...who said neural networks were worthless a while ago. I guess it just shows that the best scientists aren't recessarily the best at seeing the future.
Just remember that it doesn't change anything. If they don't tax you and the debt goes up, the government debt is still *your* debt, no matter how you take it (and yes, it still sucks). You can pay now or you can pay later (+ interests).
When it comes to the government and collecting "their" money, they won't let any opportunity pass them by.
Well, it's still *your* money. They either take it this way or another way. The effect is the same. Also, I really don't see how the net is so special that things you buy over it shound't have tax on them. The exception might have been good for a while to promote buying over the net, but I don't think it's necessary anymore.
Well, the popup runs code on my computer. Where do you draw the line between that and (more) malicious code executed through the browser (BTW, yes I use mozilla so I haven't seen a popup for a while). I'm not saying that popup *should* be illegal, just that if you interpret a couple word loosely, it might.
After all, if Iraq looked easy, imagine how trivial invading across an undefended border would be....
Well they'll cross the border, freeze their ass, and go back south. Besides, Canada can't be defended, but if you invade, you also have a huge territory to defend.
Sure 4 is good, but in the mean time, people who get threatened by SBC just dump frames (which was more problematic with gif because not all browsers supported png at that time).
That means that site will have the choice between: 1) Give money to SBC 2) Get sued 3) Stop using frames
Guess which one's simpler (hint, 3)? I don't think they'll make a dime out of it because unlike gif (at least at some point) or hyperlinks, it's not an essential technology for the web.
Spectrum analysis was used to see which format did the best job of maintaining the shape of the original waveform
Will people ever stop doing that. It's complete bullshit and certainly not the way to evaluate a codec. These codecs use perceptual weighting of the noise. That means that the idea is to distort the signal as much as possible in any region of the spectrum where it won't be heard at a certain time. That means that you see a big distortion in the spectrum and think the codec is worse than the others when in fact it's better because it realized that it doesn't matter.
The only way to correctly evaluate a codec is to listen to it. I write codecs (see sig), so I know a bit what I'm talking about. I use spectral analysis sometimes, but only to identify problems which I've already heard before, not to say that my codec is good.
As a aside, I'd say it probably wouldn't be hard to write a codec that does better than any other on those spectrum analysis. They would sound like crap because their psycho-acoustic model would be all wrong.
Well, in this case, the only way for the company to "improve" is to be out of business. Their entire business is based on scam, so I doubt it can be made ethical with the company still making money.
I think I've got a better (more ironic) variant. Have an automated tool that replies (to the right address, which of course needs to be found) and says I'm interested in [insert product name extracted from message]. Not only would that DDOS them, but it would also make it impossible for them to distinguish the replies from "victims" from the rest.
Of course, there's still the problem of identifying the target and making sure we don't cause problems to 3rd parties. Maybe the solution could be to maintain a sort of database that gets (manually if necessary) updated with a correspondance between spam messages and e-mail to reply to?
OK, you mean that the US is in Iraq just to "help the world" (in which case, can I just say "no tanks"?)? You might also want to note that the US gave weapons to Iraq too during the Iran-Iraq war (I'm sure you saw the video of Hussein with Chirac, but I hope you also saw the one with Rumsfeld).
Besides, I'll guess that at least one reason why France/Germany/Russia are against war is that they know what occupation is. Their *population* (not just military) know what war looks like. While the US has participated in many wars (and I don't deny its important role in WW2), it's been a really long time since the last war that took place in the US. On the other hand, there is still an important fraction of the French population that *remember* the horrors of war.
My comment was directed at the ones *using* the toys, and not only the ones in the US. It just happens that right now it is the US playing Nintendo war, but it could always apply elsewhere too. And yes, I'm just as disgusted at the company, regardless of where it comes from.
No wonder the US is always going after a war. I really have a problem when anything related to war is turned into a game (see Sony trademarking "Shock and Awe"). What's next: toy civilians that bleed just like real ones?
