So could we kill off all the 'typical' flu viruses allowing the evolution of something more aggressive?
That's not how evolution works.
Under the assumption that it is possible for a flu virus to easily mutate these particular antigens which appear to highly conserved (which is not a given...no matter how many people you run over with a bus, humans are not going to evolve immunity to buses), then it does not necessarily follow that the new strain would be more aggressive. This new strain could, in fact, very well be a much milder version. If these antigens are highly conserved, it's probably a part of what makes influenza evolutionarily successful. An adaptation that allows it to replicate and spread optimally. If true, and we attack these vectors, we're essentially changing the game such that the virus is now forced to have an adaptation which would have been less successful in the wild, in an environment without the vaccine.
After all, think about it. We didn't create more aggressive strains of polio or chickenpox once we created vaccines against those viruses. Instead, we pretty much annihilated those diseases.
For safety though, I hope they add circuit breakers (a technology along with seat belts that seems to have been lost in the 25th century)."
TNG's period was the 24th century, not the 25th.
Nerds these days, missing the most basic of knowledge. Back in my days, we could tell you the stardates of different episodes from memory and wore an onion on our belts, because that was the style at the time.
The bottom line is even if they are super sincere if they got elected (if you subscribed to a multiverse theory they get elected in some universe) they would be ineffective, because you have to b eable to get the congress and the senate to agree to anything you watn to do as president for the most part.
I don't think you understand what the powers of the President are. Hint: Gary Johnson has vetoed over 750 bills as governor of New Mexico.
Stopping bullshit legislation by forcing a 2/3rds majority would have a very large impact in government.
I find it amazing that he didn't break the sound barrier. How can their calculations have been wrong? I would have thought with the effort that went into this they'd have been able to predict exactly how fast he'd go, how high he'd jump from, etc.
I'm waiting for the press conference to confirm this, but from what I've read before, it's not a case of, "if you drop a human from that altitude, he will break the speed of sound." It required effort on his part. He needed to be in a stable aerodynamic flight, and instead he was tumbling all around. By the time he got stable, the air wasn't thin enough.
Around 11th grade (1994), we had some CAD work on Macs in tech ed., but that was only because we were in a special Science & Tech magnet program... don't think that would have been the norm at most high schools.
I was in High School in the late 90's. It was a really good high school, but not a magnet program. As electives, they had two computer science courses for anyone who was interested, which were actually quite excellent, taught by a very good teacher. I'm pretty sure he was the one who pushed the program. He was the math teacher, with a personal interest and experience in programming.
When I was in both classes, we were learning Turbo Pascal. The year after I completed the courses, they switched to C. I remember he had plans of turning it into an AP program for college credit, but I don't think he managed it before I graduated. Considering there definitely was an AP exam for computer science available, I'm sure quite a few schools around the country offered it, so I wouldn't say the situation in the US was that bad...
So many things to criticize about Apple's UI direction (the tabletization of OS X, for example), and they criticize the thing Apple is doing right.
People like old fashioned aesthetics. Nobody had a need to use a sundial these days, but many people still decorate their yards with them. Seeing a wood bookshelf with real books stacked looks pretty and people see it as part of Apple's software polish.
Why is there an obsession with getting the the results of an election within hours/minutes of the polls closing?
In the USA elections are in early November, POTUS isn't sworn in until mid January. Take a week or two to count the votes.
You're absolutely right, but I really don't see why we need to have a tradeoff. The problem with our trust in electronic voting machines has nothing to do with them being fast. The problem is that they are unverifiable.
I don't understand why we simply can't make voting machines that print out a human-readable ballot. You vote on the screen, you press the vote button, it prints out a ballot, you verify it is correct. If it is correct, you deposit the ballot on the box, certain that there are no issues such as hanging chads or otherwise spoiled ballots. If it is incorrect, you ask the voting official to destroy the printed ballot, and start the process over.
With such a system, as soon as the polls close, you have an instant unofficial result. Then you can take weeks or even months to count all the ballots deposited in the box for the official confirmation. If the manual count differs from the electronic count by a certain margin, an automatic recount is triggered. Now we have a reliable, trustworthy, and fast system.
See the discussion on whether or not sexual harassment is ingrained in hacker culture...
