Since say 10% of the population (regardless of whether they are police) is lets say "bad". I suppose you don't trust anyone in the world then, right? Afterall, in your world, unless everyone is perfect, the whole lot is bad and untrustworthy.
In other words, "If everybody else does it, then it is OK for us to do it."
What a perfect example of exactly that kind of "cop logic" used to justify the thin blue line that the promotes the distrust that the GP expressed.
But hey, Clinton was personable, so it's just about witch hunts and blowjobs, not about accountability and the law... right?
You are absolutely right about the technical details of the Clinton impeachment. But, the politics (soundbites, Bush campaign promises, etc) of the impeachment were all about Monica, and not the Arkansas land fraud and such.
Bush, on the other hand, doesn't have political cover of a purient nature. If he gets impeached, it is going to be about the serious stuff and I don't think the Democrats will try (nor have anything to gain by) focusing on the lightweight stuff in the courtroom of public opinion.
do you memeber video of bush's second election night? the streets where filled with protesters.. in fact it was the first time in history that the pres couldn't walk in because they where afraid he would be shot - no one saw this in the us.. except for the people there. the news didn't cover it
It's gotta be floating around on youtube or francetube or something, got a link?
Classic 1984'ish stuff. You take away, then proclaim the reduction as an "improvement". I believe in the book they were using chocolate rations, but hey, information can be rationed too...
I wish they would start with the chocolate. Considering the size of the average american waist, rationing chocolate would be an improvement, probably save billions in health-care costs.
Why do you assume that they would be in jail, and why do you assume that the connection must either be direct, or completely meaningless? You make a lot of assumptions.
If the connection isn't meaningless, then it should be well known right? AFter all, how did the pundits you read find out about the connection? So just what is the connection between the airport imams and terrorists?
Strange how you guys can get real, verifiable evidence without citing a single source, while I can barely utter a word without being demanded to provide sources.
Since you haven't listed a claim and asked for the citation you've got no business playing that card. But, when you can't even remember the contents from paragraph to paragraph in the message you quote from, it is pretty clear you don't even know what to ask for.
But you stick with that persecution complex about the liberal media and all that, facts, especially if they are more than a single post up the thread can't really matter more than what you "feel" can they? After all, they are known to have a liberal bias after all.
Just remember that when this is all said and done THIS CASE RIGHT HERE IN FRONT OF YOU is yet one more in a string of over 97% of a thousand terrorism arrests in the UK that have come up empty. Don't deny it, don't forget it. Remember it, however hard that might be for your ADD addled brain.
I understand that Christian sects in the U.S. have less stringent requirements, but that does definitely not mean that all Christians have no contact at all with the untranslated texts.
Back up there a second.
Just because you read something written in a dead language does not mean that it is not itself a translation or edited version of some other text.
To the best of my knowledge, and as the prior poster stated, the original texts do not exist, period. Not even 2nd or 3rd generation transcriptions.
So, sure you can go back and read stuff in Aramaic, but unlike the Quran which exists today in the exact original arabic that what's his-name wrote, you still will never get to the original books of the bible.
I get the impression that the "Intelligent Design" movement has received widespread and fairly eclectic promotion around the globe, and that we can expect to see similar ID-inspired anti-intellectualism in most of the developed world (there is already more than enough regular anti-intellectualism in most of the under-developed world). I think it is at least somewhat interesting to compare the spread and spreaders of ID with the spread of Qutbism. To the best of my knowledge, we don't have many ID'ers going 911 on people. But then again, the vast majority of Qutbists have not done so either.
If you (or your wife, or your child) are forced to be photographed nude or engaged in sexual activity to which you have not consented, are you not victimized every time those photographs are seen or distributed?
What I'd like to see is a couple of those field-programmable thingie cores that can reconfigure their circuits to a specialized calculation a program is doing... Wishful thinking but still...
Here is one, there are a couple of other companies doing exactly the same thing.
Weighed against that is the fact that we will never be able to secure our borders unless we have a national ID.
That is a completely unsupported claim on your part.
But, let's assume the underlying belief is actually true - that national-id will be completely uncompromisable - no forgery, no bribing the people responsible for the integrity of the system, nothing, it is 100% perfect.
