What's depressing is cowards like you who really don't know the difference between 16 bpp and bits per channel. 16 bits per channel is useful for many things that idiots like you will not understand. Stuff like information loss during transformations, HDR and the ability to preserve the 12 bits/channel of RAW images in order to have a better exposure adjustment range.
It's not just converting from one coordinate system to another that is tricky, it's what do you do with the mismatched and non-existing colors in the other color space.
The problem is that in Russia it wouldn't take much for said company to just rename itself and get a new range of IPs. They have many millions of dollars available to them and in Russia the ones with the money can do anything. Blocking Russia would be a knee-jerk reaction, but it would save time and money as opposed to waiting for them to switch their IP range. Just compare the # of useful sites you accessed from Russia in the last year with the amount of spam and phishing emails you got that originated from bots that are controlled from there -- it's no-brainer to me.
How many of us have to do business with Russian sites? So block the whole range of Russian IPs until the Russian government wants to do something about it. Same thing with Nigeria and so on.
The amount of crap coming from these countries is dis-proportionally larger than the number of useful, legitimate sites located there. Until those countries figure out how to control their spammers and phishers, they'll just have to spam each other and steal each other's identities as much as they please, we have our own crap to take care of.
This was a bunch of citizens sitting in a room and purposefully deciding to ruin the life of somebody that they didn't like.
That happens every day. Someone at work is perhaps talking too loudly. At first it's just a minor annoyance but over time that person becomes hated. As soon as two or more of her/his co-workers point out how annoying they are the feeling of hatred gets amplified. Over time, these feelings escalate without any apparent reason. All of everyone is hating her/his guts and would rather see her/him hit by a bus. Those how share the hate band together in their dislike of that one person. If they were the jury on her/his trial they would make her/him lose the house and go bankrupt. Why, for no apparent reason, by that point they might have forgotten the original reason why they were annoyed at her/him.
Just like in this jury's case it's the 'in-group' (the jury) against an outsider (the defendant). The group cohesion is strengthened by a shared dislike of an outsider. It doesn't matter if there is a reason for the dislike, it simply has to be there. "Have you seen, her hair was so bad! -Oh, yeah, totally, she is soooo stupid!"
There needs to be a group of judges rather than a bunch of joe-sixpacks. At least judges are trained to be partial, most people (including myself) are not. No amount of court instructions will change that. If I hate the defendants' haircut, I'll make sure to somehow find them guilty.
I don't, which is the sole reason why I have to have faith in it. All philosophical views are based on axioms that can't be proven. Religions are what I would called faith based philosophies. They require you to have faith of things outside of the philosophical axioms.
That makes sense.
My militant atheism? I have never hurt anyone, and I don't want to. If I have to I will, but violence is seldom a good choice.
You are right, I shouldn't have said that. I was wrong.
The only thing I have faith in is my ability to reason
How do you know you have that ability? And if you do have that that ability, what if you reason incorrectly (say after being outfitted with the helmet device from the article or getting some brain parasite) how is that different than believing in a sky daddy. You'll appear just as crazy to those around you.
USSR and PRoC are nothing more than two examples of Faith.
Right, well then you are just as crazy because your rational Atheism is exactly what was endorsed by the commies. And I know what I am talking about I grew up there. I personally know people who were tortured because they had faith in a sky daddy and commies thought with a little torture then could make them see the 'light' and see the folly of their beliefs. The fact still remains that the commies (=rational atheists) killed more people (yes, even more than the Nazis) then all the religious fanatics taken together. Just based on that track records, I think I'll pick the faith in a sky daddy of instead your militant Atheism and belief in your 'own' reasoning abilities.
You might make yourself at least slightly aware of the issue before commenting on it as well.
That point was that when there was access to media, our media in US wasn't paying much attention. Now you are defending them. "Well, heck they shut down access, I guess they have to show news about Britney Spears, what do you expect a blank screen, sheesh!"
The fact that the media access was shut off is enough to be news story and should trump news about American blonds being abducted in Aruba. But us Americans don't give a fuck about the world. We are happy in our little suburbs, worrying when Paris Hilton will get arrested again. We want to care about other people but we can't because "Look, they shut of the media over there in Bluma, we'll just have to switch the channel and start caring about Spears, it's all better now..."
