How do you know the quality of this new lens; have you seen many pictures using them, or do you have a working theory that shows liquid lenses will produce poor quality images? Surely liquid is a good road to go down, since you can tailor the material to the purpose. Glass isn't as flexible. (No pun intended.)
Water absorbs a little visible light in the 760nm region, making it faintly blue. Those small puddles in the picture, though, appear too blue for the apparent depth to be attributable to this blueness.
Support for actual image creation, as opposed to image manipulation is lacking in The GIMP. This is arguably by design, after all, the "IM" stands for Image Manipulation. Nonetheless, I'd like to be able to create things in the GIMP more easily. A friendly and larger vector section would be nice, too, as well as the classic complaint - a single window with docked panels. I've never used Photoshop in my life so I'm not one of those who's simply used to something else; I like to think I'm relatively impartial.
How about the previous system, whereby you paid a fixed rate per month to listen to any song you liked, with the fixed rate being divvied up according to your most-played tracks. When you've either listened to a track a certain number of times, or "paid it" a certain amount, you automatically own it and can keep it. Of course you would also be able to buy tracks and albums as you wanted so that you could listen to them without the service.
I'd envisage different scales of payment and so on so that you can arrange varying deals according to how much music you actually listen to. A half-decent service would automate the use of payment scaling to an extent, (just like you automatically buy a track if you've spent enough on it) so that you don't have to make sure you don't start being uneconomical.
Yes, communism is absurd, but the economic premise is not. Probably the only realistic solution is extreme welfare liberalism, i.e. a steep increase in taxation on the highest bands of income. The fact is no-one needs to have more than a certain amount of money, and no-one really benefits from having more than a certain amount somewhere higher than that. It doesn't make sense to simply give to people regardless of their work, since that removes any incentive. But there's no need to have an incentive to do what makes people filthy stinking rich these days, is there? If we taxed people so that they effectively couldn't earn more than, say, £200,000, (or some large figure for the purpose of example) then no damage would be done, and we would have more money available to do general welfare type things that the state is supposed to do (in welfare liberalism.)
Yes, they are the same, as long as you were not emotionally or physically harmed by this metaphorical mugging. You'll have to support a non-consequentialist theory of ethics before you can justify otherwise.
Why not call gravity-powered electricity generation (say, the Hoover Dam) just that: gravity-powered. That means something, especially if you mention the hydro part of it in conjunction. As opposed to "tidal power" (also hydro, but a different beast).
Refer to Wittgenstein; meaning is use, and renewable is used to mean the definition that has been explained to you. I can imagine the scene at Bletchley park, now:
"But these encrypted messages are just a bunch of characters! They don't mean anything!"
Meaning is determined not by what one person thinks - not even by what the dictionary says - it is determined by how it is used in a particular context.
The choice was not between "Bush and Stalin, Lenin, Mao and others" but between "Bush and communism." Communism, as an economic system has not, in and of itself, killed anyone. Its application may be implicated in deaths, but really, communism shouldn't kill people because it should only be taking stuff away from people who have plenty.
If you were going to give what the government took then you have no grievance; they were just doing it for you.
If you were going to give less than what the government took, then you are morally bankrupt, (unless the government is causing you injury by taking too much - but that's a question of how much tax is right, not whether tax is right.)
Part of the contract of living in a state is that we essentially give up some of our own freedoms and goods to help other people in society. This creates a generally better society, by ensuring that this is done, and that it is done uniformly - i.e. fairly.
Because the point of the state is to make a morally better society, and part of that is ensuring that people starve. Why do you think we have a state in the first place - because life gets pretty crap when it falls to pieces. The whole idea behind having a government is to make life better, and one way of making life better is making sure people who need it get help.
I believe the correct sentence would end, "the better their verbal skills" with no verb in this part. "The bigger the onion, the better the onion" not "The bigger the onion, the better is the onion."
I've wondered for a long time how difficult it would be to have sign recognition on a vehicle HUD. Especially handy for diagrams of major junctions and lane diagrams. It could be integrated with a GPS system to automatically guide you into the correct lane. This could either be accomplished through image recognition software - in the cases of standard signs (i.e. those without arbitrary text on) this should be much easier than your average image recognition software, since signs are high contrast and of a set format. To make the system more reliable, RFID tags, or a beefier equivalent, would be able to deliver a vector representation signs, and/or a reference key for each of the standard ones. The system would work best with some kind of triangulation feature to detect the distance of the sign in question.
