won't we have as much trouble getting useful content from Google's collection of books as we do from its collection of websites?
Google made it EASY to search websites. It's now possible for anybody to publish a website in a sea of noise, and get noticed, provided someone is looking for their content. This was impossible before google.
Given that we have tools to organize, having an over-abundance of something is a healthy sign. It means people are being stimulated to provide, and consumers are consuming. If the consumers AREN'T consuming, then the system will naturally find a balance where mostly only consumables are being provided.
Right now (via tv, cinema, book publishers, record labels, radio, etc) we have a system where consumables are being shoved down throats to make a buck. Kinda sucks, don't you think?
I can't wait till this archaic model of distribution goes the way of the dinosaur.
The best musicians are great listeners, especially in jazz. It sounds like this is a case of an excellent listener tapping into his (subconscious?) ability to stay synchronized with your periodic effect.
It reminds me of the time I was driving BEHIND some random car with my cruise control on. I didn't step on the gas or the brake once, for a span of 30 minutes or so. Yet she stayed consistently in front of me at around 50 meters. Amazing.
It's possible that her cruise control was set exactly the same, but even then you would expect drift within minutes. More realistically she was driving without cruise at a speed similar to my cruise speed, with an excellent sense of her spatial environment. In all my hours/years of interstate driving, it's only ever happened once.
I would think some good signal processing algorithms should be able to sync up a new drum track to some pre-recorded guitar/vocals/whatever without a click-track and without leaving any noticeable audio artifacts.
Corporations aren't innocent, but their guilt exists due in big part to lack of consumer pressure.
On the surface, you're exactly right. But beneath the surface, your use of "but" and "big part" really bother me here.
We live in a world with people. So ultimately everything is our fault. Your argument can be applied to anything really.
Which leads me to believe that the big part isn't the lack of consumer pressure, but rather a larger systemic problem. I propose that it's just not reasonable to expect consumers not to be lazy.
The corporations are guilty. Don't be an apologist.
I would have rated this as insightful, and so would William Easterly.
This article is part of a series on "creative capitalism," a term used by Bill Gates to describe how market incentives can be used to better aid the world's poor.
Step 1. Develop a patch containing a fatal bug for Windows XP. Make sure the patch is automatically installed on all XP machines before cutting off support.
Why do so many people think that fractional reserve banking is all or nothing?
Funny, this same question was asked no less than 10 posts up. I feel obligated to repeat myself.
This thought can be extended beyond fractional reserve banking. Nothing is ever black and white, all or none. Except for peoples minds it seems.
I think this is an effect of propaganda (often subliminal and often unintentional - like a reporter reporting things how he sees them) in conjunction with the instinctual habits of people, often in response to fear.
And let's not forget about ignorance, and arrogance, and all those other things that make man so wonderful.
Too much government is bad. Not enough government is bad. Why don't people get this?
This thought can be extended beyond government. Nothing is ever black and white, all or none. Except for peoples minds it seems.
I think this is an effect of propaganda (often subliminal and often unintentional - like a reporter reporting things how he sees them) in conjunction with the instinctual habits of people, often in response to fear.
What will they do when I upgrade to a bionic eyeball with a connected storage device implanted in my brain, capable of uploading images to my laptop via wifi?
As a web developer, all I want is for MS to make IE compatible with standards. I'm sick of giving their browser special treatment, and I wouldn't if it didn't represent over 50% of my users.
I feel the EU's efforts would be better focused on this issue instead. I think MS consciously chooses to keep IE incompatible with the standards so that sites developed for IE don't work in other browsers that are standards compliant. It's a monopolistic abuse of power.
Muslims think mohamed was a good guy, THE example of a leader. Read his biography once and you'll see the problem with that. Hitler and Stalin were but cute poodles, sweet and innocent, compared to him.
I once heard similar sentiments regarding Muhammad, so I did what any red-blooded american would. I watched the movie.
According to the movie, at first Muhammad refused to fightback, even against the wishes of his own counselors.
