We label as red the neuro-signal which is a lot of activation by the L cone, and almost no activation of the M or S cones.
So, you can't even say that what we see as "red" is actually red at all. When a certain wavelength of light hits a bunch of cones, they each send their own response to that stream of photons to the brain, encoded as an SML signal, so to speak, and red is just some specific SML signal. Our brain then interprets the S, M, and L information and composes an "image" of the color. A lot of L and a little bit of M and S looks like red.
So, if the M and L cones are processed by the same neuro-circuits, then yes, they just saw an increase in intensity. Stimulation of an M or L cone would cause the same area of the brain to respond, and since red is more towards L, then that area of the brain would see more activity than it normally does in the non-GM mice, assuming M and L signals activate the same neurons.
However, if the M and L cone data are processed in different areas, then I would believe that they indeed see different colors.
I never, ever had problems understanding pointers. I mean, they're called pointers. They point somewhere. You can change where they point. There's some information the compiler keeps around to tell it what exactly it's pointing at. There's a way to get at what is being pointed at.
I mean...their very name is pointers...it just makes sense. I never understood how anyone could struggle with it.
Okay, so what I'm saying is that I put the video on YouTube, and my work is a blog post. YouTube is hosting the video for me, which is a part of my larger work. It seems reasonable to me that I ought to be able to use YouTube as my distribution method for the video (because Google just happens to nicely pay all the costs for bandwidth and such), despite the fact that people can watch the video on YouTube without seeing it in my specific work.
That's what I mean by outside the context of my work. Even though I'm using YouTube to host the video clip that I'm posting in my blog, you can watch the video without going to my blog. In my blog, it's fair use. Is it still a fair use, without the blog?
This is a completely real world case, not some edge case.
Designing a microprocessor. This is the worst, because you have to understand the entire architecture, what kinds of operands are possible, and you must manually enumerate opcodes and such. Essentially, creating your own assembly language.
You want to take advantage of processor-specific instructions which are not in a high level language (except as intrinsics). Things like CPUID, various SSE instructions, etc.
Suppose another party ("The Distributor") publishes those clips and commentary on its website (such as youtube).
If the distributor owns the rights or has permission, then he's clear. Otherwise, he's violating the copyright. Simply shifting the media used to carry the content does not convey any original thought.
I think you missed the point, and this is what I was trying to say in my post, and another responder to your post said the same thing.
You said before that the 45 individual "larger works" which have a minute of video each were fair use.
But...they have to put that video somewhere. VCR, DVD...YouTube...
That's what I keep trying to get at. If I use YouTube as the vehicle for my fair use, there's a Schroedinger's Cat involved; the video is both fair use (in the context of my larger work) and not fair use (outside of my work). How do you balance this? Is the cat really dead, or is it still alive?
You punted on the riddle, though. And this does go back to what you said in your post, I was just using Ms Seltzer as background.
Suppose I create a larger work. A piece of this larger work is hosted by YouTube. When the YouTube video is in the context of my larger work, it qualifies under your definition as a fair use. (I realize there are other factors to determine fair use; control for them for a moment)
Now, what about the YouTube video on its own, outside the context of the larger work in which I have placed it? If someone looks at that video, not as a piece of my larger work but on their own, is it still a fair use?
How should a court respond, considering that a video on YouTube can be a Schroedinger's cat? It is both a fair use (in the context of my larger work), and not a fair use (outside of my work's context) Should YouTube pull it because people can use it unfairly? How does this balance with my ability to use it fairly?
Take the NFL's copyrighted copyright statement before their games. "This broadcast blahblahblah may not be reproduced without our permission".
There's currently a fiasco regarding whether or not a Ms Wendy Seltzer could put that video up on YouTube. A lot of people say that she it is a fair use to do so, since she is doing it for the educational purposes.
But, I wonder, what about everyone ELSE who views the video, outside the educational context?
The greater implication is that, given your statement about creating a larger work, when I create the larger work and I use YouTube as the platform for a piece of this work, what happens to everyone else who can look at YouTube...minus the larger work?
Heaven forbid that the President's aides should be concerned that what advice they give to the man elected President of the United States ought to leak out into the public.
I mean, as members of the Executive Branch, shouldn't they be, like, upholding the Constitution, and stuff? Why are they worried about their advice getting out? I would be PROUD to be an aide to the President, and I would tell everyone "Hey, yeah, that thing that he said? Yeah, that was my idea...."...unless, of course, I was giving advice that I would be ashamed for the public to know...
