Unverifiable links by anonymous authors citing anonymous sources are no better than science fiction. At least Isaac Asimov signed his work.
There is jack and shit for evidence of intelligent alien life as of today. I'm sure the Russian hacker THOUGHT he could find images... where is the proof he did? Did he disseminate any of them? Any that cannot be easily dismissed as various atmospheric and interference phenomena? I mean, there are people who still think the moon images were faked, even though there have been extensive experiments and study done on them to verify them.
Oh, and about the astronauts acknowledging (way to use spell-check there, sparky) alien contact? Bullshit. With a capital fucking B. Lying does NOT help your credibility.
Face it. There is no alien life near us, we really did land on the moon, and the government is NOT all powerful and able to keep a secret of that magnitude. Suggesting anything else is pure lunacy.
Politics has never been about the best man for the job, it's always been about getting your horse in the lead, and if that means brushing away "bad" facts and hammering on "good" ones (relating to your candidate), so be it. I can't remember where, but I've seen a study on how highly partisan people react completely differently to the same hypothetical situation depending on which candidate it was applied to. Rationalization is a scary way that most people deal with otherwise intractable hypocrisy or other cognitive dissonance.
If there were life intelligent enough to travel between the stars, do you REALLY think they'd allow an agency like NASA keep it under wraps? Seriously... you grossly overestimate the competence of government. Shit is nowhere NEAR that in control, by anyone.
She was almost 100% artificial. Would clothing really have given her any advantage? When she needs more armor, she tends to put it on. But it's been a while since I've watched those episodes.
Sure, if you want to be pedantic. But the implied question is exactly what you asked, it's simply stated in a more interesting manner that causes the respondent to spend a modicum of time thinking about the question, rather than simply responding.
And even more likely for consumers, video editing programs can use almost as many cores as you can throw at them. Those are much more common than 3D modeling or drafting programs.
Why replace X11? There are other windowing systems, and if they're creating it as a webapp running OS, they have no reason to make it do anything other than what Chrome needs, and nothing more. Maybe some GL acceleration, tight tying of Chrome's drawing code to the video drivers, and that's about it.
That depends entirely on how fast the machine reacts. If it goes faster than you can refocus (not out of the question), then you're good to go. If not, then it's pretty much a useless product. I really doubt that it'd be this far in development if it were completely useless.
I can't even read on a normal screen at the same speed as my wife when we're both reading some quote site or something on the same screen... one of us is always slower or faster. This would be damn near impossible to figure out.
Yes. And they should never be on an airplane and try to get work done, or in a coffee shop, or anything like that. I mean, it's never critical to send an email before the deadline, is it?
Hell... what if you just want to read some shitty porn or do your taxes or banking or something and don't want people shoulder surfing? Isn't that a good enough reason to protect your privacy?
iPods won't lose marketshare for the same reason that DVD is barely losing marketshare to Blu-Ray. Ogg is not enough superior from the consumer's viewpoint to make a switch worth the not-insignificant cost. It is worth it for the long term health of the industry, but consumers don't know that. It's like the switch to unleaded gas... it wouldn't have happened unless it was forced. Apple is in a position to force it, and they're not because they have an interest in keeping leaded gasoline around.
Competition in the market is a good thing, but the competition comes at the cost of freedom due to patents. You cannot freely, legally ship software that implements H.264 in the US. That is a VERY significant barrier to browsers like Firefox. Apple knows that. If the market were actually free, I would agree with you. The problem is that it's not free, there are significant restrictions on the free use of H.264, and that makes Ogg a much better choice.
The thing is, you have to compile things in right now to get the support due to the fact that it's still so new. With the GEM/TTM/DRM changes happening in the graphics system, there will be a "generic" video acceleration setup happening eventually. It just takes time... Linux is open source, and it tends to do things "good", rather than "fast", because it has no choice but to be cheap. (in reference to the common "good, fast, cheap: choose two").
ATI is really working toward getting hardware acceleration going, as is Intel. It just takes time and legal wrangling. Gotta love patents.
