Glossy screens give the impression of better colors for that kind of use, so they're increasingly used in laptops in the consumer market.
This is misleading. Glossy screens DO have better color saturation and CAN offer better color gamut as a result. They also have better contrast.
A matte anti-reflection coating works by diffusing the light so that point sources, backlight bleed, other pixels all reflect from the surface everywhere--the result is a loss of contrast. Many graphics arts people will tell you glossy "sux". They are just parroting what they learned in vague terms: "don't buy glossy" No further explanation.
Most people I know who don't like glossy, disliked it after learning that it wasn't 'professional'. Well here is a secret: glossy is bad for press work because CYMK ink processes cannot achieve the same color saturation as the screen. So if you have 24b or 18b or whatever color, you distribute your dynamic range over a color-space that isn't usable in print. Which means: 1) you can more easily pick impossible colors (if you don't rigorously use gamut checks) and 2) the colorimetric distance between any two colors on your display is further (more gamut) therefore less fine distinction.
#2 matters if you're trying to say match skin tone. #2 also matters if you try to color calibrate the screen. The closer together your color-steps are the easier it is calibrate (lots of precision), but a glossy screen has bigger steps between colors (covers more color space) and thus cheapo calibration equipment and software fails to converge. This especially true if the LCD panel (not the coating) is cheap 6b/channel.
Last, glossy is really bad for windows. In windows, everything is assumed to be sRGB color-space (wrong) unless you are in photoshop. Your screen has more gamut, more saturation, but windows does not do color-space translation on its own. Ergo: all your colors are slightly wrong in every program but photoshop (or equivalent). On MacOS, color-space translation is available in many more programs thanks to the OS
Not to mention that about 400B of the debt appeared in the past three weeks relating to the Supplementary Financing Program. The cash is being held on deposit at the Fed. This is different than the Bailout. That money hasn't been raised yet. This money is not supposed to be spent.
This isn't true. You might be thinking 1934, which was the 2nd or 3rd, depending on how you interpret the data. However, more telling, is that the last 9 years are all in the top 25 warmest years.
No, while this did circulate in the news for quite sometime, it turns out to have been an artifact of coding mistakes. Four of the top 10 are now from the 1930s: 1934, 1931, 1938 and 1939, while only 3 of the top 10 are from the last 10 years (1998, 2006, 1999). Several years (2000, 2002, 2003, 2004) are well below the entire 20th century.
The decision is relevant in the 9th Cir. only, but the reasoning appears substantially correct. This case rather simply applies this standard and says that it is a violation of the EULA to use a bot like Glider, and that copying in violation of the EULA/TOU is sufficient to constitute a copyright infringement.
Ah. Standard lawyer confusion: mistaking precedent for logic. Okay, I can play:
This case is distinguishable from precedent because the circumstances described in those cases do not accurately match the way computers actually function.
The rule otherwise promulgated would render as infringement such mundane acts as playing a CD in a standard player.
I would think that even the right should be against it. If conservatives want to restore traditional American values, then surely preventing the government from using new technology to conduct widespread domestic spying is conducive to that goal.
This roe over domestic spying is a smear no more fair or accurate that the swift boat campaign against Kerry. It simply is not a true characterization of the Terrorist Surveillance Program (TSP). The whole idea behind TSP is that NSA intercepts communications over US based fiber infrastructure originating at foreign sources. Any intercepts of US persons are accidents and discarded. Further, no evidence accidentally collected on a US person may be used in court, nor may it be communicated to any officer of government investigating any crime but terrorism.
Calling this domestic spying does severe semantic damage to our language, and THAT is a danger to our freedom. Newspeak people.
FISA's role in this endeavor is whether TSP requires court orders preceding each and every intercept. The FISA courts cannot authorized "domestic spying". There is not a domestic spying component to these programs.