Sour oranges are the best though - the real problem is when they're all dried up and shrunken like an old man's face. Like the one I had today. Apples are more consistent though - but the mushy ones are still pretty vile.
I agree, and I think it's a shame; I think such adverts would be quite funny, really. I do wonder whether, if the people involved in the battle are reasonable, whether they can settle for some change in the ads that allows them to keep the joke. One of those disclaimers saying, "iGasm is not affiliated with Apple in any way" might do the trick - again, if the people involved are reasonable.
Except the restriction of freedom and the intolerance of intolerance are necessary to achieve the actual goals of freedom and tolerance. If everyone has unfettered freedom, you're liable to get shoved, stabbed or shot. If everyone has unfettered tolerance, then you increase the sum total of intolerance in comparison to a point a little further back where intolerance isn't tolerated.
If one were writing code with speech recognition software, one would assume the software would have to be well adapted for purpose. Namely, it would have to be hooked into the IDE or whatever, so it can get a better handle on what functions and variables the programmer might be saying. But using speech recognition could well make it feasible to use longer function names without all the abbreviation.
When it is completely expected, that payoff is depleted.
In some cases, certainly, but in others, the expectation can trigger laughs, or feelings of mirth, even before the joke has actually been delivered. That is, I suppose, the key to good comedy - putting people into the state of mind where they are more receptive to things which, on a day to day basis, they would not find funny. In those situations, repetitious comedy works just as well as unexpected comedy, and the expectation can and does provide humour. In other situations, I would say your analysis applies.
Humour, by definition, is whatever people find funny, and what people find funny has not been definitively categorised and analysed in every case. Therefore, while perhaps some, many or even most people don't find repetitive humour (i.e. running jokes) funny, some people do. What you perhaps actually meant was that you don't find repeated, i.e. running, gags funny, which is quite different from a claim about what constitutes "real comedy."
And, since so many comedies of various forms use repetition (catchphrases are an obvious example, running jokes amongst a group of friends, reciting of Monty Python) you don't even have the basis of a claim to "most people find repetition non-funny." From experience, if running jokes are simply remember old humour, then that doesn't actually alter the experience from new humour, especially given that, if execute successfully, a running joke gets funnier each time, not stale.
That's what I miss on Linux - a decent art-creation application. The GIMP is alright in its way, but for creating media as opposed to editing photos (since the GIMP is designed mainly for the latter) I don't think there's any real free, Linux-compatible option.
Slashdot Mirror
How do you know the quality of this new lens; have you seen many pictures using them, or do you have a working theory that shows liquid lenses will produce poor quality images? Surely liquid is a good road to go down, since you can tailor the material to the purpose. Glass isn't as flexible. (No pun intended.)
The GP was talking about people who flag things as spam that they asked to receive so talk of repercussions was legitimate.
Water absorbs a little visible light in the 760nm region, making it faintly blue. Those small puddles in the picture, though, appear too blue for the apparent depth to be attributable to this blueness.
Support for actual image creation, as opposed to image manipulation is lacking in The GIMP. This is arguably by design, after all, the "IM" stands for Image Manipulation. Nonetheless, I'd like to be able to create things in the GIMP more easily. A friendly and larger vector section would be nice, too, as well as the classic complaint - a single window with docked panels. I've never used Photoshop in my life so I'm not one of those who's simply used to something else; I like to think I'm relatively impartial.
I can't wait to be able to grep for where I left my keys.
I'd envisage different scales of payment and so on so that you can arrange varying deals according to how much music you actually listen to. A half-decent service would automate the use of payment scaling to an extent, (just like you automatically buy a track if you've spent enough on it) so that you don't have to make sure you don't start being uneconomical.
Yes, communism is absurd, but the economic premise is not. Probably the only realistic solution is extreme welfare liberalism, i.e. a steep increase in taxation on the highest bands of income. The fact is no-one needs to have more than a certain amount of money, and no-one really benefits from having more than a certain amount somewhere higher than that. It doesn't make sense to simply give to people regardless of their work, since that removes any incentive. But there's no need to have an incentive to do what makes people filthy stinking rich these days, is there? If we taxed people so that they effectively couldn't earn more than, say, £200,000, (or some large figure for the purpose of example) then no damage would be done, and we would have more money available to do general welfare type things that the state is supposed to do (in welfare liberalism.)