The point wasn't to use the rhetoric to logically win an argument, but rather to throw off the opponent for a short while. The brain hears something and it tries to make sense of it. During the time it's trying to do it, it is open for suggestions. This is also called "the confusion technique", the CIA uses it, Scientology uses it and it's quite popular with psychologists who use hypnosis.
That's a good point actually. If they read the same game theory papers, they should randomize their protocols. Or at least make it such that their protocols seem random to the law enforcement agencies. Remember the board games (yes when I was growing up there were such things around...). There are two different types of such games -- random, where you not matter your skill level, it is all dictated by the dice (Yahtzee) and non random that are dependent on skill alone (chess). The point is that in a random game, the opponent cannot get an advantage and cannot become better by practicing.
The randomness can be used as far as behavior is concerned in social encounters. For example you are being robbed, it is expected that you will be scared and pull out your wallet. Instead try acting like a mental case or pretend you don't understand the language, or say, offer to them a cigarette instead. For a couple of seconds, the robber will be confused as they lose control of the situation because something unexpected happened. Then it's up to you to either keep it up or if you feel brave strike back.
The same strategy goes for when you don't want to interact with certain individuals, solicitors, pan-handlers and so on -- when they ask for you attention, reply with something completely unrelated, for example "Can you spare some change? -No thanks, I'm good. -Huh?...that don't make no sense..." by the time they processes the confusing statement you already walked too far and they'll focus on the next person.
Another example, say you are having a heated debate with someone. When the argument is the most intense immediately switch and start arguing against your position. Ok, that's more for fun...The actual strategy is to use non-sequiturs. Statements that at first sound normal but when you think about them they just don't make any sense. Stuff like "How do you know that's what you mean?" That statement has to be immediately followed by whatever real point you are trying to make. The brain is trying to process the non-sequitur and it keeps getting segfaulting-ing, but because you keep talking it is also forced to keep up with the argument. Eventually they just remain quiet. If they ask you to repeat the non-sequitur pretend you said something else or make fun of them for being slow.
Randomizing your response is a good way to throw off an opponent. They expect a certain response or reaction but they are getting something else. That gives you a short window of opportunity while the opponent tries to process or guess your next move. Of course your moves have a degree of randomness (that you control) and it is pointless for them to spend resources (mental, computational) to look for patterns in randomness.
This is all in the hands of the bankers. Let's face most people are not very bright. If someone will give them a credit to buy a house they can't really afford, they'll take it. They don't understand what an adjustable rate it, they don't understand percentages, exponential growth, and how banking system works. If someone is giving away loans like candy, there will be someone else willing to take the candy.
Now the question is this: Are banks stupid as well? They are the ones that actually do know what can happen, they do know what all those things are, they can reasonably predict the future (they wouldn't be able to stay in business if they didn't). I can't help but believe that they do it on purpose. All the money in this country (and thus mostly everything else in the long term) is controlled by the Fed. They can at will create crashes and booms. Not only to they control the interest rate, they control the rules under which its member banks issue loans and how much reserve each bank should have on-hand. Either way, with a boom or a crash, because it can creates, they will profit. They money we have isn't real money, it is money because the Fed says so. And who profits? Well, we don't know, because the Fed is a private bank and doesn't disclose who its investors are. Cue the conspiracy theorists. Step right up, get yer' tin foil hat!
You see they want remote control and monitoring but they also don't want to be on the Internet. They would have to build their own network, unless they are NSA, FBI or AT&T they cannot do that easily. Even then, once there is any remote control, the attacker doesn't have to jump over the fence of the power station, they have a choice to break one window of the building where the point of remote control is.
Until Kaplan will offer courses on how to score well on IQ tests and then all it will mean is how much did that student study solving IQ test problems. In other words all standardized tests show is how well can that student take a standardized test, which is great is they plan to major and find employment in Advanced Standardized Test Taking Business, because the real world is a not standardized test.