Really? How is this indicative of sexual harassment? "Ohmygod! It's part of a picture taken from Playboy!" Never mind that the test image is just a picture of her face. Or the fact that women who pose for playboy and similar magazines do so by choice and get paid to do so.
Comments like yours are why so many people immediately backlash whenever sexual harassment is discussed. The article you are referring to talks about women being groped at the crotch in the middle of a conference. That's a legitimate concern. It's freaking assault. However, when I see the words "sexual harassment", I do have to go and read the details before I can determine whether it's something legitimate or someone who decided that, for example, using Lenna as a test picture is indicative of a sexism problem in hacker culture. I bet lots of the comments in the discussion you are referring to are from people who didn't read the article, and assume it's really about the bullshit type of sexual harassment.
why is staying the same for the sake of staying the same a good thing?
If it's not broken, don't fix it. The default option should always be to keep things the same. That means you don't introduce new bugs, you don't have to retrain your users, and you don't have to deal with people who just don't like change.
That doesn't mean you should shun progress. But progress is change to fix a problem, ie, fix something that is broken, or at least turn some inefficient task more efficient. That's not what they've done with metro. I'm a software developer who will have to support Windows 8, so I have been playing around with the preview versions since they've made them public, and honestly...there's not a single thing that I do better in Windows 8 than I did in Windows 7.
What the Moderators do: -5 Off Topic
What the Anonymous Coward sees: +5 Attention.
This is not how negative feedback was supposed to work.
The goal of the moderation here isn't to teach the dude the error of his ways. It wasn't meant to punish him. I don't care if he was gratified by the "attention" he got. If he did, more power to him, let him keep posting it.
The point is that I don't browse at -1, so I didn't see his comment. Slashdot was therefore a better experience for me, and the moderation worked exceedingly well.
So if a person's body develops as a woman, they're still a man, even though by all objective standards beyond the chromosomes, they're a woman? That's a really strange conception.
Maybe at some point you just say, "you don't fall into the most common classifications, so you can't belong to either category we have created for the most common classifications?"
I mean, it sucks for the athlete, but at some point you have to ask yourself just how much work is justified to support such a small minority of people whose gender can't easily be distinguished to participate in a competition. We're not talking about denying basic rights here, it's a competition.
There's way too much emphasis on trying to identify the gender, but really the crux of the matter here is that these categories were defined because it was decided it was unfair for people who belong to one category to compete in another. If you're at the border, can you guarantee that this does not give them an unfair advantage at the chosen event? if so, then I don't see what the problem is, let them compete. If not, then either you don't let them compete, or you have them compete at whichever gender category has the stronger athletes for the event.
In your analogy, humans are the cat gods. We're responsible for building the plant where the food gets packaged, something the cat doesn't know exists. We're responsible for going to the store and buying the cat food, another place the cat doesn't even know exists. Finally, we're responsible for opening the can, a process the cat can observe, but cannot hope to achieve.
There is one important difference between the cats and ourselves, in your analogy. It is in constant interaction with its gods, it can see us doing things it cannot do and cannot comprehend. And while we can can question whether there is a soul or whether we are entirely a product of the functioning of our brains, the cat has proof there was food inside the can and therefore something it doesn't understand must be happening.
There are plenty of things about the universe that we cannot yet understand, but considering how much progress we continue to make in explaining things that were once unexplainable, no reason to believe that there's anything we're intellectually incapable of understanding.
Their criticism of W3C was that it was slow in the creation of new web standards, but who exactly was behind the failure to implement many existing standards properly, and newer W3C standards at all which was in part a major factor in that? Er, the browser manufacturers.
Standards should be slow, otherwise you can't have a healthy number of standards compliant competing products.
Another poster above really said it all. We just need to slow down and take a breath. The biggest problem with chrome and firefox is precisely their unwillingness to just let things sit for a while. It seems that every time I start my browser I get a message saying I need to update it. If you've got a security bug, by all means, fix it immediately. If you're adding new features, I don't want to see a new version in less than a year. I don't want to see a standard change in less than 5.
Gee, as soon as I finish getting my legal advice from Slashdot, maybe I'll head over to LawBlog to see if they can help me debug some of my Python code....:)
The submitter is an actual lawyer (it's not just his username). I'd assume he has the legal aspect of this down. He's probably more interested in a technical discussion of what consists of interactions in BT swarms. Slashdot is actually a good place for that.
