Well, not only that but most people don't know how to operate a 3D printer, nor how to customize the hand to fit the individual. So while the $42,000 hand includes the professional services involved with fitting the device, the 3D printed one depends on a charitable donation from the 3D printing operator to do the work. It won't be much but it's all probably going to be significantly higher ($400-$1,000) for the human being to operate and configure the 3D model for the individual.
I bet there are only $100 worth of aluminum, gold, silicon and acrylic in the $42,000 hand too.
This drives me crazy when people don't include the costs of labor. It would be like someone getting a car donated to them and saying "Wow cars only cost $200 for a title and registration! Why do people pay thousands of dollars for a car!?" Because someone gave you one for free!
I work in film production. I have a $50k camera that I rent out. On most productions your total rental per day will be about $2,000 a day. Now you could say that you could shoot a TV commercial for "only $2,000 in rentals!" But that ignores the fact that cameras don't operate on their own, lights don't just place themselves, actors should be paid for their skills, assistant directors need to keep production on schedule, locations need to be paid for the rights to use their property etc. So yeah it "only costs $2,000" as long as you ignore the $20,000 per day in crew costs for a small production.
People who say a film only costs $20,000 to make are either productions that somehow shot and finished in 1 day or else they're saying that their crew's time was worth nothing.
If I spent $10,000 on a 3D printer. I couldn't just open the box and push the "Give me a 3D Prosthetic Hand" button. I would either need to spend a good week or so learning how to print ($100 an hour * 40 hours = $4,000) or else spend $1,000 on a professional to setup and configure the scene/hand for me specifically./Rant.
You couldn't find a job at any of the studios? What did you do to piss people off? I know plenty of people without any connections who are doing just fine finding animation gigs. I hate to be "that guy" but the only person who I've ever heard about making the right connections was someone who showed up in town, didn't get anything within a couple months of showing up and complained that the whole system was rigged and left. If you are blacklisted you must have been a world class asshole to a lot of people.
If you have a depth channel you could displace a 3D plane in camera space and render that in 3D. So 2.5D/3D is a bit arbitrary.
If you had a perfect 3D model and the one photo though you still wouldn't have enough information to render true Depth of Field. The real problem isn't 2.5D/3D it's the fact that there is no parallax information for occluded information. That can be interpolated well enough for simple situations but ultimately you're trying to infer data which will cause artifacts.
The problem is the focal length of the lens not the quality of the design. With such a small sensor (due to the size constraints of a cell phone package) you have to have extremely short lenses. Even if you had F0.8 in order to get a reasonable portrait focal length you're looking at single digit focal lengths.
He might not even be lying. They don't have the hard drive space or the capability to spy on everyone. Of course he doesn't want to spy on *everyone*, just suspected muslims, dissidents, homosexuals or anyone else who might not support the Kremlin.
I would remind everyone that after the Boston Bombings the Russians were very helpful in providing all of Tsarnaev's text messages. They just "happened" to have him under surveillance. What luck!
Probably the same thing that spurs paranoia about automated taxes today. The government knows enough about us that they could easily auto-file/fill our forms every year but people are afraid of admitting how much is known about us.
When the Boston Bomber was identified Russia was kind enough to provide investigators with all of his text messages and phone calls.
Of course they aren't surprised. They openly admitted that they were doing the same thing before Snowden was a household name. Every country is doing everything legally possible (and then some) to spy on anyone they can. That's not new. The only people surprised by Snowden's leaks were people who had a false sense of security.
Basic science has gross increased. It's only decreased as a fraction of GDP. We're putting plenty of money into basic research--we just could be putting a lot more in.
It depends on the portfolio. How am I supposed to verify a portfolio except to have the photographer shoot some new shots on a memory card I give them and supervise through the entire process of loading into the camera and handing back to me?
Lots of people don't know about reverse image searches. In fact it's a relatively new technology. And then how do I know that other people aren't ripping off *my* photographer?
So how pray tell do I verify that someone I'm about to pay is in fact as good as they claim? The only alternative I see is to have them prove their merit. But no photographer with any self worth should ever do "practice" shots to prove they can take good pictures. That would be like going to a mechanic and saying "Hey, change my tire.. and then I'll decide if you changed it well enough to get paid."
