I believe you could measure distance without stereoscopy. I'm no mathematician (or even in the sciences--I'm humanities person myself), but the way I'd approach the problem is to check the slight curvature of the reference square's sides (put another way, check the angles on the reference square's corners) to infer the focal length and distance of reference square from the lens, and once you have that you'd be able to measure the amount of focus (or lack of focus) in otherwise hard edges to determine distance from the reference square. You'd need a pretty high-resolution photo but I bet it's possible within certain set limits.
One reason companies pay for expensive proprietary software is that the companies that write proprietary software are considered reliable. They won't suddenly throw a tantrum and refuse to deliver.
Just because a company charges for their software doesn't prevent them from adding terms to their EULA that allow them to do just this. I recently had a large well-respected graphics software company (I won't name names, but it starts with 'a' and ends with 'dobe') functionally revoke my licenses because I had bought an individual upgrade for one application in a bundle that I had previously purchased (starts with 'C' and ends with 'S'). They told me that it was 'not a suitable upgrade path' and that I had to upgrade the entire bundle instead. The only place this was detailed was in the EULA of the original bundle, of which I had upgraded the other programs individually already (despite what they said, two of the three applications upgraded individually just fine). I could return the upgrade I had just bought, but if I wanted to upgrade that application I had to either purchase a new license for that application, or upgrade the entire bundle. They had, in effect, thrown a tantrum and refused to deliver.
I cannot do my job without their proprietary software (and don't tell me to use Gimp, Inkscape and Scribus instead--I've tried, and they are not viable alternatives for professional graphic design). I'm not necessarily disagreeing with the rest of your post, but being expensive and proprietary does not mean that they won't find ways to screw you over anyway.
You're wrong. Global warming IS caused by humans, it's not just a meme. If you disagree with science, then yes, you are likely to be cut off from good positions and grants. Citing previous warming cycles on the Earth and other planets in our solar system does not prove your theory that humans aren't causing global warming, because that isn't science--it's rhetoric. Finally, global warming 'stuff' is not 'soft' in any way. It is a conclusion overwhelmingly supported by climate scientists because that's what the EVIDENCE says. Now, allow me to point to some EVIDENCE to back my claims up. If you disagree with me, you disagree with the world's leading scientists in this field. You can try to impugn their motives if you want, but until somebody presents some EVIDENCE disproving these conclusions, then their conclusions are valid. Your opinion in this case doesn't make any difference.
What browser are you using? Because when I type 'yahoo' into my address bar in firefox, it goes and gets me www.yahoo.com without going through another page.
If I want money then I have to put up with advertising? That's just not true. Moreover, I believe that even 'legitimate' marketing materials, when mailed to my house or displayed on my tv count as spam, which to me is unwanted solicitations. In the case of TV I can tivo-skip commercials and with snail mail and telemarketing I can cut it down with the DMA opt-out. So according to you, I'm not really a consumer, even though I spend tons of money each year just living here. I just don't think that capitalism will stop because advertising does. Ads are just a convenient way to supercharge sales at the expense of the consumers.
Untargeted advertising is not a waste of money for the advertiser if they can get as little as 1-2% of the eyeballs interested. Think about that. That means 98-99% of the people viewing these ads DO NOT WANT YOUR CRAP. Sure, it's good for the advertiser, but terrible for consumers. The more ads show up, the more people try to avoid them. I don't think most people like being marketed at. Even with businesses with whom they have a 'prior relationship'. People tolerate a certain amount of advertising to get the benefits of otherwise 'free' tv (don't get me started on cable tv ads). That doesn't make it any less spam, or any less obnoxious.
Think of it this way: if in your personal life you spend a portion of each of your conversations with people trying to sell them something, how many of them will try to avoid you at parties? I sure would. Now explain to me why businesses should be any different. I'm not saying that you should not be allowed to do this; I'm only explaining why some people think you're hell incarnate.
Dear god, what happens when all those people in all those cities start using up the planet's water?
Seriously, where do you think we get the water we're currently using? And once it goes down the drain, it's not like it disappears--the water cycle on Earth is a closed system, so the worst you can do is temporarily divert the water elsewhere or pollute it beyond potability. Put simply, we can't drain the oceans because there's nothing to drain the oceans into. Moreover, we already get our water from the air: it falls to the ground as rain, drains into rivers, which we dam and pump into cities.
