Ah, that's a great idea actually. I'd take it a step further, and hook up a webcam. Let the monitor you're looking towards have a higher DPI, and the others have a lower one the farther they are. Have it adjust this on the fly during gameplay, and it'd be much more like real vision.
We used to engineer crops based on the outcome, the totality of the plant. Now, we're engineering crops based on single genes. That's SO much different than jsut "helping along evolution". What we do now is "change the crop to the way we want it". The thing is, we don't know the exact effect of changing said single gene, and every effect that has on the totality of the crop.
I'm not saying genetic engineering is bad; I'm saying we should know literally everything we can about genes before we start fiddling with things. I mean, I don't go into my computer and solder in new capacitors; I leave them, and replace the whole motherboard. Do you see the point I'm getting at?
Maybe have something done over an encrypted network that tells a random 1%-ish of people to deviate? That would be more than enough to keep them completely swamped (~3.3 million deviations a day), and keep the deviation from being easily accounted for (they won't know who will deviate each day).
The FBI needs to duplicate the effort because of the culture of the FBI. They kinda have the mentality that they're at war with the other intelligence agencies, which keeps them from cooperating with nearly anyone. It's a holdover from Hoover's days.
They come up with a zany and half-baked plan, get caught, cause everyone to overreact and then they've caused more damage then if they actually did manage to blow something up.
It doesn't matter. If the cops do open up, they have no more people to exert authority over, and they'll kill each other sooner or later trying to exert some sort of authority, destroying any chance they might have of exerting said authority
If the cops don't open up, they'll run, and lose the authority anyway.
....when they use the same words to refer to the same thing, which they do constantly on a given side, even though the word they use may mean something totally different. If a republican says "freedom", they mean "freedom to make money off of you". If a democrat says "freedom", they mean "freedom of choice". You can really do this, you just have to translate given who is saying it.
Corporations aren't noted for having any regard for human lives. They would kill everyone outside of one big city if they knew it meant many more people moved into the city that they completely control.
I think the solution to this is to have an opt-in for patients to join the trials at any time (pairs of 2 for control/variable groups), rather than a closed selection of candidates. Give them an explanation of the risks, and let them make a choice.
We can sit and wait, now that both systems are in use, and see which one survives. Just keep the status quo until one dies out, and you have your answer.
I think the problem is that cable and telephone companies already have cables in the ground. They run at a marginal cost, whereas a startup would literally have to re-lay all of the cable before it could service the same area, which would lead them to providing service at a much higher cost, to they wouldn't be able to compete. Your idea would've been applicable at the moment we started laying cables all around the place, not after.
Or maybe people should be willing to help out said blind person? Like telling them its cool to cross, or pulling their shoulder and yelling "Car!" if someone's gonna run the light? Because that seems like the best approach. People learning how to help other people is better than mandating the way technology develops in order to help said people.
I imagine that amount of failure is proportional to the stupidity of the majority of people in said area. It might be hard for the blind to cross the street normally, and making cars silent doesn't help that. But maybe in cities, if someone sees a blind person going to cross and a car speeding in their direction, that you should pull them back a bit and yell "Stop!" or "Car!"? That would eliminate at least 90% of the problem that might be created by silent cars.
An astonishing fact about this: they're louder when people move faster. Combined with the wind rush, I'd bet you'd only hear cars that are much more likely to hit you than the average driver.
In which case, all the blind people will be able to hear better because of less clutter. At that point, they'll be able to hear the whir of the electric motors rotating at 9000 rpms and there won't be a problem.
Yes. Tire roar isn't going away, and it's quite loud as-is on a road with a decent speed limit or the slightest bit of wear. If you can't hear that at all, you gotta be deaf.
