Until we get 4k displays the quality differences are non-existent.
...and 4k content - (1) actual (2) perceived and (3) worthy. (1) Yes, up-converting/scaling can be very good, but it's not really the same thing at some point; (2) would the extra pixels make a difference for most screen sizes and room dimensions; (3) the News and most TV shows don't need to be, and/or are not better, in HD (several channels in my area boast about broadcasting the News in HD, like that's a selling point)
I'm personally of the opinion that anyone with an inclination to volunteer to take what will invariably amount to a one-way trip to Mars based on the technology that we have so far is probably somebody that the world may be better off without.
Sadly, those we would most like to send, are probably the least likely to apply.
The question is, why? i.e. what is a logical argument, from first principles about the rights of the state vs. the rights of the individual, for why we should let defendants refuse to answer questions but not third-party witnesses?
Again, it's because that's what the Fifth Amendment states and the way our legal system works (and has evolved to work). There is no "logical argument from first principles" to be applied as not everything evolves from and/or is constrained by that. That's simply the way it is - for whatever reason. *If* you/people don't like it, get the laws and legal system changed, but you cannot simply nullify something because you don't agree/understand as to why it is. Your arguments/questions may be compelling to you, but that won't make it so. Stop drinking the tea, the party is over.
You must testify, and before you do you must swear a legally binding oath to tell the truth.
If one plans to invoke their Fifth Amendment rights, my understanding is that one should do so for any/all questions asked. If that's the case, then when asked "do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth" I also imagine that one should answer "no". Thoughts anyone?
Yes, I'm taking it as a given what the Fifth Amendment says,... that you cannot be compelled to be a witness against yourself, but you can be compelled to be a witness against someone else...
My question is: Why?
You already answered your own question: Because that's what the Fifth Amendment says. I'm sorry that you don't like it and/or agree, but that's the way it is. I didn't find any or your arguments compelling, interesting or even paradoxical. Get over it and yourself.
... I think that this idea is hugely overly complicating a solution to a not particularly complex problem.
Even more complicated:
This product also allows that screen, once a vehicle comes to a stop for four seconds or longer, to display a different image on the plate such as an advertisement.
So the license plate has an accelerometer or is otherwise connected to the vehicle's electronics - oh and (possibly) ads.
I'm reminded of the Better Off Ted episode Get Happy
Linda suggests that Veridian let its employees have decorations in their company. Veronica agrees, but the company selects the decorations and assigns them to the employees. Linda discovers that she's suddenly a cat person, while other employees have cars, Green Bay Packers, or space decorations.
... Linda bonds with her fellow cat employees who start obsessing about cats... At lunch, Linda decides to talk with the outer space employees. They think they're too smart for her, and the cat employees see her as a traitor... Later, Linda discovers that the cat people have destroyed her cat decorations.
"Veridian Dynamics. Teamwork. It keeps our employees gruntled."
... a futuristic uniform for Special Operations warfighters that involves agile air-conditioned armor with embedded computers, sensors, communications radios and antennas, signal processors, wearable displays, and health-monitoring systems.... officials are interested in advanced armor to protect warfighters from bullets, shrapnel, and other battlefield threats, while preserving their mobility.
Real helicopter pilots always wear a helmet. And so should you...
I'm fairly certain that's to protect their head from getting banged around inside the cockpit and that even the best helmet would to fuck-all against the spinning rotor blade of a real helicopter.
Secondly, while I certainly agree that whatever you put into that form ends up going into their database as well, I'd like to pose a stupid question: how ELSE are they going to identify the person requesting the data?
OK Sparky, I'll tell you. Start by allowing the user to enter any given piece. Search. If multiple results, inform user they must provide further info. Repeat.
In this manner, the user is in control of how much they feel comfortable giving just to see what info this particular entity "already" possesses?
Precluding the entry of some piece of rather private information, like SSN, that won't keep others from being able to see your data if they know enough "public" things about you. The information they are asking for is inline with that of the major credit bureaus to see your free annual credit report.
So, only Linux users are into pegging? Your title confuses me!
At least for the programmer positions,...