Please note that I'm not saying that we can't affect the environment negatively, just not in the way you're suggesting.
I tend to agree. Think about it this way: how much of *our* resources are we currently using to explore the entire galaxy? And how much are we likely to in the future? The answer is, not much. It's a vanishingly small return on a huge investment to explore the galaxy, especially when we've got bigger problems at home and so much raw material in our own solar system. The costs of sending crap into deep space will probably outweigh the benefits of mineral riches for far into the future, despite Ridley Scott's imagination. Unless there are aliens within a few hundred light years of us (which at this point is a vanishing probability given that we've found under 200 exoplanets within 200 parsecs) we won't find any aliens -- and they won't find us, either.
Just because the Bush administration ignored the Constitution and broke the law does not change the fact that it IS the job of the courts to issue warrants for wiretaps. Just because wiretapping is so easy that the President authorizes it without a warrant does not make that authorization legal.
Your argument that physical access and high cost made tapping phone lines legal is just weird. Just because the costs are lower and there's new technology shouldn't change the principle behind the wiretapping laws. With probable cause the FBI can get a warrant to take your computer, too. They can get a warrant to bug your office, and even hide a bug on you as in this cell phone case. Keeping the process transparent to the courts is critical to avoiding abuses, which is why Bush kept his illegal wiretapping secret. You're right about one thing: people will abuse power if they can get away with it. But again, just because they get away with it does not make it less illegal.
I appreciate that some laws may be interpreted and are not always black and white, but in this case it's just the technology that has changed, and not the law. But good laws SHOULD be black and white because what good are legal grey areas? That's why the courts interpret the laws, to make them less grey.
$1.3 million may seem like a lot, but it's not enough to retire at 25 on. Unless you live quite frugally or get lucky with investments, it will probably run out before your average life expectancy.
Your logic is wacky. You state that liberals are authoritarian. You go on to state that Republicans have recently become authoritarian. You offer this fact as proof of your statement that liberals (who are by and large NOT Republicans) are after all, authoritarian and conservatives (who are generally Republicans) are not. WTF?
It sounds like you're saying that liberals support free speech zones and 'speech codes' (whatever those are)--but in the last 8 years, who was the party in power who created the free speech zones for the liberals to protest from? I agree that some liberals are authoritarian, just like some conservatives are. But liberals are the backbone of the ACLU, protecting your free speech everywhere.
But to address the main point of your post, yes, it is a good idea. Most bigots are functioning bigots anyway, meaning that they will happily take anyone's money for rent. They may even learn a degree of tolerance or even respect. Moreover, once you start allowing that kind of segregation, you end up with sections of town for the blacks, Jews and other minorities. This was the case as recently as the 1970s in some areas, but since that sort of thing has been regulated by Federal law, people are allowed to live anywhere they want. Do you really want to return to segregation?
Not to mention the rich people demanding tax cuts while at the same time wanting the government to waste billions in Iraq. Like demanding that religion be legislated in the form of abstinence-only policies and ignoring science like global warming yet also clamoring for less government regulation and interference. It's not just the liberal issues that are incommensurate, after all.
I don't think Tivo has ever decided how long I can keep a recording. There's always the "Keep until I delete" option. Also, I have a Tivo with a built-in DVD recorder, which I bought specifically to record shows to lend to friends. It works like a charm. Sometimes I burn a DVD and rip it to watch on my handheld, but only because I don't have Microsoft or Media Center 9 to use the Tivo's built-in transfer-to-desktop-PC utility.
I think what they mean to do is sell the indemnification directly to Red Hat users. Maybe the RIAA should think about doing that, too. That wuld just make it easier to know who to sue--anyone whose indemnification 'subscription' expired.
Though the government used to call behavior like that 'racketeering' and 'extortion'.
Slightly offtopic, but I'm really starting to hate that damn glassy graphics look. I'm happy that interface designers finally discovered a light source, but for god's sake please quit trying to be Apple all the time.
Slashdot Mirror
I believe you could measure distance without stereoscopy. I'm no mathematician (or even in the sciences--I'm humanities person myself), but the way I'd approach the problem is to check the slight curvature of the reference square's sides (put another way, check the angles on the reference square's corners) to infer the focal length and distance of reference square from the lens, and once you have that you'd be able to measure the amount of focus (or lack of focus) in otherwise hard edges to determine distance from the reference square. You'd need a pretty high-resolution photo but I bet it's possible within certain set limits.