A guy at Google is not concerned about the privacy issues of ubiquitous video recordings.
To be fair, there are no privacy issues with ubiquitous video recordings. You're filming things in public places, there's no expectation of privacy there. You can ask photographers who get harassed when they're taking pictures in public what they think. If anything, this would be great, as it would get people used to the idea, and they'd stop harassing photographers and people who take video of police. If you are walking into a private location with it, and the owners do not allow recordings, it's the same situation as it is now, as you wouldn't be allowed to record with your phone. You'd just be asked to take the thing off.
Privacy issues come with the sharing of those videos. And I don't mean who the person who recorded chose to share it with, that's his choice. The question is what google will do with it when the video hits their servers. If you trust Google to handle your e-mails (I do, others don't, and that's ok), there's no reason you wouldn't trust them with these videos. The e-mails contain far more information about your life.
Isn't this usually treated with liquid nitrogen? Freeze a patch of cancerous skin, the cells rupture and die, leaving behind a nasty scar. How is radiation better?
Before everyone finishes patting themselves on the back about how stupid Carreon is, how he has invoked the Streisand effect and a bunch of bad PR ask yourself this: How many of us had honestly even heard of Funnyjunk before today.
The whole "any publicity is good publicity" thing is bullshit. Bad publicity kills you quicker than obscurity.
Given that it contains so much user submitted content, imagine how many ads have been served on pages where people have gone to flame them, despite the bulk of slashdot readers using adblocks on unfamiliar sites.
Short-term gains at the expense of a viable long-term strategy is pretty much the definition of stupidity. Intelligence is, after all, only advantageous because it allows you to predict the consequences of your actions before you perform them.
Arguing something isn't art isn't left to critics, it's left to idiots who don't understand what art is. If it means something to someone, it's art.
So the term 'art' is meaningless, then. Good to know.
"Art" is a term that is far too generic to have the meaning you want it to have, yes. You want to be able to objectively define something as being significant, but this is not possible. Not everyone agrees with you on what is beauty, on the importance of different subjects, or on what is crass. It is, by definition, subjective.
For example, If I've had a particularly emotional experience sometime in my life, certain visuals could be associated with the event. Years later, I might see a painting that sharply reminds me of it. That painting would mean a lot to me. It wouldn't mean the same thing to me as it meant to the painter. It wouldn't mean the same to others around me who saw the same painting. Maybe what everyone else sees is a rather amateurish, cliched painting of a sunset, of the type millions of painters paint when they're first starting out. However, to me, there's something about that sunset, the position of the clouds, the shade of a color, something that makes it special as a result of my personal experience. To me, it's very meaningful.
"Art" is defined by the person experiencing the art, not the artist. The artist and the viewer can be the same person, but it's not the act of creating it that makes it art, it's the act of experiencing it. That doesn't mean you can't have artists that are better than others. When an artist has the skill to cause others to see meaning in his work, to persuade them of his point of view, to think about something they would not otherwise consider, or even just to evoke an emotion, such as making people laugh...that makes him a good artist. The quality of the work itself isn't judged by how many people it touched, though. It's individually judged by every person who sees it, and as a result, it only takes one person to make it "art", even if it's just the artist himself.
use something like Dropbox. It works fine, does exactly what you want, what's the point in reinventing the wheel?
I think, "that would take the fun out of it" pretty much covers it. Sounds like he's interested in the process of rolling out his own solution and putting it to the text. There's a lot of pride that goes with using something you've built yourself.
Your answer, given that he already says he's aware such solutions exist, is a bit like telling a guy rebuilding a car in his garage to just buy one new, because it'd be simpler and cheaper. Yes, it would, but that's not the point.
Showing a picture of a hamburger (as an example), then reviewing the food is not what is meant by "criticism, comment, news reporting"--if you didn't take the picture, that's just plain old infringement. It means commenting on or criticizing the *actual* photograph in question as a work of art--not the subject of the photograph.
That is most certainly not right. I may, for example, quote from a textbook as support of an argument I am making, I don't need to be criticizing the textbook.
