It is interesting to note that Gordon Cooper alleged in a book he wrote a few years ago, "Leap of Faith," that he encountered 'flying saucers' landing and flying while working as a military test pilot in the early 1950s, and that footage he had taken of these saucers was confiscated from him.
And how long after the release of that book was he murd... er, died?
So we've finally found a suitable place to store our nuclear waste. Seriously though, if we could somehow dig a hole straight into the mantle of the earth, wouldn't that be the perfect way of disposing of nuclear waste?
Well, the concept of distribution and delegation of power that permeated the feudal system I believe still exists in the US government. As you pointed out, "Large, monolithic governments cannot make allowances for local conditions or the local will of the people". Is that really much different than a system whereby a knight oversees a specific portion of land and chooses for himself in which way he would like to enforce the law of his king - whether he should decide to bend the rules and show mercy to his servants or strictly obey the laws under which he is commissioned? The two systems, IMO, seem strikingly similar.
However, I do see your point. If the federal government were to try to provide legislation for every circumstance in every location across the country, our laws would be even more of a tangled mess than they are now.
Take all the gigabyte-gobbling shit they've written for the last 10 years and turn it into useful code with no new functionality.
Yeah, talk about bloatware... I used to use Hotmail for my email service and it clocked in at about 2 MB of storage. Now, gmail comes along, and they give me 1 GIG! I mean, where does it end? It's just email, why do I need a full gig of space for just email? C'mon gmail, add new functionality to my email instead of just loading me down with crap that takes extra space.
How about this: why, in the communication age, do we still have what basically amounts to a fuedal system of government? Does there really need to be a distinction between state and federal legislation anymore? It may have made sense 100 years ago, but modern technology seems to have seen to it that the logistics of long-distance rulership are now mostly trivial.
I don't understand what it is about the ninth amendment that the US Government fails to comprehend.
Perhaps they do comprehend the meaning of the ninth and tenth amendments. However, why should they care? What are we going to do, fire them?
This "democ-proxy" of ours assumes that the person who is best in line with what the public demands will, once elected, happily serve the interests of the society that put him in office. This rarely seems to be the case. Campaigning for office feels like little more than cramming for a mid-term the night before, only to forget half of what you learned once you pass the test. There's really very little reason for them to hold our interests in mind once they have seized power.
I can't seem to remember the exact details, but there was a story several months back here on slashdot about a behavioral study that involved installing cameras all throughout a section of park somewhere on the east coast and watching how people respond to the fact that they are being monitored (it even had some wacky "Big Brother"-sounding name). They found that even people who were doing nothing illegal tended to modify their behavior to fit perceived social norms when they knew they were being watched.
I'm afraid it isn't your place to make that sort of judgment. Now since it is becoming painfully obvious that you have social difficulties, this is the last time I will respond to your comments, and I suggest you follow suit. Good day.
Perhaps because it's an effective method to get everyone playing nice. There *are* other lossless formats that camera manufacturers could support (and I'm sure some do), but with no real direction, everyone would just do what suits them and there would likely be no common format between them. Adobe is just trying to help give the camera manufacturers something to agree on (barring other possibly nefarious intentions).
Lossy formats call for some compromise on quality, and alpha gradients wouldn't be that easy to translate.
Good point. However, there is no reason it should be impossible to compress the alpha channel lossless and apply lossy compression to the rest of the image.
My questions is, can existing cameras be updated to the new format, or will the manufacturers just want to sell the new ones.
I'm not horribly concerned if Nikon doesn't release an update for my particular camera since Adobe will be providing an image conversion utility that supports many of the proprietary raw formats.
I suppose the benefit would be that (ideally) when all cameras support the new format, there will no longer be a need to install and use your camera's proprietary software package just to be able to access your images.
Wow, if I would have known people were going to get so bent out of shape over a harmless mistake on a message board, I would have been more careful with my words. You have my apologies.
Now, perhaps you should realize that I do in fact understand the difference between a mayor and a governer, and that particular mistake was merely the result of my not paying attention to what I was typing. IMO, whether the mistake is due to a slip of the finger or a slip of the mind, the end result is the same and therefore qualifies as a typographicalerror.
And here's a bonus definition for all the immature little children out there.
I think your trip to Austrailia might still be a ways away. Most of SS1's boost is concentrated in getting it UP, not OUT.