Actually, I've heard of some experiment where people were asked to fake a "coin tossing session" and write down the results. Generally, you could tell it's fake because when "generating random numbers" people tend not to repeat sequences.
No. Generally the idea of devices is just to amplify thermal noise. Thermal noise is produced at the microscopic level with atoms bouncing into each other. There's no way to predict that... unless you tap directly into the generator (in which case it's simpler to just get the data on the computer before it's encrypted).
And as far as cancer-causing agents? I think this is hilarious. The "scientific" community takes rats that are genetically predisposed to cancer, even in a clean environment, and then feed them enormous amounts of these chemicals. When one or two of them get cancer, it is declared as a carcinogen.
First of all, you forgetting that they have two groups of rats, one of which doesn't get the chemicals. This way, they can compare and see if there's a "statistically significant" increase in cancer. I agree that it's not always clear how well these things transfer to humans, but what do you propose. Stop testing and say that everythings's safe until you discover that millions have died because of some product? Test on humans? What?
In crimimal cases, you're innocent until proven guilty. For health-related issues, it doesn't work that way (if there's evidence that a drug might be dangerous, it's just not approved). Last think how long the cigarette companies have been able to stall things by repeating that there's no proof that cigarettes are dangerous and all. It might not be 100% proven that CO2 will lead to a catastrophy, but there are some signs... do you want to take a chance and discover too late that you were wrong?
I own an nVidia card and refuse to use the nVidia drivers, but for a more practical reason: stability. I found their drivers have a tendency to make my system unstable, mostly when playing with virtual consoles. I stopped using their drivers about a year ago, don't know if they really fixed them since.
Slashdot Mirror
...who said neural networks were worthless a while ago. I guess it just shows that the best scientists aren't recessarily the best at seeing the future.
Just remember that it doesn't change anything. If they don't tax you and the debt goes up, the government debt is still *your* debt, no matter how you take it (and yes, it still sucks). You can pay now or you can pay later (+ interests).
When it comes to the government and collecting
"their" money, they won't let any opportunity pass them by.
Well, it's still *your* money. They either take it this way or another way. The effect is the same. Also, I really don't see how the net is so special that things you buy over it shound't have tax on them. The exception might have been good for a while to promote buying over the net, but I don't think it's necessary anymore.
Well, the popup runs code on my computer. Where do you draw the line between that and (more) malicious code executed through the browser (BTW, yes I use mozilla so I haven't seen a popup for a while). I'm not saying that popup *should* be illegal, just that if you interpret a couple word loosely, it might.
When thinking about it. One could say that a popup add "accesses" your computer in some way. Since it is also unauthorized, could it be illegal? :)
After all, if Iraq looked easy, imagine how trivial invading across an undefended border would be....
Well they'll cross the border, freeze their ass, and go back south. Besides, Canada can't be defended, but if you invade, you also have a huge territory to defend.
No need for a Mac, I've made ext2 CD-ROMS in the past on my PC: full permissions, long file names, ...
Sure 4 is good, but in the mean time, people who get threatened by SBC just dump frames (which was more problematic with gif because not all browsers supported png at that time).
That means that site will have the choice between:
1) Give money to SBC
2) Get sued
3) Stop using frames
Guess which one's simpler (hint, 3)? I don't think they'll make a dime out of it because unlike gif (at least at some point) or hyperlinks, it's not an essential technology for the web.
Mozilla already lets you control many JS functions, including resize and foreground/background.
Then you should probably say Vorbis, which is more accurate than just Ogg.
Spectrum analysis was used to see which format did the best job of maintaining the shape of the original waveform
Will people ever stop doing that. It's complete bullshit and certainly not the way to evaluate a codec. These codecs use perceptual weighting of the noise. That means that the idea is to distort the signal as much as possible in any region of the spectrum where it won't be heard at a certain time. That means that you see a big distortion in the spectrum and think the codec is worse than the others when in fact it's better because it realized that it doesn't matter.
The only way to correctly evaluate a codec is to listen to it. I write codecs (see sig), so I know a bit what I'm talking about. I use spectral analysis sometimes, but only to identify problems which I've already heard before, not to say that my codec is good.