Then, only after relocating being kicked out of his own country for religious persecution, and after continuing to face more persecution, he was convinced by his counsel to take up arms.
His argument for doing so (paraphrased to the best I can remember) "Fight, because persecution is worse than slaughter" and "When they lay down their arms, we will fight no more."
It seems reasonable to me. If the movie is accurate (maybe it's not) then I wouldn't demonize Muhammad unless you're willing to demonize Malcolm X... and the good ole U S of A for that matter, who fights in the name of democracy and freedom.
Your view of reality is so biased by propaganda, that it would take a large volume to correct your assumptions. Unfortunately, this problem is rampant throughout modern democracies, thus reducing the ability for people to think for themselves and make the right decision. I do believe when given facts, people will make the right decision.
Hurray for private charity, yes. But capitalism? I fail to see what capitalism has to do with with this. What makes you so sure this wouldn't have been done a long time ago if capitalism weren't around?
If you won't say it, I will. The neocons ARE Hitler reincarnate, and America IS a fascist nation.
How many innocent Arabs has american militarism killed? Errr wait, I suppose killing the Indians wasn't genocide either? Just eradicating barbarians and securing freedom, as Andrew Jackson liked to point out. God bless him. He should be on the 20 dollar bill. Oh yeah... I forgot.
As a general rule of thumb, if you can imagine it, then US gov't is probably doing it (and more). What you see is only ever the tip of the iceberg.
Or you can blindly trust your government I suppose... but that is not what Thomas Jefferson had in mind when he spoke of the natural right of the people to overthrow, violently, if necessary, a tyrannical government.
That's why I don't wear deodorant in public places. You can force me to make my house pretty... but just wait till you're behind me in the mcd's line. Revenge. That will be the day when this country enforces personal hygiene...
We can hypothesize all we want about why people WOULDN'T donate their brains to science, but when a lot of people aren't aware of the process for doing so, well it seems like maybe we've found a good reason why people DON'T.
This is the closest to reality, if past is any indicator of future (slaves, working animals)
They require 2-3 times more calories than humans, so we really shouldn't bring them back in large numbers unless there is a positive role for them on this planet.
The "best" role would be for them to do things that they are best at, which would include heavy, physical work.
Of course, they should have the freedom to choose what they want to do, but this can cause problems where they don't want to do what they're best at because of financial reasons. If we lived in a society where the toughest physical jobs were rewarded with the most compensation, this wouldn't be a problem. Perhaps the species would even take pride in giving a new definition to "worker class" so long as they were fairly compensated.
Also, I haven't heard anybody say, "Ruby? pshaw. Use django instead." Is there a consensus that Ruby is "more valuable" than django?
And third, perhaps most interesting, is the future of programming. I think a few people hinted around the issue here with sentiments such as "they're all the same modulo syntax". Obviously seasoned programmers know better, but there is value in a padawan's comments.
The truth is, all programming languages exist for the same reason, execute a sequence of electronic operations. As time approaches infinity, won't there be some consensus on the perfect blend of power/performance/ease of coding/etc to achieve that electronic operation? Why should we (humans) have 5 ways to do the same thing? The computer SHOULD have 5 ways to the the same thing, but it should decide which is best for a given environment and abstract that from our decision. I don't care!!!
And yet you think this would still be a good idea to spray on your clothes and wear around - ignoring the EU scientists and politicians who proposed these laws? My point was that we probably should not be rushing to paint everything with lead-based nanoparticles unless I am missing something regarding the technology.
Slashdot Mirror
won't we have as much trouble getting useful content from Google's collection of books as we do from its collection of websites?
Google made it EASY to search websites. It's now possible for anybody to publish a website in a sea of noise, and get noticed, provided someone is looking for their content. This was impossible before google.
Given that we have tools to organize, having an over-abundance of something is a healthy sign. It means people are being stimulated to provide, and consumers are consuming. If the consumers AREN'T consuming, then the system will naturally find a balance where mostly only consumables are being provided.