Unless you are going to require that people have ID for every single little day to day task like purchasing groceries and walking down the street, then you can't hope to catch all people who do not have valid ID. Especially if they have collaborators who do have valid ID and can do the important stuff, like buy groceries, rent a house, drive the car, etc.
On the scale of changes I would like to see in my life, having less cards to haul around in my wallet doesn't even register. Whether it is 5 cards or just 1, I still have the wallet with the other stuff in it, like cash, receipts, a condom and those little wallet-sized pics of the family, to just name a few.
a unified ID could also mean not having to change your address in a gazillion databases every time you move
I consider that a benefit. When I move, I always take the opportunity to shake the people and organizations with which I do not wish to continue my association. Like junk-mailers, charity solicitations and my college alumni-begging-for-money-even-though-I-detest-the- school association, and then there are the more serious possibilities like people with stalkers and violent ex-husbands. A central database would be a lot more prone to compromise. At least now I can make the legally-questionable decision to list my private-mailbox as the address for my driver's license and still purchase home-owner's insurance on my actual residence.
Do you realize that your own justification for a national-id is self-contradictory?
If you're here legally, you'll have an ID.... You already need an ID to do any number of day to day activities.
Either the terrorist/illegal-immigrant/boogeyman-of-the-week doesn't do these day to day activities, which would make them somewhat less than day-to-day, or they already have id and will continue about their business unaffected by the initiative.
Being a "casual" user does not protect you from needing the window washer or the seat adjustments.
Actually, it does. You are trying to redefine "casual user" as someone who needs ALL functionality. 99 times out of 100 or something along those lines, the guy renting a car for one day won't need to use the 6 different wiper-speed intervals nor will he need the lower-lumbar, upper-lumbar, inclination, and hip-bolster adjustments. For that other 1 out of 100, sure it sucks, but does it suck worse than the total cost that the other 99 incur from having to deal with the additional complexity introduced by all those unneeded knobs?
My Denon is the poster child for worst UI ever.
Bummers. Anyone can cite poor UI designs, they are a dime a dozen. It is hard work and requires more than a little bit of artistry to get them right, which is why the poor ones are so common. That in no way invalidates the point that simply throwing every conceivable option up on a single panel is much better. It's like you've decided that since good UI design is hard, you aren't going to invest the effort to do it, but at least you won't lock people out of functionality.
If your resources limit you to that decision, then that's fine. But don't kid yourself that you are implementing the penultimate of user interfaces. You are just moving the costs around - instead of spending the effort to do it well up front once and get 99% coverage, you push the cost of learning a confusing interface, and recovering from the errors that result, onto each user over and over again as they climb that learning curve. If you've only got a handful of users and they will all be regular users, then that's probably the most cost-efficient way to go. But if you've got hundreds or thousands of users, few of which need more than basic functionality, that design decision is probably going to be very wasteful of your customers' time.
By the way, you'll note that I am arguing against the "a full front panel with control of everything on a knob right there in my face" design style and for the partially "hidden 'for my convenience'" design style, with emphasis on convenience. But I am not arguing for, "simplification to the point of making control panels blank faces with just a button or two" which is mostly a straw-man drawn of out an extremist view that form is more important than function.
In other words, I am saying that function over form is not a binary choice and that a well-designed form can even be part of function.
You cannot fight against evolution and win. If your solution includes telling people to go against their most basic desires and needs, it is certain failure.
Which, incidentally, is why the MPAA/RIAA/ETCAA fight against illegal file sharing is doomed to certain failure too.
Having all the controls in my face allows me to locate the one I want by simply reading.
You missed the whole point about casual users.
'99%' of the time, casual users just need basic functionality and don't have the time or inclination to become experts. When there are circa 5 basic functions and 6 similar knobs to choose from, the casual user is going to get the right result almost every time. When there are 30 similar knobs to choose from, the casual user is going to spend a couple of orders of magnitude more time trying to figure things out.
Hidden, or so obscure that it might as well have been hidden.
By default, almost all of unix is right there in the default path and the man pages are right there in the default man path. But you are right, obscurity is exactly the problem. You've got a couple of hundred commands with 4 letters or less in their names. Just like having 30 similar looking knobs right out in the open is obscure too.
All your Kia examples are from the perspective of the expert user. You don't mention all the ways the casual user can screw things up - 6 different seat adjustments is 6 different ways to mess up the seat when you are groping around for the slide forward/backward knob.
