lololol. Hey, I've got a karma bonus and I'll spend it to approve of this post (the one currently modded -1 Flamebait that you probably can't see because you browse Slashdot at +tame).
These are civil cases, not criminal, though attempting to convince the judge that reasonable doubt is enough to absolve you of responsibility for a "preponderance of evidence" charge is likely to land you in the slammer for criminal idiocy (or contempt of court, you decide). Who's the idiot now?
If you're stupid enough to believe the investigators are using IPs from the PeerGuardian lists to bust people—those lists are public, after all—instead of just working from home and busting people from behind ordinary broadband connections... well, son, you deserve what you're gonna get.
I refer you to Wikipedia: "AAC decoder is unoptimized. Currently it only runs realtime on the iPod targets for <= 128 kbit/s." Translation: Rockbox can't keep up with MPEG-4 audio and chokes on the stream, resulting in gaps and stutters. And they call this "playback"?
I fully expect a retort along the lines of "b-b-but it's fixed in CVS!" Don't even bother.
Unfortunately, Rockbox lacks all the elegance and grace which characterizes the Apple iPod interface. It looks and feels like it was designed by an autistic chimpanzee.
And it can't even play AAC files. That's right. No MPEG-4 audio. In 2006.
Right, because *nix users would never be tricked into running untrusted code.
Re:And Sony wonders why it has problems
on
GDC - Sony Keynote
·
· Score: 1
I don't get it either. The most compelling argument for her candidacy seems to be that she's (redefined herself to be) a moderate, in the "last six years" definition of the word "moderate."
She's not after your vote, or mine. For every vote she loses on the left, she wins ten more in the political mainstream, which has unfortunately taken a sharp rightwards turn under this administration. And I'll tell you what--I'll vote for her, if only to move the center back left.
Yeah, and you forgot to mention there's no such thing as "identity theft," either. And don't even get me started on "theft of services." What we need is an Académie Anglaise to straighten this whole mess out.
In the same breath, though, they point out that "Even if Wikipedia were 'only' a third more inaccurate than Britannica, this would be a large difference, especially in a study that focused exclusively on factual accuracy, disregarding other important properties of encyclopedias, such as the organization of information, the quality of writing, and the readability of the articles." These arguments--organization, quality, readability--seem the strongest, to me, in favor of an encyclopedia with strong editorial control, and these are the precise reasons I avoid consulting Wikipedia unless faced with no alternative (not that I turn to Britannica).
Assuming the rest of what Britannica has to say is true--not a big leap of faith, I think, since their reputation is really all they have--they make a very strong case that Nature's study was terribly flawed. Some of their claims should be independently verifiable, like that some of Nature's representation of Britannica text was actually a poor pastiche of various Britannica sources, stiched together (badly) by Nature's editors. Very disturbing stuff. I think the editors of Nature are going to have to respond to these claims, one way or another.
"average Jordanian or Syrian (who likely is barely literate in his own language, and has no secondary education or meaningful exposure to a humanist worldview.)"
Good God, are you REALLY that stupid? Or was your post meant ironically, as in: "I have no exposure to a worldview of any sort"?
Heh. I wrote that section of the article myself, actually, and I was just talking out of my ass in the hope that someone would come along later to improve the parts I didn't know. Obviously that never happened.
Just sprinkle big, intellectual-ish words like "multilateral," "constitutionally legitimate," and "evolutionary" into your emails. They'll never figure out what you're talking about.
Hey, I don't think it's right that the parent was modded troll. Just because a comment exposes something you'd rather not confront is NOT grounds for downmodding.
I found this posted originally to another article and modded flamebait, but I think it raises issues pertinent to Star Trek and which should concern all Star Trek fans.
--
This has very little to do with the article, but a few days ago the L.A. Times published an article regarding the Toronto Sex Crimes Unit that focused on their fight against child pornography ("Sifting Clues to an Unsmiling Girl"). They are the law enforcement organization that photoshopped the victims out of child porn photos in order to get the public's assistance in identifying the backgrounds (it worked). In any case, the article had this amazing claim:
On one wall is a "Star Trek" poster with investigators' faces substituted for the Starship Enterprise crew. But even that alludes to a dark fact of their work: All but one of the offenders they have arrested in the last four years was a hard-core Trekkie.
Wow. All but one in four years. Seemed rather unlikely to me.