Right now (via tv, cinema, book publishers, record labels, radio, etc) we have a system where consumables are being shoved down throats to make a buck. Kinda sucks, don't you think?
I can't wait till this archaic model of distribution goes the way of the dinosaur.
The best musicians are great listeners, especially in jazz. It sounds like this is a case of an excellent listener tapping into his (subconscious?) ability to stay synchronized with your periodic effect.
It reminds me of the time I was driving BEHIND some random car with my cruise control on. I didn't step on the gas or the brake once, for a span of 30 minutes or so. Yet she stayed consistently in front of me at around 50 meters. Amazing.
It's possible that her cruise control was set exactly the same, but even then you would expect drift within minutes. More realistically she was driving without cruise at a speed similar to my cruise speed, with an excellent sense of her spatial environment. In all my hours/years of interstate driving, it's only ever happened once.
I would think some good signal processing algorithms should be able to sync up a new drum track to some pre-recorded guitar/vocals/whatever without a click-track and without leaving any noticeable audio artifacts.
Corporations aren't innocent, but their guilt exists due in big part to lack of consumer pressure.
On the surface, you're exactly right. But beneath the surface, your use of "but" and "big part" really bother me here.
We live in a world with people. So ultimately everything is our fault. Your argument can be applied to anything really.
Which leads me to believe that the big part isn't the lack of consumer pressure, but rather a larger systemic problem. I propose that it's just not reasonable to expect consumers not to be lazy.
The corporations are guilty. Don't be an apologist.
I would have rated this as insightful, and so would William Easterly.
This article is part of a series on "creative capitalism," a term used by Bill Gates to describe how market incentives can be used to better aid the world's poor.
Unless you want to share with your friends, two vaginas and four breasts are useless.
Hey now, don't forget about us: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diphallia
Miscrosoft Memo:
Step 1. Develop a patch containing a fatal bug for Windows XP. Make sure the patch is automatically installed on all XP machines before cutting off support.
Step 2. Release Windows 7
Step 3. Profit!
Why do so many people think that fractional reserve banking is all or nothing?
Funny, this same question was asked no less than 10 posts up. I feel obligated to repeat myself.
This thought can be extended beyond fractional reserve banking. Nothing is ever black and white, all or none. Except for peoples minds it seems.
I think this is an effect of propaganda (often subliminal and often unintentional - like a reporter reporting things how he sees them) in conjunction with the instinctual habits of people, often in response to fear.
And let's not forget about ignorance, and arrogance, and all those other things that make man so wonderful.
Too much government is bad. Not enough government is bad. Why don't people get this?
This thought can be extended beyond government. Nothing is ever black and white, all or none. Except for peoples minds it seems.
I think this is an effect of propaganda (often subliminal and often unintentional - like a reporter reporting things how he sees them) in conjunction with the instinctual habits of people, often in response to fear.
What will they do when I upgrade to a bionic eyeball with a connected storage device implanted in my brain, capable of uploading images to my laptop via wifi?
I have a button that rotates my license plate. I push it when I use the speed-pass lanes, or after a heist.
As a web developer, all I want is for MS to make IE compatible with standards. I'm sick of giving their browser special treatment, and I wouldn't if it didn't represent over 50% of my users.
I feel the EU's efforts would be better focused on this issue instead. I think MS consciously chooses to keep IE incompatible with the standards so that sites developed for IE don't work in other browsers that are standards compliant. It's a monopolistic abuse of power.
Muslims think mohamed was a good guy, THE example of a leader. Read his biography once and you'll see the problem with that. Hitler and Stalin were but cute poodles, sweet and innocent, compared to him.
I once heard similar sentiments regarding Muhammad, so I did what any red-blooded american would. I watched the movie.
According to the movie, at first Muhammad refused to fightback, even against the wishes of his own counselors.