Because iPods have h.264 acceleration hardware built in. And Apple has a strong interest in keeping H.264 the standard specifically because they want to keep selling iPods. Even if Ogg were better, Apple would be against it. And for cross-platform, free implementations Ogg IS a better solution.
Which is more dangerous to the user? The mercury bulb breaking in their house, or the mercury coming out of the coal plant? And what if we replace the coal power with something cleaner like nuclear, wind or water?
I typically wash ours our with HOT water (as hot as it can get out of the tap), then crush it pretty flat and cap it while it's crushed. As the air inside cools, it'll suck the cap on tighter so you don't get the stinky stuff. It'll let me fit a lot more of them in the recycle bin.
If Apple wants to pay to free up the H.264 codec so it can be implemented legally by everyone, then they have a point. Otherwise, Apple is sure as shit holding back progress in order to protect their own platform (aka, iPod and friends) which only supports H.264. Fuck Apple.
I don't. The family of the victim are the ones that enabled it by being so disconnected from their child that they had no clue what was going on. That's "neglect" in my book.
The disasters and massacres HAVE happened, and people still haven't realized it's a bad idea. It's because of our entitlement culture, where all problems are external to you. You can't be the problem... something else (video games, television, big companies, SOMETHING) must have caused it.
The problem is that the recommended doses are dangerously close to overdoses. Yes, it's people's own fault, but there's a limit to how much risk is acceptable, especially if it's not well indicated on the packaging. The literature and public opinion is that over the counter painkillers are safe, and you don't have to worry about them. That may not be the reality of the situation, but that is the perception of it, and people act on perception, not reality. So, we either need to change the perception, or change the availability of the substance. Which do you think is easier?
Slashdot Mirror
Unverifiable links by anonymous authors citing anonymous sources are no better than science fiction. At least Isaac Asimov signed his work.
There is jack and shit for evidence of intelligent alien life as of today. I'm sure the Russian hacker THOUGHT he could find images... where is the proof he did? Did he disseminate any of them? Any that cannot be easily dismissed as various atmospheric and interference phenomena? I mean, there are people who still think the moon images were faked, even though there have been extensive experiments and study done on them to verify them.
Oh, and about the astronauts acknowledging (way to use spell-check there, sparky) alien contact? Bullshit. With a capital fucking B. Lying does NOT help your credibility.
Face it. There is no alien life near us, we really did land on the moon, and the government is NOT all powerful and able to keep a secret of that magnitude. Suggesting anything else is pure lunacy.
Politics has never been about the best man for the job, it's always been about getting your horse in the lead, and if that means brushing away "bad" facts and hammering on "good" ones (relating to your candidate), so be it. I can't remember where, but I've seen a study on how highly partisan people react completely differently to the same hypothetical situation depending on which candidate it was applied to. Rationalization is a scary way that most people deal with otherwise intractable hypocrisy or other cognitive dissonance.
If there were life intelligent enough to travel between the stars, do you REALLY think they'd allow an agency like NASA keep it under wraps? Seriously... you grossly overestimate the competence of government. Shit is nowhere NEAR that in control, by anyone.
She was almost 100% artificial. Would clothing really have given her any advantage? When she needs more armor, she tends to put it on. But it's been a while since I've watched those episodes.
Sure, if you want to be pedantic. But the implied question is exactly what you asked, it's simply stated in a more interesting manner that causes the respondent to spend a modicum of time thinking about the question, rather than simply responding.
There are framebuffer drivers already. X can easily be replaced, but the applications that run on it are less so.
And even more likely for consumers, video editing programs can use almost as many cores as you can throw at them. Those are much more common than 3D modeling or drafting programs.
Ehh... VPN's are so common any more that encryption isn't really suspicious. Hide in plain sight, all that.
Why replace X11? There are other windowing systems, and if they're creating it as a webapp running OS, they have no reason to make it do anything other than what Chrome needs, and nothing more. Maybe some GL acceleration, tight tying of Chrome's drawing code to the video drivers, and that's about it.
