No. Video is the electronic capture of moving images. It is not the visual equivalent of audio.
So, apparently you believe that the early recordings by Thomas Edison (and others) aren't audio because they aren't recorded on an audiocassette.
No, because video and audio are not analogous terms. "Audio" is a generic term for "sound," while "video" describes a specific technology for capturing images, not images in general.
To repeat my reply above: The post I was replying to said "primary source video footage" - which is wrong, because the primary source footage was film.
Yes they had. Wow, education must be getting pretty bad.
Would you mind posting a coherent response? It's difficult to determine what you are trying to say when you write incoherently. It appears that you are trying to say that video cameras existed in 1905-6. However, this is obviously not the case. Are you just mistaken, or were you trying to say something else?
I have. Now imagine it with voice-controlled computers added.
OK, I'm imagining it... Seems like it would be just the same as it is now, because people spend more time chatting than they do operating computers. Either that, or all our computers would be even more dysfunctional, because they'd get so confused by the ambient voices.
But again (tell me if I'm wrong), we seem to hit on the same point: there's an uncritical acceptance of technology for technology's sake, and this sort of thing seems to come from an education that is so uncritical of the technology that it purports to educate students about.
Well, I dunno. Perhaps in the corporate world. I work at a University, where not much is accepted uncritically, and the default position is being critical of everything.
The biggest trend that I see is that platform zealotry is fading away - things are increasingly expected to be web-based and platform neutral. Technology fetishism is so last decade.
Of course, I learned a lot by deciding to install Linux 10 years ago on a spare box. Nowadays, I'm basically told that I'm living in an ivory tower and that "everyone uses Microsoft products."
Errr, what?
That sounds more like what people were saying 10 years ago. These days, that's been replaced with "It's all about the cloud/web 2.0/social networking."
it can solve any 3x3 Rubik's cube in less than twelve seconds.
Firstly, I've never seen a 3x3 Rubik's cube. If such a thing existed, wouldn't that be dramatically simpler than a normal Cube? Finally, if it's only 3x3, wouldn't that make it a two-dimensional square, rather than a cube?
Holy fuck, you think "I drive a truck!" was the centerpiece of Brown's campaign
No, I never said that.
and not just giddy disbelief at the fact that his opponents thought that pointing out that he drove a truck might disqualify him from the "governing class"?
This is why you don't want "free" computers from the government, you want the government to NOT take that money away from you to begin with so you can buy your own computer...
That's a very twisted argument. This is not a reason for the government not to give students computers, because the government shouldn't be doing this, and nobody would really expect them to.
You might have a point somewhere in there, but you undermine it by taking a bizarre outlier of a case and portraying it as the norm. After all, if a school can do this, what's to say that you are not being monitored by the laptop that you buy privately from a company?
Using your dessert fork to eat steak, not pulling a seat out for a lady, eating with your mouth open. That kind of thing. Just what the hell is wrong with you barbarians that you don't know this stuff?
This approach will work fine until one of the culprits decides to spoof the MAC address of your DNS servers (or whoever else they want to f*ck with) and gets them "booted off the network".
C'mon. It was a Microsoft conference. Nobody there is savvy enough to do such a thing.
and if you believe otherwise, you very much are a good definition of what is wrong with this world, in terms of a stunning display of greed backed up with force, overwhelming the common good
I'm pretty sure that if you owned the rights to a hit song from 1987, you'd be singing a different tune right now.
Slashdot Mirror
Video: the visual equivalent of audio.
No. Video is the electronic capture of moving images. It is not the visual equivalent of audio.
So, apparently you believe that the early recordings by Thomas Edison (and others) aren't audio because they aren't recorded on an audiocassette.
No, because video and audio are not analogous terms. "Audio" is a generic term for "sound," while "video" describes a specific technology for capturing images, not images in general.
To repeat my reply above: The post I was replying to said "primary source video footage" - which is wrong, because the primary source footage was film.
The post I was replying to said "primary source video footage" - which is wrong, because the primary source footage was film.
Yes they had. Wow, education must be getting pretty bad.
Would you mind posting a coherent response? It's difficult to determine what you are trying to say when you write incoherently. It appears that you are trying to say that video cameras existed in 1905-6. However, this is obviously not the case. Are you just mistaken, or were you trying to say something else?
