I can only assume that anyone who imagines being "in love" with a machine is severely emotionally stunted. What is love without the need, and willingness to sacrifice? What is love without emotional exposure? What is love without the risk of loss?
It is totally okay with me if this guy wants to fuck animatronics, but he doesn't do himself a service by confusing that with love.
The original trilogy is available as a sort of bonus disk with "limited edition" release of the "enhanced" versions. They look like shit, but they are available.
For some reason they chose to record them in masked 4:3 instead of anamorphic.
I didn't even know that I have never seen the original cut of Dr. Strangelove. That's a real disappointment.
Where does all this social fear come from? I'm not looking for a job as a super-hero, so I don't think I really need a secret identity. Why are you afraid of people knowing you?
I think you've confused Riff's "laser capable of emitting a beam of pure antimatter" (which isn't a fucking laser, is it?) with Frank's transducer (which will seduce ya).
The summary inherited the lousy description in the title of the article.
I see nothing to indicate that these vulnerabilities are in FLAC files. They seem to be in the reference implementation of the decoder. An exploit would be in FLAC files.
Come on, guys! You're running a Geek website here!
You can hardly say that the original had a good script. A substantial amount of the film (a lot of the best parts) were ad libbed. Most of the sense of a "good script" came from the fact that Ackroyd had all this weird, but internally consistent, stuff in his head.
I think the second one had a "proper" script. Naturally, lightning didn't strike twice.
I'm not suggesting that this is the correct solution to the problem, but the thing you are describing is a "telecommunications common carrier", and extending that status to Internet access seems to be what you want.
There's a book called "FM 21-75: COMBAT SKILLS OF THE SOLDIER". Chapter 1 is entitled, "Cover, Concealment, and Camouflage". They are, in descending order of effectiveness, the things that save your ass from enemy fire.
You seem to have just noticed the difference between "concealment" and "cover". Now you have the vocabulary to match.
I use SMS heavily on my iPhone. (I also routinely post to Slashdot on it.) There is no question that it is harder/slower to compose prose accurately on it than on full qwerty. On the other hand T9 made me want to heave my old phone out of a moving car.
Anyway, the SMSs I send have fewer mistakes than half the email I receive. Most of the SMSs I receive are barely more than gibberish. I'd be very interested to know where they found their sample of iPhone users. I find their results suspect based on my experience.
For the record, he was impeached on charges of the crimes of perjury and obstruction of justice. He was acquitted, but later disbarred, probably because of questions about his honesty in court.
I momentarily confused the two dimensions of a DVD for some reason. (You blame your phone . . . I was REALLY tired when I wrote my last.)
I remain skeptical that the very hardest to encode scenes don't show artifacts on HD DVD. Maybe HD DVD players are worth the money after all! I guess I'll have to break down and get one, so I can take the Pepsi challenge myself.
Now, can I think of a movie with a jump cut to a closeup of flames . . .
I must have grossly underestimated VC-1 and/or AVC. I'm cursed with a good eye for compression artifacts. DVD's 10mbits aren't enough for MPEG-2 to be "transparent" to my eye for many difficult to encode sequences. I suppose I jumped to the conclusion that 30Mbits for 1080p24 was more or less subjectively equivalent to 10Mbits for 720p24 MPEG-2.
Your subject was "both can be transparent". I'm coming from a user's point of view, as opposed to your professional one. To me, having a lot of spare bits go to waste nearly all the time isn't too high a price to pay to not be occasionally jarred out of my suspension of disbelief because I suddenly get a face full of compression artifacts. Said the other way, if we suppose that HD DVD has noticeable artifacting half a percent of the time vs. no noticeable artifacting on Blu-ray, I would say that Blu-ray does offer an advantage.
Finally, compressing "different" to "differnt" works, but compressing "note" to "not" doesn't.
You're telling me that you can't see the difference between 149Mbytes/sec crushed down to 4.63Mbytes/sec vs. the same 149Mbytes/sec compressed to 6.75Mbytes/sec? Nearly half again the data!
I suspect there is something wrong with your eyes or your television.
Slashdot Mirror
I can only assume that anyone who imagines being "in love" with a machine is severely emotionally stunted. What is love without the need, and willingness to sacrifice? What is love without emotional exposure? What is love without the risk of loss?
It is totally okay with me if this guy wants to fuck animatronics, but he doesn't do himself a service by confusing that with love.
-Peter
The original trilogy is available as a sort of bonus disk with "limited edition" release of the "enhanced" versions. They look like shit, but they are available.
For some reason they chose to record them in masked 4:3 instead of anamorphic.
I didn't even know that I have never seen the original cut of Dr. Strangelove. That's a real disappointment.