Do you work in the embedded applications industry? I can tell you that Linux is and remains quite toxic to the business community b.c. of the GPL and the perception of substantial legal risk thereof. Cisco for instance is making a push to use a FreeBSD derivate in all of its consumer products--displacing in some cases existing linux based hardware.
BSD has enjoyed tremendous penetration into the commercial marketplace. Linux is included in a handful of devices--decisions attributable to a wave of linux euphoria which has now mostly dissipated. Organizations are now asking which OSS is safest base from which to derive projects rather than associating an OSS base with Linux. The result is a renewed and overwhelming focus on skipping Linux and sticking with BSD derived code.
Sorry, no. These problems arise because of the puny uplink capacity. Your downstream flows require acks which saturate your upstream bandwidth. Your VoIP session coexists in this upstream. Ergo, dropping acks by putting them in a low priority queue:
1) Gives you VoIP the upstream bandwidth it needs 2) Forces the people sending you data to reduce their window sizes (bandwidth) leaving room for your downstream VoIP.
I realized I had miscalculated after my post. See my reply to my own comment. You are essentially correct. However at $500/oz those would still be some expensive crumple zones.
Personally, I was more caught by the blogger's throwaway remarks about "corporate science". The truth in my experience is that academics exaggerate to get grants and manipulate data to publish papers. For instance, a substantial fraction of chemistry research cannot be reproduced because the results shown are a fluke, and the applications of an idea are often grossly exaggerated. For instance, some scientists invented a new alloy which they suggest will revolutionize crumple-zones in cars. This alloy includes palladium, a rare-metal. Indeed so rare, if all the palladium on earth were to be used to make this new alloy, we'd get about a cubic meter of the stuff.
You just don't get away with this sort of stuff in industry. For instance the famous Bell Labs scientist who falsified his nanotech research. This was then discovered by a competing group at IBM. In industry, scientific fraud is hard b.c. the standards for research go beyond publishing a few page journal article.
You've seen this huh? Guess again, that isn't how tcp works if the congestion point is indeed at the dslam. No, what you really see when using bittorrent is the effect of the asymmetrical upload/download speeds--this is what kills your VoIP traffic. The bittorrent sessions ensure that the uplink is saturated which means that your downlink bandwidth is close to zero b.c. your ack traffic has been squeezed out.
This wouldn't be a problem except that your uplink speed is so slow. Thus dividing it by any fraction (just a few peers worth) means that there is no download capacity.
The "business" answer is to recognize the difficulty in determining who does and does not deserve to be censured. You arrogantly presume to know. It just isn't that simple.
Correctly translating documents is about turning one language's idioms into another's. Whether or not 'map' is literally present is irrelevant to an idiomatic translation. What's clear is that Ahmadinejad choose to use idioms that native listeners understood as calling for genocide and the subjugation of the Jewish people.
Thus the translation of the document--to get thick headed people like yourself to understand the point. Sadly this has failed as it couldn't overcome your willful ignorance as you scurried back to a flawed literalism arguments in a vain attempt to shield the fortress of your biases against the onslaught of truth.
The anti-Iran position has become a point of nearly complete cultural blindness.
Considering that close to 50% of the American people don't support sanctions against Iran; your rewrite is meaningless nonsense. We have a vibrant debate in this country about Iran and the intentions of the Iran leadership. This is about as from 'cultural blindness' as you can reasonable get.
The anti-Iran propaganda that pervades the American life is a subterfuge in support of the corrupt and autocratic government in United States.
Calling the US government corrupt and autocratic is ridiculous. Maybe you need to spend some time in other countries: Bulgaria, Romania, Sudan, Ethiopia, Burma, Russia, etc, etc. Get out of your echo chamber man. You've been conned.
What makes you think that the government of Israel would not use their nukes?
I said that they wouldn't use it as a first strike weapon; I'm sure if they were in danger of being overrun, they'd use them. But you say that you believe they act in their own self-interest. Do you realize how small of an area we're talking about? A nuclear strike by Israel into Syria or Iran would almost surely lead to radioactive fallout blowing through Israeli cities and polluting Israeli water-supplies as well.