Of the 40.7 million who were uninsured in 2013, 14.5 million gained coverage, but 5.2 million of the insured lost coverage, for a net gain in coverage of approximately 9.3 million.
This represents a drop in the share of the population that is uninsured from 20.5 percent to 15.8 percent. The 9.3 million person increase in insurance is driven not only by enrollment in marketplace plans, but also by gains in employer-sponsored insurance (ESI) and Medicaid.
Enrollment in ESI increased by 8.2 million.
Medicaid enrollment increased by 5.9 million. New enrollees are primarily drawn from those who were uninsured in 2013, or those who had âoeotherâ forms of insurance, including Medicare, retiree health insurance, and other government plans.
If we were to be pure to your theoretical frictionless-vacuum definition of equality then you would also need to be vehemently opposed to our treatment of child molesters, thieves and liars. We have plenty of targets of hate in our culture. The gay marriage debate though is tricky because a lot of people still think denying rights to gays is a 'justifiable' hate. Liberals however find it an unjustifiable hate.
It's tricky to be a hater. It's safe as long as it's a pedophile but on the contested areas it's a crapshoot of public opinion whether you're reasonably taking a different "political" position or you're a bigot.
Personally I think prop 8 voters are bigots. And I will give a rational explanation for why incest and gay marriage are different for example:
1) Gay marriage, no kids. 2) Incest, genetic mutants
1) Gay marriage, most likely minor power differences. 2) Incest with children/parents is fraught with psychological manipulation and questions of consent. etc.
Group marriages aren't morally wrong but they would produce a completely different legal structure since they would have to be framed after a corporation. Divorce isn't the same when a fraction of the property has to be split off. It might be legal some day but it's going to have to be a separate legal framework. It would be impossible for 5 people to have the "same" rights as 2 people. They would by definition of the arrangement have to be discriminated against. Without breaking the laws of physics you can't give them the same rights.
The fact that there are perfectly sensible reasons for discrimination is the reason it's in my books 'justifiable' discrimination. The proposed justifications for gay marriage are: "It's gross."
Just saying "It's gross" isn't a reason to discriminate. Therefore it's bigotry.
And as long as they're not directly being a dick to you, you're supposed to exhibit some degree of tolerance, especially in the workplace.
I would say that if you are Gay and would like to receive the government benefits associated with a marriage then giving $1,000 to stopping you would fall into the category of "Being a dick to you".
Second, it's not like the man is a skin-head.
Skinheads think blacks are inferior and bad for society. Homophobes think gays are inferior and bad for society.
You're free as an *employer* to say whatever you want. And your employees are free to leave and your customers are free to stop doing business with you.
The Thought Police have been around for all of time. Think it's ok to molest small children? Expect the Thought police to ostracize you. Support stripping the rights of your fellow citizens? Here comes the "thought police". Give money to the KKK, here come the "thought police".
You're free to practice your religion. Your religion is free to say that gay people are gross. Your religion is free to say that it's good to sacrifice virgins over an alter. We're all free to call you crazy wackos. Freedom goes both way bucko.
Crying "religious freedom" is like running up, kicking someone in the shins and then yelling "No backsies, religious freedom!" Believe whatever you want, but trying to strip rights from your fellow citizens isn't a "belief" that's action. That's an assault on their rights.
What about my freedom of speech to not donate to an organization headed by someone with whom I disagree?
What about the freedom of hundreds of employees to feel uncomfortable working for someone who is advocating against you? What about the freedom of workers to quit and find new companies where they are more welcome?
Freedom goes both ways. In this instance it's one CEO or thousands of users and employees.
Personally in our organization we like to save money but we also view buying a laptop as a very low cost expense. When an employee costs $100-$200k to employ (overhead, office space, janitorial, taxes, healthcare etc) a $1,000 system every 2 years or so is a tiny drop in the bucket.
At $150k / 40 hour weeks * 48 weeks = $79 per hour.