This is a different story though. This is Apple taking maybe ~34 cents a song, while the artists get ~9.5 cents per song, which is from the record companies who take a whopping ~65 cents. There's no reason these groups should go after Apple, if the numbers I found with a quick Google are even ballpark-correct. They should go after the guys who are taking more, if you ask me. Apple isn't the bigger target, the record companies are. Honestly, in every other industry, it's almost always a 50/50 split. I know the jeweler I used to work at used to get everything at 1/2 the retail value, and I'm sure many other industries work the same way. Apple has a constant expenditure to maintain the store, even thoguh it is a small one. The record company can just build a couple of studios and have everyone they sign record there, which is a big expense at first, but when you have an artist who sells around 700000 albums in a year (this was Papa Roach's "Getting Away with Murder" Album I grabbed that sales number for), at.99c a song, with 12 songs, you've got ~8.3 million bucks to distribute right there. If they were all sold through Apple, Apple would've made 2.8 million, while the recording company would've gotten ~5.4 million. Come to think about it, how does anyone get away with that shit? People I know can write an album's worth of decent music (definitely more meaningful, probably not as catchy to the average idiot than that album) in the span of a week, how is that worth such serious cash?
Completely correct. They got rid of "iTunes Plus", which was their DRM free music library, and changed their entire regular album to the former "iTunes Plus". Then they got rid of all the music whose owners didn't agree to the new terms of DRM-free distribution.
Too bad the ones who rule by fear will be remembered just as well as the ones who ruled by an equal measure of kindness. Ivan the Terrible is remembered roughly as well as.....hrm.....I seem to be unable to recall any ruler who has been popular by being good to his people for the duration of his [decently long] rule.
Wait, so the Attorney Geeral isn't allowing publication of public opinion [polls] on the matter? (I'm assuming you meant to say that; what other public opinions could there be? Editorial-types, which are anecdotal? Nah, polls makes sense; they're the ones that represent more people.)
So, why does the attorney general have any say over what gets published by the Aussie media? What kind of backwards system is that, where the person having a hand making the law can also prevent public opinion from being displayed about the law, while also being the head of an organization that executes the law???
Most of Europe is also under an inane set of laws mostly pulled out of thin air. I don't think they have a right to judge on the sane-ness of many laws pertaining to freedoms.
Slashdot Mirror
Ah, that's a great idea actually. I'd take it a step further, and hook up a webcam. Let the monitor you're looking towards have a higher DPI, and the others have a lower one the farther they are. Have it adjust this on the fly during gameplay, and it'd be much more like real vision.
There's one big point you're missing:
We used to engineer crops based on the outcome, the totality of the plant. Now, we're engineering crops based on single genes. That's SO much different than jsut "helping along evolution". What we do now is "change the crop to the way we want it". The thing is, we don't know the exact effect of changing said single gene, and every effect that has on the totality of the crop.
I'm not saying genetic engineering is bad; I'm saying we should know literally everything we can about genes before we start fiddling with things. I mean, I don't go into my computer and solder in new capacitors; I leave them, and replace the whole motherboard. Do you see the point I'm getting at?
Maybe have something done over an encrypted network that tells a random 1%-ish of people to deviate? That would be more than enough to keep them completely swamped (~3.3 million deviations a day), and keep the deviation from being easily accounted for (they won't know who will deviate each day).
The FBI needs to duplicate the effort because of the culture of the FBI. They kinda have the mentality that they're at war with the other intelligence agencies, which keeps them from cooperating with nearly anyone. It's a holdover from Hoover's days.
They come up with a zany and half-baked plan, get caught, cause everyone to overreact and then they've caused more damage then if they actually did manage to blow something up.
Seems to be the way it works now....
It doesn't matter. If the cops do open up, they have no more people to exert authority over, and they'll kill each other sooner or later trying to exert some sort of authority, destroying any chance they might have of exerting said authority
If the cops don't open up, they'll run, and lose the authority anyway.
They're in a serious lose-lose in that situation.
....when they use the same words to refer to the same thing, which they do constantly on a given side, even though the word they use may mean something totally different. If a republican says "freedom", they mean "freedom to make money off of you". If a democrat says "freedom", they mean "freedom of choice". You can really do this, you just have to translate given who is saying it.
Corporations aren't noted for having any regard for human lives. They would kill everyone outside of one big city if they knew it meant many more people moved into the city that they completely control.
I think the solution to this is to have an opt-in for patients to join the trials at any time (pairs of 2 for control/variable groups), rather than a closed selection of candidates. Give them an explanation of the risks, and let them make a choice.