I have a great problem with countless standardized tests of the 'no child left behind' kind. All kids are doing today in schools is just prepare to take the next test. They don't study anything interesting, useful (yes, even fun), they study enough material to pass the next state/federal/whatever standardized test, and then it starts all over. In the end no child will be left behind because the whole country will be behind.
Yes, finally, the algorithms are making a comeback. Up until now we just randomly banged on our keyboards until something came out. Now we have algorithms -- a plan that we follow step by step. Wow.
But seriously, a food recipe is an algorithm for all general purposes. All these people are saying is that the machine learning algorithms and match peoples' personalities and buy stock are too complicated for the average Joe Programmer Wannabe and look more or less like a black box. (which if they employ neural networks, instead of say SVN, they are actually black boxes even for the author who wrote it...).
As you said, the job of the desktop environment is to
Supply some form of UI for the user. I understand that GNOME would have to give some details, to either the kernel, or some module about user activity,
and that's exactly what it does. It lets the user control the power management features better. There is a nice power history graph too...
terrorize the troops.... terrorize the developers -- eh, what the big difference?;-)
And by decimation I meant the practice of eliminating/killing/firing in general, not specifically the Roman practice of killing every 10th, from which the term originated, of course.
Finding code-slaves that will do everything you want exactly as it always has been is nearly impossible.
Good point! Managing developers is hard enough in a company where the devs are paid. Managing volunteers is much, much harder. I strongly believe that half of the success of many open source projects is not the brilliant ideas or the super cool code, but the personality of the lead developer. Linus and Guido have proven to be such personalities that managed to galvanize hoards of developers around them. That is quite impressive. How many managers out there would be able retain employees without any pay?
One distinctive feature of these open source project leaders is that they have to act like assholes sometimes. I proves that they are tough, have a vision and won't budge. At first it seems counter-intuitive that being disagreeable will accomplish more but it works because even if it pushes one developer way, it might attract others or make the ones who are left work harder. It's like a medieval army. Decimating 1% of the army is worth it because it will make the other %99 percent work harder.
I was talking about the 50Mt+ Tsar Bomba that the parent post mentioned not the thermobaric bomb from the article. Theoretically the Tsar bomb could reach 100Mt in its packaging. 10 or 20 of those babies close to the shore detonated at the same time could release 20*100Mt=2Gt worth of energy, perhaps creating a tsunami. There would be only a minimal time for a warning and there wouldn't be a direct proof of who the attacker is (Russia, China, North Korea? -- most likely Russia but what if it was China and we retaliate against Russia...).
Wasn't that bomb too big to fit on most planes and they even had to create a special mod on one of their big bombers just to carry 'Tsar Bomba'?
Many argue that the bomb impractical, however, imagine what would happen if a series of them would be deployed by submarines in the Atlantic Ocean close to the New York shore. And then detonated simultaneously, creating a tsunami wave. -- Practical? No. But a good scenario for a movie..
Now, the US claims that if it doesn't appear in the ephemeris data, then it doesn't exist
So shooting a laser beam to blind something non-existent shouldn't be a problem. If you can knock this non-existent "thing" from the sky even better, now it would "doubly" not exist!
Slashdot Mirror
What's depressing is cowards like you who really don't know the difference between 16 bpp and bits per channel. 16 bits per channel is useful for many things that idiots like you will not understand. Stuff like information loss during transformations, HDR and the ability to preserve the 12 bits/channel of RAW images in order to have a better exposure adjustment range.
It's not just converting from one coordinate system to another that is tricky, it's what do you do with the mismatched and non-existing colors in the other color space.
The problem is that in Russia it wouldn't take much for said company to just rename itself and get a new range of IPs. They have many millions of dollars available to them and in Russia the ones with the money can do anything. Blocking Russia would be a knee-jerk reaction, but it would save time and money as opposed to waiting for them to switch their IP range. Just compare the # of useful sites you accessed from Russia in the last year with the amount of spam and phishing emails you got that originated from bots that are controlled from there -- it's no-brainer to me.
How many of us have to do business with Russian sites? So block the whole range of Russian IPs until the Russian government wants to do something about it. Same thing with Nigeria and so on. The amount of crap coming from these countries is dis-proportionally larger than the number of useful, legitimate sites located there. Until those countries figure out how to control their spammers and phishers, they'll just have to spam each other and steal each other's identities as much as they please, we have our own crap to take care of.
