There are tools and techniques to screen-scrape just about anything, somethings using OCR if necessary. Companies who depend on such data already had ways to automate most scraping. But I agree it may help borderline companies obtain prices, and increase competition. It's why I used the word "directly".
I saw a prototype recently at the Yodobashi-Akiba Tokyo "nerd mall", and it was quite cool from a technical standpoint, but the cool-ness may not carry over to the practical side.
I have lousy eyesight even with glasses, don't want to pay significantly more for extra resolution, and seeing every mole, zit, and crevice on faces creeps me out. Further, super-hi-res content is currently sparse.
I don't see a real need for this, other than bragging rights. Maybe normal consumers have a different take? Or maybe they figure there are enough rich consumers who buy high-end out of habit.
In case that wasn't intended to be a joke; the echo-spam is often based on what you actually view, not filter preferences. By viewing the "wrong" gender's products, you may be solving one problem but causing another, such as not finding what you actually are shopping for. If you simply want to get your rocks off, there are easier ways.
Maybe this is a pedantic point, but European medical care is not free; it's paid for by taxes, levies, and various gov't service fees. The cost is still carried by citizens, it's just indirect and pooled. It's misleading to call it "free" without some kind of qualifier, in my opinion.
Indeed, it's not clear in the article where the rule and/or enforcement came from.
Also note this:
Hospitals are required to disclose prices publicly, but the latest change would put that information online in machine-readable format that can be easily processed by computers.
This would imply that publishing it to the public was already a rule, but something changed to require it also be available in "machine-readable" form, such as CSV files.
Therefore, this will not directly impact most consumers, who usually want a prepared list, not raw data.
Gov't sponsored research often does kick-start new ideas, but the results are usually public knowledge such that it often doesn't directly benefit the sponsoring country. Any country can use the research results.
Perhaps Europe should focus on increasing and/or subsidizing AI-related education, which includes educating people for private-sector AI work.
i.e., exactly the kind of thing you might hate, abstraction layers based on special casing, kilobytes of bloat.
I don't inherently "hate" such, it just means that there's too many things to go wrong with that much code and mass reinvention of the mutated wheels, and they do go wrong.
Two alternatives that are not entirely mutually exclusive is to move more of the layout decisions to the server so that that you are using and testing only ONE layout engine instead of 60+ client-side layout engine versions.
And/or let a human decide 2 or 3 three concrete layouts for different device sizes (small, medium, and big). That way you are testing 3 instead of 60+. Actually it would be like 180+: 60+ browser versions times testing under 3 scenarios (small, medium, and big window), and that's excluding different custom OS-set font settings. I suppose it may not be realistic to emulate a big window on a smart-phone, but you still have vertical and horizontal orientation to test.
In short, the current web arrangement is a poorly factored mess of 60+ mutating rendering engine forks. (The 60+ number is a rough approximation. The actual number is higher, but those instances are probably too obscure to care about.)
Text width can vary a lot on the client side, depending on OS settings, font version, font existence, etc. This dumps unpredictability back into the client equation.
I'd like to move the text layout management to the server side and let the client just be a dumb vector plotter. There are some ways to compromise between these, but that's a rather involved discussion.
Some kind of text "bounding box" perhaps could be implemented. Text would be guaranteed to fit within a specified region via horizontal scaling if needed. Optionally, click-able pop-ups could display any overflow, somewhat comparable to a drop-down list.
or some postscript or pdf rendering engine
The problem then is that client depends on a complex client-side rendering engine. What if such an engine doesn't run on a given browser version? It may have to be a sub-set to be practical. I think we'd have to shift as much as possible to the server to keep the client (rendering engine) simpler. Postscript & PDF were not built with that goal in mind. Some of their ideas could be borrowed, though.
Again, the client is stupid: it does not make wise layout decisions in many cases.
Maybe it's possible for a "perfect" and concise auto-layout language/convention to be invented that automatically flows and resizes wisely and nice, but I haven't see such yet. They all have areas they foul up on or are weak on.
Until the bots get smart, let the human have more damned control so we don't spend all day second-guessing retarded bots to work around their flaws.
Well, kind of. Women also like somebody who can protect them. If you work out in the gym, then you look like you can protect them. But otherwise, they won't make that much of a distinction between strong and ugly versus strong and handsome. (Of course, this is a generalization; there's always exceptions.)