You might be right, but I think the major advantage here would be fuel economy. I would imagine that if the craft were to operate in a similar fashion to ICBM's (roughly parabolic trajectory, with the apex being far into the upper atmosphere), the fuel efficiency might be somewhat better than a traditional aircraft since the re-entry leg of the trip is little more than a matter of gliding to the target.
Though, admittedly, I really have no idea what it takes to get one of those things into space in the first place.
Combine that with an elder population that has a difficult time adjusting to electronic voting and you'll get problems that are difficult to solve in the next election.
A fair election might also be more likely to occur once GWB's brother is no longer mayor of Florida.
You are not buying a license, you are buying a copy of the movie and you own that copy.
Sure, you own the disc and the packaging, but you don't own the work contained on that disc - any more than you own the McDonald's logo emblazoned on a super-sized Pepsi. You only have the right to destroy or transfer your copy of the movie simply because provisions for such activities are outlined in US copyright law. All other activities are prohibited except when otherwise granted those rights by the copyright owner. Software is handled exactly the same way, yet sometimes with even more restrictions on use. You simply do not *own* any copyrighted material that you did not create (or receive transfer of ownership of) yourself.
You might be interested to read through the US Code on copyrights sometime.
The difference is that Weird Al recreates the songs he parodies, usually with a moderate amount of deviation from the original. The improv group isn't creating a parody so much as they are publicly exhibiting a copyrighted work - something that is prohibited by the standard license acquired when you purchase a DVD.
From the beginning of every movie you have ever seen:
FBI WARNING: Federal law provides severe civil and criminal penalties for the unauthorized reproduction, distribution or exhibition of copyrighted motion pictures, video tapes or video discs. Etc...
Slashdot Mirror
It is interesting to note that Gordon Cooper alleged in a book he wrote a few years ago, "Leap of Faith," that he encountered 'flying saucers' landing and flying while working as a military test pilot in the early 1950s, and that footage he had taken of these saucers was confiscated from him.
And how long after the release of that book was he murd... er, died?
it also adjusts its spin to evenly distribute the clothes in a matter than doesn't result in a wobbly spin
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that's called 'entropy'.
Yeah, it's almost as if MS is acting like a greedy American corporation bent on increasing profits at any cost. For shame.
Why does the US need such a large submarine fleet?
Obviously in case a *terrorist* tries to attack us with a sub. Hrm, I think Russia has subs, let's "liberate" them.
I can't even imagine how much time you'd have to spend finding unique porn mailing lists to get enough spam to fill one of these babies up.
Simple. Write a script to download every post from all of the alt.b* groups and u/l the files to your account as attachments.
So we've finally found a suitable place to store our nuclear waste. Seriously though, if we could somehow dig a hole straight into the mantle of the earth, wouldn't that be the perfect way of disposing of nuclear waste?
Offtopic? :p Lighten up and try to appreciate a bit of humor/sarcasm. What good is life if you can't enjoy it?
Well, the concept of distribution and delegation of power that permeated the feudal system I believe still exists in the US government. As you pointed out, "Large, monolithic governments cannot make allowances for local conditions or the local will of the people". Is that really much different than a system whereby a knight oversees a specific portion of land and chooses for himself in which way he would like to enforce the law of his king - whether he should decide to bend the rules and show mercy to his servants or strictly obey the laws under which he is commissioned? The two systems, IMO, seem strikingly similar.
However, I do see your point. If the federal government were to try to provide legislation for every circumstance in every location across the country, our laws would be even more of a tangled mess than they are now.
Take all the gigabyte-gobbling shit they've written for the last 10 years and turn it into useful code with no new functionality.
Yeah, talk about bloatware... I used to use Hotmail for my email service and it clocked in at about 2 MB of storage. Now, gmail comes along, and they give me 1 GIG! I mean, where does it end? It's just email, why do I need a full gig of space for just email? C'mon gmail, add new functionality to my email instead of just loading me down with crap that takes extra space.
How about this: why, in the communication age, do we still have what basically amounts to a fuedal system of government? Does there really need to be a distinction between state and federal legislation anymore? It may have made sense 100 years ago, but modern technology seems to have seen to it that the logistics of long-distance rulership are now mostly trivial.
I don't understand what it is about the ninth amendment that the US Government fails to comprehend.
Perhaps they do comprehend the meaning of the ninth and tenth amendments. However, why should they care? What are we going to do, fire them?