-Peter
Everyone surprised by this, please hold up your unicorn!
-Peter
There's also at think called "paragraphs". Look into it!
-Peter
Where does all this social fear come from? I'm not looking for a job as a super-hero, so I don't think I really need a secret identity. Why are you afraid of people knowing you?
-Peter
The summary makes it look like the blockquote is someone from EMI, when in reality it is editorializing by some dude at Ars.
-Peter
Gone to us? It was ours in the first place!
Abolish the income tax!
-Peter
I think you've confused Riff's "laser capable of emitting a beam of pure antimatter" (which isn't a fucking laser, is it?) with Frank's transducer (which will seduce ya).
-Peter
Yes Brad. It's something we ourselves have been working on.
-Peter
This sonic transducer, it is I suppose some kind of audio-vibratory-physio-molecular transport device?
-Peter
The summary inherited the lousy description in the title of the article.
I see nothing to indicate that these vulnerabilities are in FLAC files. They seem to be in the reference implementation of the decoder. An exploit would be in FLAC files.
Come on, guys! You're running a Geek website here!
-Peter
-Peter
Why is ScrewMaster the only one talking about Westinghouse? AFAIK, the commercial "battle" was Edison v. Westinghouse, not Tesla.
-Peter
I wanted to see Bill Murray as Tom Bombadil, but I guess we can't always get what we want.
-Peter
You can hardly say that the original had a good script. A substantial amount of the film (a lot of the best parts) were ad libbed. Most of the sense of a "good script" came from the fact that Ackroyd had all this weird, but internally consistent, stuff in his head.
I think the second one had a "proper" script. Naturally, lightning didn't strike twice.
-Peter
I'm not suggesting that this is the correct solution to the problem, but the thing you are describing is a "telecommunications common carrier", and extending that status to Internet access seems to be what you want.
-Peter
Once they implement this they can sell top placement in your inbox to spammers!
-Peter
There's a book called "FM 21-75: COMBAT SKILLS OF THE SOLDIER". Chapter 1 is entitled, "Cover, Concealment, and Camouflage". They are, in descending order of effectiveness, the things that save your ass from enemy fire.
You seem to have just noticed the difference between "concealment" and "cover". Now you have the vocabulary to match.
Carry on.
-Peter
I use SMS heavily on my iPhone. (I also routinely post to Slashdot on it.) There is no question that it is harder/slower to compose prose accurately on it than on full qwerty. On the other hand T9 made me want to heave my old phone out of a moving car.
Anyway, the SMSs I send have fewer mistakes than half the email I receive. Most of the SMSs I receive are barely more than gibberish. I'd be very interested to know where they found their sample of iPhone users. I find their results suspect based on my experience.
-Peter
If you drive up that road in reverse it says, "Paul is dead."
-Peter
Man, this is really going to drive up the price of the '69 Nova I want so much! :-(
It also turns the whole "no va" story on its head! (Apocryphal as it may be.)
-Peter
For the record, he was impeached on charges of the crimes of perjury and obstruction of justice. He was acquitted, but later disbarred, probably because of questions about his honesty in court.
-Peter
I momentarily confused the two dimensions of a DVD for some reason. (You blame your phone . . . I was REALLY tired when I wrote my last.)
I remain skeptical that the very hardest to encode scenes don't show artifacts on HD DVD. Maybe HD DVD players are worth the money after all! I guess I'll have to break down and get one, so I can take the Pepsi challenge myself.
Now, can I think of a movie with a jump cut to a closeup of flames . . .
-Peter
I must have grossly underestimated VC-1 and/or AVC. I'm cursed with a good eye for compression artifacts. DVD's 10mbits aren't enough for MPEG-2 to be "transparent" to my eye for many difficult to encode sequences. I suppose I jumped to the conclusion that 30Mbits for 1080p24 was more or less subjectively equivalent to 10Mbits for 720p24 MPEG-2.
Your subject was "both can be transparent". I'm coming from a user's point of view, as opposed to your professional one. To me, having a lot of spare bits go to waste nearly all the time isn't too high a price to pay to not be occasionally jarred out of my suspension of disbelief because I suddenly get a face full of compression artifacts. Said the other way, if we suppose that HD DVD has noticeable artifacting half a percent of the time vs. no noticeable artifacting on Blu-ray, I would say that Blu-ray does offer an advantage.
Finally, compressing "different" to "differnt" works, but compressing "note" to "not" doesn't.
-Peter
You're telling me that you can't see the difference between 149Mbytes/sec crushed down to 4.63Mbytes/sec vs. the same 149Mbytes/sec compressed to 6.75Mbytes/sec? Nearly half again the data!
I suspect there is something wrong with your eyes or your television.
-Peter