Maybe they believe the USA exaggerates threats; that Fox News et. al. have made everyone paranoid. I won't confirm or deny that claim here, only say the perception exists in Europe.
Don't the big players already do this to a degree? I search for "underwear" online and then for the next 6 months see a thousand underwear ads on different sites. It's creepy and annoying. Profiling a personality is just a generalization of the technique.
Machines are currently crappy at auto-formatting without either a high-end auto-formatter (=$), or hand-tuning by humans. "Responsive" web pages is tricky to get right. Bootstrap etc. is either not smart enough to do it right, or else encoding everything "properly" to get it to fully work is poorly documented and/or rocket-science that only Shelden can figure out. It's arguably "good enough", but sometimes makes me cringe.
I think I'd rather have WYSIWYG (coordinate-based) and design 2 or 3 layouts based on pixel size. For example, have one layout for less than 500 wide, another for 501 to 900, and another for 901 and up. That way I and the customer know exactly what we are getting, and don't have to rely on auto-formatter bots and screwy browser implementations to control things. (Rather than have the OS manage font size, have it tell the browser to emulate smaller screens on larger screens but scales to fill, which effectively gives you bigger fonts if you want them.)
Fock Bootstrap and its cousins. The Web as it stands is a wasteful UI time-sink.
And I presume it's similar for women surrounded by male hunks.
Physical appearance typically matters less to females, on average. Money, power, status, and confidence matter more. Otherwise, the gyms would have 10x more customers.
America subsidizes the defense of wealthy, developed European countries to the tune of billions per year...
By invading the wrong countries. I suppose you could argue that any military system is subject to a percentage of bad judgment, and that dumb mistakes are part of the game.
FB can make money by charging for "monitoring services" that scan or track such. It would be nice if they did such automatically after a single abuse is encountered, but I'm not sure that's realistic.
Slashdot Mirror
Joke of 2621: "Damn you scientists! I had great jokes about the planet, but Urectum."
Uranus smells like your anus. Who wouldda thought.
"Fake prices", there's something new for politicians to rant about on the twittertubes. And let's get X to pay for it.
There are tools and techniques to screen-scrape just about anything, somethings using OCR if necessary. Companies who depend on such data already had ways to automate most scraping. But I agree it may help borderline companies obtain prices, and increase competition. It's why I used the word "directly".
I saw a prototype recently at the Yodobashi-Akiba Tokyo "nerd mall", and it was quite cool from a technical standpoint, but the cool-ness may not carry over to the practical side.
I have lousy eyesight even with glasses, don't want to pay significantly more for extra resolution, and seeing every mole, zit, and crevice on faces creeps me out. Further, super-hi-res content is currently sparse.
I don't see a real need for this, other than bragging rights. Maybe normal consumers have a different take? Or maybe they figure there are enough rich consumers who buy high-end out of habit.
In case that wasn't intended to be a joke; the echo-spam is often based on what you actually view, not filter preferences. By viewing the "wrong" gender's products, you may be solving one problem but causing another, such as not finding what you actually are shopping for. If you simply want to get your rocks off, there are easier ways.
Maybe this is a pedantic point, but European medical care is not free; it's paid for by taxes, levies, and various gov't service fees. The cost is still carried by citizens, it's just indirect and pooled. It's misleading to call it "free" without some kind of qualifier, in my opinion.
The ACA is a hybrid model that is semi-pooled.
Indeed, it's not clear in the article where the rule and/or enforcement came from.
Also note this:
This would imply that publishing it to the public was already a rule, but something changed to require it also be available in "machine-readable" form, such as CSV files.
Therefore, this will not directly impact most consumers, who usually want a prepared list, not raw data.
Gov't sponsored research often does kick-start new ideas, but the results are usually public knowledge such that it often doesn't directly benefit the sponsoring country. Any country can use the research results.
Perhaps Europe should focus on increasing and/or subsidizing AI-related education, which includes educating people for private-sector AI work.
I don't inherently "hate" such, it just means that there's too many things to go wrong with that much code and mass reinvention of the mutated wheels, and they do go wrong.