But I'm just guessing.
One reason companies pay for expensive proprietary software is that the companies that write proprietary software are considered reliable. They won't suddenly throw a tantrum and refuse to deliver.
Just because a company charges for their software doesn't prevent them from adding terms to their EULA that allow them to do just this. I recently had a large well-respected graphics software company (I won't name names, but it starts with 'a' and ends with 'dobe') functionally revoke my licenses because I had bought an individual upgrade for one application in a bundle that I had previously purchased (starts with 'C' and ends with 'S'). They told me that it was 'not a suitable upgrade path' and that I had to upgrade the entire bundle instead. The only place this was detailed was in the EULA of the original bundle, of which I had upgraded the other programs individually already (despite what they said, two of the three applications upgraded individually just fine). I could return the upgrade I had just bought, but if I wanted to upgrade that application I had to either purchase a new license for that application, or upgrade the entire bundle. They had, in effect, thrown a tantrum and refused to deliver.
I cannot do my job without their proprietary software (and don't tell me to use Gimp, Inkscape and Scribus instead--I've tried, and they are not viable alternatives for professional graphic design). I'm not necessarily disagreeing with the rest of your post, but being expensive and proprietary does not mean that they won't find ways to screw you over anyway.
You're wrong. Global warming IS caused by humans, it's not just a meme. If you disagree with science, then yes, you are likely to be cut off from good positions and grants. Citing previous warming cycles on the Earth and other planets in our solar system does not prove your theory that humans aren't causing global warming, because that isn't science--it's rhetoric. Finally, global warming 'stuff' is not 'soft' in any way. It is a conclusion overwhelmingly supported by climate scientists because that's what the EVIDENCE says. Now, allow me to point to some EVIDENCE to back my claims up. If you disagree with me, you disagree with the world's leading scientists in this field. You can try to impugn their motives if you want, but until somebody presents some EVIDENCE disproving these conclusions, then their conclusions are valid. Your opinion in this case doesn't make any difference.
What browser are you using? Because when I type 'yahoo' into my address bar in firefox, it goes and gets me www.yahoo.com without going through another page.
If I want money then I have to put up with advertising? That's just not true. Moreover, I believe that even 'legitimate' marketing materials, when mailed to my house or displayed on my tv count as spam, which to me is unwanted solicitations. In the case of TV I can tivo-skip commercials and with snail mail and telemarketing I can cut it down with the DMA opt-out. So according to you, I'm not really a consumer, even though I spend tons of money each year just living here. I just don't think that capitalism will stop because advertising does. Ads are just a convenient way to supercharge sales at the expense of the consumers.
Untargeted advertising is not a waste of money for the advertiser if they can get as little as 1-2% of the eyeballs interested. Think about that. That means 98-99% of the people viewing these ads DO NOT WANT YOUR CRAP. Sure, it's good for the advertiser, but terrible for consumers. The more ads show up, the more people try to avoid them. I don't think most people like being marketed at. Even with businesses with whom they have a 'prior relationship'. People tolerate a certain amount of advertising to get the benefits of otherwise 'free' tv (don't get me started on cable tv ads). That doesn't make it any less spam, or any less obnoxious.
Think of it this way: if in your personal life you spend a portion of each of your conversations with people trying to sell them something, how many of them will try to avoid you at parties? I sure would. Now explain to me why businesses should be any different. I'm not saying that you should not be allowed to do this; I'm only explaining why some people think you're hell incarnate.
Dear god, what happens when all those people in all those cities start using up the planet's water?
Seriously, where do you think we get the water we're currently using? And once it goes down the drain, it's not like it disappears--the water cycle on Earth is a closed system, so the worst you can do is temporarily divert the water elsewhere or pollute it beyond potability. Put simply, we can't drain the oceans because there's nothing to drain the oceans into. Moreover, we already get our water from the air: it falls to the ground as rain, drains into rivers, which we dam and pump into cities.
Please note that I'm not saying that we can't affect the environment negatively, just not in the way you're suggesting.