You mean...if you interrupt this process...by creating a free market, where companies must compete against each other...and information is available to the public about the costs and benefits of each companies' service, so that consumers may make informed decisions...
Make no mistake. American broadband is not a free market. The telcos like it that way.
Wow, you are correct, a paging alogrithm much more accurately describes the procedure.
However, the greater/. population is probably more aware of garbage collection than paging. So, the comment was possibly more effective over the average of all of slashdot.
And, it does not make it a complete waste of time for work_process, because the working set for a process usually does not include all of its pages in memory. Indeed, the page faults will return the working set to memory quite effectively, leaving the stuff which hasn't been touched in ages paged out to disk.
It would be technically more efficient to avoid work_process' working set, if you could. This could be approximated by leaving the "top layer" of the desk on the desk, but filing away everything underneath it, since the top layer will likely contain the most important items.
Sounds sorta like a caching algorithm. As items are used, they are left on top. Temporal locality says that all the important items will be on top of the other items.
But then we get a garbage collection algorithm, too. Every so often, the short-lived objects which are no longer important are removed in your tidying process.
DDR is too easy. The hardest songs top out at 10, and the average of the hardest difficulty over all songs is around 8.
ITG tops out at 13, has hands/mines/rolls, and almost every song has an expert setting with a difficulty of at least 9. Plus, the average ITG arcade machine is of much higher quality than the average DDR machine.
Besides that, everyone plays single...double is where it's at. It takes much more energy to move your center of mass back and forth across a distance of several feet than it does to stand in one position and turn.
2) Until they can make CG characters as hot as Ms Connelly, I don't think actors and actresses will be going away.
3) Ever heard of stunt doubles? OMGWTFBBQFAKE!!1111eleven Well, now we have "tear doubles".
4) Perhaps if the movie industry starts putting out hyper-realistic shit with people who have no flaws and don't ever blink or breathe, it will become apparent to everyone that the media's view of beauty is distorted to a degree that cannot be achieved by real humans. And then, maybe, it will be okay for models to be of a healthy weight, because everyone knows they lost the pounds digitally.
I mean, they already put out hyper-realistic shit...I just hope it gets so excessive that there's no way everyone can't know. Did you ever see what makeup artists do to someone? Check out this Dove commercial. http://www.campaignforrealbeauty.com/flat4.asp?id= 6909
When you say node, are you talking about BitTorrent? Because I'm pretty sure what I stated applies to how they cracked down on Kazaa and the like; they just peered around for people sharing copyrighted files.
The RIAA doesn't track what you download. They don't even track what you upload. They use MediaSentry to find IP addresses which are allegedly making copyrighted material available for download.
So, in theory, you're safe as long as you don't make available for distribution copyrighted material. Download allllll you want....just NEVER upload. Don't even make it POSSIBLE for you to upload. Even if no one downloads from you, their argument is that you made the material available, and that is infringement, even if no one downloaded the file from you.
I cannot trust her, especially if she lies about it and I catch her in the act.
Trusting something ABOUT someone is different from trusting them. We're all playing semantic games here, so let me offer up a definition of trust.
From the American Heritage Dictionary
Trust - 1) Firm reliance on the integrity, ability, or character of a person or thing.
I would say that, for the purposes of this discussion, corporations cannot be morally or ethically trusted (they have no integrity or character), but for the purposes which get them money they can be trusted.
Again, however, even if you trust that they will do everything they can to get money, you don't know what everything is. This is why corporations have Congressional lapdogs.
I don't know what definition of trust you're using, but just because you can predict someone or something's behavior does not mean you can trust them.
If my exgf is a slut, and every time I get back with her she cheats on me, I know that her behavior is predictable and she has one primary goal. She is predictable, but definitely not trustworthy.
Slashdot Mirror
We label as red the neuro-signal which is a lot of activation by the L cone, and almost no activation of the M or S cones.
So, you can't even say that what we see as "red" is actually red at all. When a certain wavelength of light hits a bunch of cones, they each send their own response to that stream of photons to the brain, encoded as an SML signal, so to speak, and red is just some specific SML signal. Our brain then interprets the S, M, and L information and composes an "image" of the color. A lot of L and a little bit of M and S looks like red.