Two alternatives that are not entirely mutually exclusive is to move more of the layout decisions to the server so that that you are using and testing only ONE layout engine instead of 60+ client-side layout engine versions.
And/or let a human decide 2 or 3 three concrete layouts for different device sizes (small, medium, and big). That way you are testing 3 instead of 60+. Actually it would be like 180+: 60+ browser versions times testing under 3 scenarios (small, medium, and big window), and that's excluding different custom OS-set font settings. I suppose it may not be realistic to emulate a big window on a smart-phone, but you still have vertical and horizontal orientation to test.
In short, the current web arrangement is a poorly factored mess of 60+ mutating rendering engine forks. (The 60+ number is a rough approximation. The actual number is higher, but those instances are probably too obscure to care about.)
Text width can vary a lot on the client side, depending on OS settings, font version, font existence, etc. This dumps unpredictability back into the client equation.
I'd like to move the text layout management to the server side and let the client just be a dumb vector plotter. There are some ways to compromise between these, but that's a rather involved discussion.
Some kind of text "bounding box" perhaps could be implemented. Text would be guaranteed to fit within a specified region via horizontal scaling if needed. Optionally, click-able pop-ups could display any overflow, somewhat comparable to a drop-down list.
The problem then is that client depends on a complex client-side rendering engine. What if such an engine doesn't run on a given browser version? It may have to be a sub-set to be practical. I think we'd have to shift as much as possible to the server to keep the client (rendering engine) simpler. Postscript & PDF were not built with that goal in mind. Some of their ideas could be borrowed, though.
Again, the client is stupid: it does not make wise layout decisions in many cases.
Maybe it's possible for a "perfect" and concise auto-layout language/convention to be invented that automatically flows and resizes wisely and nice, but I haven't see such yet. They all have areas they foul up on or are weak on.
Until the bots get smart, let the human have more damned control so we don't spend all day second-guessing retarded bots to work around their flaws.
Well, kind of. Women also like somebody who can protect them. If you work out in the gym, then you look like you can protect them. But otherwise, they won't make that much of a distinction between strong and ugly versus strong and handsome. (Of course, this is a generalization; there's always exceptions.)
Then don't. Let's slash our military. Solved!
Good start, but too many syllables.
Maybe they believe the USA exaggerates threats; that Fox News et. al. have made everyone paranoid. I won't confirm or deny that claim here, only say the perception exists in Europe.
Don't the big players already do this to a degree? I search for "underwear" online and then for the next 6 months see a thousand underwear ads on different sites. It's creepy and annoying. Profiling a personality is just a generalization of the technique.
Machines are currently crappy at auto-formatting without either a high-end auto-formatter (=$), or hand-tuning by humans. "Responsive" web pages is tricky to get right. Bootstrap etc. is either not smart enough to do it right, or else encoding everything "properly" to get it to fully work is poorly documented and/or rocket-science that only Shelden can figure out. It's arguably "good enough", but sometimes makes me cringe.
I think I'd rather have WYSIWYG (coordinate-based) and design 2 or 3 layouts based on pixel size. For example, have one layout for less than 500 wide, another for 501 to 900, and another for 901 and up. That way I and the customer know exactly what we are getting, and don't have to rely on auto-formatter bots and screwy browser implementations to control things. (Rather than have the OS manage font size, have it tell the browser to emulate smaller screens on larger screens but scales to fill, which effectively gives you bigger fonts if you want them.)
Fock Bootstrap and its cousins. The Web as it stands is a wasteful UI time-sink.
Call it, say .... Skynet.
For the most part, they didn't ask for our help. Maybe if our military wasn't so big, they'd willingly increase theirs.
Physical appearance typically matters less to females, on average. Money, power, status, and confidence matter more. Otherwise, the gyms would have 10x more customers.
By invading the wrong countries. I suppose you could argue that any military system is subject to a percentage of bad judgment, and that dumb mistakes are part of the game.
Seriously, after returning from Walmart, I suspect humans will "win" the category soon.
Simple solution: cut your nuts off. Unix, I mean eunuchs lived longer. Testosterone increases metabolism, which ages one faster.
FB can make money by charging for "monitoring services" that scan or track such. It would be nice if they did such automatically after a single abuse is encountered, but I'm not sure that's realistic.