Minimalist features gets you minimalist functionality.
That's only true if you choose your features at random. Good UI design is all about making the easy things easy and the hard things possible. Your design philosophy sounds like it is focused on the latter with little attention paid to the former.
There is a saying about unix - "It's a great place to live, but I wouldn't want to visit."
Your examples are similar. If you only used your Marantz 3 times a year, you probably wouldn't be so happy to have all the controls in your face. Similarly, if you drove some other car and had to rent that Kia for a few days while your regular car was in the shop, you would find that multitude of knobs and switches to be confusing and perhaps downright distracting.
Expert users want and need easy access to expert features. But '99%' of the time, casual users just need basic functionality and don't have the time or inclination to become experts.
The Register is not exactly a trustworthy news source. Think of it as the supermarket tabloid of Technology News.
The Register and the Inquirer (founded by the creator of the Register after losing a power struggle at the Register) never sign NDAs. That means that they rarely get the inside scoop. But, it leaves them completely free to report whatever they dig up, whenever they dig it up.
So, you have your choice - Press Release journalism from places like Anandtech, Tom's Hardware, etc or "You'll know it as soon as we know it" from places like The Reg and The Inq.
Pick your poison. I choose the later - better to get it wrong by accident than by some PR flack's direction.
Re:h264 decoding on vlc player kicks ass!
on
VLC 0.8.6 Released
·
· Score: 1
Those numbers are from November 2005.
I am not going to go dig for more recent numbers, but I saw comments in passing on the ffdshow-tryout mailing list about being their latest checkins being comparable to coreavc. Don't remember the specifics though, it could easily have been for one of the profiles that don't matter so much.
Slashdot Mirror
Since say 10% of the population (regardless of whether they are police) is lets say "bad". I suppose you don't trust anyone in the world then, right? Afterall, in your world, unless everyone is perfect, the whole lot is bad and untrustworthy.
In other words, "If everybody else does it, then it is OK for us to do it."
What a perfect example of exactly that kind of "cop logic" used to justify the thin blue line that the promotes the distrust that the GP expressed.
Besides, using the term "SPAM" is inaccurate: what is the commercial benefit of his links?
Why do you think SPAM implies commercial benefit? One of the earliest spammers was an 'evanglist' - sending out generic jesus-freak messages.
One of my favorite extensions takes care of that problem.
But hey, Clinton was personable, so it's just about witch hunts and blowjobs, not about accountability and the law... right?
You are absolutely right about the technical details of the Clinton impeachment.
But, the politics (soundbites, Bush campaign promises, etc) of the impeachment were all about Monica, and not the Arkansas land fraud and such.
Bush, on the other hand, doesn't have political cover of a purient nature. If he gets impeached, it is going to be about the serious stuff and I don't think the Democrats will try (nor have anything to gain by) focusing on the lightweight stuff in the courtroom of public opinion.
Uh, F911 was published before the 2nd election, how could it contain footage of Bush returning to the White House AFTER the 2nd election?
do you memeber video of bush's second election night? the streets where filled with protesters.. in fact it was the first time in history that the pres couldn't walk in because they where afraid he would be shot - no one saw this in the us.. except for the people there. the news didn't cover it
It's gotta be floating around on youtube or francetube or something, got a link?
I mean, didn't Clinton get impeached? It didn't seem to have any effect on him, did it?
I'm pretty sure he stopped getting blowjobs for a while.
Classic 1984'ish stuff. You take away, then proclaim the reduction as an "improvement". I believe in the book they were using chocolate rations, but hey, information can be rationed too...
I wish they would start with the chocolate. Considering the size of the average american waist, rationing chocolate would be an improvement, probably save billions in health-care costs.
Why do you assume that they would be in jail, and why do you assume that the connection must either be direct, or completely meaningless? You make a lot of assumptions.
If the connection isn't meaningless, then it should be well known right? AFter all, how did the pundits you read find out about the connection? So just what is the connection between the airport imams and terrorists?
Strange how you guys can get real, verifiable evidence without citing a single source, while I can barely utter a word without being demanded to provide sources.
Since you haven't listed a claim and asked for the citation you've got no business playing that card. But, when you can't even remember the contents from paragraph to paragraph in the message you quote from, it is pretty clear you don't even know what to ask for.
