Have to agree that its pretty silly to compare not locking your door to broadcasting HEY DUDE USE ME. I mean your house doesn't advertise its unlocked like a wireless router.
Maybe I'm a video quality zealot, but this chart seems like nonsense and just plane wrong. My complaint maybe only in the wording of "full benefit of x visible" instead of something like "noticeable improvement over Y". I think what the movie industry fails to realize is they have sold us on 24 FPS quality for so long that people actually "like" bad picture. I mean we artificially add grain filters and color distortions to movies in post production to make them look more "Hollywood" and less "Soap Oprah". I find a lot of people have odd reactions to HD media because of this depending on the media presented.
Most people really enjoy HD for CG movies, but don't notice it on traditional films. TV shows seem to get a noticeable jump because they have always lacked a heavy amount of post doctoring and people are not thrown off by the clarity at the same rate I have yet to meet a person who doesn't freak out when watching a sporting event in 1080p.
What this all sums up to is that Blu-ray trying to push you to replace pre-existing movies at 24fps for the average user with a two speaker set up. Either sees no benefit from a DVD no matter what his viewing distance is or doesn't like the difference as he thinks the movie just got downgraded to TV quality. This is just my two cents though.
He has it wrong? I think your confused. See several things on the internet have what we call involuntary viewing. He doesn't want to suppress porn's presence what he wants to do is only view it when he means to. As porn becomes more popular you tend to see more adds for websites on non porn websites. To be fair generally things like pirating.
Now, because you made porn so popular his torrentz.com search engine can make a great deal of money off displaying adds and there is a lot of images on google image search ( Never going to get around that). But, he hopes he can avoid this by making it easier to filter. Its a false hope, but you have to admit if no one looked at porn on the internet those ads would not be around. So inf act some people do suffer because others view porn. Allowing them a simple way to filter that doesn't affect your viewing habits is the best middle ground I can think of.
Flat taxes are likely better then sales tax. No matter how you look at it the bulk of money when we talk about wealth isn't spent but saved or invested. You can't just say a sales tax would replace income tax because it just isn't true. It does have the interesting side effect of forcing non-documented workers in to paying taxes so that much is a plus.
I would much rather just pay in 15% off the top and only need to file for taxes if I'm self employed. If a system is needed to aid people paying 4500 a year in taxes because the entire family income is only 30k as you suggested. Then we can let impoverished families apply to qualify for with-holding immunity and at the end of the year they file taxes that prove there income was X and do not need to pay anything back
Its just crazy hard for most people to accept that in practice almost all education is taken on faith. You have faith your teacher was right and so you rarely contest what your taught. Most things can be tested or verified, but as the global knowledge increases more and more of it you personally will never have time to test it all and so at some point you just take it on faith.
So um, maybe I just read your post wrong but does not abs(X) > abs(Y) such that abs(X)+abs(Y)= 1.0 imply X = most. I mean it has to be at least over half. I base this off your statement "2% more than the world total". So, since obviously a subset of a whole can not be larger then the whole I assumed you meant 2% larger then all other countries combined.
With 11k dead long before this reactor became a problem. I personally, think that the current state of the reactor does seem smaller then what caused it to start going critical(for now at least). Humanity can't do anything to stop any number of natural disasters that could be far worse then this. They are doomsday scenario's and most people brush them off, but the truth that at least one of them will eventually happen. Earthquakes will come and go, Hurricanes will hit our shores, tornado's will touch down, and flood waters will cause rivers to redirect and nothing will stop them.
This doesn't mean we stop building anything and everything that might be dangerous. I don't even want to think about what happens if the Hoover Dam or the Tree Gorges Dam ever failed. We plan for the biggest disasters we can for. But at some point there isn't enough money to spend that will provide any additional protection. I agree we must admit there is a problem and it must be addressed so that future reactors are built with this disaster in mind in safer places, but ignoring the disaster that brought about the chain of events that started this is just as bad as down playing the possible melt down.
Bad choice of words you are going to get this by a few people I would guess.
"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." --Benjamin Franklin
You should of said something like sometimes a closed system is simpler by design. That I wouldn't hold against you, but the freedom for security doesn't even hold up with your argument. You really meant to say sometimes you give up freedom for stability. This is often true even outside computing.
I think a great deal of people on this site would argue that this statement is very truthful and we loose liberty every day from the actions of congress.
That depends if they link against it. I mean LGPL !+ GPL. I'm no expert, but I am fairly sure you could not write a front end for SAMBA that links against SAMBA libs if it is not LGPL. By extension one can argue that if you have a patent anywhere in your code base that links against an unmodified lib you must grant everyone free access to use that patent.
A smarter man then I might explain when this is true ( if ever) , but I promise you this is why most people will stay away from GPLv3
It is sad that the system supports this mentality. Its fairly expensive to get a patent if you are not established, but rather trivial if you already have a legal department.