Given the recent economic climate, it seems "programmer positions" are variations of bent over and gagged. And don't fall for that management line, "employees are our most valuable asset," because management is standing behind you unzipping their pants...
The question that occurs to me is "Are those assholes at Acxiom good enough to discern 'corrections' that make the data even less accurate than it was, or 'corrections' made to other peoples' profiles?"
From what I read in the NY Times article, changes/corrections appear, noted as such, along with the original data. I believe the major credit bureaus do the same thing.
When Jesus ask what was the most important commandment, he gave two.
Love God, and Love your Neighbor. I choose to take that as the important parts, but others don't because they dislike their neighbor, and will focus on other parts where it was OK to strike people down.
The problem for those people is: What if God is one of us? Just a slob like one of us. Just a stranger on the bus, trying to make his way home.
So why the angry rich people hating on Oracle? As far as I can tell, They're angry and running about calling it "cheating" over what appears to be a simple case of not understanding the horribly dense and overly-complicated rules, in a new ship class that just debuted this year.
The America’s Cup, dating to 1851, might be both the oldest and quirkiest trophy competition in international sports. The winner of the trophy gets to set the parameters for the next competition — when, where and what kind of boats. There is no governing body to guide regularity.
Ellison won in Valencia, Spain, in 2010,...
Therefore, Larry Ellison - aka Oracle - gets to make the rules, which they, themselves, then violated... Kind of a dick move, even for Larry. Or perhaps I'm incorrect; in any case, the America's Cup is a just very rich sport for very rich people who, apparently, have nothing better on which to spend their time and money.
But a new study raises the possibility that analyzing the placenta after birth may provide clues to a child’s risk for developing autism. The study, which analyzed placentas from 217 births, found that in families at high genetic risk for having an autistic child, placentas were significantly more likely to have abnormal folds and creases.
Sure, whitespace is significant, but I've never had it break easily or be "brittle" as you say.
Not python, but one example of this type of thing would be in a Makefile where target commands are indented by a tab. Some newer versions of (g)make will allow spaces, but most require a tab. Cut and paste that in an X-Windows session (tabs are converted to spaces) and you're screwed. From Make Software: Makefiles
Each command line must begin with a tab character to be recognized as a command. The tab is a whitespace character, but the space character does not have the same special meaning. This is problematic, since there may be no visual difference between a tab and a series of space characters. This aspect of the syntax of makefiles is often subject to criticism.
NO. There are people who like to say this but it's crap. Usually there's a more explicit reference to Clarke's Third Law. But from Clarke's point, "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic" you can't conclude that "Any writing about magic is really writing about technology". Literary genres are a matter of tropes and reader expectations.
Generally agreed - and I referenced that third law above (in the unlikely event someone didn't know), but obviously the "tech as magic" thing could go either way depending on the context of the story, etc... Fantasy doesn't *have* to include magic (or technology) though it often seems to. Personally I'm not a fan of fantasy, especially if it includes "magic" - I see it as a lazy attempt at Science Fiction - though perhaps I haven't been exposed to good/better fantasy fiction or simply prefer story lines closer to "reality" (if that term can be applied to SF). Lately, I've been reading Alastair Reynolds and perhaps that's skewing my expectations.
One thing I do know for sure is that I don't like things written in first-person.
"Just ask Obama to overturn the ruling."
Requesting the legislative branches not to allocate resources for enforcement is more the current administrations' style.
To be fair, that's easier than trying to get the Legislative Branch to *actually* do something (about anything). According to Slate the 113th Congress has passed only 15 bills this year for Obama to sign while "... more than 4,000 bills have been referred to committee this year, where most will die of starvation."
For comparison's sake, George W. Bush signed 13 bills into law on today's date alone [July 12] in 2005—with a Republican majority in both houses, mind you—but seven of those bills were sponsored by Democrats!
Of course, we only have ourselves to blame for voting all these weasels into office...
Slashdot Mirror
Off
Until we get 4k displays the quality differences are non-existent.
I'm personally of the opinion that anyone with an inclination to volunteer to take what will invariably amount to a one-way trip to Mars based on the technology that we have so far is probably somebody that the world may be better off without.
Sadly, those we would most like to send, are probably the least likely to apply.