But you stick with that persecution complex about the liberal media and all that, facts, especially if they are more than a single post up the thread can't really matter more than what you "feel" can they? After all, they are known to have a liberal bias after all.
Just remember that when this is all said and done THIS CASE RIGHT HERE IN FRONT OF YOU is yet one more in a string of over 97% of a thousand terrorism arrests in the UK that have come up empty. Don't deny it, don't forget it. Remember it, however hard that might be for your ADD addled brain.
I understand that Christian sects in the U.S. have less stringent requirements, but that does definitely not mean that all Christians have no contact at all with the untranslated texts.
Back up there a second.
Just because you read something written in a dead language does not mean that it is not itself a translation or edited version of some other text.
To the best of my knowledge, and as the prior poster stated, the original texts do not exist, period. Not even 2nd or 3rd generation transcriptions.
So, sure you can go back and read stuff in Aramaic, but unlike the Quran which exists today in the exact original arabic that what's his-name wrote, you still will never get to the original books of the bible.
I get the impression that the "Intelligent Design" movement has received widespread and fairly eclectic promotion around the globe, and that we can expect to see similar ID-inspired anti-intellectualism in most of the developed world (there is already more than enough regular anti-intellectualism in most of the under-developed world). I think it is at least somewhat interesting to compare the spread and spreaders of ID with the spread of Qutbism. To the best of my knowledge, we don't have many ID'ers going 911 on people. But then again, the vast majority of Qutbists have not done so either.
I would think that the kind of depravity which would cause someone to seek out such images would be better handled by the Church than the law,
<<Insert Catholic Priest Joke Here>>
If you (or your wife, or your child) are forced to be photographed nude or engaged in sexual activity to which you have not consented, are you not victimized every time those photographs are seen or distributed?
If a tree falls in the woods, do you care?
High performance FPGAs get wtf-pw3ned by ASICs any day of the week ;) They're to ASICs what general purpose CPUs are to specialized processors.
Get back to us when you can fit an entire ASIC fab in one opteron socket.
Here is one, there are a couple of other companies doing exactly the same thing.
Weighed against that is the fact that we will never be able to secure our borders unless we have a national ID.
That is a completely unsupported claim on your part.
But, let's assume the underlying belief is actually true - that national-id will be completely uncompromisable - no forgery, no bribing the people responsible for the integrity of the system, nothing, it is 100% perfect.
Unless you are going to require that people have ID for every single little day to day task like purchasing groceries and walking down the street, then you can't hope to catch all people who do not have valid ID. Especially if they have collaborators who do have valid ID and can do the important stuff, like buy groceries, rent a house, drive the car, etc.
I sure would like a thinner wallet, though.
- school association, and then there are the more serious possibilities like people with stalkers and violent ex-husbands. A central database would be a lot more prone to compromise. At least now I can make the legally-questionable decision to list my private-mailbox as the address for my driver's license and still purchase home-owner's insurance on my actual residence.
On the scale of changes I would like to see in my life, having less cards to haul around in my wallet doesn't even register. Whether it is 5 cards or just 1, I still have the wallet with the other stuff in it, like cash, receipts, a condom and those little wallet-sized pics of the family, to just name a few.
a unified ID could also mean not having to change your address in a gazillion databases every time you move
I consider that a benefit. When I move, I always take the opportunity to shake the people and organizations with which I do not wish to continue my association. Like junk-mailers, charity solicitations and my college alumni-begging-for-money-even-though-I-detest-the
Is the current generation of CPU not optimized for mathematic operations?
You name the operations, and I'll tell you if it is optimized for it or not.
Or, in other words, that's the difference between genral-purpose and special-purpose.
Do you realize that your own justification for a national-id is self-contradictory?
...
If you're here legally, you'll have an ID.
You already need an ID to do any number of day to day activities.
Either the terrorist/illegal-immigrant/boogeyman-of-the-week doesn't do these day to day activities, which would make them somewhat less than day-to-day, or they already have id and will continue about their business unaffected by the initiative.
Being a "casual" user does not protect you from needing the window washer or the seat adjustments.