So, if the M and L cones are processed by the same neuro-circuits, then yes, they just saw an increase in intensity. Stimulation of an M or L cone would cause the same area of the brain to respond, and since red is more towards L, then that area of the brain would see more activity than it normally does in the non-GM mice, assuming M and L signals activate the same neurons.
However, if the M and L cone data are processed in different areas, then I would believe that they indeed see different colors.
I never, ever had problems understanding pointers. I mean, they're called pointers. They point somewhere. You can change where they point. There's some information the compiler keeps around to tell it what exactly it's pointing at. There's a way to get at what is being pointed at.
I mean...their very name is pointers...it just makes sense. I never understood how anyone could struggle with it.
Okay, so what I'm saying is that I put the video on YouTube, and my work is a blog post. YouTube is hosting the video for me, which is a part of my larger work. It seems reasonable to me that I ought to be able to use YouTube as my distribution method for the video (because Google just happens to nicely pay all the costs for bandwidth and such), despite the fact that people can watch the video on YouTube without seeing it in my specific work.
That's what I mean by outside the context of my work. Even though I'm using YouTube to host the video clip that I'm posting in my blog, you can watch the video without going to my blog. In my blog, it's fair use. Is it still a fair use, without the blog?
This is a completely real world case, not some edge case.
I think you missed the point, and this is what I was trying to say in my post, and another responder to your post said the same thing.
You said before that the 45 individual "larger works" which have a minute of video each were fair use.
But...they have to put that video somewhere. VCR, DVD...YouTube...
That's what I keep trying to get at. If I use YouTube as the vehicle for my fair use, there's a Schroedinger's Cat involved; the video is both fair use (in the context of my larger work) and not fair use (outside of my work). How do you balance this? Is the cat really dead, or is it still alive?
You punted on the riddle, though. And this does go back to what you said in your post, I was just using Ms Seltzer as background.
Suppose I create a larger work. A piece of this larger work is hosted by YouTube. When the YouTube video is in the context of my larger work, it qualifies under your definition as a fair use. (I realize there are other factors to determine fair use; control for them for a moment)
Now, what about the YouTube video on its own, outside the context of the larger work in which I have placed it? If someone looks at that video, not as a piece of my larger work but on their own, is it still a fair use?
How should a court respond, considering that a video on YouTube can be a Schroedinger's cat? It is both a fair use (in the context of my larger work), and not a fair use (outside of my work's context) Should YouTube pull it because people can use it unfairly? How does this balance with my ability to use it fairly?
Take the NFL's copyrighted copyright statement before their games. "This broadcast blahblahblah may not be reproduced without our permission".
There's currently a fiasco regarding whether or not a Ms Wendy Seltzer could put that video up on YouTube. A lot of people say that she it is a fair use to do so, since she is doing it for the educational purposes.
But, I wonder, what about everyone ELSE who views the video, outside the educational context?
The greater implication is that, given your statement about creating a larger work, when I create the larger work and I use YouTube as the platform for a piece of this work, what happens to everyone else who can look at YouTube...minus the larger work?
No, I don't want hack reporters with a grudge to spread details.
However, hack reporters != Congressional subpoenas.
I do want the President and his executive branch officials to be held accountable by Congress if they believe something was wrong.
Especially since those same people keep changing the story they tell Congress. I mean, if you don't have to tell the truth...what's the point?
I was actually agreeing with you, too. lol =)
Heaven forbid that the President's aides should be concerned that what advice they give to the man elected President of the United States ought to leak out into the public.
...unless, of course, I was giving advice that I would be ashamed for the public to know...
I mean, as members of the Executive Branch, shouldn't they be, like, upholding the Constitution, and stuff? Why are they worried about their advice getting out? I would be PROUD to be an aide to the President, and I would tell everyone "Hey, yeah, that thing that he said? Yeah, that was my idea...."
You mean...if you interrupt this process...by creating a free market, where companies must compete against each other...and information is available to the public about the costs and benefits of each companies' service, so that consumers may make informed decisions...
Make no mistake. American broadband is not a free market. The telcos like it that way.
Wow, you are correct, a paging alogrithm much more accurately describes the procedure.
/. population is probably more aware of garbage collection than paging. So, the comment was possibly more effective over the average of all of slashdot.