If I'm talking about a Big Mac, I can't use the picture of any sandwich, but I can use the picture of a Big Mac that somebody else took, as long as something in the picture is relevant to the discussion. If, for example, I'm pointing something out about what the Big Mac looks like.
Yeah but that figure is with Hollywood accounting.
You don't see much of that with television series, it's mostly for movies. Besides, $700,000 does sound a bit low. Scriptwriter scale (absolute minimum they are required to be paid) for a tv series episode script is roughly ~$14,000 for the story plus ~$22,000 for the teleplay (sometimes those are not the same person, so it's separated). Minimum for major role performer (pretty much everyone who gets listed in the title sequence) is ~$7,000 per episode. For firefly, that's 9 actors, and I doubt every one of those was earning scale. The director minimum for a primetime network show is ~$40,000 per episode. So far, we've already gotten to $139,000 per episode for salaries only, while assuming that everyone got paid absolute minimum the networks are allowed to pay them, without including the salaries of the producers, actors playing non-recurring characters, extras, non-performing crew members...then you've got to consider the cost of building the non-permanent sets, paying the special effects company...
I still don't understand why we have to "Save" documents in today's computer age. What's wrong with Auto-save and Undo? Undo is a simply red arrow pointing counter clockwise. Redo is green and clockwise.
You must be the guy who has been ruining OS X for me.
Autosave is a great feature for recovery purposes. If the computer crashes, when I reopen the program it should detect that I was working on something and ask me if I want to recover it. It should not autosave to the actual file I intend to open unless I tell it to.
While I'm ranting about stupid Mac OS X decisions, when I open a program that was closed normally, it should open in a default state, not with whatever I had opened before. It's highly unlikely I'll want to open the same file. In fact, if I open a program directly, I'm likely to want to create a new file. if I want to open a file, I would have clicked on the file, and let the default program open.
Finally, when I choose to quit a program, it should actually quit, not stay open in the background. If I want it to stay open in the background, I'll minimize it.
Slashdot Mirror
And yes, I meant smallpox.
So could we kill off all the 'typical' flu viruses allowing the evolution of something more aggressive?
That's not how evolution works.
Under the assumption that it is possible for a flu virus to easily mutate these particular antigens which appear to highly conserved (which is not a given...no matter how many people you run over with a bus, humans are not going to evolve immunity to buses), then it does not necessarily follow that the new strain would be more aggressive. This new strain could, in fact, very well be a much milder version. If these antigens are highly conserved, it's probably a part of what makes influenza evolutionarily successful. An adaptation that allows it to replicate and spread optimally. If true, and we attack these vectors, we're essentially changing the game such that the virus is now forced to have an adaptation which would have been less successful in the wild, in an environment without the vaccine.
After all, think about it. We didn't create more aggressive strains of polio or chickenpox once we created vaccines against those viruses. Instead, we pretty much annihilated those diseases.
For safety though, I hope they add circuit breakers (a technology along with seat belts that seems to have been lost in the 25th century)."
TNG's period was the 24th century, not the 25th.
Nerds these days, missing the most basic of knowledge. Back in my days, we could tell you the stardates of different episodes from memory and wore an onion on our belts, because that was the style at the time.
The bottom line is even if they are super sincere if they got elected (if you subscribed to a multiverse theory they get elected in some universe) they would be ineffective, because you have to b eable to get the congress and the senate to agree to anything you watn to do as president for the most part.
I don't think you understand what the powers of the President are. Hint: Gary Johnson has vetoed over 750 bills as governor of New Mexico.
Stopping bullshit legislation by forcing a 2/3rds majority would have a very large impact in government.
When he landed they should have given him a "Red Bull" rather than a bottle of water.
Concern for his well being should supersede marketing concerns. So I call that a major WIN.
I find it amazing that he didn't break the sound barrier. How can their calculations have been wrong? I would have thought with the effort that went into this they'd have been able to predict exactly how fast he'd go, how high he'd jump from, etc.
I'm waiting for the press conference to confirm this, but from what I've read before, it's not a case of, "if you drop a human from that altitude, he will break the speed of sound." It required effort on his part. He needed to be in a stable aerodynamic flight, and instead he was tumbling all around. By the time he got stable, the air wasn't thin enough.