The evidence I see supports the notion that the Israeli government is as ruthless and values the lives of foreigners about as much as does the US government.
Both Israel and US take substantial pains to minimize casualties--as much as possible short of avoid hostilities all together. Perhaps you consider risking even one innocent death ruthless, but I do not. I think the US substantially values the lives of foreigners and human life in general.
If you seriously believe that Israel would use nukes in a first-strike scenario , you've been horribly mislead by propaganda. Get a grip. The anti-Israel propaganda that pervades Middle-Eastern life is a subterfuge in support of the corrupt and autocratic governments in Iran and Syria and to a lesser extent those of Egypt, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia.
The anti-Israel position has become a point of nearly complete cultural blindness.
I don't think that's what meant by First Sale in this context. Typically the First Sale Doctrine is a protection against the copyright holder: namely that the copyright holder cannot control a particular copy beyond the point of first sale.
It is not a doctrine, however, that says the copy must be sold for the own to be protected; merely instead that who ever owns a particular copy is entitled to control that copy--including being entitled to resell it.
No, the RIAA court filings declare that Media Sentry engaged in the activity. So its irrelevant what the Media Sentry IPs are. This isn't part of the counter-suit. the RIAA's own filing is.
A trial-level court can only make decisions that are binding in the case that it is hearing. Right now the case is in the federal court for the District of Massachusetts. The RIAA could just as easily file a suit against different college students in a different federal court and get a different outcome.
Yes, it could, but that needlessly minimizes the point here. When you go to argue a motion to judge, you present not only binding precedents from above but lateral precedents as well. If the reasoning therein is sound, this is usually good enough. Indeed, this is the COMMON case is areas of new law.
Most precedent gets established by spontaneous coordination. The appeals court and the supreme court only get involved in a small fraction of that activity--either when the trial court reasoning is unsound or when inconsistencies are present. Even when, say, an Appeals court sets precedent, its often the promulgation of a practice well-established in the lower courts but not yet consistently applied.
Bingo. This is the smartest comment I've heard in this discussion. Let the user tag her traffic, then apply policies per-contract.
In addition to the standard committed/excess color scheme, the IEEE has a recommended four-priority network design: 3) Network mgmt traffic 2) Latency sensitive traffic 1) Loss sensitive traffic 0) Bulk traffic, best-effort service
There is a reason getting fancy isn't a good idea: its expensive (in router/switch hardware) and unnecessary--if you're that congested you need more bandwidth not more priorities.
You realize that that $15 is almost entirely administrative and infrastructure costs that do not scale with usage? That's the real 'economics' of unlimited internet. The bytes transfered carry an almost insignificant marginal cost.
Or to put this in perspective: $50/mo pays for about 1Mbps sustained transfer (including profit & plant depreciation). This cost is only going down. e.g. five years ago it was about $200/mo. Granted these are prices that large organizations (such as Universities) pay--and also receive high-reliability.
Formally withdrew US support for the International Criminal Court. I know some people think this is just go-it-alone cowboy Bush, but surprisingly its just a continuation of Clinton policy. The trouble with the ICC is that it purports to have jurisdiction to retry US (or other) citizens (double-jeopardy) if the 4th, 5th, 6th amendments get in the way. The ICC treaty does not limit itself to "war crimes" and can subject people to lengthy detention without charge, no right to cross-examination, no juries, no warrant requirements, no right against self-incrimination, etc, etc. See for instance Toward an International Criminal Procedure: Due Process Aspirations and Limitations
Medicare prescription drug benefit--which has been working out surprisingly well contrary to all of the scare rhetoric from the AARP.
No Child Left Behind while flawed was certainly a step-forward--especially for minority students
My interest was to refute the arguments made by the GGGP, not arguments that were not made.