I tend to agree. Think about it this way: how much of *our* resources are we currently using to explore the entire galaxy? And how much are we likely to in the future? The answer is, not much. It's a vanishingly small return on a huge investment to explore the galaxy, especially when we've got bigger problems at home and so much raw material in our own solar system. The costs of sending crap into deep space will probably outweigh the benefits of mineral riches for far into the future, despite Ridley Scott's imagination. Unless there are aliens within a few hundred light years of us (which at this point is a vanishing probability given that we've found under 200 exoplanets within 200 parsecs) we won't find any aliens -- and they won't find us, either.
Yes, but the kinetic kill vehicle is a frickin shark. With a frickin LASER BEAM on its head.
Or, wait, maybe it's not. I guess can't rightly recall now.
That's a perfectly cromulent word you've got there.
Mine only uses 1.21 gigawatts. Have you tried using lightning?
Just because the Bush administration ignored the Constitution and broke the law does not change the fact that it IS the job of the courts to issue warrants for wiretaps. Just because wiretapping is so easy that the President authorizes it without a warrant does not make that authorization legal.
Your argument that physical access and high cost made tapping phone lines legal is just weird. Just because the costs are lower and there's new technology shouldn't change the principle behind the wiretapping laws. With probable cause the FBI can get a warrant to take your computer, too. They can get a warrant to bug your office, and even hide a bug on you as in this cell phone case. Keeping the process transparent to the courts is critical to avoiding abuses, which is why Bush kept his illegal wiretapping secret. You're right about one thing: people will abuse power if they can get away with it. But again, just because they get away with it does not make it less illegal.
I appreciate that some laws may be interpreted and are not always black and white, but in this case it's just the technology that has changed, and not the law. But good laws SHOULD be black and white because what good are legal grey areas? That's why the courts interpret the laws, to make them less grey.
And will they run Linux?
$1.3 million may seem like a lot, but it's not enough to retire at 25 on. Unless you live quite frugally or get lucky with investments, it will probably run out before your average life expectancy.
I agree completely, except that I think he should be punished by using emacs on Windows.
Nobody has studied the long-term effects of exposure to tin-foil hats so close to thin skulls. They could cause cancer.
Yeah, and the US just elected its first Muslim Representative to Congress. How many of those arab countries can say the same? Oh, wait.
Your logic is wacky. You state that liberals are authoritarian. You go on to state that Republicans have recently become authoritarian. You offer this fact as proof of your statement that liberals (who are by and large NOT Republicans) are after all, authoritarian and conservatives (who are generally Republicans) are not. WTF?
It sounds like you're saying that liberals support free speech zones and 'speech codes' (whatever those are)--but in the last 8 years, who was the party in power who created the free speech zones for the liberals to protest from? I agree that some liberals are authoritarian, just like some conservatives are. But liberals are the backbone of the ACLU, protecting your free speech everywhere.
But to address the main point of your post, yes, it is a good idea. Most bigots are functioning bigots anyway, meaning that they will happily take anyone's money for rent. They may even learn a degree of tolerance or even respect. Moreover, once you start allowing that kind of segregation, you end up with sections of town for the blacks, Jews and other minorities. This was the case as recently as the 1970s in some areas, but since that sort of thing has been regulated by Federal law, people are allowed to live anywhere they want. Do you really want to return to segregation?
Not to mention the rich people demanding tax cuts while at the same time wanting the government to waste billions in Iraq. Like demanding that religion be legislated in the form of abstinence-only policies and ignoring science like global warming yet also clamoring for less government regulation and interference. It's not just the liberal issues that are incommensurate, after all.
I don't think Tivo has ever decided how long I can keep a recording. There's always the "Keep until I delete" option. Also, I have a Tivo with a built-in DVD recorder, which I bought specifically to record shows to lend to friends. It works like a charm. Sometimes I burn a DVD and rip it to watch on my handheld, but only because I don't have Microsoft or Media Center 9 to use the Tivo's built-in transfer-to-desktop-PC utility.
I think what they mean to do is sell the indemnification directly to Red Hat users. Maybe the RIAA should think about doing that, too. That wuld just make it easier to know who to sue--anyone whose indemnification 'subscription' expired.
Though the government used to call behavior like that 'racketeering' and 'extortion'.
Slightly offtopic, but I'm really starting to hate that damn glassy graphics look. I'm happy that interface designers finally discovered a light source, but for god's sake please quit trying to be Apple all the time.
They're in spitting distance of a cure for pain.
Like carbonated beer?