepreneurs and make this statement in the same post?
These are all people who make their living figuring out how to scrap the most cream off the efforts of others. In other words, doing nothing and getting a lot.
Sorry but I call BS. Gates was bankrolled by his father and so was Microsoft. The companies contracts with IBM kept it afloat before and after DOS and those only happened because of his wealthy father's connections.
Bill Gates is no rags to riches story. He's just a rich newb tink'd up by his daddy who had no scruples and was willing to lie, cheat, and steal his way to the top. He sold IBM a system that didn't exist, that wasn't clever, it was fraud.
And what happens when he lets it out of his possession and he loses it.
I would turn over the original document to anyone but the court and even then only after having all the analysis performed on the original the highly competent team of document and contract experts I hired could think of.
yup, it is the other stock holders/investors who will experience dilution. Whatever chunk of the company you had yesterday will now only be a chunk of Zuckerberger's share. If that isn't what you thought you were buying or what you agreed to buy you have no recourse against the 84% of the company, only Zuckerberger.
"Was he really so cash strapped that he had to sell 50% of this big idea for a measly 1k?"
Do you have any idea how many potentially big ideas I've had? Of those I've built a few. Of those a couple ended in the green. Of those only one has made more than $1000 and none have made facebook money.
An actual real check for a grand even if the site fails for a kid with a million billion dollar ideas? That is serious bait to a cash strapped college kid and if it does work out, half of a billion is still a nice chunk of change.
The problem is that Zuckerberg has lied and claimed he hadn't thought of it yet (although he developed the site the following month) and the contract actually documents the original name of the site he claims he hadn't thought of yet.
The plaintiff has other unrelated credibility issues but the defendant has been documented lying about the content of the contract in question. His word on his intentions in the matter is suspect to say the least.
"Though the fact that Zuckerberg may not have had the right to enter into deals with the VCs, since Ceglia may be the true owner of the company, may end up costing Zuckerberg all of his nut."
That could work the other way. If the deals are invalidated so is Zuckerbergs obligation under them.
Of course they'll sue him. If he could claim he entered the agreement in good faith he might get out of it but its hard to claim you didn't know about an agreement you signed.
Assuming their investment is less than 14% of facebook... Zuckerberg can't give them or have legally signed a contract to guarantee them what isn't his. That fact could invalidate the contract altogether depending on how it is worded.
Wikipedia is hardly a citation, you could have added before linking! The other is an anti-drug site making unsupported assertions. Hardly an unbiased source.
Summary, users with no previous usage experience did experience reduced reaction time on the first experience. Afterward they showed no reduction in reaction time. Users with previous experience showed no difference in reaction time whether using marijuana or not.
"(1 bong can intoxicate an individual as much as 100 ml of hard liquor in one go, plus marijuana intoxication is much faster)"
Yeah, but a bong isn't a single dose it is more like 5-10 (sizes aren't standardized). That is why they have one hitters. In an experienced smoker with tolerance a single hitter of even the most potent material isn't enough to feel a buzz.
Even so, I agree there is a smaller 'safe zone.' But the increased intoxication speed (near instant) allows for more easily controlled dosing. You can tell before the next puff how the last puff impacted you. In contrast, if you are doing shots you won't feel shot one until after drinking shot three!
"Although marijuana significantly increased the number of premature responses and the time participants required to complete several tasks, it had no effect on accuracy on measures of cognitive flexibility, mental calculation, and reasoning. Additionally, heart rate and several subjective-effect ratings (e.g., "Good Drug Effect," "High," "Mellow") were significantly increased in a Delta9-THC concentration-dependent manner. These data demonstrate that acute marijuana smoking produced minimal effects on complex cognitive task performance in experienced marijuana users."
Increased doses cause drivers to sit more upright and caused slightly decreased car following ability. However, in actual road test in a dense urban environment alcohol caused impairment relative to placebo, marijuana cause no impairment... but subjects thought it had.
This article refers to a peer reviewed long term study (sorry don't have the study itself) which finds there is NO permanent brain damage caused by marijuana use.
I don't have a handy study with regard to motor skill, only extensive anecdotal evidence. I've yet to see anyone significantly impaired with alcohol who didn't stumble and sway. I've never seen anyone on any dose of marijuana either sway or stumble. Believe me, I've seen and experienced VERY heavy doses of marijuana.
I'd be happy if the state just enforced its own laws. If the state maintains that they have the right to control instate production, sale, and cultivation (I am certainly inclined to agree) then they should be arresting federal agents who are trespassing and violating the rights of Californians with illegal raids.
Lets see, trespassing, wrongful imprisonment, kidnapping, destruction of property... I suspect those agents are breaking quite a few California laws.