As a aside, I'd say it probably wouldn't be hard to write a codec that does better than any other on those spectrum analysis. They would sound like crap because their psycho-acoustic model would be all wrong.
The general population could not tell you the difference between a ISP and a content provider.
You mean the difference between AOL and Time Warner?
Well, in this case, the only way for the company to "improve" is to be out of business. Their entire business is based on scam, so I doubt it can be made ethical with the company still making money.
The same thing that makes any software project successful:
...or you can tell that a project is successful when people keep asking for a Win32 port.
a win32 port.
I think I've got a better (more ironic) variant. Have an automated tool that replies (to the right address, which of course needs to be found) and says I'm interested in [insert product name extracted from message]. Not only would that DDOS them, but it would also make it impossible for them to distinguish the replies from "victims" from the rest.
Of course, there's still the problem of identifying the target and making sure we don't cause problems to 3rd parties. Maybe the solution could be to maintain a sort of database that gets (manually if necessary) updated with a correspondance between spam messages and e-mail to reply to?
OK, you mean that the US is in Iraq just to "help the world" (in which case, can I just say "no tanks"?)? You might also want to note that the US gave weapons to Iraq too during the Iran-Iraq war (I'm sure you saw the video of Hussein with Chirac, but I hope you also saw the one with Rumsfeld).
Besides, I'll guess that at least one reason why France/Germany/Russia are against war is that they know what occupation is. Their *population* (not just military) know what war looks like. While the US has participated in many wars (and I don't deny its important role in WW2), it's been a really long time since the last war that took place in the US. On the other hand, there is still an important fraction of the French population that *remember* the horrors of war.
If you tell me you really don't see the difference between playing chess and playing "kill the other tank", I'll leave you alone.
My comment was directed at the ones *using* the toys, and not only the ones in the US. It just happens that right now it is the US playing Nintendo war, but it could always apply elsewhere too. And yes, I'm just as disgusted at the company, regardless of where it comes from.
No wonder the US is always going after a war. I really have a problem when anything related to war is turned into a game (see Sony trademarking "Shock and Awe"). What's next: toy civilians that bleed just like real ones?
Actually, I've heard of some experiment where people were asked to fake a "coin tossing session" and write down the results. Generally, you could tell it's fake because when "generating random numbers" people tend not to repeat sequences.
No. Generally the idea of devices is just to amplify thermal noise. Thermal noise is produced at the microscopic level with atoms bouncing into each other. There's no way to predict that... unless you tap directly into the generator (in which case it's simpler to just get the data on the computer before it's encrypted).
And as far as cancer-causing agents? I think this is hilarious. The "scientific" community takes rats that are genetically predisposed to cancer, even in a clean environment, and then feed them enormous amounts of these chemicals. When one or two of them get cancer, it is declared as a carcinogen.
First of all, you forgetting that they have two groups of rats, one of which doesn't get the chemicals. This way, they can compare and see if there's a "statistically significant" increase in cancer. I agree that it's not always clear how well these things transfer to humans, but what do you propose. Stop testing and say that everythings's safe until you discover that millions have died because of some product? Test on humans? What?
In crimimal cases, you're innocent until proven guilty. For health-related issues, it doesn't work that way (if there's evidence that a drug might be dangerous, it's just not approved). Last think how long the cigarette companies have been able to stall things by repeating that there's no proof that cigarettes are dangerous and all. It might not be 100% proven that CO2 will lead to a catastrophy, but there are some signs... do you want to take a chance and discover too late that you were wrong?
...but that is not the same as being held as a suspected terrorist.
How comforting. How would you like spending 10 years in jail as a witness? It doesn't matter, you're just not suspected.
I own an nVidia card and refuse to use the nVidia drivers, but for a more practical reason: stability. I found their drivers have a tendency to make my system unstable, mostly when playing with virtual consoles. I stopped using their drivers about a year ago, don't know if they really fixed them since.