Then, only after relocating being kicked out of his own country for religious persecution, and after continuing to face more persecution, he was convinced by his counsel to take up arms.
His argument for doing so (paraphrased to the best I can remember) "Fight, because persecution is worse than slaughter" and "When they lay down their arms, we will fight no more."
It seems reasonable to me. If the movie is accurate (maybe it's not) then I wouldn't demonize Muhammad unless you're willing to demonize Malcolm X... and the good ole U S of A for that matter, who fights in the name of democracy and freedom.
Your view of reality is so biased by propaganda, that it would take a large volume to correct your assumptions. Unfortunately, this problem is rampant throughout modern democracies, thus reducing the ability for people to think for themselves and make the right decision. I do believe when given facts, people will make the right decision.
Hurray for private charity, yes. But capitalism? I fail to see what capitalism has to do with with this. What makes you so sure this wouldn't have been done a long time ago if capitalism weren't around?
I always thought the Drake Equation should take this into account.
fs: the fraction of civilizations that destroy themselves with advanced technology before they have a chance to be detected.
If you won't say it, I will. The neocons ARE Hitler reincarnate, and America IS a fascist nation.
How many innocent Arabs has american militarism killed? Errr wait, I suppose killing the Indians wasn't genocide either? Just eradicating barbarians and securing freedom, as Andrew Jackson liked to point out. God bless him. He should be on the 20 dollar bill. Oh yeah... I forgot.
As a general rule of thumb, if you can imagine it, then US gov't is probably doing it (and more). What you see is only ever the tip of the iceberg.
Or you can blindly trust your government I suppose... but that is not what Thomas Jefferson had in mind when he spoke of the natural right of the people to overthrow, violently, if necessary, a tyrannical government.
perhaps you would prefer an ejaculatory analogy next time?
"I think the war on drugs has been a utter failure, and I think we need to rethink and decriminalize our marijuana laws."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wQr9ezr8UeA
That's why I don't wear deodorant in public places. You can force me to make my house pretty... but just wait till you're behind me in the mcd's line. Revenge. That will be the day when this country enforces personal hygiene...
We can hypothesize all we want about why people WOULDN'T donate their brains to science, but when a lot of people aren't aware of the process for doing so, well it seems like maybe we've found a good reason why people DON'T.
This is the closest to reality, if past is any indicator of future (slaves, working animals)
They require 2-3 times more calories than humans, so we really shouldn't bring them back in large numbers unless there is a positive role for them on this planet.
The "best" role would be for them to do things that they are best at, which would include heavy, physical work.
Of course, they should have the freedom to choose what they want to do, but this can cause problems where they don't want to do what they're best at because of financial reasons. If we lived in a society where the toughest physical jobs were rewarded with the most compensation, this wouldn't be a problem. Perhaps the species would even take pride in giving a new definition to "worker class" so long as they were fairly compensated.
The opencv (cv=computer vision) library has many functions that will aid you in your quest.
There's an active group to discuss algorithms and implementing opencv: opencv at yahoogroups
What about \lambda calculus?
Also, I haven't heard anybody say, "Ruby? pshaw. Use django instead." Is there a consensus that Ruby is "more valuable" than django?
And third, perhaps most interesting, is the future of programming. I think a few people hinted around the issue here with sentiments such as "they're all the same modulo syntax". Obviously seasoned programmers know better, but there is value in a padawan's comments.
The truth is, all programming languages exist for the same reason, execute a sequence of electronic operations. As time approaches infinity, won't there be some consensus on the perfect blend of power/performance/ease of coding/etc to achieve that electronic operation? Why should we (humans) have 5 ways to do the same thing? The computer SHOULD have 5 ways to the the same thing, but it should decide which is best for a given environment and abstract that from our decision. I don't care!!!
And yet you think this would still be a good idea to spray on your clothes and wear around - ignoring the EU scientists and politicians who proposed these laws? My point was that we probably should not be rushing to paint everything with lead-based nanoparticles unless I am missing something regarding the technology.