Slashdot Mirror
There is nothing worse than the fist bump. I promise you, everyone you fist bump hates it and the office is the last place you should it.
The rule says shake it MORE than three times. A triple shake is legal.
Agreed. A handshake is body language that can tell you if someone is nervous, uncomfortable, or even confident.
A firm dry handshake without need for pants wiping after a job interview can say a lot about the person's confidence level. That's useful information depending on how you intend to treat them after hire.
I find a handshake useful. You shouldn't read too much into it. But a wet handshake or a wipe on the pants indicates nervousness.
A weak handshake indicates the person either has a low opinion of you or whatever business you are conducting. That might mean they disagree or it might mean they don't give a shit.
A firm handshake suggests the person is comfortable with you and takes whatever business is at hand seriously. For instance, after a Foosball battle in the office it is habit to go for a firm handshake afterward to indicate mutual respect for a game well played.
Yeah, but I wouldn't put it that way. There is nothing worse than a weak handshake. You'd have to be trying to squeeze too hard, a good handshake is a firm one that speaks of commitment.
Is this really a problem? Outside of trying to wound a good handshake is a firm one. There is nothing worse than a weak handshake.
"Look, the bottom line is that Apple users like Apple. So what?"
It happens to be relevant to the discussion, in this case why they have such dramatically increased loyalty to what amounts to an inferior system on an inferior network.
Dude there were BSD copyright strings in the disassembled files. There is no question of whether BSD was used for the TCP/IP stack, MS even admitted it.
"Using a modern audio codec like Vorbis is hardly "killing" the audio"
It is compared with using the source multi-channel audio.
Agreed. The fact that VP8 generally does hold its own side by side with x264 is a pretty impressive testament to the codec.
But who cares if VP8 is technically a better codec if it doesn't actually produce superior results with the source video we work with? If it cuts CPU for decoding while offering on par quality that would be a solid advantage.
x264 in avi container is the most popular. x264 is going to take a little better than double the cpu to playback. The quality is better xvid even for dvd source but not dramatically better. It is substantially better for HD rips.
If you use a weaker cpu for playback you are going to want to stick to xvid. And if you are concerned about 1.2GB of disc space when 1TB HDD are less than $100 you probably are.
"I'm thinking of using Matroska with Vorbis for audio but I'm completely lost as to what video codec to use."
So you currently use full source quality audio but you are thinking about crunching it down and calling it an upgrade? Its your call, but you can kill the audio with your xvid avi's too.
"ill rip my dvds to x264 that are a bit smaller and better quality then your xvids"
True enough. Not automatically preferable though because they require more than double the cpu to decode.
"if vp8 can give me as good a quality viewing in less space it wins"
Probably not. x264 has a number of innate visual advantages to compressing video that were previously mpeg compressed. VP8 generally seems to win on raw uncompressed video in the races I've seen.
As for cpu, it does count, especially if you are streaming to a set top box or old pc for playback). I don't know what kind of cpu power is required to play back VP8.
More power to you. There is something to be said about the soothing effects of sitting back and smoking. For me it isn't worth the damage. For you it is.
That said, even if you don't plan to take advantage of it I'm sure you'd agree that sales tax and supply/demand should be allowed to settle the price where people at least have the option to eat rather than smoke. Sin taxes similar to alcohol and tobacco would prevent that.
Sony won't let the tech out to become an industry standard. Sony will lock it up and try to control it.
Everytime Sony comes up with a new technology like this they do the same thing. They did it with BETAMAX, they did it with the sony memory stick, they'll do it again with this.
So basically non-news. The industry is wise to Sony and won't fall for their tricks even if it is better.
So if you could buy herbal anti-energy drinks from the cooler at any checkout for $0.99 you'd still rather kill your lungs?
It's pretty much the same effect it just comes on slower, hits heavier, and lasts longer.
In my experience most people who don't like having cooked didn't use enough herb. Unlike smoking, 'enough' depends on body weight. You should look at a minimum of 1/4oz of grade herb for a batch of brownies cut into 9 squares. I weigh about 210 and sometimes I take two brownies.
At $100+ 1/4oz a medical user who needs to take their 'pills' three times a day to control chronic pain is looking at a pretty unrealistic price tag. At $5/lb that becomes more realistic.
"they shouldn't get away with doing nothing and getting a lot"
How can you defend CEO's, Investors, and Entrepreneurs and make this statement in the same post?
These are all people who make their living figuring out how to scrap the most cream off the efforts of others. In other words, doing nothing and getting a lot.
Sorry but I call BS. Gates was bankrolled by his father and so was Microsoft. The companies contracts with IBM kept it afloat before and after DOS and those only happened because of his wealthy father's connections.