Actually, it's because the masses who are republican believe that. The top doesn't, but they preach it.
You think that if we give them the overall charge, that they wouldn't then have leverage for specific charges?
We can sit and wait, now that both systems are in use, and see which one survives. Just keep the status quo until one dies out, and you have your answer.
I think the problem is that cable and telephone companies already have cables in the ground. They run at a marginal cost, whereas a startup would literally have to re-lay all of the cable before it could service the same area, which would lead them to providing service at a much higher cost, to they wouldn't be able to compete. Your idea would've been applicable at the moment we started laying cables all around the place, not after.
He's obviously a republican, from his "less regulation" attitude. You expect them to know words from the SAT?
I agree with this. The issue is over the connection between you and point b, not whether point b wants to cater to you.
Or maybe people should be willing to help out said blind person? Like telling them its cool to cross, or pulling their shoulder and yelling "Car!" if someone's gonna run the light? Because that seems like the best approach. People learning how to help other people is better than mandating the way technology develops in order to help said people.
I imagine that amount of failure is proportional to the stupidity of the majority of people in said area. It might be hard for the blind to cross the street normally, and making cars silent doesn't help that. But maybe in cities, if someone sees a blind person going to cross and a car speeding in their direction, that you should pull them back a bit and yell "Stop!" or "Car!"? That would eliminate at least 90% of the problem that might be created by silent cars.
An astonishing fact about this: they're louder when people move faster. Combined with the wind rush, I'd bet you'd only hear cars that are much more likely to hit you than the average driver.
In which case, all the blind people will be able to hear better because of less clutter. At that point, they'll be able to hear the whir of the electric motors rotating at 9000 rpms and there won't be a problem.
Yes. Tire roar isn't going away, and it's quite loud as-is on a road with a decent speed limit or the slightest bit of wear. If you can't hear that at all, you gotta be deaf.
This is a different story though. This is Apple taking maybe ~34 cents a song, while the artists get ~9.5 cents per song, which is from the record companies who take a whopping ~65 cents. There's no reason these groups should go after Apple, if the numbers I found with a quick Google are even ballpark-correct. They should go after the guys who are taking more, if you ask me. Apple isn't the bigger target, the record companies are. Honestly, in every other industry, it's almost always a 50/50 split. I know the jeweler I used to work at used to get everything at 1/2 the retail value, and I'm sure many other industries work the same way. Apple has a constant expenditure to maintain the store, even thoguh it is a small one. The record company can just build a couple of studios and have everyone they sign record there, which is a big expense at first, but when you have an artist who sells around 700000 albums in a year (this was Papa Roach's "Getting Away with Murder" Album I grabbed that sales number for), at .99c a song, with 12 songs, you've got ~8.3 million bucks to distribute right there. If they were all sold through Apple, Apple would've made 2.8 million, while the recording company would've gotten ~5.4 million. Come to think about it, how does anyone get away with that shit? People I know can write an album's worth of decent music (definitely more meaningful, probably not as catchy to the average idiot than that album) in the span of a week, how is that worth such serious cash?
Completely correct. They got rid of "iTunes Plus", which was their DRM free music library, and changed their entire regular album to the former "iTunes Plus". Then they got rid of all the music whose owners didn't agree to the new terms of DRM-free distribution.
Too bad the ones who rule by fear will be remembered just as well as the ones who ruled by an equal measure of kindness. Ivan the Terrible is remembered roughly as well as.....hrm.....I seem to be unable to recall any ruler who has been popular by being good to his people for the duration of his [decently long] rule.
Wait, so the Attorney Geeral isn't allowing publication of public opinion [polls] on the matter? (I'm assuming you meant to say that; what other public opinions could there be? Editorial-types, which are anecdotal? Nah, polls makes sense; they're the ones that represent more people.)
So, why does the attorney general have any say over what gets published by the Aussie media? What kind of backwards system is that, where the person having a hand making the law can also prevent public opinion from being displayed about the law, while also being the head of an organization that executes the law???
Most of Europe is also under an inane set of laws mostly pulled out of thin air. I don't think they have a right to judge on the sane-ness of many laws pertaining to freedoms.
I think that sentence should be Refused Classification and banned.