Why I am a huge advocate of patent reform is this worth giving up my pay check for? Can, I just do it part time like if I reviewed work for journals. How much does a USPTO officer get paid?
original macbook pro's had at cards in them as well. Apple tends to swap back and forth every once in a while. I'm not sure on the rate, but I NVIDIA advertise is the answer.
I didn't make it that far in the thread, but I want to go through the trouble of pointing out that the software package in question is out of date by at least one revision of OS X and not designed for the hardware they run it on. That was written for the 1,1 and 1,2 macbooks and I don't know if its ever been updated.
So, I find the article very speculative based on his precived notion of human behavior, on top of that it isn't so much a lack of privacy as a ubiquitous sensor environment which is a step further then no privacy. Having no evidence to back up my claim, I personally would counter argue that people who agree to live with no privacy would be less likely to feel burdened by social pressures of conformity. So he suggest that privacy would only exists in the bathroom or the bedroom which is based on his feeling of the limits of openness, but I doubt that would be the case.
Under the suggested system it would be easy for other members of society to know what type of social vices you consume. Because everyone knows you indulge in these vices which there is no reason for obscenity laws. (Depending on your social views this might be a great thing) Neither, in favor or against I envision a much more open world where its harder now to regulate by law what can and can't be done, because lets face it we all know it occurs. In other words by the presence of ubiquitous sensors monitoring every moment of our lives we must assume anyone can tap in to the feed at any time not just the body in control of the sensors. So, why attempt to preform anything in private no matter how taboo it is in our world.
I figure the type of people who would want to live in this environment would be more socially extreme then just looking for a cheaper safe place to live. I imagine the surrounding cities somewhat bricking in the area and looking down on those who visit. I think a social stigmata would develop for the outside world to engage with people from the town. The more I type the more I feel I am suggesting that with out privacy society would crumble and that isn't really my point, but instead that I do not believe a private society could co-exist in piece with a non-private society.
I find it interesting that the stores no longer ask you. Well do you want one? When you say no I don't have a card. I have noticed this at Pet Smart Pet Co and Best Buy in recent years.
Slashdot Mirror
Have to agree that its pretty silly to compare not locking your door to broadcasting HEY DUDE USE ME. I mean your house doesn't advertise its unlocked like a wireless router.
Probability of a set of disk hidden under the floor?
http://carltonbale.com/1080p-does-matter
Forgot the link
Maybe I'm a video quality zealot, but this chart seems like nonsense and just plane wrong. My complaint maybe only in the wording of "full benefit of x visible" instead of something like "noticeable improvement over Y". I think what the movie industry fails to realize is they have sold us on 24 FPS quality for so long that people actually "like" bad picture. I mean we artificially add grain filters and color distortions to movies in post production to make them look more "Hollywood" and less "Soap Oprah". I find a lot of people have odd reactions to HD media because of this depending on the media presented.
Most people really enjoy HD for CG movies, but don't notice it on traditional films. TV shows seem to get a noticeable jump because they have always lacked a heavy amount of post doctoring and people are not thrown off by the clarity at the same rate I have yet to meet a person who doesn't freak out when watching a sporting event in 1080p.
What this all sums up to is that Blu-ray trying to push you to replace pre-existing movies at 24fps for the average user with a two speaker set up. Either sees no benefit from a DVD no matter what his viewing distance is or doesn't like the difference as he thinks the movie just got downgraded to TV quality. This is just my two cents though.
He has it wrong? I think your confused. See several things on the internet have what we call involuntary viewing. He doesn't want to suppress porn's presence what he wants to do is only view it when he means to. As porn becomes more popular you tend to see more adds for websites on non porn websites. To be fair generally things like pirating.
Now, because you made porn so popular his torrentz.com search engine can make a great deal of money off displaying adds and there is a lot of images on google image search ( Never going to get around that). But, he hopes he can avoid this by making it easier to filter. Its a false hope, but you have to admit if no one looked at porn on the internet those ads would not be around. So inf act some people do suffer because others view porn. Allowing them a simple way to filter that doesn't affect your viewing habits is the best middle ground I can think of.
Flat taxes are likely better then sales tax. No matter how you look at it the bulk of money when we talk about wealth isn't spent but saved or invested. You can't just say a sales tax would replace income tax because it just isn't true. It does have the interesting side effect of forcing non-documented workers in to paying taxes so that much is a plus.
I would much rather just pay in 15% off the top and only need to file for taxes if I'm self employed. If a system is needed to aid people paying 4500 a year in taxes because the entire family income is only 30k as you suggested. Then we can let impoverished families apply to qualify for with-holding immunity and at the end of the year they file taxes that prove there income was X and do not need to pay anything back
Man, I would have to go with MIT being the easier
I'm glad someone finally pointed it out. IMO all this test shows is a vast change in focus over the last 100 years of advancement.