Around 11th grade (1994), we had some CAD work on Macs in tech ed., but that was only because we were in a special Science & Tech magnet program... don't think that would have been the norm at most high schools.
I was in High School in the late 90's. It was a really good high school, but not a magnet program. As electives, they had two computer science courses for anyone who was interested, which were actually quite excellent, taught by a very good teacher. I'm pretty sure he was the one who pushed the program. He was the math teacher, with a personal interest and experience in programming.
When I was in both classes, we were learning Turbo Pascal. The year after I completed the courses, they switched to C. I remember he had plans of turning it into an AP program for college credit, but I don't think he managed it before I graduated. Considering there definitely was an AP exam for computer science available, I'm sure quite a few schools around the country offered it, so I wouldn't say the situation in the US was that bad...
As every Buffy fan knows, it's under a suburb in Southern California.
Don't forget there's another hellmouth in Cleveland.
So many things to criticize about Apple's UI direction (the tabletization of OS X, for example), and they criticize the thing Apple is doing right.
People like old fashioned aesthetics. Nobody had a need to use a sundial these days, but many people still decorate their yards with them. Seeing a wood bookshelf with real books stacked looks pretty and people see it as part of Apple's software polish.
Why is there an obsession with getting the the results of an election within hours/minutes of the polls closing?
In the USA elections are in early November, POTUS isn't sworn in until mid January. Take a week or two to count the votes.
You're absolutely right, but I really don't see why we need to have a tradeoff. The problem with our trust in electronic voting machines has nothing to do with them being fast. The problem is that they are unverifiable.
I don't understand why we simply can't make voting machines that print out a human-readable ballot. You vote on the screen, you press the vote button, it prints out a ballot, you verify it is correct. If it is correct, you deposit the ballot on the box, certain that there are no issues such as hanging chads or otherwise spoiled ballots. If it is incorrect, you ask the voting official to destroy the printed ballot, and start the process over.
With such a system, as soon as the polls close, you have an instant unofficial result. Then you can take weeks or even months to count all the ballots deposited in the box for the official confirmation. If the manual count differs from the electronic count by a certain margin, an automatic recount is triggered. Now we have a reliable, trustworthy, and fast system.
See the discussion on whether or not sexual harassment is ingrained in hacker culture...
Really? How is this indicative of sexual harassment? "Ohmygod! It's part of a picture taken from Playboy!" Never mind that the test image is just a picture of her face. Or the fact that women who pose for playboy and similar magazines do so by choice and get paid to do so.
Comments like yours are why so many people immediately backlash whenever sexual harassment is discussed. The article you are referring to talks about women being groped at the crotch in the middle of a conference. That's a legitimate concern. It's freaking assault. However, when I see the words "sexual harassment", I do have to go and read the details before I can determine whether it's something legitimate or someone who decided that, for example, using Lenna as a test picture is indicative of a sexism problem in hacker culture. I bet lots of the comments in the discussion you are referring to are from people who didn't read the article, and assume it's really about the bullshit type of sexual harassment.
why is staying the same for the sake of staying the same a good thing?
If it's not broken, don't fix it. The default option should always be to keep things the same. That means you don't introduce new bugs, you don't have to retrain your users, and you don't have to deal with people who just don't like change.
That doesn't mean you should shun progress. But progress is change to fix a problem, ie, fix something that is broken, or at least turn some inefficient task more efficient. That's not what they've done with metro. I'm a software developer who will have to support Windows 8, so I have been playing around with the preview versions since they've made them public, and honestly...there's not a single thing that I do better in Windows 8 than I did in Windows 7.
Anonymous Coward: FROST PIST
What the Moderators do: -5 Off Topic What the Anonymous Coward sees: +5 Attention.
This is not how negative feedback was supposed to work.
The goal of the moderation here isn't to teach the dude the error of his ways. It wasn't meant to punish him. I don't care if he was gratified by the "attention" he got. If he did, more power to him, let him keep posting it.
The point is that I don't browse at -1, so I didn't see his comment. Slashdot was therefore a better experience for me, and the moderation worked exceedingly well.
So if a person's body develops as a woman, they're still a man, even though by all objective standards beyond the chromosomes, they're a woman? That's a really strange conception.
Maybe at some point you just say, "you don't fall into the most common classifications, so you can't belong to either category we have created for the most common classifications?"