GGGP asserted:
Sure, there were things like McCarthy, but that was long ago and, lo and behold, he was found to be taking it too far and was removed. The system works. It's all fine and good. That's how she grew up. That's what she learned and observed throughout her life. That her government was good, that the laws her government made were good, that they were here to protect and to serve her. The goals of the people and the goals of the government were (more or less) the same.
Then asserted:
I don't say that things changed, I doubt it has been different under Kennedy, Nixon or Carter. But the view of things and the way people look at them changed dramatically in the last 50 years. The government isn't the good Uncle Sam anymore. It's turned into the bad Big Brother.
As should be clear: GGGP's logic is faulty due to inconsistency. I speculated on a simple principle that would make his statements sensible: namely that he is biased.
As to your argument: I agree that the commerce clause jurisprudence is illogical. Regardless of your policy position, I agree that such reasoning is a rot on the constitution that weakens the whole structure of the document. I agree that FCC policies do not comport with the first amendment. I disagree that Presidential signing statements are a problem per se. Presidential interpretation of law is an essential element of our tripartite system of government. To abandon his judgment and become a slave of congress or the courts is to breech his oath of office--just as it is congress's responsibility to impeach&convict if they believe he has failed to faithfully execute the laws.
Slashdot Mirror
This is misleading. Glossy screens DO have better color saturation and CAN offer better color gamut as a result. They also have better contrast.
A matte anti-reflection coating works by diffusing the light so that point sources, backlight bleed, other pixels all reflect from the surface everywhere--the result is a loss of contrast. Many graphics arts people will tell you glossy "sux". They are just parroting what they learned in vague terms: "don't buy glossy" No further explanation.
Most people I know who don't like glossy, disliked it after learning that it wasn't 'professional'. Well here is a secret: glossy is bad for press work because CYMK ink processes cannot achieve the same color saturation as the screen. So if you have 24b or 18b or whatever color, you distribute your dynamic range over a color-space that isn't usable in print. Which means: 1) you can more easily pick impossible colors (if you don't rigorously use gamut checks) and 2) the colorimetric distance between any two colors on your display is further (more gamut) therefore less fine distinction.
#2 matters if you're trying to say match skin tone. #2 also matters if you try to color calibrate the screen. The closer together your color-steps are the easier it is calibrate (lots of precision), but a glossy screen has bigger steps between colors (covers more color space) and thus cheapo calibration equipment and software fails to converge. This especially true if the LCD panel (not the coating) is cheap 6b/channel.
Last, glossy is really bad for windows. In windows, everything is assumed to be sRGB color-space (wrong) unless you are in photoshop. Your screen has more gamut, more saturation, but windows does not do color-space translation on its own. Ergo: all your colors are slightly wrong in every program but photoshop (or equivalent). On MacOS, color-space translation is available in many more programs thanks to the OS
.
Not to mention that about 400B of the debt appeared in the past three weeks relating to the Supplementary Financing Program. The cash is being held on deposit at the Fed. This is different than the Bailout. That money hasn't been raised yet. This money is not supposed to be spent.
No, while this did circulate in the news for quite sometime, it turns out to have been an artifact of coding mistakes. Four of the top 10 are now from the 1930s: 1934, 1931, 1938 and 1939, while only 3 of the top 10 are from the last 10 years (1998, 2006, 1999). Several years (2000, 2002, 2003, 2004) are well below the entire 20th century.
Ah. Standard lawyer confusion: mistaking precedent for logic. Okay, I can play:
Apparently you do not understand the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act
This roe over domestic spying is a smear no more fair or accurate that the swift boat campaign against Kerry. It simply is not a true characterization of the Terrorist Surveillance Program (TSP). The whole idea behind TSP is that NSA intercepts communications over US based fiber infrastructure originating at foreign sources. Any intercepts of US persons are accidents and discarded. Further, no evidence accidentally collected on a US person may be used in court, nor may it be communicated to any officer of government investigating any crime but terrorism.