Its just crazy hard for most people to accept that in practice almost all education is taken on faith. You have faith your teacher was right and so you rarely contest what your taught. Most things can be tested or verified, but as the global knowledge increases more and more of it you personally will never have time to test it all and so at some point you just take it on faith.
I wish I had mod points.
I've been told that, but can't find it. I assume its more of incompatible power. Multi Phase or frequency rate?. Any links would be helpful.
So um, maybe I just read your post wrong but does not abs(X) > abs(Y) such that abs(X)+abs(Y)= 1.0 imply X = most. I mean it has to be at least over half. I base this off your statement "2% more than the world total". So, since obviously a subset of a whole can not be larger then the whole I assumed you meant 2% larger then all other countries combined.
With 11k dead long before this reactor became a problem. I personally, think that the current state of the reactor does seem smaller then what caused it to start going critical(for now at least). Humanity can't do anything to stop any number of natural disasters that could be far worse then this. They are doomsday scenario's and most people brush them off, but the truth that at least one of them will eventually happen. Earthquakes will come and go, Hurricanes will hit our shores, tornado's will touch down, and flood waters will cause rivers to redirect and nothing will stop them.
This doesn't mean we stop building anything and everything that might be dangerous. I don't even want to think about what happens if the Hoover Dam or the Tree Gorges Dam ever failed. We plan for the biggest disasters we can for. But at some point there isn't enough money to spend that will provide any additional protection. I agree we must admit there is a problem and it must be addressed so that future reactors are built with this disaster in mind in safer places, but ignoring the disaster that brought about the chain of events that started this is just as bad as down playing the possible melt down.
Man, I've posted a lot in this thread today. But I wish I had mod points to rate this up. It is just brilliant.
Bad choice of words you are going to get this by a few people I would guess.
"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." --Benjamin Franklin
You should of said something like sometimes a closed system is simpler by design. That I wouldn't hold against you, but the freedom for security doesn't even hold up with your argument. You really meant to say sometimes you give up freedom for stability. This is often true even outside computing.
I think a great deal of people on this site would argue that this statement is very truthful and we loose liberty every day from the actions of congress.
Missed that typo I must of been holding down the shift key.
LGPL does not equal the GPL
That depends if they link against it. I mean LGPL !+ GPL. I'm no expert, but I am fairly sure you could not write a front end for SAMBA that links against SAMBA libs if it is not LGPL. By extension one can argue that if you have a patent anywhere in your code base that links against an unmodified lib you must grant everyone free access to use that patent.
A smarter man then I might explain when this is true ( if ever) , but I promise you this is why most people will stay away from GPLv3
It is sad that the system supports this mentality. Its fairly expensive to get a patent if you are not established, but rather trivial if you already have a legal department.
Why I am a huge advocate of patent reform is this worth giving up my pay check for? Can, I just do it part time like if I reviewed work for journals. How much does a USPTO officer get paid?
Don't forget there CEO is really sick and most of the Board is worrying over a succession plan instead of running the damn business.
original macbook pro's had at cards in them as well. Apple tends to swap back and forth every once in a while. I'm not sure on the rate, but I NVIDIA advertise is the answer.
I didn't make it that far in the thread, but I want to go through the trouble of pointing out that the software package in question is out of date by at least one revision of OS X and not designed for the hardware they run it on. That was written for the 1,1 and 1,2 macbooks and I don't know if its ever been updated.
So, I find the article very speculative based on his precived notion of human behavior, on top of that it isn't so much a lack of privacy as a ubiquitous sensor environment which is a step further then no privacy. Having no evidence to back up my claim, I personally would counter argue that people who agree to live with no privacy would be less likely to feel burdened by social pressures of conformity. So he suggest that privacy would only exists in the bathroom or the bedroom which is based on his feeling of the limits of openness, but I doubt that would be the case.
Under the suggested system it would be easy for other members of society to know what type of social vices you consume. Because everyone knows you indulge in these vices which there is no reason for obscenity laws. (Depending on your social views this might be a great thing) Neither, in favor or against I envision a much more open world where its harder now to regulate by law what can and can't be done, because lets face it we all know it occurs. In other words by the presence of ubiquitous sensors monitoring every moment of our lives we must assume anyone can tap in to the feed at any time not just the body in control of the sensors. So, why attempt to preform anything in private no matter how taboo it is in our world.
I figure the type of people who would want to live in this environment would be more socially extreme then just looking for a cheaper safe place to live. I imagine the surrounding cities somewhat bricking in the area and looking down on those who visit. I think a social stigmata would develop for the outside world to engage with people from the town. The more I type the more I feel I am suggesting that with out privacy society would crumble and that isn't really my point, but instead that I do not believe a private society could co-exist in piece with a non-private society.
I find it interesting that the stores no longer ask you. Well do you want one? When you say no I don't have a card. I have noticed this at Pet Smart Pet Co and Best Buy in recent years.