I understand there will be a need for telephone sanitizers on mars...
The question is, why? i.e. what is a logical argument, from first principles about the rights of the state vs. the rights of the individual, for why we should let defendants refuse to answer questions but not third-party witnesses?
Again, it's because that's what the Fifth Amendment states and the way our legal system works (and has evolved to work). There is no "logical argument from first principles" to be applied as not everything evolves from and/or is constrained by that. That's simply the way it is - for whatever reason. *If* you/people don't like it, get the laws and legal system changed, but you cannot simply nullify something because you don't agree/understand as to why it is. Your arguments/questions may be compelling to you, but that won't make it so. Stop drinking the tea, the party is over.
You must testify, and before you do you must swear a legally binding oath to tell the truth.
If one plans to invoke their Fifth Amendment rights, my understanding is that one should do so for any/all questions asked. If that's the case, then when asked "do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth" I also imagine that one should answer "no". Thoughts anyone?
Yes, I'm taking it as a given what the Fifth Amendment says, ... that you cannot be compelled to be a witness against yourself, but you can be compelled to be a witness against someone else ...
My question is: Why?
You already answered your own question: Because that's what the Fifth Amendment says. I'm sorry that you don't like it and/or agree, but that's the way it is. I didn't find any or your arguments compelling, interesting or even paradoxical. Get over it and yourself.
Even more complicated:
This product also allows that screen, once a vehicle comes to a stop for four seconds or longer, to display a different image on the plate such as an advertisement.
So the license plate has an accelerometer or is otherwise connected to the vehicle's electronics - oh and (possibly) ads.
I'm reminded of the Better Off Ted episode Get Happy
Linda suggests that Veridian let its employees have decorations in their company. Veronica agrees, but the company selects the decorations and assigns them to the employees. Linda discovers that she's suddenly a cat person, while other employees have cars, Green Bay Packers, or space decorations.
"Veridian Dynamics. Teamwork. It keeps our employees gruntled."
... a futuristic uniform for Special Operations warfighters that involves agile air-conditioned armor with embedded computers, sensors, communications radios and antennas, signal processors, wearable displays, and health-monitoring systems. ... officials are interested in advanced armor to protect warfighters from bullets, shrapnel, and other battlefield threats, while preserving their mobility.
Problem solved. Some mobility may be limited.
Real helicopter pilots always wear a helmet. And so should you...
I'm fairly certain that's to protect their head from getting banged around inside the cockpit and that even the best helmet would to fuck-all against the spinning rotor blade of a real helicopter.
Maybe he was just trying a random stunt that he though up off the top of his head.
I see we have Ba'al fan:
(Watch out for women with sharp knives...)
Secondly, while I certainly agree that whatever you put into that form ends up going into their database as well, I'd like to pose a stupid question: how ELSE are they going to identify the person requesting the data?
OK Sparky, I'll tell you. Start by allowing the user to enter any given piece. Search. If multiple results, inform user they must provide further info. Repeat. In this manner, the user is in control of how much they feel comfortable giving just to see what info this particular entity "already" possesses?
Precluding the entry of some piece of rather private information, like SSN, that won't keep others from being able to see your data if they know enough "public" things about you. The information they are asking for is inline with that of the major credit bureaus to see your free annual credit report.
So, only Linux users are into pegging? Your title confuses me!
At least for the programmer positions, ...
Given the recent economic climate, it seems "programmer positions" are variations of bent over and gagged. And don't fall for that management line, "employees are our most valuable asset," because management is standing behind you unzipping their pants...
The question that occurs to me is "Are those assholes at Acxiom good enough to discern 'corrections' that make the data even less accurate than it was, or 'corrections' made to other peoples' profiles?"
From what I read in the NY Times article, changes/corrections appear, noted as such, along with the original data. I believe the major credit bureaus do the same thing.
How would you carry that around?
How the hell would you hold it?
I'll take "Things you hope your new girlfriend will say!" for $200 Alex.
When Jesus ask what was the most important commandment, he gave two. Love God, and Love your Neighbor. I choose to take that as the important parts, but others don't because they dislike their neighbor, and will focus on other parts where it was OK to strike people down.