Yes, they are the same, as long as you were not emotionally or physically harmed by this metaphorical mugging. You'll have to support a non-consequentialist theory of ethics before you can justify otherwise.
Refer to Wittgenstein; meaning is use, and renewable is used to mean the definition that has been explained to you. I can imagine the scene at Bletchley park, now:
"But these encrypted messages are just a bunch of characters! They don't mean anything!"
Meaning is determined not by what one person thinks - not even by what the dictionary says - it is determined by how it is used in a particular context.
The choice was not between "Bush and Stalin, Lenin, Mao and others" but between "Bush and communism." Communism, as an economic system has not, in and of itself, killed anyone. Its application may be implicated in deaths, but really, communism shouldn't kill people because it should only be taking stuff away from people who have plenty.
If you were going to give less than what the government took, then you are morally bankrupt, (unless the government is causing you injury by taking too much - but that's a question of how much tax is right, not whether tax is right.)
Part of the contract of living in a state is that we essentially give up some of our own freedoms and goods to help other people in society. This creates a generally better society, by ensuring that this is done, and that it is done uniformly - i.e. fairly.
Because the point of the state is to make a morally better society, and part of that is ensuring that people starve. Why do you think we have a state in the first place - because life gets pretty crap when it falls to pieces. The whole idea behind having a government is to make life better, and one way of making life better is making sure people who need it get help.
I believe the correct sentence would end, "the better their verbal skills" with no verb in this part. "The bigger the onion, the better the onion" not "The bigger the onion, the better is the onion."
While you're probably right, I would've thought a larger factor to be the lower average wage in Hong Kong.
Fortunately, if the analogy is continued, copies of the key will be available all over the internet, soon.
Does she own a Nissan, by any chance?
I've wondered for a long time how difficult it would be to have sign recognition on a vehicle HUD. Especially handy for diagrams of major junctions and lane diagrams. It could be integrated with a GPS system to automatically guide you into the correct lane. This could either be accomplished through image recognition software - in the cases of standard signs (i.e. those without arbitrary text on) this should be much easier than your average image recognition software, since signs are high contrast and of a set format. To make the system more reliable, RFID tags, or a beefier equivalent, would be able to deliver a vector representation signs, and/or a reference key for each of the standard ones. The system would work best with some kind of triangulation feature to detect the distance of the sign in question.
Sour oranges are the best though - the real problem is when they're all dried up and shrunken like an old man's face. Like the one I had today. Apples are more consistent though - but the mushy ones are still pretty vile.
I agree, and I think it's a shame; I think such adverts would be quite funny, really. I do wonder whether, if the people involved in the battle are reasonable, whether they can settle for some change in the ads that allows them to keep the joke. One of those disclaimers saying, "iGasm is not affiliated with Apple in any way" might do the trick - again, if the people involved are reasonable.
Except the restriction of freedom and the intolerance of intolerance are necessary to achieve the actual goals of freedom and tolerance. If everyone has unfettered freedom, you're liable to get shoved, stabbed or shot. If everyone has unfettered tolerance, then you increase the sum total of intolerance in comparison to a point a little further back where intolerance isn't tolerated.
Faster, no, but more cost-effectively? There's an argument, there.
If one were writing code with speech recognition software, one would assume the software would have to be well adapted for purpose. Namely, it would have to be hooked into the IDE or whatever, so it can get a better handle on what functions and variables the programmer might be saying. But using speech recognition could well make it feasible to use longer function names without all the abbreviation.
In some cases, certainly, but in others, the expectation can trigger laughs, or feelings of mirth, even before the joke has actually been delivered. That is, I suppose, the key to good comedy - putting people into the state of mind where they are more receptive to things which, on a day to day basis, they would not find funny. In those situations, repetitious comedy works just as well as unexpected comedy, and the expectation can and does provide humour. In other situations, I would say your analysis applies.
And, since so many comedies of various forms use repetition (catchphrases are an obvious example, running jokes amongst a group of friends, reciting of Monty Python) you don't even have the basis of a claim to "most people find repetition non-funny." From experience, if running jokes are simply remember old humour, then that doesn't actually alter the experience from new humour, especially given that, if execute successfully, a running joke gets funnier each time, not stale.
That's what I miss on Linux - a decent art-creation application. The GIMP is alright in its way, but for creating media as opposed to editing photos (since the GIMP is designed mainly for the latter) I don't think there's any real free, Linux-compatible option.