This "democ-proxy" of ours assumes that the person who is best in line with what the public demands will, once elected, happily serve the interests of the society that put him in office. This rarely seems to be the case. Campaigning for office feels like little more than cramming for a mid-term the night before, only to forget half of what you learned once you pass the test. There's really very little reason for them to hold our interests in mind once they have seized power.
"You can still have congress look into the matter and the Supreme Court can still rule this unconstitutional.
The checks and balances of the US goverment only function properly when each of the 3 branches are normally honest and immune to collusion.
I can't seem to remember the exact details, but there was a story several months back here on slashdot about a behavioral study that involved installing cameras all throughout a section of park somewhere on the east coast and watching how people respond to the fact that they are being monitored (it even had some wacky "Big Brother"-sounding name). They found that even people who were doing nothing illegal tended to modify their behavior to fit perceived social norms when they knew they were being watched.
There is no excuse for that sort of idiocy.
I'm afraid it isn't your place to make that sort of judgment. Now since it is becoming painfully obvious that you have social difficulties, this is the last time I will respond to your comments, and I suggest you follow suit. Good day.
So why do we need this solution from Adobe?
Perhaps because it's an effective method to get everyone playing nice. There *are* other lossless formats that camera manufacturers could support (and I'm sure some do), but with no real direction, everyone would just do what suits them and there would likely be no common format between them. Adobe is just trying to help give the camera manufacturers something to agree on (barring other possibly nefarious intentions).
Lossy formats call for some compromise on quality, and alpha gradients wouldn't be that easy to translate.
Good point. However, there is no reason it should be impossible to compress the alpha channel lossless and apply lossy compression to the rest of the image.
My questions is, can existing cameras be updated to the new format, or will the manufacturers just want to sell the new ones.
I'm not horribly concerned if Nikon doesn't release an update for my particular camera since Adobe will be providing an image conversion utility that supports many of the proprietary raw formats.
I suppose the benefit would be that (ideally) when all cameras support the new format, there will no longer be a need to install and use your camera's proprietary software package just to be able to access your images.
Wow, if I would have known people were going to get so bent out of shape over a harmless mistake on a message board, I would have been more careful with my words. You have my apologies.
Now, perhaps you should realize that I do in fact understand the difference between a mayor and a governer, and that particular mistake was merely the result of my not paying attention to what I was typing. IMO, whether the mistake is due to a slip of the finger or a slip of the mind, the end result is the same and therefore qualifies as a typographical error.
And here's a bonus definition for all the immature little children out there.
I think your trip to Austrailia might still be a ways away. Most of SS1's boost is concentrated in getting it UP, not OUT.
You might be right, but I think the major advantage here would be fuel economy. I would imagine that if the craft were to operate in a similar fashion to ICBM's (roughly parabolic trajectory, with the apex being far into the upper atmosphere), the fuel efficiency might be somewhat better than a traditional aircraft since the re-entry leg of the trip is little more than a matter of gliding to the target.
Though, admittedly, I really have no idea what it takes to get one of those things into space in the first place.
Mayor, governer, whatever... they're all just as unsavory. But thanks for correcting me. Damn typo's....
Combine that with an elder population that has a difficult time adjusting to electronic voting and you'll get problems that are difficult to solve in the next election.
A fair election might also be more likely to occur once GWB's brother is no longer mayor of Florida.
A vote in Florida is worth 2 for Bush.
You are not buying a license, you are buying a copy of the movie and you own that copy.
Sure, you own the disc and the packaging, but you don't own the work contained on that disc - any more than you own the McDonald's logo emblazoned on a super-sized Pepsi. You only have the right to destroy or transfer your copy of the movie simply because provisions for such activities are outlined in US copyright law. All other activities are prohibited except when otherwise granted those rights by the copyright owner. Software is handled exactly the same way, yet sometimes with even more restrictions on use. You simply do not *own* any copyrighted material that you did not create (or receive transfer of ownership of) yourself.
You might be interested to read through the US Code on copyrights sometime.
The difference is that Weird Al recreates the songs he parodies, usually with a moderate amount of deviation from the original. The improv group isn't creating a parody so much as they are publicly exhibiting a copyrighted work - something that is prohibited by the standard license acquired when you purchase a DVD.
From the beginning of every movie you have ever seen:
FBI WARNING: Federal law provides severe civil and criminal penalties for the unauthorized reproduction, distribution or exhibition of copyrighted motion pictures, video tapes or video discs. Etc...