However, the greater
And, it does not make it a complete waste of time for work_process, because the working set for a process usually does not include all of its pages in memory. Indeed, the page faults will return the working set to memory quite effectively, leaving the stuff which hasn't been touched in ages paged out to disk.
It would be technically more efficient to avoid work_process' working set, if you could. This could be approximated by leaving the "top layer" of the desk on the desk, but filing away everything underneath it, since the top layer will likely contain the most important items.
Glad to see your education at work!
Sounds sorta like a caching algorithm. As items are used, they are left on top. Temporal locality says that all the important items will be on top of the other items.
But then we get a garbage collection algorithm, too. Every so often, the short-lived objects which are no longer important are removed in your tidying process.
DDR is too easy. The hardest songs top out at 10, and the average of the hardest difficulty over all songs is around 8.
ITG tops out at 13, has hands/mines/rolls, and almost every song has an expert setting with a difficulty of at least 9. Plus, the average ITG arcade machine is of much higher quality than the average DDR machine.
Besides that, everyone plays single...double is where it's at. It takes much more energy to move your center of mass back and forth across a distance of several feet than it does to stand in one position and turn.
ITG FTW
Disclaimer: Yes, that's me.
tx
rx
gnd
ftw
We just bought a few brand new PCs recently, and they didn't come with RS-232 ports at all.
Laptops almost never have serial or parallel connectors.
But, you are correct, 25-pin serial is rather rare...
1) Her name is Jennifer Connelly. She's too hot to spell her name wrong. Here's her page on IMDB. http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000124/
= 6909
2) Until they can make CG characters as hot as Ms Connelly, I don't think actors and actresses will be going away.
3) Ever heard of stunt doubles? OMGWTFBBQFAKE!!1111eleven Well, now we have "tear doubles".
4) Perhaps if the movie industry starts putting out hyper-realistic shit with people who have no flaws and don't ever blink or breathe, it will become apparent to everyone that the media's view of beauty is distorted to a degree that cannot be achieved by real humans. And then, maybe, it will be okay for models to be of a healthy weight, because everyone knows they lost the pounds digitally.
I mean, they already put out hyper-realistic shit...I just hope it gets so excessive that there's no way everyone can't know. Did you ever see what makeup artists do to someone? Check out this Dove commercial. http://www.campaignforrealbeauty.com/flat4.asp?id
When you say node, are you talking about BitTorrent? Because I'm pretty sure what I stated applies to how they cracked down on Kazaa and the like; they just peered around for people sharing copyrighted files.
*cough*
The RIAA doesn't track what you download. They don't even track what you upload. They use MediaSentry to find IP addresses which are allegedly making copyrighted material available for download.
So, in theory, you're safe as long as you don't make available for distribution copyrighted material. Download allllll you want....just NEVER upload. Don't even make it POSSIBLE for you to upload. Even if no one downloads from you, their argument is that you made the material available, and that is infringement, even if no one downloaded the file from you.
Oooh. When you said no, you weren't talking about the GP, but the article.
So, your statement of "no" makes no sense, because you're agreeing with the GP.
Oh, and the reason they're using metal gates instead of poly, can be found courtesy of RWT, last paragraph of the following link
http://www.realworldtech.com/page.cfm?ArticleID=R
Yes, I can trust that she will cheat on me.
I cannot trust her, especially if she lies about it and I catch her in the act.
Trusting something ABOUT someone is different from trusting them. We're all playing semantic games here, so let me offer up a definition of trust.
From the American Heritage Dictionary
Trust - 1) Firm reliance on the integrity, ability, or character of a person or thing.
I would say that, for the purposes of this discussion, corporations cannot be morally or ethically trusted (they have no integrity or character), but for the purposes which get them money they can be trusted.
Again, however, even if you trust that they will do everything they can to get money, you don't know what everything is. This is why corporations have Congressional lapdogs.
There may be, but it's actually quite hard for some people to get experience.
For example, I'm fresh out of college, even though I've got a year and a half of experience under me I would be hard pressed to find another job.
Especially if there was a high profile case of insubordination. Who wants an employee who doesn't listen?
I'm curious...what has happened to whistleblower's careers after they blew the whistle?
I don't know what definition of trust you're using, but just because you can predict someone or something's behavior does not mean you can trust them.
If my exgf is a slut, and every time I get back with her she cheats on me, I know that her behavior is predictable and she has one primary goal. She is predictable, but definitely not trustworthy.