I mean, it sucks for the athlete, but at some point you have to ask yourself just how much work is justified to support such a small minority of people whose gender can't easily be distinguished to participate in a competition. We're not talking about denying basic rights here, it's a competition.
There's way too much emphasis on trying to identify the gender, but really the crux of the matter here is that these categories were defined because it was decided it was unfair for people who belong to one category to compete in another. If you're at the border, can you guarantee that this does not give them an unfair advantage at the chosen event? if so, then I don't see what the problem is, let them compete. If not, then either you don't let them compete, or you have them compete at whichever gender category has the stronger athletes for the event.
In your analogy, humans are the cat gods. We're responsible for building the plant where the food gets packaged, something the cat doesn't know exists. We're responsible for going to the store and buying the cat food, another place the cat doesn't even know exists. Finally, we're responsible for opening the can, a process the cat can observe, but cannot hope to achieve.
There is one important difference between the cats and ourselves, in your analogy. It is in constant interaction with its gods, it can see us doing things it cannot do and cannot comprehend. And while we can can question whether there is a soul or whether we are entirely a product of the functioning of our brains, the cat has proof there was food inside the can and therefore something it doesn't understand must be happening.
There are plenty of things about the universe that we cannot yet understand, but considering how much progress we continue to make in explaining things that were once unexplainable, no reason to believe that there's anything we're intellectually incapable of understanding.
Their criticism of W3C was that it was slow in the creation of new web standards, but who exactly was behind the failure to implement many existing standards properly, and newer W3C standards at all which was in part a major factor in that? Er, the browser manufacturers.
Standards should be slow, otherwise you can't have a healthy number of standards compliant competing products.
Another poster above really said it all. We just need to slow down and take a breath. The biggest problem with chrome and firefox is precisely their unwillingness to just let things sit for a while. It seems that every time I start my browser I get a message saying I need to update it. If you've got a security bug, by all means, fix it immediately. If you're adding new features, I don't want to see a new version in less than a year. I don't want to see a standard change in less than 5.
Gee, as soon as I finish getting my legal advice from Slashdot, maybe I'll head over to LawBlog to see if they can help me debug some of my Python code.... :)
The submitter is an actual lawyer (it's not just his username). I'd assume he has the legal aspect of this down. He's probably more interested in a technical discussion of what consists of interactions in BT swarms. Slashdot is actually a good place for that.
A guy at Google is not concerned about the privacy issues of ubiquitous video recordings.
To be fair, there are no privacy issues with ubiquitous video recordings. You're filming things in public places, there's no expectation of privacy there. You can ask photographers who get harassed when they're taking pictures in public what they think. If anything, this would be great, as it would get people used to the idea, and they'd stop harassing photographers and people who take video of police. If you are walking into a private location with it, and the owners do not allow recordings, it's the same situation as it is now, as you wouldn't be allowed to record with your phone. You'd just be asked to take the thing off.
Privacy issues come with the sharing of those videos. And I don't mean who the person who recorded chose to share it with, that's his choice. The question is what google will do with it when the video hits their servers. If you trust Google to handle your e-mails (I do, others don't, and that's ok), there's no reason you wouldn't trust them with these videos. The e-mails contain far more information about your life.
Isn't this usually treated with liquid nitrogen? Freeze a patch of cancerous skin, the cells rupture and die, leaving behind a nasty scar. How is radiation better?
RTFA. No scar.
Before everyone finishes patting themselves on the back about how stupid Carreon is, how he has invoked the Streisand effect and a bunch of bad PR ask yourself this: How many of us had honestly even heard of Funnyjunk before today.
The whole "any publicity is good publicity" thing is bullshit. Bad publicity kills you quicker than obscurity.
Given that it contains so much user submitted content, imagine how many ads have been served on pages where people have gone to flame them, despite the bulk of slashdot readers using adblocks on unfamiliar sites.
Short-term gains at the expense of a viable long-term strategy is pretty much the definition of stupidity. Intelligence is, after all, only advantageous because it allows you to predict the consequences of your actions before you perform them.
Arguing something isn't art isn't left to critics, it's left to idiots who don't understand what art is. If it means something to someone, it's art.
So the term 'art' is meaningless, then. Good to know.