So, I called the Child Exploitation Section of the Toronto Sex Crimes Unit and spoke to Det. Ian Lamond, who was familiar with the Times article.
He claims they were misquoted, or if that figure was given it was done so jokingly. Of course, even if the figure was given jokingly, shouldn't the Times reporter have clarified something that seems rather odd? Shouldn't her editors have questioned her sources?
Nevertheless, Det. Lamond does confirm that a majority of those arrested show "at least a passing interest in Star Trek, if not a strong interest." They've arrested well over one hundred people over the past four years and they can gauge this interest in Star Trek by the arrestees' "paraphenalia, books, videotapes and DVDs."
Det. Constable Warren Bulmer slips on a Klingon sash and shield they confiscated in a recent raid. "It has something to do with a fantasy world where mutants and monsters have power and where the usual rules don't apply," Bulmer reflects. "But beyond that, I can't really explain it."
I asked Det. Lamond if this wasn't simply a general interest in science fiction and fantasy, such as Star Wars or Harry Potter or similar.
Paraphrasing his answer, he said, while there was sometimes other science fiction and fantasy paraphenalia, Star Trek was the most consistent and when he referred to a majority of the arrestees being Star Trek fans, it was Star Trek-specific.
Yeah, I had to refrain from pointing this out myself. Given the choice between having a hundred shitty office suites and having only a couple good, polished ones, I'd choose the latter every time.
Oops, I thought you meant he'd "improved" on the Photoshop tool names... which, now that I think about it, would sort of defeat the whole point of the conversion. Sorry!
I'm with the parent. Photoshop really hit its stride at around 6.5, and it's been a slow decline from there in terms of usability and elegance--the few exceptions (adjustment layers, history, magic healing tool) being just enough to make the upgrades worth it.
I'd love an elegant clone of Photoshop that fixed these flaws--hey, while we're dreaming, let's clone of InDesign and Illustrator too. It wouldn't even need to be FOSS. I'd gladly pay for such a beast.
However, from what I understand, the GIMP developers are really stubborn and unwilling to hear suggestions, much less constructive criticism--even worse than Adobe. So I have to wonder if the GIMP is really the vehicle for change I'm seeking.
Slashdot Mirror
lololol. Hey, I've got a karma bonus and I'll spend it to approve of this post (the one currently modded -1 Flamebait that you probably can't see because you browse Slashdot at +tame).
And yet another Wikipedia fan proves himself, at last, a pedantic, literal-minded little shit. Why am I not surprised?
These are civil cases, not criminal, though attempting to convince the judge that reasonable doubt is enough to absolve you of responsibility for a "preponderance of evidence" charge is likely to land you in the slammer for criminal idiocy (or contempt of court, you decide). Who's the idiot now?
If you're stupid enough to believe the investigators are using IPs from the PeerGuardian lists to bust people—those lists are public, after all—instead of just working from home and busting people from behind ordinary broadband connections... well, son, you deserve what you're gonna get.
Maybe they wouldn't have sent your job overseas if you had basic literacy in English, like knowing the definition of "tautology."
I refer you to Wikipedia: "AAC decoder is unoptimized. Currently it only runs realtime on the iPod targets for <= 128 kbit/s." Translation: Rockbox can't keep up with MPEG-4 audio and chokes on the stream, resulting in gaps and stutters. And they call this "playback"?
I fully expect a retort along the lines of "b-b-but it's fixed in CVS!" Don't even bother.
I agree, that's the one feature the iPod desperately needs.
Unfortunately, Rockbox lacks all the elegance and grace which characterizes the Apple iPod interface. It looks and feels like it was designed by an autistic chimpanzee.
And it can't even play AAC files. That's right. No MPEG-4 audio. In 2006.
But hey, it plays OGG!
MPEG-4's file format is based on QuickTime. Just one example of many.
Right, because *nix users would never be tricked into running untrusted code.
I don't get it either. The most compelling argument for her candidacy seems to be that she's (redefined herself to be) a moderate, in the "last six years" definition of the word "moderate."
She's not after your vote, or mine. For every vote she loses on the left, she wins ten more in the political mainstream, which has unfortunately taken a sharp rightwards turn under this administration. And I'll tell you what--I'll vote for her, if only to move the center back left.
Yeah, and you forgot to mention there's no such thing as "identity theft," either. And don't even get me started on "theft of services." What we need is an Académie Anglaise to straighten this whole mess out.