At that rate it only takes 10 hours of time savings before the computer (or $1,000 software) is "free". 10 hours sounds like a lot but if your employee has to wait 2 minutes a day for 2 years for a slow process you're looking at over $1,000 in wasted time. 2 minutes a day is a very very low bar for achievement.
Instead of trumpeting how much they saved on licensing fees, I would ask how much time they are saving--or are they? Is this just the IT department triumphantly cutting their budget or HR picking up the expense of extra employees to do the same work. That's the headline I would be interested in. If this saved them having 2 employees then they would save 400,000 pounds. If it meant they needed 3 more employees then they not only replaced the upgrade fees but actually increased their net budget.
I would suspect that WindowsRT like you say would probably be the easiest transition. I would argue that more than 2 minutes per day would be lost to Linux "hiccups" and confusion.
Really? An average security employee probably costs $200k or more per year. If Target has 5 people working on network security they spend "millions" per year.
I would wager there are at least probably 1,000 developers actively working on corporate security every year. $200,000 * 1,000 people = $200m per year on security.
I've talked to security guys from two big name companies, they both work in large departments. I have absolutely no question that a department of > 5 people costs more than a million dollars per year.
I don't mean at the court house, but of even a florist or baker being able to say they do not agree with the union and cannot provide services for such an event.
Businesses may not discriminate based on how someone is born. If you discriminated based on haircolor we wouldn't be "forcing the blonde agenda" down your bigoted throat. Yes we force bakers to serve those who have disabilities, those who are black. We are long past the racism of the 60s where just because you're born black you won't be served at a restaurant. Skin color and sexual orientation are interchangeable. And yes the president realized that he was prejudiced and has since changed his mind. And yes before he changed his mind he was prejudiced.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, not only that but most people don't know how to operate a 3D printer, nor how to customize the hand to fit the individual. So while the $42,000 hand includes the professional services involved with fitting the device, the 3D printed one depends on a charitable donation from the 3D printing operator to do the work. It won't be much but it's all probably going to be significantly higher ($400-$1,000) for the human being to operate and configure the 3D model for the individual.
I bet there are only $100 worth of aluminum, gold, silicon and acrylic in the $42,000 hand too.
This drives me crazy when people don't include the costs of labor. It would be like someone getting a car donated to them and saying "Wow cars only cost $200 for a title and registration! Why do people pay thousands of dollars for a car!?" Because someone gave you one for free!
I work in film production. I have a $50k camera that I rent out. On most productions your total rental per day will be about $2,000 a day. Now you could say that you could shoot a TV commercial for "only $2,000 in rentals!" But that ignores the fact that cameras don't operate on their own, lights don't just place themselves, actors should be paid for their skills, assistant directors need to keep production on schedule, locations need to be paid for the rights to use their property etc. So yeah it "only costs $2,000" as long as you ignore the $20,000 per day in crew costs for a small production.
People who say a film only costs $20,000 to make are either productions that somehow shot and finished in 1 day or else they're saying that their crew's time was worth nothing.
If I spent $10,000 on a 3D printer. I couldn't just open the box and push the "Give me a 3D Prosthetic Hand" button. I would either need to spend a good week or so learning how to print ($100 an hour * 40 hours = $4,000) or else spend $1,000 on a professional to setup and configure the scene/hand for me specifically. /Rant.
3D printers printing weak plastic is only temporary. It's only a matter of time before we have ceramics or plastics as strong as milled steel billets.
You couldn't find a job at any of the studios? What did you do to piss people off? I know plenty of people without any connections who are doing just fine finding animation gigs. I hate to be "that guy" but the only person who I've ever heard about making the right connections was someone who showed up in town, didn't get anything within a couple months of showing up and complained that the whole system was rigged and left. If you are blacklisted you must have been a world class asshole to a lot of people.
If you have a depth channel you could displace a 3D plane in camera space and render that in 3D. So 2.5D/3D is a bit arbitrary.
If you had a perfect 3D model and the one photo though you still wouldn't have enough information to render true Depth of Field. The real problem isn't 2.5D/3D it's the fact that there is no parallax information for occluded information. That can be interpolated well enough for simple situations but ultimately you're trying to infer data which will cause artifacts.