Calling this domestic spying does severe semantic damage to our language, and THAT is a danger to our freedom. Newspeak people.
FISA's role in this endeavor is whether TSP requires court orders preceding each and every intercept. The FISA courts cannot authorized "domestic spying". There is not a domestic spying component to these programs.
If this is the idea, we can already be pretty sure that it is wrong. You mention Apple using FreeBSD, but you seem to forget that almost every major TCP stack is BSD derived. Even Microsoft's NT implementation the BSD stack, although it mostly but not entirely rewritten by the present day.
Do you work in the embedded applications industry? I can tell you that Linux is and remains quite toxic to the business community b.c. of the GPL and the perception of substantial legal risk thereof. Cisco for instance is making a push to use a FreeBSD derivate in all of its consumer products--displacing in some cases existing linux based hardware.
BSD has enjoyed tremendous penetration into the commercial marketplace. Linux is included in a handful of devices--decisions attributable to a wave of linux euphoria which has now mostly dissipated. Organizations are now asking which OSS is safest base from which to derive projects rather than associating an OSS base with Linux. The result is a renewed and overwhelming focus on skipping Linux and sticking with BSD derived code.
Sorry, no. These problems arise because of the puny uplink capacity. Your downstream flows require acks which saturate your upstream bandwidth. Your VoIP session coexists in this upstream. Ergo, dropping acks by putting them in a low priority queue:
1) Gives you VoIP the upstream bandwidth it needs
2) Forces the people sending you data to reduce their window sizes (bandwidth) leaving room for your downstream VoIP.
I realized I had miscalculated after my post. See my reply to my own comment. You are essentially correct. However at $500/oz those would still be some expensive crumple zones.
Personally, I was more caught by the blogger's throwaway remarks about "corporate science". The truth in my experience is that academics exaggerate to get grants and manipulate data to publish papers. For instance, a substantial fraction of chemistry research cannot be reproduced because the results shown are a fluke, and the applications of an idea are often grossly exaggerated. For instance, some scientists invented a new alloy which they suggest will revolutionize crumple-zones in cars. This alloy includes palladium, a rare-metal. Indeed so rare, if all the palladium on earth were to be used to make this new alloy, we'd get about a cubic meter of the stuff.
You just don't get away with this sort of stuff in industry. For instance the famous Bell Labs scientist who falsified his nanotech research. This was then discovered by a competing group at IBM. In industry, scientific fraud is hard b.c. the standards for research go beyond publishing a few page journal article.
And is the right choice, if done smoothly. Don't mass email. Investigate each contact send a personalized note targeted at them and their business.
Use the information, just don't abuse it. Spam is quick and dirty, but a poor substitute for the elbow grease of real salesmanship.
You've seen this huh? Guess again, that isn't how tcp works if the congestion point is indeed at the dslam. No, what you really see when using bittorrent is the effect of the asymmetrical upload/download speeds--this is what kills your VoIP traffic. The bittorrent sessions ensure that the uplink is saturated which means that your downlink bandwidth is close to zero b.c. your ack traffic has been squeezed out.
This wouldn't be a problem except that your uplink speed is so slow. Thus dividing it by any fraction (just a few peers worth) means that there is no download capacity.
The "business" answer is to recognize the difficulty in determining who does and does not deserve to be censured. You arrogantly presume to know. It just isn't that simple.
Correctly translating documents is about turning one language's idioms into another's. Whether or not 'map' is literally present is irrelevant to an idiomatic translation. What's clear is that Ahmadinejad choose to use idioms that native listeners understood as calling for genocide and the subjugation of the Jewish people.
Thus the translation of the document--to get thick headed people like yourself to understand the point. Sadly this has failed as it couldn't overcome your willful ignorance as you scurried back to a flawed literalism arguments in a vain attempt to shield the fortress of your biases against the onslaught of truth.
Considering that close to 50% of the American people don't support sanctions against Iran; your rewrite is meaningless nonsense. We have a vibrant debate in this country about Iran and the intentions of the Iran leadership. This is about as from 'cultural blindness' as you can reasonable get.