Actually, it does. You are trying to redefine "casual user" as someone who needs ALL functionality. 99 times out of 100 or something along those lines, the guy renting a car for one day won't need to use the 6 different wiper-speed intervals nor will he need the lower-lumbar, upper-lumbar, inclination, and hip-bolster adjustments. For that other 1 out of 100, sure it sucks, but does it suck worse than the total cost that the other 99 incur from having to deal with the additional complexity introduced by all those unneeded knobs?
My Denon is the poster child for worst UI ever.
Bummers. Anyone can cite poor UI designs, they are a dime a dozen. It is hard work and requires more than a little bit of artistry to get them right, which is why the poor ones are so common. That in no way invalidates the point that simply throwing every conceivable option up on a single panel is much better. It's like you've decided that since good UI design is hard, you aren't going to invest the effort to do it, but at least you won't lock people out of functionality.
If your resources limit you to that decision, then that's fine. But don't kid yourself that you are implementing the penultimate of user interfaces. You are just moving the costs around - instead of spending the effort to do it well up front once and get 99% coverage, you push the cost of learning a confusing interface, and recovering from the errors that result, onto each user over and over again as they climb that learning curve. If you've only got a handful of users and they will all be regular users, then that's probably the most cost-efficient way to go. But if you've got hundreds or thousands of users, few of which need more than basic functionality, that design decision is probably going to be very wasteful of your customers' time.
By the way, you'll note that I am arguing against the "a full front panel with control of everything on a knob right there in my face" design style and for the partially "hidden 'for my convenience'" design style, with emphasis on convenience. But I am not arguing for, "simplification to the point of making control panels blank faces with just a button or two" which is mostly a straw-man drawn of out an extremist view that form is more important than function.
In other words, I am saying that function over form is not a binary choice and that a well-designed form can even be part of function.
You cannot fight against evolution and win. If your solution includes telling people to go against their most basic desires and needs, it is certain failure.
Which, incidentally, is why the MPAA/RIAA/ETCAA fight against illegal file sharing is doomed to certain failure too.
Having all the controls in my face allows me to locate the one I want by simply reading.
You missed the whole point about casual users.
'99%' of the time, casual users just need basic functionality and don't have the time or inclination to become experts. When there are circa 5 basic functions and 6 similar knobs to choose from, the casual user is going to get the right result almost every time. When there are 30 similar knobs to choose from, the casual user is going to spend a couple of orders of magnitude more time trying to figure things out.
Hidden, or so obscure that it might as well have been hidden.
By default, almost all of unix is right there in the default path and the man pages are right there in the default man path. But you are right, obscurity is exactly the problem. You've got a couple of hundred commands with 4 letters or less in their names. Just like having 30 similar looking knobs right out in the open is obscure too.
All your Kia examples are from the perspective of the expert user. You don't mention all the ways the casual user can screw things up - 6 different seat adjustments is 6 different ways to mess up the seat when you are groping around for the slide forward/backward knob.
Minimalist features gets you minimalist functionality.
That's only true if you choose your features at random. Good UI design is all about making the easy things easy and the hard things possible. Your design philosophy sounds like it is focused on the latter with little attention paid to the former.
There is a saying about unix - "It's a great place to live, but I wouldn't want to visit."
Your examples are similar. If you only used your Marantz 3 times a year, you probably wouldn't be so happy to have all the controls in your face. Similarly, if you drove some other car and had to rent that Kia for a few days while your regular car was in the shop, you would find that multitude of knobs and switches to be confusing and perhaps downright distracting.
Expert users want and need easy access to expert features. But '99%' of the time, casual users just need basic functionality and don't have the time or inclination to become experts.
The Register is not exactly a trustworthy news source. Think of it as the supermarket tabloid of Technology News.
The Register and the Inquirer (founded by the creator of the Register after losing a power struggle at the Register) never sign NDAs. That means that they rarely get the inside scoop. But, it leaves them completely free to report whatever they dig up, whenever they dig it up.
So, you have your choice - Press Release journalism from places like Anandtech, Tom's Hardware, etc or "You'll know it as soon as we know it" from places like The Reg and The Inq.
Pick your poison. I choose the later - better to get it wrong by accident than by some PR flack's direction.
Those numbers are from November 2005.
I am not going to go dig for more recent numbers, but I saw comments in passing on the ffdshow-tryout mailing list about being their latest checkins being comparable to coreavc. Don't remember the specifics though, it could easily have been for one of the profiles that don't matter so much.