Judging from the paltry sums thrown that way, I would imagine the grilling will be pretty intense. Six figures? To the whole group? You might as well not even try. Besides, the guy is as likeable as chlamydia, and still his approval rating is way ahead of Congress's. So they stand a lot to gain by giving him a hard time.
I disagree with Ebert on that point. I don't think the film enhanced the music at all. I felt like the use of Blue Danube was downright stupid. Maybe if the first time you heard Also Sprach Zarathustra was during the film you would feel that way, but if you had heard the whole thing before, getting just the one motif would seem disappointing. Ligeti himself decried the juxtaposition of his works with those of Strauss and the other Strauss. I certainly wouldn't program the composers together in a concert. Kubrick used these pieces as placeholders, but the bigwigs at MGM just didn't know any better. We'll never know, but maybe Alex North would have become a household name like John Williams.
Maybe I'm a bad person, but I didn't like it either. It was not because I thought it should have a certain story line. I liked House of Leaves, and nobody would accuse that book of having a traditional plot. I had the distinct misfortune of watching 2001 for the first time with a college acquaintance who was a theater major. I endured a condescending primer about lighting and symbolism, making it harder to actually figure out what the movie was about. I got the whole AI thing, but the beginning and end of the film seemed so disconnected with the meat of the story that I just couldn't reconcile it in my head. The soundtrack was probably my least favorite thing about the movie, probably because I knew some of the songs already and had my own emotional and symbolic baggage that I brought along with me. Also, I'm not a fan of micropolyphony.
I thought Republicans don't believe in the government picking winners and losers?
There is so much wrong with this tweet, and the entire line of thought. There are thousands of mom and pop places that consider Amazon a priceless tool in keeping their own costs down. Also, they are one of USPS biggest customers, and package delivery revenues are up. The reason USPS is losing billions has nothing to do with Amazon, and everything to do with first class mail and pension legal requirements. Most (all?) people pay sales tax on Amazon purchases these days, too, so a notion of an additional Internet tax is just stupid.
It's almost like everything Trump tweets is exactly wrong. SAD!
I don't know about a car window, but some dude got away with murdering burglars at his neighbor's house in Texas. That was just months after the law had been changed. The dude even quoted the law, then stated his intent to kill. You could tell from the 911 transcript he was just looking for an excuse to shoot brown people. Officers were on the scene less than two minutes after the gunshots.
According to AZ law, low-beams need to be at least 100 ft. And high-beams 350 ft. Sounds like Uber is at least in violation of that. Don't know anybody who drives with their high-beams on all the time, so I can't comment on the other part of your argument.
That's not entirely a fair comparison. The traditional notion of resolution is not what a light field camera seeks to maximize. It captures different/more data than a traditional camera that cannot be rendered in traditional resolution terms. Once you choose the focal length to render the data at, then you have an image with a resolution of 0.4MP but the fact that you can change the focus after the fact is something that a traditional digital camera cannot even attempt. That being said, for most web design and small prints, even 0.4MP is just fine. Not the best, but passable.
The issue I have with the phrase "innovative camera startup" is the word "startup." I remember hearing about Lytro a long time ago in the pages of IEEE Spectrum. (Googled it. November of 2011) I didn't realize that still constituted a startup.
The funny thing is now some cameras just fake out the light field thing by taking two additional shots with longer and shorter focus, and interpolate. It is a little hacky, but reasonable.
I have always thought lightfield cameras could be used in conjunction with VR if there was some way for the image to know what part your eye was trying to focus on. If you track the pupil of the viewer just right, you could theoretically allow somebody to change their field of focus in real time. That would make VR much more realistic. My biggest headach with existing VR tech is that when my eyes drift to the things that aren't in focus (like the background) I can't focus on it. Lytro could be the first step in changing that.
I'd love to believe that he's made the right choice here. On the face of it, the original rule was misguided at best, and quite possibly malicious. The problem is that the guy has proven himself to be such a tool for big businesses trying to fuck their customers, that we automatically assume we must be missing some ulterior motive. I'm going to assume good faith on this one, but there's still a niggling suspicion that this is going to cause something bad to happen to me.
Ironically, one of the things my son has internalized is that everything is marketing (Thanks, Adam Conover!). Now when he sees somebody who probably doesn't have an agenda, his first instinct is to assume they have a profit motive and are lying. Kind of sad for him to lose that innocence, but good for him to be aware. I wish I had had a little less naivety growing up. Would have saved me a lot of trouble (and money).