"Art" is a term that is far too generic to have the meaning you want it to have, yes. You want to be able to objectively define something as being significant, but this is not possible. Not everyone agrees with you on what is beauty, on the importance of different subjects, or on what is crass. It is, by definition, subjective.
For example, If I've had a particularly emotional experience sometime in my life, certain visuals could be associated with the event. Years later, I might see a painting that sharply reminds me of it. That painting would mean a lot to me. It wouldn't mean the same thing to me as it meant to the painter. It wouldn't mean the same to others around me who saw the same painting. Maybe what everyone else sees is a rather amateurish, cliched painting of a sunset, of the type millions of painters paint when they're first starting out. However, to me, there's something about that sunset, the position of the clouds, the shade of a color, something that makes it special as a result of my personal experience. To me, it's very meaningful.
"Art" is defined by the person experiencing the art, not the artist. The artist and the viewer can be the same person, but it's not the act of creating it that makes it art, it's the act of experiencing it. That doesn't mean you can't have artists that are better than others. When an artist has the skill to cause others to see meaning in his work, to persuade them of his point of view, to think about something they would not otherwise consider, or even just to evoke an emotion, such as making people laugh...that makes him a good artist. The quality of the work itself isn't judged by how many people it touched, though. It's individually judged by every person who sees it, and as a result, it only takes one person to make it "art", even if it's just the artist himself.
use something like Dropbox. It works fine, does exactly what you want, what's the point in reinventing the wheel?
I think, "that would take the fun out of it" pretty much covers it. Sounds like he's interested in the process of rolling out his own solution and putting it to the text. There's a lot of pride that goes with using something you've built yourself.
Your answer, given that he already says he's aware such solutions exist, is a bit like telling a guy rebuilding a car in his garage to just buy one new, because it'd be simpler and cheaper. Yes, it would, but that's not the point.
Showing a picture of a hamburger (as an example), then reviewing the food is not what is meant by "criticism, comment, news reporting"--if you didn't take the picture, that's just plain old infringement. It means commenting on or criticizing the *actual* photograph in question as a work of art--not the subject of the photograph.
That is most certainly not right. I may, for example, quote from a textbook as support of an argument I am making, I don't need to be criticizing the textbook.
If I'm talking about a Big Mac, I can't use the picture of any sandwich, but I can use the picture of a Big Mac that somebody else took, as long as something in the picture is relevant to the discussion. If, for example, I'm pointing something out about what the Big Mac looks like.
Yeah but that figure is with Hollywood accounting.
You don't see much of that with television series, it's mostly for movies. Besides, $700,000 does sound a bit low. Scriptwriter scale (absolute minimum they are required to be paid) for a tv series episode script is roughly ~$14,000 for the story plus ~$22,000 for the teleplay (sometimes those are not the same person, so it's separated). Minimum for major role performer (pretty much everyone who gets listed in the title sequence) is ~$7,000 per episode. For firefly, that's 9 actors, and I doubt every one of those was earning scale. The director minimum for a primetime network show is ~$40,000 per episode. So far, we've already gotten to $139,000 per episode for salaries only, while assuming that everyone got paid absolute minimum the networks are allowed to pay them, without including the salaries of the producers, actors playing non-recurring characters, extras, non-performing crew members...then you've got to consider the cost of building the non-permanent sets, paying the special effects company...
$700k per episode sounds positively cheap...
I still don't understand why we have to "Save" documents in today's computer age. What's wrong with Auto-save and Undo? Undo is a simply red arrow pointing counter clockwise. Redo is green and clockwise.
You must be the guy who has been ruining OS X for me.
Autosave is a great feature for recovery purposes. If the computer crashes, when I reopen the program it should detect that I was working on something and ask me if I want to recover it. It should not autosave to the actual file I intend to open unless I tell it to.
While I'm ranting about stupid Mac OS X decisions, when I open a program that was closed normally, it should open in a default state, not with whatever I had opened before. It's highly unlikely I'll want to open the same file. In fact, if I open a program directly, I'm likely to want to create a new file. if I want to open a file, I would have clicked on the file, and let the default program open.
Finally, when I choose to quit a program, it should actually quit, not stay open in the background. If I want it to stay open in the background, I'll minimize it.