That happens every day. Someone at work is perhaps talking too loudly. At first it's just a minor annoyance but over time that person becomes hated. As soon as two or more of her/his co-workers point out how annoying they are the feeling of hatred gets amplified. Over time, these feelings escalate without any apparent reason. All of everyone is hating her/his guts and would rather see her/him hit by a bus. Those how share the hate band together in their dislike of that one person. If they were the jury on her/his trial they would make her/him lose the house and go bankrupt. Why, for no apparent reason, by that point they might have forgotten the original reason why they were annoyed at her/him.
Just like in this jury's case it's the 'in-group' (the jury) against an outsider (the defendant). The group cohesion is strengthened by a shared dislike of an outsider. It doesn't matter if there is a reason for the dislike, it simply has to be there. "Have you seen, her hair was so bad! -Oh, yeah, totally, she is soooo stupid!"
There needs to be a group of judges rather than a bunch of joe-sixpacks. At least judges are trained to be partial, most people (including myself) are not. No amount of court instructions will change that. If I hate the defendants' haircut, I'll make sure to somehow find them guilty.
That makes sense.
My militant atheism? I have never hurt anyone, and I don't want to. If I have to I will, but violence is seldom a good choice.
You are right, I shouldn't have said that. I was wrong.
How do you know you have that ability? And if you do have that that ability, what if you reason incorrectly (say after being outfitted with the helmet device from the article or getting some brain parasite) how is that different than believing in a sky daddy. You'll appear just as crazy to those around you.
USSR and PRoC are nothing more than two examples of Faith.
Right, well then you are just as crazy because your rational Atheism is exactly what was endorsed by the commies. And I know what I am talking about I grew up there. I personally know people who were tortured because they had faith in a sky daddy and commies thought with a little torture then could make them see the 'light' and see the folly of their beliefs. The fact still remains that the commies (=rational atheists) killed more people (yes, even more than the Nazis) then all the religious fanatics taken together. Just based on that track records, I think I'll pick the faith in a sky daddy of instead your militant Atheism and belief in your 'own' reasoning abilities.
That point was that when there was access to media, our media in US wasn't paying much attention. Now you are defending them. "Well, heck they shut down access, I guess they have to show news about Britney Spears, what do you expect a blank screen, sheesh!"
The fact that the media access was shut off is enough to be news story and should trump news about American blonds being abducted in Aruba. But us Americans don't give a fuck about the world. We are happy in our little suburbs, worrying when Paris Hilton will get arrested again. We want to care about other people but we can't because "Look, they shut of the media over there in Bluma, we'll just have to switch the channel and start caring about Spears, it's all better now..."
That's a good point actually. If they read the same game theory papers, they should randomize their protocols. Or at least make it such that their protocols seem random to the law enforcement agencies. Remember the board games (yes when I was growing up there were such things around...). There are two different types of such games -- random, where you not matter your skill level, it is all dictated by the dice (Yahtzee) and non random that are dependent on skill alone (chess). The point is that in a random game, the opponent cannot get an advantage and cannot become better by practicing.
The same strategy goes for when you don't want to interact with certain individuals, solicitors, pan-handlers and so on -- when they ask for you attention, reply with something completely unrelated, for example "Can you spare some change? -No thanks, I'm good. -Huh?...that don't make no sense..." by the time they processes the confusing statement you already walked too far and they'll focus on the next person.
Another example, say you are having a heated debate with someone. When the argument is the most intense immediately switch and start arguing against your position. Ok, that's more for fun...The actual strategy is to use non-sequiturs. Statements that at first sound normal but when you think about them they just don't make any sense. Stuff like "How do you know that's what you mean?" That statement has to be immediately followed by whatever real point you are trying to make. The brain is trying to process the non-sequitur and it keeps getting segfaulting-ing, but because you keep talking it is also forced to keep up with the argument. Eventually they just remain quiet. If they ask you to repeat the non-sequitur pretend you said something else or make fun of them for being slow.