The problem is the focal length of the lens not the quality of the design. With such a small sensor (due to the size constraints of a cell phone package) you have to have extremely short lenses. Even if you had F0.8 in order to get a reasonable portrait focal length you're looking at single digit focal lengths.
He might not even be lying. They don't have the hard drive space or the capability to spy on everyone. Of course he doesn't want to spy on *everyone*, just suspected muslims, dissidents, homosexuals or anyone else who might not support the Kremlin.
I would remind everyone that after the Boston Bombings the Russians were very helpful in providing all of Tsarnaev's text messages. They just "happened" to have him under surveillance. What luck!
Probably the same thing that spurs paranoia about automated taxes today. The government knows enough about us that they could easily auto-file/fill our forms every year but people are afraid of admitting how much is known about us.
http://www.slate.com/blogs/mon...
Well if you could double the reach of your organization to include women that would seem to be a good long term investment on 25% of your budget.
When the Boston Bomber was identified Russia was kind enough to provide investigators with all of his text messages and phone calls.
Of course they aren't surprised. They openly admitted that they were doing the same thing before Snowden was a household name. Every country is doing everything legally possible (and then some) to spy on anyone they can. That's not new. The only people surprised by Snowden's leaks were people who had a false sense of security.
Basic science has gross increased. It's only decreased as a fraction of GDP. We're putting plenty of money into basic research--we just could be putting a lot more in.
Boy, if there's one thing that could ever kill Open Source it would be being held legally liable for a commit with a bug in it.
Which is why all projects are released AS-IS without any liability.
It depends on the portfolio. How am I supposed to verify a portfolio except to have the photographer shoot some new shots on a memory card I give them and supervise through the entire process of loading into the camera and handing back to me?
Lots of people don't know about reverse image searches. In fact it's a relatively new technology. And then how do I know that other people aren't ripping off *my* photographer?
So how pray tell do I verify that someone I'm about to pay is in fact as good as they claim? The only alternative I see is to have them prove their merit. But no photographer with any self worth should ever do "practice" shots to prove they can take good pictures. That would be like going to a mechanic and saying "Hey, change my tire.. and then I'll decide if you changed it well enough to get paid."
No, if you are on medicaid you are one of the 5.9 million added to Medicaid. That's a separate group.
The 7.1 number isn't in that paper because they based their numbers on the beginning of March before procrastinators joined en-masse.
It does not include Medicaid.
Of the 40.7 million who were uninsured in 2013, 14.5 million gained coverage, but 5.2 million of the insured lost coverage, for a net gain in coverage of approximately 9.3 million.
This represents a drop in the share of the population that is uninsured from 20.5 percent to 15.8 percent.
The 9.3 million person increase in insurance is driven not only by enrollment in marketplace plans, but also by gains in employer-sponsored insurance (ESI) and Medicaid.
Enrollment in ESI increased by 8.2 million.
Medicaid enrollment increased by 5.9 million. New enrollees are primarily drawn from those who were uninsured in 2013, or those who had âoeotherâ forms of insurance, including Medicare, retiree health insurance, and other government plans.
http://thehealthcareblog.com/b...
No you're redefining "false logic".
If we were to be pure to your theoretical frictionless-vacuum definition of equality then you would also need to be vehemently opposed to our treatment of child molesters, thieves and liars. We have plenty of targets of hate in our culture. The gay marriage debate though is tricky because a lot of people still think denying rights to gays is a 'justifiable' hate. Liberals however find it an unjustifiable hate.
It's tricky to be a hater. It's safe as long as it's a pedophile but on the contested areas it's a crapshoot of public opinion whether you're reasonably taking a different "political" position or you're a bigot.
Personally I think prop 8 voters are bigots. And I will give a rational explanation for why incest and gay marriage are different for example:
1) Gay marriage, no kids.
2) Incest, genetic mutants
1) Gay marriage, most likely minor power differences.
2) Incest with children/parents is fraught with psychological manipulation and questions of consent.
etc.