Calling the US government corrupt and autocratic is ridiculous. Maybe you need to spend some time in other countries: Bulgaria, Romania, Sudan, Ethiopia, Burma, Russia, etc, etc. Get out of your echo chamber man. You've been conned.
I said that they wouldn't use it as a first strike weapon; I'm sure if they were in danger of being overrun, they'd use them. But you say that you believe they act in their own self-interest. Do you realize how small of an area we're talking about? A nuclear strike by Israel into Syria or Iran would almost surely lead to radioactive fallout blowing through Israeli cities and polluting Israeli water-supplies as well.
Both Israel and US take substantial pains to minimize casualties--as much as possible short of avoid hostilities all together. Perhaps you consider risking even one innocent death ruthless, but I do not. I think the US substantially values the lives of foreigners and human life in general.
If you seriously believe that Israel would use nukes in a first-strike scenario , you've been horribly mislead by propaganda. Get a grip. The anti-Israel propaganda that pervades Middle-Eastern life is a subterfuge in support of the corrupt and autocratic governments in Iran and Syria and to a lesser extent those of Egypt, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia.
The anti-Israel position has become a point of nearly complete cultural blindness.
I don't think that's what meant by First Sale in this context. Typically the First Sale Doctrine is a protection against the copyright holder: namely that the copyright holder cannot control a particular copy beyond the point of first sale.
It is not a doctrine, however, that says the copy must be sold for the own to be protected; merely instead that who ever owns a particular copy is entitled to control that copy--including being entitled to resell it.
No, the RIAA court filings declare that Media Sentry engaged in the activity. So its irrelevant what the Media Sentry IPs are. This isn't part of the counter-suit. the RIAA's own filing is.
Yes, it could, but that needlessly minimizes the point here. When you go to argue a motion to judge, you present not only binding precedents from above but lateral precedents as well. If the reasoning therein is sound, this is usually good enough. Indeed, this is the COMMON case is areas of new law.
Most precedent gets established by spontaneous coordination. The appeals court and the supreme court only get involved in a small fraction of that activity--either when the trial court reasoning is unsound or when inconsistencies are present. Even when, say, an Appeals court sets precedent, its often the promulgation of a practice well-established in the lower courts but not yet consistently applied.
Bingo. This is the smartest comment I've heard in this discussion. Let the user tag her traffic, then apply policies per-contract.
In addition to the standard committed/excess color scheme, the IEEE has a recommended four-priority network design:
3) Network mgmt traffic
2) Latency sensitive traffic
1) Loss sensitive traffic
0) Bulk traffic, best-effort service
There is a reason getting fancy isn't a good idea: its expensive (in router/switch hardware) and unnecessary--if you're that congested you need more bandwidth not more priorities.
You realize that that $15 is almost entirely administrative and infrastructure costs that do not scale with usage? That's the real 'economics' of unlimited internet. The bytes transfered carry an almost insignificant marginal cost.
Or to put this in perspective: $50/mo pays for about 1Mbps sustained transfer (including profit & plant depreciation). This cost is only going down. e.g. five years ago it was about $200/mo. Granted these are prices that large organizations (such as Universities) pay--and also receive high-reliability.
As should be clear: GGGP's logic is faulty due to inconsistency. I speculated on a simple principle that would make his statements sensible: namely that he is biased.
As to your argument: I agree that the commerce clause jurisprudence is illogical. Regardless of your policy position, I agree that such reasoning is a rot on the constitution that weakens the whole structure of the document. I agree that FCC policies do not comport with the first amendment. I disagree that Presidential signing statements are a problem per se. Presidential interpretation of law is an essential element of our tripartite system of government. To abandon his judgment and become a slave of congress or the courts is to breech his oath of office--just as it is congress's responsibility to impeach&convict if they believe he has failed to faithfully execute the laws.