Those are films, not video.
Couldn't you at least come up with an analogy?
I have. Now imagine it with voice-controlled computers added.
OK, I'm imagining it... Seems like it would be just the same as it is now, because people spend more time chatting than they do operating computers. Either that, or all our computers would be even more dysfunctional, because they'd get so confused by the ambient voices.
But again (tell me if I'm wrong), we seem to hit on the same point: there's an uncritical acceptance of technology for technology's sake, and this sort of thing seems to come from an education that is so uncritical of the technology that it purports to educate students about.
Well, I dunno. Perhaps in the corporate world. I work at a University, where not much is accepted uncritically, and the default position is being critical of everything.
The biggest trend that I see is that platform zealotry is fading away - things are increasingly expected to be web-based and platform neutral. Technology fetishism is so last decade.
Of course, I learned a lot by deciding to install Linux 10 years ago on a spare box. Nowadays, I'm basically told that I'm living in an ivory tower and that "everyone uses Microsoft products."
Errr, what?
That sounds more like what people were saying 10 years ago. These days, that's been replaced with "It's all about the cloud/web 2.0/social networking."
There's a reason why only one person on the bridge has a computer that he can talk to: it'd be cacophonic chaos if everyone were talking at once.
Welcome to 2010. Have you not been out in public recently? Cacophony defines the current era.
We have voice control now. It's just annoying, and practically speaking,
It's true, Practically Speaking is one of the more overrated voice recognition applications by Dragon.
Textbooks can't do that nearly as well as the primary source video footage taken in 1905 and 1906.
They had video cameras in 1905 and 1906? Wow, education must be getting pretty bad.
So you're saying each face has 3x3x3 squares on it?
No, I'm not saying that. The slashdot article never mentioned anything about "per face" either. It simply says "3x3 Rubik's Cube," with no qualifier.
But it would have to be 3x3x3 if it were a cube.
it can solve any 3x3 Rubik's cube in less than twelve seconds.
Firstly, I've never seen a 3x3 Rubik's cube. If such a thing existed, wouldn't that be dramatically simpler than a normal Cube? Finally, if it's only 3x3, wouldn't that make it a two-dimensional square, rather than a cube?
Holy fuck, you think "I drive a truck!" was the centerpiece of Brown's campaign
No, I never said that.
and not just giddy disbelief at the fact that his opponents thought that pointing out that he drove a truck might disqualify him from the "governing class"?
Who said that?
I guess this podcast is named as such, because it's about the only action that listeners are going to get all year.
The review on the site look good. If it's not possible to pull cat5 in, I'd say that's his best best.
Why would it not be possible to install cat5? Is it some kind of strange house where the walls are made of solid unobtainium?
More like, this is what you get for not formatting it as soon as you get it.
Ah, but if a student did that to school property they would be tried as an adult for computer crimes and possible terrorism.
This is why you don't want "free" computers from the government, you want the government to NOT take that money away from you to begin with so you can buy your own computer...
That's a very twisted argument. This is not a reason for the government not to give students computers, because the government shouldn't be doing this, and nobody would really expect them to.
You might have a point somewhere in there, but you undermine it by taking a bizarre outlier of a case and portraying it as the norm. After all, if a school can do this, what's to say that you are not being monitored by the laptop that you buy privately from a company?
WTF is "improper behavior in the home"
Using your dessert fork to eat steak, not pulling a seat out for a lady, eating with your mouth open. That kind of thing. Just what the hell is wrong with you barbarians that you don't know this stuff?
There is some sign of the people awaking from the slumber with the election of Scott Brown in Massachusetts
Holy fuck, you think that electing a massive douchebag who campaigned with the slogan "I drive a truck!" is people waking from their slumber?
This approach will work fine until one of the culprits decides to spoof the MAC address of your DNS servers (or whoever else they want to f*ck with) and gets them "booted off the network".
C'mon. It was a Microsoft conference. Nobody there is savvy enough to do such a thing.
but it's not a defensible status quo
Why not?
and if you believe otherwise, you very much are a good definition of what is wrong with this world, in terms of a stunning display of greed backed up with force, overwhelming the common good
I'm pretty sure that if you owned the rights to a hit song from 1987, you'd be singing a different tune right now.