Bill Gates is no rags to riches story. He's just a rich newb tink'd up by his daddy who had no scruples and was willing to lie, cheat, and steal his way to the top. He sold IBM a system that didn't exist, that wasn't clever, it was fraud.
And what happens when he lets it out of his possession and he loses it.
I would turn over the original document to anyone but the court and even then only after having all the analysis performed on the original the highly competent team of document and contract experts I hired could think of.
yup, it is the other stock holders/investors who will experience dilution. Whatever chunk of the company you had yesterday will now only be a chunk of Zuckerberger's share. If that isn't what you thought you were buying or what you agreed to buy you have no recourse against the 84% of the company, only Zuckerberger.
"Was he really so cash strapped that he had to sell 50% of this big idea for a measly 1k?"
Do you have any idea how many potentially big ideas I've had? Of those I've built a few. Of those a couple ended in the green. Of those only one has made more than $1000 and none have made facebook money.
An actual real check for a grand even if the site fails for a kid with a million billion dollar ideas? That is serious bait to a cash strapped college kid and if it does work out, half of a billion is still a nice chunk of change.
The problem is that Zuckerberg has lied and claimed he hadn't thought of it yet (although he developed the site the following month) and the contract actually documents the original name of the site he claims he hadn't thought of yet.
The plaintiff has other unrelated credibility issues but the defendant has been documented lying about the content of the contract in question. His word on his intentions in the matter is suspect to say the least.
"Though the fact that Zuckerberg may not have had the right to enter into deals with the VCs, since Ceglia may be the true owner of the company, may end up costing Zuckerberg all of his nut."
That could work the other way. If the deals are invalidated so is Zuckerbergs obligation under them.
Of course they'll sue him. If he could claim he entered the agreement in good faith he might get out of it but its hard to claim you didn't know about an agreement you signed.
Assuming their investment is less than 14% of facebook... Zuckerberg can't give them or have legally signed a contract to guarantee them what isn't his. That fact could invalidate the contract altogether depending on how it is worded.
Wikipedia is hardly a citation, you could have added before linking! The other is an anti-drug site making unsupported assertions. Hardly an unbiased source.
Here is a study:
http://www.springerlink.com/content/n645363732641104/
Summary, users with no previous usage experience did experience reduced reaction time on the first experience. Afterward they showed no reduction in reaction time. Users with previous experience showed no difference in reaction time whether using marijuana or not.
"(1 bong can intoxicate an individual as much as 100 ml of hard liquor in one go, plus marijuana intoxication is much faster)"
Yeah, but a bong isn't a single dose it is more like 5-10 (sizes aren't standardized). That is why they have one hitters. In an experienced smoker with tolerance a single hitter of even the most potent material isn't enough to feel a buzz.
Even so, I agree there is a smaller 'safe zone.' But the increased intoxication speed (near instant) allows for more easily controlled dosing. You can tell before the next puff how the last puff impacted you. In contrast, if you are doing shots you won't feel shot one until after drinking shot three!
Some more studies:
http://www.nature.com/npp/journal/v25/n5/full/1395716a.html
"Although marijuana significantly increased the number of premature responses and the time participants required to complete several tasks, it had no effect on accuracy on measures of cognitive flexibility, mental calculation, and reasoning. Additionally, heart rate and several subjective-effect ratings (e.g., "Good Drug Effect," "High," "Mellow") were significantly increased in a Delta9-THC concentration-dependent manner. These data demonstrate that acute marijuana smoking produced minimal effects on complex cognitive task performance in experienced marijuana users."
http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/misc/driving/s1p2.htm
Increased doses cause drivers to sit more upright and caused slightly decreased car following ability. However, in actual road test in a dense urban environment alcohol caused impairment relative to placebo, marijuana cause no impairment... but subjects thought it had.
http://alcoholism.about.com/cs/pot/a/blucsd030628.htm
This article refers to a peer reviewed long term study (sorry don't have the study itself) which finds there is NO permanent brain damage caused by marijuana use.
I don't have a handy study with regard to motor skill, only extensive anecdotal evidence. I've yet to see anyone significantly impaired with alcohol who didn't stumble and sway. I've never seen anyone on any dose of marijuana either sway or stumble. Believe me, I've seen and experienced VERY heavy doses of marijuana.
I'd be happy if the state just enforced its own laws. If the state maintains that they have the right to control instate production, sale, and cultivation (I am certainly inclined to agree) then they should be arresting federal agents who are trespassing and violating the rights of Californians with illegal raids.
Lets see, trespassing, wrongful imprisonment, kidnapping, destruction of property... I suspect those agents are breaking quite a few California laws.