Randomizing your response is a good way to throw off an opponent. They expect a certain response or reaction but they are getting something else. That gives you a short window of opportunity while the opponent tries to process or guess your next move. Of course your moves have a degree of randomness (that you control) and it is pointless for them to spend resources (mental, computational) to look for patterns in randomness.
Now the question is this: Are banks stupid as well? They are the ones that actually do know what can happen, they do know what all those things are, they can reasonably predict the future (they wouldn't be able to stay in business if they didn't). I can't help but believe that they do it on purpose. All the money in this country (and thus mostly everything else in the long term) is controlled by the Fed. They can at will create crashes and booms. Not only to they control the interest rate, they control the rules under which its member banks issue loans and how much reserve each bank should have on-hand. Either way, with a boom or a crash, because it can creates, they will profit. They money we have isn't real money, it is money because the Fed says so. And who profits? Well, we don't know, because the Fed is a private bank and doesn't disclose who its investors are. Cue the conspiracy theorists. Step right up, get yer' tin foil hat!
You see they want remote control and monitoring but they also don't want to be on the Internet. They would have to build their own network, unless they are NSA, FBI or AT&T they cannot do that easily. Even then, once there is any remote control, the attacker doesn't have to jump over the fence of the power station, they have a choice to break one window of the building where the point of remote control is.
I have a great problem with countless standardized tests of the 'no child left behind' kind. All kids are doing today in schools is just prepare to take the next test. They don't study anything interesting, useful (yes, even fun), they study enough material to pass the next state/federal/whatever standardized test, and then it starts all over. In the end no child will be left behind because the whole country will be behind.
But seriously, a food recipe is an algorithm for all general purposes. All these people are saying is that the machine learning algorithms and match peoples' personalities and buy stock are too complicated for the average Joe Programmer Wannabe and look more or less like a black box. (which if they employ neural networks, instead of say SVN, they are actually black boxes even for the author who wrote it...).
The one that is confusing the users and that you can never remember how to find after you messed it up. Yeah...I'm pretty sure, that's the feature...
Supply some form of UI for the user. I understand that GNOME would have to give some details, to either the kernel, or some module about user activity,
and that's exactly what it does. It lets the user control the power management features better. There is a nice power history graph too...
And by decimation I meant the practice of eliminating/killing/firing in general, not specifically the Roman practice of killing every 10th, from which the term originated, of course.
Good point! Managing developers is hard enough in a company where the devs are paid. Managing volunteers is much, much harder. I strongly believe that half of the success of many open source projects is not the brilliant ideas or the super cool code, but the personality of the lead developer. Linus and Guido have proven to be such personalities that managed to galvanize hoards of developers around them. That is quite impressive. How many managers out there would be able retain employees without any pay?
One distinctive feature of these open source project leaders is that they have to act like assholes sometimes. I proves that they are tough, have a vision and won't budge. At first it seems counter-intuitive that being disagreeable will accomplish more but it works because even if it pushes one developer way, it might attract others or make the ones who are left work harder. It's like a medieval army. Decimating 1% of the army is worth it because it will make the other %99 percent work harder.
I was talking about the 50Mt+ Tsar Bomba that the parent post mentioned not the thermobaric bomb from the article. Theoretically the Tsar bomb could reach 100Mt in its packaging. 10 or 20 of those babies close to the shore detonated at the same time could release 20*100Mt=2Gt worth of energy, perhaps creating a tsunami. There would be only a minimal time for a warning and there wouldn't be a direct proof of who the attacker is (Russia, China, North Korea? -- most likely Russia but what if it was China and we retaliate against Russia...).
Really, they can just shut down the gas pipeline in the middle of the winter and watch Europe surrender.
Many argue that the bomb impractical, however, imagine what would happen if a series of them would be deployed by submarines in the Atlantic Ocean close to the New York shore. And then detonated simultaneously, creating a tsunami wave. -- Practical? No. But a good scenario for a movie..
Whatever, I am not an ECHELON tar^60afd;9z-[af
So shooting a laser beam to blind something non-existent shouldn't be a problem. If you can knock this non-existent "thing" from the sky even better, now it would "doubly" not exist!