But to what end? I have yet to understand WHY flat-earthers even exist. What could they possibly gain by not even attempting to disprove their own crazy-ass theories? There's no financial motive. There's no power motive. And how did the belief become so deep-seated in the first place? It can't just be stupidity. Do they really know the truth, and it's all a big joke? That would at least make some sense. A humor motive is better than no motive.
Well.... for those people who think that Fox News really is fair and balanced, somebody like Obama must seem like Stalin reincarnated. Remember, there are people out there like my dad, who stopped listening to Rush Limbaugh because he got too liberal. Back before YouTube channels, you had to find your crazy on AM talk radio or short wave. It was there, but the barrier to entry was higher. You had to be committed. See the other article on the front page about YouTube as radicalizing agent.
He technically never gave classified info to anybody. Unfortunately, as soon as the president decides something is not classified, it is not classified. It might be stupid, but it's the way the law is written. Blame congress.
It's "dB" not "Db". If you're going to troll, at least get the name of the "movement" right. The problem is that it's hard to take a "German" movement seriously when the only proponents of it are Alex Jones, Identity Evropa, and America Uber Alles. One extreme right website specifically claims the intent of the "movement" is "baiting the left" into defending rapists. If you actually believe the stuff you are saying, some of the people on "your side" have fooled you into becoming a mouthpiece for idiocy. Congratulations.
That's a great idea. Rather than having people who agree with you always show up, just see nice people who may have a different viewpoint. That's sort of like the Interesting mod on Slashdot. I use it to signify: I don't agree with you, but you bring up a good point.
If Google is curating thought, why don't they use that power for good? Oh wait... I forgot, their only interest is getting more eyeballs to look at ads. Never mind.
Slashdot Mirror
Except eating baking chocolate won't send you to the hospital.
So Jon Stewart is an anti-Semite?
Nope. Politicians have a longstanding tradition of raging hypocrisy.
Troll, really? Twice in one thread. I guess there are some micropolyphony fans among the moderators. Whodathunkit?!
Judging from the paltry sums thrown that way, I would imagine the grilling will be pretty intense. Six figures? To the whole group? You might as well not even try. Besides, the guy is as likeable as chlamydia, and still his approval rating is way ahead of Congress's. So they stand a lot to gain by giving him a hard time.
I disagree with Ebert on that point. I don't think the film enhanced the music at all. I felt like the use of Blue Danube was downright stupid. Maybe if the first time you heard Also Sprach Zarathustra was during the film you would feel that way, but if you had heard the whole thing before, getting just the one motif would seem disappointing. Ligeti himself decried the juxtaposition of his works with those of Strauss and the other Strauss. I certainly wouldn't program the composers together in a concert. Kubrick used these pieces as placeholders, but the bigwigs at MGM just didn't know any better. We'll never know, but maybe Alex North would have become a household name like John Williams.
Maybe I'm a bad person, but I didn't like it either. It was not because I thought it should have a certain story line. I liked House of Leaves, and nobody would accuse that book of having a traditional plot. I had the distinct misfortune of watching 2001 for the first time with a college acquaintance who was a theater major. I endured a condescending primer about lighting and symbolism, making it harder to actually figure out what the movie was about. I got the whole AI thing, but the beginning and end of the film seemed so disconnected with the meat of the story that I just couldn't reconcile it in my head. The soundtrack was probably my least favorite thing about the movie, probably because I knew some of the songs already and had my own emotional and symbolic baggage that I brought along with me. Also, I'm not a fan of micropolyphony.
I thought Republicans don't believe in the government picking winners and losers?
There is so much wrong with this tweet, and the entire line of thought. There are thousands of mom and pop places that consider Amazon a priceless tool in keeping their own costs down. Also, they are one of USPS biggest customers, and package delivery revenues are up. The reason USPS is losing billions has nothing to do with Amazon, and everything to do with first class mail and pension legal requirements. Most (all?) people pay sales tax on Amazon purchases these days, too, so a notion of an additional Internet tax is just stupid.
It's almost like everything Trump tweets is exactly wrong. SAD!
Or maybe some people don't think lethal force is an ethical way to prevent property crime.
I don't know about a car window, but some dude got away with murdering burglars at his neighbor's house in Texas. That was just months after the law had been changed. The dude even quoted the law, then stated his intent to kill. You could tell from the 911 transcript he was just looking for an excuse to shoot brown people. Officers were on the scene less than two minutes after the gunshots.