Group marriages aren't morally wrong but they would produce a completely different legal structure since they would have to be framed after a corporation. Divorce isn't the same when a fraction of the property has to be split off. It might be legal some day but it's going to have to be a separate legal framework. It would be impossible for 5 people to have the "same" rights as 2 people. They would by definition of the arrangement have to be discriminated against. Without breaking the laws of physics you can't give them the same rights.
The fact that there are perfectly sensible reasons for discrimination is the reason it's in my books 'justifiable' discrimination. The proposed justifications for gay marriage are: "It's gross."
Just saying "It's gross" isn't a reason to discriminate. Therefore it's bigotry.
And as long as they're not directly being a dick to you, you're supposed to exhibit some degree of tolerance, especially in the workplace.
I would say that if you are Gay and would like to receive the government benefits associated with a marriage then giving $1,000 to stopping you would fall into the category of "Being a dick to you".
Second, it's not like the man is a skin-head.
Skinheads think blacks are inferior and bad for society.
Homophobes think gays are inferior and bad for society.
So yes it is like he's a skin-head.
You're free as an *employer* to say whatever you want. And your employees are free to leave and your customers are free to stop doing business with you.
The Thought Police have been around for all of time. Think it's ok to molest small children? Expect the Thought police to ostracize you. Support stripping the rights of your fellow citizens? Here comes the "thought police". Give money to the KKK, here come the "thought police".
You're free to practice your religion. Your religion is free to say that gay people are gross. Your religion is free to say that it's good to sacrifice virgins over an alter. We're all free to call you crazy wackos. Freedom goes both way bucko.
Crying "religious freedom" is like running up, kicking someone in the shins and then yelling "No backsies, religious freedom!" Believe whatever you want, but trying to strip rights from your fellow citizens isn't a "belief" that's action. That's an assault on their rights.
What about my freedom of speech to not donate to an organization headed by someone with whom I disagree?
What about the freedom of hundreds of employees to feel uncomfortable working for someone who is advocating against you? What about the freedom of workers to quit and find new companies where they are more welcome?
Freedom goes both ways. In this instance it's one CEO or thousands of users and employees.
Personally in our organization we like to save money but we also view buying a laptop as a very low cost expense. When an employee costs $100-$200k to employ (overhead, office space, janitorial, taxes, healthcare etc) a $1,000 system every 2 years or so is a tiny drop in the bucket.
At $150k / 40 hour weeks * 48 weeks = $79 per hour.
At that rate it only takes 10 hours of time savings before the computer (or $1,000 software) is "free". 10 hours sounds like a lot but if your employee has to wait 2 minutes a day for 2 years for a slow process you're looking at over $1,000 in wasted time. 2 minutes a day is a very very low bar for achievement.
Instead of trumpeting how much they saved on licensing fees, I would ask how much time they are saving--or are they? Is this just the IT department triumphantly cutting their budget or HR picking up the expense of extra employees to do the same work. That's the headline I would be interested in. If this saved them having 2 employees then they would save 400,000 pounds. If it meant they needed 3 more employees then they not only replaced the upgrade fees but actually increased their net budget.
I would suspect that WindowsRT like you say would probably be the easiest transition. I would argue that more than 2 minutes per day would be lost to Linux "hiccups" and confusion.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N...
At some point there very well may be a significant event.
/me Eagerly awaits the article I should read this week.
Really? An average security employee probably costs $200k or more per year. If Target has 5 people working on network security they spend "millions" per year.
I would wager there are at least probably 1,000 developers actively working on corporate security every year. $200,000 * 1,000 people = $200m per year on security.
I've talked to security guys from two big name companies, they both work in large departments. I have absolutely no question that a department of > 5 people costs more than a million dollars per year.
I don't mean at the court house, but of even a florist or baker being able to say they do not agree with the union and cannot provide services for such an event.
Businesses may not discriminate based on how someone is born. If you discriminated based on haircolor we wouldn't be "forcing the blonde agenda" down your bigoted throat. Yes we force bakers to serve those who have disabilities, those who are black. We are long past the racism of the 60s where just because you're born black you won't be served at a restaurant. Skin color and sexual orientation are interchangeable. And yes the president realized that he was prejudiced and has since changed his mind. And yes before he changed his mind he was prejudiced.