That depends entirely on how fast the machine reacts. If it goes faster than you can refocus (not out of the question), then you're good to go. If not, then it's pretty much a useless product. I really doubt that it'd be this far in development if it were completely useless.
I can't even read on a normal screen at the same speed as my wife when we're both reading some quote site or something on the same screen... one of us is always slower or faster. This would be damn near impossible to figure out.
Eye signatures? Doubtful. But it provides security once you've logged in. That's a fairly big deal itself.
Yes. And they should never be on an airplane and try to get work done, or in a coffee shop, or anything like that. I mean, it's never critical to send an email before the deadline, is it?
Hell... what if you just want to read some shitty porn or do your taxes or banking or something and don't want people shoulder surfing? Isn't that a good enough reason to protect your privacy?
iPods won't lose marketshare for the same reason that DVD is barely losing marketshare to Blu-Ray. Ogg is not enough superior from the consumer's viewpoint to make a switch worth the not-insignificant cost. It is worth it for the long term health of the industry, but consumers don't know that. It's like the switch to unleaded gas... it wouldn't have happened unless it was forced. Apple is in a position to force it, and they're not because they have an interest in keeping leaded gasoline around.
Competition in the market is a good thing, but the competition comes at the cost of freedom due to patents. You cannot freely, legally ship software that implements H.264 in the US. That is a VERY significant barrier to browsers like Firefox. Apple knows that. If the market were actually free, I would agree with you. The problem is that it's not free, there are significant restrictions on the free use of H.264, and that makes Ogg a much better choice.
The thing is, you have to compile things in right now to get the support due to the fact that it's still so new. With the GEM/TTM/DRM changes happening in the graphics system, there will be a "generic" video acceleration setup happening eventually. It just takes time... Linux is open source, and it tends to do things "good", rather than "fast", because it has no choice but to be cheap. (in reference to the common "good, fast, cheap: choose two").
ATI is really working toward getting hardware acceleration going, as is Intel. It just takes time and legal wrangling. Gotta love patents.
Because iPods have h.264 acceleration hardware built in. And Apple has a strong interest in keeping H.264 the standard specifically because they want to keep selling iPods. Even if Ogg were better, Apple would be against it. And for cross-platform, free implementations Ogg IS a better solution.
What are you doing, juggling them? Really... what cases are you using a fluorescent where it breaks more often than an incandescent?
Which is more dangerous to the user? The mercury bulb breaking in their house, or the mercury coming out of the coal plant? And what if we replace the coal power with something cleaner like nuclear, wind or water?
I typically wash ours our with HOT water (as hot as it can get out of the tap), then crush it pretty flat and cap it while it's crushed. As the air inside cools, it'll suck the cap on tighter so you don't get the stinky stuff. It'll let me fit a lot more of them in the recycle bin.
If Apple wants to pay to free up the H.264 codec so it can be implemented legally by everyone, then they have a point. Otherwise, Apple is sure as shit holding back progress in order to protect their own platform (aka, iPod and friends) which only supports H.264. Fuck Apple.
Doesn't VW own Audi for a "luxury" line? Kinda like how Toyota does Lexus, Honda is Acura, and so on?
Stirling. Unless of course you're planning on making it out of silver, but that's kind of a rare metal anyway, so...
I don't. The family of the victim are the ones that enabled it by being so disconnected from their child that they had no clue what was going on. That's "neglect" in my book.
The disasters and massacres HAVE happened, and people still haven't realized it's a bad idea. It's because of our entitlement culture, where all problems are external to you. You can't be the problem... something else (video games, television, big companies, SOMETHING) must have caused it.
The problem is that the recommended doses are dangerously close to overdoses. Yes, it's people's own fault, but there's a limit to how much risk is acceptable, especially if it's not well indicated on the packaging. The literature and public opinion is that over the counter painkillers are safe, and you don't have to worry about them. That may not be the reality of the situation, but that is the perception of it, and people act on perception, not reality. So, we either need to change the perception, or change the availability of the substance. Which do you think is easier?