The problem for those people is: What if God is one of us? Just a slob like one of us. Just a stranger on the bus, trying to make his way home.
So why the angry rich people hating on Oracle? As far as I can tell, They're angry and running about calling it "cheating" over what appears to be a simple case of not understanding the horribly dense and overly-complicated rules, in a new ship class that just debuted this year.
Well... As mentioned in this article:
The America’s Cup, dating to 1851, might be both the oldest and quirkiest trophy competition in international sports. The winner of the trophy gets to set the parameters for the next competition — when, where and what kind of boats. There is no governing body to guide regularity.
Ellison won in Valencia, Spain, in 2010, ...
Therefore, Larry Ellison - aka Oracle - gets to make the rules, which they, themselves, then violated... Kind of a dick move, even for Larry. Or perhaps I'm incorrect; in any case, the America's Cup is a just very rich sport for very rich people who, apparently, have nothing better on which to spend their time and money.
Actually, autism is not purely genetic: it is a condition with multiple causes, lumped together for diagnostic purposes...
You may be interested in this article Study Ties Autism Risk to Creases in Placenta:
But a new study raises the possibility that analyzing the placenta after birth may provide clues to a child’s risk for developing autism. The study, which analyzed placentas from 217 births, found that in families at high genetic risk for having an autistic child, placentas were significantly more likely to have abnormal folds and creases.
Sure, whitespace is significant, but I've never had it break easily or be "brittle" as you say.
Not python, but one example of this type of thing would be in a Makefile where target commands are indented by a tab. Some newer versions of (g)make will allow spaces, but most require a tab. Cut and paste that in an X-Windows session (tabs are converted to spaces) and you're screwed. From Make Software: Makefiles
Each command line must begin with a tab character to be recognized as a command. The tab is a whitespace character, but the space character does not have the same special meaning. This is problematic, since there may be no visual difference between a tab and a series of space characters. This aspect of the syntax of makefiles is often subject to criticism.
It comes down to the fact that many of the other majors that has a clear career path requires much more Math study, and they don't like Math.
Well, as Mr. Mackey would say, "Math is hard - M'kay."
... just give me software that is finished and works ...
That's adorable.
Sci-fi = Fantasy. ...
It was absolutely clear. But lest you forgot logical equivalence ...
Sorry, I thought that was an assignment, not equivalence - my genre operators don't overload and their classes don't inherit :-)
NO. There are people who like to say this but it's crap. Usually there's a more explicit reference to Clarke's Third Law. But from Clarke's point, "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic" you can't conclude that "Any writing about magic is really writing about technology". Literary genres are a matter of tropes and reader expectations.
Generally agreed - and I referenced that third law above (in the unlikely event someone didn't know), but obviously the "tech as magic" thing could go either way depending on the context of the story, etc... Fantasy doesn't *have* to include magic (or technology) though it often seems to. Personally I'm not a fan of fantasy, especially if it includes "magic" - I see it as a lazy attempt at Science Fiction - though perhaps I haven't been exposed to good/better fantasy fiction or simply prefer story lines closer to "reality" (if that term can be applied to SF). Lately, I've been reading Alastair Reynolds and perhaps that's skewing my expectations.
One thing I do know for sure is that I don't like things written in first-person.
Sci-fi = Fantasy. There is no real distinction between magic and advanced technology.
Um, sure there is. There doesn't *have* to be -- it depends on how the "magic" is presented ...
In case it wasn't clear... Parent was paraphrasing one of Arthur C. Clarke's three laws:
3. Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.
"Just ask Obama to overturn the ruling." Requesting the legislative branches not to allocate resources for enforcement is more the current administrations' style.
To be fair, that's easier than trying to get the Legislative Branch to *actually* do something (about anything). According to Slate the 113th Congress has passed only 15 bills this year for Obama to sign while "... more than 4,000 bills have been referred to committee this year, where most will die of starvation."
For comparison's sake, George W. Bush signed 13 bills into law on today's date alone [July 12] in 2005—with a Republican majority in both houses, mind you—but seven of those bills were sponsored by Democrats!
Of course, we only have ourselves to blame for voting all these weasels into office...