Dear leader told us they are good and easily won. Any other opinion must be incorrect.
According to AZ law, low-beams need to be at least 100 ft. And high-beams 350 ft. Sounds like Uber is at least in violation of that. Don't know anybody who drives with their high-beams on all the time, so I can't comment on the other part of your argument.
That's not entirely a fair comparison. The traditional notion of resolution is not what a light field camera seeks to maximize. It captures different/more data than a traditional camera that cannot be rendered in traditional resolution terms. Once you choose the focal length to render the data at, then you have an image with a resolution of 0.4MP but the fact that you can change the focus after the fact is something that a traditional digital camera cannot even attempt. That being said, for most web design and small prints, even 0.4MP is just fine. Not the best, but passable.
The issue I have with the phrase "innovative camera startup" is the word "startup." I remember hearing about Lytro a long time ago in the pages of IEEE Spectrum. (Googled it. November of 2011) I didn't realize that still constituted a startup.
The funny thing is now some cameras just fake out the light field thing by taking two additional shots with longer and shorter focus, and interpolate. It is a little hacky, but reasonable.
I have always thought lightfield cameras could be used in conjunction with VR if there was some way for the image to know what part your eye was trying to focus on. If you track the pupil of the viewer just right, you could theoretically allow somebody to change their field of focus in real time. That would make VR much more realistic. My biggest headach with existing VR tech is that when my eyes drift to the things that aren't in focus (like the background) I can't focus on it. Lytro could be the first step in changing that.
Still lead. I still use my teeth to tighten them on the line. Oh well. I also make stained glass with lead solder, so I'm prolly gonna die.
Could we call it a memeograph?
Also, I'm humming the jingle for Big Red, for some reason. Maybe Big Lead could be a gum that whitens teeth in the worst. possible. way.
I'd love to believe that he's made the right choice here. On the face of it, the original rule was misguided at best, and quite possibly malicious. The problem is that the guy has proven himself to be such a tool for big businesses trying to fuck their customers, that we automatically assume we must be missing some ulterior motive. I'm going to assume good faith on this one, but there's still a niggling suspicion that this is going to cause something bad to happen to me.
There's an XKCD for that.
Because that's the way the law regarding the FCC is written. Only three members may be from the same political party.
That's my favorite C+H strip of all time! "A lot of great artists were insane."
Ironically, one of the things my son has internalized is that everything is marketing (Thanks, Adam Conover!). Now when he sees somebody who probably doesn't have an agenda, his first instinct is to assume they have a profit motive and are lying. Kind of sad for him to lose that innocence, but good for him to be aware. I wish I had had a little less naivety growing up. Would have saved me a lot of trouble (and money).
But to what end? I have yet to understand WHY flat-earthers even exist. What could they possibly gain by not even attempting to disprove their own crazy-ass theories? There's no financial motive. There's no power motive. And how did the belief become so deep-seated in the first place? It can't just be stupidity. Do they really know the truth, and it's all a big joke? That would at least make some sense. A humor motive is better than no motive.
Well.... for those people who think that Fox News really is fair and balanced, somebody like Obama must seem like Stalin reincarnated. Remember, there are people out there like my dad, who stopped listening to Rush Limbaugh because he got too liberal. Back before YouTube channels, you had to find your crazy on AM talk radio or short wave. It was there, but the barrier to entry was higher. You had to be committed. See the other article on the front page about YouTube as radicalizing agent.
He technically never gave classified info to anybody. Unfortunately, as soon as the president decides something is not classified, it is not classified. It might be stupid, but it's the way the law is written. Blame congress.
It's "dB" not "Db". If you're going to troll, at least get the name of the "movement" right. The problem is that it's hard to take a "German" movement seriously when the only proponents of it are Alex Jones, Identity Evropa, and America Uber Alles. One extreme right website specifically claims the intent of the "movement" is "baiting the left" into defending rapists. If you actually believe the stuff you are saying, some of the people on "your side" have fooled you into becoming a mouthpiece for idiocy. Congratulations.
That's a great idea. Rather than having people who agree with you always show up, just see nice people who may have a different viewpoint. That's sort of like the Interesting mod on Slashdot. I use it to signify: I don't agree with you, but you bring up a good point.
If Google is curating thought, why don't they use that power for good? Oh wait... I forgot, their only interest is getting more eyeballs to look at ads. Never mind.