In the same breath, though, they point out that "Even if Wikipedia were 'only' a third more inaccurate than Britannica, this would be a large difference, especially in a study that focused exclusively on factual accuracy, disregarding other important
properties of encyclopedias, such as the organization of information, the quality of writing, and the readability of the articles." These arguments--organization, quality, readability--seem the strongest, to me, in favor of an encyclopedia with strong editorial control, and these are the precise reasons I avoid consulting Wikipedia unless faced with no alternative (not that I turn to Britannica).
Assuming the rest of what Britannica has to say is true--not a big leap of faith, I think, since their reputation is really all they have--they make a very strong case that Nature's study was terribly flawed. Some of their claims should be independently verifiable, like that some of Nature's representation of Britannica text was actually a poor pastiche of various Britannica sources, stiched together (badly) by Nature's editors. Very disturbing stuff. I think the editors of Nature are going to have to respond to these claims, one way or another.
I'm with the parent.
"average Jordanian or Syrian (who likely is barely literate in his own language, and has no secondary education or meaningful exposure to a humanist worldview.)"
Good God, are you REALLY that stupid? Or was your post meant ironically, as in: "I have no exposure to a worldview of any sort"?
Heh. I wrote that section of the article myself, actually, and I was just talking out of my ass in the hope that someone would come along later to improve the parts I didn't know. Obviously that never happened.
Just sprinkle big, intellectual-ish words like "multilateral," "constitutionally legitimate," and "evolutionary" into your emails. They'll never figure out what you're talking about.
Fink's nmap is still at 3.75 if you compile from source, while Darwinports has the latest (3.81). This was enough to convince me to use Darwinports.
It's not an "old troll"... the L.A. Times article was written just a few days ago. See here: http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-f g-photo27apr27.story
Hey, I don't think it's right that the parent was modded troll. Just because a comment exposes something you'd rather not confront is NOT grounds for downmodding.
I found this posted originally to another article and modded flamebait, but I think it raises issues pertinent to Star Trek and which should concern all Star Trek fans.
--
This has very little to do with the article, but a few days ago the L.A. Times published an article regarding the Toronto Sex Crimes Unit that focused on their fight against child pornography ("Sifting Clues to an Unsmiling Girl"). They are the law enforcement organization that photoshopped the victims out of child porn photos in order to get the public's assistance in identifying the backgrounds (it worked). In any case, the article had this amazing claim:
Wow. All but one in four years. Seemed rather unlikely to me.
So, I called the Child Exploitation Section of the Toronto Sex Crimes Unit and spoke to Det. Ian Lamond, who was familiar with the Times article.
He claims they were misquoted, or if that figure was given it was done so jokingly. Of course, even if the figure was given jokingly, shouldn't the Times reporter have clarified something that seems rather odd? Shouldn't her editors have questioned her sources?
Nevertheless, Det. Lamond does confirm that a majority of those arrested show "at least a passing interest in Star Trek, if not a strong interest." They've arrested well over one hundred people over the past four years and they can gauge this interest in Star Trek by the arrestees' "paraphenalia, books, videotapes and DVDs."
I asked Det. Lamond if this wasn't simply a general interest in science fiction and fantasy, such as Star Wars or Harry Potter or similar.
Paraphrasing his answer, he said, while there was sometimes other science fiction and fantasy paraphenalia, Star Trek was the most consistent and when he referred to a majority of the arrestees being Star Trek fans, it was Star Trek-specific.
Yeah, I had to refrain from pointing this out myself. Given the choice between having a hundred shitty office suites and having only a couple good, polished ones, I'd choose the latter every time.
How many different word processors do you need?
Oops, I thought you meant he'd "improved" on the Photoshop tool names... which, now that I think about it, would sort of defeat the whole point of the conversion. Sorry!
I'm with the parent. Photoshop really hit its stride at around 6.5, and it's been a slow decline from there in terms of usability and elegance--the few exceptions (adjustment layers, history, magic healing tool) being just enough to make the upgrades worth it.
I'd love an elegant clone of Photoshop that fixed these flaws--hey, while we're dreaming, let's clone of InDesign and Illustrator too. It wouldn't even need to be FOSS. I'd gladly pay for such a beast.
However, from what I understand, the GIMP developers are really stubborn and unwilling to hear suggestions, much less constructive criticism--even worse than Adobe. So I have to wonder if the GIMP is really the vehicle for change I'm seeking.